Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[GatoDelFuego]

Considering new data: how do you respond to the polls showing that Bernie supporters mostly put Biden as their second choice (and vice versa)?

I've not heard of this study. So I looked it up. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...2020-democrats-biden-bernie-sanders-beto-poll

As myzo said. There's an election to win. That's one aspect. I'm more interested in the poll data that you chose not to bring up.

Among the top five candidates — Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren, and O’Rourke — Biden’s supporters are the oldest, with an average age of 52, and Sanders’s are the youngest, averaging 41. Forty-four percent of Sanders supporters are under the age of 30, while 30 percent of Biden’s are over the age of 65.

oh boy. That's a doozy. Given this data, I don't think I'd conclude that bernie supporters are old people. Counterpoint: only biden and harris have an average supporter age over 50.

Morning Consult also asked voters who their second choice would be. Biden, Warren, and O’Rourke voters said Sanders. Sanders and Harris voters said Biden.

hmm. Both sanders AND harris voters have their top second pick as biden. Well, I suppose both of them are considering biden's frontrunning status as a good safe pick.


So let's dive into those "second choice" numbers

Ok, so sanders voters pick biden next, then warren. Seems logical, pick the leader then the one who matches sanders ideologically, then the next highest.

Hmm.....now that's a weird one. Harris supporters go for biden, then O'Rourke, then...Booker? Strange choices considering sanders and harris are on the table.




So I'd say I apply my ridiculous logic to all candidates, but my conclusion from this data seems to be that biden + harris seem to both be the favored candidate of old, classic dnc voters, white sanders+warren seem to be allied ideologically. That's my conclusion. Also interesting that in this last post, you still didn't draw a conclusion from the poll data, only repeated selected numbers you liked :/

Left in the first part because lol that she's now a frontrunner, and in many cases the favorite to win.

err...source? Not that I would believe any study showing definite path to victory of anybody this early.

 

[MikeDawg]

...

Your article is from February, bud.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fiveth...to-emerge-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/amp/

Kamala supporters overwhelmingly have Warren as 2nd choice, for obvious reasons.

But I guess I'll ask again: if Harris supporters wanting Biden to stay in the race makes them establishment shills, does Bernie supporters overwhelmingly supporting Biden as 2nd choice (something I was called out for in this thread.... but I guess it's okay when Bernie fans do it) make Bernie fans establishment shills? If not, you're just blatantly biased.

Let me reiterate too how ridiculous it is that I was called out for putting Biden as my 2nd place because there's an election to win was such a bad thing, but now both you and myz are on board with that idea.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Your article is from February, bud

My b

Kamala supporters overwhelmingly have Warren as 2nd choice, for obvious reasons.

Not that overwhelmingly. Harris's supporters are big into biden too. I wouldn't call it a clear and defined rebellion against the establishment to progressives only.

if Harris supporters wanting Biden to stay in the race makes them establishment shills, does Bernie supporters overwhelmingly supporting Biden as 2nd choice (something I was called out for in this thread.... but I guess it's okay when Bernie fans do it) make Bernie fans establishment shills?

I don't think I ever said waiting biden to stay in the race makes anybody an establishment shill. You were called out for criticizing bernie, in some people's opinion, unfairly on trumped up claims of mysoginy and racism, instead of more "deserving" targets. Harris is an establishment candidate imo due to her heavier favor of rich doner funding compared to other progressives and years of work as a jail-happy prosecutor. You're an establishment shill because you're a #NeverBernie who thinks it's sanders's fault that trump got elected posts stuff from the third way.

 

[MikeDawg]

Harris is an establishment candidate imo due to her heavier favor of rich doner funding compared to other progressives. You're an establishment shill because you're a #NeverBernie who thinks it's sanders's fault that trump got elected posts stuff from the third way.

Source? Most of Kamala's fundraising came from online donations with an average of $24. Overall, her average was far less than Buttigieg and Biden. I have yet to see any evidence that she's been funded by rich donors/corporations, though I'm open to proof!

That second quip is so pathetic that I almost feel bad for you. Just stop.

And since you continue to dodge the actual question, I'll ask again:

If Harris supporters wanting Biden to stay in the race makes them establishment shills, does Bernie supporters overwhelmingly supporting Biden as 2nd choice (something I was called out for in this thread.... but I guess it's okay when Bernie fans do it) make Bernie fans establishment shills? If not, you're just blatantly biased.

 

[Myzozoa]

if you can tell me how harris' foreign policy is more progressive than trumps we can talk, look at that one user with the terrible long name who voted for trump: he thought trump was more progressive than clinton, and the same image problem will plague any hawk candidate, such as harris who takes such neoliberal positions.

further the idea that kamala harris, who i voted for more than anyone in this thread afaik, has the same progressive credentials as Warren or Sanders is just willful refusal to engage w candidates policies and the consequences thereof. if 20 odd percent of warren supporters are going for harris that demonstrates an unwillingness to engage with the progressive wing of the democratic party at this stage in the election cycle. Probably means Warren's support is doomed to be eaten away by bumber sticker feminists falling in the Kamala line. The result will be the electoral college delivering a trump victory despite Harris winning the popular vote by a lower margin than clinton did in 2016. my predicts, no polls needed.

reality does exist, this is not all a simulation: if a racist homophobic redneck in arkansas votes for warren or sanders it won't make their policies less progressive, in the same way, leftists blindly supporting harris will not make her 99%% identical (the 1% difference is the trade wars) to trump's foreign policy a progressive policy.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

If Harris supporters wanting Biden to stay in the race makes them establishment shills, does Bernie supporters overwhelmingly supporting Biden as 2nd choice (something I was called out for in this thread.... but I guess it's okay when Bernie fans do it) make Bernie fans establishment shills? If not, you're just blatantly biased.

You didn't read my response, I just said "no". I never called anybody an establishment shill for wanting biden to stay in the race, so it wouldn't make sense to call sanders supporters shills for having biden as the second choice

Source

I gave that in a reply to you four pages ago, you might want to read it

Sanders and Warren are both grassroots campaigns that have double the rate of "small donations" that harris does (from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/campaign-finance-2020-fundraising.html)

and years of work as a jail-happy prosecutor

Did you forget to quote this bit?

 

[MikeDawg]

You didn't read my response, I just said "no". I never called anybody an establishment shill for wanting biden to stay in the race, so it wouldn't make sense to call sanders supporters shills for having biden as the second choice

"Also notable is that Harris supporters want Biden to drop out the least of the big 5. Almost as if Harris supporters aren't progressives but instead DNC supporters."

This is what you said. A plurality of Sanders supporters have Biden as their second choice. That's far more significant than Harris supporters wanting Biden to drop out the least.

Does that mean Bernie supporters aren't progressives but are instead DNC supporters?

Since the opposite is also true, does that mean Biden supporters aren't DNC supporters but instead are progressives?

Since Warren supporters overwhelmingly have Harris as their second choice, does that mean Warren supporters aren't progressives?

I am seriously baffled that you don't see the double standard here, especially considering how often you accuse me of having a double standard.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

"Also notable is that Harris supporters want Biden to drop out the least of the big 5. Almost as if Harris supporters aren't progressives but instead DNC supporters."

Sure? That's one piece of the claim I made in this post. The other being harris's supporters relatively high desire to see warren drop out comp to sanders. Add it to harris's years of pro-police work, her low rate of grassroots donations...not gathering your voter army to get rid of biden doesn't make you an establishment shill. But kamala is an establishment candidate, and her supporters are thus establishment shills. Imo. So it goes the other way around.

A plurality of Sanders supporters have Biden as their second choice.

ya... almost everybody else ranks biden high too. Your own link notes this, biden is a strong candidate. So I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that.

I am seriously baffled that you don't see the double standard here, especially considering how often you accuse me of having a double standard.

my double standard here is, apparently, not criticizing bernie supporters enough, while vocalizing my distaste of harris for her AG record on crime, etc, and criticize you for your double standard which is making anti-bernie posts for "offenses" that every other candidate makes as well.

 

[MikeDawg]

if you can tell me how harris' foreign policy is more progressive than trumps we can talk, look at that one user with the terrible long name who voted for trump: he thought trump was more progressive than clinton, and the same image problem will plague any hawk candidate, such as harris who takes such neoliberal positions.

Not starring a war with Iran.

Not validating NK.

Not declaring Jerusalem as the capital of fucking Israel.

Not getting into ridiculous trade wars.

Not alienating our allies.

Not conducting drone strikes without an official declaration of war from Congress.

Not backing out of NATO.

Not conducting NSA surveillance over allies.

Not prosecuting or assasinating potential terrorists without due process.

Not locking migrant children in cages.

 

[Myzozoa]

she backed all of those things tho in various ways lol

she's a hawk on nk, supports the embassy move implicitly, loves drones, nsa, and 'terrorist' rhetoric, probably would be harsh on immigration too

"
In 2017, Harris gave a public address to AIPAC attendees. She said: "I believe Israel should never be a partisan issue, and as long as I'm a United States senator, I will do everything in my power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel's security and right to self-defense."[211] She has opposed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel.[212] She was a co-sponsor of a Senate resolution expressing objection to the UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned Israeli settlement building in the occupied Palestinian territories as a violation of international law.[213][214][212] At the AIPAC conference, she said that "the first resolution I co-sponsored as a United States senator was to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations".[213] She also supported a Senate resolution celebrating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.[215][216] In late 2017, she traveled to Israel, where she met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[213]

In July 2017, Harris voted in favor of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act that grouped together sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea.[148]

Harris voted in favor of a $675 billion defense budget bill for the 2019.[222] She said that North Korea is "one of the most serious security threats".[223]
217]"

 

[MikeDawg]

she backed all of those things tho in various ways lol

she's a hawk on nk, supports the embassy move implicitly, loves drones, nsa, and 'terrorist' rhetoric, probably would be harsh on immigration too

Source? Because as far as I know, all of those things I listed she has specifically spoken on.

And as AG she was the first one to tell all of her sheriff's not to comply with ICE. Immigration has been one of her main points.

Plus if your claim is that her policies, foreign or otherwise, will be similar to Trump, her congressional voting record is one example of strong evidence against that:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/kamala-d-harris/


Edit: I never said she's wholly opposed to Israel, I said she wouldn't have acknowledged Jerusalem and throwing a huge wrench in a 2 state solution.

Those second 2 things idk what you mean. We should be sanctioning all of those 3, but that's explicitly different than Trump outright egging them on.

And saying NK is a security threat is the opposite of validating them.

 

[Myzozoa]

having a slightly different take on trumpian neoliberal foreign policy is not really all that different buddy, it's just a different flavor. kamala harris loses no sleep over these positions, they're just stances to her, just like to you. If kamala harris wants ice to be just a little bit less bad and so she makes a show of opposing trump, that is like a really big deal to you, as tho ppl who want to abolish ice and get rid of the apparatus that has lead to refugees and asylum seekers being criminalized are 'opposing trump' just as much as harris, who wants to keep ice around and make it more efficient, and who knows how long that will take.

i sourced all the relevant claims in my post.

 

[MikeDawg]

having a slightly different take on trumpian neoliberal foreign policy is not really all that different buddy, it's just a different flavor. kamala harris loses no sleep over these positions, they're just stances to her, just like to you.

Those aren't slightly different. Trump's move re Israel was incredibly radical and irresponsible, and it's silly to think Kamala would do the same. There's a staunch difference between maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel and actively fucking up the situation.

If kamala harris wants ice to be just a little bit less bad and so she makes a show of opposing trump, that is like a really big deal to you, as tho ppl who want to abolish ice and get rid of the apparatus that has lead to refugees and asylum seekers being criminalized are 'opposing trump' just as much as harris, who wants to keep ice around and make it more efficient, and who knows how long that will take.

But she's been super strong on immigration and anti-ICE stances long before Trump during the Obama era. It's not like her stances just popped out of nowhere. That's such an unfair criticism, especially when she is the only one there with a proven record of action against oppressive ICE policies. That's so much more impressive than just consistently talking about it, both from a credibility perspective and from an efficacy perspective.

You asked how she's differ from Trump on foreign policy, and even if you disagree on the Israel point, all of the other things I listed are easily sourced positions.

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.politifact.com/californ...-harris-tries-rewrite-history-false-claim-sa/
"
Sen. Kamala Harris claimed on a recent podcast that turning over arrested undocumented youth to immigration officials was "an unintended consequence" of a 2008 San Francisco policy she supported.

That, in fact, was the very purpose of the policy. It was specifically designed by then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to allow local police to report arrested undocumented youth to ICE, according to news reports and those who opposed the policy. Previously, the city did not refer arrested undocumented youth to ICE.

Harris also stated she "did not support that consequence of the policy," which is also dubious given past news articles that cite her support for Newsom’s change. "

my only addition here is to bold 2008, remind u that gavin newsome is the current governor of ca and endorses harris, but everything is fine in the very progressive harris camp im sure

 

[MikeDawg]

https://www.politifact.com/californ...-harris-tries-rewrite-history-false-claim-sa/
"
Sen. Kamala Harris claimed on a recent podcast that turning over arrested undocumented youth to immigration officials was "an unintended consequence" of a 2008 San Francisco policy she supported.

That, in fact, was the very purpose of the policy. It was specifically designed by then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to allow local police to report arrested undocumented youth to ICE, according to news reports and those who opposed the policy. Previously, the city did not refer arrested undocumented youth to ICE.

Harris also stated she "did not support that consequence of the policy," which is also dubious given past news articles that cite her support for Newsom’s change. "

my only addition here is to bold 2008, remind u that gavin newsome is the current governor of ca and endorses harris, but everything is fine in the very progressive harris camp im sure

Well, the problem is that you're talking about something that was done by the mayor that had practically nothing to do with Kamala. You could do that to incriminate literally any candidate.

When Kamala had power as AG, she told every sheriff in the state not to cooperate with ICE. Just like people talk a lot about keeping innocent people in jail and not going after Mnuchin without understanding that her power was limited in both of those cases. Then as a senator with legislative power, she wrote bills to address both of those issues (alleviating overworked public defenders and allowing AGs to subpoena banks).

It's like when DSA Twitter goes after Warren for being a Republican once, but once she actually had legislative power she went progressive and fixed injustices she saw (e.g. cfpb)

 

[Myzozoa]

no, she told them they didn't have to cooperate, not that they shouldn't, hence how tons of sheriffs did indeed cooperate. im tired of fact checking for you, have a nice day.

 

[Shrug]

mike why are you so concerned with painting your candidate as a criminal justice reformer in defiance of all available evidence? just say “I don’t really care about her failures as seen by more radical critics of the criminal justice system” and take solace in the fact that she was, indeed, better than some (many or most, perhaps) law enforcement officials in the country. the basis of your support is personal or identitarian, yea? Just ride with that, who care

 

[Myzozoa]

i remember a few days ago my partner and i were discussing sanders picking aoc as his running m8 and i was like 'nah girl the vp is a powerless (this is true) position, dont take her out of congress', but now i think if he doesn't at least try to pick her ppl like mikedawg are gonna give themselves the bumper sticker feminist pass for neoliberal women like kamala harris.

 

[DetroitLolcat]

To any liberals confused as to why Trump and Pelosi are constantly defending one another from attacks by AOC, Ilhan Omar, etc: it's the same reason Meghan McCain and Chelsea Clinton defended each other when Clinton implied Omar wasn't a real American. Wealthy capitalists understand class solidarity, it's time the rest of us did too.

 

[fanyfan]

i remember a few days ago my partner and i were discussing sanders picking aoc as his running m8 and i was like 'nah girl the vp is a powerless (this is true) position, dont take her out of congress', but now i think if he doesn't at least try to pick her ppl like mikedawg are gonna give themselves the bumper sticker feminist pass for neoliberal women like kamala harris.

Unfortunately AOC is too young so he can’t do it yet rip. That would be an amazing ticket tho

 

[ghost]

Here's the critical series of questions: Will AOC endorse Bernie? If she really holds off until the NY primary like she's suggested, that would feel like a betrayal given how late in the game it would be. If she does pull the trigger (and I have some faith in this considering the hot streak of good positions she's taken lately), the reckoning some professional liberals will have will be tremendous. AOC has already turned a lot of those people on Pelosi, and god bless her for it, but bring everybody on the Bernie bus would be a next-level act of art.

 

[TheValkyries]

AOC shouldn’t endorse anyone.

 

[MikeDawg]

This is trashy.

This is trashier.

Bernie really needs a new public relations team. His 2016 staff was so much better.

 

[ghost]

This is trashy.

View attachment 186393

This is trashier.

View attachment 186394

Bernie really needs a new public relations team. His 2016 staff was so much better.

I don't understand. Bernie is the only major D candidate boosting Omar like this with his fundraising apparatus and Bidencare really will kill people, just like Obamacare does. What's the dispute?

 

[MikeDawg]

I don't understand. Bernie is the only major D candidate boosting Omar like this with his fundraising apparatus

It would have felt much more sincere if he didn't take half the funds for himself.

Bidencare really will kill people, just like Obamacare does. What's the dispute?

TIL expanding Medicare coverage to millions and launching a public option is 42x worse than the worst terrorist attack in US history.