2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering the hostility towards incumbent challengers from the DNC/DCCC and leadership's outright attacks on the progressive freshmen, to say the party is "dominated by hard line ideologues" is way off.

It's dominated by careerists.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Considering the hostility towards incumbent challengers from the DNC/DCCC and leadership's outright attacks on the progressive freshmen, to say the party is "dominated by hard line ideologues" is way off.

It's dominated by careerists.
Click to expand...

Right.

The DNC is essentially dominated by centrists the centrists in this subforum like to pretend don't exist.
 
Delvo said:
Which is precisely what the party needs.
Click to expand...

Is it? People on both sides of this question both claim that the party needs X (one side says "to be centrist" and the other says "to be more progressive"), but so far I see no reason why one is more correct than the other. My gut tells me that the former has a point in the sense that you can net more people that way, and that the latter has a point because you have a clear mission and message... but which is actually correct by the numbers?
 
Belz... said:
Is it? People on both sides of this question both claim that the party needs X (one side says "to be centrist" and the other says "to be more progressive"), but so far I see no reason why one is more correct than the other. My gut tells me that the former has a point in the sense that you can net more people that way, and that the latter has a point because you have a clear mission and message... but which is actually correct by the numbers?
Click to expand...

I recommend the five thirty eight politics podcast.
 
Belz... said:
Is it? People on both sides of this question both claim that the party needs X (one side says "to be centrist" and the other says "to be more progressive"), but so far I see no reason why one is more correct than the other. My gut tells me that the former has a point in the sense that you can net more people that way, and that the latter has a point because you have a clear mission and message... but which is actually correct by the numbers?
Click to expand...

Set aside the lifetime of patterned expectations about what things mean and the meta-level strategies we've all taken for granted. Look at the OECD sphere in the last decade.

I know it's hard because the old wisdom really was "despite how tempting it is and how enthusiastic that base seems, just hold the center to win."

But it really has shifted to "whatever you do, stay away from the center, stop trying to please everyone a little bit, and for crying out loud don't act like you're ashamed of your own party platform."

ETA: Arguably in the U.S. this is taking longer, perhaps partly to do with the current insane gerrymander (Republican tilted, I'll grant you, but "safe seats" create the same entrenchment issue on both sides). This is part of why the primary process has gotten so much more attention, since that's where the actual battles take place now. I'm starting to hear folks make a stink about it since redistricting is coming up after the census year.
 
Last edited:
Butterfield may have met his Waterloo in the form of a police shooting in his city; apparently he didn't handle it with sufficient tact and grace.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Set aside the lifetime of patterned expectations about what things mean and the meta-level strategies we've all taken for granted. Look at the OECD sphere in the last decade.

I know it's hard because the old wisdom really was "despite how tempting it is and how enthusiastic that base seems, just hold the center to win."

But it really has shifted to "whatever you do, stay away from the center, stop trying to please everyone a little bit, and for crying out loud don't act like you're ashamed of your own party platform."
Click to expand...

But does that reflect the electorate, and are there more numbers to get there than in the center? Do we have any concrete evidence for either claim?
 
Brainster said:
Biden reminisces about the good old days when he was buddy-buddy with the segregationists:



Hate to be the one to point this out, but there's a good reason Biden didn't look at Eastland and Talmadge as the enemy; they were both Democrats.
Click to expand...

Gee, that general truism probably explains why Tip and Ronnie used to hang out. They were both.... Oh, wait!

Alternate theory: Brainster finds another article he can pretend means something, just so long as it shows a Democrat in a bad light. Sane people understand what he's saying.

Pelosi and Trump may be diametrically opposed, politically, but you don't stage a sit-down just so you can walk out and call the other party names. That's the state of US politics in the 21st century. And that Trump thing you're still not rallying against has turned the same trick on the international stage, too often to not notice. G8, NATO, Kim Summit, Mexican Tariffs bull feces.... There's no compromise, no progress, just "Give me what I want! Now, Dammit!"

How do you think Johnson crammed through the significant Civil Rights legislation. You think Lyndon didn't schmooze with the Good Old Boys?

Zero Points for Ravenclaw! (Yeah, you've been moved to Ravenclaw. Slytherin House no longer wants you.)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And adding to this, all those rejecting Biden are not rejecting moderate or centrist positions.

There are plenty of reasons to reject Biden besides 'he's not far enough to the left'.

He's already making the gaffes he's known for and that's dangerous.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a discussion about wether what he said was actually a "gaffe" would have some appeal to undecided Midwestern and Rust-belt voters.

I wouldn't mind if he replied to criticisms of what he said with something like "get over yourselves". His appeal in places like Texas may come in part from his gaffes,which many people feel are only "gaffes" in the opinion of "snowflakes".
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Got a concrete example of a "hard line" ideological position?

BTW Calling for third parties is highly suspicious. There's a fairly convincing case that third parties gave us Trump.
Click to expand...

I'll bite. dudalb is referring to the more "progressive" wing of the democrat party but what is "progressive" about the protectionism/mercantilism of Bernie Sanders?
http://ontheissues.org/2020/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm
He has a rating of 13% by the USAE

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...s-so-progressive-about-sanderss-old-fashioned
In contrast, every progressive president of the last hundred years has favored free-trade agreements. The litany includes Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama.
Click to expand...
Bernie Sander's view here are extreme, probably more extreme than Trump. His views are like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

The Anti-trade candidates for 2020:
Cory Booker
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren


Mixed or unknown position on trade:
Amy Klobuchar
Michael Bennet
Pete Buttigieg
Kamala Harris
Seth Moulton
Tim Ryan
Eric Swalwell
Marianne Willamson
Andrew Yang

Pro Trade Candidates:
Joe Biden
Steve Bullock
Julian Castro
John Delaney
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
Terry McAuliffe
Beto O'Rourke
Howard Schultz

We need somebody who believes is "progressive" in terms of trade agreements and is pro trade. Bernie Sanders is a "hard line ideologue" on the issue.
 
Distracted1 said:
Perhaps a discussion about wether what he said was actually a "gaffe" would have some appeal to undecided Midwestern and Rust-belt voters.

I wouldn't mind if he replied to criticisms of what he said with something like "get over yourselves". His appeal in places like Texas may come in part from his gaffes,which many people feel are only "gaffes" in the opinion of "snowflakes".
Click to expand...
It was a tone deaf gaffe. It made him look like a old man who should have retired years ago.

Electing Biden is not going to return Congress to the 'good old days' so what was the point of reminiscing?

The better thing would be to campaign that one can work within the new reality.
 
Andrew Yang discusses how he is preparing for the debates:

Topics:
Automation and job loss
UBI
Free Trade vs. protectionism
China and huawei
Breaking up big tech companies ala Warren?
Screentime and the attention economy
 
Bernie ups the giveaway stakes:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) unveiled his latest policy proposal on Monday, and it comes with an eye-popping price tag: The democratic-socialist presidential candidate wants to erase all student debt and make college completely free—at a cost of $2.2 trillion over 10 years.
Click to expand...
 
TragicMonkey said:
If the recipients of this largesse go on to earn higher incomes as a result of their education the nation will then receive more in income tax over their lifetimes than it otherwise would have. It could be considered an investment rather than a giveaway.
Click to expand...

According to the linked article, that's not how Sanders is playing it. His proposal is to pay for the program not out of the income tax dividends from the program, but from new taxes which will be placed on financial transactions. You can see the context he provides in the unveiling of the proposal. This is as much about sticking it to Wall Street as it is about fixing college tuition debt. Probably more so.

Raise taxes on Wall Street. Fight the pushback and attract young voters by saying it's to make college free. Everybody believes in free college! Only a monster would question taxing Wall Street to make college free! Etc.

---

Besides, if it's an investment for the state to pay for college degrees, then it's an investment for the student as well, and suddenly their student loan debt isn't a problem the state needs to solve after all. The students will solve it on their own, by getting their degree, paying off the loan, pocketing the profits, and enjoying their improved quality of life. The state still gets the same income tax windfall, even - and they don't have to raise a single cent of new taxes to do it!

The problem is that a college degree isn't always a good investment, especially at current prices. If the idea is to realize a tax windfall from secondary education, then the smart approach would be to first try to reduce costs, and second try to take on those costs only for degree programs which actually have a high chance of profitability. A program that subsidizes qualifying (meaning demonstrated cost-effective) STEM degrees, for example, would make the kind of sense you propose.

Just blindly paying for everybody's college, and raising new taxes on some other sector of the economy entirely to pay for it, makes no sense at all for your proposal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom