Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

I think it is a good indicator that a candidate is a contender when the opposition is so desperate to smear him or her they dig up and spin utter nonsense in hope it sticks. They did it to Sanders and now to Beto. TW, I do think you are conflating who you think will and should be popular among voters with who currently is popular among voters. Despite your feelings that Biden and Beto are horrible candidates, they seem to be getting substantial support right now. Sanders is too. He is the clear frontrunner on the progressive side right now. But if you think he is the only one with a shot at the nomination, it does seem you may be underestimating how many democratic voters are to the right of Sanders on some issues.

I'm not saying Bernie is guaranteed of anything. I even provide a disclaimer that it's possible I'm a victim of my own socialist media spin zone.

But I find it annoying that I dig up links about relevant candidate issues, and they're consistently ignored.

Did anybody notice Bernie leading Biden 39-24 in the Wisconsin poll that revo posted? With Beto under 10% on a poll conducted throughout the weekend of his launch?! Did you notice the number of Wisconsonites who wished the Dems would move further left vs. further right? Look at the data!

Debate me on substance instead of this "too far left", "not far enough right".... that's not a debate. People respond to substance. It's about populism (championing policy with widespread support, which both Bernie and Trump are doing) vs. the establishment. Even Buttigieg is willing to cleverly deconstruct Trump on a personal level that appeals to Democratic voters much more than standard establishment beliefs in maintaining decorum and treating even the scummiest Republicans with undue respect. Trump's fake populism worked. Bernie's legitimate populism will work even better.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Holy smokes you hate Beto! Did he come by your house and kick your dog or something?

I understand you want a more liberal candidate and he's a centrist, but you act like he may as well be a Republican, which I find quite strange.

He wasn't going to beat John Cornyn for a Senate seat. Cornyn is safer than Ted Cruz was. The last Democrat to win statewide office in Texas was 25 years ago, which is the longest stretch in any state.

[gcstomp]

I like all the D candidates somewhat, at least there does not seem to be a mentally unhinged chronic liar hell bent on sounding like a b movie mob boss with his daily tweets. They just feel lightweight to me. Certainly every single person announced, as well as most anyone in the phone book, would be a vast upgrade over the person currently fouling highest office. I think the position to take, is these peeps have a long road, we should with open eyes and ears take in what are lightweights now, someone makes it obvious through getting through gauntlet this is the hope for sanity to prevail.

[revo]

BTW, Beto is not a billionaire, nor is his father-in-law, at least according to Forbes. He's loaded, don't get me wrong, but probably not a billionaire. I'm sure his wife's pops wants him to be president, but it's not his money (hey, my father-in-law is loaded and he doesn't give me jack shit!)

From Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2018/11/04/is-beto-orourkes-wife-really-a-billionaire-heiress-not-likely/#7dfa05a2387f

[Teenwolf]

BTW, Beto is not a billionaire, nor is his father-in-law, at least according to Forbes. He's loaded, don't get me wrong, but probably not a billionaire. I'm sure his wife's pops wants him to be president, but it's not his money (hey, my father-in-law is loaded and he doesn't give me jack shit!)

From Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christo.../#7dfa05a2387f

But if you stood to inherit $20+ Bn, you dont think that would affect your personal stance on tax policy?

[Teenwolf]

Holy smokes you hate Beto! Did he come by your house and kick your dog or something?

I understand you want a more liberal candidate and he's a centrist, but you act like he may as well be a Republican, which I find quite strange.

He wasn't going to beat John Cornyn for a Senate seat. Cornyn is safer than Ted Cruz was. The last Democrat to win statewide office in Texas was 25 years ago, which is the longest stretch in any state.

Address issues... I don't give a shit about left vs right, it's a phony dichotomy. Beto does not support Med4All. That's probably strike 1, 2, and 3, but we'll see.

[Sour Masher]

Debate me on substance instead of this "too far left", "not far enough right".... that's not a debate.

Ok, lets focus on an issue--one that you have used as a test of the worth of candidates. Medicare-4-all. You say that candidates who support that are great and ones who don't would never get your vote. You have used that to crap on Beto and others. Explain to me why that is.

I'm admittedly cautious of some more progressive solutions to serious problems as overly simplistic, jingoistic, and, in some cases, more costly than needed, like free college for all. But one issue I am firmly progressive on is universal healthcare, so convince me, a like minded person, why Medicare-4-all is the only or best way toward universal healthcare? Because even though I see the benefits of a single payer system, and appreciate M4A as one possible avenue to explore on this issue, I don't see it is the only path or even the most cost effective or practical path. Hell, Medicare isn't even single payer. Not even close.

If you haven't, this article from the Nation is worth a read: https://www.thenation.com/article/me...l-health-care/

So, getting back to it--again, please explain to me why M4A must be a litmus test to apply to candidates for voters who care about Universal Healthcare, even ones who state they want to move toward Universal Healthcare in this country? Why must the move toward that direction be M4A?

ETA: Ha, perfect timing--you just posted about Beto not being for M4A, so that is all three strikes against him! You know these issues well, so I do hope you engage this issue. I'm open minded on it, and I care about Universal Healthcare. Beto and some others say they care about it too, but don't support M4A as the path. Explain why that is a deal breaker.

[revo]

But if you stood to inherit $20+ Bn, you dont think that would affect your personal stance on tax policy?

Forbes thinks his father-in-law is worth about $500m. Not chump change, but not $20Bn.

[Sour Masher]

Here is a quote from the above article, again, from the Nation--a progressive publication:

"Polls show that a significant majority of Americans now believe that it’s the government’s “responsibility to provide health coverage for all.”

"But from a policy standpoint, Medicare-for-All is probably the hardest way to get there. In fact, a number of experts who tout the benefits of single-payer systems say that the Medicare-for-All proposals currently on the table may be virtually impossible to enact."

To me, it seems like M4A is embraced by candidates who know it is a popular program with voters and it is an easy sell that polls well. But it isn't the best solution to the problem.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Ok, lets focus on an issue--one that you have used as a test of the worth of candidates. Medicare-4-all. You say that candidates who support that are great and ones who don't would never get your vote. You have used that to crap on Beto and others. Explain to me why that is.

I'm admittedly cautious of some more progressive solutions to serious problems as overly simplistic, jingoistic, and, in some cases, more costly than needed, like free college for all. But one issue I am firmly progressive on is universal healthcare, so convince me, a like minded person, why Medicare-4-all is the only or best way toward universal healthcare? Because even though I see the benefits of a single payer system, and appreciate M4A as one possible avenue to explore on this issue, I don't see it is the only path or even the most cost effective or practical path. Hell, Medicare isn't even single payer. Not even close.

If you haven't, this article from the Nation is worth a read: https://www.thenation.com/article/me...l-health-care/

So, getting back to it--again, please explain to me why M4A must be a litmus test to apply to candidates for voters who care about Universal Healthcare, even ones who state they want to move toward Universal Healthcare in this country? Why must the move toward that direction be M4A?

ETA: Ha, perfect timing--you just posted about Beto not being for M4A, so that is all three strikes against him! You know these issues well, so I do hope you engage this issue. I'm open minded on it, and I care about Universal Healthcare. Beto and some others say they care about it too, but don't support M4A as the path. Explain why that is a deal breaker.

I agree completely. I'm in favor of universal healthcare, but also don't believe M4A is the best way to get there. I don't follow why this should be automatic dealbreaker if a candidate thinks there is a better way to achieve universal healthcare.

[senorsheep]

Forbes thinks his father-in-law is worth about $500m. Not chump change, but not $20Bn.

I'm not sure why it even matters. Many wealthy people advocate for fiscal policies that don't benefit them personally, just like many middle class and poor people do. They support what they think is right and fair for all concerned parties, not necessarily what's going to put the most coins in their own pockets.

There's no shortage of wealthy progressives in the world, or even in the current field of presidential candidates. I'm not sure why Beto's wealth is a problem for his progressive bonafides, but the same is not true for some others?

[B-Fly]

538 analysis of "What Does Beto O'Rourke Believe" (see the link for the issue-based analysis underlying the below pull-quote)

I might classify O’Rourke as fairly liberal on issues around culture and identity and left-leaning but maybe not particularly liberal — compared with, say, Sanders or Elizabeth Warren — on economic issues. (Cory Booker and Kamala Harris probably fall in this camp with O’Rourke.) Part of what’s confusing in assessing O’Rourke’s ideology is that the results are different depending on what benchmark you choose. Is he liberal compared with previous Democratic presidential candidates? Yes. Is he liberal compared with the activists dominating the discourse in the party now? No.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-does-beto-orourke-believe/

It's interesting that although he's essentially more liberal/progressive than any Democratic presidential nominee before him, he's potentially not liberal/progressive enough for 2020 primary voters.

[onejayhawk]

Because everybody from every point along the political spectrum, with the possible exception of onejayhawk, utterly loathes Ted Cruz?

I'm not especially fond of him. I also dislike Belichick. They have a lot in common.

The Dem primary and Texas senate race probably give two very different windows to view him through.

We agree on something. Should I alert CNN?

The other way in which Beto is like Obama is that he is a pragmatic centrist. I think that will definitely displease some in the Democratic Party and some on this board. Because that's what I am, I probably identify more with him than some others will. He is also my age.

But I don't know whether I'll vote for him or not. I don't currently have a favorite candidate. I view Beto fondly and will certainly give him strong consideration. Buttigieg is working on moving to the top of my list, though.

Pragmatic centrist applies to neither. I am stumped for a national figure less pragmatic than Obama. Beto is a mainstream Democrat, so only centrist among the left.

J

[revo]

Latest general election polls show why it's important for Biden to win the nomination over Bernie. And if he adds Harris as VP, that's a formidable tandem.

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination	Emerson	Biden 26, Sanders 26, Harris 12, O'Rourke 11, Warren 8, Booker 3, Klobuchar 1, Buttigieg 3, Hickenlooper 1, Castro 1, Inslee 1, Gillibrand 0


General Election: Trump vs. Biden	Emerson	Biden 55, Trump 45	Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders	Emerson	Sanders 51, Trump 49	Sanders +2
General Election: Trump vs. Harris	Emerson	Harris 52, Trump 48	Harris +4
General Election: Trump vs. O'Rourke	Emerson	Trump 51, O'Rourke 49	Trump +2
General Election: Trump vs. Warren	Emerson	Warren 51, Trump 49	Warren +2
General Election: Trump vs. Biden vs. Schultz	Emerson	Biden 52, Trump 44, Schultz 4	Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. O'Rourke vs. Schultz	Emerson	Trump 46, O'Rourke 44, Schultz 10	Trump +2

[swampdragon]

Latest general election polls show why it's important for Biden to win the nomination over Bernie. And if he adds Harris as VP, that's a formidable tandem.

I think if he adds Harris early as VEEP during the election process and also says that he is a one term president with the intention of grooming Harrs for the next cycle could be a winning solution.