Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

[Childlike Empress]

Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, who was going nowhere except into Mini Mike’s head, just dropped out of the Democrat Primary...THREE DAYS TOO LATE. She cost Crazy Bernie, at least, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas. Probably cost him the nomination! Came in third in Mass.

Tru dat.

 

[fishbob]

What a bizarre statement. There's the idea of a people getting the leaders they deserve, and in this line you certainly don't deserve Tulsi, who is the perfect candidate to beat Trump. Tough luck. Or "Karma bites"?

Based on higher levels of Putin support? Just great.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Based on higher levels of Putin support? Just great.

 

[The_Animus]

A Republican woman on CNN just now who voted for Trump says she would vote for Biden if he gets the nomination this time. She's not comfortable with Sanders 'socialism'.

I think more Republicans and Independents who voted for Trump last time but are not happy with him now would vote for Biden but not Sanders.

CNN has made their bias known over and over again. They're all about the $ and not about journalism. It's very easy for them to find someone like the woman you mentioned and put her on there expressly for the purpose of trying to convey the very idea you're expressing.

What is important is not what some individual says on CNN or any other "news" program, but what polling of republicans and independents show. I don't know about republicans, but I have shared this reuters poll before which shows independents preferring Sanders over Trump and over every other democratic candidate that was running.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/g... Reuters 2020 Election Tracker 02 10 2020.pdf

 

[Minoosh]

I agree.
The path to defeating Trump is definitely not through outrage.
He must be portrayed as the small, thirsty, comical troll that he is.
Laughing at him is the best weapon against him.

Laughing at him, sure. *Not* laughing at his supporters. I don't believe they are all trash (or deplorable). Certainly some of them are, but a lot are just on the conservative side, and worry about a so-called liberal agenda running amuck: Guns seized, war on Christians, fully socialized health care, murdering healthy newborns. The "liberal agenda" in the U.S. is simply a lite version of the trend in all developed "Western" democracies. I include Australia and New Zealand, and I don't recall hearing anyone mock Australia as being too liberal (NZ I'm not as sure about).

I absolutely understand those who think Bernie is more electable than Biden. I go back and forth. But both are better options than Trump, IMO. So I'd be disappointed if there evolve never-Biden and never-Bernie camps. Overall I favor Biden more on policy, but it's impossible to deny the energy of Bernie's campaign. I think the ACA is a decent framework for transitioning to full realized universal health care in which we de-emphasize the adversarial system we have now. There is a lot of groundwork that needs to be laid and someone probably has a plan for that.

 

[Puppycow]

What a bizarre statement. There's the idea of a people getting the leaders they deserve, and in this line you certainly don't deserve Tulsi, who is the perfect candidate to beat Trump. Tough luck. Or "Karma bites"?

Lol. Okay Comrade.

 

[varwoche]

What a bizarre statement. There's the idea of a people getting the leaders they deserve, and in this line you certainly don't deserve Tulsi, who is the perfect candidate to beat Trump. Tough luck. Or "Karma bites"?

Never mind her sketchy positions. I don't think it's possible for a Hindu to win an election for POTUS.

 

[applecorped]

Don't worry about it. I will keep laughing at him for you.

And the results will still be the same

 

[Meadmaker]

And then there were two,

neither one of them Indians.

 

[dudalb]

Never mind her sketchy positions. I don't think it's possible for a Hindu to win an election for POTUS.

Her being a Hindu I have nothing against. her being a screwball on so many other things does.

 

[dudalb]

Lol. Okay Comrade.

CE Ignorance of American Politics is truly incredible.

And the only reason CE is pushing for Tulsi is CE thinks Tulsi is a bigger Putin fan then Donnie.
Thouht Vlad is smarter then to waste a rouble on Tulsi's campaign which he knows is going nowhere.

 

[dudalb]

I think the Dems are being given a golden opportunity by Trump's inept handling of the Corona Virus. Hammer him for incompetence. I think he is vulnerable there.
Americans who might tolerate a corrupt, bigoted President might well draw a line on an incompetent one.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think the Dems are being given a golden opportunity by Trump's inept handling of the Corona Virus. Hammer him for incompetence. I think he is vulnerable there.
Americans who might tolerate a corrupt, bigoted President might well draw a line on an incompetent one.

He's always been incompetent but as long as their wallets are doing well, they don't care.

 

[SezMe]

The question is, will the Democratic nominee viciously and relentlessly attack Trump? Should they?

I'm at a loss as to how one would "viciously" attack Trump. What could a Dem say that is both reasonably accurate and vicious? I say " reasonably accurate" to preclude stupid assertions that are baseless that I doubt the Dems will make.

 

[SezMe]

I agree.
The path to defeating Trump is definitely not through outrage.
He must be portrayed as the small, thirsty, comical troll that he is.
Laughing at him is the best weapon against him.

That's why the ideal Dem nominee is Al Franken. He could make up jokes about Trump that would drive him crazy like he did with Limbaugh. I can just see one of those one-on-one debates where Franken rips off a one-liner and Trump gets red in the face and sputters around the room for the rest of the evening.

*sigh* One can only dream. Fer Chriss-sake, Al, hitch up your big-boy pants and get back in the game.

 

[Robin]

So whoever gets the Dem nomination needs to flip at least 6 seats and hold on to close ones like New Hampshire.

The likely ones are the ones Trump snatched, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio and Iowa.

So it needs to be someone who will beat Trump in those seats, others are probably not important. For example no-one really needs to campaign in California.

From the polls, which are a bit sketchy at the moment, it seems like Sanders is overall a better choice. But then we all know how useful polls were four years ago.

I am getting the feeling that Iowa and Florida would go better under Biden, somewhere like Pennsylvania would be better under Sanders.

But then I am not an American - what do others think?

 

[theprestige]

I'm at a loss as to how one would "viciously" attack Trump. What could a Dem say that is both reasonably accurate and vicious? I say " reasonably accurate" to preclude stupid assertions that are baseless that I doubt the Dems will make.

Craig4 has some ideas along those lines.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think the Dems are being given a golden opportunity by Trump's inept handling of the Corona Virus. Hammer him for incompetence. I think he is vulnerable there.
Americans who might tolerate a corrupt, bigoted President might well draw a line on an incompetent one.

When people start getting bills for COVID-19 testing and treatment, will they still feel the same way about universal healthcare?

 

[Aridas]

Regarding Bernie not getting anything done: I've seen others on this board complain about Bernie's supporters not realizing that Bernie as president would not be able to accomplish his agenda. What makes them think we are so naive? Every Bernie supporter I have spoken with is well aware he won't be able to push his agenda through as president. And I wouldn't fault him for that, in the face of GOP obstructionism.

No, we are supporting him for the purpose of pushing the federal govt, however so slightly or not, to the left, after such dramatic swings to the right over the past few decades. And let me preemptively point out to anyone deciding to ask me: Wouldn't it be better to support a progressive left candidate who can get things done?

1. I'm not sure that's possible in the current political climate.

2. You vote for the progressive left candidate you have, not the progressive left candidate you want.

First things first - I was addressing the points made, rather than specifically claiming that Bernie can't get anything done... especially in the very likely case that Warren would play a major role in his Administration. Still, I do think that progressives will be held to a much different and more hostile standard than "moderates" will, (much as I think that "moderates" is likely a bit of a misnomer) especially by the notable chunk of Bernie supporters who are demanding, for example, M4A... NOW NOW NOW! Warren bad because she won't promise to give us M4A on day 1! Is that hyperbole? Only barely, sadly, going by many, many attack comments on some of the people who endorsed Warren. Either way, to truly succeed, therefore, requires governing competence, or feelings of betrayal will likely set in.

And this is part of where our different priorities show. Honestly, I fear a notable backlash to Sanders, specifically, that wouldn't happen with many other progressives, as well as sharing the doubts about, to borrow from them, white people that led a whole lot of very progressive African Americans to vote for Biden. With that said, would I choose Bernie over Biden in a heartbeat for President? Yes. Do I think that Bernie's more likely to win than Biden? I have a hard time saying, honestly, because their strengths and weaknesses are so different and significant. Still, Bernie cancelling his Mississippi speech to reach out to African Americans does not seem to have gone unnoticed, and that bodes quite ill for him.

Finally, for anyone who claims Warren is similar but she's accomplished more in the Senate: I'm on the record on this board stating on several occasions that I consider my support between Warren and Sanders a coin flip. I decided several months ago to vote for which ever had the momentum at the time of my state's primary. And that's exactly what I did.

You have. To be clear, I'm not going to knock you for that.

Bloomberg running a crypto "tax the wealthy" campaign the whole time. Seriously, almost any other use for half a billion would have been more worthwhile than his vanity campaign.

Bloomberg could have solely funded the lead remediation of Flint,MI. Probably would have won more delegates that way too.

Well... when he pretty obviously entered the race almost specifically because he was afraid of Warren and the then seemingly strong scenario that this race would end up as a contest between Warren and Sanders... Bloomberg got what he was actually seriously pushing for.

Its possible for something to be 'within the rules' and still be considered unethical/selfish/harmful to the country as a whole.

Which pretty much gets down to the question of what, exactly, the job of a legislator (or elected civil servant in general) is. If one listens to some on the right, it sure sounds like their job consists solely of getting elected and securing re-election. No hint of serving any higher principles.

 

[Distracted1]

You got some facts right but somehow managed to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I'd like to point out that 2016 was decided by less than those "few piddling percent points" in WI, MI, and PA. It's my understanding that some sat out (or voted third party) because they refused to vote for Hillary (hell, I know quite a few of them). Bringing those people back around (now that Hillary is gone) is enough to swing the election away from Trump...without converting a single Trump voter.

I agree with that for the most part.
But you leave out a crucial component by failing to consider that in those same States there were a few ticks of voters who sat it out on the other side as well because Trump was their candidate and Clinton was not too terrible for them to consider.

We need to get "our" voters in those States a little more fired up without getting the ones who sat out because Trump to feel compelled to vote against us.