2020 US Election

[zlemflolia]

david koch is dead 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/us/david-koch-dead.html

[usagi]

rest in shit.

[doublename]

Waiting for that second plane to hit.

[auxien]

10 hours ago, goDel said:

Also note that the top-2 candidates share 50% of the support. So the other 50% is still shared between quite a number of candidates. That makes the growth potential more important than the current support, at this point in time. I think this time around Sanders' potential is smaller as opposed to 2016. At least, the "feel the Bern" effect seems to be smaller. Could be me though.

Sanders is missing a HRC/establishment candidate he can attack, I think. Although I'm sure many would consider Biden establishment - and there's def plenty to support that - I don't see him as another HRC. He's just not that Goldman Sachs kinda establishment like HRC was. And in the current field of candidates, there isn't an obvious candidate earning the support of Goldman Sachs either. At least, not that I'm aware of. That makes it a bit harder for Sanders, imo. He's not running against a candidate like HRC who was controversial in her own way.

Perhaps the "feel the Bern" thing will kick into gear further on in the primaries. When the other "leftist" candidates drop out, Sanders will move more to the front and be a bit more aggressive. Don't think it'll help him though. But that's my guess.

there's definitely less fire behind the Sanders crowd this time, and unsurprisingly so. he doesn't have a shot, barely had one in 2016. Warren is a much more viable candidate with many of the same ideals, but she is, unfortunately for her at this time, a woman. 'Clinton lost in part because she was a woman' is a thing that i'm guessing is in the back of many dem voters (and strategists) heads and so many are likely reviewing these candidates through that lens. Warren or Harris could really show themselves to be frontrunners viable of nudging out old handsy Biddy and dredging up enough turnout to beat Trump, but that's not guaranteed in their (or anyone's, Biden included) case.

Bernie's just an old mouthpiece yelling the same 20 phrases over and over ad nauseam who's as much of a career politician as Biden if we're being frank. i rather like Bernie on paper, and i'd be 100% ok with Sanders in the presidency, don't get me wrong, but there ain't no fuckin way he's getting there, period. it's impossible. (personal speculation: everyone in the media knows it and that's why there's this 'bias' against him: they're just, behind closed doors, being honest. he ain't got a path forward.)

your point about the top 2 sharing most support is good and worth noting, but some polls are showing Warren and Sanders relatively tied (polls are varying pretty widely still which is unsurprising given the ones i've looked at, relatively small sample sizes, etc)....hell Warren was ahead of Biden in at least one i saw. it's Biden's to lose as of now, and i can see a LOT of paths for him to lose it. definitely biased here because i don't like him, but i really just think it's mostly name recognition/elite support.

[zlemflolia]

ya I wonder why he has no shot

maybe because no tv channels talk about him

his supposed not having a shot has nothing to do with actually him

Edited August 24, 2019 by Zeffolia

[goDel]

Similar to what aux argues: Sanders' novelty has worn off. It's still the same points and arguments like last time. And another part of it is his use of the term "socialism", I think. It's a toxic term in US politics. He means well. And I think he believes he can educate people and explain what socialism really means. But I don't think a large part of the population really want to listen. They've already made up their minds: socialism is toxic and un-american.

It showed a sense of courage from Sanders not to run away from the term, but in the end he gave himself an impossible mountain to climb to get people to hear what he actually means. They're just not going to listen. His odds might have been better if he completely ignored the term, I think. But the thing was, even the Dems made some "socialism" jokes at his expense. The white house correspondence diner with Obama which took place during the last primaries was an example. Sanders attacked Obama's policies during the debates. And during the diner Obama joked Sanders shouldn't attack his comrades. Bam, you're a communist. Perhaps it was benign. But it all adds up. Many Americans just "feel" Sanders is some kind of pseudo communist. His policies might be good on a state level. But not on a federal level. (edit: that's what they would believe...)

Edited August 24, 2019 by goDel

[Lewps]

Why would he change his talking points? Just shows his principles and convictions are consistent. He's still my preference because of the consistency and transpencity of his political career + afaik he's the only candidate not taking money from coporate donors. Though in the unlikely event of him becoming president I have little hope for him getting much done, except maybe reaching a broader audience with his messege.

[luke viia]

^ regarding the corporate donor thing, here's a list of what the candidates have stated about their funding (there's a handy chart): https://readsludge.com/2019/04/01/where-the-2020-candidates-stand-on-campaign-finance/

bernie's def not the only one swearing off big scratch

[auxien]

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/700121429/bernie-sanders-files-to-run-as-a-democrat-and-an-independent

Bernie isn't a democrat. he's running for the democratic party's nomination. it should be no fucking surprise to anyone with any sense (Bernie supporters often lack this, i've found) why he would get pushback in 2016 or now for trying to run as a dem, from the elite, the voters, or anyone in between. 

[chenGOD]

48 minutes ago, auxien said:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/700121429/bernie-sanders-files-to-run-as-a-democrat-and-an-independent

Bernie isn't a democrat. he's running for the democratic party's nomination. it should be no fucking surprise to anyone with any sense (Bernie supporters often lack this, i've found) why he would get pushback in 2016 or now for trying to run as a dem, from the elite, the voters, or anyone in between. 

Yeah that’s true, a lot of staunch democrat supporters will see that as a major “fuck you”. He’s being very opportunistic. It’s a shame, cause he does have a lot of good ideas, though I think his trade policy platform could use some work. But Warren should really push, I bet a lot of republican women who don’t think trumps misogyny is cool would vote for her. 

[may be rude]

1 hour ago, auxien said:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/700121429/bernie-sanders-files-to-run-as-a-democrat-and-an-independent

Bernie isn't a democrat. he's running for the democratic party's nomination. it should be no fucking surprise to anyone with any sense (Bernie supporters often lack this, i've found) why he would get pushback in 2016 or now for trying to run as a dem, from the elite, the voters, or anyone in between. 

 

it was bewildering when people were appalled by the DNC showing preference for a democrat.

 

i like bernie quite a bit, but he's not perfect. by March 2016, Hillary had a 320 delegate lead and it was mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination. 5 months later, at the convention, when it was time to gracefully step down and rally behind clinton, he dropped the ball. he gave a pained speech that did not direct his followers to get behind the democratic nominee, and instead conveyed a grievance against the DNC. nice job, bern

 

warren is clearly the best. the country would be lucky to have her as president

Edited August 24, 2019 by very honest

[goDel]

Warren's strength is her weakness, though. Her chops on policies and politics... I don't think that sits well with a lot of people. They're not looking for a president with concrete policies and all that. They are looking for a talking head they can relate to. At least, that's my take. Warren is just too good at the policy level. Voting for her, is like voting for "government". And a lot of people are anti-government. A big ideas executive branch is considered a threat to peoples/states autonomy.

[chenGOD]

Which is a sad commentary on the electorate. Not restricted to Americans either. 

[goDel]

indeed, fraid not just americans 

[Nebraska]

On 8/24/2019 at 8:15 AM, very honest said:

warren is clearly the best. the country would be lucky to have her as president

i personally think she's be great in pelosi's job- or secretary of state- maybe even vice. but not president. maybe in theory, but not in practice. 

also, biden continues to be a bumbling mess on the campaign trail

 

[may be rude]

33 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

i personally think she's be great in pelosi's job- or secretary of state- maybe even vice. but not president. maybe in theory, but not in practice. 

 

why not?

[Nebraska]

3 hours ago, very honest said:

why not?

i don't feel like she has some qualities that would be necessary for that position especially in today's socially divided and broken climate such as creativity or charisma that would demand respect from all parties. 

i said she would make a great secretary of state or speaker of the house because her tenacity and integrity make her a great support for a head of state. 

a big problem with today's culture is that they're so conditioned to accept impressions of something rather than the real thing- this is why i said warren makes a great president in theory, but we don't live in that world and i don't feel like people would connect with her as a person who commands that kind of authority

[may be rude]

2 hours ago, Nebraska said:

i don't feel like she has some qualities that would be necessary for that position especially in today's socially divided and broken climate such as creativity or charisma that would demand respect from all parties. 

i said she would make a great secretary of state or speaker of the house because her tenacity and integrity make her a great support for a head of state. 

a big problem with today's culture is that they're so conditioned to accept impressions of something rather than the real thing- this is why i said warren makes a great president in theory, but we don't live in that world and i don't feel like people would connect with her as a person who commands that kind of authority

 

i think warren has creativity and charisma, and i actually think she does demand respect, even across the aisle. no one is going to command respect from 100% of voters.

 

if she is more substance and less front and the voters fall for front and don't look for substance, i think that's an issue with the voters and not the candidate. i think it's correct to aim to put good public servants in positions. 

 

i see your point though

 

what do you think about yanger?

Edited August 26, 2019 by very honest

[Nebraska]

19 minutes ago, very honest said:

if she is more substance and less front and the voters fall for front and don't look for substance, i think that's an issue with the voters and not the candidate. i think it's correct to aim to put good public servants in positions. 

and this is why i don't see her charisma. i agree nobody is going to command respect and admiration from 100% of the voters- but i see someone who is charismatic, at the very least, neutralizing the current toxic polarization we have betwix the two parties. the problem is that currently this is such a delicate wire to balance because speaking too much politics makes you sound like the establishment whilst being too down-to-earth can come off as disingenuous.

i see warren as more of a traditional politician who goes by-the-book and lacks the personality know-how to know when to change things up based on her current audience. in a different office like speaker of the house or secretary of state, i see these attributes as not only being perfectly utilized- but more necessary. there is a certain ferocity needed in today's world based on current international relations and conservative attitudes that i just don't see warren having. maybe i'm wrong, but i'm willing to wager i'm not. 

as for yang: ummm nope. 

[may be rude]

32 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

and this is why i don't see her charisma. i agree nobody is going to command respect and admiration from 100% of the voters- but i see someone who is charismatic, at the very least, neutralizing the current toxic polarization we have betwix the two parties. the problem is that currently this is such a delicate wire to balance because speaking too much politics makes you sound like the establishment whilst being too down-to-earth can come off as disingenuous.

i see warren as more of a traditional politician who goes by-the-book and lacks the personality know-how to know when to change things up based on her current audience. in a different office like speaker of the house or secretary of state, i see these attributes as not only being perfectly utilized- but more necessary. there is a certain ferocity needed in today's world based on current international relations and conservative attitudes that i just don't see warren having. maybe i'm wrong, but i'm willing to wager i'm not. 

 

i've always found warren to recognize the nature of the moment quickly, where others lag for weeks. she's good when put on the spot. she's thoughtful and present. 

 

if by ferocity you mean trump's bulging eyes while shouting at a rally, i disagree that it is needed. warren fights tenaciously, she's a hard worker and knows when to fight for something. warren has the kind of intellectual ferocity on the level of a mature, modern activist. that's the kind of ferocity the country needs. i don't put it past the populace to recognize it. 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by very honest

[zlemflolia]

the typical human is really flawed if they care so much about politicians being "charismatic" give me a break.  this is all bs.  please get us a clinically calm politician with good policy positions.  I'd take that over charisma every time

[Nebraska]

i'd personally prefer no leaders at all- but that wouldn't work would it? in all probability, the best leader we need isn't even running. so if i'm picking from the list we're given- i guess i'll be equally flawed.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Nebraska

[goDel]

1 hour ago, Zeffolia said:

the typical human is really flawed.

*fixt

[Candiru]

BiG MAc DeMenTia ADderAll DiEt CoKe FOx NeWs NoRth KOrEa FAKe NeWs TAriFfs SaD PUtiN GoLf ReCeSsion SHutDown ChosEn One

vs.

A FUCKING PRESIDENT

 

OH SHIT WHICH ONE DO I CHOOSE?!!???!!!!?!?!

Spoiler

 

 

[Nebraska]

 

quick- let's get her back in the race and all vote for her