2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[theprestige]

As far as I can tell, there were no other options. The GOP had vowed not to work with the Obama administration on anything, including a health care plan previously championed by conservatives. They might as well have passed single-payer UHC; either was going to be completely unsupported by Republicans. Now it's become politically untenable to go back to the status quo, which was that insurance coverage could be denied to anyone with a pre-existing condition. If nothing else comes out of the ACA, that's progress, IMO.

ETA: as for that last sentence: It's the only way things can happen in this country in recent years. Dems didn't start that.

It is in the nature of progressives to try to make change happen. It is in the nature of conservatives to restrain that progressive impulse.

Telling me that the only way to make change happen is over the vehement protests of half the country is a terrible strategy for getting me on your side for those changes.

ETA2: The thread title? Why have we been dragged back to stuff that happened 10 years ago?

Because it's a good example of what happens when you make a virtue of forcing change by a bare majority. And it didn't just happen ten years ago. It's a process that started ten years ago, and with consequences happening right now.

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps. What it specifically was, after all, was McConnell outright refusing to let the Senate do its constitutionally mandated job.

I disagree. I think the Senate did in fact do its constitutionally mandated job.

 

[The Atheist]

Sounds to me like Biden's aiming his pitch to Republican donors rather than Democratic voters.

They're already on board - he's just talking their book.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/wall-street-has-its-top-democratic-hopefuls-all-picked-out/

With a quiet $1 on Butty & Harris, just in case.

Anything, as long as Warren or Sanders don't win.

Which immediately suggests to me that the entire Democratic movement should jump on board the Liz Warren train immediately, giving voters a clear choice of joining the 21st century, or staying the world's laughing-stock for four more years.

 

[Minoosh]

Telling me that the only way to make change happen is over the vehement protests of half the country is a terrible strategy for getting me on your side for those changes.

There was literally no mechanism for Dems to get any Republicans on their side, because the GOP adopted a policy of going against the Dems on everything.

Because it's a good example of what happens when you make a virtue of forcing change by a bare majority. And it didn't just happen ten years ago. It's a process that started ten years ago, and with consequences happening right now.

Then I don't know what you think should happen. There would have been no health care reform of any sort without Dems using their majority. And now it's not acceptable to refuse insurance coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition (which is just about everybody over, say, 40).

 

[Mumbles]

Completely delusional about the GOP.

Poor Obama thought that too. We saw what happened.

It's amazing how the Republicans make no bones about their disdain of Democrat policies, as center-left as they often are and status quo Democrats constantly want to meet Republicans in the middle, wherever that middle happens to be.

Obama, at least, didn't have quite such obvious precedent - it made sense to try in 2009-2010, hell back then Boehner was at least not just mindlessly anti-Obama, republicans presented their (unworkable for the most part) health care proposals, and so forth. Once 12010 rolled around, though, we got a massive faction in the House that would simply oppose whatever it was that Obama said, same a McConnell, to the point of refusing accept their own stated goals when Obama presented them.And so we got vote after vote to take away people's health care access, often just so newly voted in members could get a chance. No thought, no policy, just dogs chasing a car. And when they finally caught it, what did they do?

Tax cuts for the rich. And aside from that, nothing. How pathetic.

ETA: In any case, Biden's insistence that the GOP will learn to behave once Dolt 45 is gone is confused. As I have said repeatedly (and I'm fairly certain I got it from someone else - plenty of other people here have said the same, after all) He's not the disease, he's merely a symptom. The current GOP is a group that knows full well that it cannot continue to rule in a functional democracy without changing who they appeal to strongly. And so they have decided to render US democracy dysfunctional.

 

[Cabbage]

It is in the nature of progressives to try to make change happen. It is in the nature of conservatives to restrain that progressive impulse.

Telling me that the only way to make change happen is over the vehement protests of half the country is a terrible strategy for getting me on your side for those changes.


Because it's a good example of what happens when you make a virtue of forcing change by a bare majority. And it didn't just happen ten years ago. It's a process that started ten years ago, and with consequences happening right now.

What your position ignores is that currently, Republicans oppose Democratic policies not based on the merits of said policies, but the simple fact that they are Democratic policies. You speak of "strategy". LOL! The GOP has already decided on their "strategy": "Hell No!" to anything Democrats propose. With them it's party before country; they refuse to allow any Democratic policy a chance at succeeding--they're afraid it will take away their own support, nation be damned. No Democratic strategy can bridge a gap where one side refuses to listen, so why bother trying to win Republican support/compromise? Sincere question, and I doubt you have a good answer.

 

[dudalb]

Guaranteed if Sanders gets the nod, he wins.

Just keep living in fantasy land.Trump would love that.

 

[Cabbage]

It is in the nature of progressives to try to make change happen. It is in the nature of conservatives to restrain that progressive impulse.

Telling me that the only way to make change happen is over the vehement protests of half the country is a terrible strategy for getting me on your side for those changes.



Because it's a good example of what happens when you make a virtue of forcing change by a bare majority. And it didn't just happen ten years ago. It's a process that started ten years ago, and with consequences happening right now.

It went through the Constitutional process of passing a bill. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Venom]

Just keep living in fantasy land.Trump would love that.

Which fantasy land is that? Perhaps the one where centrist offers and compromise from Democrats are accepted by Republicans.

 

[Brainster]

Biden reminisces about the good old days when he was buddy-buddy with the segregationists:

Biden made his initial remarks during a New York City fundraiser on Tuesday night. He boasted about cooperating with two Southern segregationists during his time as a senator while talking about the need to bring people together and “reach consensus” in today’s gridlocked politics.

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland,” Biden said, briefly imitating the Mississippi senator’s accent. “He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.’”

Biden also invoked Sen. Herman Talmadge of Georgia, saying he was “one of the meanest guys I ever knew.”

“You go down the list of all these guys. Well, guess what. At least there was some civility,” Biden continued. “Today, you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”

Hate to be the one to point this out, but there's a good reason Biden didn't look at Eastland and Talmadge as the enemy; they were both Democrats.

 

[Aridas]

Completely delusional about the GOP.

Poor Obama thought that too. We saw what happened.

It's amazing how the Republicans make no bones about their disdain of Democrat policies, as center-left as they often are and status quo Democrats constantly want to meet Republicans in the middle, wherever that middle happens to be.

Buttigieg was also saying something similar at the start, which, well, is one of the things that dampened my support for him. It's naive to think that the GOP's going to magically change.

I disagree. I think the Senate did in fact do its constitutionally mandated job.

You've made your opinion perfectly obvious and not particularly convincing. There's more to the healthy working of government than just adherence to the letter of the law, especially when the intent is being horrendously twisted.

To illustrate the principle, though, in a completely unsubtle manner...

Imagine a case where a set of lawmakers pass a law saying that a particular agency should "protect the children in their care."

Imagine that the administration changes and the new administration chooses to push the policy that they'll "protect the kids from all the suffering that life entails" and kills the kids that were being cared for by that agency. Then, when the inevitable complaints and accusations that they're breaking the law come, they point straight at that law and loudly tell everyone to blame that previous set of lawmakers and say that they're just following the letter of the law.

Based on your stated position so far, you seem to be firmly in favor of the new administration's stance that rests on everything being permissible if not addressed specifically and explicitly in the letter of the law, no matter how obviously it violates the clear intent.



Anyways, in other news, here's a set of polls that includes a comparison of preferred candidates and who people would vote for right now.

Of some note, it finds that about a third of Biden's current support very likely backs him just because they think he's the candidate most likely to win. When it comes to who Democrats actually would choose as the best choice, Warren leads the pack by about two percent. Biden and Sanders are roughly tied for second. Buttigieg is a solid fourth place, with Harris also solidly in fifth.

ETA:

Hate to be the one to point this out,

I don't believe you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so prediction/guess/and would like to see it happen question.

Of the front runners now, do you see any of them winding up as the VP on the eventual winner's ticket?

I don't see Biden wanting to take the VP spot again and I don't think it would fit Sanders personality, but the others are a strong maybe.

 

[Brainster]

Okay so prediction/guess/and would like to see it happen question.

Of the front runners now, do you see any of them winding up as the VP on the eventual winner's ticket?

I don't see Biden wanting to take the VP spot again and I don't think it would fit Sanders personality, but the others are a strong maybe.

Depends a lot on who gets the top spot, but I'd say that Biden, Sanders and Warren would all be ruled out on account of age. The other tricky part is that picking one of your opponents probably means that they will become the heir apparent, in the way that picking a non-contender (like Tim Kaine or Paul Ryan) doesn't. This may hold back someone like Mayor Pete or Beto.

Is there anybody who can make a credible case as potentially swinging their home state? Tim Ryan has a good argument here, but I don't see anybody else other than Bullock, and Ohio is a bigger key to victory than Montana.

 

[applecorped]

Which fantasy land is that? Perhaps the one where centrist offers and compromise from Democrats are accepted by Republicans.

No, the fantasy land where Bernie gets elected.

 

[dudalb]

The progressive wing of the Democratic party is rapidly becoming just a different flavor of the Tea Party mentality.
If the Dems have no place for Centrists except as second class Citiznes count me out and count me in as saying we need a new party that is not dominated by hard line ideologues, and the GOP now is and the Dems seem to be rapidly becoming.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The progressive wing of the Democratic party is rapidly becoming just a different flavor of the Tea Party mentality.
If the Dems have no place for Centrists except as second class Citiznes count me out and count me in as saying we need a new party that is not dominated by hard line ideologues, and the GOP now is and the Dems seem to be rapidly becoming.

Got a concrete example of a "hard line" ideological position?

BTW Calling for third parties is highly suspicious. There's a fairly convincing case that third parties gave us Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Got a concrete example of a "hard line" ideological position?
....

And adding to this, all those rejecting Biden are not rejecting moderate or centrist positions.

There are plenty of reasons to reject Biden besides 'he's not far enough to the left'.

He's already making the gaffes he's known for and that's dangerous.

 

[The Atheist]

Biden reminisces about the good old days when he was buddy-buddy with the segregationists:

Yeah, it's gone down very well.

The progressive wing of the Democratic party is rapidly becoming just a different flavor of the Tea Party mentality.
If the Dems have no place for Centrists except as second class Citiznes count me out and count me in as saying we need a new party that is not dominated by hard line ideologues, and the GOP now is and the Dems seem to be rapidly becoming.

Congratulations for encapsulating perfectly why America deserves Trump.

You may as well be one of those blokes in a "Better Russia than a Democrat" t-shirt. Heck, you should probably have a "Beware of reds under the beds!" sign outside your house.

If you can conflate wanting to preserve the planet and have a system that creates more equality with climate-denying, plutocratic fascists, there's something seriously wrong.

 

[Venom]

And how have these hard line ideologues "dominated" the discussion on the left?

If the Dems have no place for Centrists except as second class Citiznes count me out...

Good thing the Dems aren't saying that.

 

[Delvo]

Of the front runners now, do you see any of them winding up as the VP on the eventual winner's ticket?

Between Sanders and Warren, whichever drops out first, I expect him/her to join the other and campaign for him/her so much that it will look as if they had formed a single ticket together. But a younger third person like Yang will technically be the VP on the ticket.

The progressive wing of the Democratic party is rapidly becoming just a different flavor of the Tea Party mentality.

Which is precisely what the party needs. Since the Republicans got the Tea Party people and the Democrats didn't, look at which one has been winning (until just the last round, when a little bit of what you're referring to got started).