2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[SezMe]

Get away from the hardcore political fandoms (otherwise known as "Most of America") and someone being "For the people" means a lot more then being "Off the people."

Any politician who wants to "Off the people." isn't going to have many supporters after a while.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Awwwww. If I assimilate will I win your approval?

Eta: to elaborate, no, you don't get to decide whether my opinion of Buttgieg's queerness is valid or not. He's the one who decided to run for office and use his sexuality in his bid for the job. So I, and all the other gays, can absolutely judge him on what kind of a gay he is. And in my opinion he's an assimilationist. Which --again, my opinion-- is not a good trait.

Judging him on "what kind of gay he is" is toxic rubbish. It doesn't matter if gays are doing it. Gays can be incredibly awful to one another, too.

We all like men. That is the sum total of our gayness. There's no "boring" sexuality. Gay people didn't patent clubbing, promiscuity, BDSM, or party drugs. To me, those things sound boring, and people who depend on being "queer" to be interesting are terribly dull.

 

[varwoche]

Judging him on "what kind of gay he is" is toxic rubbish...

In addition, it's yet one more criticism based on characteristics that are irrelevant to the job. While an election bears many similarities to a reality show, that doesn't mean we should succumb to that.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

In addition, it's yet one more criticism based on characteristics that are irrelevant to the job. While an election bears many similarities to a reality show, that doesn't mean we should succumb to that.

Except he's brought it up as relevant to the job, which makes it fair game for criticism.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We all like men. That is the sum total of our gayness.

No, it's not. That's one commonality we have with each other, but it's not the only difference we have from the rest of society.

This isn't the site for queer theory but take a long look at the rainbow flag. What some people see is a celebration of differences others see as a symbol of conformity: you can be any shade you want so long as you occupy the space allocated to you in the pattern and all the colors march in the same direction. Toleration! to a precise degree. Diversity! be as different as you wish but act the same as everybody else.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No, it's not. That's one commonality we have with each other, but it's not the only difference we have from the rest of society.



This isn't the site for queer theory but take a long look at the rainbow flag. What some people see is a celebration of differences others see as a symbol of conformity: you can be any shade you want so long as you occupy the space allocated to you in the pattern and all the colors march in the same direction. Toleration! to a precise degree. Diversity! be as different as you wish but act the same as everybody else.

I'm gonna need a lot more coffee or a lot more pot for this to make sense.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm gonna need a lot more coffee or a lot more pot for this to make sense.

Don't bother, this isn't the place for it and in any case it'd be a massive derail.

tl;dr: I don't like Buttgieg for multiple reasons, some of which other people think are ridiculous, but it's irrelevant because he's not going to be the candidate.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Don't bother, this isn't the place for it and in any case it'd be a massive derail.



tl;dr: I don't like Buttgieg for multiple reasons, some of which other people think are ridiculous, but it's irrelevant because he's not going to be the candidate.

How do you go from running someone down for not fitting your version of how gay people should act and then turn around and complain about the terrible oppressive conformity of the gay community symbols?

 

[acbytesla]

Don't bother, this isn't the place for it and in any case it'd be a massive derail.

tl;dr: I don't like Buttgieg for multiple reasons, some of which other people think are ridiculous, but it's irrelevant because he's not going to be the candidate.

Yeah and I didn't think Obama or Trump would be the nominees either. Pete is too conservative for me. He's also a bit green. But if he wasn't gay, I think he would win this election easily. This kid is smart, well spoken and has integrity. He's exactly what middle America loves.

But you might argue that if Pete wasn't gay, he'd of unlikely got this far. He might have become lost in the crowd.

 

[Mumbles]

Yeah and I didn't think Obama or Trump would be the nominees either. Pete is too conservative for me. He's also a bit green. But if he wasn't gay, I think he would win this election easily. This kid is smart, well spoken and has integrity. He's exactly what middle America loves.

But you might argue that if Pete wasn't gay, he'd of unlikely got this far. He might have become lost in the crowd.

"smart" and "well spoken " are far from unusual, particularly when dealing with a crowd that includes several professional public speakers and at least 2 Rhodes Scholars. "Integrity" is very much in question.

When it came to Beto, my main argument is that, while he'd be a great Texas Senate candidate, he just didn't stand out in a crowd like this. I somewhat like Booker, but said that he was corny as hell and a bit too tied to Wall Street (see: he was infamously made sick by Obama's supposed Billionaire-Bashing). Bloomberg's just a calmer and more intelligent version of Dolt 45, he's still a bigoted authoritarian, I don't even see why he's around aside from protecting his precious Scrooge McDuck-style money bin.

With Pete...I just don't see why he's around aside from vanity and backing from some very wealthy people. He's been the mayor of a college town, and a lot of his residents are pissed because of the job he did (particularly the nonwhite residents) - and I said this soon after he showed up and the residents started speaking out.

 

[Venom]

According to Emerson, Bernie Sanders is tied with Biden nationwide at 27 percent as of last week, followed by Warren and then Buttigieg. Though they do share a sizable "old white man" vote, Sanders has Biden beat among women, Latinos, and people calling themselves "very liberal".

And Sanders is still the only candidate projected to beat Donald Trump in a head to head general election.

I predict as Biden starts to whither Sanders will take the lead.

 

[acbytesla]

"smart" and "well spoken " are far from unusual, particularly when dealing with a crowd that includes several professional public speakers and at least 2 Rhodes Scholars. "Integrity" is very much in question.

When it came to Beto, my main argument is that, while he'd be a great Texas Senate candidate, he just didn't stand out in a crowd like this. I somewhat like Booker, but said that he was corny as hell and a bit too tied to Wall Street (see: he was infamously made sick by Obama's supposed Billionaire-Bashing). Bloomberg's just a calmer and more intelligent version of Dolt 45, he's still a bigoted authoritarian, I don't even see why he's around aside from protecting his precious Scrooge McDuck-style money bin.

With Pete...I just don't see why he's around aside from vanity and backing from some very wealthy people. He's been the mayor of a college town, and a lot of his residents are pissed because of the job he did (particularly the nonwhite residents) - and I said this soon after he showed up and the residents started speaking out.

I don't get this. How you present yourself wins elections. Most Americans don't look that closely. I also think you're selling Bloomberg a bit short. But he's not my choice. From an issue position Warren is my favorite. But like Hillary, she hasn't impressed me as a candidate.

Kamala Harris seems like a tough prosecutor but does not seem likable. That shouldn't be important, but I know that it is.

I like Booker and Warren more than I do Pete. But I'd support Pete over all the candidates this election if he wasn't gay because I think he would win. I want the candidate who will kick the snot out of Trump. I don't want an Adlai Stevenson or a George McGovern. I don't want to risk a super right wing court on someone I love, but who'll lose.

 

[acbytesla]

According to Emerson, Bernie Sanders is tied with Biden nationwide at 27 percent as of last week, followed by Warren and then Buttigieg. Though they do share a sizable "old white man" vote, Sanders has Biden beat among women, Latinos, and people calling themselves "very liberal".

And Sanders is still the only candidate projected to beat Donald Trump in a head to head general election.

I predict as Biden starts to whither Sanders will take the lead.

I don't think there's a chance in hell of that happening.

 

[SezMe]

I also think you're selling Bloomberg a bit short.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't get this. How you present yourself wins elections. Most Americans don't look that closely. I also think you're selling Bloomberg a bit short. But he's not my choice. From an issue position Warren is my favorite. But like Hillary, she hasn't impressed me as a candidate.

Kamala Harris seems like a tough prosecutor but does not seem likable. That shouldn't be important, but I know that it is.

I like Booker and Warren more than I do Pete. But I'd support Pete over all the candidates this election if he wasn't gay because I think he would win. I want the candidate who will kick the snot out of Trump. I don't want an Adlai Stevenson or a George McGovern. I don't want to risk a super right wing court on someone I love, but who'll lose.

I don't understand this reasoning at all. There is no indication that Pete has any meaningful support in the black community which is an absolutely essential component of the Democratic party.

I think it is very likely that Pete will perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire, then get absolutely crushed in South Carolina. I am very much looking forward to his surrogates and supporters suggesting that black homophobia is the reason he has no traction, rather than the fact that Pete's brand of technocratic neoliberalism has very limited appeal.

Pundits, elite neolibs, and conservative Democrats love Pete. That's not a winning coalition.

 

[varwoche]

I don't understand this reasoning at all. There is no indication that Pete has any meaningful support in the black community which is an absolutely essential component of the Democratic party.

I think it is very likely that Pete will perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire, then get absolutely crushed in South Carolina ... Pete's brand of technocratic neoliberalism has very limited appeal.

Pundits, elite neolibs, and conservative Democrats love Pete. That's not a winning coalition.

In broad strokes, I'm sure you're right. That said...

I haven't taken Mayor Pete seriously and I wouldn't vote for him because (1) I fear he would lose the general due to his sexuality and (2) he won't be nominated in any case. Maybe I'm in the dark and I'm missing something that justifies these labels you're attaching to him.

He's not on board with Medicare for all. That's smart and realistic. Medicare for all is a pipe dream on a good day. It's 200 proof, unadulterated fantasy. We may as well debate Lord of the Rings plot lines. Ditto free college for all.

It seems like "smart and thoughtful" have become dirty words.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In broad strokes, I'm sure you're right. That said...

I haven't taken Mayor Pete seriously and I wouldn't vote for him because (1) I fear he would lose the general due to his sexuality and (2) he won't be nominated in any case. Maybe I'm in the dark and I'm missing something that justifies these labels you're attaching to him.

He's not on board with Medicare for all. That's smart and realistic. Medicare for all is a pipe dream on a good day. It's 200 proof, unadulterated fantasy. We may as well debate Lord of the Rings plot lines. Ditto free college for all.

It seems like "smart and thoughtful" have become dirty words.

maybe my read is off, as far as I can tell, everyone to the right of Bernie is garbage.

Pete seems smart and thoughtful. He would surely be a competent administrator president, carefully implementing incremental reforms while largely maintaining the status quo. This is not the kind of person we need in office right now, nor is it the type of person to draw a lot of voter enthusiasm.

The status quo is not particularly popular right now. Trump's success is largely as a rejection of status quo politics, first defeating his crowded primary field and then Hillary. Decades of status quo is what allowed this situation to exist, where ordinary people seem to be doing worse every day. Obama's success was largely as presenting himself as a reformer president (Hope and Change), though his administration largely failed on that promise.

The political problems in this country are not from a lack of smart people in Washington. The country is in political crisis, society is crumbling, the future looks bleak. We need a Democratic candidate that can mobilize working people as a political and social power base, and Pete ain't that.

Technocratic centrism is totally ineffective in offering an alternative to the fascist right.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I find this article a much more coherent version of what I was trying to say about technocrats and smart people finding solutions in our current system. This is framed around Warren's "Day one" plan, but I think it could easily apply to Pete as well. It's a longer article, but this passage stands out to me as a brief summary of my position:

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/executive-orders-supreme-court-law-college-debt

Whatever the motivation, “The Day One Agenda” reflects a tremendous and pervasive optimism about clever “solutions” among Warren’s natural support base. The highly credentialed are, unsurprisingly, predisposed to think that bad situations can be managed or avoided through informed or creative reasoning. So it should also be unsurprising that highly educated voters have been drawn to an impressively credentialed former legal academic who promises to solve this nation’s problems through policy and legal expertise. The problem, of course, is that we’ve tried this before.

President Obama, himself an impressively credentialed former legal academic, had only modest success in his attempts to make policy via executive action — for example, both his more ambitious deferred action immigration program and his Clean Power Plan were blocked or delayed by court challenges. That experience should give us reason to doubt that a broken Congress really can be cleverly sidestepped.

So, what to do? It seems that the only real answer is to fix our broken legislature. And, in contrast to Warren, Sanders does have a plan for that, albeit not an especially clever one. Sanders’s plan is based on political hard work and brute force, building and sustaining a mass movement to force government actors to enact ambitious policies.

Smart people like Pete aren't going to walk into office and find a solution by getting a bunch of clever advisers to think about the problem.

Building class consciousness is vital. We need people in power explaining, in painfully clear terms, why things like universal health care are "pipedreams" and how the interests of the rich are impoverishing the nation. Pete won't do that.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't understand this reasoning at all. There is no indication that Pete has any meaningful support in the black community which is an absolutely essential component of the Democratic party.

I think it is very likely that Pete will perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire, then get absolutely crushed in South Carolina. I am very much looking forward to his surrogates and supporters suggesting that black homophobia is the reason he has no traction, rather than the fact that Pete's brand of technocratic neoliberalism has very limited appeal.

Pundits, elite neolibs, and conservative Democrats love Pete. That's not a winning coalition.

If it is a choice between Trump and Pete, the black community will choose Pete. I expect Pete to have issues winning the African American community over, but I think it can be done.

 

[Belz...]

The average American has seen through the fake nature of the current political system and strongly enough preferred a complete wildcard like Trump, who is not a politician and might finally break it, over a complete establishment figure like Killary. This disgust has only gotten worse since the last election, which is why other establishment clowns will lose to the Orange one again.