Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Endus]

It bears pointing out that she's not apologizing for laughing at an insult directed at Trump.

Just the specific word.

It's quite possible she understood that he was insulting Trump, and the specific word just didn't get consciously registered at the time, until it got brought up and she could pay more attention. So the apology's fine, IMO.

She's still in agreement that Trump's a chucklefuck, and she'd probably laugh if I yelled that out at a rally, no apologies needed.

The apology's aimed at people with learning disabilities and the like, because it's unfair to equate them with Trump's willful shitheadedness.

[Gestopft]

The apology's aimed at people with learning disabilities and the like, because it's unfair to equate them with Trump's willful shitheadedness.

Couldn't it be argued that Trump's malignant narcissism is a learning disability? Not serious of course, but thinking that you don't need to learn anything because you are already an "expert" does make the acquisition of knowledge rather difficult.

[PACOX]

Couldn't it be argued that Trump's malignant narcissism is a learning disability? Not serious of course, but thinking that you don't need to learn anything because you are already an "expert" does make the acquisition of knowledge rather difficult.

The difference would be that others acknowledge their condition and address it the best was they can. Trump embraces narcissism.

[Thekri]

Interesting article on a new CBS poll, showing Warren picking up more and more steam.

I am increasingly confident Warren is going to wind up the nominee for 2020, and hopefully our next President. I don't think Biden really has much room to consolidate additional support. Everyone knows who he is, and while that gives him a nice initial starting position, it doesn't do him any favors on picking up supporters from other candidates. Meanwhile Warren seems to be having terrific momentum. She gets the biggest boost from each other candidate leaving the field, and she doesn't alienate Bernie voters while snatching up mainstream democrats as well.

I am rather ok with this. While Warren is much more liberal then I am comfortable with (I am still a conservative, after all), she strikes me as one of the most moral and decent people running. I feel like most of the other candidates see the Presidency in terms of their personal power, while I really feel like she sees it as a responsibility. I am confident that congress is going to block her more dramatic impulses, and we will get a good, and possibly even great President out of the deal.

[Skroe]

Interesting article on a new CBS poll, showing Warren picking up more and more steam.

I am increasingly confident Warren is going to wind up the nominee for 2020, and hopefully our next President. I don't think Biden really has much room to consolidate additional support. Everyone knows who he is, and while that gives him a nice initial starting position, it doesn't do him any favors on picking up supporters from other candidates. Meanwhile Warren seems to be having terrific momentum. She gets the biggest boost from each other candidate leaving the field, and she doesn't alienate Bernie voters while snatching up mainstream democrats as well.

I am rather ok with this. While Warren is much more liberal then I am comfortable with (I am still a conservative, after all), she strikes me as one of the most moral and decent people running. I feel like most of the other candidates see the Presidency in terms of their personal power, while I really feel like she sees it as a responsibility. I am confident that congress is going to block her more dramatic impulses, and we will get a good, and possibly even great President out of the deal.

If it's any help, as a fellow conservative, she's my Senator (I'm from Massachusetts) and I vote for her in 2018.

The only political question that matters now for ANY election is if the individual running for office is in the Party of Trump or not. If not, they get my vote. If they are, they are to be voted against.

These are trying times for anyone who holds democratic (small d) values with esteem, but it's also been by far the two easiest elections to vote for in my life. There isn't any real choice here. One does not vote for the Russian-hugging arsonist or his accomplices.

[Thekri]

If it's any help, as a fellow conservative, she's my Senator (I'm from Massachusetts) and I vote for her in 2018.

The only political question that matters now for ANY election is if the individual running for office is in the Party of Trump or not. If not, they get my vote. If they are, they are to be voted against.

These are trying times for anyone who holds democratic (small d) values with esteem, but it's also been by far the two easiest elections to vote for in my life. There isn't any real choice here. One does not vote for the Russian-hugging arsonist or his accomplices.

Same here. I voted for Lucy McBath and Stacy Abrams last election. You don't get much more liberal then those two, but they were running against straight up criminals, wasn't a moments hesitation.

Contrary to some right wing shilling, American liberals are still Americans, and actually care about this nation, which is more then I can say for most GOP politicians these days. I would vote for any candidate on the Democratic debate stage, and the only one that would really make me shudder is Williamson. And even then I would go for her brand of weird over Trumps in a heartbeat.

[Skroe]

Same here. I voted for Lucy McBath and Stacy Abrams last election. You don't get much more liberal then those two, but they were running against straight up criminals, wasn't a moments hesitation.

Contrary to some right wing shilling, American liberals are still Americans, and actually care about this nation, which is more then I can say for most GOP politicians these days. I would vote for any candidate on the Democratic debate stage, and the only one that would really make me shudder is Williamson. And even then I would go for her brand of weird over Trumps in a heartbeat.

Very well sell.

But on a lighter (maybe?) note, would having a Department of Wizardry, seances in the Oval office, and consulting the stars on the eve of big votes, truly be any stranger than the past 2.5 years?

Hell at this point, I'd welcome the REAL new branch of the armed forces: the Mystic Force.

[Thekri]

Very well sell.

But on a lighter (maybe?) note, would having a Department of Wizardry, seances in the Oval office, and consulting the stars on the eve of big votes, truly be any stranger than the past 2.5 years?

Hell at this point, I'd welcome the REAL new branch of the armed forces: the Mystic Force.

To be honest, if we aren't going to ignore reality anyway, we might as well go big. I feel like the ghosts of Williamson's ancestors are significantly less likely to screw us over in a deal then North Korea is. Still, it isn't the weirdness of the last few years that bothers me. History is always weird. It is the vicious, calculated malice with which this administration conducts business. For all of Williamson's eccentricity, I don't see any malice in it.

[Shadowferal]

Very well sell.
But on a lighter (maybe?) note, would having a Department of Wizardry, seances in the Oval office, and consulting the stars on the eve of big votes, truly be any stranger than the past 2.5 years?
Hell at this point, I'd welcome the REAL new branch of the armed forces: the Mystic Force.

Getting there!

[Somewhatconcerned]

Very well sell.

But on a lighter (maybe?) note, would having a Department of Wizardry, seances in the Oval office, and consulting the stars on the eve of big votes, truly be any stranger than the past 2.5 years?

Hell at this point, I'd welcome the REAL new branch of the armed forces: the Mystic Force.

Sounds like the next phase of the MCU.

[Elegiac]

If it's any help, as a fellow conservative, she's my Senator (I'm from Massachusetts) and I vote for her in 2018.

The only political question that matters now for ANY election is if the individual running for office is in the Party of Trump or not. If not, they get my vote. If they are, they are to be voted against.

These are trying times for anyone who holds democratic (small d) values with esteem, but it's also been by far the two easiest elections to vote for in my life. There isn't any real choice here. One does not vote for the Russian-hugging arsonist or his accomplices.

Indeed. Regardless of personal preferences as to who should become the next President, there is one certainty as to who it should not be.

[Skroe]

Indeed. Regardless of personal preferences as to who should become the next President, there is one certainty as to who it should not be.

Hey as I said, Democrats could put an Avacado with a D engraved into it, and I'd vote for it over Trump.

The 2020 Election is not a policy election. It's a referendum on 4 more years of the Donald Trump shitshow.

[Elegiac]

Hey as I said, Democrats could put an Avacado with a D engraved into it, and I'd vote for it over Trump.

The 2020 Election is not a policy election. It's a referendum on 4 more years of the Donald Trump shitshow.

At this point I'm thinking an avocado with an engraved D may be able to challenge Trump in the requisite states. This may literally be the only election in living memory where that can be said.

It's the Democrats' pitch to fuck up, basically. Let's just hope to christ that whoever the candidate is, their campaign team does a better job than in 2016.

[Skroe]

At this point I'm thinking an avocado with an engraved D may be able to challenge Trump in the requisite states. This may literally be the only election in living memory where that can be said.

It's the Democrats' pitch to fuck up, basically. Let's just hope to christ that whoever the candidate is, their campaign team does a better job than in 2016.

There are a few ground rules for doing 2020 "right" as I see it:

(1) Ignore all national polls and ONLY look at state level polls in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio. Look at the quality of them - who is conducting them, how, and how highly they are being regarded. Look at the other questions asked. And look at the frequency. If we're in Early October and the last good poll in Wisconsin was in early August, we have a serious problem into understanding the terrain of the state.

(2) The candidate needs to spend their time in the following states in order:
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Minessota
Arizona
Florida
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Colorado
Virginia
Ohio.

If they spend one waking moment between June and November in any other state - looking at you California and New York York, we have a serious problem in our hands.

(3) We need to look as to where the campaign deploys its best surrogate, Barack Obama. If Obama is going to do his standoffish "I'm above the fray, real statesman here folks" act... seriously fuck that guy. Obama needs to rent a houses in Pittsburgh, Philidelphia, Detroit and Jacksonville, and live there from July until November. He must be doing nothing else other than shilling for the candidate. If he does not do this, nobody should expect to count on him in the future for anything.

Really, it's his ass if he does his ol' Spockian Asperger act that pissed off Democrats in the House and Senate for years.

(4) We pay very close attention to what the message is. The candidate must talk about Health care, Jobs, cost of living, and retirements in the least offensive, least shocking terms and make Trump run against his record on them. And then make him run on the larger secondary and teriary issues. Focus on things crucial to suburban women and surburban middle class Americans in those states above. Leave the progressive care issues - universal pre-k, medicare for all, LGBT stuff - for when they win. Tailor the message for the very specific audience you're trying to win, so you can do whatever the hell you want to do later.

If we see a candidate stomping in Manhattan on an LGBT matter, rather than being in central PA scaring the bejesus about of people about what Donald Trump's second term would do to their Healthcare, Democrats will be losing

(5) In the quaterly FEC filings, the last of which will land in late September 2020, we need to look at where the campaign is spending its money. A lot of consultancies (on both sides) don't really care about winning. Their businesses providing electioneering services, and they often are paid on contract and not performance. And a lot of them have been around for years and keep making money despite failures (i'll say again, Romney, not a stupid man, was 100% sure he was going to beat Obama in 2012 because of his consultants). If there is ANY consultancy by the FEC September 2020 filing that has a reputation for underpeformance or questionable approaches, but is still making millions of dollars, hit the alarms. And look at this at the State level because the Democratic operation in Florida is neck deep in this stuff and it's why Republicans beat them.

I'll put it rather plainly now that I spoke somewhat hypothetically: Democrats don't have a Democratic Governor and Senator in Florida because consultancies did not follow through remotely on their get out the vote campaign promises in 2018, but were paid regardless. If Democrats want to win in general, that cannot be the case.


(6) Don't give the Media - CNN specifically - one bit of satisfaction in construction of an artificial "horse race" narrative. This doesn't get to be entertaining just because Jeff Zucker wants to make an entertaining, high ratings drama out of it. His bullshit in 2016 contributed more to Donald Trump's $2 billion of free media exposure than anyone. He and the like don't get a sequel. This is deadly serious, not "fun". It's not entertainment and it's not a game. If CNN acts like ESPN for Politics, Democrats should cut them off.

(7) Be extremely rigorous and highly detailed in evaluating the Democrat's voter registration and get out the vote approach. They need to assume their candidate will win or lose by a fraction of a percent in the states above. THey need to have clear, organized approaches to getting people transportation and organized on voting day. They can't have a typical Democratic "gee wiz we did our best" shit show. It needs to be surgically executed.

(8) No hyperbolic statements before, during or after election night. No celebration. Let the candidate speak for himself, but when Trump is defeated, he is not defeated until he concedes or his outvoted in the electoral college in December. Donald Trump will not go quietly, so do not expect him to.


(9) AOC and friends take a nice long vacation to a tropical island south of the equator for a few months. Because you just know if the Candidate is Biden or even Warren, they're going to say something or do something headline grabbing to raise their own profile (and thus power) and move issues they care about out in front, and change the topic for a few days. Example, if Biden is stomping in Wisconsin talking about old fashioned dinner table issues, they'll say something about Medicare for All in order to inject it in the debate.

They are not team players, and they need to be muzzled for 6 months so the yokels in yokelville forget they exist. Because Fox News and Donald Trump have worked hard to replace Crooked Hillary with the specter of AOC: the second coming of Fidel Castro.

It doesn't matter what they do in 2021, but "the squad" doesn't get to engage in their own mischief in 2020. And if they try, the DNC needs to basically put them on probation.

(10) Focus on economy of message. Regardless of who is the candidate, remember: Trump will get within a few percentage points of winning in crucial states with the most basic of messages... basically "More MAGA". Democrats don't need 50 point plans. They need to basically find a way to reduce the crux of their message to a meme, or set of memes, that challenges MAGA. I don't know what that would look like specifically, but do not underestimate the potency of the "MAGA" Message.


(11) Make it about the money. In these places Democrats need to win, the Campaign needs to basically over promise the amount of money they'll dump into the communities. That's really what it comes down to. People like deliverables. Be specific: vote me for President, and I'll make building this new school a top budget item. US politics usually doesn't operate with such specific resolution, but I think it is worth the try here.

[d00mGuArD]

Hey as I said, Democrats could put an Avacado with a D engraved into it, and I'd vote for it over Trump.

Well that is mostly correct. But some crazies like sanders and warren would bring so much destruction, it is debatable who is worse.
If I was in the US, I would literally prepare for stock-market crash, or even bank runs if one those two won.
Just vote for creepy joe or something

[DarkTZeratul]

Well that is mostly correct. But some crazies like sanders and warren would bring so much destruction, it is debatable who is worse.
If I was in the US, I would literally prepare for stock-market crash, or even bank runs if one those two won.

This is beyond absurd. If you expect anyone to take this kind of alarmist position even remotely seriously, you're going to have to explain very clearly how such a ridiculous assertion would come to pass.

[d00mGuArD]

I think it's safe to assume that lower population growth would mean fewer people using resources and it could therefore prevent carbon emissions rise as high as they otherwise would. As far as actually reducing carbon usage, I'm not sure it would have a meaningful effect, so it would have to be a small part of a broader strategy.

What if someone moves from a country with low carbon emission per capita like Liechtenstein to a country with high carbon emission per capita like the U.S.
Wouldn't such immigration prove harmful to the environment if done in the scale of millions of people worldwide? In a big scale of millions immigrating, we are talking about millions of tons of emissions.
Is immigration control a way to help the environment by denying immigration towards countries with high carbon usage?
As small part of a broader strategy. No slacking on something else.

[Gestopft]

What if someone moves from a country with low carbon emission per capita like Liechtenstein to a country with high carbon emission per capita like the U.S.
Wouldn't such immigration prove harmful to the environment if done in the scale of millions of people worldwide? In a big scale of millions immigrating, we are talking about millions of tons of emissions.
Is immigration control a way to help the environment by denying immigration towards countries with high carbon usage?
As small part of a broader strategy. No slacking on something else.

I guess it would depend on the development level of the low-emission country. Most people aren't looking to migrate out of high-development low-emission countries such as Liechtenstein, so I would think it's statistically negligible comparatively speaking. As far as people moving from less developed low-emission countries to high emission countries, there are a number of factors involved. Will (as discussed above) moving to a more developed country result in access to women's healthcare, and potentially smaller families? What is the country they are moving to going to do to lower their emissions? What will the development of the country they are coming from look like? Keep in mind that many countries that are less developed are also low emission because of their development level- but this something that will likely change as they develop. The country that a migrant leaves may in thirty years be emitting more than they country they moved to; this is something we just can't really foresee.

[kaelleria]

Updated the OP with new polling data and endorsement numbers...
Things to note - Biden is still clearly the front runner at this point in time. He's faltered a little and may falter more if he mucks up this debate.

Anyone not Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren or Buttigieg is probably toast as literally only Jimmy Carter ever was polling lower than 5% and went on to win the nomination. Sorry #YangGang. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...robably-toast/

[Donatello Trumpi]

The democratic primary is like watching a bunch of blindfolded clowns in a car driving off a cliff.

Biden has the establishment support while Bernie has the millenial lefts.
Whoever the media supports will incur the wrath of the other. Oh my.