Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[tyrlaan]

This is a pretty interesting look at where and how many donors the candidates have: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...sultPosition=1

[Fugus]

This is a pretty interesting look at where and how many donors the candidates have: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...sultPosition=1

Thanks for the link, does lead to more credibility as to the huge overlap of Sanders and Warren I talked about on here a few days ago.

[tyrlaan]

Thanks for the link, does lead to more credibility as to the huge overlap of Sanders and Warren I talked about on here a few days ago.

Yeah... well check this out: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...s-2020-1408548

[Fugus]

Yeah... well check this out: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...s-2020-1408548

Can see how many will gravitate mainly to one or the other, but when you ask Warren supporters who their number 2 is, I would think the majority of them would say Sanders and vise-versa.

From a policy standpoint, they are pretty much aligned.

Really hate how we go with 1 or the other and can't just go ranked choice, even with the polls. Would things so much more accurate and representative.

[Jehct]

lol at thinking Sanders lost that debate.

That is a republican talking point. stop it.

[tyrlaan]

Can see how many will gravitate mainly to one or the other, but when you ask Warren supporters who their number 2 is, I would think the majority of them would say Sanders and vise-versa.

From a policy standpoint, they are pretty much aligned.

Really hate how we go with 1 or the other and can't just go ranked choice, even with the polls. Would things so much more accurate and representative.

Yeah, ranked choice would make elections much better.

[Fugus]

Yeah, ranked choice would make elections much better.

Yep, also why I have said that either Warren or Sanders needs to drop out, they are poaching each others votes massively with their overlap. If either one of them drops out, the other rockets to the top spot or tied for it at the least.

My best suggestion for them both would be to keep doing what they are doing till just before the actual elections start, then one of them drop out and unify behind the other one. Gives them and their views major exposure and they don't poach votes.

By comparison, Biden is coasting on name recognition and generally puts his foot in his mouth so his best bet is to remain silent hoping to coast but once the general hit, he would be forced under scrutiny and his remarks a few years ago where he supports on camera cutting social security and medicare will be plastered wall to wall killing his support among voters.

[Paranoid Android]

Jobs created in the first 30 months of Trump's presidency: 5.74 million

Jobs created in the last 30 months of Obama's presidency: 6.61 million

Still no word from the White House on why job growth has slowed since Trump took office. https://t.co/vBuVF0kTg6

https://twitter.com/stevebenen/statu...657771009?s=19

This talking point should be used every time. In fact I would embarrass Trump on why he is inept.

[JohnBrown1917]

That is a republican talking point. stop it.

Shit, you found out i'm a secret conservative.

[PACOX]

Warren seems like the candidate most can agree on even if she isn't their first choice.

Biden's momentum is dying down.

Bernie is too dog now but I wonder how much he'll fare in the primaries.

Sanders/Warren
Warren/Sanders would be an interesting ticket but I rather have the one who isn't nominated go back to the Senate where they can push agenda.

[Theodarzna]

Warren seems like the candidate most can agree on even if she isn't their first choice.

Biden's momentum is dying down.

Bernie is too dog now but I wonder how much he'll fare in the primaries.

Sanders/Warren
Warren/Sanders would be an interesting ticket but I rather have the one who isn't nominated go back to the Senate where they can push agenda.

I'd say Warren or Sanders with a Gabbard or Yang VP takes enough of a blunt force wound to Trump's political base that it wouldn't be a tough fight on their part.

But yeah, one should stay on in the Senate and the other run.

[Ghostpanther]

I'd say Warren or Sanders with a Gabbard or Yang VP takes enough of a blunt force wound to Trump's political base that it wouldn't be a tough fight on their part.

But yeah, one should stay on in the Senate and the other run.

Gabbard would make a perfect running mate for Biden. She is too moderate for some of the others in my opinion. Biden would be smart to pick her.

[Theodarzna]

Gabbard would make a perfect running mate for Biden. She is too moderate for some of the others in my opinion. Biden would be smart to pick her.

Biden is IMHO a warmonger at heart. He is as establishmentarian as it gets, though if he chose Gabbard he might actually have a snowballs chance in hell in a general.

[Fugus]

Biden is IMHO a warmonger at heart. He is as establishmentarian as it gets, though if he chose Gabbard he might actually have a snowballs chance in hell in a general.

Biden makes it to the general, the CSPAN interview where he is at a podium talking about supporting cutting Medicare and Social Security claiming it was to save it plastered from wall to wall, what happens to that snowballs chance?

[Ghostpanther]

Biden is IMHO a warmonger at heart. He is as establishmentarian as it gets, though if he chose Gabbard he might actually have a snowballs chance in hell in a general.

This is true. And is one reason I think he will win the nomination. But, meh, time will tell. A lot can happen between now and then. I would rather see Biden win than some of the other radicals and it's not because I think Trump has a better chance against him. He polls better against Trump, esp in the electoral college match up, then any of the other candidates.

[Theodarzna]

Biden makes it to the general, the CSPAN interview where he is at a podium talking about supporting cutting Medicare and Social Security claiming it was to save it plastered from wall to wall, what happens to that snowballs chance?

0.000001% is better than his current position which is 0%. My point is at best, Biden is the worst possible choice, and Gabbard might offer him some sliver of a shield.

[Sage89]

I really liked Elizabeth Warren

[Fugus]

0.000001% is better than his current position which is 0%. My point is at best, Biden is the worst possible choice, and Gabbard might offer him some sliver of a shield.

Agree that Biden is the worst possible choice, for me, with that CSPAN footage, if possible, it would put his odds at negative against anyone else and his only saving grace will the the hope that enough vote for "Not Trump" that he wins regardless as the votes "For Biden" will be woefully short by themselves.

[Theodarzna]

Agree that Biden is the worst possible choice, for me, with that CSPAN footage, if possible, it would put his odds at negative against anyone else and his only saving grace will the the hope that enough vote for "Not Trump" that he wins regardless as the votes "For Biden" will be woefully short by themselves.

I feel like the "Not Trump" demographic is too geographically pinned into a handful of places that just don't matter electorally. A Democrat need never fear to lose California, New York, Illinois or the New England states.

Basically, in my view, the Democrats have a whole horde of voters who will vote for literally anything with a (D) next to their name. This is the "Never Trump" camp. They live in six or so cities and will turn out, wear pussy hats, and have never missed a Stephen Colbert monolog and likely spend a lot of time thinking about the Russians.

The other is the more progressive/left-wing branch that is fickle, demanding and wants things before they'll vote and then finally there are disaffected Trump voters. We have a Gabbard, Yang, Sanders and maybe Warren all as strong contenders whom will be assured the "Never Trump" vote; will gain the Lefty Progressive votes and will peel off Trump voters.

The path forward seems clear, pick a non-mainstream candidate and win.

[Fugus]

I feel like the "Not Trump" demographic is too geographically pinned into a handful of places that just don't matter electorally. A Democrat need never fear to lose California, New York, Illinois or the New England states.

Basically, in my view, the Democrats have a whole horde of voters who will vote for literally anything with a (D) next to their name. This is the "Never Trump" camp. They live in six or so cities and will turn out, wear pussy hats, and have never missed a Stephen Colbert monolog and likely spend a lot of time thinking about the Russians.

The other is the more progressive/left-wing branch that is fickle, demanding and wants things before they'll vote and then finally there are disaffected Trump voters. We have a Gabbard, Yang, Sanders and maybe Warren all as strong contenders whom will be assured the "Never Trump" vote; will gain the Lefty Progressive votes and will peel off Trump voters.

The path forward seems clear, pick a non-mainstream candidate and win.

Agreed on that last sentence.

With the demographics, the "Not Trump" area is actually HUGE as he never broke 50% approval even at his highest point with huge disapproval ratings. That is what they are hoping puts them over the top. The thing is the, while its easy to motivate people to come out and vote for someone they actually want, its a lot harder to get people to vote against what they don't want when the other option still isn't that great. That is how we got Trump to begin with with Clinton thinking the "Not Trump" would be enough.

Even in those states that are toss-ups, it comes down to giving them what they want instead of just a boogieman on the other side and that is before all the voter disenfranchisement and voting station BS the Republicans try to pull on top of it making it where they need to be that much more motivated to come out to get around that.

As far the more progressive branch, I am among them. I honestly never bothered to vote until Sanders came out because honestly the options sucked and I never had an actual option worth voting for, he actually mobilized a lot of voters because he actually gave them an option that wasn't just selling them out slowly while tossing them a bone versus quickly while bending them over without lube which is what most of their options were.

Before him, neither party was actually giving options to actually fix healthcare, no one was actually willing to address the income problem or the problems with income levels and wealth gap. I mean Obama was actually wanting to discuss it but like many other things, he lost his balls and was so worried about the rich calling class warfare that he wasn't willing to address the class warfare the rich were actively engaging in.

But yeah, we both have the same end conclusion. We need them to actually run a candidate offering to fix things instead of ignoring them or only paying them lip service. We need them to address wages, we need them to address taxes, we need them to address healthcare, all things a mainstream candidate is too afraid or too bought out to actually mess with short of dressing them up differently without actually changing it.