Election 2020

[swampdragon]

Why isnt Bernie a Democrat? He does not wish to run as a third party candidate.
https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

I still don't think that he can win but certainly would vote for him if he receives the Democrat nomination.

[B-Fly]

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.

You know me. I'm progressive of heart and moderate of head/temperament. I'm measured and practical, first and foremost. Like I said, the Democrats are all 7s, 8s or 9s on a 1-10 scale for me, with Trump as the 1, and centrist/civil Republicans like Weld or Kasich at 4 or even 5. The utility I see from flipping from Trump to a 7 or even a 5 is worth far more than the risk of a 9 losing to Trump. So I'll be waiting to heavily invest in any particular contender and carefully watching the swing state polling and other metrics that demonstrate a particular candidate has what it takes to defeat Trump. If a more outside-the-perceived-mainstream candidate like Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg or Tulsi Gabbard shows they can connect and appeal broadly enough to defeat Trump, great. If not, I'll very happily take a Harris or Biden or Klobuchar. And I'll hedge my bets even further by hoping a centrist/sane Republican can take Trump out in the primaries. It's way too early to commit to one candidate or even one vision/approach.

[Teenwolf]

Look at this garbage analysis from Washington Post:

Sanders’s 2016 debut effort was the definition of catching lightning in a bottle. His fiery progressive populism resonated among the Democratic left and the young, both of whom hungered for a different tune. Hillary Clinton had scared every other significant competitor out of the race but proved to be an especially poor campaigner unable to find a convincing rationale for her candidacy. The combination of these factors caused Sanders to rocket up the charts.

Today, however, Sanders’s songs are not novel. Just as the Beatles begat a host of imitators, it seems that virtually every Democratic contender sings some sort of Bernie-inspired tune. He launches a new single, “Medicare-for-all,” and suddenly most other Democrats are covering it. The hot new artist from the Bronx, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — who goes by the stage name “AOC” — launches “The Green New Deal,” and suddenly he’s the one covering someone else’s tune. Progressive politics is hot, and like the disco era in the late 1970s, it seems there’s a new successful act every minute.

Hey, remember when all of those bands started copying the Beatles in the 70's and made them completely irrelevant? I think there were 4 of them, right? Whatever became of those guys, I wonder...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0967715deaa5

EDIT TO ADD: "Green New Deal" was hashed out about 6 months ago at a climate change panel, in which AOC and Bernie were BOTH there as speakers. Why do you think you can search the term "green new deal" under my name going back several months?... pathetic MSM doesn't follow anything. Hilarious that they try to pit AOC vs. Bernie tho. Nice try.

[gcstomp]

like bfly, I am not ruling anyone out, and it is not productive to cut down at this early stage any Dem, for some perceived mis-step or trumped up storyline. The current president is literally the worst possible person of any major figure you could put in office. Is there risk that someone would lie more than him in office? Of course not, that would describe someone in a padded room. Is there any figure who would be worse for the environment than Trump? Someone who would target and disparage intel agencies/justice dept, media, more than current WH resident? Literally any random person picked from the D or R who has declared or is rumored to be considering to run is a huge step up for the country.

As president lets loose more dangerous tweets "media is enemy of the people", as more violence, either planned or carried out with Trump stickers plastered all over assailants van, for instance, trump will simply shrug when confronted with what he thinks his responsibility is to such escalation. Putin could not be more pleased with how this has worked out, it took a confluence of unlikely allies along with apathy from the majority to create this monster in office, and it is just not possible for it to happen again unless US really is at its heart, a cesspool of dark lizard hearts all out for themselves.

[B-Fly]

Look at this garbage analysis from Washington Post:



Hey, remember when all of those bands started copying the Beatles in the 70's and made them completely irrelevant? I think there were 4 of them, right? Whatever became of those guys, I wonder...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0967715deaa5

EDIT TO ADD: "Green New Deal" was hashed out about 6 months ago at a climate change panel, in which AOC and Bernie were BOTH there as speakers. Why do you think you can search the term "green new deal" under my name going back several months?... pathetic MSM doesn't follow anything. Hilarious that they try to pit AOC vs. Bernie tho. Nice try.

It's a silly analysis, but has a point buried in there that's legitimate. In 2016, Sanders was pretty quickly matched up 1-on-1 against Hillary Clinton and had a clear progressive populist lane to himself around which the left and the young could coalesce. He also didn't have any strong young/fresh contenders to draw his burgeoning left/youth coalition's attention away. This year, the field will be very crowded, and many of the contenders will be heavily promoting progressive/populist policies and messaging, and among those will be younger/fresher faces who may well have more natural appeal to young voters. That will make his path to and case for the nomination more complicated than 2016. Now if it narrows to, say, Biden, Harris and Sanders, he'll be in a much stronger position to stake his claim. But if he's splitting support with Warren, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Gillibrand, etc, then he's more vulnerable than ever to a strategic consolidation of the Democratic institutionalized power players around a Harris or a Biden.

[DMT]

I read an article claiming that when primaries have large fields, the elites are less likely to get their chosen candidate. Obviously the sample size is miniscule but the Dem primary will likely be the largest field ever.

[DMT]

It's a silly analysis, but has a point buried in there that's legitimate. In 2016, Sanders was pretty quickly matched up 1-on-1 against Hillary Clinton and had a clear progressive populist lane to himself around which the left and the young could coalesce. He also didn't have any strong young/fresh contenders to draw his burgeoning left/youth coalition's attention away. This year, the field will be very crowded, and many of the contenders will be heavily promoting progressive/populist policies and messaging, and among those will be younger/fresher faces who may well have more natural appeal to young voters. That will make his path to and case for the nomination more complicated than 2016. Now if it narrows to, say, Biden, Harris and Sanders, he'll be in a much stronger position to stake his claim. But if he's splitting support with Warren, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Gillibrand, etc, then he's more vulnerable than ever to a strategic consolidation of the Democratic institutionalized power players around a Harris or a Biden.

But what makes you think Sanders' supporters are going to desert him? He will be the last progressive standing IMO.

[Teenwolf]

It's a silly analysis, but has a point buried in there that's legitimate. In 2016, Sanders was pretty quickly matched up 1-on-1 against Hillary Clinton and had a clear progressive populist lane to himself around which the left and the young could coalesce. He also didn't have any strong young/fresh contenders to draw his burgeoning left/youth coalition's attention away. This year, the field will be very crowded, and many of the contenders will be heavily promoting progressive/populist policies and messaging, and among those will be younger/fresher faces who may well have more natural appeal to young voters. That will make his path to and case for the nomination more complicated than 2016. Now if it narrows to, say, Biden, Harris and Sanders, he'll be in a much stronger position to stake his claim. But if he's splitting support with Warren, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Gillibrand, etc, then he's more vulnerable than ever to a strategic consolidation of the Democratic institutionalized power players around a Harris or a Biden.

I believe young voters are more savvy than to fall for an imitation progressive when the real deal is right there. You think young voters want a "fresh face" more than free college or $15/hr minimum wage? I doubt it. Nobody will push as far left as Bernie. They will attempt to appear to get almost there... but there's only 1 Bernie.

Gillibrand, Booker, and Klobuchar don't factor in much. They're afterthoughts. I could see Tulsi, Buttigieg, Yang, or Warren slightly cutting into Bernie's numbers, but not nearly as much as the centrists split. Especially if Biden jumps in (fingers crossed). Or Beto (fingers crossed). The more the merrier. Bernie supporters are resolute. $500K of Sanders' first day donors signed up as monthly donations... meaning another $5.5Mil by year end. From day one, it seems like a great start, in spite of media skepticism.

[The Feral Slasher]

I believe young voters are more savvy than to fall for an imitation progressive when the real deal is right there. You think young voters want a "fresh face" more than free college or $15/hr minimum wage? I doubt it. Nobody will push as far left as Bernie. They will attempt to appear to get almost there... but there's only 1 Bernie.

Gillibrand, Booker, and Klobuchar don't factor in much. They're afterthoughts. I could see Tulsi, Buttigieg, Yang, or Warren slightly cutting into Bernie's numbers, but not nearly as much as the centrists split. Especially if Biden jumps in (fingers crossed). Or Beto (fingers crossed). The more the merrier. Bernie supporters are resolute. $500K of Sanders' first day donors signed up as monthly donations... meaning another $5.5Mil by year end. From day one, it seems like a great start, in spite of media skepticism.

You don't think JeffBezos.com, errr, the Washington post is going to treat Bernie fairly ?

[Sour Masher]

I don't know if this is the thread for this, but I really don't see being against free college as being a big loser for centrist dems in this race. To me, the only litmus test progressive issue is health care. As much as I'd like it to be the Green Deal too, I sadly don't think most voters agree.

I have two young boys who I am scared about in terms of paying for college. College costs have sky rocketed and something needs to be done about it. I work at a college. All that said, I don't think free college for all is the right solution to this problem. Not everyone should go to college. I see many students who are going into debt and spending their parents money that shouldn't be doing that. They won't end up using those degrees, even if they get them. A better solution is to give options. Some kind of support to control college costs for all, and then credits to young people to pursue more options than just 4 year degrees. Our vocational education rate is way lower than most other countries, and there is a stigma about it that should not be there. I don't think it is an effective use of resources to spend tax payer dollars to make university education free for all, when college is not for everyone. And I am someone who believes in the value of the college experience and a liberal arts education. But I also see the realities that it isn't for everyone every day.

[baldgriff]

I don't know if this is the thread for this, but I really don't see being against free college as being a big loser for centrist dems in this race. To me, the only litmus test progressive issue is health care. As much as I'd like it to be the Green Deal too, I sadly don't think most voters agree.

I have two young boys who I am scared about in terms of paying for college. College costs have sky rocketed and something needs to be done about it. I work at a college. All that said, I don't think free college for all is the right solution to this problem. Not everyone should go to college. I see many students who are going into debt and spending their parents money that shouldn't be doing that. They won't end up using those degrees, even if they get them. A better solution is to give options. Some kind of support to control college costs for all, and then credits to young people to pursue more options than just 4 year degrees. Our vocational education rate is way lower than most other countries, and there is a stigma about it that should not be there. I don't think it is an effective use of resources to spend tax payer dollars to make university education free for all, when college is not for everyone. And I am someone who believes in the value of the college experience and a liberal arts education. But I also see the realities that it isn't for everyone every day.

In the 80's our country started a shift away from "hard work" to "working smarter". The expectation about going to college grew exponentially and started the elimination/value of trade or tech schools. The fact of the matter is that "the college experience" is not something that everyone is cut out for or should actually partake in. I was one of them - truth be told. Which is likely the reason that I didnt finish.

There is almost no exposure to any of the "trades" anymore in high school now. No more "shop" classes, drafting, home ec. etc.... Since these kids never see these options in high school they never get to find out if they have any interest or aptitude in those areas. So when they get out of school the idea of going to a trade school and working a trade is so foreign and not valued - very few will pursue it.

[Sour Masher]

I should make clear that student loan debt and the rising costs of higher education are very serious issues that I want a candidate addressing, but free college for all is an overly simplistic and costly solution to that problem.

ETA: Although I consider myself a progressive on many issues, one of my frustrations with many progressive candidates is that their approach to many complicated issues is the same as their free college for all approach. See a really big problem and want to fix it, but offer a hamfisted and simple and more costly solution than may be necessary. But I get that is what sells to voters, and free college for all is easier to change than 20,000 words on how to fix this issues in the best way possible.

All that said, the progressive drive to see these issues and get them addressed is essential to our growth as a country. We are a better country today because of that drive, but I think the conservative push back to it is also essential to find balance.

[baldgriff]

I should make clear that student loan debt and the rising costs of higher education are very serious issues that I want a candidate addressing, but free college for all is an overly simplistic and costly solution to that problem.

Do you find it concerning that the government runs most of our education program and essentially the largest provider of student loans? Seems like they are using education as a means to have generations well in debt before they even leave school. Nothing like having everyone owing you money before you actually have a means of income.

[Sour Masher]

Do you find it concerning that the government runs most of our education program and essentially the largest provider of student loans? Seems like they are using education as a means to have generations well in debt before they even leave school. Nothing like having everyone owing you money before you actually have a means of income.

I'm more disturbed by the amounts owed and how inescapable student loan debt is more than who holds the debt.

[B-Fly]

But what makes you think Sanders' supporters are going to desert him? He will be the last progressive standing IMO.

I think the far left will stay with him. I think the youth vote (including material segments of those who turned 18 after 2016) are up for grabs. You and Teenwolf are representative of the left wing. You are not representative of the youth vote.

I also think that once the 2016 race narrowed to Clinton and Sanders, it is fair to assume that "not her" was the ultimate driving factor for some primary voters (much as it was for many general election voters). Some of that was over perceived corruption. Some over a perception that she'd be too open to and favoring of military solutions to foreign policy problems. Some based on personal/personality aversion and/or misogyny. That's not necessarily there for Sanders in a crowded field or even one-on-one against a different candidate.