2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[TragicMonkey]

Ugh. Just what we wanted, another elderly white male billionaire to step forward and declare that the current 20 candidates just aren't enough. He'll show those women and ethnics and gays how it's done! Same old, same old, slow steam ahead!

 

[shemp]

I looked up the 2009 NY City mayor's race. Bloomberg won about 35% of the black vote (running against a black challenger) and did better with Hispanics, about 50% 'I think.' (A breakdown of voting in the NY City Mayor's race of ten years ago are hard to find!)

Would Bloomberg do well with black voters against Trump? I'm afraid many black voters might just decide to 'vote' by staying home. But if Bloomberg gets into the primaries full-bore, I think people will find he's a pretty good campaigner. In 2009, even people who voted against him conceded he had been a very competent mayor.

What the hell is wrong with people who "vote" by staying home like that. They need to get it through their thick skulls: Your choice is four more years of Trump and his wholesale destruction of democracy, or someone who will spend the next four years repairing the damage Trump's already done!

At this point, if the choices are Trump or a moldy dried-up old grapefruit*, I'm voting the Moldy Dried-Up Old Grapefruit ticket!

*Feel free to take this as a euphemism for several Democratic Party candidates.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I looked up the 2009 NY City mayor's race. Bloomberg won about 35% of the black vote (running against a black challenger) and did better with Hispanics, about 50% 'I think.' (A breakdown of voting in the NY City Mayor's race of ten years ago are hard to find!)

Would Bloomberg do well with black voters against Trump? I'm afraid many black voters might just decide to 'vote' by staying home. But if Bloomberg gets into the primaries full-bore, I think people will find he's a pretty good campaigner. In 2009, even people who voted against him conceded he had been a very competent mayor.

Starting to dig into some of that and I could already go on for paragraphs on end, but I think I can put concisely that: the race he is entering will not remotely be determined by the constituency of NYC and it is not, and I mean absolutely not, 2009.

 

[shemp]

Ugh. Just what we wanted, another elderly white male billionaire to step forward and declare that the current 20 candidates just aren't enough. He'll show those women and ethnics and gays how it's done! Same old, same old, slow steam ahead!

Yes, but unlike Trump, he's OUR elderly white male billionaire!

 

[acbytesla]

I found Bloomberg to be a pretty impressive mayor. So did the New York Times when they endorsed his third term in 2009:


I was also very impressed by Corey Booker when he was Newark mayor and then a U.S. Senator. A lot of people said, "This guy's going to be president someday," and I was one of them.

And yet NO ONE can seem to be able control MTA construction costs.

 

[newyorkguy]

Well at least Bloomberg is a real billionaire not a fake billionaire. I think he's the same age as Biden and maybe a year younger than Sanders. I see Bloomberg as a doer -- making government work -- not an ideologue. I like Warren and Buttigieg but I have the fear they'd lose the same way Hillary did: in the electoral college. Remember, they'll be running against a Republican Party that often tries -- not to argue against the opponent on policy -- but to smear them. Heck, Trump's already been smearing Warren for three years. And sad to say, Vladimir Putin and his cyber flunkies will be working overtime to get Donnie reelected.

I have an open mind. If people say Bloomberg is too rich or too old, I could easily support Booker. I just don't want another 2016. I agree with Bloomberg when he says:

We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions. He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage. Link

That's another thing I like about Mike. He has total contempt for Donald Trump!

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What the hell is wrong with people who "vote" by staying home like that. They need to get it through their thick skulls: Your choice is four more years of Trump and his wholesale destruction of democracy, or someone who will spend the next four years repairing the damage Trump's already done!

At this point, if the choices are Trump or a moldy dried-up old grapefruit*, I'm voting the Moldy Dried-Up Old Grapefruit ticket!

*Feel free to take this as a euphemism for several Democratic Party candidates.

I have the "luxury" of being in a state that will almost certainly go R+10, so I can "protest" without any real impact on anything, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Some people who are burnt out on politics take an attitude of "I can't control 'broad strokes of history' or 'the grand scheme of things' but if I say I'm a member of a group and that group is pissing me off, I'm going to send signals that say so."

For myself, this takes the form of really not being impressed with what I see as a "well, we're running against a moldy dried-up old grapefruit, so we only need to present a slightly less moldy and not quite as dried-up aging grapefruit substitute."

That's why there are Obama-to-Trump voters, that's why there's crossover support from Bernie to Trump. I don't recall who exactly, but someone posted an analysis relating to stock trading with this same phenomenon. When you're in the lower tranche, a massive chaotic shock is actually far, far preferable to continued "stability" because your mindset is "stability is doing jack **** for me right now."

 

[acbytesla]

Well at least Bloomberg is a real billionaire not a fake billionaire. I think he's the same age as Biden and maybe a year younger than Sanders. I see Bloomberg as a doer -- making government work -- not an ideologue. I like Warren and Buttigieg but I have the fear they'd lose the same way Hillary did: in the electoral college. Remember, they'll be running against a Republican Party that often tries -- not to argue against the opponent on policy -- but to smear them. Heck, Trump's already been smearing Warren for three years. And sad to say, Vladimir Putin and his cyber flunkies will be working overtime to get Donnie reelected.

I have an open mind. If people say Bloomberg is too rich or too old, I could easily support Booker. I just don't want another 2016. I agree with Bloomberg when he says:

That's another thing I like about Mike. He has total contempt for Donald Trump!

It's not that he's rich or too old. Do I think he would be a good manager? Yes. But that is not enough to be my guy. He has to prove to me he gives a crap about the have nots, minorities and the disenfranchised.

I'm afraid that he doesn't have a single revolutionary idea. He's the rich guy's alternative to Trump. Show me that he can be the coal miner who just lost his job's choice. Show me that he has an idea about healthcare and education. Or even how to make Capitalism and free enterprise work for more than the wealthy and well connected.

Tell me why I should be excited about Bloomberg. Show me why he should be my choice.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Yeah, last job I worked at were full of burned out people voting for Trump tired of some the liberal ******** they saw however those coworkers also mostly backstabbed me every chance they got as a person with schizophrenia so I am voting for Bernie, also there were some mentally ill people homeless people I met liked Trump, some for religious some for racist reasons. . I won't say that there is not some liberal ******** out there but its nothing compared to the conservative ******** that I have heard about over the years.

I could have done Perot but I really probably couldn't vote for another Billionaire for Prez

Heh, I remember one of them had me lean forward so I looked deranged for the company newsletter. I guess thats one of the tricks they used to use to make the mentally disabled look different

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Sometimes it feels like I'm on a football team where the coach has accepted the request of the other team that we must use a playbook they provide us and we only get to see it after the coin toss.

In homage to "The Wire" I can summarize it as "I wonder what it feels like to be in a real political party."

 

[Brainster]

Yeah, a couple of times people have referred to me as Boomer. I know they meant it as derogatory, but I am a Boomer. But I care very much about future generations.

I also think it's time to pass the torch. It's also why I'm not that enthused with Biden, Warren, Sanders, Bloomberg. Step aside and let someone who has more than a decade or two left to live decide on the future.

Yes, the Boomers have seemingly had their time on the stage. It's almost like nobody will notice that the biggest bulge of the baby boom--those born in the 1950s--will never have a president.

We have supposedly had four consecutive baby boomer presidents. But if you look a little closer you will see that three of those presidents were born in 1946 (Clinton, Bush and Trump), and one in 1961(Obama).

And it's not like there's anybody in sight for 2020, so by 2024, the youngest 1950s kids will be 65.

 

[Brainster]

I don't think "stacking" the court is necessarily a liberal or a progressive idea, but a practical one. What we've seen over the last few years the GOP playing a ruthless game of politics especially as it relates to the court. If the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, I would do it for sure. The present court would be very different if McConnell and the Republicans had not refused to even consider nominated Justice Garland.

And what would you have been saying if the Republicans had proposed adding (say) four more justices to the Supreme Court during Trump's first two years?

 

[acbytesla]

Well at least Bloomberg is a real billionaire not a fake billionaire. I think he's the same age as Biden and maybe a year younger than Sanders. I see Bloomberg as a doer -- making government work -- not an ideologue. I like Warren and Buttigieg but I have the fear they'd lose the same way Hillary did: in the electoral college. Remember, they'll be running against a Republican Party that often tries -- not to argue against the opponent on policy -- but to smear them. Heck, Trump's already been smearing Warren for three years. And sad to say, Vladimir Putin and his cyber flunkies will be working overtime to get Donnie reelected.

I have an open mind. If people say Bloomberg is too rich or too old, I could easily support Booker. I just don't want another 2016. I agree with Bloomberg when he says:

That's another thing I like about Mike. He has total contempt for Donald Trump!

That's not what Bloomberg said about Trump a few years ago.

When asked in 2011 about Trump’s leadership of the birther movement against then-President Barack Obama, Bloomberg defended Obama but added that, “I’m a friend of Donald Trump’s, he’s a New York icon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1090316

And here are a few reasons I'm skeptical

Bloomberg opposed raising the minimum wage and vetoed a paid sick leave bill, and said Bloomberg’s response to the Great Recession was to give Goldman Sachs a pep talk, instead of holding them accountable.

What kind of DEMOCRAT opposes a minimum wage hike?

 

[acbytesla]

And what would you have been saying if the Republicans had proposed adding (say) four more justices to the Supreme Court during Trump's first two years?

I'd of been pissed. Just like I was when McConnell pulled his stunt.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think "stacking" the court is necessarily a liberal or a progressive idea, but a practical one. What we've seen over the last few years the GOP playing a ruthless game of politics especially as it relates to the court. If the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, I would do it for sure. The present court would be very different if McConnell and the Republicans had not refused to even consider nominated Justice Garland.

And had Obama not been over-confident Clinton would win and not fight McConnell in court.

 

[Aridas]

And what would you have been saying if the Republicans had proposed adding (say) four more justices to the Supreme Court during Trump's first two years?

For me, it would depend on the specifics of the proposal and the actual justifications. The brazen Republican power grab in our courts by unscrupulous means and without concern for quality, honor, tradition (yeah, there's nothing "conservative" about the BS McConnell's been pulling), or truth makes a pretty friggin' good justification to fight back seriously, though, in reality. Even moreso if the proposal is one like the 15 judge one, with five from each party and 5 that need to be selected by and unanimously agreed upon by all the party ones, which are clearly intended to reduce the effect of partisan politics on the decisions of the court, rather than to make it a back and forth fight where partisan politics reigns supreme.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nobody goes from the House to the White House.

Except for Abraham Lincoln.

He's the classic "fall in love" candidate for the white Democrats, an increasingly endangered species but not in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"Fall in love" candidate for Democrats: extremely intelligent (HS Valedictorian, Harvard graduate magna cum laude , Rhodes Scholar, Oxford, Naval Intelligence officer, Afghanistan veteran, good reputation.

"Fall in love" candidate for Republicans: narcissist, serial adulterer, pathological liar, faked bones spurs to avoid military service, thrice bankrupted businessman, etc.

 

[ArchSas]

I'd rather have an old person with modern ideas like Warren than a young person apparently dedicated to doing the same old things like Buttgieg.

As an actual young person, I wholeheartedly agree.

I haven't met a single person my age or younger interested in Pete, or that sees him as anything but boring, status-quo neo-liberal politician. I could see how some older people could get excited that he's younger than them, but I don't see many younger people giving much of a crap. I'd rather see people focus on what a candidate believes than superficialities like age. Or whatever "electability" factors Nate Silver and other pundits that want to gamify politics think is marketable to discuss at the moment.

 

[Venom]

Enough with the Boomers. Sit their asses down.

Sanders/Gravel 2020.

We need the Silent Generation to bring some noise to this one.

 

[cullennz]

Well I think he is.

I have been saying for about 1 1/2 years on here the corrupt, idiot orange one will probably win again.

Because the left media are incredibly dim in their tactics.