Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

TW, what do you think of this article, which highlights Wall Street concerns about Warren? https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...zWQ?li=BBnbfcN

It is interesting that she gets critiqued by centrists as too progressive, and by Sanders backers as too centrist. To me, Warren is definitely closer to the Sanders end of the spectrum than the Biden end, but I understand they have fundamentally different approaches than Sanders. I've seen several pieces outlining these differences. Would you say this Vox explainer is an accurate summary? It highlights and that they share a lot in terms of policies, but are very different politically. It echoes a lot of what I've seen about Sanders being a revolutionary, offering a totally new political system, and Warren be a reformist and regulator, working within current systems to achieve largely the same ends, but not turning those institutions on their heads like Sanders : https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...es-differences

Here is an excerpt that may help us get clearer about why some of us prefer Warren or Sanders:

"Warren is a social democrat. Sanders is a democratic socialist. The difference between the two is best explained by how Warren and Sanders convey their skepticism toward capitalism, said Sheri Berman, a political scientist with Barnard College, who has written extensively on the history of the left.

Prominent writers on the left argue this ideological divide has played out in practice, too. In January, the Intercept’s Zaid Jilani wrote for Jacobin:

When Warren says that the primary difference between Sanders and herself is that she’s a proponent of capitalism, it’s not just rhetoric. Her life’s work has been to make markets more competitive and equitable, not to redistribute money from the rich to the poor and remove big chunks of economic life from the private sector.

....

To [Sanders], the problem is not so much that the rules are rigged so people can’t become entrepreneurs, or that regulators need to be empowered to act on behalf of the public. The problem is that the government is not doing enough to bypass the private sector to directly deliver funds and services to the poor and working class.

“Both Sanders and Warren have put forth a slew of policies a couple of election cycles ago would have been seen just far ahead of where the Democratic Party was,” Berman said. “If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you.”

“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit, Berman said."

As for me, I find myself in the middle of those two simplified positions. I think capitalism is inherently amoral. Because of that, unfettered, it can become unjust and unstable, but it need not be, if reigned in. It has done more than just go a little off the rails recently. It has always been that way. Capitalism must be paired with proper regulation and be imbued with the spirit of compassion our social contract in the US aspires to. But I also see benefits to the system, imperfect as it is, as long as we regulate, control, and ensure we have socially conscious policies and restrictions in place along with capitalism. Clearly, Sanders and many supporters think it is all bad, but are there examples of the alternatives--state run everything that show themselves to be better? What are those examples? I cannot think of such a system that does not also come with the baggage of corruption and waste and disparity between rich and poor that we lament in capitalistic economies.

First, I've been reading for years that Sanders more closely resembles a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist, so I'm not fully on board with their definitions.

I think we've already seen how little progress can be achieved on a 'hope & change' Presidency that seeks to find compromises and not rock the boat. How can she get her policies passed if she's indebted to the DNC, the Clinton insiders, the dark money interests? Warren endorsed Clinton over Sanders in 2016 because she had signed a pledge to support her in 2013, now she's collecting on her cowardice with interest. How can she afford to enact any of her plans if she follows the DNC rule requiring new spending needs to be offset, and if she supports unnecessary bloated Pentagon funding? The elites are smart, and they hear her double-speak loud and clear.

The fact is that her supporters to this point have the least racial diversity, highest education, most wealth. It's not magic and it's not a mystery. These folks want another impotent but inspiring Obama clone. Another health care bandaid to be ripped off by the next Trump.

[TranaGreg]

Yesterday, Joe Biden referred to Angela Merkel as Margaret Thatcher, after twice before referring to Theresa May as Thatcher. 3 strikes. Oh, and he referred to Donald "Hump" on stage to laughs. Go home, Joe.

Yeah, super thoughtful and endearing, and super normal, and not indicative of failing health. Riiiiiiight.

genuine question: so given that this has been going on for some time now, why do you think he's polling as well as he is? my thought is that the general populace doesn't care about these details. But you seem to think that they will wake up suddenly & gain perspective ... maybe I'm too cynical but I don't see that happening.

[B-Fly]

Warren pulled into a tie with Biden atop the latest Economist/YouGov Democratic Primary poll.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[DMT]

First, I've been reading for years that Sanders more closely resembles a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist, so I'm not fully on board with their definitions.

I think we've already seen how little progress can be achieved on a 'hope & change' Presidency that seeks to find compromises and not rock the boat. How can she get her policies passed if she's indebted to the DNC, the Clinton insiders, the dark money interests? Warren endorsed Clinton over Sanders in 2016 because she had signed a pledge to support her in 2013, now she's collecting on her cowardice with interest. How can she afford to enact any of her plans if she follows the DNC rule requiring new spending needs to be offset, and if she supports unnecessary bloated Pentagon funding? The elites are smart, and they hear her double-speak loud and clear.

The fact is that her supporters to this point have the least racial diversity, highest education, most wealth. It's not magic and it's not a mystery. These folks want another impotent but inspiring Obama clone. Another health care bandaid to be ripped off by the next Trump.

Gimme a break. You tout Warren's lack of racial diversity among her supporters, but ignore Biden's overwhelming advantage among African Americans. Talk about double-speak.

[nullnor]

Warren is unelectable

[Sour Masher]

Warren is unelectable

Why do you think so?

[revo]

Latest national poll has Biden up a whopping 15% on Trump:

General Election: Trump vs. Biden	ABC News/Wash Post	Biden 55, Trump 40	[B]Biden +15[/B]
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders	ABC News/Wash Post	Sanders 52, Trump 43	Sanders +9
General Election: Trump vs. Warren	ABC News/Wash Post	Warren 51, Trump 44	Warren +7
General Election: Trump vs. Harris	ABC News/Wash Post	Harris 50, Trump 43	Harris +7
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg	ABC News/Wash Post	Buttigieg 47, Trump 43	Buttigieg +4

[Teenwolf]

Gimme a break. You tout Warren's lack of racial diversity among her supporters, but ignore Biden's overwhelming advantage among African Americans. Talk about double-speak.

Biden has been shown to attract the same type of voters as Sanders in terms of education level, income, and racial diversity. They're both doing great with largely similar groups of voters. That's one reason I'm so optimistic Bernie will pull ahead once Biden starts slipping. He's way ahead of Warren for Biden voters 2nd choice, and their current supporters make it seem very likely Biden's exodus goes largely to Bernie.

Nothing to say about Warren's $10M after she claimed to have a 100% grassroots funded campaign? No comment on her meeting with Hillary Clinton, or wooing super delegates? No comment on her avoiding the question of her military budget approvals? Nope, just deflection about Biden. You crack me up.

[Teenwolf]

genuine question: so given that this has been going on for some time now, why do you think he's polling as well as he is? my thought is that the general populace doesn't care about these details. But you seem to think that they will wake up suddenly & gain perspective ... maybe I'm too cynical but I don't see that happening.

It's a number of things going on. Not enough people paying attention yet, not nearly enough critical media, mostly media propping Biden up. I think it will become impossible to brush aside, or to call "gaffes", at some point, but the denial of reality happening now can't last several more debates and months of closer scrutiny, or an examination of his failing health. He also needs to dip below Sanders and Warren in multiple polls, because once the "electability" argument is gone, he has nothing left, and his entire base of support abandons him.

Do you see him winning the primary at this point? I'm already much more concerned about Warren. Apparently Biden is prepared to attack Warren in tonight's debate by going after her history as a corporate lawyer, and demanding she shows more transparency. The fact that his team put the strategy out early is baffling, and he will get hit back much harder than he hits. If Warren sees a bump from a Biden clash, I'll be bummed.

[TranaGreg]

It's a number of things going on. Not enough people paying attention yet, not nearly enough critical media, mostly media propping Biden up. I think it will become impossible to brush aside, or to call "gaffes", at some point, but the denial of reality happening now can't last several more debates and months of closer scrutiny, or an examination of his failing health. He also needs to dip below Sanders and Warren in multiple polls, because once the "electability" argument is gone, he has nothing left, and his entire base of support abandons him.

Do you see him winning the primary at this point? I'm already much more concerned about Warren. Apparently Biden is prepared to attack Warren in tonight's debate by going after her history as a corporate lawyer, and demanding she shows more transparency. The fact that his team put the strategy out early is baffling, and he will get hit back much harder than he hits. If Warren sees a bump from a Biden clash, I'll be bummed.

I don't know about winning the primary but I don't think he'll suddenly fall dramatically. Those who are supporting him now will overlook a lot - they've been overlooking the gaffes you've been talking about, they will continue to in the future. The question is where will the undecided in the party will go. I think each of Biden, Warren, Harris, & Sanders have their fair share of negatives ... it will largely depend on who can overcome them - or mask them - enough that they can draw wider appeal.

[revo]

I don't know about winning the primary but I don't think he'll suddenly fall dramatically. Those who are supporting him now will overlook a lot - they've been overlooking the gaffes you've been talking about, they will continue to in the future. The question is where will the undecided in the party will go. I think each of Biden, Warren, Harris, & Sanders have their fair share of negatives ... it will largely depend on who can overcome them - or mask them - enough that they can draw wider appeal.

Because they're not major gaffes. The guy speaks for an hour on stage without issue, mistakenly says "Margaret Thatch..." once before catching himself.......and this makes him senile? According to TW it does. Now I'm not saying that he's the most dynamic speaker or candidate, and the guy is 76, but I think the vast majority of Biden supporters know he's the best shot to beat Trump, and they're OK with that knowing full well he's going to have a dynamic VP who will likely be pushed for the head of the ticket in '24 on day one. Essentially, Biden will be a one-term President who's only needed to oust Trump, and his supporting cast will be doing the work for him while he's just the figurehead. America needs a stable moderate now more than ever, and Biden is the only one who fits that bill who has a fighting chance of winning.

[Sour Masher]

No candidate's record is perfect, and all will be attacked for something in their past at some point. It is how they handle it that will matter.

Few competitors are positioned to attack Sanders on his progressive bona fides, so most attacks toward him will be about his anti-capitalism stances, but at some point, I expect someone to bring up his support for the MIC when it benefits his constituents. He gets a lot of support from defense contractors, because he has been an ally to them when it means jobs for Vermont. For instance, just recently in 2016, he supported $1.2 trillion in funding for that boondoggle that is the F-35. Years ago, as mayor of Burlington, he ordered protesters be arrested when they were protesting a munitions factory making weapons going to central America regime change. So, his record on the MIC is pretty weak, but I understand it--he has done on that issue what all politicians end up doing. Sometimes you have to do what is best for your constituents even if it goes against your ideals. He and all the candidates will have to explain that in the best way possible to voters when faced with such issues.

[TranaGreg]

No candidate's record is perfect, and all will be attacked for something in their past at some point. It is how they handle it that will matter.

Few competitors are positioned to attack Sanders on his progressive bona fides, so most attacks toward him will be about his anti-capitalism stances, but at some point, I expect someone to bring up his support for the MIC when it benefits his constituents. He gets a lot of support from defense contractors, because he has been an ally to them when it means jobs for Vermont. For instance, just recently in 2016, he supported $1.2 trillion in funding for that boondoggle that is the F-35. Years ago, as mayor of Burlington, he ordered protesters be arrested when they were protesting a munitions factory making weapons going to central America regime change. So, his record on the MIC is pretty weak, but I understand it--he has done on that issue what all politicians end up doing. Sometimes you have to do what is best for your constituents even if it goes against your ideals. He and all the candidates will have to explain that in the best way possible to voters when faced with such issues.

So if you're Biden's campaign director the typical play would seem to be to offer Harris the eventual veep position in return for her being the bulldog with Sanders & then Warren; Biden can then take the high road.

[Sour Masher]

So if you're Biden's campaign director the typical play would seem to be to offer Harris the eventual veep position in return for her being the bulldog with Sanders & then Warren; Biden can then take the high road.

That is one play. I know many think Harris is an obvious VP pick for Biden, but IDK--she has been brutal in attacking him. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I think he is more likely to go with Stacy Abrams or another current non-candidate.

[revo]

A new poll by the Center for Mexican American Studies at the University of Houston (CMAS) and Univision found that 47% of registered voters in Texas favor a Democratic candidate versus 42% who say they will vote for President Donald Trump.

https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2019/september-2019/09112019-cmas-latino-poll.php