Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Some interesting video about Gabbard and how she's treated by the media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K22fnFk5kq8

Yeah, some media outlets realize that media is not always fair against candidates outside of the democratic establishment. Another example:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-tulsi-gabbard-bernie-sanders-trump-2020-838156/



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
tsogud said:
Lol damn didn't know Gravel was so firey, would've been interesting to see him at the debates.

I remember Mike Gravel's 2008 presidential run. I think a lot of the reason why some like him is because, personality-wise, he doubtless reminds them of Bernie Sanders. Substantively, he was a libertarian candidate. In addition to being among the more staunchly anti-Iraq-War candidates at a time when the war was at its zenith and deeply unpopular, he was also a noted opponent of the Patriot Act, an earlier supporter of same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, as well as, uniquely, a vocal proponent of an idea called the national initiative that was to allow Americans to place policy proposals directly on the ballot for an up-or-down vote of the public like state and local governments can already do. He was also very much for the impeachment of then-president George W. Bush and favored withdrawing from trade agreements like NAFTA.

Gravel wasn't the first choice of the progressive movement nonetheless, owing to his broadly pro-austerity views on economic policies. For example, he could also be found running campaign ads railing against the influence of teacher's unions and so on and so forth like this. The progressive movement initially tended to side with a candidate named Dennis Kucinich, who was basically a happier, more positive version of Bernie Sanders. However, the progressive movement was also much weaker at the time than it is today, so it didn't really make any difference. Anyway, after Gravel dropped out of the Democratic race, he quickly joined the Libertarian Party and sought out their nomination instead (which he did not win either) in a development that for me really confirmed his libertarian political orientation.

Personally, I was a very practical voter. By the summer of 2007, it was clear to nearly everyone that there were three serious candidates in the Democratic nominating contest: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. We're all familiar with the first two, but Edwards, for those who don't remember him, was the one who was considered to be the viable leftist of the race. He was running as an economic populist pledging to launch programs that would wipe out poverty within a couple decades and end corporate influence in Washington. His bold policy ideas included a full ban on lobbying, making Medicare an option for all Americans, eliminating tuition at community colleges, and introducing national savings accounts. He also proposed to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq (not just the combat troops like the leading candidates) within a period of six months, to "reform" the Patriot Act to be less invasive of Americans' privacy, and, like the other leading Democrats, to support civil unions for same-sex couples. And he also felt that immigrants should be required to speak English, "the language of commerce". (Spoiler: It's not actually the language of commerce.) Bold shit, right? That'd be good enough to get you the mantle of pro-corporate neoliberal centrist by today's Democratic Party metrics (e.g. this platform was objectively to the right of the one Kamala Harris is currently running on), but well that was what passed for a serious left wing campaign back in 2008, and it was good enough for the media to generally view you as out of touch with the middle class. The times have changed! Anyway, he was the candidate I initially supported in 2008 because I was a practical voter who knew that candidates like Dennis Kucinich had no chance. (Indeed, Dennis got like 0.1% of the vote in Iowa and dropped out.)

Like many other poorer Edwards voters, I defaulted to the Hillary Clinton campaign after Edwards dropped out relatively early despite Edwards' personal endorsement of Obama. By that point in the race, Obama was the clear establishment preference, endorsed by corporate America writ large, as well as the trade unions, the university students and other intellectuals, and was just generally favored by wealthier people, so people like me just had a bit of a distrust factor going on as a result. I wasn't riveted by what Hillary Clinton stood for, but basically I just liked her tone better and the fact that corporate America and these other forces had abandoned her. It wasn't actually a big deal to me if she won or lost. I also had to agree with some of the feminist movement's views about how you had this more-qualified woman being beaten out by a Senate freshman and it just seemed unfair. I believe she actually wound up being the only Democrat who has run to date to principally win my demographic: rural, working class white women. Well anyway, since there weren't actually that many substantive differences between where Clinton and Obama stood on the issues, the campaign had to largely be fought on other terrain, so predictably it got ugly fast with dubious accusations of both racism and sexism quickly emanating from the respective campaigns rather stupidly. In the end, it wounld up being close, but the predictable candidate won of course, as we know, and was endorsed by Clinton, and won the general election easily (with my vote) because the 2008 crash had just hit.

So those are my reflections on Gravel and the 2008 election.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 14 August 2019

Jaicee said:
tsogud said:
Lol damn didn't know Gravel was so firey, would've been interesting to see him at the debates.

I remember Mike Gravel's 2008 presidential run. I think a lot of the reason why some like him is because, personality-wise, he doubtless reminds them of Bernie Sanders. Substantively, he was a libertarian candidate. In addition to being among the more staunchly anti-Iraq-War candidates at a time when the war was at its zenith and deeply unpopular, he was also a noted opponent of the Patriot Act, an earlier supporter of same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, as well as, uniquely, a vocal proponent of an idea called the national initiative that was to allow Americans to place policy proposals directly on the ballot for an up-or-down vote of the public like state and local governments can already do. He was also very much for the impeachment of then-president George W. Bush and favored withdrawing from trade agreements like NAFTA.

Gravel wasn't the first choice of the progressive movement nonetheless, owing to his broadly pro-austerity views on economic policies. For example, he could also be found running campaign ads railing against the influence of teacher's unions and so on and so forth like this. The progressive movement initially tended to side with a candidate named Dennis Kucinich, who was basically a happier, more positive version of Bernie Sanders. However, the progressive movement was also much weaker at the time than it is today, so it didn't really make any difference. Anyway, after Gravel dropped out of the Democratic race, he quickly joined the Libertarian Party and sought out there nomination instead (which he did not win either) in a development that for me really confirmed his libertarian political orientation.

Personally, I was a very practical voter. By the summer of 2007, it was clear to nearly everyone that there were three serious candidates in the Democratic nominating contest: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. We're all familiar with the first two, but Edwards, for those who don't remember him, was the one who was considered to be the viable leftist of the race. He was running as an economic populist pledging to launch programs that would wipe out poverty within a couple decades and end corporate influence in Washington. His bold policy ideas included a full ban on lobbying, making Medicare an option for all Americans, eliminating tuition at community colleges, and introducing national savings accounts. He also proposed to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq (not just the combat troops like the leading candidates) within a period of six months, to "reform" the Patriot Act to be less invasive of Americans' privacy, and, like the other leading Democrats, to support civil unions for same-sex couples. Bold shit, right? That'd be good enough to get you the mantle of pro-corporate neoliberal centrist by today's Democratic Party metrics (e.g. this platform was objectively to the right of the one Kamala Harris is currently running on), but well that was what passed for a left wing campaign back in 2008, and it was good enough for the media to generally view you as out of touch with the middle class. The times have changed! Anyway, he was the candidate I initially supported in 2008 because I was a practical voter who knew that candidates like Dennis Kucinich had no chance. (Indeed, Dennis got like 0.1% of the vote in Iowa and dropped out.)

Like many other poorer Edwards voters, I defaulted to the Hillary Clinton campaign after Edwards dropped out relatively early despite Edwards' personal endorsement of Obama. By that point in the race, Obama was the clear establishment preference, endorsed by corporate America writ large, as well as the trade unions, the university students and other intellectuals, and was just generally favored by wealthier people, so people like me just had a bit of a distrust factor going on as a result. I wasn't riveted by what Hillary Clinton stood for, but basically I just liked her tone better and the fact that corporate America and these other forces had abandoned her. It wasn't actually a big deal to me if she won or lost. I also had to agree with some of the feminist movement's views about how you had this more-qualified woman being beaten out by a Senate freshman and it just seemed unfair. I believe she actually wound up being the only Democrat who has run to date to principally win my demographic: rural, working class white women. Well anyway, since there weren't actually that many substantive differences between where Clinton and Obama stood on the issues, the campaign had to largely be fought on other terrain, so predictably it got ugly fast with dubious accusations of both racism and sexism quickly emanating from the respective campaigns rather stupidly. In the end, it wounld up being close, but the predictable candidate won of course, as we know, and was endorsed by Clinton, and won the general election easily (with my vote) because the 2008 crash had just hit.

So those are my reflections on Gravel and the 2008 election.

Thank you for sharing, that's was very informative and interesting to get a personal view on the 2008 elections. I was just 12 years old in '08 so I really didn't know much about politics back then so it's nice to get a personal take on the political climate. And I only had a vague understanding of who Gravel was back in the day. Very much appreciated, I always like to learn new things hahah



 

HylianSwordsman said:

This is old, but damn, this is why Gravel interested me. This is not a parody account. This is the campaign's account. It's in response to Delaney saying some shady deceptive bullshit about Bernie's M4A plan.

BTW that's not him. His socials are ran by 2 teenage boys that convinced him to run for President.



Jaicee said:

Did anyone see Andrew Yang break down while discussing gun violence recently? He may not quite be my top choice for president, but I really like him just as a person and that moment illustrates why: because he's a human being! He's not just running for president for a career boost. The problems facing the nation actually seem to mean something to him.

Speaking of Yang. Today I walked into a McDonald's for the first time in a few years and instead of seeing employees to take my order there were 4 machines that I had to order from. Automation is crazy ngl.



Around the Network

You folks would go crazy in the early 1900s, with automatic restaurants and cable cars being all the rage everywhere.

OT - Trump's approval underwater = blue. Not going to happen, but a map which tells a lot nevertheless, eh?



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:

You folks would go crazy in the early 1900s, with automatic restaurants and cable cars being all the rage everywhere.

OT - Trump's approval underwater = blue. Not going to happen, but a map which tells a lot nevertheless, eh?

Honestly, minus Utah, this looks like a completely doable map if the conditions were right. It's basically 2016's Dem electoral votes, plus a handful of states that Trump won by less than 5%, plus really swingy states like Iowa and Ohio, plus states like Georgia and Texas that are trending purple and will be battlegrounds in 2020. Especially if we end up having a recession by the time of the election, I could see all of them going blue, again with the exception of Utah. If the recession is bad enough, it might get even bluer.



I can understand why the media wouldn't want to give the spotlight to a lunatic war-criminal dictator apologist like Gabbard.



It's time to update the first post again. Stacey Abrams has announced! That she's not running...

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/751170587/stacey-abrams-is-not-running-for-president-instead-will-focus-on-voter-protectio

She'll instead be working on an initiative to protect voter rights, which honestly isn't a bad move, and is something that's needed, if she really thinks she can make a difference. It also makes sense for her since she'd be governor right now if not for the shady voter suppression tactics of her opponent. Honestly, I'm glad she's not running, the field is too full, no one new is gaining any traction, she'd just hurt herself in the process. This is the best thing she can do for her political brand and for the hope for a future blue Georgia.

All that said, she says she's willing to be a vice president for the eventual nominee if they want her:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stacey-abrams-says-she-would-be-open-to-being-a-vice-presidential-candidate/



haxxiy said:

You folks would go crazy in the early 1900s, with automatic restaurants and cable cars being all the rage everywhere.

OT - Trump's approval underwater = blue. Not going to happen, but a map which tells a lot nevertheless, eh?

This is super unlikely.