2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[dudalb]

So there is general agreement that Hilary trying to run again is a bad idea, both for her and the party?

 

[acbytesla]

So there is general agreement that Hilary trying to run again is a bad idea, both for her and the party?

I don't think she's going to run. I think you're just hearing "talk". I'm sure there are some people who would like to see her run and it wouldn't surprise me that on some level she misses the action. There is probably a desire to "redeem" herself but I don't believe she is really welcome to join the fray.

 

[The Shrike]

So there is general agreement that Hilary trying to run again is a bad idea, both for her and the party?

I think it'd be a disastrous plan for her to run again.
I also think that she'd make an excellent president.
I can guarantee that should she run again and win the nomination, I will canvas for that woman like there's no tomorrow!

 

[The Shrike]

I've thought for a while that it doesn't benefit the Democrats to nominate a candidate who is overly progressive,

Quite possibly true, but...

...but I've come around to thinking that that moderate candidate might be just as problematic.

this. There is an opportunity cost when the candidate doesn't inspire people to come out and vote who would otherwise not be voting.

In 2020, Gen Z (born after 1996; i.e., my kids) is projected to balance out the Silent Generation (born before 1946; i.e., their grandmother). That leaves Boomers (1946–1964), Gen X (1965–1980), and Millennials (1981–1996) to decide this thing.

If we believe Boomers to be conservative, Millennials to be progressive, and Gen Xers to be nihilists, then this race and the future of humanity on Earth will be determined by the turnout of progressive Millennials, because we know the Boomers will vote.

Will the Boomers vote for a progressive candidate like Warren? Will the Millennials show up if they want Bernie but get Biden? Unless the answer is yes to both of those scenarios, then we get Trumpistan 2.0.

 

[acbytesla]

Buttigieg on President Trump

Here's a short 5 minute clip of Buttigieg talking about Trump. I absolutely love how clear and articulate he is.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here's a short 5 minute clip of Buttigieg talking about Trump. I absolutely love how clear and articulate he is.

Maybe it is good to say that we want Republicans to gain a conscience, but I find it increasingly unlikely. They can turn on Trump to save themselves, but the Republican strain of governing from Gingrich to McConnell will live on. Obama campaigned on uniting America too. It didn't happen, and Buttigieg and Biden look like they are falling into the same trap of expecting a "come to Jesus" moment when Republicans will work for a bipartisan future.

Maybe they are just saying these things to appeal to voters, who largely like to hear about bipartisanship, but it makes them sound as foolish to me as I'm sure Sanders sounds to them.

 

[Aridas]

Quite possibly true, but...


this. There is an opportunity cost when the candidate doesn't inspire people to come out and vote who would otherwise not be voting.

Obama and Bill Clinton likely count just fine as inspiring "moderates," incidentally, I think. That the current batch of moderates is largely not as inspiring as the more progressive candidates has more to do with the candidates themselves, I think, rather than the specific platforms.

Maybe it is good to say that we want Republicans to gain a conscience,

It is! There's nothing wrong with wanting them to gain a conscience or a healthy respect for the things that actually made America great, regardless.

but I find it increasingly unlikely.

That they actually will gain a conscience? Probably. Their behavior, though, could well be modified to something distinctly more positive again and that should likely be the goal that's worked towards. Warren's anti-corruption plan, for example, would make for a fine start to that. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would help a fair bit. Citizen's United was decided on the premise that donors would be easily identifiable and transparent, rather than the dark money that it unleashed the floodgates for (with accompanying fear of consequences by "conservatives" should their contributions ever come into the light, because ). Fixing that would help. There are plenty more things, but the simple fact is that they're not going to change their thoroughly dishonest and immoral strategies when they're working so well, without a return to sanity in the underlying rules.

Obama campaigned on uniting America too. It didn't happen, and Buttigieg and Biden look like they are falling into the same trap of expecting a "come to Jesus" moment when Republicans will work for a bipartisan future.

Maybe they are just saying these things to appeal to voters, who largely like to hear about bipartisanship, but it makes them sound as foolish to me as I'm sure Sanders sounds to them.

Yeah... that was my big red flag with Buttigieg (and yes Biden, too and so much worse), regardless. Buttigieg sounds like an even less experienced Obama on that front, and the Republicans took advantage of Obama's naivety to act very badly.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Maybe it is good to say that we want Republicans to gain a conscience, but I find it increasingly unlikely. They can turn on Trump to save themselves, but the Republican strain of governing from Gingrich to McConnell will live on. Obama campaigned on uniting America too. It didn't happen, and Buttigieg and Biden look like they are falling into the same trap of expecting a "come to Jesus" moment when Republicans will work for a bipartisan future.

Maybe they are just saying these things to appeal to voters, who largely like to hear about bipartisanship, but it makes them sound as foolish to me as I'm sure Sanders sounds to them.

Ineffective centrist liberals are a winning brand, apparently.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It is the Intercept, but this article makes it sound like Pete is fumbling more with South Carolina and his Douglass Plan. It also references the theory that his campaign leaked the "black people won't vote for a gay man" focus group results.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It is the Intercept, but this article makes it sound like Pete is fumbling more with South Carolina and his Douglass Plan. It also references the theory that his campaign leaked the "black people won't vote for a gay man" focus group results.

yeah, it's definitely not because he's a milquetoast technocrat that won't help their community at all, it's the gay thing.

 

[kellyb]

yeah, it's definitely not because he's a milquetoast technocrat that won't help their community at all, it's the gay thing.

The idea that the average black person is a tad more socially conservative on LGBTQ issues than the average white voter and is somewhat more hesitant to express willingness to vote for an openly gay candidate is pretty well supported by other research/polls.

Their dislike of him is probably 98% the whole "milquetoast technocrat that won't help their community at all" factor, though.

I have no idea what to make of the apparent leak. My guess would be that he gave the quotes intending to openly release the results, they decided to keep it private, but it somehow slipped out, maybe by accident.

I just can't see a strategy with leaking it all weirdly like that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The idea that the average black person is a tad more socially conservative on LGBTQ issues than the average white voter and is somewhat more hesitant to express willingness to vote for an openly gay candidate is pretty well supported by other research/polls.

Their dislike of him is probably 98% the whole "milquetoast technocrat that won't help their community at all" factor, though.

I have no idea what to make of the apparent leak. My guess would be that he gave the quotes intending to openly release the results, they decided to keep it private, but it somehow slipped out, maybe by accident.

I just can't see a strategy with leaking it all weirdly like that.

Plus doesn't Butts have some past politics that involved a racial element? If memory serves he wasn't endearing himself to the black population before. So it's not just the gayness at play in his lack of appeal there.

 

[kellyb]

Plus doesn't Butts have some past politics that involved a racial element? If memory serves he wasn't endearing himself to the black population before. So it's not just the gayness at play in his lack of appeal there.

Yeah, it was a legit scandal where he apparently was easily duped by super-racist white cops into firing black cops. Something like that. One of those "Is extraordinary ignorance about how systematic racism actually works in the real world, when being displayed by a white guy with power who seems smart, and it results in a racist outcome, is that probably evidence of racial bias on the guy's part, or a form of racism itself?" sort of things.

 

[Distracted1]

yeah, it's definitely not because he's a milquetoast technocrat that won't help their community at all, it's the gay thing.

But Biden will??
https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-b...-some-are-open-to-other-democrats-11569931201

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe it is good to say that we want Republicans to gain a conscience, but I find it increasingly unlikely. They can turn on Trump to save themselves, but the Republican strain of governing from Gingrich to McConnell will live on. Obama campaigned on uniting America too. It didn't happen, and Buttigieg and Biden look like they are falling into the same trap of expecting a "come to Jesus" moment when Republicans will work for a bipartisan future.

Maybe they are just saying these things to appeal to voters, who largely like to hear about bipartisanship, but it makes them sound as foolish to me as I'm sure Sanders sounds to them.

No, I don't think he's saying that. He's calmly saying that the GOP must come to Jesus or basically be annihilated at the polls. I don't believe he actually thinks they will without the annihilation.

 

[The Shrike]

Obama and Bill Clinton likely count just fine as inspiring "moderates," incidentally, I think. That the current batch of moderates is largely not as inspiring as the more progressive candidates has more to do with the candidates themselves, I think, rather than the specific platforms.

To an extent I agree, but Clinton and Obama got votes from me (unaffiliated independent progressive) not because I was so moved by their messaging but because the alternative was such obvious GOP septic sludge. I saw them both as conservative-lite but, unlike a lot of other progressives, I understood how damaging protest-votes and no-votes would be, so I voted for them. Ditto Clinton 2016.

But what about the idiotic progressives out there who either don't vote or waste their votes on Jill Steins? If they came out en force for a legitimate progressive candidate, would the "moderate" liberals then stay home or vote for some kind of centrist 3rd party?

I don't know, but doesn't some polling suggest that they would, e.g., the attitude of the population is far more progressive than the politics of the country?

 

[Brainster]

yeah, it's definitely not because he's a milquetoast technocrat that won't help their community at all, it's the gay thing.

So they're supporting Joe Biden instead?

 

[Brainster]

To an extent I agree, but Clinton and Obama got votes from me (unaffiliated independent progressive) not because I was so moved by their messaging but because the alternative was such obvious GOP septic sludge. I saw them both as conservative-lite but, unlike a lot of other progressives, I understood how damaging protest-votes and no-votes would be, so I voted for them. Ditto Clinton 2016.

But what about the idiotic progressives out there who either don't vote or waste their votes on Jill Steins? If they came out en force for a legitimate progressive candidate, would the "moderate" liberals then stay home or vote for some kind of centrist 3rd party?

It's not the moderate liberals that you have to worry about. It's the legitimate swing voters that matter; the folks who voted for Obama and for Trump. If you lose them you don't lose them to some mythical centrist 3rd party, you lose them to the GOP. And when you lose a voter to the other major party, you're down two votes total (-1 for you, and +1 for the other guy). If you lose a voter to a third-party candidate like Stein, you're only down one vote.

Jill Stein got about 1% of the vote in 2016. So think about it this way--how far left do you have to go to get all the Jill Stein voters? And can you say honestly that you don't think going that far left will alienate 0.5% of the voters in the middle?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's not the moderate liberals that you have to worry about. It's the legitimate swing voters that matter; the folks who voted for Obama and for Trump. If you lose them you don't lose them to some mythical centrist 3rd party, you lose them to the GOP. And when you lose a voter to the other major party, you're down two votes total (-1 for you, and +1 for the other guy). If you lose a voter to a third-party candidate like Stein, you're only down one vote.



Jill Stein got about 1% of the vote in 2016. So think about it this way--how far left do you have to go to get all the Jill Stein voters? And can you say honestly that you don't think going that far left will alienate 0.5% of the voters in the middle?

If true, then it seems America cannot/will not elect those willing to do what's necessary to avoid climate disaster and taking part or not taking part, voting pragmatically or conscientiously, all lead to the same outcome.

 

[Brainster]

If true, then it seems America cannot/will not elect those willing to do what's necessary to avoid climate disaster and taking part or not taking part, voting pragmatically or conscientiously, all lead to the same outcome.

If you assume that Joe Biden won't do enough on that score, but that Stein, Warren or Bernie will, then yes, you are probably right.