Politics The 2020 US Presidential Election

Warren could bring together both factions of the left I think.

But, she needs to avoid being too policy focused and build a movement of support.

 

Democrats have a fatal tendency to generate reams of plans and proposals. They are pure inside baseball, and if anything, provide lots of material for attack ads.

Warren's weakness is that she is every bit as unlikeable a figure as Hillary was.

That's not a gender thing. Remember Ann Richards? Ella Grasso? I think the woman in the 2020 race who has the greatest potential as a national leader is Kamala Harris.

To an uncomfortably large extent, the parties have become gendered, with Republicans as the party of men, Democrats as the party of women, and that critically affects the selection of candidates. Most Republican primary votes are cast by men, while most Democratic primary votes are cast by women. I'd say both of those numbers are in the 60% range, but it probably varies by state.

(Analysis of the 2018 election showed a decline in the already small number of Republican women in state legislatures pretty much everywhere. And the proportion of women among Republican legislators is least in the states where Republicans are in control. That is, a disproportionate number of Republican women legislators are in powerless legislative minorities.)

I'm not worried about anybody staying home in November 2020. In swing states, we're going to have the largest presidential turnout ever seen.

 

I agree with you on Harris,

She is also likely to have early momentum in the primaries. Following Iowa and New Hampshire, the first real test is the South Carolina primary on Feb. 29. where she has a large activist Black base already behind her.

More important is her home state of California that moved its primary from June in past years to the first week of March in 2020 (March 3, three days after South Carolina). Not only the early primary but also the fact of early voting so that ballots for the Democratic primary in California will be printed and available at the time of the Iowa Caucus in early Feb.

There is a likelihood that after South Carolina on Feb, 29 and California on March 3, Harris could be leading in delegates and riding the "big mo" wave, depending on other key states on March 3 (GA, MA, NC, VA...).

Good to see you back!

 

A Democratic group held a straw poll of 50 random people in a very liberal city last weekend. (There were lots of people at the event, these were the ones who chose to vote). Most of the people voting know about politics, but I wouldn't read into these numbers much.

For President:
Warren: 30%
Biden: 18%
Sanders: 14%
Buttigieg: 14%
Harris: 12%

I was expecting Sanders to be higher to be honest.

They could also vote for a VP position:
Buttigieg: 26%
Harris: 18%
Biden: 18%
Warren: 9%

The rest of the candidates got 0 or 2 votes.

I like Yang's platform better than others, and I think he is talking about the automation issues that many politicians are avoiding. I can see why he could get some conservative votes. Getting rid of the government programs that are trying to give benefits to specific people, and instead just doing flat benefits to everyone and he has suggestions on how to pay for it.

I just wonder if Warren would be the compromise for both the Biden and Sanders voters who wouldn't want to support the other one for various reasons. I think if Warren did win the nomination, her VP pick would be a big deal. I wonder who she would pick?

 

I've said this a lot today because so many people are posting this poll. It is meaningless. We already know that Trump will lose the popular vote. I haven't run the numbers, but I bet he could lose 57% to 41% in the popular vote, but still get to 270 electoral votes. He has lost very few people who have voted for him in 2016, except for those who have died. There might be fewer anti-Hilary votes, but the massively funded and better run GOP Super PACs haven't started tearing down the Democrat yet. And then you get the Pro-Religious, Anti-Abortion, Pro-Gun, Anti-Gay, Pro-White, Anti-Immigrant, and pro-Military voter and their media trying to convince people in a few swing states about what will happen if the Democrats take over, and this isn't over by a long shot.

 

I know a lot of progressives aren't feeling Warren for the "Wall Street cred" as you put it.
However, I don't read her as the standard neoliberal and feel like she would be a good choice.
Plus, I don't think she would play 45's game so she would shine where Hillary didn't.

 

*Except for Joe Biden for some reason.

There are 29 Democrats and one Republican running in the primary. I need to update the list probably.

 

My impression is that Warren's native american claim is going to haunt her credibility with many moderates, and re: Biden it seems that there's a significant contingent of people staunchly opposed (or even hateful) towards him so while he's the candidate with strongest comparative polling vs Trump right now that he could also pose the highest risk to cause constant infighting within the Democrat party, possibly leading to its overall defeat.

Don't know too much about Harris, but she's much more of a centrist in her policies, correct? Will be very interesting to see how her candidacy develops and the general perception of her continues to morph.
Yang doesn't strike me as a top contender, or that he's being seen as such, which I'm sure certain people I know in Silicon Valley would be quite miffed about.

Sad to see Sanders not leading the pack by a wide margin. Him and Gabbard would be my top choices.

 

Moderates don't give a shit about Ms. Warren's claims to Native American blood.
The only people I have seen who care about that bullshit are 45 followers and misogynists.
She was passing along the stories her family told her and nobody who grew up with those kind of stories gives a damn.

The First Nation folks I know are pissed that she gave in to 45's pressure and did the DNA test.
All she did was show that like most of the rest of us junkyard Americans there is a bit of First Nation DNA floating around in there.
It isn't something the First Nation people are really happy to talk about since a lot of that DNA came about from fun things like rape.

 

My impression is that Biden is trying to avoid the primaries as much as possible, because whenever he does answer questions, he runs into problems. I would have hoped that the DNC had learned their lesson in 2016 that the candidate has to unify the party. The candidate has to have at least one or two far left ideas that they will seriously work on. And the progressives need to have some practical details about how centrists and independents would benefit. For the over 65 voters, free college, $15/hr, and free Medicare for all isn't going to help. Yang is right about what he talks about when it comes to the economy and automation. I think his freedom dividend could use a few tweaks, and I worry about the negative stories that the media will latch onto. It could help 999 people, but the 1 that uses it to buy hookers and blow, and that is what will be covered. It would be good if it included an option for the super rich to save $2000 in taxes but forgo getting the $12,000 a year let's say, or that they could direct it to a government agency for projects like NASA or the Peace Corp. Even local government infrastructure projects might be an option for well off people to give back. I think he could also push savings bonds or Treasury bonds to start making it be Americans that hold the national debt, and to prevent the government from having to raid social security to cover the debt payments. It would also be an easy way to save for many people.

Bill Maher had a good critic of the Democrats last night. While I think the number of them running is causing the motivated activists and voters to be divided, and for it to seem like even the front runners have small crowds compared to the rally held on Tuesday. They need to realize that numbers matter, size matters. And people want to see a leader that can get 50,000 people out to hear them motivate them and explain what is going on and their plans. While Oprah might have some issues, I think she would win and get people excited. Jon Stewart would be another one. At least they need to think about it when they pick a VP.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwxqxCzx7U


I'm thinking that Warren and Sanders are splitting the vote. The DNC would rather it be Warren. From a online activist perspective, Sanders is going to be easier to defend against the trolls. And I am worried about the fallout from electing the first woman, gay, or Asian President at this time. You are going to have a very angry and organized group that doesn't want the changes that will be needed. And I expect the Democrats are going to 'spike the football' and get revenge in 2021 if they win. It would be better coming from a white male in my opinion.

 

@redravin, interesting to hear and I'll be watching her progress closely. My mind is certainly completely open to my impression being totally off-base.

@ASU2003, that's what strikes me with Biden - that those within the DNC opposed to him are primed to go into carnivore-mode at the slightest misstep. Pivoting the outrage hivemind towards him at every little thing will only prove counter-productive to the wider objective.

Don't get me wrong about Yang, fundamentally I agree with how he perceives the disruptive nature of technology (and its increasing speed of advancement) and that there's a need to modify the structural framework of the global economy (starting with the biggest single market) and I've heard good things about him from the Taiwanese tech circles I'm familiar with. My biggest issues with him are that 1) I don't think the way the Freedom Dividend is conceptualized is remotely comprehensive or thought-through enough to be a serious solution to a complex structural problem in the medium-to-long term, and 2) he doesn't exude a 'presidential' aura in the least, and while neither did Trump I think it's safe to say he was/is a major outlier.

I fully agree with you that the DNC is in dire need of a unifying candidate, especially with their absolute talent at internal fracturing and alienating segments of their own base due to sheer arrogance. Hillary's campaign and the surrounding posturing by her enthusiasts was the epitome of arrogant behavior, and while the Democrats appear a bit muted comparatively it doesn't strike me that their sense of self-righteousness has diminished - leaving themselves very open to the possibility of inflicting similar push-back as the last election.

 

This is what you get when you have the mainstream media shut out any progressives from getting on the air as pundits.

There are some points in this article that I agree with, and the DNC is a mess. The leadership is weak, and their planning and issue debate is non-existent. They just let the activist groups run with it, but this doesn't translate into persuading society to change, it also isn't translating into legislation in the blue states let alone into getting red states to move on things. There is no plan to try an unify the party on the big issues either. They are trying to get the candidates to do all of this rather than go from the top down. There should be big conferences in multiple places across the country to get input from people and activists on what the plans should be. Environmental, healthcare, women's health, race relations, immigration, trade and economic policy, education, and on and on.

The comment section shows that the DNC didn't learn from 2016 that it only takes a few people to change the entire feeling of people who read them. The other side figured this out, and got some help to make it embarrassing to support Hillary. There should be 10 hour YouTube movies that go through everything wrong with conservatives and what the history actually is when it is all put together, not just podcasts and news clips.

Here are the 11 points in the article:

1. People need to be persuaded to become closer to the Twitter version of Democrats. The conservative media was built to shift the right towards the extreme, but certain parts of the left are correct and where the country should be.

2. Yes, don't say that terrorist get to vote in jail and talk about reparations

3. I am wondering why they are doing this too. College debt is one thing that needs to be addressed, coming up with $1.6 trillion to do it is another topic altogether. And it will piss a lot of people off, military, blue collar workers, retirees, etc... who will be told that they get to pay for some liberal arts degree for someone else.

4. Lots of bad numbers here. The problem is that we are paying premiums that are way more than $3.2 trillion a year. If premiums = taxes, then the numbers for Medicare For All come out better. But, their is a lot more money behind the negative campaign then the positive, and since the party is divided on it, it is going to be hard to pass even with a supporter as President.

5. Where did this issue come from? There are a lot of policies that can be worked on, but I feel a lot of people are where I was when I was 18 and wondering why being a certain race made college easier to get into.

6. Kids in cages should be enough. I would have some secret amnesty programs ready to go in January 2021 though. Dreamers for sure. But, what happened in Latin America and how to deal with it should be discussed.

7. AOC is more popular than any of the candidates running. She gets how to use social media and drives the story in the regular media. If she would explain some policies better like wanting Amazon to choose a different city that needed the jobs and to help bring back the middle class in a more economically disadvantaged area, that would have gone over better. She could easily become President at some point in the future.

8. The Republican voting seniors are the ones who are socialist. The private companies getting bailed out are socialist. And there are parts of socialism that works, especially if their is weak opposition to it. I don't see too many media companies or protestors trying to repeal Medicare or Social Security.

9. Planned Parenthood's strategy is not effective. They needed to adapt and start winning. Schools are blocking sex ed, create an on-line classroom and make it uncensored. Kids and teens are exposed to more nudity now online than ever before. It is sad when PornHub's sex education doesn't show real genitals. Have remedial sex education for 20 and 30 somethings too. Then explain how not to get pregnant as best as possible, and what to do if there is an unwanted pregnancy. And to tie it into Climate Change, push this education to the 3rd world countries with over population problems, and to 1st world countries as a poverty reduction solution.

10. Guns are a mess. I'm not sure either side has the right idea on them, but the Republicans should be blamed more for the shootings that happen.

11. The Republicans cheated to stack the courts, revenge is fair play. You don't need to bring it up in the campaign or during media interviews though. Stupid journalists are the problem here trying to get the Democrats to answer this question. I doubt it would happen though, but I could see some limits placed on the court system.

 

6.