Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 177982 times)

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1751 on: December 24, 2019, 01:24:49 PM »
https://twitter.com/justicedems/status/1209119314609102848?s=19

A tweet citing Castro isn't exactly compelling evidence, especially when the top of the tweets underneath is a link to a reporter discrediting it with an account based on his own interview.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1753 on: December 24, 2019, 01:50:17 PM »
I thought Mayor Pete did a great job and had a great rebuttal to Warreb calling him out for his wine cellar event.

He didn't, though.  Claiming everyone on the stage is a millionaire or billionaire and he's not (he's 37) is bad faith - or he doesn't understand the power of compound interest, earnings potential, etc. etc.  It's also not about being a millionaire - it's the elite class has an *overwhelming advantage* when it comes to access and power.  The government currently recognizes money as "free speech" in politics vis a vis Citizens United.  If you truly believe in "one person = one vote" and are vowing to get money out of politics as part of your campaign, you shouldn't be turning around holding closed door fundraisers where only a certain class of people can afford to get in and you shouldn't be taking money from wealthy "bundlers" who are emailing "pay to play" opportunities to other wealthy donors.

Mayor Pete's entire campaign is built on bad faith.  He's a genuinely awful candidate with no convictions except furthering his own political career.  He doesn't care how he does it and we see that with his flip-flopping once the wealthy donors got involved.

 Claiming he is not a millionaire was a great rebuttal bc it played out well and is factually correct. One could argue that Warrenís initial accusation was in bad faith since she transferred money from her senate run (that alone put her at an advantage over Buttigieg), let alone that some of the money was raised in very much the same manner.

What did he flip on? He has been for Medicare for all who want it since before he ran.

Heís against CU.

The emails were bad and looked bad. I agree that it is an indication that pay to play has infiltrated his campaign, whether he was aware of this instance or not, and was not impressed with his campaignís response. But I think heís the only one that got caught bc the person who sent that email is not a politician I believe, who has worked on campaigns to my knowledge, so lacked the finesse and cya skills that other career campaigners have.

I like both Buttigieg and Warren btw. She is a bit far left for me, but she is smart as a whip and I trust her to fall back on her loftier plans if/when it doesnít appear it will be the right path forward for the moment. So while others jumped on her for her healthcare walk-back, I applauded her for being brave and willing to adjust rather than forge ahead for the sake of political continuity.

It wasn't a great rebuttal because that wasn't the point.  Pete so often misses the point or argues in bad faith.  The point wasn't "you can't be a billionaire or millionaire." It's that candidates shouldn't be selling access to their time in ways only millionaire's and billionaires can afford it.

If you don't understand that millionaire's and billionaires have a disproportionate amount of power and say in our political process, and are fine selling your access to them, you should be running in a different primary.

Pete has very limited experience, pretty bad policies, and but for the millionaires and billionaires boosting him, would not be a top 4 candidate currently.  He's bad.  If he wants to tout his Midwest bonafides he should run for governor in Indiana before President.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1754 on: December 24, 2019, 02:26:32 PM »
I wonder how soon after Pete gets more involved in national politics that he will become a millionaire himself. Seems to be a trend in this corrupt system that all of these politicians are millionaires with no discernible path to how thry became a millionaire.


Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1756 on: December 24, 2019, 02:38:03 PM »
https://twitter.com/justicedems/status/1209119314609102848?s=19

A tweet citing Castro isn't exactly compelling evidence, especially when the top of the tweets underneath is a link to a reporter discrediting it with an account based on his own interview.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/965396700511825920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-154424553552034840.ampproject.net%2F1912201827130%2Fframe.html

Great. Now do one that wasnít from before he announced he was running. You canít defend the lie that he changed his position since running, with a quote of his from over a year before he announced he was running. That is the danger and quite honestly terrifying thing to me about how people wittingly or unwittingly spread false narrativeís during elections.

And the sad thing is, you probably will not admit that you are wrong. You will continue to press it, share it in the future, and not acknowledge that you are wrong, Castro is wrong, and anyone who has stated this is just plain wrong.

But since it is Christmas Eve let me be generous. Letís assume he stated after his run, that he is for Medicare for all. He never said he was against it, not even with his Medicare for all who want it. In fact he has persistently and specifically stated that he sees Medicare for all who want it as a glidepath to Medicare for all. He acknowledges it as a desired goal. Just because he has a different way of going about achieving it, does not mean he is not for it.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 02:40:56 PM by Lmoot »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1757 on: December 24, 2019, 02:57:50 PM »
https://twitter.com/justicedems/status/1209119314609102848?s=19

A tweet citing Castro isn't exactly compelling evidence, especially when the top of the tweets underneath is a link to a reporter discrediting it with an account based on his own interview.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/965396700511825920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-154424553552034840.ampproject.net%2F1912201827130%2Fframe.html

Great. Now do one that wasnít from before he announced he was running. You canít defend the lie that he changed his position since running, with a quote of his from over a year before he announced he was running. That is the danger and quite honestly terrifying thing to me about how people wittingly or unwittingly spread false narrativeís during elections.

And the sad thing is, you probably will not admit that you are wrong. You will continue to press it, share it in the future, and not acknowledge that you are wrong, Castro is wrong, and anyone who has stated this is just plain wrong.

But since it is Christmas Eve let me be generous. Letís assume he stated after his run, that he is for Medicare for all. He never said he was against it, not even with his Medicare for all who want it. In fact he has persistently and specifically stated that he sees Medicare for all who want it as a glidepath to Medicare for all. He acknowledges it as a desired goal. Just because he has a different way of going about achieving it, does not mean he is not for it.

If he truly believe M4A was the right end goal, why is he spending his time attacking the candidates who are running it? Seems like bad faith.

He's changed his positions on M4A, fundraising off of billionaires (surely you've seen his quotes from 2010), and abortion (https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1208846116919398401?s=19).  He faked black support for his Douglass Plan.

Repeating over and over that I and Julian Castro doesn't make it so lmao.  Just because you keep saying it and not acknowledging what has happened isn't on me. That's on you.

Anyway, Pete still sucks and he's still a disingenuous, empty suit candidate.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1758 on: December 24, 2019, 03:13:07 PM »
^ bc he and others (myself included), do not think their M4A plan will actually get us there (plans are great and all, but they have to be able to come to fruition). If someone says they want to lose weight, and will not eat for 30 days in order to do so. And someone else comes along and says I donít think you should do it that way, is it logical to assume they are against weight loss?

So you still believe that you (and Castro) are correct that he has changed his stance on healthcare, since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election? Submitting other issues that are admittedly worthy of criticism, as supporting evidence that he has changed his stance on healthcare since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election, is deflection not proof.

If you believed your own hype you wouldnít need the off-topic razzle-dazzle. I accept your acknowledgment that you are wrong :)

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1759 on: December 24, 2019, 03:31:16 PM »
He didn't, though.  Claiming everyone on the stage is a millionaire or billionaire and he's not (he's 37) is bad faith - or he doesn't understand the power of compound interest, earnings potential, etc. etc.  It's also not about being a millionaire - it's the elite class has an *overwhelming advantage* when it comes to access and power. The government currently recognizes money as "free speech" in politics vis a vis Citizens United.  If you truly believe in "one person = one vote" and are vowing to get money out of politics as part of your campaign, you shouldn't be turning around holding closed door fundraisers where only a certain class of people can afford to get in and you shouldn't be taking money from wealthy "bundlers" who are emailing "pay to play" opportunities to other wealthy donors.

The maximum donation you can make to an individual candidate that they can actually spend in the primary is $2,800. Now some fundraisers have higher donation thresholds than that. Up to $5,600 (a primary and a general donation threshold in one) but the candidate cannot spend the second half of the $2,800 unless they actually get the nomination. It just helps goose their quarterly fundraising numbers (mainly) and gives them a running start for the general election (secondarily). In the specific case of the wine cave donors were asked to max out for the primary ($2,800).

Which is a lot of money, much more than the average american could find to pay an unexpected bill, but within the budget of americans who are passionate supporters with disposable incomes in, say, the top 25-30% of households. Yes that excludes a LOT of people, but honestly any donation amount >$0 excludes a lot of people given how many americans live paycheck to paycheck right now. I came up with that much to donate to my favored candidate and I'm not a millionaire let alone a billionaire. I may however, be exceptionally invested in this election cycle. I think it's the first time my total political donations in a given cycle broke the $100 mark.   

Super PACs and citizen's united are a whole different mess where companies or wealthy individuals CAN pour millions of dollars into supporting their favorite candidates or tearing down candidates whose policies would cost them money. We need a fix urgently, whether that is overturning citizen's united (which likely would require a constitutional amendment) or flooding out corporate money with individual donations using something like the Seattle Democracy Vouchers/Yang Democracy Dollars plan (just requires an act of congress).

But fundraisers headlined by candidates (like the infamous wine cave) cannot raise money for super PACs, so they still have to comply with campaign finance law limits. The issue of superPACs and citizens united shouldn't get mixed up with hosting fundraisers that comply with our existing campaign finance laws. The laws from before Citizens United that were put in place to ensure Warren Buffett and I get an equal maximum say in presidential elections: one vote each and up to $2,800.

FWIW, I'm not backing Buttigeig, and I don't understand why he doesn't make his fundraising events open to the press, but that's a separate issue.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1760 on: December 24, 2019, 03:40:48 PM »
^ bc he and others (myself included), do not think their M4A plan will actually get us there (plans are great and all, but they have to be able to come to fruition). If someone says they want to lose weight, and will not eat for 30 days in order to do so. And someone else comes along and says I donít think you should do it that way, is it logical to assume they are against weight loss?

So you still believe that you (and Castro) are correct that he has changed his stance on healthcare, since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election? Submitting other issues that are admittedly worthy of criticism, as supporting evidence that he has changed his stance on healthcare since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election, is deflection not proof.

If you believed your own hype you wouldnít need the off-topic razzle-dazzle. I accept your acknowledgment that you are wrong :)

Yes, me, Castro, and dozens of others who have written about his pivot.  I'll take their words over yours since you seem to have no interest in reading or acknowledging any critique of Pete. I've laid out a bunch, actually, and all you want to focus is on is, "aCtUaLlY hE wAs fOr M4A wHo WaNt iT fRoM tHe BeGinNiNg."

Like Pete, you're not here in good faith and there's no reason for further discussion with you.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1761 on: December 24, 2019, 03:55:35 PM »
Perhaps Mayor Pete can follow in this wise elder statesman's footsteps and become a millionaire himself.

https://youtu.be/oysFCNPg0DA

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1762 on: December 24, 2019, 04:05:02 PM »
^ bc he and others (myself included), do not think their M4A plan will actually get us there (plans are great and all, but they have to be able to come to fruition). If someone says they want to lose weight, and will not eat for 30 days in order to do so. And someone else comes along and says I donít think you should do it that way, is it logical to assume they are against weight loss?

So you still believe that you (and Castro) are correct that he has changed his stance on healthcare, since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election? Submitting other issues that are admittedly worthy of criticism, as supporting evidence that he has changed his stance on healthcare since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election, is deflection not proof.

If you believed your own hype you wouldnít need the off-topic razzle-dazzle. I accept your acknowledgment that you are wrong :)

Yes, me, Castro, and dozens of others who have written about his pivot.  I'll take their words over yours since you seem to have no interest in reading or acknowledging any critique of Pete. I've laid out a bunch, actually, and all you want to focus is on is, "aCtUaLlY hE wAs fOr M4A wHo WaNt iT fRoM tHe BeGinNiNg."

Like Pete, you're not here in good faith and there's no reason for further discussion with you.

I guess the difference between you and I is I donít take peopleís words. I research on my own. I keep bringing it back to Medicare for all, because you changed the goal post on the topic when I showed you you were wrong about M4A. I didnít ignore anything that you wrote. I first acknowledged that the campaign email regarding play for pay was a bad look. I further acknowledged that the issues with Buttigieg that you listed above are probably valid enough to be criticized.

Youíre the one taking a candidate, Castro, at his word despite multiple people proving toyou that he wrong or flat out lying. And you still have yet to show proof that supports what he stated. I support multiple candidates,  it still havenít donated to any. I just am absolutely against out right falsehoods when it comes to our election, after what happened in 2016, and what is happening right now.

I just read your part about not further discussing it with me. And I will respect that.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 04:08:10 PM by Lmoot »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1763 on: December 24, 2019, 07:00:31 PM »
^ bc he and others (myself included), do not think their M4A plan will actually get us there (plans are great and all, but they have to be able to come to fruition). If someone says they want to lose weight, and will not eat for 30 days in order to do so. And someone else comes along and says I donít think you should do it that way, is it logical to assume they are against weight loss?

So you still believe that you (and Castro) are correct that he has changed his stance on healthcare, since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election? Submitting other issues that are admittedly worthy of criticism, as supporting evidence that he has changed his stance on healthcare since announcing his run in the primary for the 2020 presidential election, is deflection not proof.

If you believed your own hype you wouldnít need the off-topic razzle-dazzle. I accept your acknowledgment that you are wrong :)

Yes, me, Castro, and dozens of others who have written about his pivot.  I'll take their words over yours since you seem to have no interest in reading or acknowledging any critique of Pete. I've laid out a bunch, actually, and all you want to focus is on is, "aCtUaLlY hE wAs fOr M4A wHo WaNt iT fRoM tHe BeGinNiNg."

Like Pete, you're not here in good faith and there's no reason for further discussion with you.

I guess the difference between you and I is I donít take peopleís words. I research on my own. I keep bringing it back to Medicare for all, because you changed the goal post on the topic when I showed you you were wrong about M4A. I didnít ignore anything that you wrote. I first acknowledged that the campaign email regarding play for pay was a bad look. I further acknowledged that the issues with Buttigieg that you listed above are probably valid enough to be criticized.

Youíre the one taking a candidate, Castro, at his word despite multiple people proving toyou that he wrong or flat out lying. And you still have yet to show proof that supports what he stated. I support multiple candidates,  it still havenít donated to any. I just am absolutely against out right falsehoods when it comes to our election, after what happened in 2016, and what is happening right now.

I just read your part about not further discussing it with me. And I will respect that.

As someone who refuses to vote for Trump and is legitimately interested in potentially voting for a Democratic president for the first time and who also kind of likes Pete, the hyper liberal hatred and distortions against him are fairly off putting for any Democrat at all. Criticize his lack of political experience, the fact that he's not polling well for anyone but white voters, etc - that's all legit. The hatred and distortions make it seem the Democrats are kind of ridiculous tbh.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1764 on: December 25, 2019, 09:05:34 AM »
I guess there is one old fart candidate out there that hasn't done a flip flop.  He's kind of a stereotype as he fights for the poor and downtrodden.  Kind of reminds me of the poem by Emma Lazarus on the statue of liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Just another dreamer.  Perhaps he should backpedal and have more realistic goals.

Trump sold a lot of people on this dream of make America great again.  He just wasn't specific that the dream wasn't for most of us.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1765 on: December 25, 2019, 10:36:15 AM »
As someone who refuses to vote for Trump and is legitimately interested in potentially voting for a Democratic president for the first time and who also kind of likes Pete, the hyper liberal hatred and distortions against him are fairly off putting for any Democrat at all. Criticize his lack of political experience, the fact that he's not polling well for anyone but white voters, etc - that's all legit. The hatred and distortions make it seem the Democrats are kind of ridiculous tbh.

Perhaps as a NeverTrumper GOP voter, you can appreciate that a handful of people nor even elected representatives speak for the party and generalizing particular sentiments to the entire party is both insulting and incorrect to the majority of members.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1766 on: December 25, 2019, 11:20:27 AM »
As someone who refuses to vote for Trump and is legitimately interested in potentially voting for a Democratic president for the first time and who also kind of likes Pete, the hyper liberal hatred and distortions against him are fairly off putting for any Democrat at all. Criticize his lack of political experience, the fact that he's not polling well for anyone but white voters, etc - that's all legit. The hatred and distortions make it seem the Democrats are kind of ridiculous tbh.

Perhaps as a NeverTrumper GOP voter, you can appreciate that a handful of people nor even elected representatives speak for the party and generalizing particular sentiments to the entire party is both insulting and incorrect to the majority of members.

Fair enough. So I'd put it back to you, would you say that what I'm hearing super negative about Pete is a small minority of the Democratic party that's just very loud rather than an ill conceived purity test within the Democratic party? I'm inclined to believe the second one because of how in recent years it seems there is less dissent allowed in the party platform, people fawning all over themselves to agree on the same talking points in a large portion of the debates I've watched, etc. However, I'm not nearly as in touch with the Democratic party as you guys are, of course, so I'd be glad to have that rebutted.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1767 on: December 25, 2019, 12:55:14 PM »
As someone who refuses to vote for Trump and is legitimately interested in potentially voting for a Democratic president for the first time and who also kind of likes Pete, the hyper liberal hatred and distortions against him are fairly off putting for any Democrat at all. Criticize his lack of political experience, the fact that he's not polling well for anyone but white voters, etc - that's all legit. The hatred and distortions make it seem the Democrats are kind of ridiculous tbh.

Perhaps as a NeverTrumper GOP voter, you can appreciate that a handful of people nor even elected representatives speak for the party and generalizing particular sentiments to the entire party is both insulting and incorrect to the majority of members.

Fair enough. So I'd put it back to you, would you say that what I'm hearing super negative about Pete is a small minority of the Democratic party that's just very loud rather than an ill conceived purity test within the Democratic party? I'm inclined to believe the second one because of how in recent years it seems there is less dissent allowed in the party platform, people fawning all over themselves to agree on the same talking points in a large portion of the debates I've watched, etc. However, I'm not nearly as in touch with the Democratic party as you guys are, of course, so I'd be glad to have that rebutted.

Biden began in the lead and Buttigieg is leading Iowa, so Iíd say more Dems are to the right of the high profile ultra lefties. The kicker though is that will shift from state to state and we will probably see the dem votes split up in the primaries.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1768 on: December 25, 2019, 01:18:50 PM »
As someone who refuses to vote for Trump and is legitimately interested in potentially voting for a Democratic president for the first time and who also kind of likes Pete, the hyper liberal hatred and distortions against him are fairly off putting for any Democrat at all. Criticize his lack of political experience, the fact that he's not polling well for anyone but white voters, etc - that's all legit. The hatred and distortions make it seem the Democrats are kind of ridiculous tbh.

Perhaps as a NeverTrumper GOP voter, you can appreciate that a handful of people nor even elected representatives speak for the party and generalizing particular sentiments to the entire party is both insulting and incorrect to the majority of members.

Fair enough. So I'd put it back to you, would you say that what I'm hearing super negative about Pete is a small minority of the Democratic party that's just very loud rather than an ill conceived purity test within the Democratic party? I'm inclined to believe the second one because of how in recent years it seems there is less dissent allowed in the party platform, people fawning all over themselves to agree on the same talking points in a large portion of the debates I've watched, etc. However, I'm not nearly as in touch with the Democratic party as you guys are, of course, so I'd be glad to have that rebutted.

I am not a fan of Pete personally to make my bias known. But as far as purity tests go, are they any better or worse than the GOP? I don't mean to make this into a 'whataboutism' contest, but I think your question implies a certain "Democrats have a purity test that doesn't exist in the GOP or at the very least is much worse." Polarization is happening in both parties.

However, I would submit that the fact that the Democrats can debate certain topics while still remaining a single party shows that Democrats are the coalition party. Add to that that the Democrats are a relatively diverse group of representatives showing that they can appeal to a broad base of multiple groups ranging from very liberal to pretty conservative. The GOP on the other hand is more or less a monolith of WASPs. Can you think of a 5 currently serving "moderate" republican senators? Maybe Collins and Murkowski? Whereas on the Dem side you have Chuck Schumer, Chris Coons, Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, etc.

With the 2018 election which senators did we see lose? Nelson (D, FL), Donnelly (D, IN), McCaskill (D, MO), Heller (R, NV), and Heitkamp (D, ND). Mostly conservative-center democrats that were rejected for not being aligned enough with Trump.

When talking about Pete specifically, there are a couple of problems. 1. His main appeal is that he "understands" conservative voters despite never winning any conservative leaning election ever. (Klobuchar is the only close enough to fit this criteria, but even MN is a lean Dem state.) 2. He doesn't actually have any appeal to a large faction of the democratic party. In the democratic party, you have to be at least palatable to every major faction in order to win. Any "purity test" I would think are people trying to push Pete more towards greater coalition. It's honestly a similar problem with Biden, the political center is no longer large enough to win national elections. And pretending that we're still working with early 90's politics is a strategic mistake.

For the GOP you'll notice that their ads and main tactics all revolve around their solidarity with Trump. Whereas several of the Dem party candidates have absolutely no fear and little repercussions from dissenting from Obama's positions and legacy. The fact that there is argument and debate isn't proof of a 'purity test'. Quite the opposite, it's proof of diversity of opinion among the party.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1769 on: December 25, 2019, 01:59:42 PM »
As quick and dirty way of understanding how each party's representatives act in congress here's an ideology ranking website that uses how members cosponsor bills with other members to give them a certain ideology score on a scale of 0-1.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2018/house/ideology

So let's just filter the data and say that the scores of 0.35-0.65 are the moderate members of congress that work regularly across the political aisle.

House of reps: 98 reps are in this range. 35 R/I, 63 D
Senate: 13 Senators. 3 R, 10 D/I

This tells me two things:

1. That democrats are far more willing to compromise in order to pass legislation by a large margin
2. The Senate is far more broken than the House. Where as the House has 22% of their members in this range, only 13% of the Senate is in the same range. That tells me that the Senate is where bills go to die and R's are generally terrified to cross the line.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1770 on: December 25, 2019, 02:09:26 PM »
So I'd put it back to you, would you say that what I'm hearing super negative about Pete is a small minority of the Democratic party that's just very loud rather than an ill conceived purity test within the Democratic party? I'm inclined to believe the second one because of how in recent years it seems there is less dissent allowed in the party platform, people fawning all over themselves to agree on the same talking points in a large portion of the debates I've watched, etc. However, I'm not nearly as in touch with the Democratic party as you guys are, of course, so I'd be glad to have that rebutted.

As someone who votes for democratic candidates more often than not, I think the attacks on Pete that have zero to do with policy (flip flopping/fundraising/doesn't have the right CV lines/"seems fake") are indeed driven by a relatively small but extremely vocal minority of the democratic base that tries to use stuff like this to disqualify everyone else leaving their favored candidate as the last one standing. I'd speculate this is a carryover from 2016, when arguing that the other candidate was bad was synonymous with arguing that your candidate was the only alternative. But in 2020 there are lots of candidates so I don't think trying to tear down whichever candidate is currently surging works as effectively as a campaign strategy. Personally, I think those folks might be better served by making the positive case for their own candidate if they want him or her to win.

The center of the democratic party has definitely moved left as the republicans have moved right. You can see this in terms of voting records. It used to be that the most conservative democrats in congress were more conservative than the most liberal republicans and vice versa, now there's a big gap between them. I don't think people like Ben Nelson (D-NE) or Tom Daschle (D-SD) could win the democratic senate primaries today, and I don't think more liberal democrats would get elected to the senate from those states. Which is definitely a shame, but definitely a problem afflicting both parties. The republican nominations of Atkins in Missouri, O'Donnell in Delaware, and Ray Moore in Alabama are all examples where they didn't win otherwise winnable senate seats because their primary electorate had moved too far to the right to nominate an effective candidate for an otherwise winnable seat. The greater polarization is systemic and harming both major parties, it's not a particular vice of one or the other.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1771 on: December 26, 2019, 12:07:48 PM »
We may finally be ready for a third party.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1772 on: December 26, 2019, 12:21:46 PM »
We may finally be ready for a third party.

I don't think a national 3rd party could be sustained. It's not the 2 parties are becoming more partisan leaving a 3rd party in the middle, it's that the political middle is shrinking and doesn't have the ability to win a sizable number let alone a majority.

I think this could change if:

1. The Senate were removed - Significant legislation is only possible when the house and senate are aligned politically. A third party that would likely only cause the House to lock up would really see our politics come to a screeching halt more than it already has.

2. If the House were elected at the state level rather than individual districts. I could see a 3rd party being able to come up with enough votes in certain states to justify running. But first past the poll requires more compromise on one of the dominant parties.

We complain about growing presidential power, but that is mostly because the Legislator has been seen more as a tool of obstruction than actual governance. No party is able to gather enough power to actually do anything with it. Something that makes me somewhat jealous of parliamentary systems.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1773 on: December 26, 2019, 01:32:35 PM »
No one here is talking about Klobuchar, but I like her hustle in Iowa. She's the only candidate to visit every county in the state.  She also launched her campaign in a snowstorm.  I find it appealing.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-12-24/klobuchar-seizes-her-moment

She's also a Senator (better than a Mayor) and 59 years old (not ancient). 


Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1774 on: December 26, 2019, 02:39:32 PM »
Those are excellent points maizeman and FIPurpose. It's probably an unrealistic standard I was holding the Dems too. My biggest concern, anyways, is that the antagonism towards Pete (who I very much doubt will get the nod) displays an extreme turn for the Democratic party in terms of what they'd try/be willing to accomplish if they got control of everything. Oh well, I might vote for the Democratic president and Republican rep/senate to balance it out. Again, thanks for the solid points.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1775 on: December 26, 2019, 06:54:54 PM »
No one here is talking about Klobuchar, but I like her hustle in Iowa. She's the only candidate to visit every county in the state.  She also launched her campaign in a snowstorm.  I find it appealing.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-12-24/klobuchar-seizes-her-moment

She's also a Senator (better than a Mayor) and 59 years old (not ancient).

It's odd - She has the experience and the record.  Her ideas make a lot of sense.  She is a pragmatist which is perhaps what s really needed rather than big changes which may not be realized.  She certainly seems more on top of things than Mr. Biden.  We've never had a woman president and that alone should bring some appeal.

She lacks the big ideas like some others.  Is it better to shoot for the moon or go after realistic incremental improvements?  There is more chance of incremental improvements becoming a reality?

She walks in the footsteps of other great Minnesota politicians, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1776 on: December 27, 2019, 07:48:17 AM »
Agreed. She doesnít come across as old (like Biden) or young (like Buttigieg). So for voters who want a moderate in all things candidate, she could end up their selection by default.

But sheíd absolutely, positively, need to win Iowa for that to happen. Other moderate candidates have strength in other states and could lose Iowa but win NH, NV, or SC and look viable going into Super Tuesday. Klobuchar has double and tripled down on Iowa and her midwestern ness as an electability argument. She also hasnít had the resources to build major ground operations in later states and hasnít been polling well in any of them. Although we are awfully short of early state polls in the last month so no way to know if the last debate ó where she got the second biggest increase in new approval nationally, behind Yang ó has changed things in the early states for the candidates that did well, or the ones that got sucked into a lot of negative interactions (Warren and Buttigieg).

Right now

LonerMatt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1777 on: December 27, 2019, 04:22:26 PM »
From what I've read - Dems need young and black voters to show up. While not every candidate is equally good, some do appeal to the bases more. Moderate candidates or candidates that scream 'establishment' (Biden and Mayor Pete, to me, are very establishment candidates) do not tend to galvanised young and/or black voters and, therefore, aren't the right tool for the job.

Like it or not moderate voters are in decline, or perhaps more precisely: moderates don't change election results, therefore if the nominee is a steady, moderate Democrat it's unlikely they'll win.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1778 on: December 27, 2019, 07:45:40 PM »
There are basically three pots of potential voters the dems can draw from. Existing Clinton voters of '16, demoralized and disengaged voters (who do tend to be younger), and people who voted for Trump in '16 but would abandon him for the right candidate in 2020. Those three categories tend to rank the current major democratic candidates in quite different orders in terms of favorability.





Source (Note that the x-axis scales are very different and don't start from zero. Ugh.)

The whole article was a fascinating read to me.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1779 on: December 28, 2019, 07:54:27 AM »
Well - It's good that people weren't put in boxes.  They were put in red, yellow and blue stripes.  This is great.  Those are the "primary" colors and the primaries are on the way.  It proves that some of us are voters of a different stripe.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1780 on: December 31, 2019, 09:33:04 AM »
She is a pragmatist which is perhaps what s really needed rather than big changes which may not be realized.  She certainly seems more on top of things than Mr. Biden.  We've never had a woman president and that alone should bring some appeal.

She lacks the big ideas like some others.  Is it better to shoot for the moon or go after realistic incremental improvements?  There is more chance of incremental improvements becoming a reality?

She walks in the footsteps of other great Minnesota politicians, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone.

This is defeatist, centrist talk.  It's the same "electability" argument Joe Biden is making for himself.  For whatever reason, establishment Dems continue to make the argument to their base that they need to persuade "moderate" voters.  They say going too big isn't realistic.  They'd criticize the Green New Deal and Obamacare as "moon shots" that don't have a chance of passing.  It's a garbage ideology that seeks to win over some mushy middle ground voters who are more and more, either being pushed to the left or right or not voting at all.

Also, Humphrey and Mondale didn't exactly do well in their presidential bids.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1781 on: December 31, 2019, 09:45:39 AM »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1782 on: December 31, 2019, 09:48:44 AM »
https://twitter.com/RzstProgramming/status/1211133817093840896

Pete Buttigieg thinks the Founders simply didn't know slavery was bad.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4129
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1783 on: December 31, 2019, 09:50:59 AM »
snip

Yang has legs!
Yang is the only candidate that I truly feel would be a shoe-in against Trump if he's the nominee.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1784 on: December 31, 2019, 10:24:18 AM »
snip

Yang has legs!
Yang is the only candidate that I truly feel would be a shoe-in against Trump if he's the nominee.

You really think so? Yang is probably my new favorite candidate over Pete, but I don't know if he'd win or not.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1785 on: December 31, 2019, 10:48:02 AM »
You really think so? Yang is probably my new favorite candidate over Pete, but I don't know if he'd win or not.

I think there is a chance Trump would win regardless, but I think if any of the current candidates can win in 2020 Yang is definitely one of the ones who can.

Talking to republican family members and disillusioned Obama voters they seem to really like him. They know he's proposing big expansions of government spending (like the UBI) but the way he talks about it, with the emphasis on treating everyone equally and the value of each human being separate from what kind of work they do, seems to go do well for them.

Another part of it is that his pitch "Trump got the problems right, but got the causes and solutions wrong" makes it a lot easier for people who voted for Trump in 2016 to cross the aisle in 2020. With some other candidates, I think there may be a perception is that they think Trump is bad, and the people who voted for Trump, or didn't vote for Clinton, are also bad.

No one likes to vote for a candidate who they think believes they are a bad person.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2019, 12:12:14 PM by maizeman »

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1786 on: December 31, 2019, 11:53:53 AM »
No one likes to vote for a candidate who they think believes they are a bad person.

This is so true!

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1787 on: December 31, 2019, 12:19:07 PM »
You really think so? Yang is probably my new favorite candidate over Pete, but I don't know if he'd win or not.

I think there is a chance Trump would win regardless, but I think if any of the current candidates can win in 2020 Yang is definitely one of the ones who can.

Talking to republican family members and disillusioned Obama voters they seem to really like him. They know he's proposing big expansions of government spending (like the UBI) but the way he talks about it, with the emphasis on treating everyone equally and the value of each human being separate from what kind of work they do, seems to go do well for them.

Another part of it is that his pitch "Trump got the problems right, but got the causes and solutions wrong" makes it a lot easier for people who voted for Trump in 2016 to cross the aisle in 2020. With some other candidates, I think there may be a perception is that they think Trump is bad, and the people who voted for Trump, or didn't vote for Clinton, are also bad.

No one likes to vote for a candidate who they think believes they are a bad person.

That makes a lot of sense. He would get my vote falling into the moderate category, but do you think he could energize the liberal voters enough?

Or to any liberal posters, do you think after Hillary losing because of farther left people (in part at least...?) not coming out to vote for her, do you think it wouldn't matter who was up because they've learned their lesson?

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1788 on: December 31, 2019, 01:12:50 PM »
Quite a contrast there:

Bernie says:

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who has campaigned for universal healthcare, free college, and the elimination of student debt, accused Trump of being a "phony ... a pathological liar, and a racist," adding that he failed to keep his promise to work for the working families of America.

He's added other words like homophobe, sexist and religious bigot as well.

Yang says:

"Trump got the problems right, but got the causes and solutions wrong"

The truth may be somewhere in between.

Maybe a Bernie / Yang ticket would work.  You would have the consistency of old Bernie with the fresh thinking of Mr. Yang.
 

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1789 on: December 31, 2019, 01:32:59 PM »
Jesus Christ, people are actually taking Yang seriously?  I thought he was a single-issue, joke candidate.  Are people taking him seriously??

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1790 on: December 31, 2019, 01:34:08 PM »
Are people taking him [Yang] seriously??

Yes, we are.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1791 on: December 31, 2019, 01:39:40 PM »
That makes a lot of sense. He would get my vote falling into the moderate category, but do you think he could energize the liberal voters enough?

Or to any liberal posters, do you think after Hillary losing because of farther left people (in part at least...?) not coming out to vote for her, do you think it wouldn't matter who was up because they've learned their lesson?

I'm a weird sort of liberal so probably good to wait and have other people chime in about whether or not they'd be energized/excited to go vote for him.

But my guess is that Yang would in fact do a good job of energizing the democratic base because, while he's not a left wing candidate (like Sanders and Warren) he's still clearly a change candidate like they are, not a status quo candidate (Clinton was definitely perceived as a status quo in 2016*).

*Great quote highlighting the difference:

"Donald Trump won in 2016 by pointing out the problems. What did Hillary Clinton say in response?" Yang asked the crowd in his speech at the Polk County Steak Fry on Saturday. "He said, 'Make America great again.' What did Hillary say? 'America's already great.' And we lost. We need a new message."

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1792 on: December 31, 2019, 02:02:25 PM »
Are people taking him [Yang] seriously??

Yes, we are.

Lolololololol.

The answer to Donald Trump is not to double down on the "let's elect an outsider with no political experience" model.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1793 on: December 31, 2019, 02:42:57 PM »

Lolololololol.

The answer to Donald Trump is not to double down on the "let's elect an outsider with no political experience" model.

Why not?  The insiders with political experience haven't been real impressive.   Yang could bring some fresh ideas to the table and he might listen to advisers who are specialized in various aspects of political decision making unlike Trump.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1794 on: December 31, 2019, 02:44:38 PM »
Are people taking him [Yang] seriously??

Yes, we are.

Lolololololol.

The answer to Donald Trump is not to double down on the "let's elect an outsider with no political experience" model.

Maybe you have a point here.  But I would say many of the other Dems are engaging in more Trumpian tactics by being inflammatory and divisive.  See the Bernie quote above.
 Yang doesn't play this game at all and I think it makes him stand out.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1795 on: December 31, 2019, 03:44:01 PM »
  I don't think you can buy Yang in a wine cave.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2631
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1796 on: December 31, 2019, 03:52:30 PM »
Not really a "candidate" comment, but a general one:

I'm interested to see which candidate ends up on top in terms of what the Democratic party sees as it's best chance to win next November, especially as it relates to the moderate (Biden/Klobuchar) vs liberal (Sanders/Warren) aspect of things.

More than that, right now I'm noticing that the relative popularity of the leading four candidates really doesn't change as much as the media makes it out to.  Warren had a rise and fall this fall, but the numbers today aren't really different than they were in July if you look at:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national

Also notably, in the last few days, Biden has taken the lead in the polls in the first four primary states.

His average debate performances don't seem to hurt or help him much.

I'm not a Biden acolyte, but is the writing on the wall already?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1797 on: January 01, 2020, 06:57:58 AM »
That makes a lot of sense. He would get my vote falling into the moderate category, but do you think he could energize the liberal voters enough?

Or to any liberal posters, do you think after Hillary losing because of farther left people (in part at least...?) not coming out to vote for her, do you think it wouldn't matter who was up because they've learned their lesson?

I'm a weird sort of liberal so probably good to wait and have other people chime in about whether or not they'd be energized/excited to go vote for him.

But my guess is that Yang would in fact do a good job of energizing the democratic base because, while he's not a left wing candidate (like Sanders and Warren) he's still clearly a change candidate like they are, not a status quo candidate (Clinton was definitely perceived as a status quo in 2016*).

*Great quote highlighting the difference:

"Donald Trump won in 2016 by pointing out the problems. What did Hillary Clinton say in response?" Yang asked the crowd in his speech at the Polk County Steak Fry on Saturday. "He said, 'Make America great again.' What did Hillary say? 'America's already great.' And we lost. We need a new message."

That's an interesting point. He has certainly resonated with me. I can't imagine his youth or being a minority would hurt with energizing the base.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1798 on: January 01, 2020, 06:58:57 AM »

Also notably, in the last few days, Biden has taken the lead in the polls in the first four primary states.

His average debate performances don't seem to hurt or help him much.

I'm not a Biden acolyte, but is the writing on the wall already?

I was quite certain Biden would have faded right now. I think how well he's doing is writing on the wall of a high likelihood of either him winning or the process dragging out a lot longer than would be helpful for the Dems.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1799 on: January 01, 2020, 09:11:29 AM »

Also notably, in the last few days, Biden has taken the lead in the polls in the first four primary states.

His average debate performances don't seem to hurt or help him much.

I'm not a Biden acolyte, but is the writing on the wall already?

I was quite certain Biden would have faded right now. I think how well he's doing is writing on the wall of a high likelihood of either him winning or the process dragging out a lot longer than would be helpful for the Dems.

The fact is that a lot of Dem voters (myself included) are quite a bit more centrist than the media and twitter (which I've never actually seen or used) and activist base would indicate.  I'm not thrilled with ANY of the candidates this go-round in terms of the combo of policies I'd like with electability, though I admire several of them.  I suspect there is a large bunch of voters with similar feelings to mine, who (unlike me) have been defaulting to Biden as a known quantity.