2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[Virtual ghost]

Agreed. It takes focus away from actual legislating and governing. Then the public is so burnt out by the time the election is over that they aren’t interested in paying attention to things like actual policies and laws that are being passed

Or worse, you get the culture of none voters that just don't have the time or nerves to watch the whole thing. Also those that vote first don't have the same info as those near the end of the process, what is unfair. Shortening the whole thing really wouldn't hurt anyone except a few PR experts. It is hard to keep focus for so long and that opens the door for flip flopping and other tricks. Plus the good thing we do is that we always do the voting on Sunday, in order to rise turn out (what is fair in my book). What doesn't mean that even this system doesn't have some it's own problems.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It speaks to overall credibility. When you have an interloper in the White House who lies every day, I have little to no patience for anyone running for office who dances around a question. Especially a question with serious consequences.

Of course. This primary should be as clear as it can be.


But to be honest I will take anyone from this group over Trump at the end of the day, since the global consequences are just too big to have "4 more years" of this. This obviously isn't my vote but consequences are truly serious for everybody.

 

[Deprecator]

During a debate she couldn't/wouldn't answer the question posed to her, whether or not taxes would be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All. Bernie told it straight. She didn't. Then Chris Matthews posed the same question to her after the debate, no less than 3 times, and when she still evaded the question, Chris Matthews got visibly annoyed. Understandably. I wouldn't call her sincere or precise. Intelligent? Perhaps. But certainly not "super."

Yeah, one potential side effect here is that the more this behavior is seen as the "norm" among politicians the more appealing outsiders like Bernie and Trump become.

I also like how Warren wanted to publicly deny both that she was a person of color and that she was a member of a tribe. Of course, this narrative isn't consistent with how she's been described in the past. For an example, according to a 1997 Fordham Law Review piece, "There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries. This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reasons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995."

But to be honest I will take anyone from this group over Trump at the end of the day, since the global consequences are just too big to have "4 more years" of this. This obviously isn't my vote but consequences are truly serious for everybody.

I feel like Trump says it best. If Europeans liked him/ wanted to vote for him then he's not doing his job right. After all, he self-advertises as an American first president who has been scathingly critical of both NATO and the EU; sure this may trigger people in Europe, but here in the US he has garnered unprecedented support of his party and stands as a heavy favorite to win 2020.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I feel like Trump says it best. If Europeans liked him/ wanted to vote for him then he's not doing his job right. After all, he self-advertises an American first president who has been scathingly critical of both NATO and the EU; sure this may trigger people in Europe, but here in the US he has garnered unprecedented support his party and stands as a heavy favorite to win 2020.

I know you wouldn't agree but I will say this due to the others here.


If Trump continues like this the Europe is leaving US, since it isn't compatible with our values with the current trends. EU army is founded during Trump's presidency exactly because it is obvious we must be independent from one another due to presidents like him (we even have our own nukes). What creates huge power and influence loss globally for the US and probably large market loss as well on the long run. As a matter of fact as soon as Trump said that NATO is obsolete he pushed many countries towards Russia, since they were finding ways how to keep the peace and economy stable in the case that NATO is gone. What only strengthen Russia in the end, especially since many treaties and documents were signed. As a matter of fact in my country Capitalism crashed during his presidency since Russian state took over so many assets that public ownership is now larger portion of GDP than private one (as I already explained in my posts). However that didn't create any protests or similar mess since to us this is normal, while large deals with China followed fairly quickly after that. At this point the only thing US has working for it in the region is NATO and McDonald's and you want NATO out of the picture even if it cost you almost nothing since there are no wars in Europe. You are probably even in the surplus regarding military due to weapons sales and having bases on the safe ground in Western Europe. The Europe isn't to blame because your politicians have the need to bomb 10 different countries at once or they lack the will to provide decent living for the working class in order to enrich their donors. That problem is at home not overseas, Europe didn't outsource your jobs to China.



The world used to be 2vs2 (US and EU vs Russia and China) and with your logic this is turning into a 1vs2 or perhaps even 1vs3. Actually with India joining Shanghai Cooperation organization this could even turn to 1vs4. What evidently wouldn't work for you even if the whole thing stays just in the economic sphere. This is the topic that requires observing wider picture.

 

[Jaguar]

Yeah, one potential side effect here is that the more this behavior is seen as the "norm" among politicians the more appealing outsiders like [...] Trump become.

Perhaps if I contract Ebola and begin to hallucinate I could agree. But until then, no.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's really a topic for another thread, but Trump is more a byproduct of the culture than the other way around. We (in America, at least) paved the way for someone like this to steamroll into the Presidency. We created this monster.

So the question is, do the democrats decide to play by the same rules, or do they try the "we aim high when they aim low" approach? Perhaps a middle ground approach? Thoughts on how to defeat Trump in the short term, and in the long term how to change the culture of politics-as-reality-entertainment in the USA?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's really a topic for another thread, but Trump is more a byproduct of the culture than the other way around. We (in America, at least) paved the way for someone like this to steamroll into the Presidency. We created this monster.

So the question is, do the democrats decide to play by the same rules, or do they try the "we aim high when they aim low" approach? Perhaps a middle ground approach? Thoughts on how to defeat Trump in the short term, and in the long term how to change the culture of politics-as-reality-entertainment in the USA?

I don't know, but I tend to roll my eyes at the idea of "we aim high when they aim low." I can't say I've seen that work in politics. I guess if you want to feel fuzzy, it's good, but wouldn't it be better to win?

I mean, what about Good is not Nice?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I don't know, but I tend to roll my eyes at the idea of "we aim high when they aim low." I can't say I've seen that work in politics. I guess if you want to feel fuzzy, it's good, but wouldn't it be better to win?

I mean, what about Good is not Nice?

Well, the problem is that it's often the sort of mantra dems like to repeat during the Conventions, but they aren't above some nasty attacks when it works for them. Didn't Hillary's campaign allegedly start the birther argument against Obama before Trump and the tea party later picked up on it?

I am just old enough to remember the 1988 election. Dukakis refused to fight back against the dirtiest attacks from Atwater and Bush's team. He had gone into the campaign ahead of Bush in the polls. I think that refusing to fight harder against those attacks really solidified the public image of him as a weak northeasterner, which was funny since he was running against a fellow northeasterner who wasn't exactly viewed as "tough" even by many in his own party. Had he fought back a little harder he may have done better.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well, the problem is that it's often the sort of mantra dems like to repeat during the Conventions, but they aren't above some nasty attacks when it works for them. Didn't Hillary's campaign allegedly start the birther argument against Obama before Trump and the tea party later picked up on it?

I've heard that, but I don't know the truth of it. Did the Clinton camp originate the "Bernie is a racist" stuff too? If it came from her campaign (and not outside of it), that's definitely not the high road.

I am just old enough to remember the 1988 election. Dukakis refused to fight back against the dirtiest attacks from Atwater and Bush's team. He had gone into the campaign ahead of Bush in the polls. I think that refusing to fight harder against those attacks really solidified the public image of him as a weak northeasterner, which was funny since he was running against a fellow moderate northeasterner. Had he fought back a little harder he may have done better.

Well, that proves my point, doesn't it?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I've heard that, but I don't know the truth of it. Did the Clinton camp originate the "Bernie is a racist" stuff too? If it came from her campaign (and not outside of it), that's definitely not the high road.

I'm not sure if they had any involvement in that. If so, it was likely indirect, so as to not lead back to her or her top campaign people.

Well, that proves my point, doesn't it?

Yeah, but there must be a way to fight back against that sort of thing without sinking quite as low as those slinging the mud. Dukakis's problem was he tried to just ignore those attacks. Those Willie Horton ads were damning though.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ugh on MSNBC they're saying that the economy has been expanding for the past 10 years and has been due for a recession. UGGGH, no it hasn't. I mean, maybe if you count the stock market, but NOT IF YOU COUNT WAGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT, which I assume is what most voters are more likely to care about.

I'm also irritated at the subtext that a recession would be good because it means Trump wouldn't be reelected.

I'm not sure if they had any involvement in that. If so, it was likely indirect, so as to not lead back to her or her top campaign people.



Yeah, but there must be a way to fight back against that sort of thing without sinking quite as low as those slinging the mud. Dukakis's problem was he tried to just ignore those attacks. Those Willie Horton ads were damning though.

How would you do it if you were Dukakis? (I was three at the time, although I've heard of Willie Horton. )

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Why is the main measure of economic growth something that doesn't impact the majority of people's lives directly? Doesn't that make it a useless indicator?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

How would you do it if you were Dukakis? (I was three at the time, although I've heard of Willie Horton. )

I'd have taken the advice of my campaign advisors and fought back more, which Dukakis refused to do until the last few weeks, at which point it didn't matter. I'd have left the Lt Governor to take care of administrative duties during the early weeks of the campaign. Dukakis didn't campaign for the first few weeks so he could remain in his home state to handle gubernatorial duties (maybe he thought it would look better to the electorate to see him not shirking his responsibilities), and conventional wisdom is that this allowed Bush to shape the issues and the tone of the election season. Dukakis never really recovered.

When asked during the debate how I would react if my own wife were brutally raped, I'd say something like "well, personally I'd wanna hunt the scumbag down and go Death Wish 2 on his sorry ass, but given that we have a precedent of 'innocent until proven guilty' in our country, I'd have to concede that it would be unfair to prevent even this scumbag from his constitutional right to a trial by jury. I can only hope someone would be there to restrain me from taking justice into my own hands in such a situation. There's a good reason we have trial by impartial jury, and frankly I think this question is out of line."

I wouldn't have ridden in that tank either.

 

[Jaguar]

WASHINGTON (CNN) Joe Biden has expanded his edge over the Democratic field in a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, with 29% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters saying they back the former vice president. That’s up 7 points compared with a late June CNN survey. No other candidate has made meaningful gains over that time.

The shift returns Biden to a double-digit lead over his nearest competitors, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 15% and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14%. Their support is largely unchanged since earlier this summer.

Aside from Biden’s increase, the only statistically meaningful change in the candidate standings is a 12-point decline in support for California Sen. Kamala Harris, who stood at 17% support in the June poll but now has the backing of 5% of potential Democratic voters. That’s similar to the level of support she had in the spring before a surge following her initial debate performance.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Looks like Kamala’s poll numbers are eroding.

Tulsi hit 2% in a couple. Hope she can keep rising but I’m doubtful

President: Democratic primary Polls | FiveThirtyEight

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Looks like Kamala’s poll numbers are eroding.

Tulsi hit 2% in a couple. Hope she can keep rising but I’m doubtful

President: Democratic primary Polls | FiveThirtyEight

Tulsi should be in the next debate, as she has hit 3..3% in NH and 2% in SC, both polls done by major local newspapers, plus she has soe national polls over 2%.

However, they are excluding all those results and playing with which polls can be used. They do not want her to destroy another candidate like she did Harris.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Tulsi should be in the next debate, as she has hit 3..3% in NH and 2% in SC, both polls done by major local newspapers, plus she has soe national polls over 2%.

However, they are excluding all those results and playing with which polls can be used. They do not want her to destroy another candidate like she did Harris.

The DNC isn't doing much to earn people's trust after their 2016 shenanigans. I know I'll get blasted as a nutty conspiracy theorist for saying this, but I think the primaries are a rigged game and there's a short list of acceptable candidates they'll permit to make it to the nomination. Anyone else, I think they'll do anything they can to prevent from gaining traction.

People told me I was being silly in 2016 but then it was later confirmed the DNC was playing dirty and rigging things in Clinton's favor. The reforms they've since made to the process are a bandaid.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The DNC isn't doing much to earn people's trust after their 2016 shenanigans. I know I'll get blasted as a nutty conspiracy theorist for saying this, but I think the primaries are a rigged game and there's a short list of acceptable candidates they'll permit to make it to the nomination. Anyone else, I think they'll do anything they can to prevent from gaining traction.

I think that's probably pretty close to the mark. It used to be worse, if you can believe it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think that's probably pretty close to the mark. It used to be worse, if you can believe it.

I wonder when this began, or has it been that way as long as the democratic party has been holding primaries? Did they implement more controls because they didn't want another McGovern type attaining the nomination? I'm not really super familiar with the history of the process but if Wikipedia is to be believed, they implemented superdelegates to limit the influence of the voters in primaries.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I wonder when this began, or has it been that way as long as the democratic party has been holding primaries? Did they implement more controls because they didn't want another McGovern type attaining the nomination? I'm not really super familiar with the history of the process but if Wikipedia is to be believed, they implemented superdelegates to limit the influence of the voters in primaries.

I'm just thinking of when the nominations were determined in backroom deals.