Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

Who are your favorite candidates?

  • Kamala Harris

    Votes: 43 8.0%

  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 99 18.4%

  • Julián Castro

    Votes: 16 3.0%

  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 51 9.5%

  • Kirsten Gillibrand

    Votes: 7 1.3%

  • John Delaney

    Votes: 9 1.7%

  • Tulsi Gabbard

    Votes: 63 11.7%

  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 338 62.9%

  • Amy Klobuchar

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 45 8.4%

  • Andrew Yang

    Votes: 112 20.9%

  • Cory Booker

    Votes: 7 1.3%

  • Marianne Williamson

    Votes: 19 3.5%

  • Mike Bloomberg

    Votes: 12 2.2%
  • Total voters
    537
billymills said:
I really like this answer.

My top priority in this election is anti-corruption (which includes electoral reform, as I see it). My biggest issue with the top moderates is their current interpretation of the playing field as it stands. Buttigieg and Biden aimlessly, hopelessly, looking for cross-partisan appeal. Klobuchar is only marginally better on this front, primarily focusing on her electability in red areas. The only moderate I've really seen advocate for prosecuting corruption in the Trump Administration is Harris, who is now out.

The remaining candidate who is strongest on this front is unequivocally Warren, with Steyer and Bernie taking rather aggressive positions as well.
If you think this is an important issue, I don't know how you can stand behind the moderates that we have. Buttigieg and Biden can not try to appeal to Trump voters will also being open to prosecuting Trump administration officials. Klobuchar, as a former prosecutor, may have a better hand here, but I haven't seen any aggression from her.
Click to expand...

Election reform was HR-1, a done deal as soon as the Senate and POTUS change hands.

My preferred candidate ideologically is Senator Warren. Yes, she is the candidate most vocal about prosecuting Trump. Unfortunately, I just don’t think her outcome vs Trump would be any different than Clinton. Grabbing power from Trump and McConnell is the most important issue for me this cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcr
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out.html

:(

It was encouraging to see another member of a minority ethnicity stand up and do a great job - I hope he doesn't take this loss too hard and tries again in the future. It's my hope that as the US becomes more diverse in its population (we are expected to be a minority majority soon), that the pool of people aiming to represent the country also becomes more diverse.

rip to yangang 2020, it was a fun time :(
 
I appreciate you saying what your biggest goal this election is RaikouLover as it outs into perspective what people want out of this election.

Our goals do not align as I think some of Trump criticism is manufactured or overblown and so I do not see it as immensely pertinent to rid the office of him (it is still a goal but just not the top list). To me, what I want most out of this election is radical reform, a shift away from dark money backed candidates. Because of this my preferred candidate is someone that I think is candid, whos interests are certainly their own without backing from lobbyist groups. I appreciate your sentiment because it allows people to understand your positions better and that is something I can respect.

I do not agree that you think I “want to win arguments but not elections.” I do not think on the lines of “vote blue no matter who” as I do not like partisan thinking, I think it serves to divide the country politically and fracture public sentiment, rather I prefer a candidate who is honest in their convictions. For this reason my main preferences this cycle have been Sanders, Williamson, Warren, Yang, and Steyer

I do think and want to believe that an actual political “revolution” (i use this term loosely to refer to historic youth turnout and involvement for progressive ideals and a rejection of modern establishment) would occur under a Sanders presidency, because of this I do not see a concern for him being unable to secure a supportive Senate and House. I think this is where we disagree, where you see his radicalism as something to spurn conservative / moderate voters whereas I see it as something to inspire the younger waves of voters. I think it inspires voters due to personal experience amongst friends and acquaintances, but perhaps that is simply because of where I live (Richmond). Perhaps this is a result of a cult of personality, but I would like to believe it is a result of hope for the future. I might disagree with both you and Mikedawg on minor things but I do appreciate how you have largely stuck to facts and explaining yourself rather than devolving to personal attacks and vindictiveness like the co-conspirator. Thank you for this, I appreciate your posts for showing another side
 
tcr said:
I appreciate you saying what your biggest goal this election is RaikouLover as it outs into perspective what people want out of this election.

Our goals do not align as I think some of Trump criticism is manufactured or overblown and so I do not see it as immensely pertinent to rid the office of him (it is still a goal but just not the top list). To me, what I want most out of this election is radical reform, a shift away from dark money backed candidates. Because of this my preferred candidate is someone that I think is candid, whos interests are certainly their own without backing from lobbyist groups. I appreciate your sentiment because it allows people to understand your positions better and that is something I can respect.

I do not agree that you think I “want to win arguments but not elections.” I do not think on the lines of “vote blue no matter who” as I do not like partisan thinking, I think it serves to divide the country politically and fracture public sentiment, rather I prefer a candidate who is honest in their convictions. For this reason my main preferences this cycle have been Sanders, Williamson, Warren, Yang, and Steyer

I do think and want to believe that an actual political “revolution” (i use this term loosely to refer to historic youth turnout and involvement for progressive ideals and a rejection of modern establishment) would occur under a Sanders presidency, because of this I do not see a concern for him being unable to secure a supportive Senate and House. I think this is where we disagree, where you see his radicalism as something to spurn conservative / moderate voters whereas I see it as something to inspire the younger waves of voters. I think it inspires voters due to personal experience amongst friends and acquaintances, but perhaps that is simply because of where I live (Richmond). Perhaps this is a result of a cult of personality, but I would like to believe it is a result of hope for the future. I might disagree with both you and Mikedawg on minor things but I do appreciate how you have largely stuck to facts and explaining yourself rather than devolving to personal attacks and vindictiveness like the co-conspirator. Thank you for this, I appreciate your posts for showing another side
Click to expand...

You’re welcome, and same. The dialogue is appreciated.

I think the Trump-McConnell-Barr dynamic is too grave a threat to American democracy to make “big structural change” the focal point this cycle. If the Republican candidate were statesmen who still respect institutions, such as Kaisich or Mitt Romney, I’d be much less jittery about a progressive campaign on big change. I truly think we are on the precipice of constitutional monarchy if that power dynamic isn’t changed in November.
 
Wigglytuff said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out.html

:(

It was encouraging to see another member of a minority ethnicity stand up and do a great job - I hope he doesn't take this loss too hard and tries again in the future. It's my hope that as the US becomes more diverse in its population (we are expected to be a minority majority soon), that the pool of people aiming to represent the country also becomes more diverse.

rip to yangang 2020, it was a fun time :(
Click to expand...

One of the good ones.


No matter who wins, no matter what solutions are your cup of tea, GDP is still a sucky sucky metric for measuring the economy, and I hope whoever wins picks this man up to design its replacement because I trust no one to be as passionate or honest at holistically measuring how shitty things are.
 
It's getting painful to watch Elizabeth Warren. 4th in New Hampshire, not even breaking 10%. Romney dropped out of the 2008 primary after taking 2nd in NH. No Massachusetts elected official has done so badly in NH.

And it's only going to get more humiliating from here out-- it's funny to watch Elizabeth Warren supporters on Twitter cheer for moving on to the more diverse states when her support there is ka-put and she faired worse than Pete Buttegieg in getting PoC support in the first 2 states-- Bernie absolutely dominating.

People have been calling for her to drop out and endorse Bernie but honestly at this point Bernie doesn't need it-- the Progressive wing is coalescing around him rapidly anyway, was after her personal attack on him and will do so even more rapidly now that he is the clear frontrunner. And with those shifts of alliance, her $$ is rapidly drying up too since she's trying to do Bernie-style fundraising in Bernie's progressive America. Endorsing Bernie may be a humiliation to her, but NOT dropping out and endorsing him is ALSO a humiliation to her progressive creds, which were already suspect for not endorsing him in 2016.

This is not about Bernie anymore-- it's about whether Warren picks the path of less humiliation, or utter humiliation. Saving enough face to act like she's part of the popular left movement going forward, or utterly destroying her own career going forward. Either way, sad to watch. Real sad.
 
Chou Toshio said:
It's getting painful to watch Elizabeth Warren. 4th in New Hampshire, not even breaking 10%. Romney dropped out of the 2008 primary after taking 2nd in NH. No Massachusetts elected official has done so badly in NH.

And it's only going to get more humiliating from here out-- it's funny to watch Elizabeth Warren supporters on Twitter cheer for moving on to the more diverse states when her support there is ka-put and she faired worse than Pete Buttegieg in getting PoC support in the first 2 states-- Bernie absolutely dominating.

People have been calling for her to drop out and endorse Bernie but honestly at this point Bernie doesn't need it-- the Progressive wing is coalescing around him rapidly anyway, was after her personal attack on him and will do so even more rapidly now that he is the clear frontrunner. And with those shifts of alliance, her $$ is rapidly drying up too since she's trying to do Bernie-style fundraising in Bernie's progressive America. Endorsing Bernie may be a humiliation to her, but NOT dropping out and endorsing him is ALSO a humiliation to her progressive creds, which were already suspect for not endorsing him in 2016.

This is not about Bernie anymore-- it's about whether Warren picks the path of less humiliation, or utter humiliation. Saving enough face to act like she's part of the popular left movement going forward, or utterly destroying her own career going forward. Either way, sad to watch. Real sad.
Click to expand...
Yeah she really blew it.
Her ground game in Iowa was so impressive and yet she got third. Then New Hampshire, which was supposed to be her best early state, she's not even viable? I don't think there's a path to the nomination for her anymore.
Especially since Nevada has a more diverse populous and her polling among voters of color in New Hampshire was low. Specifically with latinos it was... 3%. That's less than Yang. That's less than Gabbard. A really big defeat.
These past few weeks have been terrible for her campaign. In fact, ever since she equivocated on Medicare for All she's been doing pretty bad. And then whole Bernie as a sexist narrative really backfired on her.
I saw an interview earlier that teased her campaign would be going after Sanders but is he really going to lose support to her? Seems like an unwise decision at this point.
If she drops out she should endorse Sanders 100%. She took a lot of heat for not doing so in 2016 and in the current pool of candidates she can't really endorse anyone else without looking like a hypocrite except maaaaybe Amy Klobuchar but even then it'd be bizarre and she'd def lose progressive cred. Idk if it's because she's been hanging around with Hillary people lately or because her political instincts just suck but she really shot herself in the foot with this one. Ya hate to see it. :/
 
Serious question for the Doomers itc: how would a second Trump term (presumably with a Democratic House) damage free and fair elections, that he wouldn't have already tried in his first two years, with a fully Republican congress? Sure 2020 means redistricting, but the Republicans won't be able to Gerrymander any state they didn't already in 2010, and anyway the presidential election has no bearing on that. The only other "difference" between a first and second term is the threat of the 22nd amendment, but Trump's been planning his presidential campaign for like two decades now. I think if he wanted to bypass the 22nd amendment, he would have already had a plan in motion. I don't think someone who planned to become dictator for life would risk it all on a second free and fair election before seizing ultimate power.

As I can see it, our options here are "fair elections are already dead" or "fair elections will not die" and both have a good amount of truth to them. If you believe the former I can see why it would be politically expedient to publicly say "fair elections WILL DIE if trump is reelected" because that's far more motivating. Unless I'm missing something though, I don't think we need to fear a second Trump term causing the end of the United States as we know it.
 
OK cool Myzozoa so we both agree that to quote myself three posts ago, there is "a good amount of truth to" the statement "'free and fair elections are already dead.'"
 
I've been watching this thread for a while, but I have free time rn so I'm just going to post some of my concerns I have for the Democratic field.

Bernie is by far my favorite candidate, agree with a solid 90% of everything he's saying (I'm not entirely convinced that Medicare for all in a country such as America, a country without any of the citizen health measures European countries have, wouldn't turn into a free ride for people with health problems which they got from their own poor choices at the expense of everyone else, along with it how on earth it wouldn't get dismantled the moment republicans get the opportunity. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong I'd love to be). His fight for LGBT rights since he got into office, antiwar stances, and fair taxation among other reasons have pretty much won me over. However, I'm pretty damn concerned that he would get gutted in a general against Trump, who's in the strongest position he's ever been, who would brand him as a far-left nutjob and play up every controversy like his trips to the soviet union. A Bernie loss in the general would discredit not only him but everything he stands for as a candidate and would push the democratic party to the right for at least a decade, probably more, which makes me nervous to wholeheartedly support him. (and if someone in response with a link to a youtube video that says nothing but "raising the grassroots" without describing the specifics and referencing the polls that sure worked great for Hillary I will bash my head against a brick wall)

Warren is my second choice in an ideal world but her electability is worse than sanders and her campaign is essentially dead at this point so I don't feel like elaborating

Klobuchar is a mixed bag for me. I agree with a lot of what she has to say, disagree with a good chunk of what she has to say (or lack thereof when it comes to drug prices.) I could see her doing decently against trump so I wouldn't be mad at her getting the nomination, as unlikely it may be. also abusing staff members is a pretty damn big flaw that knocks her down quite a bit in my eyes.

Buttigieg, I dislike quite a bit, all he does is quote campaign slogans and has some glorious hot takes in raising the already absurd defense budget, and not giving felons voting rights in prison. I could see him winning against trump so I wouldn't be entirely disappointed in him winning, although I still would. He'd fare worse than Klobuchar would, however, and he could be branded as a DNC insider and corrupt after the Iowa fiasco and in all honesty that could be accurate.

Biden, I can ironically support if only to go full accelerationist to discredit the rightward wing of the democrats, as he'd get gutted by trump as he's Hillary 2.0 with less charisma somehow, scandals and all. He isn't going to be the nominee so it doesn't matter in the end.

Bloomberg is a republican billionaire who's trying to buy the nomination and if you support him for any reason other than him having a decent matchup against trump I don't have all that much respect for you in all honesty.

So yeah overall I'm getting increasingly nervous about the field, and I don't see a great candidate that would have a positive matchup against trump that I wouldn't despise. Feel free to debunk me I'd love to learn I'm wrong on something.
 
Last edited:
With Yang dropping, and Bernie inevitable gaining all of his voters it looks like Buttigieg no longer has a real chance imo

Trump is stomping every single state in the republican primaries, so if it does come down to Trump vs Bernie, and we get some swing voters into the mix that are no longer supporting Trump we might have a chance, but with the electoral college likely on the president's side we really need the youth to show up and vote, which Bernie is really trying to appeal to from what it seems - and succeeding... I'm not an optimist by nature, but I think theres hope yet.
 
Stratos said:
Serious question for the Doomers itc: how would a second Trump term (presumably with a Democratic House) damage free and fair elections, that he wouldn't have already tried in his first two years, with a fully Republican congress?
Click to expand...

Trump is the kind of person who is going to save some of his best cards for when he feels pressured. If he can "legitimately" win a second election, he'll want to do so for the sake of his ego. But he cannot win a third election, and he's already stated that he wants to continue being president after his second term, so yes, we're going to see abuses of power that dwarf those so far and now we know that he's been given a blank check to do them. What worries me is what he's doing to do if he loses.
 
vonFiedler said:
Trump is the kind of person who is going to save some of his best cards for when he feels pressured. If he can "legitimately" win a second election, he'll want to do so for the sake of his ego. But he cannot win a third election, and he's already stated that he wants to continue being president after his second term, so yes, we're going to see abuses of power that dwarf those so far and now we know that he's been given a blank check to do them. What worries me is what he's doing to do if he loses.
Click to expand...

I think this is overestimating Trump by a lot. Trump is not an expert tactician nor does he have the self control to execute such a strategy. His abuses of power are because he fully lacks impulse control and had surrounded himself with toadies that would not dare challenge him.

Trumps desire to win is more about staying out of prison than anything else. As we speak he’s trying to strong arm New York State into dropping charges against him by holding hostage Global Entry and the Gateway Amtrak Tunnel funding.

All of Trump’s actions point to an incompetent, fraudulent, deeply indebted man desperate to hold onto his lifestyle. He initially didn’t want the Presidency; now it’s his only hope.
 
@yanggang

I predict the numbers look more like Twitter poll... 40% become non-voters, 30% go to Trump, 25% go to Bernie, some 5% stick with Tulsi before going to Bernie. Only a portion of the Democratic 30% is Blue no Matter Who.
 
Are there any Bernie supporters out there who would just abandon Bernie if he supported UBI? Personally, I think a lot of progressives would be for it, so long as we paid for it via progressive taxes and made it all-inclusive.

Now I am actually massively for the Jobs Guarantee— we got a ton of work to do and do think a progressive, democratically controlled government needs to be the engine that plows us forward. Building infrastructure, carpeting the country with internet, universal childcare, eliminating health and food deserts, massively increasing basic scientific research. There is a ton of work that needs to be done, and it’s all un-profitable investment into the future productivity of the country, that frankly UBI does zilch for. And we need this economic activity to be sucking up so much human resource and talent, and pushing the envelope on wages and benefits so aggressively that the private sector also massively ponies up— FJG in the hands of progressive leaders is like minimum wage on steroids and will do fantastic things in my book.

In his heart of hearts, and looking at his MMT-believing economics director, I bet Bernie would be willing to say “Fuck it, this whole deficit thing is a joke anyway— sovereign countries that print their own money and have the biggest army in the world cannot go bankrupt. I don’t actually fucking care so let’s print the money and make it rain baby!!!!!!”

But politically, outward-facing, Bernie’s always couched all his plans in finding taxes to pay for stuff. In really, it doesn’t actually fucking matter, but in political practice it’s essential b/c the average American is just not going to be able to comprehend the Federal Budget as being any different from being like their own wallet without thinking about how your wallet would be different if you printed your own cash and had more guns than any of your foreign debtors.
So the question is if his team is smart enough and resourceful enough to come up with their own progressive version of UBI that would be big enough for Yang to be satisfied with, that could also live alongside Bernie’s GND/FJG. So far the team has been very good at putting together unique policy packages from their army of staff/volunteers— I personally hope they are on it, and I hope they show us something good.
 
Chou Toshio said:
Are there any Bernie supporters out there who would just abandon Bernie if he supported UBI? Personally, I think a lot of progressives would be for it, so long as we paid for it via progressive taxes and made it all-inclusive.

Now I am actually massively for the Jobs Guarantee— we got a ton of work to do and do think a progressive, democratically controlled government needs to be the engine that plows us forward. Building infrastructure, carpeting the country with internet, universal childcare, eliminating health and food deserts, massively increasing basic scientific research. There is a ton of work that needs to be done, and it’s all un-profitable investment into the future productivity of the country, that frankly UBI does zilch for. And we need this economic activity to be sucking up so much human resource and talent, and pushing the envelope on wages and benefits so aggressively that the private sector also massively ponies up— FJG in the hands of progressive leaders is like minimum wage on steroids and will do fantastic things in my book.

In his heart of hearts, and looking at his MMT-believing economics director, I bet Bernie would be willing to say “Fuck it, this whole deficit thing is a joke anyway— sovereign countries that print their own money and have the biggest army in the world cannot go bankrupt. I don’t actually fucking care so let’s print the money and make it rain baby!!!!!!”

But politically, outward-facing, Bernie’s always couched all his plans in finding taxes to pay for stuff. In really, it doesn’t actually fucking matter, but in political practice it’s essential b/c the average American is just not going to be able to comprehend the Federal Budget as being any different from being like their own wallet without thinking about how your wallet would be different if you printed your own cash and had more guns than any of your foreign debtors.
So the question is if his team is smart enough and resourceful enough to come up with their own progressive version of UBI that would be big enough for Yang to be satisfied with, that could also live alongside Bernie’s GND/FJG. So far the team has been very good at putting together unique policy packages from their army of staff/volunteers— I personally hope they are on it, and I hope they show us something good.
Click to expand...

I’m not a hard core Bernie supporter but I support jobs guarantee and UBI. We already have UBI in Alaska. I believe Richard Nixon was in favor of it way back when.

The problem with MMT is that politics is about framing things around morality. The government is a family and its citizens are children. It’s hard to convert the “government is the monopoly banker” into that framing. If President Sanders decides to say fuck it and spend, the average American will unfortunately equate that to a father charging luxuries to his credit card rather than paying the mortgage. Progressives have to find a way to sell the practicality of these ideas to the masses.
 
yang f-ed the UBI discourse by being a neoliberal that just wanted to cut all social safety net programs and instead give 1000$ a month to ppl which is chump change in the face of the cost of rent, childcare, healthcare and other benefits ppl were receiving. At that point it is just an economic stimulus for corporations as for 1000/month a lot of ppl are gonna use that on debt and consumer goods instead of healthcare and rent. It isn't anything at all after childcare costs, maybe have 100$ leftover after that if ur lucky

UBI being used as a distraction is now something to be cognisant of when u see ppl proposing it instead of proposing a child care, health care and housing plan
 
Myzozoa said:
yang f-ed the UBI discourse by being a neoliberal that just wanted to cut all social safety net programs and instead give 1000$ a month to ppl which is chump change in the face of the cost of rent, childcare, healthcare and other benefits ppl were receiving. At that point it is just an economic stimulus for corporations as for 1000/month a lot of ppl are gonna use that on debt and consumer goods instead of healthcare and rent. It isn't anything at all after childcare costs, maybe have 100$ leftover after that if ur lucky

UBI being used as a distraction is now something to be cognisant of when u see ppl proposing it instead of proposing a child care, health care and housing plan
Click to expand...

Fundamentally untrue, Yang said you could pick to continue with your current programs OR get $1000 a month. What "f-ed" Yang was that the media didn't give him the coverage he deserved.

UBI is a catch all. Some people might have issues with child care but not health care. UBI gives the power to the people and allows them to decide how to spend their money.

If you have evidence as to why UBI would not be an effective system vs. a federal jobs guarantee or something, please let me know.
 
Energy said:
Fundamentally untrue, Yang said you could pick to continue with your current programs OR get $1000 a month. What "f-ed" Yang was that the media didn't give him the coverage he deserved.

UBI is a catch all. Some people might have issues with child care but not health care. UBI gives the power to the people and allows them to decide how to spend their money.

If you have evidence as to why UBI would not be an effective system vs. a federal jobs guarantee or something, please let me know.
Click to expand...
yah you didnt read the rest of my post, the point is he wanted to cut back on all those other programs or continue to let their costs rise through inaction and then give ppl 1000$ a month instead. ofc u can continue w your other programs but if he cuts fudning for medicare and gives you 1000/month u still feel that. i never said you couldn't continue paying private insurance or paying for your shit as you choose under his plan, I said he plans to cut funding for the social safety net and that 1000$/month is irrelevant in the face of that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top