Your 2020 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

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

The election of Trump was the most successful covert intelligence operation since Germany sent Lenin to St. Petersberg.

oh fuck off

There were some indictments in the news last year

lol yeah i'm pretty sure there were other factors at work in the russian revolution besides those scheming germans

I definitely hope someone does one of those “wah this thread topic is about one thing but people are posting about something else” posts soon

The election of Trump was the most successful covert intelligence operation since Germany sent Lenin to St. Petersberg.

i missed this the first time but lolllllllllll so good a+++++

signs that Bernie's troubles with POC voters might not be such a thing anymore

Narrative trouble as Bernie polls as more popular with black Democrats than white ones. https://t.co/uRZxSr0O9L

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) January 17, 2019

Ya but if lenin had stayed in switzerland it’s not clear if the soviet would have ended up seizing power. Even the bolsheviks in petersburg at the time felt the time wasn’t right—they were scandalized by the april theses

article's about AOC and so sits at odds with the thread title (no i don't think she should run any time soon) but always love a good Eric Foner quote about political dynamics:

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-17/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-big-ideas-for-taxes-and-medicare

I feel like there might be a better thread for 1917 theorizing

I like it better than rehashing 2016

You know what? Fair.

Let's rehash 2008 instead. In that situation the sitting two term GOP president had collapsing approval ratings, the economy was veering off course and the election was pretty much the Dems to lose. In 2016 the polls were tight, it's always tough for a party to win a third term, the economy was so so. To say that the losing Sanders campaign was less hurtful than the losing Clinton campaign is so nonsensical, and I don't get how everyone just repeats it and calls it 'the math' as if it isn't deeply idiotic to look at it that way. 2008 had room for a divisive fight. 2016 less so. People misread the signs and thought Clinton had it in the bag all throughout the year, and it was a major fuckup.

It's obviously okay to criticize Kamala Harris for her record as a prosecutor, but hopefully she is planning to include criminal justice on her platform anyway, so there will be a lot more info to base a decision on once the primaries start? The thing that seems a bit awkward is that if she is going to have any chance of winning the nomination, she will have to win over black voters in the South, so they will in the end have to make a choice whether they trust her or not, and it does seem a bit weird for a white voter to go 'nah, she would be bad on BLM' if black voters themselves decide to ignore it?

damn y'all it's january 2019

Also, Nate Silver on that poll:

Bernie's favorables among African-Americans are generally good/fine. But this isn't a good poll to tell us much about it because the sample size here (of African-American Democrats) is like ~70 voters.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 17, 2019

Sorry for danesplaining, I just had a couple of minutes to check the net before I go to sleep. Have a nice fight and all that :)

kamala harris was an AG and a DA from 2004 to 2017, there's already a lot of information to base our decision on, and i'm not sure someone with that bad a record can make the problem go away just by saying she'll act differently as president

from that nyt op ed "Of course, the full picture is more complicated. During her tenure as district attorney, Ms. Harris refused to seek the death penalty in a case involving the murder of a police officer. And she started a successful program that offered first-time nonviolent offenders a chance to have their charges dismissed if they completed a rigorous vocational training. As attorney general, she mandated implicit bias training and was awarded for her work in correcting a backlog in the testing of rape kits." -- those are not small things

Fred - Harris is going to do fine w black voters in the South: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/412289-kamala-harris-rallies-voters-in-south-carolina

@ Aimless: "obligated" taken literally is the wrong word. i was attempting to capture what i probably misread as a sort of let-me-tell-you-how-to-do-this-the-right-way quality in your "it might be productive to use the issues ... to initiate a discourse... and get some further clarification on her current thinking, or even to persuade her to alter her thinking." like in the context of this dicussion, where you objected to a different way of taking discursive or political action, this reads as a statement that your approach is valid and pleasing, and that just saying "because of the issues i care about, her record is disqualifying to me, don't vote harris imho" is invalid and/or non-pleasing.

but maybe that's unfair because basically i'm coming back at you with my own proscriptions: if you want to defend harris, just defend harris. if you don't think the record is relevant or disqualifying, just say so. there's no need for it to become five-steps-ahead speculation about how this might be used by foreign disinformation efforts, in your case, or nerdstrom's party-infighting-got-us-trump angle. neither of which is ever going to fly anyway because, again, both could apply to any criticism of any candidate and lead us to where there's no point talking about anything anybody has ever said or done.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/kamala-harris-booker-are-early-2020-favs-among-black-leaders-n803636

@ Fred: who gets to decide there's "room" for a "divisive" fight? what qualifies as "divisive"? if there are incorrect, "fuckup" years to have "divisive fights," in which bad feelings brewed up by arguing for one platform or candidate and against others are incurably destructive, then shouldn't the party just cancel having a competitive system of candidate selection in those years?

Yeah like, i’m not anti-harris or anything, but things have to matter besides helping democrats get elected