Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

Jacob Wahl (yes that Jacob Wahl) is spreading some birther nonsense about Kamala Harris.  I can't figure out what Obama and Harris have in common that they're the target of the same type of smear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Jacob Wahl (yes that Jacob Wahl) is spreading some birther nonsense about Kamala Harris.  I can't figure out what Obama and Harris have in common that they're the target of the same type of smear. 

 

Theyre both half black. But nooooo way that has anything to do with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

Technically, yes, although the new guard isn't much different than the old one.  They did reduce (or maybe abolished) super-delegates, so that's a nice start. 

 

I don't blame them for putting all their eggs in the Hillary basket in 2016, she had worked all her life to be in that position and was one of the most experienced and qualified presidential candidates out there.

 

Now that she's gone, they won't actively work against any one candidate, they learned their lesson.

 

It wasn't so much as putting all eggs in one basket as it was blatantly favoring one candidate over all others in an arguably corrupt manner.  Super-delegates were not removed, only limited on first vote:

 

Quote

The new reforms, approved Saturday, will drastically limit the role superdelegates will play in future Democratic Party presidential nominations, by barring them from voting on the first ballot at the convention if a candidate has already secured the nomination with a majority of delegates from state caucuses and primaries.

https://ivn.us/2018/08/27/dnc-just-made-historic-reform-super-delegates/

 

There are still plenty of ways to favor candidates if the DNC really wants to and any real reform is still yet to be realized.  Assuming they have learned their lesson is rather naive, unless status quo is acceptable.

 

Ironically, the GOP do not have this problem with super delegates by binding delegate votes to primary election results.  So if candidate wins state, candidate is awarded delegates based on rules of each state going into the national convention.  

 

Something the DNC should strongly consider if it's planning to compete going into the future.  I feel like a lot of democrat votes were lost after the 2016 debacle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, YABO713 said:

As the Conservative that's willing to be swung, and likely will so long as the candidate is sane.... here's my objective list of who can get a swing voter like me, in order...

 

You might take a look at John Delaney. He's very well liked in his old district, which I *almost* live in. His views are center-left with a sensitivity to business (he was CEO of two NYSE-listed companies), all of which probably means he can't win many primaries. Nevertheless I think he would very electable the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tklg said:

 

It wasn't so much as putting all eggs in one basket as it was blatantly favoring one candidate over all others in an arguably corrupt manner.  Super-delegates were not removed, only limited on first vote:

 

https://ivn.us/2018/08/27/dnc-just-made-historic-reform-super-delegates/

 

There are still plenty of ways to favor candidates if the DNC really wants to and any real reform is still yet to be realized.  Assuming they have learned their lesson is rather naive, unless status quo is acceptable.

 

Ironically, the GOP do not have this problem with super delegates by binding delegate votes to primary election results.  So if candidate wins state, candidate is awarded delegates based on rules of each state going into the national convention.  

 

Something the DNC should strongly consider if it's planning to compete going into the future.  I feel like a lot of democrat votes were lost after the 2016 debacle.

 

 

Both parties really should get rid of the "caucuses".  While the Iowa Democratic variety where supporters stand in little groups is particularly ridiculous, any method which does not include a secret ballot is vulnerable to pressure tactics and other manipulation.  Leading to candidates from the fringe.

 

The general election is a secret ballot and that's not going to change.   A candidate produced by enforced groupthink is at a severe disadvantage.

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@E Rocc Essentially all elections are corruptible with e-voting machines but which bureaucrats going to give up ability to rig elections?  /s

 

General election isn't a ballot.   General election is a poll of who the nation wants to be president.  Electoral college takes from there.   The real election happens in the shadows and dark corners of congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but the idea of a Bernie Sanders presidency strikes me as very attractive.  I know he's ultra liberal, but he also makes his points in a very clear manner without a lot of rhetoric.  I think he'd probably have major pushback getting even a fraction of his agenda through Congress but he could use executive orders and enact new regulations that might return things to a state of normalcy from where we are now.  I'd also like to see what a Bernie Sanders foreign policy / defense budget might look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gottaplan said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but the idea of a Bernie Sanders presidency strikes me as very attractive.  I know he's ultra liberal, but he also makes his points in a very clear manner without a lot of rhetoric.  I think he'd probably have major pushback getting even a fraction of his agenda through Congress but he could use executive orders and enact new regulations that might return things to a state of normalcy from where we are now.  I'd also like to see what a Bernie Sanders foreign policy / defense budget might look like.

 

"Use executive orders and enact new regulations" makes me vomit on myself whilst weeping on James Madison's grave. 

 

If you want a return to normalcy, return it to Constitutional normalcy, and to be fair, you probably have to look back to 1995 and before for that. Executive Orders are a result of the problem, not a solution.

 

I want a President that will advocate for 1) Gerrymandering reform, 2) Campaign finance reform, 3) A cooperative Congress - I can get behind someone that will do that, but Bernie Sanders is not the guy to return us to normalcy. Quite frankly, I think Beto might be the only leader of this group charismatic enough to get the country there, but his lack of experience doesn't necessarily get us to where we need to be in terms of a leader that knows how to effectively wield his/her influence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

3) A cooperative Congress - I can get behind someone that will do that, but Bernie Sanders is not the guy to return us to normalcy. Quite frankly, I think Beto might be the only leader of this group charismatic enough to get the country there, but his lack of experience doesn't necessarily get us to where we need to be in terms of a leader that knows how to effectively wield his/her influence. 

 

I don't think charisma has much of anything to do with a cooperative congress. Obama had lots of charisma, and the Republicans dug in their heels to prevent him from doing much of anything. 

 

Also, I know there is a lot of talk on here about the Democratic candidate needing to be a centrist who appeals to white working class men, but I don't agree with that. Republican voters have shown time and time again that they will hold their nose and vote for a bad Republican over voting for a centrist Democrat. Hillary was not super liberal. Hillary thought suburbanites across the country would be so put off by Trump that they would vote for her and she'd cruise to an easy victory. Hillary lost. In my opinion, we need someone who will excite democrats and give them something to come out and vote FOR, and not just bank on people coming out to oppose Trump. I want a Democrat who isn't afraid to be blunt about the dire situation facing this planet in regard to climate change and the need to take real action to reduce carbon emissions. I want a candidate who not only talks about the huge and growing wealth gap in this country, but also plans to do something about it. The 40 richest people on the planet should not have more money than the 4 billion poorest, but that's exactly the case. I have hesitations about Bernie's age, but what we saw in the 2016 election is that he has the potential to unify the working class around progressive populist ideology. Republicans have succeeded in making poor white people think that 1) they, too, can one day become rich if they work hard enough; and 2) no matter how poor they are, they're still better off than poor blacks, hispanics, etc. If a political figure such as Bernie can help these people understand how the deck is stacked against working and poor people of all races, this country might actually see some real change.

Edited by edale
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dipping an extremely tentative toe into the Current Events forum, here is where I stand on the likely candidates:

 

Would enthusiastically support: Klobuchar, Hickenlooper

Would settle for: Biden, Brown

Would be disappointed: Everyone else

 

Like it or not, the path to the presidency still runs through the midwest, and is determined by the kind of voters who voted for both Sherrod Brown and Mike Dewine in 2018.  Once IN the White House, I think having an ability to compromise and/or executive experience gives someone the best chance to actually be a good president.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why everyone thinks the Midwest wants to vote for a moderate. The Midwest voted for Donald Trump. They voted for Obama who was promising sweeping change to the status quo.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

I don't get why everyone thinks the Midwest wants to vote for a moderate. The Midwest voted for Donald Trump. They voted for Obama who was promising sweeping change to the status quo.

 

A Conservative think-tank in Columbus will be releasing a study in the next few weeks with results that will startle you re: the cross-section of Ohioans who regret voting for him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

A Conservative think-tank in Columbus will be releasing a study in the next few weeks with results that will startle you re: the cross-section of Ohioans who regret voting for him

 

Ohio is pretty much a red state now outside of Sherrod Brown so I'm guessing the number of Ohioans with regret is pretty small?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

I don't get why everyone thinks the Midwest wants to vote for a moderate. The Midwest voted for Donald Trump. They voted for Obama who was promising sweeping change to the status quo.

 

Liberal or progressive policy ideas do well on ballots across the country.  I think voters are also looking for a candidate who speaks to them.

  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Joe Biden a few times here and wondering how in the hell anyone can vote creepy Uncle Joe into presidency.  That would be suicide IMO.  Worse than Hillary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tklg said:

I've seen Joe Biden a few times here and wondering how in the hell anyone can vote creepy Uncle Joe into presidency.  That would be suicide IMO.  Worse than Hillary.

 

He has high favorability ratings, much better than DT across all people and very high among only democrats.

Edited by Enginerd
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.yahoo.com/mayor-pete-president-pete-crazy-thinks-ideas-arent-191944192.html

 

The millennials officially have a Presidential contender (EDIT - contender used very loosely here) as South Bend mayor Peter Buttigieg (37 years old) has announced he has launched a presidential exploratory committee.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

 

He has high favorability ratings, much better than DT across all people and very high among only democrats.

 

So did Hillary and we all saw what kind of shitshow that became with wikileaks.  I expect the same for Uncle Joe, except instead of emails it will be sexual harassment victims coming out of the woodwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

https://news.yahoo.com/mayor-pete-president-pete-crazy-thinks-ideas-arent-191944192.html

 

The millennials officially have a Presidential contender (EDIT - contender used very loosely here) as South Bend mayor Peter Buttigieg (37 years old) has announced he has launched a presidential exploratory committee.

 

He seems like such a smart guy - then he does crap like this and leading the DNC insurgency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tklg said:

 

So did Hillary and we all saw what kind of shitshow that became with wikileaks.  I expect the same for Uncle Joe, except instead of emails it will be sexual harassment victims coming out of the woodwork.

 

Dont get me wrong, I’m not sure he would survive the primaries. He’s been around a long time and has things he needs to answer for from early in his career. 

 

I just think people are waiting for him to join because his current approval ratings are so high.

Edited by Enginerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoutout to Bernie Sanders for dropping this gem from his 2011 Senate campaign page:

 

“These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in Venezuela, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?”

 

lolz

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Ohio is pretty much a red state now outside of Sherrod Brown so I'm guessing the number of Ohioans with regret is pretty small?

 

I disagree with this.  Gerrymandering is severely limiting to Ohio's congressional and state makeup in terms of political representation.  Beyond that, the state has switched back and forth on Democratic and Republican presidents seemingly each term.  The midterms have not changed the state's political makeup, nor has Trump for that matter.  If anything, the results were baked in regardless of what people thought.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I disagree with this.  Gerrymandering is severely limiting to Ohio's congressional and state makeup in terms of political representation.  Beyond that, the state has switched back and forth on Democratic and Republican presidents seemingly each term.  The midterms have not changed the state's political makeup, nor has Trump for that matter.  If anything, the results were baked in regardless of what people thought.

 

Who was the last Democrat to win statewide in Ohio besides Sherrod Brown?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, freefourur said:

Obama in 2012?

 

So in the last decade two Dems have won statewide in Ohio - Obama and Brown.  That's it unless I'm mistaken..  Ohio swung more to Trump in 2016 than Texas.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

So in the last decade two Dems have won statewide in Ohio - Obama and Brown.  That's it unless I'm mistaken..  Ohio swung more to Trump in 2016 than Texas.

 

I think that has more to do with the specific economic issues in Ohio and the Rust Belt.  NEO, which is traditionally blue, swung heavily toward Trump at greater levels than even the conservative parts of the state.  Trump both made sweeping promises on manufacturing and blue collar jobs that have large presences in the state, while also giving those people easy scapegoats to blame for their problems, like immigrants.  There is certainly no evidence that Trump has made any of their situations better, so that goes against them supporting Trump again, but at the same time, his fans never hold him accountable for anything, either.  Trump, IMO, is an anomaly more than a trend within the politics of the state.  When he's gone, I think things more or less go back to how they were before... at least that is my hope.  I also hope the new anti-gerrymandering law will help get the state back to a more accurate representation of the political makeup of the state, which has definitely played a role in why Democrats have struggled to win congressional seats. 

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillibrand's interview on Pod Save America.  Have a feeling her comments on the filibuster will anger some progressives because she talks as if Republicans engage in good faith debate.  It's also kind of a wishy washy answer.

  • Thanks 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I think that has more to do with the specific economic issues in Ohio and the Rust Belt.  NEO, which is traditionally blue, swung heavily toward Trump at greater levels than even the conservative parts of the state.  Trump both made sweeping promises on manufacturing and blue collar jobs that have large presences in the state, while also giving those people easy scapegoats to blame for their problems, like immigrants.  There is certainly no evidence that Trump has made any of their situations better, so that goes against them supporting Trump again, but at the same time, his fans never hold him accountable for anything, either.  Trump, IMO, is an anomaly more than a trend within the politics of the state.  When he's gone, I think things more or less go back to how they were before... at least that is my hope.  I also hope the new anti-gerrymandering law will help get the state back to a more accurate representation of the political makeup of the state, which has definitely played a role in why Democrats have struggled to win congressional seats. 

 

Trump is not the only Republican to make inroads here.  The Youngstown area is shifting and the Cleveland machine is gummed up with local corruption (again).  Free trade has hurt Democrats badly in NEO.  Sherrod Brown has beaten the trend by staying off that bandwagon.  Trump can win the region again just by doing what he's doing.  And depending on what happens with Lordstown.  Immigration is unrelated to the trade issue.  People here are worried about what's leaving, not who's coming.  Nobody's coming here.

 

Consistently bad performances in statewide elections suggests that gerrymandering is a red herring.  I'm not saying forget about it but clearly there's something else going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

Trump is not the only Republican to make inroads here.  The Youngstown area is shifting and the Cleveland machine is gummed up with local corruption (again).  Free trade has hurt Democrats badly in NEO.  Sherrod Brown has beaten the trend by staying off that bandwagon.  Trump can win the region again just by doing what he's doing.  And depending on what happens with Lordstown.  Immigration is unrelated to the trade issue.  People here are worried about what's leaving, not who's coming.  Nobody's coming here.

 

Consistently bad performances in statewide elections suggests that gerrymandering is a red herring.  I'm not saying forget about it but clearly there's something else going on.

 

Yes and no. Obviously gerrymandering does nothing with statewide races, but if you look at vote total, it’s roughly a 55/45 Rep/Dem split. That does not match up with statehouse or congressional representation AT ALL.

 

But, it is true that the statewide races are seemingly less and less competitive, even if the margins are still close.

 

And genuine question from a liberal here...what exactly IS Trump doing that would be keeping their vote? He’s done nothing to help folks in the Valley that I can think of.

Edited by Enginerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I'd argue the gerrymandering does affect statewide races. Non competitive congressional races depresses votes in those districts. 

 

Also, keeps Dems from building a good bench. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 327 said:

 

Trump is not the only Republican to make inroads here.  The Youngstown area is shifting and the Cleveland machine is gummed up with local corruption (again).  Free trade has hurt Democrats badly in NEO.  Sherrod Brown has beaten the trend by staying off that bandwagon.  Trump can win the region again just by doing what he's doing.  And depending on what happens with Lordstown.  Immigration is unrelated to the trade issue.  People here are worried about what's leaving, not who's coming.  Nobody's coming here.

 

Consistently bad performances in statewide elections suggests that gerrymandering is a red herring.  I'm not saying forget about it but clearly there's something else going on.

 

Trump didn't win NEO though. Hillary got 58.1% of the vote in the Cleveland metro, 52.1% in the Akron metro, and 47% in the Youngstown metro. Trump certainly did better than Republicans before him, but he didn't win the region. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I'd argue the gerrymandering does affect statewide races. Non competitive congressional races depresses votes in those districts. 

 

I didn’t think about it that way...but that does make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Trump didn't win NEO though. Hillary got 58.1% of the vote in the Cleveland metro, 52.1% in the Akron metro, and 47% in the Youngstown metro. Trump certainly did better than Republicans before him, but he didn't win the region. 

 

I meant Youngstown and I didn't make that clear.  That area has also been sending Republicans to Columbus.  We can't afford to cede territory but we are.

 

What is Trump doing to win those votes?  China's ongoing trade war against US metals and small cars has devastated the region, and GM is still trying to shift production to Mexico after receiving a federal bailout.  Simply saying these are bad things is worth a lot.  For years, Democrats have been joining Republicans in claiming the Mahoning Valley's economy must be sacrificed for the good of the nation. From 1992 to 2016 nobody took their side, but then someone did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

I meant Youngstown and I didn't make that clear.  That area has also been sending Republicans to Columbus.  We can't afford to cede territory but we are.

 

What is Trump doing to win those votes?  China's ongoing trade war against US metals and small cars has devastated the region, and GM is still trying to shift production to Mexico after receiving a federal bailout.  Simply saying these are bad things is worth a lot.  For years, Democrats have been joining Republicans in claiming the Mahoning Valley's economy must be sacrificed for the good of the nation. From 1992 to 2016 nobody took their side, but then someone did.

 

Gotcha, sorry for the confusion. I agree Dems need to make a better case to Youngstown and places like it. Hopefully Trump's failures help shift these places back to Dems and hopefully Dems learned their lesson. That's a lot of hoping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, his approval rating dips when he tries to do something politically. The same thing happened with Obama when he tried to pass policy. This doesn't mean that voters in the Midwest want to vote for a moderate in November 2020.

 

In 2008 and 2012 I would argue that the Republican candidate was the more moderate candidate (I still don't think Obama was extremely liberal - just look at how he approached healthcare reform, but I do think he was perceived as less of a centrist). John McCain and Mitt Romney were both establishment candidates who had histories of moderate policies. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was by far the centrist, moderate candidate. She got destroyed in the Midwest - in states no one thought Trump could win (Michigan and Wisconsin, especially, and PA to a lesser extent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...