Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[xChurch]

I know its a time of hyper-partisanship in America right now, but can't both sides agree to speed this shit up? It's not the 19th century anymore, an election taking almost a full year is nuts. It can't be that hard to do since most other country's manage a pretty quick election time. Difficult to imagine anyone in America is really ok with this, especially given all the extra money it takes to keep going for so long. I'm already tired of the rat race and we've barely started, I just want it to be over with.

Also looking to several more months of democratic infighting possibly up to and even past the convention is making me seriously nervous.

[Sunseeker]

To reference South Park, a lot elections are between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. You need to decide which option sucks less. In this case, the 'sucks less' option is almost anyone running as a Democrat right now.

I question if Bloomberg is actually better than Trump.

[Zaydin]

How appropriate, considering that South Park's propensity for reducing complex political issues to "people that care about things are losers" is part of the culture that produces a Trump presidency.

How many elections can you get the perfect candidate you want? Very rarely. Right now, the better choice is 'Not Trump'. Hence why I ultimately don't care who gets the Democratic nomination whether it's Bernie, Biden, Warren, Pete or Amy. The prospect of four more years of Trump is such a nightmare scenario for me such that getting him out of office trumps (no pun intended) everything else for me.

[Elegiac]

How many elections can you get the perfect candidate you want? Very rarely.

Strawman. There's an order of magnitude between "perfect" and "Bloomberg/Trump".

Right now, the better choice is 'Not Trump'.

Indeed. Bloomberg isn't in the lead, yet.

Hence why I ultimately don't care who gets the Democratic nomination whether it's Bernie, Biden, Warren, Pete or Amy. The prospect of four more years of Trump is such a nightmare scenario for me such that getting him out of office trumps (no pun intended) everything else for me.

Cool.

For those of us who aren't white Midwesterners putting the man responsible for stop and frisk into office isn't such a clear cut distinction.

And before you start screaming about how stop and frisk wasn't so bad, I'ma just say "called it" since again - your only issue with Trump's actions in such a case would be their illegality.

[Endus]

They banked on Biden as the moderate pick and, shockingly enough, now that he's proven to be something of an asthmatic horse they're trying to mobilise behind an alternative - you can see this with Pete's surge.

Trying to pick the most right-wing candidates among Democrats as the "moderate pick" is cartoonishly ridiculous. That's the opposite of "moderate". In this election, Warren is the moderate. Maybe Klobuchar/Yang (before he dropped out). Not fucking Biden and Bloomberg.

It's an argument that there must be some large body of middle-ground voters torn between the two parties, who can be lured to vote for a Democrat if they're right-wing enough. And that's an idea that was questionable in the '90s, and has become increasingly, verifiably untrue in the decades since. That middle ground is barren. If people weren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump, they're not going to vote for any Democrat. You could experience the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Our Lord God, and run him with a (D) after his name, and the evangelicals would call Him a hippie socialist commie nutcase and moan about how he's gonna destroy the banking industry and, thus, the economy.

That ground is not just barren, it has been salted. Nothing can grow there. Stop wasting your time with the effort, particularly when doing so displaces many of your actual, real live supporters, in the lefter-leaning wings of the Party. If you want to argue for "moderacy", you aim for the middle ground of your own party, you don't blindly let the Republicans pull the Overton Window ever-rightward like you've done for the last 50 years.

Start believing you can do better.

I know its a time of hyper-partisanship in America right now, but can't both sides agree to speed this shit up? It's not the 19th century anymore, an election taking almost a full year is nuts. It can't be that hard to do since most other country's manage a pretty quick election time. Difficult to imagine anyone in America is really ok with this, especially given all the extra money it takes to keep going for so long. I'm already tired of the rat race and we've barely started, I just want it to be over with.

Also looking to several more months of democratic infighting possibly up to and even past the convention is making me seriously nervous.

Nobody wants to speed anything up. This is a business. This is an entire industry. It isn't about governance, it's about campaigning.

In Canada, we've got harsh limits; the longest campaign season we've had was 78 days. And that was a big outlier. The average is about 50 days. That's it; that's the whole shebang. Primaries don't really exist; they're completely internal to the party system and don't involve the public at all.

It's not just the length of campaigns, in the USA, either; members of the House of Representatives are up for re-election every 2 years. Which, given the pace of campaigns in the USA, means they're essentially always campaigning, and governance is on the side of that.

[Elegiac]

Trying to pick the most right-wing candidates among Democrats as the "moderate pick" is cartoonishly ridiculous. That's the opposite of "moderate". In this election, Warren is the moderate. Maybe Klobuchar/Yang (before he dropped out). Not fucking Biden and Bloomberg.

It's an argument that there must be some large body of middle-ground voters torn between the two parties, who can be lured to vote for a Democrat if they're right-wing enough. And that's an idea that was questionable in the '90s, and has become increasingly, verifiably untrue in the decades since. That middle ground is barren. If people weren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump, they're not going to vote for any Democrat. You could experience the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Our Lord God, and run him with a (D) after his name, and the evangelicals would call Him a hippie socialist commie nutcase and moan about how he's gonna destroy the banking industry and, thus, the economy.

That ground is not just barren, it has been salted. Nothing can grow there. Stop wasting your time with the effort, particularly when doing so displaces many of your actual, real live supporters, in the lefter-leaning wings of the Party. If you want to argue for "moderacy", you aim for the middle ground of your own party, you don't blindly let the Republicans pull the Overton Window ever-rightward like you've done for the last 50 years.

Start believing you can do better.

Hey, preaching to the choir here.

I'm just on the left coast so I have the luxury of being able to abstain from the Presidential election as long as I vote down ballot.

[Wyrt]

Like I said, Bloomberg is the one, the one Democratic candidate I would legitimately consider skipping voting for on the general and just voting down ticket.

As much as I dislike the Sanders camp, Bloomberg's worse. I don't buy that "vote for a racist to save the republic from racists because he's more civil and low key with his racism" is a good selling point for democratic participation.

lol this is fucking hilarious

You got all pissy over a poll where a good number of Sanders supporters said their support for the Democrat nominee would depend on who it was and now here you are saying that your support for the Democrat nominee will depend on who it is.

[Zaydin]

Strawman. There's an order of magnitude between "perfect" and "Bloomberg/Trump".



Indeed. Bloomberg isn't in the lead, yet.



Cool.

For those of us who aren't white Midwesterners putting the man responsible for stop and frisk into office isn't such a clear cut distinction.

And before you start screaming about how stop and frisk wasn't so bad, I'ma just say "called it" since again - your only issue with Trump's actions in such a case would be their illegality.

I'm not a Midwesterner, so nice strawman. Born in Philadelphia and currently live in Florida and I've never lived outside the US east coast while I've lived in the US. There's a certain irony of you engaging in the behavior you are accusing others of carrying out.

[Orbitus]

you are severely mistaken. bloomberg is an absolute oligarch that will hurt this nation far more than an incompetent like trump ever will be able to.



everything he's done has been through suggestive forces around him. he's not as stupid as people make him out to be, but he's sure not exactly the brightest. you want an actual hellscape administration, you elect bloomberg.

Wait, you think Trump is less incompetent than Michael Bloomberg? What the fuck are you smoking?

[Elegiac]

lol this is fucking hilarious

You got all pissy over a poll where a good number of Sanders supporters said their support for the Democrat nominee would depend on who it was and now here you are saying that your support for the Democrat nominee will depend on who it is.

Ignoring, of course, the fact that there is a world of difference between the other alternatives to Sanders (save Gabbard) and Bloomberg. And in fact, I'm fairly sure I also pointed out that the Whackobin tendency to put every opponent on the same level makes it that much harder to get people to take actual threats seriously - like Bloomberg.

There's no equivalence here for your little "gotcha" besides the inability to distinguish any flavour of candidate that isn't Bernie.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a Midwesterner, so nice strawman. Born in Philadelphia and currently live in Florida

Same shit, people in the swing states thinking they're the default is the issue.

and I've never lived outside the US east coast while I've lived in the US. There's a certain irony of you engaging in the behavior you are accusing others of carrying out.

*judges in West Coast*

[draynay]

Hey, preaching to the choir here.

I'm just on the left coast so I have the luxury of being able to abstain from the Presidential election as long as I vote down ballot.

I'm sure skroe is real sad he isn't here to judge you for having a practical attitude.

[Zaydin]

Same shit, people in the swing states thinking they're the default is the issue.

Florida might be a swing state but I'm not a swing voter. Never voted for a Republican once in my life and no plans to do so for the foreseeable future. I care more about beating Trump than I do ideological purity tests. So at the moment 'Not Trump' is a valuable quality to me in a candidate.

[derpkitteh]

Wait, you think Trump is less incompetent than Michael Bloomberg? What the fuck are you smoking?

no, i'm saying he's more incompetent.

bloomberg is actually dangerous.

[Zaydin]

no, i'm saying he's more incompetent.

bloomberg is actually dangerous.

You misspelled Trump.

[Sunseeker]

Florida might be a swing state but I'm not a swing voter. Never voted for a Republican once in my life and no plans to do so for the foreseeable future. I care more about beating Trump than I do ideological purity tests. So at the moment 'Not Trump' is a valuable quality to me in a candidate.

Yeah but, every Democrat has that quality by default. So right now in the primaries is your only chance to select the most not Trump possible. Passive indifference will probably let the Democrats do what they do best: select the most right-wing Democrat they can find.

[bmjclark]

There's some hilarity to the fact the the general election might come down to voting for a racist republican billionaire accused of sexual harassment or a racist republican billionaire accused of sexual harassment.

[Orbitus]

no, i'm saying he's more incompetent.

bloomberg is actually dangerous.

Trump is both, incompetent and dangerous.

[Elegiac]

I'm sure skroe is real sad he isn't here to judge you for having a practical attitude.

He's aware that I know the score and truthfully, I don't think he's particularly concerned since - again - I'm a Washingtonian.

If I lived in Florida or Wisconsin, different story. We live in a sad state of affairs where your value to the political process is entirely contingent on geography.

- - - Updated - - -

Florida might be a swing state but I'm not a swing voter. Never voted for a Republican once in my life and no plans to do so for the foreseeable future. I care more about beating Trump than I do ideological purity tests. So at the moment 'Not Trump' is a valuable quality to me in a candidate.

Again, the fact that people consistently keep painting minority issues as an "ideological purity test" is a massive tell.

[Wyrt]

Ignoring, of course, the fact that there is a world of difference between the other alternatives to Sanders (save Gabbard) and Bloomberg. And in fact, I'm fairly sure I also pointed out that the Whackobin tendency to put every opponent on the same level makes it that much harder to get people to take actual threats seriously - like Bloomberg.

There's no equivalence here for your little "gotcha" besides the inability to distinguish any flavour of candidate that isn't Bernie.

No equivalence? It's literally the same thing. They didn't say they would never vote for a candidate that wasn't Sanders, they said their vote would depend on who the nominee was. Exactly the same fucking thing you just said.

[Elegiac]

No equivalence? It's literally the same thing. They didn't say they would never vote for a candidate that wasn't Sanders, they said their vote would depend on who the nominee was. Exactly the same fucking thing you just said.

Again; no. Bloomberg wasn't a serious contender in the field. Now he is.

This isn't a "depends on the candidate", this is a "not that guy". Which I can cite specific reasons for that don't involve stretching the facts to the breaking point, unlike all of the crying wolf surrounding Biden and Warren.