Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Shadow1980 said:
I'm more focused on electability right now. I want a candidate who will be able to beat Trump. I don't care if they aren't the ideal progressive candidate. Anyone who wants Trump to be a single-term president needs to forget about litmus tests. Right now, Biden seems to be the best bet given the limited polling data we have at the moment. Yes, he's centrist to a fault, but a moderate Democrat is still infinitely better than Trump (or any other modern-day Republican, for that matter). Of course, that could change considerably as we get closer to the primaries. Maybe Bernie will end up being our best bet, or maybe one of the lesser-known candidates as they become better known. But we need someone that's going to appeal to the middle, not just to the base.

Despite the all the news this week, I still think the Democrats have the upper hand. The first rounds of polls after the release of AG Barr's summary of the Mueller Report show that Trump's approval ratings are still underwater, and if they don't improve over the next month or so, I think it's safe to say that his poor ratings had little to do with hypothetical links to Russia. He is still a boorish man-child that can't go a single day without making an ass of himself. He is still a very authoritarian-minded person who idolizes dictators and openly expresses a desire to punish his opponents for having the audacity to oppose him. His policies are still rubbish, and most are hated by a majority of Americans. He never revitalized the Rust Belt despite all of his posturing about bringing back manufacturing jobs. In general, it seems almost like he goes out of his way to be a polarizing figure. If his approval ratings continue to hover in the low 40s in the coming months, then the 2020 election will be the Democrats' to lose. And if his ratings don't improve appreciably within the next several months, then I doubt they will improve by this time next year when the primaries are in full swing. No President with net negative approval ratings has been re-elected since approval ratings have been a thing, and if Trump continues to be deeply unpopular into 2020, his chances of winning become ever more remote.

However, the Dems absolutely cannot rest on their laurels regardless of how weak and vulnerable Trump is as a candidate. They need to buckle down and take this election seriously. They need to accept whatever the final Mueller report says (assuming we ever get it), and if there's still isn't anything definitively demonstrating some kind or criminal or ethical malfeasance on Trump's part, then they need to absolutely drop that and focus on the rest of Trump's insufferable bullshit. Trump has done enough to earn the ire of a majority of Americans, and Democrats cannot squander this. All indications, from Trump's state-level approval ratings to hypothetical 2020 match-up polls to the results of the 2018 midterms, suggest that we've rebuilt the "Blue Wall" and that Arizona and Georgia will likely be in play after being reliably red for years, so they need to continue to focus on those areas to secure or flip them into the Blue column. We could even put Trump on the defensive in Texas.

Whoever the nominee is, they need to play it smart, and the base needs to turn out to vote this time and not sit at home or vote third-party if Bernie doesn't win in the primaries again. Defeating Trump should absolutely be our top priority next year, not ensuring our ideal progressive candidate becomes the nominee.

Biden has one fatal flaw, though: He tends to screw up on the way to the finish line, that's how he lost his primaries before. Obama choose him as VP to show that he has a thick skin after the comments he made over him (his comment was: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."), and that could bite him hard if that gets digged out by right-wingers. And Trump is somebody who would exploit the hell out of his flaw, so not sure if he really would win against Trump in the end.

Bernie Sanders seems like a more probable winning candidate on the long run to me right now. Both him and Biden do win every national poll against Trump to date (which Warren, Harris or Booker can't claim), so he's certainly not just appealing the base. And he's known for staying steadfast to his convictions, so he won't flip-flop on issues, either, so that will be hard for Trump to play against him.

Absolutely this. There are several candidates that can beat Trump, but if you're going for maximum electability, Biden and Bernie are your choices as they run about even against Trump according to current data. Yet Biden has all sorts of unfortunate gaffes in his past that paint him in a terrible light, and he never seems to stop making them, so not only would old ones that look really bad in the MeToo era be dug up, but you could count on him to make new ones. Bernie on the other hand has 40 years of consistency and being on the right side of history, while still appealing outside of his base.



Around the Network

Any contest between Bernie and Trump will be like watching the forces of Light and Darkness battle it out, the contrast could not be greater, it's almost Tolken'est, people will naturally back the Light when it comes down to it



Yang has my full support. I know he's not polling great now, but I think once people give him a chance he will pull away. The first primary is still a long ways out so I definitely think Yang can win :)



teamsilent13 said:

Yang has my full support. I know he's not polling great now, but I think once people give him a chance he will pull away. The first primary is still a long ways out so I definitely think Yang can win :)

It's bullshit how bad he's doing in the polls, and it's all because no mainstream media wants to have him on their program. The only news channel that has had Yang on is Fox. His numbers would be waayy up if he got the same coverage as someone like Buttigeig or Kloubachar, who both have no chance of winning the primary.



Predictions for global hardware sales by end of 2017: PS4 - 70M. Xbone - 33M. Switch - 7M. 

"There is a need for parents to touch children first." - Tatsumi Kimishima, 2017

Rab said:

Any contest between Bernie and Trump will be like watching the forces of Light and Darkness battle it out, the contrast could not be greater, it's almost Tolken'est, people will naturally back the Light when it comes down to it.

OMG, I now see Trump Tower as Mount Doom, his cronies in the official positions as ringwraiths and him saying "my precious" to his office chair - and his golf courses.

And his army is is made of trolls, not orcs. ^^



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Biden has one fatal flaw, though: He tends to screw up on the way to the finish line, that's how he lost his primaries before. Obama choose him as VP to show that he has a thick skin after the comments he made over him (his comment was: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."), and that could bite him hard if that gets digged out by right-wingers. And Trump is somebody who would exploit the hell out of his flaw, so not sure if he really would win against Trump in the end.

Bernie Sanders seems like a more probable winning candidate on the long run to me right now. Both him and Biden do win every national poll against Trump to date (which Warren, Harris or Booker can't claim), so he's certainly not just appealing the base. And he's known for staying steadfast to his convictions, so he won't flip-flop on issues, either, so that will be hard for Trump to play against him.

I do agree that Biden has potentially severe vulnerabilities. And the polls are really early now, seeing as the primaries don't even officially begin for another ten months. Things could change a lot between then and now in the polling. Back in 2007, Giuliani was the GOP front-runner in the polling for the 2008 primaries, and hypothetical polls from late winter/early spring showed him even with or slightly ahead of Obama, who himself was polling in a distant second behind Hillary Clinton. So yeah, things can change drastically. But at the moment, it appears that Biden, perhaps because of his status as Obama's VP, is doing best in the polls.

I do think that Sanders is much more solid candidate, one that I agree with on the issues much more than I do with just about any Democratic presidential candidate. As you said, the man has stuck by his principles for decades, and I think he honestly wants to do the right thing by Americans, and his big policy plans are popular (or have the capacity to be popular) with a broad swath of Americans. However, my main concerns are A) his age, and B) the fact that he is a self-described "socialist."

Now, Trump ain't exactly a spring chicken, but he was "only" 70 when he was inaugurated. Sanders would be 79. While Sanders could live to be 108 for all we know, his age could be turned against him. While there are clear rules for presidential succession, Republicans could still stoke fears that if Sanders was elected he could croak mere months into his first term because of his age.

And the "socialist" thing gives Trump and the Republicans the opportunity to go full-tilt "Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy" on him and portray him as a dangerous communist/Marxist/Stalinist who wants to destroy America. Fears of Soviet-style communism still resonate with older voters to this day, and older voters are the ones who have the highest turnout rates. I wish Sanders wouldn't call himself a socialist. He isn't, because he is not pushing for public ownership of the means of production. He's not arguing that Walmart, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motors, etc., etc., ought to be nationalized or forcibly converted into some kind of worker-owned co-op. What he does advocate for is not the end of private for-profit business, but rather a strong safety net, policies to reduce income inequality, single-payer health insurance, taxpayer-subsidized college tuition, etc. Those things do not a Stalinist make, regardless of the paranoid ravings of right-wing pundits and representatives.

But Republicans have spent the last 40 years making a cottage industry out of red-baiting. It's a pastime for them, and right-wing pundits never tire of it. Everything they hate gets called "socialist." I especially find it funny when even major multi-billion dollar corporations get slapped with cliche Red Scare slanders. CNN has often been referred to as the "Communist News Network," as though we're expected to believe that CNN's parent company Time Warner (and Ted Turner's media conglomerate before it) is actually some sort of Leninist front. The red-baiting from the right long ago reached the point of self-parody. But it works. It keeps the base fearful of the Democrats, and may even convince a lot of independents that the Democrats are plotting to turn the U.S. into a communist autocracy. "Socialism" is still a very scary thing to most Americans, and Sanders' history of appropriating the term to describe himself (even though he's better described as social democrat) isn't going to do him any favors. I really wish he'd stop calling himself a socialist.

If Biden's gaffes and other potential closet-skeletons and Sanders' vulnerability to being cast as a dangerous near-octogenarian Marxist become serious issues as we approach the primaries, I can only hope some of the less prominent candidates with less potential baggage can become serious challengers.



Shadow1980 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Biden has one fatal flaw, though: He tends to screw up on the way to the finish line, that's how he lost his primaries before. Obama choose him as VP to show that he has a thick skin after the comments he made over him (his comment was: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."), and that could bite him hard if that gets digged out by right-wingers. And Trump is somebody who would exploit the hell out of his flaw, so not sure if he really would win against Trump in the end.

Bernie Sanders seems like a more probable winning candidate on the long run to me right now. Both him and Biden do win every national poll against Trump to date (which Warren, Harris or Booker can't claim), so he's certainly not just appealing the base. And he's known for staying steadfast to his convictions, so he won't flip-flop on issues, either, so that will be hard for Trump to play against him.

I do agree that Biden has potentially severe vulnerabilities. And the polls are really early now, seeing as the primaries don't even officially begin for another ten months. Things could change a lot between then and now in the polling. Back in 2007, Giuliani was the GOP front-runner in the polling for the 2008 primaries, and hypothetical polls from late winter/early spring showed him even with or slightly ahead of Obama, who himself was polling in a distant second behind Hillary Clinton. So yeah, things can change drastically. But at the moment, it appears that Biden, perhaps because of his status as Obama's VP, is doing best in the polls.

I do think that Sanders is much more solid candidate, one that I agree with on the issues much more than I do with just about any Democratic presidential candidate. As you said, the man has stuck by his principles for decades, and I think he honestly wants to do the right thing by Americans, and his big policy plans are popular (or have the capacity to be popular) with a broad swath of Americans. However, my main concerns are A) his age, and B) the fact that he is a self-described "socialist."

Now, Trump ain't exactly a spring chicken, but he was "only" 70 when he was inaugurated. Sanders would be 79. While Sanders could live to be 108 for all we know, his age could be turned against him. While there are clear rules for presidential succession, Republicans could still stoke fears that if Sanders was elected he could croak mere months into his first term because of his age.

And the "socialist" thing gives Trump and the Republicans the opportunity to go full-tilt "Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy" on him and portray him as a dangerous communist/Marxist/Stalinist who wants to destroy America. Fears of Soviet-style communism still resonate with older voters to this day, and older voters are the ones who have the highest turnout rates. I wish Sanders wouldn't call himself a socialist. He isn't, because he is not pushing for public ownership of the means of production. He's not arguing that Walmart, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motors, etc., etc., ought to be nationalized or forcibly converted into some kind of worker-owned co-op. What he does advocate for is not the end of private for-profit business, but rather a strong safety net, policies to reduce income inequality, single-payer health insurance, taxpayer-subsidized college tuition, etc. Those things do not a Stalinist make, regardless of the paranoid ravings of right-wing pundits and representatives.

But Republicans have spent the last 40 years making a cottage industry out of red-baiting. It's a pastime for them, and right-wing pundits never tire of it. Everything they hate gets called "socialist." I especially find it funny when even major multi-billion dollar corporations get slapped with cliche Red Scare slanders. CNN has often been referred to as the "Communist News Network," as though we're expected to believe that CNN's parent company Time Warner (and Ted Turner's media conglomerate before it) is actually some sort of Leninist front. The red-baiting from the right long ago reached the point of self-parody. But it works. It keeps the base fearful of the Democrats, and may even convince a lot of independents that the Democrats are plotting to turn the U.S. into a communist autocracy. "Socialism" is still a very scary thing to most Americans, and Sanders' history of appropriating the term to describe himself (even though he's better described as social democrat) isn't going to do him any favors. I really wish he'd stop calling himself a socialist.

If Biden's gaffes and other potential closet-skeletons and Sanders' vulnerability to being cast as a dangerous near-octogenarian Marxist become serious issues as we approach the primaries, I can only hope some of the less prominent candidates with less potential baggage can become serious challengers.

Hence why I thought of somebody young like Tulsi or Yang as VP for Bernie. Especially Tulsi seems to be pretty close to him in her positions, (and he said he wanted a women as running mate) which would mean passing the torch without major frictions if Bernie where to die in office.

Speaking about age, imagine Gravel would win the nomination. He would be 90 when getting into office and is turning 89 in 6 weeks. Funny thing is, he was already called Grandpa Mike during his 2008 bid, so what would that make him now?

(For the record, he's pretty progressive in most positions, except anything economic where he's a mix-and-match between Dem and GOP positions).



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Rab said:

Any contest between Bernie and Trump will be like watching the forces of Light and Darkness battle it out, the contrast could not be greater, it's almost Tolken'est, people will naturally back the Light when it comes down to it.

OMG, I now see Trump Tower as Mount Doom, his cronies in the official positions as ringwraiths and him saying "my precious" to his office chair - and his golf courses.

And his army is is made of trolls, not orcs. ^^



haxxiy said:
So, it seems like Pete's miraculous 11% poll is because it was a telephone poll which didn't randomize the order of the contenders, so his name was always there at the beginning of the call. A bit of a bummer, but I doubt he's stuck with the 1% group either.

The last Morning consult is out, and Buttigieg won yet another point in their polls, now at 3%. Still far behind the big guns, but he's slowly distancing himself from the main peloton.

On the other hand, Biden lost 2%. It will be intersting to see how much the allegations against him will affect his result in the polls.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
haxxiy said:
So, it seems like Pete's miraculous 11% poll is because it was a telephone poll which didn't randomize the order of the contenders, so his name was always there at the beginning of the call. A bit of a bummer, but I doubt he's stuck with the 1% group either.

The last Morning consult is out, and Buttigieg won yet another point in their polls, now at 3%. Still far behind the big guns, but he's slowly distancing himself from the main peloton.

On the other hand, Biden lost 2%. It will be intersting to see how much the allegations against him will affect his result in the polls.

I don't expect the Biden story to go much further. So far his atrocities include nothing more than being an invader of personal space.  While 3 women (who all still support him, by the way) have said he made them uncomfortable by his proximity problem, he's known for being just as close and touchy with his male colleagues. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."