Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Draco-Onis]

She's been hinting and teasing at it for months if you've been paying attention. Either she is thinking of running or she is so narcissistic that she just has to keep her name in the media.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...on/4176641002/

I think she is trying to stay relevant even Donald Trump's Clinton chants are getting old and she needs to get paid afterall.

[Benggaul]

Frankly I'm glad people are concerned enough to keep Clinton relevant. She's doing the candidates a service by continuing to catch most of the flak from the right (and left). Keeps most of the viable candidates from having to divert resources from their campaign to counter it.

[Elegiac]

The mental gymnastic is pretty well done, but no. Her divisiveness is what lost her the election in 2016. Remember Hillary was the one who pushed this gem out in the 2008 primary.



https://www.politico.com/story/2008/...or-foul-008727

I'm curious how Clinton's "divisiveness" cost her the election when her opponent was literally one of the main originators of the Birther conspiracy.

Regardless; she's not running in the primary, and the rubes over in Trumpland keep falling for this story every time.

[Blur4stuff]

Clinton is a drug they're having a hard time living without. Sure, AOC is great and all, but it's just not the same kind of high that comes from shooting up the Clintons for over three decades. The idea that she'll run for 2020 is just their attempt to keep getting that high. It's obviously not happening but it's hard to let go, I suppose.

At some point the right wing needs to start investing in new conspiracy theories for younger candidates. After all, the Clintons were young once. If they start creating bullshit stories now for all the age 25-40 dem politicians they'll have some really great product to snort a decade or two from now.

[Benggaul]

The mental gymnastic is pretty well done, but no. Her divisiveness is what lost her the election in 2016. Remember Hillary was the one who pushed this gem out in the 2008 primary.



https://www.politico.com/story/2008/...or-foul-008727

No mental gymnastics necessary. Just go to any social media or right-leaning news source after anything Clinton-related is mentioned and watch any and all references to current candidates disappear from view. It's a fact.

[Milchshake]

I'm curious how Clinton's "divisiveness" cost her the election when her opponent was literally one of the main originators of the Birther conspiracy.

Regardless; she's not running in the primary, and the rubes over in Trumpland keep falling for this story every time.

The rubes at Jacobin and the Intercept are nearly as desperate for Hillary to run again. Once a month they publish an article about Hillary or even Chelsea maybe running for office.


It's a massive reveal of intersectionality that the Right Wing, Bernie Bros, and Tulsi Boys all cant get over Clinton.

Are they unified in their chauvinism, overall contempt for civil rights? Or that "Movement Candidates" have shit to offer other than being anti-establishment.

Cool kids love themselves some anti-establishments. There would probably be hyping George Wallace or Goldwater if they went back in time.

[Elegiac]

The rubes at Jacobin and the Intercept are nearly as desperate for Hillary to run again. Once a month they publish an article about Hillary or even Chelsea maybe running for office.


It's a massive reveal of intersectionality that the Right Wing, Bernie Bros, and Tulsi Boys all cant get over Clinton.

Are they unified in their chauvinism, overall contempt for civil rights? Or that "Movement Candidates" have shit to offer other than being anti-establishment.

Cool kids love themselves some anti-establishments. There would probably be hyping George Wallace or Goldwater if they went back in time.

You're not wrong there; I myself have been a longtime advocate of the theory that after Ron Paul left the public eye a lot of the Ron Paul Revolution nutters took up in Bernie's camp.

Now that libertarianism isn't as politically acceptable these days, they seem to have gravitated to brocialism.

[downnola]

Now that libertarianism isn't as politically acceptable these days, they seem to have gravitated to brocialism.

Or Trump.

They often try to float the idea that he's the most libertarian president so far. Paleoconservatism is a hell of a drug.

[Elegiac]

Paleoconservatism is a hell of a drug.

Not going to lie, when you said 'paleoconservatism' I kinda had an Alec Guinness moment and dissociated back into 2006 when we were arguing with 'conservatives' about exorbitant military spending and war crimes.

"Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time."

[Dontrike]

She's been hinting and teasing at it for months if you've been paying attention. Either she is thinking of running or she is so narcissistic that she just has to keep her name in the media.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...on/4176641002/

She's not running and I've been hearing those same "hints" for the past two years and nothing has come of it. Until then I'll be sitting here not worrying about the Crypt Keeper's wife.

[Benggaul]

No you're injecting your bias into "facts". That not how facts work.

Nope, just posting observed events as facts. But have fun with your fear-mongering. Oooh that scawy, scawy Cwinton!

[PACOX]

The DNC let two more people just walk up into the primary...who is running the organization?

[Shadowferal]

Having money is half the battle.

[Ghostpanther]

They really don't want Warren or Bernie and they don't have any confidence in Biden. This is just like when the GOP kept trying to push any other candidate other than Trump all the way down to Kasich.

This is true. They also have real concerns on the ability of any of the candidates beating Trump. The GOP also felt Trump could not beat Hillary. As most people thought he would lose.

[Milchshake]

Ironically I also consider myself more centrist than most socialists, because I for example see more merit in supporting the working class than getting upset over Pepe the Frog and a sense of humor.

This, you answered your own question.

It's mostly ratfuckers posing as socialists. Probably feigning concern for working class Americans as well. These guys just glob onto to most toxic components of Bernie's Campaign, while being ignorant of the rest of it. Is it a more interesting way to attack Hillary than the bog standard GOP attacks?

"upset over Pepe the Frog", you know who invented that attack? the alt-right. Gee thanks... it like you're doing their work for them. It's lazy and repetitive.

Go back to your lazy Centrism, seems to suit you better.

[downnola]

No, you are the centrist!

It's pretty amusing that this is now the most damning accusation someone can make against another left-wing person.

You seem to be in denial of the very notion that someone can be a socialist and not hyper-SJW about Pepe's, but I digress, this is off-topic now. I just don't understand your condemnation of people who are actively supporting the Democratic Party in this time of need, just because they have a different idea of anarcho-socialism than you do...

I'm not really into taking woke twitter scolds seriously either, but the problem with them is often overstated and propagandized by right-wing talking heads. The culture war thing is really just a divisive tactic used by the right to cause divides in the left.

I hate to be cynical about it, but it's hard not to feel that way when people like Bill Maher buy into this shit and give people like Dennis Prager the time of day.

[Endus]

I'm not really into taking woke twitter scolds seriously either, but the problem with them is often overstated and propagandized by right-wing talking heads. The culture war thing is really just a divisive tactic used by the right to cause divides in the left.

I hate to be cynical about it, but it's hard not to feel that way when people like Bill Maher buy into this shit and give people like Dennis Praeger the time of day.

Here's a hot tip;

Look at actual consequences, not angry voices on Twitter.

These people like to complain about random Internet voices bleating into the void as if it's some major cultural collapse. Ask for concrete examples. Inevitably, those examples will be "people complained, but they're still working on the same projects as before", like James Gunn, or "they did a bad thing and apologized and took a year off and are now making a comeback" like Louis CK and Roseanne Barr. There are a few examples of cases where actual white supremacists both A> get popular exposure and B> have no real power other than their platform, and they get kicked off that platform for their racist bullshit. But that's pretty much entirely deserved; if they can't recover, it's a personal failure, or that they were a cultural fad that's already past its prime. There's plenty of white supremacists and racists in actual power (Stephen Miller as an obvious example) who aren't really facing any consequences for their views, because they do have power and aren't fundamentally basing their entire career on the whims of a fickle public to begin with.

"Cancel culture" basically doesn't exist. What does exist is a bare minimum level of accountability. That's it.

[downnola]

Here's a hot tip;

Look at actual consequences, not angry voices on Twitter.

These people like to complain about random Internet voices bleating into the void as if it's some major cultural collapse. Ask for concrete examples. Inevitably, those examples will be "people complained, but they're still working on the same projects as before", like James Gunn, or "they did a bad thing and apologized and took a year off and are now making a comeback" like Louis CK and Roseanne Barr. There are a few examples of cases where actual white supremacists both A> get popular exposure and B> have no real power other than their platform, and they get kicked off that platform for their racist bullshit. But that's pretty much entirely deserved; if they can't recover, it's a personal failure, or that they were a cultural fad that's already past its prime. There's plenty of white supremacists and racists in actual power (Stephen Miller as an obvious example) who aren't really facing any consequences for their views, because they do have power and aren't fundamentally basing their entire career on the whims of a fickle public to begin with.

"Cancel culture" basically doesn't exist. What does exist is a bare minimum level of accountability. That's it.

I get it. It's why you don't see me hanging out in "muh free speech" threads clutching my pearls over people saying dumb shit and getting called out for it. It's usually justified and there's bigger fish to fry anyway.

Like Dennis Prager.

[Ghostpanther]

I understand this is just one poll, but I still find it interesting...https://www.foxnews.com/politics/but...test-iowa-poll

A new poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers published Saturday shows South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg nine percentage points clear of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., indicating the one-time longshot is now a force to be reckoned with in the race for the Democratic nomination.

The CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll showed Buttigieg with 25 percent support, a 16 percent increase over his numbers in the September version of the poll. Behind Warren (16 percent) came former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who each garnered 15 percent support.

Buttigieg is considered to be a more moderate candidate and in some states, he may do very well.

[Themius]

I'm late to this but how the fuck is Julian getting criticism for saying Iowa does not represent America? I mean it is ridiculous that we rely so much on Iowa, a state that is literally 90% white, to represent "America" and he is right that a non-diverse state doesn't represent the diversity in America.

Then the following state.. 93% white.. like no that should change, the country is diverse, the Democratic Party is diverse