2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Yup... he failed at his handling of Anita Hill. However, he has actually acknowledged his past failing.

"I take responsibility that she did not get treated well. I take responsibility for that."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ll-2020-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh

....

Oh he thought Anita should have been treated better.

Not a clue that it wasn't about how Hill was treated, it was about Thomas' sexual harassment being dismissed.

 

[Lambchops]

Jesus, get over the whole Hillary thing. That was then, this is now. She is not running.

Which is a good thing, because her ****** neoliberal politics is not what the world needs. Leave that to good ol' Uncle Touchy Biden. He'll bomb some brown children for you.

Not that he's gonna win, but whatever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How is the DNC still making such blatant mistakes. What is wrong with those idiots?

Inslee slams Democratic National Committee for rejecting climate debate

It's one thing not to support the debate. That's bad enough. But to threaten Inslee not to participate, that sucks and it's ignorant.

For months, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has been pushing the Democratic Party to dedicate one of its 2020 presidential primary debates to climate change — the looming global crisis on which he has staked his presidential campaign.

The concept had gained traction with several fellow 2020 Democratic contenders, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have backed Inslee’s calls for a climate debate.

But the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has quashed the idea.

Inslee announced Wednesday that his campaign had received a call from a DNC official saying it will not host a climate debate. Further, the DNC warned if Inslee participates in any other group’s climate debate “we will not be invited to future debates,” according to the Inslee campaign statement.

Makes me lean a tad more toward Inslee who I have not considered before now.

“This is deeply disappointing. The DNC is silencing the voices of Democratic activists, many of our progressive partner organizations, and nearly half of the Democratic presidential field, who want to debate the existential crisis of our time,” Inslee said in the statement.

 

[Segnosaur]

And so it begins....

A candidate who wants to address greenhouse gas emissions, is in favor of abortion rights and same sex marriage, wants to strengthen gun controls, voted against Bush-era tax cuts, supported increased financial regulations (the Frank-Dodd act) and wants to expand medicare services is slapped with the label "republican with a D" just because he doesn't play by the Bernie Sanders playbook.

This is not a description of Joe Biden. So I have no idea what you're saying here.

Where exactly do you think I'm wrong?

I can find references to each one of these showing that they are positions currently held by Biden...

Biden supporting same sex marriage (as early as 2012):
https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-joe-biden-endorses-same-sex-marriage-4a0d0303e6e2/

Biden strengthening gun control laws (as early as the 1990s):
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...elieve-where-the-candidate-stands-on-8-issues

Biden supporting increased financial regulations (at least as early as 2016, but as he was part of the Obama administration that brought in the regulations, I assume his support in the issue goes back further):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-...bama-financial-regulation-policies-1480975072

Biden wanting greater medical coverage (going back at least as far as 2007):
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/biden-unveils-health-care-plan

So where exactly am I wrong? How does that not describe the position of JOe Biden? The evidence is right there that those are the policies he currently holds.

Do you have some sort of deformed mental image, where you assume "I don't like Biden so I will ignore anything that shows him even moderately left-of-center"?

Also, there are no "extreme leftists" running for POTUS. In any other country in the world, Sanders is a middle of the road social democrat.

Which is completely irrelevant.

Yes, the political system of the U.S. is shifted (on average) further to the right than most other countries. But in any debate about American politics, the issue should always be how a candidate fits in on the U.S. political spectrum.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is not a description of Joe Biden. So I have no idea what you're saying here.

Also, there are no "extreme leftists" running for POTUS. In any other country in the world, Sanders is a middle of the road social democrat.

Let me know when there's a Marxist-Leninist or Anarcho-Syndicalist running for POTUS, and then we can discuss the "extreme left".

In a discussion of American politics you really have to put your European or Global sensitivities and vocabulary aside. No, you're not going to find candidates running as Trotskyites or Maoist-Stalinists, but in American terms, there are candidates who are considered "left" and the most striking example of that in the current mix is Bernie Sanders and his Socialism Lite followers. Similarly, though, the complete reprobates could honestly complain that the Trump faction is not-really-reactionary enough. Trump could learn a thing or three from the Generals in Southeast Asia.

I have to put my personal politics aside, or I'd never vote for anyone. American leftists have had to settle on winning some local elections, maybe even the occasional congressperson, but have had nothing on the national scene to rally behind.

 

[Lambchops]

Where exactly do you think I'm wrong?

I can find references to each one of these showing that they are positions currently held by Biden...

Biden supporting same sex marriage (as early as 2012):
https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-joe-biden-endorses-same-sex-marriage-4a0d0303e6e2/

Biden strengthening gun control laws (as early as the 1990s):
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...elieve-where-the-candidate-stands-on-8-issues

Biden supporting increased financial regulations (at least as early as 2016, but as he was part of the Obama administration that brought in the regulations, I assume his support in the issue goes back further):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-...bama-financial-regulation-policies-1480975072

Biden wanting greater medical coverage (going back at least as far as 2007):
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/biden-unveils-health-care-plan

So where exactly am I wrong? How does that not describe the position of JOe Biden? The evidence is right there that those are the policies he currently holds.

Do you have some sort of deformed mental image, where you assume "I don't like Biden so I will ignore anything that shows him even moderately left-of-center"?

Which is completely irrelevant.

Yes, the political system of the U.S. is shifted (on average) further to the right than most other countries. But in any debate about American politics, the issue should always be how a candidate fits in on the U.S. political spectrum.

The US does not exist in a vacuum. There are no "Extreme left" candidates over there. Full stop. Unless you want to buy into the ridiculuos bullcrap of the US right wing.

In that case, may Allah have mercy on your soul.

 

[Segnosaur]

How is the DNC still making such blatant mistakes. What is wrong with those idiots?

Inslee slams Democratic National Committee for rejecting climate debate

It's one thing not to support the debate. That's bad enough. But to threaten Inslee not to participate, that sucks and it's ignorant.

Before condemning the Democrats, it may be a good idea to see if any more information comes out from their side.

The article does mention the DNC's reason for not wanting to hold a single-issue debate: "...because we want to make sure voters have the ability to hear from candidates on dozens of issues of importance to American voters...." But the article doesn't cover why they may have threatened him if he does participate in other debates on the issue. (We really only hear his side of things.) Maybe it was a misunderstanding on somebody's part. Maybe they have a reason to want to restrict his outside debates. (Or maybe the Democrats really did make a big blunder... but again, I'd wait to see if that were really the case.)

 

[Lambchops]

In a discussion of American politics you really have to put your European or Global sensitivities and vocabulary aside. No, you're not going to find candidates running as Trotskyites or Maoist-Stalinists, but in American terms, there are candidates who are considered "left" and the most striking example of that in the current mix is Bernie Sanders and his Socialism Lite followers. Similarly, though, the complete reprobates could honestly complain that the Trump faction is not-really-reactionary enough. Trump could learn a thing or three from the Generals in Southeast Asia.

I have to put my personal politics aside, or I'd never vote for anyone. American leftists have had to settle on winning some local elections, maybe even the occasional congressperson, but have had nothing on the national scene to rally behind.

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

But hey, I'm an actual socialist of the "unironically abolish capitalism and eat the rich" kind, so what the hell do I know?

 

[Segnosaur]

The US does not exist in a vacuum. There are no "Extreme left" candidates over there. Full stop. Unless you want to buy into the ridiculuos bullcrap of the US right wing.

In that case, may Allah have mercy on your soul.

You really don't listen to what anyone says, do you.

You suggested all of Biden's publically stated policies don't really apply to him for some strange reason, and when challenged about why that is, you just ignore the request.

Then, when your argument about how "there are no far leftists in the Democrats" was addressed, you ignore what was posted and repeat the exact same point you made before, even though it was more or less debunked.

 

[Lambchops]

You really don't listen to what anyone says, do you.

You suggested all of Biden's publically stated policies don't really apply to him for some strange reason, and when challenged about why that is, you just ignore the request.

Then, when your argument about how "there are no far leftists in the Democrats" was addressed, you ignore what was posted and repeat the exact same point you made before, even though it was more or less debunked.

Lol, you didn't "debunk" anything at all. Let me guess, you are a Canadian?

Now give me an example of an actual "far left" US politician. I dare you.

 

[Segnosaur]

Lol, you didn't "debunk" anything at all. Let me guess, you are a Canadian?

Wow, brilliant deduction.

What gave it away, the fact that I actually stated I was Canadian earlier in the thread?

Now give me an example of an actual "far left" US politician. I dare you.

Right after you tell me why my description of Biden as a "pro-Same sex marriage, pro-gun control, pro-financial regulation, etc." is not correct, considering I actually provided actual references to show that those are indeed the policies he has held.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Before condemning the Democrats, it may be a good idea to see if any more information comes out from their side.

The article does mention the DNC's reason for not wanting to hold a single-issue debate: "...because we want to make sure voters have the ability to hear from candidates on dozens of issues of importance to American voters...." But the article doesn't cover why they may have threatened him if he does participate in other debates on the issue. (We really only hear his side of things.) Maybe it was a misunderstanding on somebody's part. Maybe they have a reason to want to restrict his outside debates. (Or maybe the Democrats really did make a big blunder... but again, I'd wait to see if that were really the case.)

That's fine. But threatening Inslee with being excluded from the DNC debates if he dares joining such a debate without them?

That is ******* stupid!

 

[Lambchops]

Wow, brilliant deduction.

What gave it away, the fact that I actually stated I was Canadian earlier in the thread?

Right after you tell me why my description of Biden as a "pro-Same sex marriage, pro-gun control, pro-financial regulation, etc." is not correct, considering I actually provided actual references to show that those are indeed the policies he has held.

Let's wait and see if he will implement any of those politics when he becomes POTUS. As if being for same sex marriage is in any way "progressive" in 2019. And the only "financial regulation" we'll see from him is "regulations" that funnel money straight into his own pockets, and the pockets of the Dem establishment. Also, I am a socialist, so I believe that workers should be allowed to own all the guns they want.

But wait, he's not going to become POTUS, because Trump is going to beat him. Look forward to four more years of Trump.

I'm sure you're going to like that, seeing as how you are a North american conservative.

 

[Aridas]

It makes me wonder how many people support him solely because they hear him constantly talked about as the most likely to beat Trump

Many. Other than that, there's name recognition among the less politically informed and the association with Obama. Then there's the MSM. Cable News Is Covering Biden As Much As Every Other Democratic Candidate Combined. That's from early in May, but the relative coverage is rather telling. Biden is likely the Democratic candidate that the owners of much of the MSM would prefer, either way, because he's one of the least threatening to their pocketbooks. Along a similar thread, none of the Republican candidates in 2015-16 threatened their pocketbooks, but Trump in particular helped their pocketbooks immensely.

ETA: Biden's coverage is still blowing all the others out of the water.

So, again, name recognition and the MSM guiding by means of keeping them in the public eye.

 

[Aridas]

Yes, the political system of the U.S. is shifted (on average) further to the right than most other countries. But in any debate about American politics, the issue should always be how a candidate fits in on the U.S. political spectrum.

I completely disagree. These things should very much be measured on a somewhat objective scale. What you're pushing is exactly what the far right has been pushing to make it easier to confuse the average voter and draw false equivalences all over the place. Obama was such a communist, after all.

 

[kellyb]

I completely disagree. These things should very much be measured on a somewhat objective scale. What you're pushing is exactly what the far right has been pushing to make it easier to confuse the average voter and draw false equivalences all over the place. Obama was such a communist, after all.

I get the sense that Seg considers the electoral results of a very broken system rendering the US an oligarchy legit evidence that we're a rightwing nation.

Really, polling people issue by issue, we're about as leftwing as the other western nations.

96 percent of Americans—including 96 percent of Republicans—believe money in politics is to blame for the dysfunction of the U.S. political system.
84 percent of Americans—including 80 percent of Republicans—believe money has too much influence in politics.

80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
78 percent think some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.

87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.

74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.

60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”

63 percent of registered voters—including 47 percent of Republicans—of Americans favor making four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.

 

[Craig4]

Jesus, get over the whole Hillary thing. That was then, this is now. She is not running.

Which is a good thing, because her ****** neoliberal politics is not what the world needs. Leave that to good ol' Uncle Touchy Biden. He'll bomb some brown children for you.

Not that he's gonna win, but whatever.

What are you talking about? Biden already out polls Trump in the States where it matters. He polls above Trump in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the states that gave the stupid bitch we have now the Whitehouse. Iowa is looking vulnerable and Florida is probably in play based on how close the Senate and state races were.

The Grabby Joe thing isn't a big deal. Every time Trump brings it up, you flood social media with cheap ad buys based on the pussy grabber video.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it's a mystery because no explanation suffices. He's against everything most Democrat voters are for.

Is he? I don't really know much about his policies.

 

[Belz...]

Here's my prediction:

Biden will be the 2020 Dem candidate. Sanders could literally be backed by 99% of the entire US population, but the bought and payed for Dems will still go for Grabby Uncle Biden because he will keep the corporate money flowing to the Dem politicians. Screw the people, get that sweet paycheck!

Cool story, bro.

 

[Belz...]

The US does not exist in a vacuum. There are no "Extreme left" candidates over there. Full stop. Unless you want to buy into the ridiculuos bullcrap of the US right wing.

In that case, may Allah have mercy on your soul.

Would you mind addressing Segnosaur's points about Biden? He doesn't seem anywhere near a "Republican", contrary to your claim.