2020 Democratic presidential primary

One universally recognized indicator of a very smart person is when they repeatedly bring up where they went to grad school (where they did “very well” and talk about IQ tests

number umpty-six, come on down

https://news.yahoo.com/colorado-senator-michael-bennet-says-considering-run-democratic-presidential-nomination-100013444.html

I don’t like the myth of Trump’s invilnerability. Why is his support among rural whites considered a fact of nature?

cuz they like him and they never change and never will

xp please stop, you do this constantly. they hate you and want us all to die. there's no sense in even trying, increasing voter turnout in other demographics is the way forward.

i.e. j. otm

xp please stop, you do this constantly. they hate you and want us all to die. there's no sense in even trying, increasing voter turnout in other demographics is the way forward.

can we just auto-amend this to every hand-wringy treeship post plz

some of them *did* vote for Obama tho

I wasn’t even wringing my hands I was typing with them.

some of them *did* vote for Obama tho

this is actually a really small portion of the electorate afaict, and I doubt any of those people that voted for Obama and then Trump are still hardcore Trump supporters. Or maybe they just reaaaaaally hated John McCain a lot and always did.

at any rate they aren't worth factoring in.

Interesting

like, saying that certain states went for Obama both times and then flipped to Trump in '16 is obviously true - but for the most part that isn't because voters switched parties en masse, it's primarily because of changes in turnout (related to demographics, voter suppression efforts, Russian interference, Clinton campaign fuckups, etc.)

This post and its comments address the last few posts.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

so many caveats

some of them *did* vote for Obama tho

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:36 AM (thirty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

“some” of “them” voted for clinton too. this conversation is tiring

I wasn’t even wringing my hands I was typing with them.

― Trϵϵship, Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:37 AM (forty-four minutes ago)

You're wringing everybody else's hands.

well they probly went to the wedding xp

when did Silver say that because that news gets worse every day

it stays exactly the same every day

A bit lol about the term 'Top Democratic Women Of Color', but these numbers are not good for neither Warren nor Sanders.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/kamala-harris-2020-president-black-women-survey

She the People — a national network of influential women of color in politics — just completed a national straw poll of 264 women of color leaders, campaign workers and managers, political strategists, organizers, and activists ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Those surveyed included campaign donors (48.5%), current and former elected officials (10.6%), campaign managers (5.7%), electoral campaign strategists (8.7%), and women who run (23.1%) or work (23.5%) at politically-minded organizations.

Of the women of color surveyed, nearly 40% identify as Latinx, and nearly 50% identify as African American, over 16% identify as Asian, and over 5% as Native. Nearly 90% of respondents identified as members of the Democratic Party.

can you spot anything exceptional about this description of the sample

Those surveyed included campaign donors (48.5%), current and former elected officials (10.6%), campaign managers (5.7%), electoral campaign strategists (8.7%), and women who run (23.1%) or work (23.5%) at politically-minded organizations.

Not a survey of the party base or general public fwiw

Lol xp

They need to focus on the fact that he is a criminal not a businessman.

Hillary's campaign ads about Trump ripping off every contractor who ever worked for him were super effective, after all.

imo the only ads a Dem candidate will need to run are variations of "aren't you tired of all this fucking crap"

i think simon nailed the 'what the heck does progressive even mean' question p well but to refocus specifically on beto, here he stands pretty plainly revealed relative to the rest of the house:

https://i.imgur.com/I4Ic1H2.png

on the left side on so-called "social" issues, but the relative right side on redistributive questions

more on Beto's record

Beto O’Rourke’s spirited run for the US Senate in Texas last month has prompted powerful voices in the Democratic party establishment to tout the outgoing Texas congressman as a 2020 presidential candidate who, as the party’s standard-bearer, would offer a vision of America contrasting against that of Republicans.

However, a new analysis of congressional votes from the non-profit news organisation Capital & Main shows that even as O’Rourke represented one of the most solidly Democratic congressional districts in the United States, he has frequently voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration priorities.

Capital & Main reviewed the 167 votes O’Rourke has cast in the House in opposition to the majority of his own party during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many of those votes were not progressive dissents alongside other left-leaning lawmakers, but instead votes to help pass Republican-sponsored legislation.

O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

They should do that with literally everyone potentially running for president, and then the left will be left with nobody.

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

iirc "the left" has never "had" basically anyone, and has held their noses in voting booths since time immemorial, no idea why this cycle should be any different. doesn't make the way candidates actually vote irrelevant

Nitpicking about past voting records in an upcoming race where the number one bona fide will be how much not like Trump you can be seems to be self-defeating, which for sure is something "the left" knows all about.

Like, I don't think being a "centrist" is necessarily a bad thing. I would much rather have a "centrist" win the White House and have to make compromises to get support from the left than have a right wing government that tries to get support from right-leaning centrists.

outing this guy as a faux progressive is not "nitpicking", I'm sure as hell not voting for him in a primary unless the other choices are really dire

and centrists are bad, full stop. that doesn't mean I won't vote for one if it's all I get.

was thinking about your "what is a centrist" question earlier and my answer is "someone who uncritically supports the military budget"

Hmm, that might be a good distinction. Which of the potential candidates doesn't fall into that trap? And aren't all of the candidates faux progressives? Harris, Gillibrand ...they've definitely been drawn left, which means they used to vote more ... centrist.

I would much rather have a "centrist" win the White House and have to make compromises to get support from the left than have a right wing government that tries to get support from right-leaning centrists.

having trouble understanding this point, since the latter scenario (having to get support from right-leaning "centrists") has been the environment for every Democratic president since... LBJ? Like, any Dem "centrist" in the WH is going to have problems appeasing the right, not the left, who have been reliable party votes for several generations.

I mean, Obama was p much a centrist, and his biggest problems getting legislation through were a) foolishly trying to appeal to GOP votes that never, ever materialized and b) Democrats that were more or less Republicans anyway (Lieberman, Ben Nelson). He didn't bother trying to appease the leftists cuz they were already on-board and knew he was giving them the best deal they would ever be able to get.

but with partisan polarization becoming so entrenched, trying to get votes by presenting as someone who can "work across the aisle" feels like a total fool's game. The real way to get legislative success is to do what the GOP did - get solid, partisan majorities in every branch of government, and then ruthlessly exercise power over the objections of a disempowered minority.

Of course. The only reason Trump has not been able to get much done is that he has been unable to pick up support from even a handful of Democrats (ie working across the aisle). But that's what's happened in most GOP WH scenarios, GOP presidents getting a modicum of "centrist" support while the left waves its fists. So my point, I guess, is that I'd much rather a "centrist" Dem get in the WH *with* the support of the progressive left who can then pull that person to compromise further to the left, rather than have the progressive left discount a centrist for being too (economically? militarily?) conservative and thus force that person to reach out to more conservative centrists and Republicans to get elected and/or get policy passed.

Josh

What is a primary for

Absolutely nothing! Say it again ...

I mean, we know who is likely running for GOP president in 2020, and that person is the worst in every sense, so *any* candidate's policy or record is going to better than his. Which is why I'm not sure, in this (hopefully) rare instance, someone's past voting record matters that much. They will all be degrees of "not Trump," personality and policy-wise, but in the age of ignorance I think (worry?) it will be personality that gets them the votes, and not necessarily policy.

I have no idea, obviously. It really shouldn't be that hard to beat the worst person ever, but it doesn't seem like a sure thing, either, even admittedly this early, which isn't that early anymore. I guess it will help to see what kind of check the Dem congress will really have on him.

Seriously, though, we saw in 2016 that the primary was mostly bullshit that ultimately sowed (still simmering) divisions among the Dems, resulting in a bad candidate who lost to the worst person in the world, who somehow faced a million people in his own party's primary and won.

If your answer to the question "what is a primary for" is "mostly bullshit that ultimately sowed division" I'm not sure you're gonna see eye to eye with people who see primaries as a way to contest for power, which is exactly why one would be nitpicking bona fides -- in a contest for power you want someone who's *actually* one of your own representing you.

Voting records aren't the only thing to consider, I think you're totally right to point out that people like Gillibrand and Harris have tacked left and that it indicates *either* willingness to hear & move *or* bald cynicism.

It's just that past voting records are among the few available barometers to determine which of those two things is happening

Fair enough. The question remains whether 2016 was an anomaly or the new normal. I want a candidate that will beat the current president like he deserves to be beat, by a significant humiliating margin.

heck yeah

I can’t believe campaign season starts in like six weeks

*either* willingness to hear & move *or* bald cynicism.

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

I mean I get that a sizable majority of people vote based on their feewings and personal impressions of a candidate but fuck that, policy is what counts, and what I want is a candidate that will deliver that policy - whether because of deeply held principles or craven political calculation, I don't care. Why LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act is way less important than the fact that we got the Civil Rights Act.

that's a fair point

that ol' devil intentionality