Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Milchshake]

SO to sum up all this outflanking...

"Daddy Trump and Comrades Cotton and Romney, whom I do no support, will own the Democrat Party from the left by providing universal benefits!"



Current Senate GOP plan may phase *in* checks for $1,000-$1,200, sources say
That would mean poor/low-income could potentially receive as little as $600 -- rather than full benefit of $1,200
Basically the Trump administration wants to means-test coronavirus benefits *to reduce the amounts provided to the poor.*

The best way to understand “realignment” and “outflanking” left-Twitter is through the lens of confirmation bias — in which a decontextualized headline on a single issue in complex legislation overrides mountains of evidence of GOP crony capitalism and contempt for the poor.

[Pendulous]

But you'll never be convinced otherwise, which makes your entire opinion immaterial. You hate Biden (for some reason

Going against legal weed (fuck the states), voting for war, wanting to cut social security, name dropping Obama every other sentence like he's Rudy fucking Giuliani, being against medicare for all.

There. Got any reasons he had "the strongest campaign", why he's "the best person to beat Trump", or how he "has gained the trust and the respect of the American people in a way that no one else has", as she has claimed?

Fuck, man. I never even said I wouldn't vote for him. But it's clear at this point he has one the weakest platforms. Doesn't mean all his ideas are bad either (hell, I'm pretty sure even Trump has one floating around is his brain somewhere).

[arandomuser]

Ok we all have to learn and accept our mistakes

i would like to officially apologize to tulsi gabbard for calling her a russian asset, she made the right decision, i genuinely didnt think she would endorse biden, i was hoping she would atleast endorse A democrat instead of run 3rd party, but her endorsement of biden means she wont run 3rd party and that is a very good decision.

- - - Updated - - -

So basically Andrew Yang got eliminated early on because nobody wanted his damn socialist ideas like UBI, and now the Trump administration is rushing to implement a cheapo version of it and the right wingers are creaming their panties in anticipation of their totally-not-socialism cheques?

Imagine if obama proposed that in 2012, maybe im old but i remember when right wingers would go livid over food stamps and "welfare babies" whenever you brought up social spending, but as soon as you get an (r) next to your name they are suddenly for it, it proves they KNOW social spending helps the economy, and they gridlocked the obama admin to intentionally try and hurt his presidency

[cubby]

Going against legal weed (fuck the states), voting for war, wanting to cut social security, name dropping Obama every other sentence like he's Rudy fucking Giuliani, being against medicare for all.

There. Got any reasons he had "the strongest campaign", why he's "the best person to beat Trump", or how he "has gained the trust and the respect of the American people in a way that no one else has", as she has claimed?

I got one really great reason to think he had the strongest campaign - can you guess what it was?

He didn't vote to cut social security - please keep your facts straight (freezing isn't cutting).

He named dropped the most popular Democratic President this century and played up his relationship with him? - OMG the horror! What the holy fuck was he trying to do - win an election?

Voting for war? Are we really going back to 2001?

The legal weed issue is interesting - what was his exact position (could you link something about it?)

Fuck, man. I never even said I wouldn't vote for him. But it's clear at this point he has one the weakest platforms. Doesn't mean all his ideas are bad either (hell, I'm pretty sure even Trump has one floating around is his brain somewhere).

But don't you see, you think he has a weak platform, but he might not - and the vast majority of voters also think he's solid. Which is key.

[Pendulous]

and the vast majority of voters also think he's solid. Which is key.

Do you have proof that they all voted based on platform and not name recognition?

[Sunseeker]

But don't you see, you think he has a weak platform, but he might not - and the vast majority of voters also think he's solid. Which is key.

If YOU thought he had a solid platform, wouldn't you have just said so instead of couching your response as "he might not"?

Most voters don't vote on platform anyway, so it doesn't really matter. They'll vote over 1 or two main issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, the environment, tax cuts, business friendly, warmongering, racist, pick 2.) or they'll vote on the basis of how much they personally connect with the candidate, or how much they like the candidate.

Americans are not particularly strong issue-oriented voters, nor do they put much value on detailed and comprehensive platforms. This is why when any candidate goes into detail about their plans, they usually lose support. Because Americans are a bunch of nit-picky jerks who'd rather not support comprehensive environmental legislation because it raises taxes on corn farmers.

[Milchshake]

I got one really great reason to think he had the strongest campaign - can you guess what it was?

He didn't vote to cut social security - please keep your facts straight (freezing isn't cutting).

Leading with the Free the Weed was pretty telling. After That I'm just expecting them to walk in a McDonalds and demand that Joe Biden stop hoarding the Mulan Szechuan Sauce. WRheeeeeeeeeeeed!

To much podcasting has clearly affected some people. I have no idea how to reason with them. Hence I have nothing but snark for them.

And brutal facts, that yes, most voters prefer Biden.

And accusing them (Biden voters) of just voting for name recognition is ... just Trump levels of projection. Bernie's following is mostly built around name recognition itself.
"PRove it's not based on name recognition". Is just the worst of sealioning and "Debate Me Bro" culture.

[cubby]

Do you have proof that they all voted based on platform and not name recognition?

None - good point, too.

Seriously - what was Biden's stance on weed. I do not imbibe but I'm curious where he fell and why.

- - - Updated - - -

If YOU thought he had a solid platform, wouldn't you have just said so instead of couching your response as "he might not"?

Most voters don't vote on platform anyway, so it doesn't really matter. They'll vote over 1 or two main issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, the environment, tax cuts, business friendly, warmongering, racist, pick 2.) or they'll vote on the basis of how much they personally connect with the candidate, or how much they like the candidate.

Americans are not particularly strong issue-oriented voters, nor do they put much value on detailed and comprehensive platforms. This is why when any candidate goes into detail about their plans, they usually lose support. Because Americans are a bunch of nit-picky jerks who'd rather not support comprehensive environmental legislation because it raises taxes on corn farmers.

I would have. Good catch. Honestly, I don't even care what his platform is in any detail. What matters is unifying the party, building up a fuck-ton of cash, and winning the election.

Bring Sanders and Warren in for cabinet posts (if they want them - Warren would be the best SecTreas ever, Sanders could fight for his ideas on a truly national front). The bickering about Sanders just needs to stop - there is no point in it any more. Biden is our candidate now. Defeating Trump is all that matters.

[Pendulous]

Seriously - what was Biden's stance on weed. I do not imbibe but I'm curious where he fell and why.

Let the states decide. Which feels like a cop out because the legality of marijuana doesn't have different connotations based on where you are. It should be universally legal.

[Endus]

Let the states decide. Which feels like a cop out because the legality of marijuana doesn't have different connotations based on where you are. It should be universally legal.

Technically, "let the States decide" is pro-legalization. It means he's in favor of decriminalizing it at the Federal level. He obviously can't control what individual States choose, but they can't actively legalize something that's illegal at the federal level (the current status, Federal officers can still arrest you for pot use even in States where it's legal; it just means State officials won't).

[cubby]

Let the states decide. Which feels like a cop out because the legality of marijuana doesn't have different connotations based on where you are. It should be universally legal.

Ok, if that was his reasoning, then yes - that's a cop out. Weed companies are suffering because of the lack of federal guidelines. I had a State Trooper up here flat out tell me that using marajuana was illegal (and our state legalized it, we have shops and all the things).

We need a federal law to legitimize their bank transactions, if noting else.

[PACOX]

I've been caught up with other stuff...but the fact that Gillibrand endorsed Biden after throwing Franken to the wolves shows just how far the Democratic party is willing to go for the Establishment.

[cubby]

I've been caught up with other stuff...but the fact that Gillibrand endorsed Biden after throwing Franken to the wolves shows just how far the Democratic party is willing to go for the Establishment.

Whatever the fuck that means.

I can't remember which Bernie supporter you are? Voting for Biden in Nov with eyes closed and nose held or helping Trump with until the very end? There are other Sanders supporter categories, but those are the only two left for you.

[Flarelaine]

Gillibrand is often not considered progressive by purity test progressives

But then, who is, other than Bernie and the Squad?

[PACOX]

But then, who is, other than Bernie and the Squad?

She really isn't close to being a progressive, though.

[Gestopft]

He didn't vote to cut social security - please keep your facts straight (freezing isn't cutting).

If you're on a fixed income and said income stops increasing with the cost of living, you probably don't care about whether or not "freezing" is technically "cutting" or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie's following is mostly built around name recognition itself.

You mean the following he built when most people had no clue who he was?

[JohnBrown1917]

If Nazis came up, it'd be real fucking awkward if someone on stage said, "look, the Autobahn was good and the rockets were impressive and I appreciate the way they put Germans first, but I reject their authoritarianism".

I'm happy to see that means you will finally stop talking about whatever good the last few US presidents did and see them for the evil scum they are.
I mean, unless you're a hypocrite, but you're not, right?

[infinitemeridian]

Really blows my mind that Donald Trump and Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnnell together are proposing a better response to the economic aspect of this emergency than Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who together have proposed tax credits, loans with interest, and an expansion of unemployment benefits. Many Democrats are in Congress are rising to the occasion, including centrist Democrats like Michael Bennet, but the entrenched leadership, which knows nothing but machination against Reaganites and lacks McConnell's intelligent cunning, is letting us down right now when they should be leading the charge with a powerful House package that's bigger and bolder than Trump's.

I mean, this is just an embarrassment for the party. And where is Biden? This man is supposed to be president-in-waiting. Where is his leadership? This is completely unacceptable. Go to his website, right now. It should be in full coronavirus-response mode. This is a once-in-a-lifetime kind of event in which daily life has been turned upside down. But if you go to his website, it's just like it is on any old day! You have to get through a splash page asking for donations and be specifically looking for his plan to find it, since there's no link directing you to it on the homepage and no obvious indication of where it can be found. It's listed under 'Joe's Vision'.

Do the Democrats want to lose? I think the Democrats must want to lose. A populist alliance of right and left looks to be winning the day, here, with some surprising defections, like Romney and Bennet. Trump's response to the virus as a whole has been abysmal and dangerously irresponsible. But on the political and economic response to it, it kills me to say he's been one of the good guys here, when all is considered. That's how terrible Schumer and Pelosi have been -- not to mention ideologically lobotomized senators like Paul and Graham and Johnson, forever stuck in a 2010 Tea Party time warp, the latter of whom claimed that direct payments to Americans would be a bad thing because it would discourage them from working. Unbelievable.

[Themius]

Do you have proof that they all voted based on platform and not name recognition?

Honestly exit polls show people lean mote towards sanders policies. So I’d venture to say people vote for Biden for his middle of the road approach and they hope that wins over people so democrats win.

Not because they love his policies.

[infinitemeridian]

The DNC decided they'd rather lose to Trump then give Bernie a chance to win. They are pulling out the same playbook with noncommittal words and hoping Trump Bad will win 2020. It might but I wouldst pick that strategy.

The dems are more successful being the opposition party. Trump has been great for them, it's not surprising they'd rather have 4 more years of him than Sanders who represents a more existential threat to the party by making them actually stand for things.

I'm sure they'd rather tell people things will get better than have to actually try. It really is pathetic.