2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

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

I'm afraid that the last while O was in office the GOP screamed about the deficit but now it's not an issue again. During the campaign it'll be the GOP's calling card that they care about the deficit while the Dems are spenders. My experience is that it'll resonate.

[QuikSand]

My takes from round one:

Warren is really, really good at her groove. I think she's a sitting duck in a general election, but she understands better than anyone else there by far how to make the most of your 45 seconds. That is a very important skill.

I've give the "gains" last night to Booker, Castro, and maybe even De Blasio (though I doubt that will matter). They all fit the format reasonably well, landed some points, showed some passion.

O'Rourke looked tired and pale, the latter a serious concern. I think he's done, have ever since the Vanity Fair cover, so maybe my pre-event bias is seeping in. He's a ton better in his element standing on things and flailing his arms around than behind a podium.

Klobuchar, I think, is done too. Two different times I wanted to play back her answer, re-write it for her, and tell her how to say it. And while I work in politics, I am not a messaging/comms expert -- I just have some intuition on how you go about saying shit. Either she has rotten handlers, or she isn't able/willing to take their direction. I think she's the biggest loser from last night - moving from the middle to totally out.

The body language of the leaders/followers made the rest fringe-y. Inslee is too intense, and I think his angle of climate first is still a novelty act. Ryan was not spectacularly bad, if pushed I'd add him to the good list. Gabbard actually sounded coherent on paper, I just can't listen without the baggage of knowing that she carries around a fair bit of political lunacy.

Ezra Klein wandered around on format, but eventually got to: do two nights, four 1-hr events, each with 5 candidates. That would have been better, I think.

[revrew]

Knowing this board leans left, I'm curious about an impression I had watching the debate.

Now, disclaimer: I am a political/social/fiscal conservative who is appalled by the Dem Party's current lurch to the left, but I'm also very unhappy with the GOP, and I did not and will not vote for Trump. So don't stereotype me, bro. But you'll know where I'm coming from.

That said, I have no delusions that Delaney has any chance of winning. But I actually liked the guy, and one of his talking points really resonated with me - the idea that Dems need to find a way to propose feasible, even bipartisan if possible, solutions, rather than grandiose promises. I feel the same way about GOP candidates. We aren't electing an emperor with supreme power, after all, but a chief executive who has to rely on Congress to do ANYTHING legally.

This is a point that seems lost on the average American and renders much of these debates a fruitless exercise, because the candidates aren't proposing things they can actually get DONE.

I want to hear a candidate tell me what they will DO as president, not what they think ought to happen - which is irrelevant in too many cases, particularly with the more ideologue candidates.

So, am I just showing an affinity for Delaney because I'm conservative and he's a moderate Dem? Or does he have a legitimate point?

[QuikSand]

I know Delaney (I work in MD politics) and that bi-partisan approach is genuine (even if initially district-driven). It's difficult to fathom how that thinking could possibly win the day in either party primary, but to be honest he's not far off policy-wise from Joe Biden in that specific respect (the left-right axis).

Related issue - the most interesting question of the night in my mind was "what's your Mitch McConnell plan?" That is, to anyone paying attention, a pretty central part of what awaits a successful nominee.

[molson]

I thought Obama promised too much, and then when he couldn't deliver, the response was just that the Republicans were obstructionist, and I guess, they didn't realize Obama wasn't running for King.

I'd like to hear more about the practicalities in passing some of this proposed legislation. It seems like there's a fight over far left and more moderate left, like you'd expect, but I'm not sure how much that really matters when more moderately progressive legislation is so much more likely. I guess we're all just going to continue to assume that the U.S. will have a one party system soon, but, what would a Warren presidency look like with a controlled or partly controlled GOP Congress? Is she willing to settle for less or will she obstruct anything that isn't everything she wants? What are the candidates willing to do, and not willing to do, outside of Congress, as far as executive orders and law and policy enforcement? Obama and the Dem congress of that time were criticized for being spineless - what would the alternative look like and what positive results would come from it? What type of progressive legislation is more likely with a hard-ass approach v. a reaching-across-the-aisle approach and why (and vice versa)? Would a moderate candidate veto or otherwise try to obstruct more progressive legislation if it did find the light of day? If Biden is too old and not progressive enough, how exactly do those things hinder the best legislative outcomes we can hope for? In other words, what are the practical differences between the candidates, if any?

Policy stances without context are of limited relevance. Though I guess they have the research that that's what gets people to the polls and what gets donations flowing.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

This is a point that seems lost on the average American and renders much of these debates a fruitless exercise, because the candidates aren't proposing things they can actually get DONE.

I want to hear a candidate tell me what they will DO as president, not what they think ought to happen - which is irrelevant in too many cases, particularly with the more ideologue candidates.

Well all that depends on Congress, right? If the Democrats win the Senate, a lot of the ideas become more feasible (and if they win 67 seats in the Senate - very unlikely to happen, then all the ideas become more feasible). And every candidate has to believe their coattails will sweep in other Dems and win them the Senate (why run if you don't believe that).

If a future GOP Senate minority leader is less likely to wield the filibuster, things like public options or a higher minimum wage would easily happen.

If you recall, Booker actually did speak about this somewhat last night - how he is for Medicare for All, but on day one, he'll work for things like a public option to the ACA because it is more possible to be done quickly and then work for M4A.

[JPhillips]

Going back to my above statement, the Supreme Court decides that the federal courts can't interfere in partisan gerrymandering. I expect some number of GOP states will redistrict before the 2020 election.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Going back to my above statement, the Supreme Court decides that the federal courts can't interfere in partisan gerrymandering. I expect some number of GOP states will redistrict before the 2020 election.

Every blue state needs to start gerrymandering their districts using the same tactics the GOP has used. The only way to get the GOP to put a stop to something is use it against them.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I'm a mutually assured destruction guy when it comes to GOP violation of norms. Gerrymander, eliminate the filibuster, pack the court, do it all until they back down.

Of course the Dem response will instead be to support non-partisan redistricting in blue states, keep the filibuster, and negotiate their next court pick for someone appealing to Susan Collins.

[lungs]

How about Puerto Rican and DC statehood? Anybody pushing that? Hell, if Wyoming is a state, let's make a state out of the Pacific Islands like Guam and American Samoa. Though some electoral votes and House seats might be poached from blue states, six more Senators wouldn't hurt.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lungs

How about Puerto Rican and DC statehood? Anybody pushing that? Hell, if Wyoming is a state, let's make a state out of the Pacific Islands like Guam and American Samoa. Though some electoral votes and House seats might be poached from blue states, six more Senators wouldn't hurt.

McConnell is publically against it because it means 4 more senate seats for Dems. So until senate flips it's dead in the water.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Going back to my above statement, the Supreme Court decides that the federal courts can't interfere in partisan gerrymandering. I expect some number of GOP states will redistrict before the 2020 election.

What a horrible decision and explanation. Hope this gives the Dems more ammunition to show up on Election Day.



At least the Court agreed that the citizenship question on the 2020 Census is a no-go.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by revrew

This is a point that seems lost on the average American and renders much of these debates a fruitless exercise, because the candidates aren't proposing things they can actually get DONE.

I want to hear a candidate tell me what they will DO as president, not what they think ought to happen - which is irrelevant in too many cases, particularly with the more ideologue candidates.

I agree with this in general. I suspect there is something about most of us on this forum who found ourselves gravitating to spreadsheet games that is a bit different, and may of us may be approaching much of the world from a slightly different angle as a result. I watched the debate with much frustration. 95% of what was said was worthless to me, but I felt the need to stay tuned in to pick out actual policy positions out of all the bluster and grandstanding and talk of impossibilities.


Honestly, revrew, can you just tell me the candidate that scares you the most, and I'll vote for that one. And I can tell you the candidate that bores me the most, and you can safely vote for that one (hint, right now its either Beto or Biden). Seems like that'd save us a lot of annoyance and likely land us in about the right places anyway.

[Arles]

I'm really hoping for a good democratic candidate. I voted Hillary and am pretty open - I just want someone who is reasonable and not anti-business like most of the fringe left. I watched the debate without knowing a ton about each person, I liked Booker, Delany and Ryan. I was disappointing in O'Rourke (after all the publicity) and wasn't sure why Klobuchar was even there. She stumbled over her words and looked overmatched.

As of right now, my hope would be Biden - and I would really struggle if Warren or Bernie made it. But, I can be swayed on the others as I learn more about each.

[Izulde]

Anti-mega corporation/Wall Street != anti-business.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I know Delaney (I work in MD politics) and that bi-partisan approach is genuine (even if initially district-driven). It's difficult to fathom how that thinking could possibly win the day in either party primary, but to be honest he's not far off policy-wise from Joe Biden in that specific respect (the left-right axis).

Related issue - the most interesting question of the night in my mind was "what's your Mitch McConnell plan?" That is, to anyone paying attention, a pretty central part of what awaits a successful nominee.

I'm not sure anything other than winning the Senate or unseating him will accomplish anything. And I don't know that either of those things happens.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Anti-mega corporation/Wall Street != anti-business.

No, doing the Bernie Sanders "significantly increase taxes on people with small businesses because they are rich" is anti-business. It seems like both Bernie and Warren have this policy. No thanks

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by lungs

How about Puerto Rican and DC statehood? Anybody pushing that? Hell, if Wyoming is a state, let's make a state out of the Pacific Islands like Guam and American Samoa. Though some electoral votes and House seats might be poached from blue states, six more Senators wouldn't hurt.

Are Puerto Ricans even pushing this?

[NobodyHere]

Last night I kept a bit of a score card. I gave a candidate a positive tick when they made a good point and a negative tick for a bad one.

Tim Ryan made the best impression on me. For example I liked the fact he brought attention to the mental health of children.

Julian Castro was by far the worse. I mean we don't need a Marshall plan for Central America when we're broke and all the other times we interfered in Central America it turned out badly.

Corey Booker got the most ticks but were pretty split by good and bad ones.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

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".

That's just televised debating though, especially in this format where you're fighting for airtime. You're not going to be allowed to get in a nuanced argument, and you don't want to get caught in a position where you get cut off before you get to your main point, or have some minor mistake that can be used in later attack ads ("X said that 50% of Puerto Ricans were without power for 2 months, in actuality it was only 37%. More Dem lies!" etc), so you just pick whichever of your pre-rehearsed soundbites best fits the line of questioning and go with it. Maybe we'll get this field winnowed to 4-5 by September and they can start going longer, but until then you're welcome to read their websites or try to find individual town hall type sessions they've done where they can speak for longer.

Agree with others that Booker was a winner, Klobuchar the big loser, and Beto nearly at the point I'm ready to cancel his (2020) candidacy. Disagree on Ryan - maybe he's a slight winner because I couldn't identify him before, but while Hilary may have lost the electoral college in 2016 because she didn't pander to the Rust Belt-ish states enough you can't win a national primary doing that. Was surprised Julian Castro seemed to gain some support because I still think he needs to actually win some sort of bigger office than Mayor of San Antonio & he doesn't seem to have done much since he left HuD with Obama's exit. And surprised Tulsi Gabbard got more traction because she's crazy, but she sounded moderate last night, can present herself as a war vet, and most importantly she's kind of cute, so that'll always leave a good first impression on most people.

[NobodyHere]

If Yang could give me a UBI and free healthcare I would seriously consider retiring.

[SirFozzie]

Biden certainly did not make it through as unscathed as Warren did on night 1.

My Top 4 amongst those who I think have a chance.

1. Warren
2. Harris
3. Sanders
4. Biden

[Atocep]

This was a much better debate than last night. It's a shame we didn't get to see Warren with this group.

I thought Harris killed it. Sanders was strong and it's amazing how much his ideas have shaped the debates, but he could stand to vary his message a little. Biden is a strong debater, but as the alpha he's going to get attacked quite a bit and Harris hit him hard. Buttigieg showed he's well versed on policy and did well tonight too.

Bennet may have done enough to gain a little traction, but at best he's going to have a ceiling in the 2nd tier of candidates. Hickenlooper just doesn't belong.

[ISiddiqui]

Harris was the star tonight, no doubt. Buttigieg also had a good night. Sanders was meh. Biden had a very bad night (but not sure it'll have a big effect on his base of support)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If Yang could give me a UBI and free healthcare I would seriously consider retiring.

I'll take the free/socialize healthcare but Yang's UBI proposal is $1K a month (either or if you are already on welfare or other social program) and that would be difficult for me to live on.

[GrantDawg]

Harris was definitely the big winner, with Biden taking the biggest hit. I have top performers in the two nights ranked:


1) Harris
2) Warren
3) Booker
4) Buttigieg

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Harris was the star tonight, no doubt. Buttigieg also had a good night. Sanders was meh. Biden had a very bad night (but not sure it'll have a big effect on his base of support)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Marianne Williamson was the star. Hands down.

[Arles]

I think Harris has a lot of Perot/Bush and Sanders/Hillary potential in that she is a very effective speaker, resonates well with the base and can bloody up the "favorites" in the primary. The problem is she has zero chance to win a general election given her views (basically mirror Sanders) and the red meat in her past available to Trump's attack dogs.

My guess is she will be among the "winners" in nearly every debate she's a part of because she has a ton of conviction in her views and is extremely persuasive (esp to the base). I'm just not sure she's going to be helpful in the broader goal of getting rid of Trump.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

basically mirror Sanders

Wait, what? Is everyone in the Top 5 who isn't Biden going to be called mirror Sanders now?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait, what? Is everyone in the Top 5 who isn't Biden going to be called mirror Sanders now?

1. She supports Sanders' Medicare for All bill (provide every American with health insurance through Medicare while eliminating private insurers and virtually eliminating co-pays and deductibles)

2. Harris has signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders' College For All Act, which would waive tuition for all students attending public colleges and universities whose families make $125,000 a year or less.

3. Both signed on to the Green New Deal plan and have similar views on climate control.

4. They have the same views on decriminalizing drug offenses, gun control, abortion and most social issues.

5. They both have the same stance on immigration, afghan war and trade.

5. They voted the same on 93% of votes (including all 39 major votes)

I'd be interested in hearing any legit differences Harris has from Sanders because I haven't found one yet. Even on taxes, both want to repeal Trump's plan and come up with a lower/middle income tax (under 60K) and phase out any benefits for people making over 100K (which I guess qualifies as "rich" now). Outside of maybe Warren, I can't think of another candidate closer to Sanders' stances on the issues than Harris.

[ISiddiqui]

Half the field is for M4A, and until last night, Harris' rhetoric was far more Gillibrand (who is also a sponsor of Sanders' bill) and Buttigieg- M4A is the goal, but in the interim, lets do a public option and build on top of that.

Both have jumped on board Green New Deal as has Gillibrand, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Yang, and Williamson, but neither was really the architect. One can easily say that both Harris and Sanders are mirror Inslee (or AOC, really).

Harris's history on policing has been very different than Sanders (and not very promising for a Democratic candidate for WH). I believe she's changed her tune a bit, but she was against a body cam bill for police and she was fine with mass incarceration for drugs... until she started running. (an area where Harris falls well short of the rest of the field). This is where Harris gets the most concern.

Most of the field has the same positions on abortion/social issues/and gun control. In fact, Sanders is probably the most pro-gun candidate in the field (maybe Klobuchar) - this was a big point brought up in 2016 as well.

Just about all the candidates have the same stance on immigration (as you heard last night), and the War in Afghanistan. Even Biden. Biden is more free trade than the others (which I like about Biden).

Harris is far closer, IMO, to Gillibrand and Booker than she is to Sanders. I think perhaps in your list of positions, you don't realize that most of the people running adhere to a lot of those positions (though some regard them aspirational as opposed to this is what we need to pass now - like Sanders does).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem is she has zero chance to win a general election given her views (basically mirror Sanders) and the red meat in her past available to Trump's attack dogs.

I'm not following this as closely as some, but from what I've seen I basically agree with ISiddiqui's take. On this, I don't think there's a single Dem in the field who has anything close to zero chance against Trump. You could literally pick one at random and whoever it is starts out as a favorite in the general. Not a sure thing by any stretch, but definitely a favorite. Harris does not, at least not yet, have the big negatives in terms of public perception that Clinton had. Her polling shows that she generally isn't known well enough (not a surprise) but those who are familiar with her are pretty much split 50-50. If Hillary had gotten close to that instead of being badly underwater she would have won '16 comfortably. And that's if the economy doesn't tank which it is due to do at some point. If that happens it literally won't matter who is nominated.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

...If that happens it literally won't matter who is nominated.

I follow most of this logic, right up until the conclusion. Then, I think back to 2016. Why on earth was that race even competitive at all?

Because there's a natural inclination to keep horse races as horse races, and not runaways. You fall behind, you shift tactics, you try to change the subject, etc.

Anyhow... I suspect that whoever the D nominee is, the red team will work extra hard to take whatever raw materials is presented (old votes, internet memes, russian propaganda, outright lies) and develop it to occupy as much space and time in the public square as the collective values, achievements, or goals that the D nominee asserts, plus the critiques and attacks on Trump or the GOP.

And this is why, despite my deep (and deepening) admiration for her articulation and effectiveness, I think Warren is the most flawed of the group in this exact respect. They will use her "lie" over and over, it will definitely stick with a ton of persuadable voters, and it will work every bit as well against her as Benghazi and servergate combined. I'm totally convinced of this, she's got a really wide and visible Achilles' Heel, more so than Biden's list (grabby, plagiarizer, old) or anyone else's known weaknesses. Hers is right there, and if your main objective is to prevail, I think it's basically disqualifying.

[stevew]

100% agree about Warren. It’s super disqualifying. People will crawl out from under rocks to vote against the fake Indian woman.

(Otherwise she’d be my #1 by a significant margin)

[ISiddiqui]

They'd be crawling out of the rocks anyways. I just don't think exaggerating your background is going to be as big of a deal as other things they find on others - I mean Warren has less unfavorables than Biden and Sanders at the moment. And if you don't think the same people who will be all "I'm voting against Pocahontas" won't come out against a black woman or gay Catholic, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Harris's history on policing has been very different than Sanders (and not very promising for a Democratic candidate for WH). I believe she's changed her tune a bit, but she was against a body cam bill for police and she was fine with mass incarceration for drugs... until she started running. (an area where Harris falls well short of the rest of the field). This is where Harris gets the most concern.

I think there are limits on being that liberal on policing when you are the DA. Once she stepped away from that role, her rhetoric changed to match most of the left.

Most of the field has the same positions on abortion/social issues/and gun control. In fact, Sanders is probably the most pro-gun candidate in the field (maybe Klobuchar) - this was a big point brought up in 2016 as well.

Just about all the candidates have the same stance on immigration (as you heard last night), and the War in Afghanistan. Even Biden. Biden is more free trade than the others (which I like about Biden).

Harris is far closer, IMO, to Gillibrand and Booker than she is to Sanders. I think perhaps in your list of positions, you don't realize that most of the people running adhere to a lot of those positions (though some regard them aspirational as opposed to this is what we need to pass now - like Sanders does).

I think most of the favorites are pretty close to Sanders in Booker, Warren, and Harris. Only Biden is more moderate. I think there is that left group and then a more socially liberal but moderate on the entitlements/economy in Biden, Ryan, Delany, Hickenlooper and Klobuchar. I just don't see any of the moderates outside of Biden having a chance. And I think the more liberal crew will be making an all out assault on Biden in these primary debates. The two I don't really have a feel for are Buttigieg and Gillibrand - which intrigues me on them. But, they don't really have a chance. O'Rourke doesn't really seem to stand for anything and has come off as an empty suit trying to impress all groups. In the end, it's going to be Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and maybe Booker? So, it does really seem like it will be Biden and four Sanders clones as the final option - and that is disappointing.

This is my frustration with politics - the primary system seems setup to depress moderates on either side. That's why I was hopeful for Hillary - but her negatives just became too much to overcome. That's also why I think we got Trump as the base favorites usually lack the ability to relate to the rank and file with their stance on the issues. I can't see Trump losing to Warren, Sanders or Harris. Booker is a wild card - but I think it would take a nominee like Biden, Hickenlooper or Ryan to really have a chance and I don't see a way they survive the primary voters.

[ISiddiqui]

It's very strange to call people like Harris and Booker as "Sanders clones" to me. For one, they are diametrically opposed to Sanders' views that race issues are simply a subset of class issues, and that if you fix the class issues, you'll fix the race issues. That's a MASSIVE difference in basic ideology there.

Of course I find it even more amusing considering Sanders fans can't STAND Harris or Booker. Booker is called Republican-lite by some of them (like I've heard quasi-facist being applied to Harris). Speaking of DA limits - there are many choices one can make as DA - being against body camera bills and being for mass incarceration are choices that other DAs haven't made in blue states.

And if you are depending on charismaless guys like Hickenlooper and Ryan to defeat Trump, you've already conceded IMO. They'll never beat him. They are like Mike Dukakis or John Kerry pt. 2. Biden has a shot, but he's gotta be better - his response to the Harris attack on him was lame and if that's how he's going to be, he's getting eaten alive (same goes with Ryan and his response to the Gabbard exchange - & she's as loony as Trump).

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Marianne Williamson was the star. Hands down.

Star child, at least!

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think back to 2016. Why on earth was that race even competitive at all?

Because there's a natural inclination to keep horse races as horse races, and not runaways. You fall behind, you shift tactics, you try to change the subject, etc.

1. Evangelicals for most of the race were split, with about half saying no way are we voting for Trump. Then fear of Hillary winning had them flipping on that about six weeks out. As has been said, SHAME on them for doing that - and I'm an evangelical. Let's just say that many people who I respected before, I no longer do. There were prominent voices urging them to do the right thing, but too many who followed the 'lesser of two evils' logic.

2. Most importantly, Hillary was the most unliked candidate in modern history this side of Trump. That was true at the beginning at the campaign so it wasn't primarily based on any strategic adjustments, has been for almost her entire political career, and had little to do with Trump's attacks. The hard right would still never have voted for her but if she hadn't been viewed the way she was, she would have done much better with the rest of the country.

3. All the rust belt, anti-trade, preserving coal BS econ populism that's been discussed to death.

So my perspective is still that all you need is someone significantly better than Hillary. Aka, anyone comparable to the nominees by either party in the 40 or so years previous. Trump's approval has not significantly risen and has been consistently the lowest of any incumbent over his first couple of year - it's now above where Carter was at this point but we know what happened to him. And this is in a good economy.

[NobodyHere]

So is Kamala Harris for new busing laws or something?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

1. She supports Sanders' Medicare for All bill (provide every American with health insurance through Medicare while eliminating private insurers and virtually eliminating co-pays and deductibles)

This really isn't controversial nor is anything that should be considered a far left position anymore. 52% of republican voters support it along with 70% of all voters. Any Dem that doesn't support M4A in some manner is dead in water.

Originally Posted by Arles

I'd be interested in hearing any legit differences Harris has from Sanders because I haven't found one yet. Even on taxes, both want to repeal Trump's plan and come up with a lower/middle income tax (under 60K) and phase out any benefits for people making over 100K (which I guess qualifies as "rich" now). Outside of maybe Warren, I can't think of another candidate closer to Sanders' stances on the issues than Harris.

You've basically highlighted the current democrat agenda and pointed out that two of the top 5 candidates share views on those points. That's really not a surprise. If a candidate isn't supporting those issues they're not getting through many debates.

Originally Posted by Arles

I can't see Trump losing to Warren, Sanders or Harris. Booker is a wild card - but I think it would take a nominee like Biden, Hickenlooper or Ryan to really have a chance and I don't see a way they survive the primary voters.

I honestly think you're a little out of touch with how far to the left the nation has moved overall. I'd put Harris, Booker, and Sanders (maybe Buttigieg as well) above Biden in a general by the time November 2020 rolls around while Ryan and especially Hickenlooper aren't beating anyone in a general election.

Biden is coasting right now and I said a while back despite how well he's polling I'd take the field. Biden's positions are dated and he has a lot of skeletons in his closet that he's going to have a difficult time explaining away.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Anyhow... I suspect that whoever the D nominee is, the red team will work extra hard to take whatever raw materials is presented (old votes, internet memes, russian propaganda, outright lies) and develop it to occupy as much space and time in the public square as the collective values, achievements, or goals that the D nominee asserts, plus the critiques and attacks on Trump or the GOP.

And this is why, despite my deep (and deepening) admiration for her articulation and effectiveness, I think Warren is the most flawed of the group in this exact respect. They will use her "lie" over and over, it will definitely stick with a ton of persuadable voters, and it will work every bit as well against her as Benghazi and servergate combined. I'm totally convinced of this, she's got a really wide and visible Achilles' Heel, more so than Biden's list (grabby, plagiarizer, old) or anyone else's known weaknesses. Hers is right there, and if your main objective is to prevail, I think it's basically disqualifying.

I don't think the Native American thing itself sticks. It may be used as an excuse, but I feel that if Trump wins its largely because he's convinced enough independents that the economy is going to crash without him, that illegals are going to poor over the border and rape their daughters, that dems are going to raise their taxes in order to make life easy for those lazy non-working welfare kings and queens, and that the gay is going to spread like the flu.

It does create an easier excuse not to vote for her and I'm sure some will jump at the opportunity. How many would come down to how effective the GOP message is.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They'd be crawling out of the rocks anyways. I just don't think exaggerating your background is going to be as big of a deal as other things they find on others - I mean Warren has less unfavorables than Biden and Sanders at the moment. And if you don't think the same people who will be all "I'm voting against Pocahontas" won't come out against a black woman or gay Catholic, then I don't know what to tell you.

If Warren has less unfavorables than Biden and Sanders (I believe it with Bernie, not sure why people's positions would be more hardened on Joe than her) it's because they just don't know her. I do agree that there are very few anti-Buttigeig/Harris(/Williamson?) people who would ever vote for her, but I really think elections are about maximizing the undecided's in that 10%. And not the undecided's from an R/D perspective, but the undecided's on whether they'll actually vote or not.

Imo Biden is already dead on his feet and will be put out to pasture soon, Bernie will be Bernie and keep his 12% until he halfheartedly endorses the Dem nominee, and it's really a two person race between Booker & Harris to become the younger more charismatic one who can be the Obama to Liz Warren's Hillary in the primaries. If that process takes too long maybe Warren wins the nomination and we get a fight between two unlikeable candidates, but I'm hoping Booker gets the nom, Trump sees the writing on the wall late, and Booker beats Pence 330-210 or so.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If Warren has less unfavorables than Biden and Sanders (I believe it with Bernie, not sure why people's positions would be more hardened on Joe than her) it's because they just don't know her. I do agree that there are very few anti-Buttigeig/Harris(/Williamson?) people who would ever vote for her, but I really think elections are about maximizing the undecided's in that 10%. And not the undecided's from an R/D perspective, but the undecided's on whether they'll actually vote or not.

Imo Biden is already dead on his feet and will be put out to pasture soon, Bernie will be Bernie and keep his 12% until he halfheartedly endorses the Dem nominee, and it's really a two person race between Booker & Harris to become the younger more charismatic one who can be the Obama to Liz Warren's Hillary in the primaries. If that process takes too long maybe Warren wins the nomination and we get a fight between two unlikeable candidates, but I'm hoping Booker gets the nom, Trump sees the writing on the wall late, and Booker beats Pence 330-210 or so.

I'd put my odds on Booker or Harris right now. However, I'm not ruling out Buttigeig, Warren, or Sanders yet and I think all 5 could win a general election with Warren having the lowest chances out of that group.

At this point I'd pay to see Harris on a debate stage with Trump.

[Galaril]

Good lord as I prediced Dems are gonna Dem. This group of hopefuls mentioned here are going to get eviscerated in the general by Pres Dump. I am resigned to Trump getting reelected and am now more concerned we are setting ourselves up to Ivanka and Trump jr next running in 2024-2032:-(. I believe Trump has a lot oi fascination with this concept.

[tarcone]

Was on vacation and missed the debates. How did Yang do? Still not very appealing in his presentation?

I would support a candidate for free healthcare. I know it is something that would never fly because of the taxes needed to do it, but I would pay more taxes to make it happen.

[tarcone]

That or free up the system so their is more competition. I would love progressive to take on all state for your health care dollars. Seems like competition would be a bonus.

Of course, then you have to rein in big Pharma and hospitals. And the whole industry really.

[NobodyHere]

I mostly had the debate on in the background. But yeah the few times Yang did get to speak he was rather unappealing. I mean if you like his ideas then you'll like what he said. He just needs to work on being more of a salesman. He needs to be more buzz-worthy if he wants any attention.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This really isn't controversial nor is anything that should be considered a far left position anymore. 52% of republican voters support it along with 70% of all voters. Any Dem that doesn't support M4A in some manner is dead in water.

Democratic Candidate Booed For Over A Minute After Trashing Medicare For All - YouTube

Edit: Changed video to show actual footage.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Marianne Williamson was the star. Hands down.

Democratic debate 2019: Republicans urge giving to Marianne Williamson

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Democratic debate 2019: Republicans urge giving to Marianne Williamson

They must be feeling the love.