Election 2020

[DMT]

I think you're underestimating Biden, who will have Obama supporting him full throttle. And I'm not sure what you're basing your "roll-out rankings" on. We're still 623 days away, I don't think most people are that invested yet.

[The Feral Slasher]

I think you're underestimating Biden, who will have Obama supporting him full throttle. And I'm not sure what you're basing your "roll-out rankings" on. We're still 623 days away, I don't think most people are that invested yet.

I wonder if after 4 years of Trump there will be a longing for the comfort of the way things used to be. New ideas like Sander's might not be well received. Or maybe they will, who knows. Will be interesting to see either way.

[revo]

These polls are interesting - but lets not forget the Electoral College. By popularity Trump is close in those polls, and he may still be able to win there.

Yep, and Biden, in some of the few polls in specific states, leads by double digits over Trump in Michigan and by 2 in Iowa. And I'm sure he'll have a polling edge in his home state of PA.

[Sour Masher]

Every single candidate's rollout has been a disaster, IMO, except for Buttigieg, Yang, and now Sanders. In order of awfulness: Warren, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, and to a lesser degree, Tulsi, Gillibrand... all extremely problematic. I'm confident they'll be sniffed out. Tulsi remains a wildcard. I think she's a threat to Bernie's left consolidation more than anybody.

Can you expand on what makes the other candidate's announcements disasters? I think I see some of what you'll say, but I'm not sure. Especially on Harris and Klobuchar. What did I miss on those two that make you think they are DOA?

[Teenwolf]

Can you expand on what makes the other candidate's announcements disasters? I think I see some of what you'll say, but I'm not sure. Especially on Harris and Klobuchar. What did I miss on those two that make you think they are DOA?

I should clarify. I wouldn't say any of them had massive public failings in their rollouts (other than Warren's recent transcript reveal), but they all had major red flags exposed in terms of their viability.

1 - Kamala Harris - Wow, lots of negative stories. First, despite the fact that every single media report on Bernie Sanders the last month has talked about the sexual harassment that took place within Sanders' campaign, all of these reports fail to include that the exact same story came out about Kamala Harris' campaign! It was very quietly alluded to in a CNN clip regarding Bernie's rollout today "perhaps the reason some of these candidates aren't attacking Bernie directly for the sexual harassment is that they have their own history with this issue"... they refuse to even say that it was Harris, and quickly get back to "no-no, this is a serious issue for Sanders to address". If it's a mark on Bernie, it's a mark on her. He has apologized directly to those impacted. Has she? Has she even acknowledged it? Will it go over well if the media tries to more loudly hammer Bernie with this smear? I think even the centrist pundits realize it, as they showed their hand today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...48f_story.html

That's all baseless crap though, I think neither Sanders nor Harris deserve much blame for these incidents, but it could become a media talking point. The real red flags for Harris are her prosecutorial record. She fought to keep non-violent offenders imprisoned because she valued their cheap labour. What's the word for that... indentured servitude? To send them to make less than $1/hr to fight wildfires? Seems like a weakness.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala...or-cheap-labor

How about the video clip of Kamala Harris giving a speech, wherein she giggles like a schoolgirl about jailing the parents of truant children. Think that will play well in the General?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...arents-truancy

How about her failure to explain why she went against the recommendation to prosecute Steve Mnuchin for the financial crisis in which Mnuchin's bank foreclosed on thousands of mortgages without just cause. Oh, she went against this recommendation after receiving a $10K campaign contribution from him.... starting to look really bad yet?

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/...mnuchins-bank/

From the NYT Op-ed "Kamala Harris was not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'":

Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.

Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed...

...In 2014, she declined to take a position on Proposition 47, a ballot initiative approved by voters, that reduced certain low-level felonies to misdemeanors. She laughed that year when a reporter asked if she would support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Ms. Harris finally reversed course in 2018, long after public opinion had shifted on the topic....

...In 2015, she opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving officers. And she refused to support statewide standards regulating the use of body-worn cameras by police officers....

Worst of all, though, is Ms. Harris’s record in wrongful conviction cases. Consider George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record who was charged in 1999 with sexually abusing his stepdaughter, who reported the allegations years later. The case largely hinged on the stepdaughter’s testimony and Mr. Gage was convicted.

Afterward, the judge discovered that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement. Her mother even described her as “a pathological liar” who “lives her lies.”

In 2015, when the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, Ms. Harris’s prosecutors defended the conviction. They pointed out that Mr. Gage, while forced to act as his own lawyer, had not properly raised the legal issue in the lower court, as the law required.

The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence.

That case is not an outlier. Ms. Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison on a 28-year-to-life sentence for possession of a concealed weapon even though his trial lawyer was incompetent and there was compelling evidence of his innocence. Relying on a technicality again, Ms. Harris argued that Mr. Larsen failed to raise his legal arguments in a timely fashion. (This time, she lost.)

She also defended Johnny Baca’s conviction for murder even though judges found a prosecutor presented false testimony at the trial. She relented only after a video of the oral argument received national attention and embarrassed her office.

And then there’s Kevin Cooper, the death row inmate whose trial was infected by racism and corruption. He sought advanced DNA testing to prove his innocence, but Ms. Harris opposed it. (After The New York Times’s exposé of the case went viral, she reversed her position.)

All that to say, Harris seems like a terrible candidate. Not to mention, her #1 policy plank is a centrist snooze. The LIFT act is a Trump styled middle class tax credit scheme, and she keeps going back to it like it's a haymaker, when I think it will carry zero heft in policy debates.

Finally, she's trying to run in the Obama lane of the horoscope candidate. Talk in vague terms about people coming together, overcoming differences, "common struggles and common values", blah blah blah, she represents everything to every voter without getting specific on policy. I think the age of the horoscope candidate is over, Obama was the last one. People will want policy specifics in '20. Harris' policy is severely lacking, but it's her terrible record that will sink her in the end. That's a lotta negative material for the first month.

[Sour Masher]

Thanks TW. I almost didn't ask about Harris, as I knew some of this, but I'm glad to be filled in on some of the things I wasn't aware of. The name that stood out most on your list was Klobouchar. I'm in the dark on her issues, aside from reports she is mean to staffers, which isn't a good look.

[Teenwolf]

Can you expand on what makes the other candidate's announcements disasters? I think I see some of what you'll say, but I'm not sure. Especially on Harris and Klobuchar. What did I miss on those two that make you think they are DOA?

Klobuchar is quicker and less complicated. She's a terrible human being. Not only is she reported to delight in publicly shaming staff members for their mistakes or for showing up late, but she also threw a damn binder at a staffer, AND worst of all... she reportedly went after former staffers, reaching out to their new and prospective employers to snuff out their chances at employment. What a vindictive asshole.

This is all backed up by her record of having the highest staff turnover rate in Congress. Her response "You bet your ass I'm a tough boss" is a pretty unconvincing response to serious allegations, especially coming from an orator like Klobuchar, with all the charisma of a narcoleptic robot.

Oh, and she also doesn't support Med4All (losing position), doesn't support free college (losing position), thinks Green New Deal is an "aspirational goal, not a realistic one"(big loser, that one), and will find that there's really no traction in the centrist lane, methinks. Especially with less robotic, non-asshole women in the race. I highly doubt she sniffs the top 5.

[Teenwolf]

Elizabeth Warren is easily explained. I like the wealth tax, love the government takeover of generic pharmaceutical manufacturing.... hate the "American Indian" transcript and distraction. Even more, I hated seeing her waffle on Med4All. Asked if she supports Med4All, she responded "I want everybody in America to have access to affordable health care, and there's a number of ways for us to get there." Her premature compromise on Med4All looks really bad. Her clumsy social media foray drinking beer on a webstream, etc... she just looks phony, both in her dedication to enacting her policy planks, and her personality. The native heritage thing might honestly be too much for her to overcome. Especially given that she's likely lost a ton of supporters to Bernie.

Booker was an interesting one, in terms of the type of clusterfuck on display. I despise his rollout video, with the marching band drums. Awful, uninspiring, and a really disturbing message. Something about "my parents wanted to buy a house, but we weren't allowed to, until white lawyers stepped in to help my family acheive justice" or some such nonsense. Really weirdly specific story about how grateful he was to his white saviours. Bizarre. Oh, and it's also come out that Booker is friends with the Trumps, and specifically has worked to dismantle New Jersey's public education system by diverting all of the money to charter schools, which were supposed to produce better results, but haven't. Whoops!

Booker also employed the vague and flowery language "common pain, common purpose..." Kinda made me wanna puke. Can't remember the other skeletons from his closet, but I don't think you need much more than those points. Oh, and that reputation for killing the Canadian drug bill sure has stuck with him. Will not help his case.

[swampdragon]

Still waiting for Sherrod Brown. I like what I have heard from him so far.

[Teenwolf]

Still waiting for Sherrod Brown. I like what I have heard from him so far.

Med4Alllllll.......over50. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[nots]

Med4Alllllll.......over50. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Maybe not, but it has the advantage of actually being attainable.

[Teenwolf]

Maybe not, but it has the advantage of actually being attainable.

Keep telling Canadians how unattainable universal health care is. Hilarious.

I was actually just talking about the viability of the political policy plank "Med4All" vs. "Med>50"... because compromising on Romney/Obamacare obviously turned out so well the first time around, right? We shall see whether "Med>50" takes the nation by storm or not. I'm highly doubtful.

[nullnor]

i don't really pay a lot of attention. i can't say if Elizabeth Warren is genuine or not. i know she went against a few things Obama was for and he simply stated because she's a politician. i didn't like the GE deal after they moved their headquarters from CT to MA. i prefer to tell companies that want kickbacks or bribes or special deals to move their business to pound sand. move because the roads and community and infrastructure etc.. is good. don't move because you are paying lower property taxes than other companies. what was that whole 'we built that' speech. and then she turns around and welcomes a business notorious for not paying up or abusing worker rights. it's just dancing with the devil. ..back up CT. they told GE to go fuck themselves. if everyone did that companies would stop raping the community. and not surprisingly it didn't work out and GE has to repay.

[baldgriff]

LOL - DNC asking Sanders to confirm he is a Democrat..... (and apparently any other candidate).

Still this is just silliness!

Last primary cycle many (some here) said he shouldnt be allowed to run as a Dem because he isnt one. Of course, after the primaries he was just an opportunist.

He's still not really a Democrat - but go ahead sign some CYA form the DNC is making up.

I wonder who the DNC will be all in for this year......

[Teenwolf]

LOL - DNC asking Sanders to confirm he is a Democrat..... (and apparently any other candidate).

Still this is just silliness!

Last primary cycle many (some here) said he shouldnt be allowed to run as a Dem because he isnt one. Of course, after the primaries he was just an opportunist.

He's still not really a Democrat - but go ahead sign some CYA form the DNC is making up.

I wonder who the DNC will be all in for this year......

I think it will go smoothly. If the DNC denies Sanders the chance to run as a Democrat, all hell would break loose, and they know it. Not sure they want to risk fracturing the party in such a major way.

Centrist Dems are coalescing around Harris, despite her massive red flags. I love it.

Harris broke the record for 24 hr fundraising from her launch topping $1.5 Mil from 38K donors. Sanders' raised $5.9 Mil from 225K donors. 4X as much money, 6X the donors. Yet MSM is still universally talking crap with endless Bernie hit pieces. "Fighting a very diverse group of Democratic challengers this time around" = old, white, and Male. "Whole party has adopted his ideas, does he serve a purpose?"... lol, quite the turnaround from "his ideas are way too unrealistic"... Or my favourite, Jennifer Rubin, frequent guest of Bill Maher, of WashPo stating that Sanders' fundraising doesn't signify much. Hahaha, okay... so you disqualify hoards of progressive candidates and refuse to cover them for their lack of funding/corruption, then when they raise the funds, it suddenly doesn't matter. Funny stuff.

I hope all the centrists who screamed at progressives to step in line and support Hillary receive a taste of their own medicine. Step in line when the time comes. If Bernie breaks away, support him.