Your 2020 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

big if there NP

Agreed! No joke.

it's the primary (or pre-primary) thread --- the whole thing is vetting and evaluating candidates. i take it as granted that the majority here will not be voting for donald trump in november 2020. fwiw a reread of this thread circa november may help illuminate this conversation, folks were posting good links and so on. also worth bearing in mind that many folks raising these issues may well also be living by some version of:

will not vote for her in primary if possible, would vote for her in general because of course duh

― sleeve, Friday, November 9, 2018 12:55 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

although of course some are also:

not votin' for no cop

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, November 8, 2018 11:26 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah I really bristle at the whole "we shouldn't discuss our issues with candidates" position (or the even more disingenuous "all criticism is from Russia" position, which is just laughable), this is literally what the primaries are for. just don't hold any grudges after they're over, and vote smart.

yeah I think sleeve’s position is pretty much the same as everyone else’s here

I think people itt could stand to just discuss these sorts of things on their merits rather than worrying about the optics or russian trolls (??) or all that extra stuff. leave that to party leaders and even journalists with a wide reach who feel like they might need to keep the masses’ eyes on the prize/enthusiasm up. we’re taking to like 15 people here, all of whom are going to vote dem in the general election.

xp otm

the nytimes op-ed on harris seems pretty persuasive to me, and i think the record it describes is pretty disturbing.

at least on FB I also see these discussion-quashing moves coming up as a response from people when anyone brings up negatives about whichever candidate they favor or are talking up - "we don't have time for this", "stop being so picky", "circular firing squad", ad nauseum

Well those things were a factor in where we are now...

oh you know what would be fun? relitigating the 2016 campaign!

Vetting is good but it’s understandable if people have little patience for “this headline here says so and so met with a banker” stuff

Xpost It’s extremely related brah. Sorry

don't call me "brah" you tedious apparatchik

god, this fucking country

Xpost sorry again. Won’t happen again

at least on FB I also see these discussion-quashing moves coming up as a response from people when anyone brings up negatives about whichever candidate they favor or are talking up - "we don't have time for this", "stop being so picky", "circular firing squad", ad nauseum

― sleeve, Thursday, January 17, 2019 9:41 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well those things were a factor in where we are now...

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Thursday, January 17, 2019 9:43 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ah yes, the tension between unity and debate, born in november 2016

the whole "we shouldn't discuss our issues with candidates" position

There's probably more to be discovered about Harris' current positions than can be found in her past record as a prosecutor. I agree, it might be productive to use the issues raised by her prosecutorial record to initiate a discourse on the actions she took that you find off-putting and get some further clarification on her current thinking, or even to persuade her to alter her thinking. That would be great. And it wouldn't commit anyone engaged in that discourse to voting for her, if the results of it are unsatisfactory. Seems a bit soon to be dismissing candidates on minimal evidence. There's twenty more months of this process coming up.

What seems stupid and unproductive is the "not votin' for no cop" attitude. Sorry, morbs, she's a senator now. Try to keep up.

killer brah burning

again for the people in the back more people who voted bernie in the primary voted for hilary in the general than voted for hilary in the primary and obama in the general

I sure as hell did

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/pm21512.jpg

"Back. And to the left. Back..."

again for the people in the back more people who voted bernie in the primary voted for hilary in the general than voted for hilary in the primary and obama in the general

― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:54 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and again i can't spell hillary.

also the primary between clinton and obama was pretty fierce, in case you don't remember. and obama won a historic victory because you can be successful after being criticized in the primary it turns out

Different situation

People were literally crying at the convention. People got played pretty badly by disinfo, enthusiasm was hurt. May not happen to that extent this time but it’s fair to understand where people are coming from. The past is prologue etc

people played by poo pooing the pumas when the past is prologue are persuadable by posts from putin puppets.

DO NOT FORGET YOUR DYING QUEEN

i say let justice be done though the heavens fall

https://youtu.be/4BGP-EJQPd8

id almost forgotten how contentious that campaign could get

I'm not happy about the dismissal of Russian efforts above.

The election of Trump was the most successful covert intelligence operation since Germany sent Lenin to St. Petersberg. Military thinkers like those of the GRU all learn to reinforce success, and we can expect them to double down. Russia will invest more in the 2020 election than in the 2016. That will include magnifying dissension within the opposition party.

Not on ILX, as we don't matter, but I think grassroots Democrats need to learn ways of identifying and dismissing foreign interference. Even if its (for the moment) championing our favorite candidate.

You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho

Not directed at you Sanpaku. Actually that’s not directed at anybody

Sanpaku it's the fact that from here on out throughout the western world anytime there is a candidate of left or right who is in any way, shape or form not a dyed-in-the-wool centrist we are going to have to hear about how all support from them is russian bots. it's already happening and it's a toxic, nonsensical narrative. if you actually look at the shit that the russians were pumping out it was broadly the least sophisticated Facebook meme bullshit that only the most addled right-wing kooks and extreme low-info voters would take at face-value.

People were literally crying at the convention. People got played pretty badly by disinfo, enthusiasm was hurt. May not happen to that extent this time but it’s fair to understand where people are coming from. The past is prologue etc

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Thursday, January 17, 2019 5:02 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the way we discuss these things on ILX has absolutely zero bearing on the enthusiasm of the 60 million or whatever members of the entire democratic party

Sanpaku it's the fact that from here on out throughout the western world anytime there is a candidate of left or right who is in any way, shape or form not a dyed-in-the-wool centrist we are going to have to hear about how all support from them is russian bots. it's already happening and it's a toxic, nonsensical narrative. if you actually look at the shit that the russians were pumping out it was broadly the least sophisticated Facebook meme bullshit that only the most addled right-wing kooks and extreme low-info voters would take at face-value.

― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:20 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and the hack was from an unsophisticated phishing email

NP if you're trying to suggest that we got "where we are now" because of the dem primary stirring up too many negative thoughts about hillary clinton, the mathematical evidence has already been laid out in front of you. but even without that the position trends so inevitably towards shutting down criticism of front-runners and/or centrists that one must ask: why even have a discussion thread on the primaries? why even have primaries, even?

Aimless, your version of how the process is supposed to go may be cool for you, but people saying "based on harris's record, i think she represents the wrong direction for the party and i'm not voting for her" are not obligated to go through a five-phase discursive process following your outline. they're not even obligated to see the goal as trying to get harris to "clarify" or change her "current thinking."

again, we are talking about a candidate selection process... the end goal is to see the candidates you want nominated, and the candidates you oppose not nominated.

I agree with dr casino. Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to say what matters to them. Compromising five steps in advance has always been a terrible habit.

the way we discuss these things on ILX has absolutely zero bearing on the enthusiasm of the 60 million or whatever members of the entire democratic party

According to the report recently issued to the Congress, by the end of the 2016 election Russian trolls were operating at the granularity of targeting individuals.

re. russia, i dont know how effective that was. it seems like it made a difference. but i do know that my own wish to see the party move left on issues from criminal justicr reform to the wnvironment is not the product of russian bots.

A good indication someone was played by the disinfo to a siginificsnt degree themselves is when they trot out the line that it was “Facebook memes”

Nobody's "obligated" to act in any way at all, doc. Where did that come from? And maybe part of the process of getting your own choice nominated might include misrepresenting the candidates you oppose in the most negative light possible, including lying about them. It's been done plenty in the past.

This approach seems as much implied by your post as "obligation" was implied by mine.

xp. yawn

Wasn’t that the main part of it? Fake news articles targeted to people using facebook data? Plus obviously leaking havked information to wikileaks.

aimless, whatever you’re doing is not it buddy

A good indication someone was played by the disinfo to a siginificsnt degree themselves is when they trot out the line that it was “Facebook memes”

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:34 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

enjoy ignoring the political, economic, and social reasons that trump was elected, this won't backfire in any way

we are literally talking about a well-considered op-ed written in a reputable outlet by an actual person worth listening to. stfu with anything about russian disinformation campaigns because it is irrelevant to this discussion

Gabbard apologizes:

Aloha. In my past, I said and believed things that were wrong, and worse, hurtful to people in the LGBTQ+ community and their loved ones. I’m deeply sorry for having said and believed them. https://t.co/BWlOBk9ZnN

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) January 17, 2019

Best reply: "Now do Assad."

Tree Yes the hacks and the contextless information dumps that followed that filed lots of clickbait headlines and posts to perpetuate an election fraud conspiracy theory that people still believe today is obviously a big part of it

reputable outlet

oh do go on

(I kid... sorta)

Xpost fueled