US 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary Race

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 minutes ago, Harry said:

Not me.

I do believe America needs to move significantly in his direction but a Sanders primary win would basically guarantee trump 4 more years.

His stance on Medicare for all and his timeline for implementation, his strongly anti business stances and tax increases combined with expensive policy measures.....

He'd either deliver an extremely sharp recession or be isolated from Congress and be the most isolated and impotent president in history.

 

The reality is Bernie or Warren just set an agenda. Then it’s up to Congress to deliver that agenda and they sign off on the best Congress can up with to that regard.

Warren’s been asked about that and if Congress passes down a bill that’s more similar to reformed Obamacare than Medicare-for-all and her answer was “I’ll sign anything that helps” - that’s an honest and realistic answer for any presidential nominee. They’ll all promise the moon, but the reality is they’ll just deliver the best they can.

I think Obamacare being based around a Romney/Nixon (those famous leftist socialists lol) demonstrates that.

A president like them could only really enact their policy if they get enough like minded members of their party to ram through.

Biden just isn’t a good candidate. He’s promising a status quo that’s left behind the working class and was flatly rejected by America’s working class. He’s too centre for the left-leaning parts of the party. He’s too ex-Obama administration and therefore way too far on the left for the right-leaning.

And he’s a gaffe prone blowhard. That shouldn’t be the new standard for a US president just because the bar’s been lowered.

If Democrats go with a moderate, I hope it’s Buttigieg or Klobuchar. But I think America’s propensity for identity politics impacts their electability as well.

[Harry]

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The reality is Bernie or Warren just set an agenda. Then it’s up to Congress to deliver that agenda and they sign off on the best Congress can up with to that regard.

Warren’s been asked about that and if Congress passes down a bill that’s more similar to reformed Obamacare than Medicare-for-all and her answer was “I’ll sign anything that helps” - that’s an honest and realistic answer for any presidential nominee. They’ll all promise the moon, but the reality is they’ll just deliver the best they can.

I think Obamacare being based around a Romney/Nixon (those famous leftist socialists lol) demonstrates that.

A president like them could only really enact their policy if they get enough like minded members of their party to ram through.

Biden just isn’t a good candidate. He’s promising a status quo that’s left behind the working class and was flatly rejected by America’s working class. He’s too centre for the left-leaning parts of the party. He’s too ex-Obama administration and therefore way too far on the left for the right-leaning.

And he’s a gaffe prone blowhard. That shouldn’t be the new standard for a US president just because the bar’s been lowered.

If Democrats go with a moderate, I hope it’s Buttigieg or Klobuchar. But I think America’s propensity for identity politics impacts their electability as well.

I think Buttigieg is a charismatic candidate and quite unique in many ways, but his sexuality is (unfortunate as it is to say) something that may help him in blue states, but almost certainly will hurt him in red and purple states. Unfortunately I think it's a significant barrier to his ability to beat trump as it'll cost him a few hours or of every 100.... he is a very talented and persuasive speaker though so I think if he's the nominee people will listen more than they have to what he has to say and may come around, but he'd not hold all of the Obama coalition together..

Klobuchar on paper is a great candidate but unfortunately she's terribly dry and I think would have a similar enthusiasm problem as some previous democratic candidates that have won the popular vote but lost the white house. She's almost the most right wing of all the candidates which will surely create problems.

I honestly think Biden would fare the best but likely to suffer a loss that will be similar to Clinton. Burisma to become the new Benghazi. News cycle fatigue sets in, and false equivalence is established.

Pete and Amy both look very good on the debate stage next to trump, but I think Amy is less deft in how she'd handle him.

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 hours ago, Harry said:

I think Buttigieg is a charismatic candidate and quite unique in many ways, but his sexuality is (unfortunate as it is to say) something that may help him in blue states, but almost certainly will hurt him in red and purple states. Unfortunately I think it's a significant barrier to his ability to beat trump as it'll cost him a few hours or of every 100.... he is a very talented and persuasive speaker though so I think if he's the nominee people will listen more than they have to what he has to say and may come around, but he'd not hold all of the Obama coalition together..

Klobuchar on paper is a great candidate but unfortunately she's terribly dry and I think would have a similar enthusiasm problem as some previous democratic candidates that have won the popular vote but lost the white house. She's almost the most right wing of all the candidates which will surely create problems.

I honestly think Biden would fare the best but likely to suffer a loss that will be similar to Clinton. Burisma to become the new Benghazi. News cycle fatigue sets in, and false equivalence is established.

Pete and Amy both look very good on the debate stage next to trump, but I think Amy is less deft in how she'd handle him.

Biden’s got no actual policy or message for voters other than “I’m not Trump” and “I can work with Republicans” and goes around saying stupid shit, calling potential voters fat, telling them to vote for other people, picking fights with random people in crowds.

He’s basically just Donald Trump with more brain cells.

But yeah, I don’t think a gay man and a woman have much chance at winning over middle America as the actual candidate.

[Spike]

'Less than half of Bernie's supporters would vote for another Democrat against Trump'. I don't know how reliable a statement like that is, or even what it is trying to state. I think I read it in the paper the other day, I can't remember which one (probably one of the Chicago rags) and I keep thinking about it. Are they saying that Bernie supporters are politically inactive, or naive?

[Harry]

5 hours ago, Spike said:

'Less than half of Bernie's supporters would vote for another Democrat against Trump'. I don't know how reliable a statement like that is, or even what it is trying to state. I think I read it in the paper the other day, I can't remember which one (probably one of the Chicago rags) and I keep thinking about it. Are they saying that Bernie supporters are politically inactive, or naive?

They are as fervently behind their man as trump supporters were behind theirs, in the 2016 primary.

Bernie isn't a Democrat and trump wasnt really a Republican.

There are some similarities. They are both populists offering simple solutions to complex problems, although only Bernie is sane.

But yeah how Bernie supporters wouldn't have Elizabeth Warren as second choice is weird. She'd just be a more effective version of him.

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 hours ago, Spike said:

'Less than half of Bernie's supporters would vote for another Democrat against Trump'. I don't know how reliable a statement like that is, or even what it is trying to state. I think I read it in the paper the other day, I can't remember which one (probably one of the Chicago rags) and I keep thinking about it. Are they saying that Bernie supporters are politically inactive, or naive?

A think a lot of Bernie supports are politically naïve tbh, so if he's saying that... I'd probably agree with him. I'd say that most of them would probably vote for whoever is running up against the Republicans - but given how many of them reacted after Hilary won the nomination.

I think after Iowa and Buttigieg claiming victory without having results, and the ultimate confusion in the Iowa caucuses + reports the DNC misrepresented how different caucus precincts reported make Buttigieg look extra dodgy. It looks as though the DNC's realised Biden's not as viable of a candidate as the media had them believe and they've decided to back the charismatic status quo candidates.

I do think it hurts Democrats when they've got anti-corruption candidates but their party and some candidates are engaging in dodgy shit that looks corrupt.

[Kowabunga]

The grassroots organization of the Bernie team is a thing to see. Really, really, really impressive from what I read.

In any case, what a complete shitshow. For less than that you have a coup in Bolivia. It looks like quite a bulk of the DNC prefers Trump to win before Sanders.

[Kowabunga]

1 hour ago, Kowabunga said:

The grassroots organization of the Bernie team is a thing to see. Really, really, really impressive from what I read.

In any case, what a complete shitshow. For less than that you have a coup in Bolivia. It looks like quite a bulk of the DNC prefers Trump to win before Sanders.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dnc-chair-calls-for-recanvass-of-iowa-votes-enough-is-enough

 

They are undermining the whole process since the first caucus... TWO TIMES!

Let's fuck up the thing with Mayor Pete the Oracle of Delphi and the cringe of the count. Huh?! Berniebros still have the muscl.... RINSE AND REPEAT!

No wonder Bernie does not want to self-identify as Democrat.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I don't understand why Iowa gets to go first in the important decision of picking who's the next president. Especially with their caucus system, which is something that can most kindly be described as "fucking stupid"

[Eco]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't understand why Iowa gets to go first in the important decision of picking who's the next president. Especially with their caucus system, which is something that can most kindly be described as "fucking stupid"

It has been this way for as long as I can remember. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

22 minutes ago, Eco said:

It has been this way for as long as I can remember. 

But why?

[DeadLinesman]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But why?

You cannot write this. It has to be in gif form. And only Ryan Reynolds.

 

[Cicero]

Yeah that was a wasted opportunity glad deadlinesman jumped in. 

 

[Eco]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But why?

[Dr. Gonzo]

19 minutes ago, Eco said:

Seems pretty strange to me that two pretty small and unpopulated states basically have the biggest say in who the parties can put out as their candidates.

Seems like a lot of things in the American political system were designed to protect smaller states from having the will of the majority imposed on them. I can understand the rationale in that when you've got states that are basically functioning as mini-countries and you don't want the bigger ones to dictate everything to the smaller ones. But I think in practice, at least in modern times, it's sort of led to a situation where a minority gets to dictate to the populated states how things will be run. With things like the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, you've got states like Wyoming and Montana having a ridiculously disproportionate amount of say compared to populated states like New York and California. And then each state gets 2 senators, which is obviously disproportionate as fuck.

Things must have been so fucked up in the 1700s for post-revolution America to have said "let's make a political system incredibly fucking complicated."

[Eco]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

the American political system so fucked up 

yep

[Harry]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Seems pretty strange to me that two pretty small and unpopulated states basically have the biggest say in who the parties can put out as their candidates.

Seems like a lot of things in the American political system were designed to protect smaller states from having the will of the majority imposed on them. I can understand the rationale in that when you've got states that are basically functioning as mini-countries and you don't want the bigger ones to dictate everything to the smaller ones. But I think in practice, at least in modern times, it's sort of led to a situation where a minority gets to dictate to the populated states how things will be run. With things like the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, you've got states like Wyoming and Montana having a ridiculously disproportionate amount of say compared to populated states like New York and California. And then each state gets 2 senators, which is obviously disproportionate as fuck.

Things must have been so fucked up in the 1700s for post-revolution America to have said "let's make a political system incredibly fucking complicated."

Nate Silver has made the argument that it would be better to switch to states that were more demographically representative of the broader nation, for example Nevada rather than Iowa and new Hampshire

I think putting California first would drive a more progressive outcome but again runs a risk of having a candidate that may struggle in middle America

[Kowabunga]

[God is Haaland]

22 hours ago, Kowabunga said:

Let's see who'll get the most national delegates.

[Harry]

I don't think either Pete more Bernie really won. Pete needed a bigger victory and a more immediate one to generate any momentum and start pulling voters off Biden before they get to North Carolina.

If he can't be the big talking point on everyone's lips before North Carolina his race is over.

Bernie maybe cements the perceived Sanders surge that polls suggested was happening so maybe he ultimately gets more out of the result. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

16 minutes ago, Harry said:

I don't think either Pete more Bernie really won. Pete needed a bigger victory and a more immediate one to generate any momentum and start pulling voters off Biden before they get to North Carolina.

If he can't be the big talking point on everyone's lips before North Carolina his race is over.

Bernie maybe cements the perceived Sanders surge that polls suggested was happening so maybe he ultimately gets more out of the result. 

I think it's big for both candidates tbh. Iowa and New Hampshire are pretty key states for nominee hopefuls - I don't think there's been a candidate that wins the nomination, for either party, without winning in either of them. The fact it was so close between the two, rather than any front runner, I think is a byproduct of how crowded the democratic candidate field is currently... even though we've seen loads of candidates drop out, there are still loads in the running.

There's 2 real factions at play with the democratic party. The moderates, who are the media and party favourites. And the progressive populists, who do better with those more to the left of centre. And I think Bernie and Pete being so close really cements them as the front runners from each of these factions.

Pete's relative victory I think is bad news for the other big name moderates, Biden and Klobuchar. For whatever reason, Iowa is massively important in determining the viability of a candidate. Here Pete comes out as clearly the top moderate candidate in the state, while the perceived favourite's viability as a candidate is now pretty questionable. And for Klobuchar... her viability was always questionable imo (even though I think there's a good argument that she's the best moderate candidate in the party... my reasoning is based purely on her media coverage so far and the fact that her voice kind of wavers when she speaks - so it always looks like she's nervous as fuck; which isn't really fair on her tbh... but shite like that matters in politics unfortunately).

Meanwhile, Bernie's now the clear progressive frontrunner. And Warren coming in 3rd sort of indicates that overall the big name progressives are at least better at getting their message across and supported than most of the moderate candidates.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think it's big for both candidates tbh. Iowa and New Hampshire are pretty key states for nominee hopefuls - I don't think there's been a candidate that wins the nomination, for either party, without winning in either of them. The fact it was so close between the two, rather than any front runner, I think is a byproduct of how crowded the democratic candidate field is currently... even though we've seen loads of candidates drop out, there are still loads in the running.

There's 2 real factions at play with the democratic party. The moderates, who are the media and party favourites. And the progressive populists, who do better with those more to the left of centre. And I think Bernie and Pete being so close really cements them as the front runners from each of these factions.

Pete's relative victory I think is bad news for the other big name moderates, Biden and Klobuchar. For whatever reason, Iowa is massively important in determining the viability of a candidate. Here Pete comes out as clearly the top moderate candidate in the state, while the perceived favourite's viability as a candidate is now pretty questionable. And for Klobuchar... her viability was always questionable imo (even though I think there's a good argument that she's the best moderate candidate in the party... my reasoning is based purely on her media coverage so far and the fact that her voice kind of wavers when she speaks - so it always looks like she's nervous as fuck; which isn't really fair on her tbh... but shite like that matters in politics unfortunately).

Meanwhile, Bernie's now the clear progressive frontrunner. And Warren coming in 3rd sort of indicates that overall the big name progressives are at least better at getting their message across and supported than most of the moderate candidates.

It's called looking presidential. And I agree it's a deficiency.

Still big changes afoot in North Carolina.

Bloomberg didn't even contest Iowa but he's in second behind Biden in NC and could be the one to rise if Biden fades.

The issue with Bernie is the skew in the senate towards conservative states. He'd be very unlikely to flip McConnell from in his role which means they may as well leave trump in.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Both Bloomberg and Steyer are advertising really hard in California (I know this first hand) and Nevada and New York. So I wouldn't be surprised if they end up doing well as front runners of the moderate side of the party. Either way, no candidate's ever won the nomination without winning Iowa and New Hampshire - for either party. It would be something pretty stunning if a candidate that sacked off one (or both) of these states ended up getting the nomination.

The thing about Bloomberg and Steyer… especially Bloomberg... is for as well as he does with moderate democrats.... he's pretty widely despised by the right & the left. The Democrats aren't Republicans, they don't just fall in line once there's a nominee for their party. A candidate that turns off a large chunk of the democrat base is likely to make a big impact on democrat voter turnout.

Think about it like this: two of the more popular democratic candidates are Sanders and Warren. They've been harping on about how the American political system is unfair, and they've used both billionaire candidates as examples of how someone with enough money can buy their way onto the debate stage and contest the nomination - and they've got a good point, tbh with the DNC changing it's rules after Bloomberg made big donations to them. It really emphasises the corruption at play in US politics and it gives the party that's been brazen in it's corruption but loves to project something to attack the billionaire candidate that wins the DNC nomination (if that nomination is won).

And then the DNC will be hoping they didn't just piss off huge groups of their base so much that it outweighs how much these people dislike Trump - so they still turn up to vote against Trump. And that's the thing, I really don't know if Bloomberg is less hated than Trump or not... and this is him not even being the nominee & just a candidate for the nomination. If he wins the nomination, I imagine that's huge groups of Sanders & Warren backers that will be turned off entirely from the process. And 2 primaries in a row of seeming just as corrupt as republicans and I think they're in danger of seeming legitimate the next go around.

I'm not so sure that not being able to flip McConnell from his role (because I don't think there's a hope in hell of Kentucky not electing a monumental turd into the senate, given their 2 senators currently - and I think the partisan split of the US right now means it's unlikely that any deep red/deep blue states flip tbh, means they may as well leave Trump in. While legislation comes from Congress, there's a lot of power the President does have without having to answer to Congress - every executive agency is something that the president can directly control. And court appointees are controlled by the President - I'd argue it's better to have no appointees to federal courts, and have judicial backlog of cases to hear, than filling the courts with right-wing extremists. It's bad enough Gorsuch and the guy who likes beer made it to the Supreme Court, but the federal courts have now had hundreds of appointees the American Bar Association has deemed unqualified and who were principally chosen for their extreme libertarian views or extreme religious views; which is overall bad for workers rights or freedom of/from religion.

[Harry]

I'm suggesting the need to flip him from his role as majority leader. Installing a progressive president is almost guaranteed to end up with a Republican the next time and having Bernie in power with a hostile senate blocking everything he tries to put to Congress is crippling.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

I'm suggesting the need to flip him from his role as majority leader. Installing a progressive president is almost guaranteed to end up with a Republican the next time and having Bernie in power with a hostile senate blocking everything he tries to put to Congress is crippling.

 

That's true, but again... that's a better option than just having Trump appoint whoever the Koch brothers & the Federalist Society tell him to appoint to the courts. Or having him tear apart the EPA. Or having him use ICE as an American gestapo. All of these things would stop even with the turtle still remaining as majority leader.