THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
Howard (((Schultz)))
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
He’s running as a third party candidate to attempt to prevent moderates who dislike trump from voting for the democratic nominee because he’s afraid that the democratic nominee will raise his taxes. Being a billionaire does not qualify someone to be president (and running as an outsider with business acumen in opposition to trump is incredibly stupid). The man is running as a scheme to keep his taxes low while pretending to be morally superior to his opponents (as a good enlightened centerist should), while also pimping out his shitty book no one cares about. He has an equal or worse chance of being president than Tulsi Gabbard or Pete Buttigieg given every American barring the most unpragmatic ideologues understand that third party candidates have no shot (shoutouts EC and first past the post), yet the media acts like he’s a huge contender cause he’s wealthy. I don’t think we should add to the delusion.
*note I don’t think he will be successful as a spoiler candidate and will pull evenly from both voter pools
THE_IRON_...KENYAN?
Banned deucer.
I dont know how we ended up parroting nazi race science and getting the calipers out to figure out if bernie is white or not but here we are lmao
I live in DC and am surrounded by >insiders< including staffers to some pretty powerful members of congress. What is seen as both the likely choice and the most preferred choice here is Harris. Side note: most of the people I am referencing here are white gay men. I can only imagine how much support she must have among black and women voters, who form a massive part of the democratic caucus, and whose past support resulted in both Obama and Clinton getting the nomination. I don't see that trend changing. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on her.
She's not my choice though. That's partly because at this point I'm inclined to vote not for whomever is necessarily my favorite (which I'm not sure about at this point), but rather for the person I am most confident would beat Trump, which - aside from the age problem - would be Biden.
Out of the candidates who have declared so far, none have given me the sense of zero chance of losing. Each of them have something that is almost too easy to target and I don't trust swing voters in the slightest.
Since Biden is probably too old, I'd have to say my top choices at the moment would be Sherrod Brown or Amy Klobuchar if either would enter the fray. Someone with their national experience, lack of baggage (afaik), and midwestern appeal I think would be the most guaranteed to win.
She's not my choice though. That's partly because at this point I'm inclined to vote not for whomever is necessarily my favorite (which I'm not sure about at this point), but rather for the person I am most confident would beat Trump, which - aside from the age problem - would be Biden.
Out of the candidates who have declared so far, none have given me the sense of zero chance of losing. Each of them have something that is almost too easy to target and I don't trust swing voters in the slightest.
Since Biden is probably too old, I'd have to say my top choices at the moment would be Sherrod Brown or Amy Klobuchar if either would enter the fray. Someone with their national experience, lack of baggage (afaik), and midwestern appeal I think would be the most guaranteed to win.
Ya, Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar would be the strongest general election candidates. Especially Klobuchar.
Neither will make much headway in the primary, however.
I'm a socialist, and I believe that most of America's problems can be attributed - directly or indirectly - to corporate greed and the degradation of labor power. As such, I'd like to see a 2020 nominee that's directly critical of capitalism, or at the very least will bring about social democratic reforms such as universal health care, a jobs guarantee, and massive action towards combating climate change. It's pretty obvious who on that list I support.
The number one issue I care about is combating climate change. It's the foremost issue that's an existential threat to our nation's survival and will require Manhattan Project-style mobilization of our economy to combat. Guaranteeing a carbon-reducing job to every American is a good start, as is either carbon taxation or a cap-and-trade system so long as the cap dwindles to zero by 2050, as the world is going to have to kick carbon dioxide entirely by 2050 to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. In 2018 alone, we saw 3000 Americans slaughtered in Puerto Rico, a wildfire wipe a town of 20,000 people off the map (obviously most were displaced, not killed), and far, far worse around the world. This ties to foreign policy, as well. We need stronger enforcement of the Paris agreement and a president whose trade policy incentivizes other nations to rapidly decarbonize. Candidates who take millions from fossil fuel interests should not be representing the Democrats.
I believe that health care is a human right. Bernie's Medicare for All bill is the best healthcare legislation available right now. Supporting it should be a litmus test for support in 2020, but a candidate should be willing to enact it by any means necessary. That means committing to eliminating the Senate filibuster (how is that still a thing?) if it's the difference between passing M4A or not. Fuck bipartisanship, I want health insurance. Candidates who take money from big pharma/big insurance (Booker), specifically deny healthcare to marginalized groups (Harris), or whine about "how can we afford this while I sign off on trillion-dollar defense bills" (Biden, Sherrod Brown, Bloomberg) should not be our nominee.
On foreign policy, we shouldn't be at the beck and call of corporate interests. Anyone who supported the Iraq War has zero credibility on foreign policy and should be disqualified from the nomination. The Iraq War was fought on false pretenses and resulted in the slaughter of over one million Iraqis and tens of thousands of American citizens. The money spent on it could have funded healthcare or college for every American. Foreign intervention in places like Venezuela for "humanitarian" purposes (If our foreign policy were humanitarian, why are we so friendly with Saudi Arabia?) is unacceptable.
Finally, we need to combat systemic racism. That means connecting communities of color with high-quality education, fixing our criminal justice system, and cracking down on police brutality. While a lot of that has to be done at the state and local level, we need a president that will end the use of private prisons at the federal level and regulate them (hopefully out of existence) at the state level. That means outlawing for-profit charter schools and tightly regulating (ideally abolishing) not-for-profit charters as well. Public funds should go to public education. A candidate should be able to proudly say that black lives matter, outlaw contracts for military equipment between the defense department and police departments, and have the Justice Department crack down on for-profit policing across the country.
You'll notice I didn't mention "beating Trump" in that rant. That's for two reasons - the first is that I think anyone will beat Trump. He got extremely lucky running against a candidate who ran a terrible campaign in 2016. And secondly, we need to defeat the systemic forces that let Trump come to power in the first place. Beating Trump is meaningless if we still have a president who funnels taxpayer money to Wall Street, uses chemical weapons on migrants at the border, and drone bombs Yemeni civilians - three things Obama did that set the stage for Trump. Bernie's my first choice, Warren's my second, and Gillibrand is third. And the fact that the second-best candidate in this race is someone who spent seventy years LARPing a Native American is pretty damning.
Also Tulsi Gabbard is a grifter pretending to be an anti-war progressive to fool Bernie voters.
The number one issue I care about is combating climate change. It's the foremost issue that's an existential threat to our nation's survival and will require Manhattan Project-style mobilization of our economy to combat. Guaranteeing a carbon-reducing job to every American is a good start, as is either carbon taxation or a cap-and-trade system so long as the cap dwindles to zero by 2050, as the world is going to have to kick carbon dioxide entirely by 2050 to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. In 2018 alone, we saw 3000 Americans slaughtered in Puerto Rico, a wildfire wipe a town of 20,000 people off the map (obviously most were displaced, not killed), and far, far worse around the world. This ties to foreign policy, as well. We need stronger enforcement of the Paris agreement and a president whose trade policy incentivizes other nations to rapidly decarbonize. Candidates who take millions from fossil fuel interests should not be representing the Democrats.
I believe that health care is a human right. Bernie's Medicare for All bill is the best healthcare legislation available right now. Supporting it should be a litmus test for support in 2020, but a candidate should be willing to enact it by any means necessary. That means committing to eliminating the Senate filibuster (how is that still a thing?) if it's the difference between passing M4A or not. Fuck bipartisanship, I want health insurance. Candidates who take money from big pharma/big insurance (Booker), specifically deny healthcare to marginalized groups (Harris), or whine about "how can we afford this while I sign off on trillion-dollar defense bills" (Biden, Sherrod Brown, Bloomberg) should not be our nominee.
On foreign policy, we shouldn't be at the beck and call of corporate interests. Anyone who supported the Iraq War has zero credibility on foreign policy and should be disqualified from the nomination. The Iraq War was fought on false pretenses and resulted in the slaughter of over one million Iraqis and tens of thousands of American citizens. The money spent on it could have funded healthcare or college for every American. Foreign intervention in places like Venezuela for "humanitarian" purposes (If our foreign policy were humanitarian, why are we so friendly with Saudi Arabia?) is unacceptable.
Finally, we need to combat systemic racism. That means connecting communities of color with high-quality education, fixing our criminal justice system, and cracking down on police brutality. While a lot of that has to be done at the state and local level, we need a president that will end the use of private prisons at the federal level and regulate them (hopefully out of existence) at the state level. That means outlawing for-profit charter schools and tightly regulating (ideally abolishing) not-for-profit charters as well. Public funds should go to public education. A candidate should be able to proudly say that black lives matter, outlaw contracts for military equipment between the defense department and police departments, and have the Justice Department crack down on for-profit policing across the country.
You'll notice I didn't mention "beating Trump" in that rant. That's for two reasons - the first is that I think anyone will beat Trump. He got extremely lucky running against a candidate who ran a terrible campaign in 2016. And secondly, we need to defeat the systemic forces that let Trump come to power in the first place. Beating Trump is meaningless if we still have a president who funnels taxpayer money to Wall Street, uses chemical weapons on migrants at the border, and drone bombs Yemeni civilians - three things Obama did that set the stage for Trump. Bernie's my first choice, Warren's my second, and Gillibrand is third. And the fact that the second-best candidate in this race is someone who spent seventy years LARPing a Native American is pretty damning.
Also Tulsi Gabbard is a grifter pretending to be an anti-war progressive to fool Bernie voters.
Last edited:
Since I am the type of guy who prefers to be blunt when the situation calls for it, let me ask a simple question: Who gives a fuck?
I really don't understand how age alone should ever disqualify someone from the presidency. It's something that came up a lot in 2016 to discredit Bernie Sanders (even though both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are just a little bit younger), and now more recently Joe Biden (though I suspect the real reason is to once again to dismiss Sanders). In this context at least, age really is just a number and every candidate should be evaluated on a case by case basis. By all accounts, Sanders is a pretty healthy guy for his age, and Biden doesn't particularly strike me as being senile. And they aren't even 80 years old yet. My grandfather is still alive and almost 100 years old, and although he is blind and losing his hearing he is still mentally as sharp as ever. In academia it's not uncommon for faculty members to not retire until they are in their 80's not because they can't afford to do it sooner but because they are still intellectually curious even in old age. Are people like you seriously that worried that they might die in office? So fucking what -- that's what vice presidents are there for.
This whole age issue is nothing but nonsensical concern trolling at best. I would never ever support Biden personally but (and I can't believe I have to emphasize this again) this would be on a basis of his centrist policy positions, not because of his age. He has also recently made some rather condescending remarks about millennials which I think could come back to bite him in both the primary and general election. At least Clinton paid some lip service to us.
This comment greatly pains me because I strongly agreed with every single thing you said until this statement. Since I also consider myself to be an anti-war progressive, the hatred that Gabbard is getting is something I find very disconcerting with respect to the future of this country. I mean, Sanders is still my first choice and has a much better history on social issues especially, but calling her a grifter? Really? After rising to the position of vice-chair of the DNC, she decided to step down in order to support Sanders in 2016. And ever since, her party has constantly smeared her due to disagreeing with their pro-war, pro-intervention consensus. On top of that, she has pledged to stop taking PAC money which automatically makes her much more trustworthy than every other candidate on this list besides Sanders. These are actions which take a lot of courage in this political climate.
I do have my own reservations about her as a candidate, but being the most anti-war candidate on the left is a major plus. A lot of people get enthralled by the progressive domestic policies Sanders is speaking of, but they also fail to see the relationship between foreign policy through our bloated military spending. Just the increases alone in the DOD budget could have funded free public college or a single payer health care system, and this is something that should be pointed out every time "how are you going to pay for it" gets smugly asked. The military industrial complex possibly has more influence in the government than any other sector, and is in my opinion the one of the greatest obstacles to a progressive revolution in this country. Bernie Sanders is also further to the left than all the other democratic candidates on foreign policy, but he has made some questionable statements recently with regards to the Venezuela coup and doesn't condemn our actions in Syria anywhere near as strongly as Gabbard does. In fact I'd say he is eclipsed by many other up and coming progressives like AOC in this regard. I would still pick him over Gabbard if it came down to the two of them, but she is far and away my second favorite choice so far. Unless you are hung up over her past stances on social issues and torture, I can't see how anyone would think she isn't the next most progressive candidate. Warren on the other hand supported Trump's bloated military budget. Mainstream Media outlets are either dismissing her campaign or smearing her left and right because she is such a threat to the aerospace companies that advertise on their networks. It's starting to remind me of the way people ended up treating Ron Paul who is also an anti-war politician. Do people know something about her record that I don't?
1. Kamala Harris.
2. Cory Booker.
3. Either Beto or Warren.
...
998271928742. Gabbard.
998271928743. Sanders.
And I don't hate Sanders because he's a socialist, before the inevitable "NEOLIBERAL FAKE PROGRESSIVE" nonsense from his fans. I'm all for that. No, I hate him because, well, see below.
2. Cory Booker.
3. Either Beto or Warren.
...
998271928742. Gabbard.
998271928743. Sanders.
And I don't hate Sanders because he's a socialist, before the inevitable "NEOLIBERAL FAKE PROGRESSIVE" nonsense from his fans. I'm all for that. No, I hate him because, well, see below.
Last edited:
So instead of engaging in an honest debate over which candidates do you think have the best policy positions for the American people, you're trying to convince us that Bernie Sanders is a misogynist with a straight face because of some dumb essay he wrote nearly 50 years ago? Did you apply this same moral standard to every other candidate?1. Kamala Harris.
2. Cory Booker.
3. Either Beto or Warren.
...
998271928742. Gabbard.
998271928743. Sanders.
And I don't hate Sanders because he's a socialist, before the inevitable "NEOLIBERAL FAKE PROGRESSIVE" nonsense from his fans. I'm all for that. No, I hate him because, well, see below.
It’s electoral politics for fuck’s sake. Do I think Biden has all his marbles (or at least way more marbles than Trump)? Yes.
Do I think the American public is ready to elect a man who’d be the oldest at first inauguration by 8 years? No.
You’re only being so defensive about this age point btw because it obviously also impacts your preferred candidate Bernie. But yes - it will matter. People don’t want to be considering a Vice President due to the top of the ticket’s risk of dying. People like easy decisions. McCain lost a lot of voters due to his age and health (combined with vp pick obviously.)
Do I think the American public is ready to elect a man who’d be the oldest at first inauguration by 8 years? No.
You’re only being so defensive about this age point btw because it obviously also impacts your preferred candidate Bernie. But yes - it will matter. People don’t want to be considering a Vice President due to the top of the ticket’s risk of dying. People like easy decisions. McCain lost a lot of voters due to his age and health (combined with vp pick obviously.)
Last edited:
Most progressive candidates are not actively meeting with dictators that have killed over 500,000 people, calling armed-rebels in Syria terrorists, and doubling down on "I have no regrets with meeting Assad" in an attempt to spin it as her "anti-war" agenda.
She is a walking mouthpiece on Capitol Hill for a US-adversary dictator.
Can you explain to me what seems so terrible about this? this is a 1972 (close to 40 years old) piece that seems to be a commentary on social roles and the dichotomy of men and women. what exactly am i supposed to br outraged at here?1. Kamala Harris.
2. Cory Booker.
3. Either Beto or Warren.
...
998271928742. Gabbard.
998271928743. Sanders.
And I don't hate Sanders because he's a socialist, before the inevitable "NEOLIBERAL FAKE PROGRESSIVE" nonsense from his fans. I'm all for that. No, I hate him because, well, see below.
Do you have the hard evidence to back that up? Or is this just your own intuition based on worth of mouth from your DC insider friends? Assuming the nominee is Biden or Sanders, are you honestly worried that his age will be the decisive factor for voters picking between either them or Trump, who is just a little bit younger? All three, if elected, would all surpass Reagan as the oldest President at inauguration time. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
Yes I am troubled by this because that sort of thinking has hurt Sanders previously. Perceived electability issues were a major factor for voters that picked Clinton over Sanders in the primary, at least according to all of the exit polling data. This was in spite of the fact that virtually all polling suggested he was the strongest candidate in hypothetical election matchups against Donald Trump, but you guys think that the rest of the country outside your bubble is batshit insane and will never support a "old cranky radical marxist" like him, even though you have very few problems with his ideas. It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Bernie Sanders has the highest approval rating of any politician in the country, yet people are still seriously worried that he's less electable than the centrist candidates?
Just because Tulsi Gabbard decided to sit down with Assad does not in anyway mean she endorses dictatorships, only that she believes we would be better off ending our involvement in the war. You're free to believe what you want and I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this issue, but it's pretty clear to me that many people on the left have complete amnesia about other recent US interventions like Iraq and how we would be "greeted as liberators". Going so far as to insinuate that she's a Manchurian candidate because she disagrees with the western consensus view on foreign policy is a huge stretch.
If you are going to play that card, then I can point out that virtually all of our sitting presidents in my lifetime have supported multiple dictatorships, one way or another. In fact, data has shown that the United States supports over 70% of the world's dictatorships. Yet, we selectively single out countries like Syria and Iran while happily supporting Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen. So, the reason that we invade these countries has little to do with humanitarian efforts and more to do with toppling regimes that don't support U.S. corporate interests.
It's unfair for you to assume that because I am critical of Gabbard's stance on Syria and Assad that I am ignorant and/or pro-intervention wrt other dictatorships.
Here is a good overview of your candidate of choice: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party
Yet you are unfairly assuming that (1) Tulsi Gabbard is my candidate of choice (she's not, I still much prefer Sanders but like her more strong anti-war foreign policy) and (2) I don't know the more negative parts of her record. I most certainly do and there are some other issues that article left out such as her wishy-washy stance on torture. I also don't think quibbling about the use of "Islamic extremism" to describe terrorists is as big of a deal as the article makes it out to be, again just because that puts her further to the right of the party mainstream it does in no way put her anywhere close to Trump's very prejudiced stance on Islam. I will concede she is most certainly less progressive on social issues overall at least based on her past statements, but I mean that same criticism applies to many centrist democrats, like Hillary Clinton (see her gay marriage stance and infamous "super predators" statement). I prioritize getting money out of politics, single payer healthcare, and a less interventionist foreign policies as my key issues, which is why I would put her ahead of the remaining candidates including Warren who only meets 1/3 of those criteria. I think this video has probably the most nuanced analysis of Gabbard:
And it's perfectly fair to bring up the point about dictatorships since you are conflating her sitting down to have a chat with Assad as supporting whatever brutality he has done. I don't mind criticism as long as it's fair but this is one which isn't.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
She’s both. It ain’t that deep.
Harris is pretty clearly the frontrunner unless one of Beto, Biden, or Bernie announces - and I don't know whether or not it's controversial for me to include Beto in that list, but as a Texan I can vouch anecdotally for how excited urban Texas is for Beto. Him losing to Cruz, wave year or no, isn't going to hurt his popularity within the state. Klobuchar is an interesting possibility as well, and at this point I see very little chance of her not running, but I don't think the midwestern bump outdoes California and (I believe) Washington insiders.
I personally would prefer to vote for a true leftist candidate, which leaves me with... Bernie, if he runs. Warren too, but I'm... not really sure what to think of her after the Rachel Dolezal-tier nonsense. Gabbard I can't feel comfortable supporting as a transgender lesbian and the rest of the field tends to be too centrist and corporatist for my liking.
(I'm excluding Gillibrand for the moment but depending on how her campaign pans out she could be something resembling palatable.)
If I've misrepresented any politician's positions here, please let me know, because I honestly didn't put a ton of effort into researching this post and am mostly running off osmosis.
I personally expect Beto to run but don't have anything resembling actual evidence.
I personally would prefer to vote for a true leftist candidate, which leaves me with... Bernie, if he runs. Warren too, but I'm... not really sure what to think of her after the Rachel Dolezal-tier nonsense. Gabbard I can't feel comfortable supporting as a transgender lesbian and the rest of the field tends to be too centrist and corporatist for my liking.
(I'm excluding Gillibrand for the moment but depending on how her campaign pans out she could be something resembling palatable.)
If I've misrepresented any politician's positions here, please let me know, because I honestly didn't put a ton of effort into researching this post and am mostly running off osmosis.
If you identify as a centrist I think your best bet's a Biden or Beto candidacy. Of the currently declared candidates I believe Booker is fairly moderate.
I personally expect Beto to run but don't have anything resembling actual evidence.
Last edited:
Warren's campaign is now dead. She had always claimed in the past that she never took the Native American label upon herself for any professional advantage, and that places she taught advertised it for diversity purposes. That was revealed to be a lie.
She'll probably remain in the senate for the rest of her career. What is with MA senators and past shit? Not that Warren's is anywhere near as horrible as Ted Kennedy's, but still.
She'll probably remain in the senate for the rest of her career. What is with MA senators and past shit? Not that Warren's is anywhere near as horrible as Ted Kennedy's, but still.
Probably RIP to Klobuchar’s chances
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/amy-klobuchar-staff-2020-election
According to my friends who work (or worked) on the Hill this was an open secret. Just not known outside of DC, or even by me since I’ve never worked on the hill despite living here.
It will stick. Plenty of members of Congress act like this, but they don’t usually run for President and they’re certainly not usually WOMEN running for President. God forbid a woman have a temper...
So I guess I’m rooting for Sherrod Brown now.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/amy-klobuchar-staff-2020-election
According to my friends who work (or worked) on the Hill this was an open secret. Just not known outside of DC, or even by me since I’ve never worked on the hill despite living here.
It will stick. Plenty of members of Congress act like this, but they don’t usually run for President and they’re certainly not usually WOMEN running for President. God forbid a woman have a temper...
So I guess I’m rooting for Sherrod Brown now.
Two stories sinking democratic candidates in two days? Who could possibly benefit from news like this