2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You obviously were not. But Bernie Bots are destined to think they are right forever, regardless of what happens.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I told you people would not vote for Hillery.
She was hated by most Americans.

I told you do not nominate someone hated by most Americans, cause this time we would not vote for the lesser evil.

I am sorry, I do not see where I was wrong.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You have to consider the context. Sanders is very far left so the fact that any of his supporters voted for Trump post election is rather stunning honestly.

The fact that Hillary lost a large chunk of moderates to McCain isn't a surprise at all.

It also makes me wonder how many voters for Clinton and Sanders ended up voting 3rd party.

I'll admit I voted for Sanders in the primary last time and then ended up voting for Johnson.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You have to consider the context. Sanders is very far left so the fact that any of his supporters voted for Trump post election is rather stunning honestly.

The fact that Hillary lost a large chunk of moderates to McCain isn't a surprise at all.

Be that as it may.
Sanders is being blamed for Hillery lose by not supporting her.
He did his best.

Someone Challenged me about that and I was trying to document it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

3. Will Sanders be a bad sport when he inevitably loses?

I can tell you right now his supporters will not accept defeat. I had to stop following a couple on twitter because of how ugly they have been to the rest of the field, especially Warren. Sanders people are a level of zealot that rival Trump supporters.

Originally Posted by revrew

3. I think Iowa will hand Biden the win here. It's hard to see anything derailing that train in this state. The big question is whether one of the middle candidates can springboard themselves by leapfrogging the Sanders/Warren logjam. If they can, they might be able to be a legit 3rd player moving forward. I see Harris and Buttigieg (pronounced Buddha-judge) as the best possibilities. (Though I hear whispering that Buttigieg is more a media darling than a serious player right now. He may not have the money/backers to win in the long haul).

I think you are dead on right. I also think Biden winning Iowa is not going to mean much, but which candidate surprises will become the dark horse.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I doubt any of that is true. Warren hasn't been subject to multiple decades of the Republican attack machine. Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Besides, Warren earned quite a few plaudits going into rural West Virginia a few weeks back and speaking to folks.

Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country - POLITICO

I don't have any proof, but anecdotally? I know she is not at all the same politically as Hillary, but all I see when I see her is Hillary. I imagine people that barely follow politics definitely equate her with Hillary.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Be that as it may.
Sanders is being blamed for Hillery lose by not supporting her.
He did his best.

Someone Challenged me about that and I was trying to document it.

Bernie supporters have consistently taken the approach of tearing down threats to Bernie over boosting Bernie and his policies. It was Hillary last cycle, it was Beto earlier this year, and Biden is a target now.

How much of that falls on Bernie is debatable, but I don't think 12% of his supporters switching to someone that shared zero ideologically with Bernie proves he did all he could.

Bernie has a lot of left leaning millennial supporters that haven't come to the understanding that, for their own interests, who sits in the White House isn't as important as making sure someone from the left is picking judges and directing policy. Even if that means their guy loses. The GOP has always understood that and it's a reason why Dems have been routinely trounced at national politics despite a numbers advantage.

[Radii]

I think that we've learned that a lot of foreign meddling was not just aimed at pro-trump propaganda, but at increasing the divide amongst Bernie voters and aiming to keep many of them home in November. Its really probably best to just come into 2020 with a level head and not worried about anything that happened in 2016. A lot of folks treat Bernie and his supporters like they treat Boston sports teams. "man, nothing against bernie, but my god his fans...." There is really no productive anything to come out of any of this.

Most of the discussion here so far is about who is the most electible. What about policy?

50 posts in and this feels more like a campy sports thread than a serious thread about who should be the next leader of the country.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I doubt any of that is true. Warren hasn't been subject to multiple decades of the Republican attack machine. Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Besides, Warren earned quite a few plaudits going into rural West Virginia a few weeks back and speaking to folks.

Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country - POLITICO

Dems have to figure out a way to break the Fox News cycle in these areas. For the vast majority of these people, democrat policy would help them to far greater degree than GOP policy, but they're stuck getting news from one source.

Bernie did a great job by going on Fox News and getting his ideas out to voters that thought he was a communist and Warren did a great job here.

I honestly don't know if the gains are worth the time over a single campaign cycle, but Dems need to get a lot more of this type of thing going.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You have to consider the context. Sanders is very far left so the fact that any of his supporters voted for Trump post election is rather stunning honestly.

The fact that Hillary lost a large chunk of moderates to McCain isn't a surprise at all.

Also, these numbers just show how many Sanders voters voted for Trump, but doesn't explore how many voted for Stein or Johnson, or stayed home.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I actually thought saying Tulsi Gabbard will be a strong 2024 candidate was the crazier part. I haven't paid attention to her since 2016, but I thought she was trying to go for the "willing to cross party lines" moderate shtick, but ended up just taking crazy positions that pissed everyone off.

She is as left as Bernie. The only one I see.
So, I see her as taking up Bernie's touch.

She is a Major in the National Guard.
Has done 2 tours in Iraq.
Looks good on TV.

Right now she is a nobody,
but with a good run can get some recognition.

She is already running for president.
I see her as someone who will be a player.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Radii

What about policy?

I live in NY, so I'm likely stuck voting for whomever is the choice by then.

But, if I were to have a choice that mattered, I don't care about any of the economic policies being bandied about. There are two nation changing crises coming at us, and that's all I care about right now.

Climate change is real and the effects are happening even faster than predicted.

The GOP is a white nationalist party losing concern for democracy.

Those two things should be the focus for whomever is the Dem candidate. Everything else may be nice, but it pales in comparison to climate and democracy preservation.

And I fully expect neither of these topics will be discussed much in the campaign.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Surtt

She is as left as Bernie. The only one I see.
So, I see her as taking up Bernie's touch.

She is a Major in the National Guard.
Has done 2 tours in Iraq.
Looks good on TV.

Right now she is a nobody,
but with a good run can get some recognition.

She is already running for president.
I see her as someone who will be a player.

Tulsi is the only other candidate as dangerous as Trump. I would vote for any of the past GOP nominees over her.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I told you people would not vote for Hillery.

And yet she got the most votes. Any critique of her has to acknowledge that.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Bernie supporters have consistently taken the approach of tearing down threats to Bernie over boosting Bernie and his policies. It was Hillary last cycle, it was Beto earlier this year, and Biden is a target now.

How much of that falls on Bernie is debatable, but I don't think 12% of his supporters switching to someone that shared zero ideologically with Bernie proves he did all he could.

Bernie has a lot of left leaning millennial supporters that haven't come to the understanding that, for their own interests, who sits in the White House isn't as important as making sure someone from the left is picking judges and directing policy. Even if that means their guy loses. The GOP has always understood that and it's a reason why Dems have been routinely trounced at national politics despite a numbers advantage.

Please spare me..
Obama picking a republican supreme court judge, and did not even try to get him appointed.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Tulsi is the only other candidate as dangerous as Trump. I would vote for any of the past GOP nominees over her.

Why do you feel that way?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And yet she got the most votes. Any critique of her has to acknowledge that.

Yes, but the election was not for most votes.

And she lost the rust belt states.

[JPhillips]

Abortion
LBGT
Syria
Russia
Assange
Adelson
Islam
Trump
Sisi
Modi

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Yes, but the election was not for most votes.

And she lost the rust belt states.

Yes, but they hate her and won't vote for her doesn't work when by your measure they hated Trump more.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, but they hate her and won't vote for her doesn't work when by your measure they hated Trump more.

I never said they hated Trump more (at least I never meant to say that).
They wanted change, Trump promised them change, they know he was lying, but what the hell., maybe...

Hillery offered nothing.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I never said they hated Trump more (at least I never meant to say that).
They wanted change, Trump promised them change, they know he was lying, but what the hell., maybe...

Hillery offered nothing.

I found Tarcone's alt account.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I found Tarcone's alt account.

Have no idea who Tarcone is, but it is clear,
alternate opinions are not welcome.

I do not feel I have been disrespectful of any others.
I have done my best to document my opinion when challenged.
Yet I get this...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Have no idea who Tarcone is, but it is clear,
alternate opinions are not welcome.

Differing opinions? This board leans fairly far to the left. If your opinion isn't popular maybe it's the message rather than the opinion.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I never said they hated Trump more (at least I never meant to say that).
They wanted change, Trump promised them change, they know he was lying, but what the hell., maybe...

Hillery offered nothing.

Are Sanders supporters better of now than if Hillary had been elected?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Differing opinions? This board leans fairly far to the left. If your opinion isn't popular maybe it's the message rather than the opinion.

do you mean messenger?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Are Sanders supporters better of now than if Hillary had been elected?

Yes.
first of all we would be year 4 into our war with Iran.
"we came. we saw. he died." oops not this time..


Then
do you think Medicare for all would be a democratic focus, $15 dollar minimum wage etc..
would be mainstream topics under a Hillery administration?

We would have hope for a better future, not more stratus quo.

[I. J. Reilly]

Regarding Gabbard, this was an interesting read. She seems like an oppo researchers wet-dream.

Profile: Tulsi Gabbard and Her 2020 Presidential Campaign

[JPhillips]

Hillary supported the JCPOA, so try again.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But, if I were to have a choice that mattered, I don't care about any of the economic policies being bandied about. There are two nation changing crises coming at us, and that's all I care about right now.

Climate change is real and the effects are happening even faster than predicted.

The GOP is a white nationalist party losing concern for democracy.

Those two things should be the focus for whomever is the Dem candidate. Everything else may be nice, but it pales in comparison to climate and democracy preservation.

And I fully expect neither of these topics will be discussed much in the campaign.

I'm interested in the economic differences but in the end I do agree with you, and if one candidate starts shouting from the rooftops about climate change above all else I'd shift there quickly.

I would have thought that climate change would be a topic that everyone agrees on, but after watching the house and senate largely ignore it and not treat it like the crisis that it is, I suppose not.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hillary supported the JCPOA, so try again.

She also supported the Iraq War

[JPhillips]

Yes, but one thing isn't the other.

For example, I like steak, but that doesn't mean I like liver.

[Radii]

With surtt, the only thing I'm curious about is if s/he knows that its Hillary, not Hillery. And if its intentional, what's the insult that's supposed to come with that misspelling? Why not just Killery, since that's just hilarious.


Honestly, its been insanely frustrating debating the 2016 election for the last 3 years nationally and with some (NOT ALL <3 ) members of the GOP and especially Trump supporters.

I really did not expect we'd be doing the same in a dem primary thread. This is really how we get 4 more years of Trump, isn't it?

Seriously, everyone who calls themselves a democrat or who is unhappy and ashamed of the current administration should be passionately advocating for their preferred candidate at this point, but we should all have learned from 2016 by now and should be ready to all unite against Trump in 2020

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I don't have any proof, but anecdotally? I know she is not at all the same politically as Hillary, but all I see when I see her is Hillary. I imagine people that barely follow politics definitely equate her with Hillary.

This is what I thought, too, when I read that post. This is a perception is reality thing. I suspect only the more invested in politics types are going to go deep enough on Warren to see her as different than Hillary. The on the fence moderate Republicans, especially influenced by the GOP media machine-- which will certainly paint Warren with a Hillary brush-- are unlikely to be moved to vote her unless they absolutely despise Trump.

If Warren is the Dems' choice, I think it's unlikely they win in 2020.

[NobodyHere]

I hope at least one candidate talks about solving the deficit.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Radii

With surtt, the only thing I'm curious about is if s/he knows that its Hillary, not Hillery. And if its intentional, what's the insult that's supposed to come with that misspelling? Why not just Killery, since that's just hilarious.

In all honesty I get to "Hil"l and depend on spell check.
I do/did mean any additional insult buy miss spelling her name.

I have enough legitimate (I feel) issues with her to resort to screwing with her name.

[NobodyHere]

Heh, I don't think Tulsi gave a f*** about the question that was asked.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Surtt

In all honesty I get to "Hil"l and depend on spell check.
I do/did mean any additional insult buy miss spelling her name.

I have enough legitimate (I feel) issues with her to resort to screwing with her name.

Ok, next question. Hil*ry isn't running for president in 2020. How is she relevant right now? How is anything that you're arguing about from 2016 productive to the progress of the united states of america?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Radii

Ok, next question. Hil*ry isn't running for president in 2020. How is she relevant right now? How is anything that you're arguing about from 2016 productive to the progress of the united states of america?

Substitute Biden for Hillary.

[NobodyHere]

The candidates on the wings are definitely getting screwed on air time. I imagine tomorrow will be even worse.

[Surtt]

Joe Biden has record Wall Street fundraising event.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...-amid-protests

Biden is boughty and paid for by Wall Street.
We need someone who is not.

[NobodyHere]

Great job NBC

[NobodyHere]

My favorite candidate of the first half: Delaney followed closely by Ryan
Least Favorite: Castro

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Radii

Ok, next question. Hil*ry isn't running for president in 2020. How is she relevant right now? How is anything that you're arguing about from 2016 productive to the progress of the united states of america?

The core ideas are still the same.

Bernie Sander's election run has not needed to change its message one bit.
The big change is that his fringe ideas are now main stream.

[Lathum]

We need a Tulsi Gabbard hot or not.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Surtt

The core ideas are still the same.

Bernie Sander's election run has not needed to change its message one bit.
The big change is that his fringe ideas are now main stream.

That's a good point, and as someone who has Warren and Sanders at the top of my list I agree with you! (though woo boy Tulsi Gabbard is going to get some attention from me after the debate tonight!)

[JPhillips]

I don't know what Gabbard is, but she sure as hell isn't a progressive hero.

[ISiddiqui]

Clinton had a platform that was hundreds of times more progressive than Biden can ever dream of, smh. Moderate Republicans who are ok with Biden were calling Hillary the next coming of Rosa Luxemburg, ffs! I can't tell you the number of people who called her a socialist - who is saying that about Biden?

That being said, I'd vote Biden every single time over Trump.

---

Anyways, I think Warren had a great night, but Booker did very well. Inslee did ok. O'Rourke and Ryan were bad. De Blasio was just annoying. Everyone else was meh.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

We need a Tulsi Gabbard hot or not.

Heh, I thought this after the comment in the Hicks thread that political HoN requires a different scale.

(I think Tulsi is sometimes good, sometimes not as much.)

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Anyways, I think Warren had a great night, but Booker did very well. Inslee did ok. O'Rourke and Ryan were bad. De Blasio was just annoying. Everyone else was meh.

More or less agree.

Warren and Booker stood out. I thought Inslee did enough to stand out although he wasn't as strong as Warren and Booker.

De Blasio made me want to shut off the stream every time he talked or tried to interrupt.

I don't think this played to Beto's strengths and it hurt him. One on one, when given the chance to debate his ideas and let his charisma show he does better. In a large group like this his more moderate stances get picked apart.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Clinton had a platform that was hundreds of times more progressive than Biden can ever dream of, smh. Moderate Republicans who are ok with Biden were calling Hillary the next coming of Rosa Luxemburg, ffs! I can't tell you the number of people who called her a socialist - who is saying that about Biden?

That being said, I'd vote Biden every single time over Trump.

Yes yes, agree with all this, and I really really do not want Biden to be the nominee, but if he his, then I'm getting behind him.

[ISiddiqui]

Ha!

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...996127232?s=19

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Heh, I don't think Tulsi gave a f*** about the question that was asked.

None of them seemed willing to address the heart of the questions asked. It was mostly just stump speeches.

Edit: I think value from a debate, like an appellate oral argument, can come from having an opportunity to address concerns or perceived gaps in someone's candidacy or policy stance, rather than just have everybody repeat material from their websites that we can read anytime. Right off the bat, Warren is asked about concerns people have about the economic impact of far left legislation, particularly considering most Democrats think the economy is in a good place. Great question. Warren blew it off and just repeated a rehearsed shtick about the "government not working for everyone".