Democrat 2020

[Strike For The South]

So a few days ago Kamala Harris threw her hat in the ring and I am pretty excited. She is the perfect intersection of someone I support and someone I think can win. A lot has been made of her past as prosecutor but I think that makes her the perfect person to push the kind of criminal justice reform this country needs.

Things that she has expressed support for and that I think are very achievable:Ending cash bail, Legalizing Pot (ideally you would free and make whole those incarcerated on pot and related charges, also further dismantle the drug war). These are two things that have established beach heads on a federal level that a president could influence. There is much more that needs to be done but that would be a start.

General Democrat party discussion to ensue.

[Hooahguy]

All I hope is that Bernie doesnt run again. I think Kamala has the best shot at winning at the moment. I think she could use her experience as a prosecutor to make good changes like you said, but she would have to be careful how she goes about it as it would be pretty easy to frame things in a really bad light.

No idea why Tulsi Gabbard even bothered to run, her track record is horrendous and wont be looked upon kindly.

[Montmorency]

Sanders (if running)
Warren
Gillibrand/Harris
No other Democrat is going to be nominated

Why? So far just the simplest fundamental political calculations. I'm withholding further comment because this is a better discussion to have at the end of the year, when every candidate should have deployed a full platform, have had a chance to influence one another, and we can begin modeling the electorate in the proper contest.

Leaving aside one's feelings about Sanders, most Dems probably agree that all candidates within Warren-Harris-Gillibrand are ~ and acceptable (other than the ones who hold Gillibrand responsible for Al Franken resigning).

Important to remember that if the election were held now, almost any Democrat would likely win. Also important to remember that nothing today should be held a priori as applicable 1.5 years down the line. Wait for the primaries. They have yet to determine my state's primary schedule, may wind up pretty late. Hope y'all can handle it.





Interesting tangent to rile the thread: In 2016 African American turnout for Dems was noticeably depressed. The turnout margin between 2012 and 2016 Democratic African American votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and perhaps Florida and Pennsylvania was higher than the margin of Trump's victory in each of those states. (N.b. Black turnout was higher under Obama than pretty much ever)

Increasing the turnout of voters of color to Obama-level numbers, particularly among African Americans, would have turned the election narrowly in the Democrats’ favor. If black turnout and support rates in 2016 had matched 2012 levels, Democrats would have held Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and flipped North Carolina, for a 323 to 215 Electoral College victory.

[Kagemusha]

Nancy Pelosi.

[Hooahguy]

Nancy Pelosi.

Well if both Trump and Pence are rolled up, then that might actually happen. Though the likelihood of both of them resigning is very small.

But back on topic-

Interesting tangent to rile the thread: In 2016 African American turnout for Dems was noticeably depressed. The turnout margin between 2012 and 2016 Democratic African American votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and perhaps Florida and Pennsylvania was higher than the margin of Trump's victory in each of those states. (N.b. Black turnout was higher under Obama than pretty much ever)

Part of this is why I think Harris might be the best choice. Sanders has already shown that he does terrible with minorities, Warren kinda ruined her chances with the whole DNA test, and Gillibrand I think just doesnt have that pull that Harris does.

[Husar]

Nancy Pelosi.

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

[Kagemusha]

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

She is by far the most accomplished Democrat at this point. Two times elected speaker of the house. First since 1955. A woman and yes from establishment, they dont vote commies in office at US Hus, now do they? She trumped Trump hands down with the border wall issue and Trump cave in at this favorite idea. Me thinks this struggle between Trump and the democrats ruled house will increasingly personalize into these two, but lets see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SraasldX-4

[Hooahguy]

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

LOL Pelosi isnt going to run, shes happy being speaker, and the only way she becomes POTUS through the line of succession. Though to be fair she would probably make a good president, judging by how she handled the shutdown.

Sanders wont find the going as easy as it was in 2015-16. He is much more of a known quantity and the other candidates wont have any qualms about tearing him down like Hillary was afraid to. Bernie does terribly with minorities, and the 2016 primary shows that, and if the Dems want to win, they need to appeal to minorities. My personal belief is that Sanders has a pretty good chance of getting Trump re-elected, considering that it seems as if he attacks Democrats more vigorously than he attacks the right. He did the same in 2016 and theres a good chance it will happen again in 2020.

And if not Bernie, this guy will get Trump elected again if he runs as an independent.

[Montmorency]

Since keeping mum is hard for me...

Well if both Trump and Pence are rolled up, then that might actually happen. Though the likelihood of both of them resigning is very small.

But back on topic-

Part of this is why I think Harris might be the best choice. Sanders has already shown that he does terrible with minorities, Warren kinda ruined her chances with the whole DNA test, and Gillibrand I think just doesnt have that pull that Harris does.

Aha, but as far as I can tell this was always something of a myth. In a recent Gallup poll Sanders had a favorability lead among non-white voters of 15 points, and it's nothing new. Sanders was handicapped in the primaries because of lack of name recognition. That won't be a problem anymore, as you say below.

Not many will hold Warren's ancestry gaffe against her besides Republicans, pundits, and some activists who were already dissatisfied with her policies. Men hate Warren, but most of the plausible contenders are women. The one notable aspect is that it signals a certain lack of acumen - but we don't need to speculate, we're about to see everyone's decision-making on display.

Exactly why I said, don't hold your assumptions too dear. Wait for primary season for matters to unfold. Don't feel locked into a candidate yet (preferences are OK).

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

Warren-Harris-Gillibrand are ~ as candidates. It's just a matter of competing niches.

Warren: Taxation and finance reform with an aperitif of class warfare
Harris: Criminal justice reform
Gillibrand: Gender issues

By "niche" I mean marginal emphasis. Of course all of them are offering something on all of the above. Gillibrand appears to support slightly stronger bail reform than Harris does, Harris proposes middle class tax credits on a scale Warren doesn't, etc. They all support Medicare for All at least. Otherwise, Warren is pretty center-left. After all, she does admire capitalism and exited the Republican Party in the '90s because she didn't think they were correctly supporting the market. Don't credit Republican glib provocations like "The Kulaks Must Be Liquidated as a Class." (Billionaires aren't kulaks, they're royals.)

Everyone will go further left as the season advances. So, wait and see.

[CrossLOPER]

Warren

The arrogance of suggestions like this make me want to abstain out of spite, but I won't. The Democrats were defeated by Trump, who should have been a joke. I think now is the time to play it safe.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The arrogance of suggestions like this make me want to abstain out of spite, but I won't. The Democrats were defeated by Trump, who should have been a joke. I think now is the time to play it safe.

in 2016, I abstained from the vote for President. As I am a Floridian, it could be argued that any vote that was not lodged FOR H. Clinton added to the chance of success for Trump. At the time, I thought Trump would lose narrowly in the Electoral College and easily lose the popular vote. I had no idea that he would carry all five of the FL, PA, OH, MI, and WI electoral blocks. I thought he would split the upper Midwest and narrowly lose. Figured it was business as usual, working to stop the more stupid policy overtures forwarded by H. Clinton (but accepting her basic competence in the day-to-day aspects of the Presidency).

I, therefore, missed out on the sea-change brewing in the GOP, which has altered the base of the party more profoundly than at any time since the Reagan victory in 1980 (and arguably more than that). Between the hard-core deplorables who LIKE the fact that he is an aggressive ass, the 'anybody in the GOP must be supported zombies,' and the 'who cares, it is about power' subset, the GOP really has shifted, for the most part, to the party of Trump. It has, in the process, shed any number of formerly life-long GOP types such as myself, because our views of measured conservatism are anathema to the Trump core and its all-too-willing fellow-travelers.

Add in the fact that far too much of the Trump 'security' agenda (by planning or by happenstance or both) is in lock-step with the desires of the most thuggish xenophobe and blatant white-supremacy racists in our culture, and I find little to support.


Sadly, I pretty much have to pull the lever for whatever social-democrat naif the Dems put up in '20, just because as a Floridian, I have to vote to remove the current occupant.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All I hope is that Bernie doesnt run again. I think Kamala has the best shot at winning at the moment. I think she could use her experience as a prosecutor to make good changes like you said, but she would have to be careful how she goes about it as it would be pretty easy to frame things in a really bad light.

No idea why Tulsi Gabbard even bothered to run, her track record is horrendous and wont be looked upon kindly.

I would guess she is seeking the VEEP nom, especially if the eventual Nominee is a white male. She's got a foreign policy and defense track record that will suggest "balance" and "emergency President" to a fair number of Dems.

[a completely inoffensive name]

McCain said some nice things. He got booed at his own rally because he wouldnt let that woman call him a muslim.

In other news, I was able to attend a lecture from my favorite historian and now I feel more invigorated about participating in politics.

[Strike For The South]

Who is your favorite?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who is your favorite?

Jon Meacham. When I was a preteen I liked his editor column in newsweek, been reading him since.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Elizabeth Warren has declared war on Facebook, Google and Amazon, she's going to "break up" the Tech Giants.

So, her campaign is dead.

[CrossLOPER]

Elizabeth Warren has declared war on Facebook, Google and Amazon, she's going to "break up" the Tech Giants.

So, her campaign is dead.

Facebook is sliding into irrelevance, but Google and Amazon are still on top, for the most part. Frankly, I would have chosen a better way to fight, but she's as bad as a lot of the freshman politicians when it comes to forming a coherent strategy and plan of action.

[Montmorency]

Elizabeth Warren has declared war on Facebook, Google and Amazon, she's going to "break up" the Tech Giants.

So, her campaign is dead.

Her primary area of emphasis has long been anti-monopoly (and finance regulation), makes sense.

Maybe. If a leftist makes too many enemies, the only recourse is grassroots mobilization to bypass elite gatekeepers. Sanders has, in theory, an advantage in this domain.

I hope Sanders has the sense to absorb every unique proposal, including variations on universal childcare, that Warren brings forward - to neutralize the criticism that he is chopped liver by now. Priorities hardly make a difference, nothing is going to get passed in the next Congress anyway; you'd need 60 Democratic senators just to get at least 50 party-line votes on a lot of this stuff*, to say nothing of the votes for the procedural radicalism of abolishing the filibuster in order to return to majoritarianism. Go full-spectrum assault with your platforms.

*There are exceptions to the coverage of the filibuster, most famously the budget reconciliation that allows a sort of yearly majoritarian freebie of one law each (or one in combination) of categories relating to spending, revenues, or federal debt ceiling. As you can see, it's mostly useful for tax and budget bills, hardly for fabricating whole new programs.



I learned that Stacey Abrams is a childless bachelor and a romance novelist. Likeability rating through the roof!

Nice to have you back. (Edit: By "you" I mean PVC)

Facebook is sliding into irrelevance, but Google and Amazon are still on top, for the most part. Frankly, I would have chosen a better way to fight, but she's as bad as a lot of the freshman politicians when it comes to forming a coherent strategy and plan of action.

The (progressive) freshmen have the advantage of being relentlessly aggressive. As we see, in politics this is a sort of cheat code.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is just depressing. I'm supposed to be escaping the news in a national park this weekend.

I hope you are wrong Monty, but I would put my money on you.

[Husar]

I'm supposed to be escaping the news in a national park this weekend.

I guess you have to enjoy them before they're converted into drilling sites.

[Montmorency]

This is just depressing. I'm supposed to be escaping the news in a national park this weekend.

I hope you are wrong Monty, but I would put my money on you.

I'm sorry about that. I'm a bad person. I should be less of a manic dilettante exulting in the aesthetic quality of degrading anomie and spend more time identifying and amplifying the good news.

Like in spite of having its structure specified in the Constitution, the Senate by its nature is so inconsistent with the democratic rights of a polity that existing jurisprudence would consider it unconstitutional if a state government were to attempt to replicate the Senate at a lower level. Therefore - uh...

Wait

[Montmorency]

Shit, I just came to understand that there's no reason to believe Sanders' ideological preferences are much different from those of standard Democrats - not because they're further left than meets the eye, but because Sanders really is nothing more than a New Deal/Great Society liberal in both policy preferences and rhetoric.

Sanders offers no fundamental criticism of capitalism.

[Husar]

Shit, I just came to understand that there's no reason to believe Sanders' ideological preferences are much different from those of standard Democrats - not because they're further left than meets the eye, but because Sanders really is nothing more than a New Deal/Great Society liberal in both policy preferences and rhetoric.

Sanders offers no fundamental criticism of capitalism.

Well, first of all I think his preferences are in some cases more genuine than those of the other democrats.
And secondly, I don't necessarily want communism if I can have well-regulated capitalism. You don't get guarantees that it will always be good in either system.
There can be advantages to both, it's complicated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I suspect that Churchill's comment on the democracy is apt here. Capitalism is the worst form of economic structuration...except for all the others.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Shit, I just came to understand that there's no reason to believe Sanders' ideological preferences are much different from those of standard Democrats - not because they're further left than meets the eye, but because Sanders really is nothing more than a New Deal/Great Society liberal in both policy preferences and rhetoric.

Sanders offers no fundamental criticism of capitalism.

Even our space operas and sci-fi stories can't imagine a future without capitalism (with exception of pre Deep Space Nine Star Trek).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even our space operas and sci-fi stories can't imagine a future without capitalism (with exception of pre Deep Space Nine Star Trek).

Even in old Trek there were capitalists -- though Rodenberry's basic premise was that energy was so "cheap" that most things were at an extremely low unit cost and that day-to-day subsistence was without struggle.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Kamala and Pete off to a strong start in the first round of debates. That's the ticket of the future.

Biden is going to get hammered on his past.

[Montmorency]

Kamala and Pete off to a strong start in the first round of debates. That's the ticket of the future.

Biden is going to get hammered on his past.

You reading New York Times food critics? Well, I'll bite my tongue.

But it's confirmed that New York will not play a role in the selection, having set its primary date as April 28. Put a vote in for [redacted] for me on Super Tuesday.

(Did you know New York has sent 5 or 6 men to the White House in American history, but New York City only once?)

[a completely inoffensive name]

You reading New York Times food critics? Well, I'll bite my tongue.

But it's confirmed that New York will not play a role in the selection, having set its primary date as April 28. Put a vote in for [redacted] for me on Super Tuesday.

(Did you know New York has sent 5 or 6 men to the White House in American history, but New York City only once?)

I'm so confused. I follow the 538 live blog, not the NYT since 2016.

[Montmorency]

I'm so confused. I follow the 538 live blog, not the NYT since 2016.

I saw this article today in the NYT op eds, seemed serendipitous.

But the whole contemporary mass-media "debate" format just gets worse and worse, and reminds me why I've never bothered to watch political "debates". I wish one of the candidates would just stage a communist revolution on set and seize the means of communication from MSNBC to distribute among all the candidates. Whoever manages that presumably becomes frontrunner by default for their skillful display of leadership.