Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[mvaliz]

This is increasingly disconnected from reality. At no point have I aligned myself with the alt-right or the more broadly construed right.

False. You've always been 1-2 steps away from my ignore button via posting your conservative views on many subjects. Indeed, I remember our first argument years ago where you wouldn't give me a basic "yes" or "No" reply to if you felt Gay Marriage was OK/Legal.

EDIT: I'll admit, you can waffle between them (Hence, why you're not on ignore...yet). But don't ever deny that you have never held an American Conservative view nor never expressed said views here before.

[TexasRules]

I dont know him well enough to say for sure but i do know people like to throw around labels that make no sense so its hard to trust people to be rational here

The trumpsters here always say I defend Trump but they can never show me doing it. If you disagree with any point they are trying to make or parroting from whatever website they use, you are alt right. Look how mvaliz edited because they know they can't prove anything so he hit you again as he can not apologize, they never admit they are wrong. He figuratively admits he was wrong but then issues a threat to ignore you because he wants to try and keep you in line. Usually they just change the subject or ignore you.

On topic: Why does the party of diversity have 4 white people as it's top candidates? Why did the minority candidates not do better in a party that caters to minorities, disenfranchised and victims? Serious question, after Obama, I would have thought that minority candidates would get a better showing in the democratic primary.

[Draco-Onis]

On topic: Why does the party of diversity have 4 white people as it's top candidates? Why did the minority candidates not do better in a party that caters to minorities, disenfranchised and victims? Serious question, after Obama, I would have thought that minority candidates would get a better showing in the democratic primary.

Just in case you are serious it is because they weren't good candidates Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are moderates who are as exciting as paint drying, Julian Castro was also in the same vein. The thing about Obama is he sold himself as a populist, progressive then he governed as a centrist though I am sure you lot think he is a commmie. There's also the fact that the country reacted to Obama with Trump someone with an administration full of racists so voters aren't taking any chances.

[Spectral]

False. You've always been 1-2 steps away from my ignore button via posting your conservative views on many subjects. Indeed, I remember our first argument years ago where you wouldn't give me a basic "yes" or "No" reply to if you felt Gay Marriage was OK/Legal.

EDIT: I'll admit, you can waffle between them (Hence, why you're not on ignore...yet). But don't ever deny that you have never held an American Conservative view nor never expressed said views here before.

I'm pretty skeptical of that claim. I went out to celebrate Obergefel v Hodges with gay friends when the verdict came down. I don't think you'll find any statements of mine that are unsupportive of gay marriage. My position, as near as I can remember, has always been that this should be decided on the same lines as Loving v Virginia, is plain both legally and morally, and that I want happy marriages with legal protections for gay people. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else or thinking of another argument altogether.

[Gestopft]

On topic: Why does the party of diversity have 4 white people as it's top candidates? Why did the minority candidates not do better in a party that caters to minorities, disenfranchised and victims? Serious question, after Obama, I would have thought that minority candidates would get a better showing in the democratic primary.

Broadly speaking, I think many of the voters (at least the ones that are paying attention right now) are looking for a candidate that will either a) fight for a Progressive ideology, or b) want a "safe" candidate to defeat Trump (and cleanse the palate, as it were). Camp a) already had Sanders, and also has Warren, making it hard for someone else to compete in that lane- and I can't think of anyone off the top of my head with the same Progressive history and name recognition. Camp b) gravitated quickly around Biden, I think in large part due to name recognition and a perception of "electability." I think Camp b) also implicitly sees a minority candidate as "less electable," and not as "safe" as a well-known more moderate white male like Biden.

The actual minority candidates either didn't get very much attention from the media, like Castro, or were (at least seemingly) pushed by the media despite lack of a groundswell from the voter base (like Booker and Harris). Then there's Yang who hasn't really been taken seriously, and Gabbard, who is often treated with hostility. But none of the minority candidates have really been able to gain traction in the major 'lanes'

[Spectral]

You were a left sjw feminist who took issue with me for being misogynistic (which I was not being you were just very far left at this point at least in that issue) or some shit when I first joined this board. Over the years you have become more and more conservative seeming and your defenses of republicans has become totally odd considering their current state being far worse than years ago.

You are now more cynical seeming and your positions seem to have devolved.

This seems consistent with my statement that at no point have I aligned myself with the alt-right or broadly construed right. The biggest shift I've had is having less certainty about various positions - you're right, I used to be much more feminist and was probably a belligerent prick about it. That's certainly not the case anymore. I learned more, dropped a lot of the dogma, and stopped pretending to not notice differences between the sexes. I'm still adamantly in favor of equal rights for women, but getting outside the academic bubble has done a lot to clarify how absurd that bubble is.

I don't defend very many Republicans. My most recent post on Republicans is:

Surely this can't be what caused you to notice that Republican politicians are a bunch of shitheads though, right? During my entire lifetime, well over 90% of them have been unprincipled jackasses that haven't stuck with any particular position that isn't politically expedient. As ever, politicians are mostly sociopaths and remembering that tends to give much better guesses about how they'll behave than treating their sweeping rhetoric as anything they actually believe.

I don't have a party. I'm alienated from Democrats entirely, but that doesn't mean I'm about to start finding Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney tolerable.

[cubby]

The trumpsters here always say I defend Trump but they can never show me doing it. If you disagree with any point they are trying to make or parroting from whatever website they use, you are alt right. Look how mvaliz edited because they know they can't prove anything so he hit you again as he can not apologize, they never admit they are wrong. He figuratively admits he was wrong but then issues a threat to ignore you because he wants to try and keep you in line. Usually they just change the subject or ignore you.

You always, consistently and conveniently, defend and defer/deflect Trump with your every breath. Your posts continue to lie and gaslight while parroting Trump's state media talking points.

On topic: Why does the party of diversity have 4 white people as it's top candidates? Why did the minority candidates not do better in a party that caters to minorities, disenfranchised and victims? Serious question, after Obama, I would have thought that minority candidates would get a better showing in the democratic primary.

So you don't even know that women are considered a minority category?

[Shadowferal]

I think if Biden tapped Warren as a running mate he'd run away with it.
But then I see Biden as the "safe" choice. His running mate could be Harris (aggressive), Warren (feisty)...not sure about anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Bloomberg might as well just not do this; Mike Bloomberg is widely unpopular following campaign launch, poll finds

[Video Games]

You always, consistently and conveniently, defend and defer/deflect Trump with your every breath. Your posts continue to lie and gaslight while parroting Trump's state media talking points.




So you don't even know that women are considered a minority category?

We’re workin on it https://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/c...ll-nine-states

[cubby]

I think if Biden tapped Warren as a running mate he'd run away with it.
But then I see Biden as the "safe" choice. His running mate could be Harris (aggressive), Warren (feisty)...not sure about anyone else.

What about Abrams from Georgia? My thing with Harris is that she has a little big of (unfair) baggage, and Abrams could strike at the heart of the GOP making the south a competitive area.

Biden gets the EC states we need, appealing to the Dem/Ind conservatives that are looking for a reason not to vote for Trump, and Abrams is a two-fer, igniting the base and bringing the south into play (at least making the GOP spend money there).

- - - Updated - - -

We’re workin on it https://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/c...ll-nine-states

Lol, excellent. The GOP is going to get blindsided by that demographic in 2020. If we can keep the elections uncorrupted.

[Video Games]

What about Abrams from Georgia? My thing with Harris is that she has a little big of (unfair) baggage, and Abrams could strike at the heart of the GOP making the south a competitive area.

Biden gets the EC states we need, appealing to the Dem/Ind conservatives that are looking for a reason not to vote for Trump, and Abrams is a two-fer, igniting the base and bringing the south into play (at least making the GOP spend money there).

- - - Updated - - -



Lol, excellent. The GOP is going to get blindsided by that demographic in 2020. If we can keep the elections uncorrupted.

Yeah but women shouldnt vote because being voted out of power is a very scary thought

[Orbitus]

The trumpsters here always say I defend Trump but they can never show me doing it. If you disagree with any point they are trying to make or parroting from whatever website they use, you are alt right. Look how mvaliz edited because they know they can't prove anything so he hit you again as he can not apologize, they never admit they are wrong. He figuratively admits he was wrong but then issues a threat to ignore you because he wants to try and keep you in line. Usually they just change the subject or ignore you.

On topic: Why does the party of diversity have 4 white people as it's top candidates? Why did the minority candidates not do better in a party that caters to minorities, disenfranchised and victims? Serious question, after Obama, I would have thought that minority candidates would get a better showing in the democratic primary.

Again, Trumpsters are Trump supporters, the only Trump supporter I still see in this thread, is you.

[Themius]

This seems consistent with my statement that at no point have I aligned myself with the alt-right or broadly construed right. The biggest shift I've had is having less certainty about various positions - you're right, I used to be much more feminist and was probably a belligerent prick about it. That's certainly not the case anymore. I learned more, dropped a lot of the dogma, and stopped pretending to not notice differences between the sexes. I'm still adamantly in favor of equal rights for women, but getting outside the academic bubble has done a lot to clarify how absurd that bubble is.

I don't defend very many Republicans. My most recent post on Republicans is:

I don't have a party. I'm alienated from Democrats entirely, but that doesn't mean I'm about to start finding Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney tolerable.

When I say republican what I mean is that you often take up defenses of right leaning issues not necessarily individual republicans but the ideals, yes.

[Ghostpanther]

I think if Biden tapped Warren as a running mate he'd run away with it.
But then I see Biden as the "safe" choice. His running mate could be Harris (aggressive), Warren (feisty)...not sure about anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Bloomberg might as well just not do this; Mike Bloomberg is widely unpopular following campaign launch, poll finds

I would like to see him pick her.

Meanwhile, this is interesting, but does not surprise me at all....https://971talk.radio.com/articles/n...andidates-poll

The Harvard/Harris poll conducted at the end of November shows Joe Biden is the favorite of Democratic voters, taking 29% followed by Sanders 16%, Warren 13%, Buttigieg 8% and Bloomberg 7%. But it changed when the poll threw Clinton and secretary of state John Kerry into the mix.

Clinton was the winner with 21% of Democratic voters choosing her to run the White House. She beat Biden by 1%.

If Hillary Clinton and John Kerry get in race?

Clinton 21
Biden 20
Sanders 12
Warren 9
Buttigieg & Kerry 5

[Spectral]

So, I thought to myself that it's implausible that we'd ever see an election with both candidates having lower net favorability than what Clinton and Trump had in 2016, but here we are with fresh data from Monmouth:

The leading Democratic contenders to take on the president in 2020 have also seen little change in their own personal ratings over the past month. Biden has a rating of 43% favorable and 50% unfavorable among all registered voters (identical to his 43%-50% rating in November), Sanders has a rating of 41% favorable and 54% unfavorable (identical to his 41%-54% rating in November), and Warren has a rating of 40% favorable and 50% unfavorable (slightly more negative than her 42%-44% rating in November). South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg gets a 34% favorable and 35% unfavorable rating, which is a slight improvement from his 27%-34% rating in November.

Even Hillary Clinton had a 46-52 rating at the time of the election, but somehow the DNC has managed to gather together a group that normal people like even less than her. Digging into the cross-tabs from the link, independents go 39-56 on Biden, 39-56 on Sanders, and 32-55 on Warren. Trump is at 49-48 with independents, although with strong intensity on the negative side (41% very unfavorable, only 26% very favorable).

Picking someone that independents like even less than Trump doesn't seem like a winning formula, but it's apparently what's going to happen.

[Dontrike]

I would like to see him pick her.

Meanwhile, this is interesting, but does not surprise me at all....https://971talk.radio.com/articles/n...andidates-poll

The Harvard/Harris poll conducted at the end of November shows Joe Biden is the favorite of Democratic voters, taking 29% followed by Sanders 16%, Warren 13%, Buttigieg 8% and Bloomberg 7%. But it changed when the poll threw Clinton and secretary of state John Kerry into the mix.

Clinton was the winner with 21% of Democratic voters choosing her to run the White House. She beat Biden by 1%.

If Hillary Clinton and John Kerry get in race?

Clinton 21
Biden 20
Sanders 12
Warren 9
Buttigieg & Kerry 5

Why do you keep bringing up Hillary?

[Draco-Onis]

So, I thought to myself that it's implausible that we'd ever see an election with both candidates having lower net favorability than what Clinton and Trump had in 2016, but here we are with fresh data from Monmouth:

Even Hillary Clinton had a 46-52 rating at the time of the election, but somehow the DNC has managed to gather together a group that normal people like even less than her. Digging into the cross-tabs from the link, independents go 39-56 on Biden, 39-56 on Sanders, and 32-55 on Warren. Trump is at 49-48 with independents, although with strong intensity on the negative side (41% very unfavorable, only 26% very favorable).

Picking someone that independents like even less than Trump doesn't seem like a winning formula, but it's apparently what's going to happen.

I am not sure why you think the numbers during the primaries would be relevant they are mostly being compared to each other instead of Trump. Hillary only had Bernie Sanders to contend with and most people didn't pay him any mind until later on.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you keep bringing up Hillary?

Because Trump supporters want Hillary back really really badly.

[Dacien]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...le-term-082129

This would be an interesting tactic. The article explains that if Biden were to pledge to a one-term presidency, it could ease the concerns of the younger bloc that their decidedly more progressive aspirations could by sidelined for 8 years. If so, they might be persuaded to move over to "the winning team" and give Biden what he needs to clinch the nomination.

Edit: The more I think about it, a "cooling off" presidency sounds like a great thing. Just four years of boring caretakership.

[Blur4stuff]

The country and world is much better off with Biden instead of Trump, but I don't think him pledging just one term will persuade anyone that has Sanders/Warren as their first choice.

[Endus]

Edit: The more I think about it, a "cooling off" presidency sounds like a great thing. Just four years of boring caretakership.

If there's anything the Trump Presidency shows, it's that the USA can't afford to take 4 years "off". The damage is already done, and needs to be dealt with, swiftly, before it gets worse. There are deep systemic issues that need to be addressed, and taking 4 years "off" only works for Republicans, who'd be ecstatic to have a do-nothing Democratic administration.