Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Beazy]

Dont worry. She is backed by plenty of billionaires. She is just a puppet pretending she will change anything about the economy.

The president doesnt have those powers in the first place. So, I'm not sure what your mad @ her about.

[Beazy]

She is a puppet. A fake. Fuck her and her ilk.

How is she a puppet? You say that pretty matter of factly so I'm sure you can rattle off plenty of examples.

[Beazy]

Well, based on the number of billionaire donors she has behind her name.?

But how is she a puppet? You must have some proof to think that.

[Bodakane]

Well, based on the number of billionaire donors she has behind her name.

And the main message of her campaign is that the economy is the problem. She is after all pushing some of the same economic policies as Bernie: eg. 40% of the shareholders of corporations having to be employees etc. Minimum wage etc etc.

So, do you think that she is going to fulfill those campaign promises? Or do you think she is just waving it out there while knowing it will never happen?

Which one is it?

What?

As of Aug 5th, Forbes said she had all of 3 behind her.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomo.../#6132cf734c15

Wall Street is terrified of her. They know she will actually drain the swamp.

[Beazy]

I go from the idea that as soon as a politician takes someone's money like that, they owe them something.

Do you disagree?

Yes. I dont have any proof of quid pro quo among billionaire donors, so I tend to go with the shit I know.

I think you are confusing access with puppeteering.

[omerome]

I go from the idea that as soon as a politician takes someone's money like that, they owe them something.

Do you disagree?

While that's an interesting take on things. Realize that pretty much every politician takes money from the rich. Bernie Sanders is one of the few who don't. And from what I've read, there aren't many Bernie Sanders types in politics right now.

[Skroe]

I know you may not care much for it but I have serious admiration for your overall posts. It's been quite a delight opening MMO champ today to read the walls of text.

But I am genuinely curious: Did you actually expect different from the democrats in this respect? They are the party of big city interests and from personal experience having lived in a big city my entire life I've found people have egos the size of Uranus.

This is what strikes me. They don't care to win unless IT'S THEIR way. Fuck I remember years ago when I despised the Tea Party for doing this same shit, but they are small potatoes.

Seriously all they had to do is keep their mouths shut, let Biden win and they'd coast to victory in 2020....but NO we instead got months upon months of wall to wall coverage of Beto, Mayor Pete and Kama fucking Harris, as if any them had a fucking chance: Tulsi Gabbard killing Kamala's campaign with one debate attack proved that.

I can't wait for Trump to be on the debate stage against Elizabeth Warren and Pence against whatever gender neutral candidate she picks as VP, the smackdown will be biblical.

I will preface this by saying Democrats are the only fucking heroes this country has right now. They are single handedly - and heroically - resisting the creeping authoritarianism - Putinism come to America - of Donald Trump and his Republican traitor brigade. So what I say, I say out of concern. Out of a burning desire for Democrats to protect America. Because if they fail, then that's it. Nobody else will do it. It's all on them.

A few things are going on. It's not like there is one thought process. There is many.

First, too many Democrats had deluded themselves into thinking Trump's 2016 win is a fluke and they have him in 2020 no matter what. Thus they have the luxury of turning what should be a referendum on Trump into a policy election. They're wrong. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania will be decided by probably within 1-2% of the vote. A Democrat loses a single one of them, and its over. They should be safer in Michigan and Minnesota this time. They need to do some excellent rearguard defense in New Hampshire, Virginia and Colorado, and prevent a disaster were Trump ninjas one of them. Democrats have a lot of ammunition to work with, and good poll numbers on their side. But forget it. It's going to come down to a few tens of thousands of fucking no-college yokels in Wisconsin and Pennsylvannia who, when they're all alone in the voting booth with the curtain drawn, have to decide in their hearts "you know, Trump's the devil I know, and the Democrat is a socialist". And that is how Trump narrowly wins. The Democratic strategy must be predicated on making as few of those people exist as possible, by whatever means.

Now the counter to that often given is that "Republicans will call ANY Democrat a socialist". That's a B.S. argument. People aren't that fooled. Folks have to understand who is the typical pusher of that argument - people and groups who have a vested interest in play to the base-style politics. Since 2004, play to the base politics has been in vogue among groups on the right and left. ANd why shouldn't it? If they win, they're kingmakers. If they lose, they get to blame moderates and fill the void. It's win-win. Republicans have been entirely taken over by the Tea Party, which mutated into something else, because of play to the base politics. Donald Trump won in 2016 by appealing to centrist Obama voters and disaffected working class Democrats - expanding the base. Counterintuitive to the Republican Strategy since 2004. But the strategy in 2008, 2012 and even 2016 (which he went against) was evangelicals, white, male, rural, always votes Republican. That model.

Play to the base is a load of shit. The winning approach mathematically is to turn out the base then grab as many independents as you can. That's what Bush did in 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Trump basically did in 2016.

But this mythic, that we need to be ideological pure and "stick to our ideals"persists because were it to be discredited, interest groups on the left and right who perpetuate themselves REGARDLESS of wins or losses lose influence. This is PARTICULARLY true now among Democrats. Why? Because the left felt like they got used by Obama in 2008, and then locked outside the walled garden after they won. Like the hard right, they want to make sure that they next Democrat who wins is somehow who not only lets them in the room, but lets the run meetings.

When Republicans are out of office, it's going to be hard for them to regain power because of them. But being in office, they have a significant incumbent advantage. Democrats, being out of power, will make their uphill climb much steeper if they fall prey to play-to-the-base bullshit.

The thing is, this is largely about messaging, not policy. Take Elizabeth Warren. If she becomes the nominee, the strategically smart move is do as Obama did in 2008, and reinvent herself as a hardcore centrist to play for swing states, while all the progressives play along and give her space to. Folks forget... Obama the primary as the progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, and then move to her right for the General election because he wanted to win.

What neds to happen is Democrats need to get wise to the game and stop requiring their candidates to basically swear oaths on CNN twice a month. They're making Republican Party attack adds for them.

None of this has anything to do, by the way, with what you actually do as President. This is how you achieve the Presidency. Bait and switch. Promise one thing, do something else. Eat the, at best, 48% approval rating by mid 2021.

The thing is, Democrats got the wrong message from Obama. Obama was a latter-day JFK. An epochal character. Once or twice in a life time. They want to fall in love with a heroic figure who can build a grand coalition. You don't do that. You get Bill Clintons. Smart politicians who build and hammer home an effective message, with all parts of the party playing on the same team with the goal of winning in mind. The McGovernite Democrats had no love for the Clintonite New Democrats. But they played ball all the same in 1992, because they wanted to win.

Democrats need to think about how to achieve power, and not about what they are going to do with it. That comes later. You don't even tell people that. But this has been a recurring theme. M4A being a litmus test. How hard you're pro-LGBT being a litmus test. Elizabeth Warren's 50 fucking plans for everything.

The SMARTEST strategy, right now, is to be "not Trump". Trump is exhausting to most Americans. He's embarrassing. They want him gone. So let them fill in the blank what Candidate Warren, Cadidate Biden or Candidate Sanders is. The key characteristic is "I will not be Trump". That innoculates against a lot of attacks. That lets liberals see a liberal and moderates see a moderate. That gets you to the White House, where folks can M4A and Transgender rights to their hearts content.

The thing is, this is how Republican politicans have largely thought for years. It's how they win, despite being hugely out numbered in this country. It's just like Democrats seriously thinking "man, I can't wait to see Elizabeth Warren take down Trump in a debate". Like... holy fucking crap. Trump probably isn't even GOING to the debates. Just you watch. He'll skip and hold a rally instead. He'll create some controversey to blame the media or the DNC for "collusion". Hugh Hewitt, Trump Cockholster, just had an op-ed in the Washington Post where he basically openly suggested this. And I've been saying Trump will skip the debates for months. Democrats will never get their mano-a-mano moment, but imagine it anyway.

Didn't Hillary Clinton go 3-0? Yeah. Not worth spit.


I will vote for any Democrat. I will donate the maximum amount I can to the nominee. I may even drop out of my PAC job and volunteer if I think I can help. I will do anything to burn down the proverbial House of Trump with everyone involved in his crap Presidency inside of it.

But for the love of god, Democrats have to play this like they are running against Donald Trump, not Jeb Bush.

[Beazy]

No, in my book if they took money from people like that they have an axe swinging above their heads.

Secondly, you ignored my second question or remark. There are two conflicting ideas being floated as opposition to my statement:

1. "Presidents can't change the US economy."

2. "Warren will change the economy. She isn't just pretending and campaigning on it to try get votes for promises she won't keep."

Can anyone clarify which one of the two statements pushed by Warren supporters is true, here?

We don't have to clarify, the president of the united states has no constitutionally enumerated power to control or change the economy.

[CostinR]

Trump probably isn't even GOING to the debates. Just you watch. He'll skip and hold a rally instead. He'll create some controversey to blame the media or the DNC for "collusion". Hugh Hewitt, Trump Cockholster, just had an op-ed in the Washington Post where he basically openly suggested this. And I've been saying Trump will skip the debates for months. Democrats will never get their mano-a-mano moment, but imagine it anyway.

Didn't Hillary Clinton go 3-0? Yeah. Not worth spit.

I agree with the vast majority of your post but I really have to disagree with you here, very strongly. Trump will likely go to the debates and will likely win.

Because by what measures are debates 'won' exactly? Because it sure as hell is not Nate Silver's fucking polling numbers I can tell you that for a damned fact. It's not the morons in the media, DNC and Hillary campaign thinking they "won" because they have some Wonderland ideas as to how these things play out.

Let's take it one by one shall we. First debate, Hillary was fairly reasonable, confident and made Trump's life a living hell for the next few weeks with Alicia Machado that she brought up by the end....Trump however had this.



I accept Trump "lost" the first debate, but this one minute. Tell me what in the world matters to the Rust Belt? The other 90 minutes of the debate? They might as well be in an alternate reality. Also the media talking about how shit Trump was going to be and how great Hillary was expected only set up lower expectations for Trump.

The second debate? The one where just two days before it we had Access Hollywood. Where Paul Ryan, McConnel and Reince Priebus all called for Trump's end as a candidate? Where Mike Pence ( who did rather well against Tim Kaine ) was refusing to answer Trump's call because EVERYONE thought he was finished...

Yeah that debate. The one which saved his entire candidacy. The one were Hillary thought all she had to do was just go and not do anything stupid and she's win?

She failed. Trump went full WWE on her and just like poor Jeb wiped the floor with her. His "Because you'd be in jail comment." Holy fuck I've seen stuff in politics, but I have never in my life seen a candidate survive against something like Access Hollywood tape the way Trump did through the debate. Virtually EVERYONE thought he was finished.

As a reference. Here is the South Carolina debate were Trump ended Jeb Bush, and by ended I mean his entire candidacy.



As for the third debate. It was whatever, not important and no one got fancy attacks in.

Let me say this. By all means get Elizabeth Warren with her LGBT plans and Medicare for All and all that other nonsense, by all means put her in the boxing ring against Trump and we'll see who comes out on top.

Because I promise you: It won't be the Harvard Professor.

[Bodakane]

I agree with the vast majority of your post but I really have to disagree with you here, very strongly. Trump will likely go to the debates and will likely win.

Because by what measures are debates 'won' exactly? Because it sure as hell is not Nate Silver's fucking polling numbers I can tell you that for a damned fact. It's not the morons in the media, DNC and Hillary campaign thinking they "won" because they have some Wonderland ideas as to how these things play out.

Let's take it one by one shall we. First debate, Hillary was fairly reasonable, confident and made Trump's life a living hell for the next few weeks with Alicia Machado that she brought up by the end....Trump however had this.



I accept Trump "lost" the first debate, but this one minute. Tell me what in the world matters to the Rust Belt? The other 90 minutes of the debate? They might as well be in an alternate reality. Also the media talking about how shit Trump was going to be and how great Hillary was expected only set up lower expectations for Trump.

The second debate? The one where just two days before it we had Access Hollywood. Where Paul Ryan, McConnel and Reince Priebus all called for Trump's end as a candidate? Where Mike Pence ( who did rather well against Tim Kaine ) was refusing to answer Trump's call because EVERYONE thought he was finished...

Yeah that debate. The one which saved his entire candidacy. The one were Hillary thought all she had to do was just go and not do anything stupid and she's win?

She failed. Trump went full WWE on her and just like poor Jeb wiped the floor with her. His "Because you'd be in jail comment." Holy fuck I've seen stuff in politics, but I have never in my life seen a candidate survive against something like Access Hollywood tape the way Trump did through the debate. Virtually EVERYONE thought he was finished.

As a reference. Here is the South Carolina debate were Trump ended Jeb Bush, and by ended I mean his entire candidacy.



As for the third debate. It was whatever, not important and no one got fancy attacks in.

Let me say this. By all means get Elizabeth Warren with her LGBT plans and Medicare for All and all that other nonsense, by all means put her in the boxing ring against Trump and we'll see who comes out on top.

Because I promise you: It won't be the Harvard Professor.

Warren can get dirty in a fight. She will crush Trump.

[Beazy]

In which case you're at least agreeing that she is a fake.

Why is she running her campaign on bringing change to the economy?

Because she would be the "boss". She could demand that congress create a bill she likes and put it on her desk to sign. Thats about the extent of her power to change the economy.

Member when we were going to get healthcare like Europeans, but then congress put Romney Care on Obamas desk instead?

[Bodakane]

In which case you're at least agreeing that she is a fake.

Why is she running her campaign on bringing change to the economy?

Still not going to address that Forbes has her with only 3 billionaires as of August?

[Omega10]

I will preface this by saying Democrats are the only fucking heroes this country has right now. They are single handedly - and heroically - resisting the creeping authoritarianism - Putinism come to America - of Donald Trump and his Republican traitor brigade. So what I say, I say out of concern. Out of a burning desire for Democrats to protect America. Because if they fail, then that's it. Nobody else will do it. It's all on them.

I will do my part mostly by keeping my mouth shut. I'm not good at the cynics game, and I mostly agree with your assessment of the political landscape.

For me, what's important is that things I care about are getting some scrutiny and thought. It won't be until 2024 or 2028 before any of it has a chance of passing anyways.

I'll smack down Trump supporters when they say really stupid or dishonest things, which is 90% of what they say, and just leave it at that.

To me, this election has already been a success in introducing to America just what I as a leftie would like to see become law. It will take a while for people to think about and consider these ideas. There is a good chance that pieces of some of it will become law anyways.

For a lot of people, the best selling point of many of these ideas is that Trump and Trump supporters are against them. A lot of times, when Trump supporters get worked up about some issue I like and attack it really forcefully, my first reaction is "Thank you".

[Bodakane]

I admit it's less than I thought it were. I don't think I'm being odd because I distrust politicians taking money from corporations. What is she offering that they would like? What do they want from her?

But anyway, anything is better than Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/eliz...d-nominee.html

Elizabeth Warren says she won’t do big-dollar fundraisers if she is the Democratic nominee\

Sen. Elizabeth Warren pushed her pledge to have her presidential campaign avoid big-money donors a step further this week, committing to avoid pricey fundraisers even if she is elected the Democratic nominee.

“I’m not going to do the big-dollar fundraisers. I’m just not going to do it. The whole notion behind this campaign is that we build this together. And that’s exactly what we’re doing,” the Massachusetts progressive told CBS News in an interview published on Tuesday.

[Somewhatconcerned]

I will do my part mostly by keeping my mouth shut. I'm not good at the cynics game, and I mostly agree with your assessment of the political landscape.

For me, what's important is that things I care about are getting some scrutiny and thought. It won't be until 2024 or 2028 before any of it has a chance of passing anyways.

I'll smack down Trump supporters when they say really stupid or dishonest things, which is 90% of what they say, and just leave it at that.

To me, this election has already been a success in introducing to America just what I as a leftie would like to see become law. It will take a while for people to think about and consider these ideas. There is a good chance that pieces of some of it will become law anyways.

For a lot of people, the best selling point of many of these ideas is that Trump and Trump supporters are against them. A lot of times, when Trump supporters get worked up about some issue I like and attack it really forcefully, my first reaction is "Thank you".

That's fine and maybe on the inside you feel like you won the ideological game...but when the courts and SCOTUS in particular are being packed with conservatives, it changes the country for a long time. So some of the progressive ideas you and others may support will be ultra difficult to get implemented when the judiciary is so heavily stacked against you.

Mayor Pete had some interesting ideas on how to rebalance the court. I don't think a partisan court, no matter your ideology, is a good thing if it ignores or marginalizes half of the country.

[Ashina]

Tulsi Gabbard decided that Trump can't be the only insane politician on Twitter today. This is not a parody account.

[kaelleria]

Tulsi Gabbard decided that Trump can't be the only insane politician on Twitter today. This is not a parody account.

Corey Booker's response was gold -
https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/statu...195395586?s=19

[Thekri]

Tulsi Gabbard decided that Trump can't be the only insane politician on Twitter today. This is not a parody account.

Wait, the democratic primary is now between someone that can't break 2% and somebody that isn't running? What will the other 98% of democrats do?

Gabbard is making a strong play for the most insane candidate, lets see Williamson's response!

[PACOX]

You're right Hillary blaming a US Military officer as a Russian Plant is pretty damn insane. I'm glad I've been supporting Tulsi since before she announced.

Except no one thinks she is a plant as in 'Russia sent her here to fuck shit up'.

Tulsi had no real national clout or support prior to the election season for her to even consider running. One would say he decision to run was down right irrational. But why did she decide to run? Because someone has been feeding her ego. Feeding her a healthy does of 'Delusion. OF Grandeur' kool-aid. Best way to troll your opponent is sow seeds of dissent amongst too stupid to realize they are being manipulated.

95% chance she is just an idiot and not an idiot who was manipulated by a Russian hype man - not out of the realm of possibilities though.

[Shadowferal]

Corey Booker's response was gold - https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/statu...195395586?s=19

That response isn't showing for some reason.