Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Certainly, there will be some room for elimination and automation of ministerial positions, but when you run say a 10-15% profit margin and are going to get a 30-40% cut in revenue, those cuts are made up in more than a few secretaries in the office. 

 

WE focus on the jobs in medical that will go away but again, this is 20% of the economy. There will be accounting positions that are eliminated at large accounting and large law firms. It will hurt the real estate market and depress pricing because medical office space will be cut. Medical equip manufactures will suffer because the loss of revenue means less for capital investment. It would create a massive ripple effect through the entire economy.

 

Accountancy needs a greater supply of people very badly. And oh no, the rent for medical space will go down! I bet things will get really bad for medical equipment manufacturers when people start actually going to the doctor!

Edited by GCrites80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

 

People in this thread are non ironically comparing Trump to the rise of Hitler, who committed genocide and caused a world war.  If you are suggesting that you believe that the election of Trump will lead to the same, I believe the implications are that you believe that Trump will end the world.  I don't think anybody disagrees that a modern world war would have the power to end the world.

 

 

That's because schools only teach WWII now since there's lots of film of it.

Share this post


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

She needs to endorse Sanders ASAP. But if we repeat 2016 she will do it too late to be effective.

She needs to endorse or not endorse whomever she chooses. 

Share this post


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

She needs to endorse or not endorse whomever she chooses. 

I mean yeah she can do what she wants but if she doesn't endorse Sanders before Tuesday she loses whatever progressive credibility she still had.

Share this post


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

She needs to endorse Sanders ASAP. But if we repeat 2016 she will do it too late to be effective.

 

Just now, freefourur said:

She needs to endorse or not endorse whomever she chooses. 

 

She has a pretty genuine dislike of Biden, going back years.  She is more aligned with Sanders.  If she truly believes in M4A, a wealth tax, or basically any of her policies, Sanders is much more likely to fight for them than Biden.  I don't doubt Yabo's friends getting the sense she'll endorse Biden, but Sanders makes a ton of sense.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most interesting thing about the overall race is interesting to see the generational balance of power. The Boomers are continuing to hold onto power well into their 70s and beyond. 30 years ago, when you were Trump, Biden, Bernie's age, you would never run a campaign 70 appeared to be the limit

 

This also shows the void in leadership from Gen X. It is interesting to see and reasonable to believe that there will be no president from Gen X. Come 2024, the millenials will be in their 30s and 40s and poised to move into leadership. They have been much more active as a political class than Gen X has been anyway, and they are much larger of a group. Go to the past 40 years. You have Ford, Carter, Kennedy, Bush, Reagan who were members of the Greatest Generation. You have Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and XXXX who are all Boomers. After them, you will likely see the millennial take over  and Gen X will not be represented in the highest office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

 

People in this thread are non ironically comparing Trump to the rise of Hitler, who committed genocide and caused a world war.  If you are suggesting that you believe that the election of Trump will lead to the same, I believe the implications are that you believe that Trump will end the world.  I don't think anybody disagrees that a modern world war would have the power to end the world.

 

Did you read the links? "People on this thread" are doing no such thing. EXPERTS on Hitler are doing. Would you like to address their argument? Give us a sound counterargument? No one is saying Trump is literally Hitler. It is very possible that Trump has similarities but it won't end in WWIII. But literal scholars on the subject are warning that there are real similarities. 

Share this post


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

I mean yeah she can do what she wants but if she doesn't endorse Sanders before Tuesday she loses whatever progressive credibility she still had.

 

I would wager that part of the reason she couldn't solidify a sizable base in her 2020 campaign was due to her refusal to back the progressive candidate in 2016. It was a lot harder to make the "Bernie but wonkier" case when she wouldn't back Sanders over Clinton four years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Similarities and parallels do not make them the same person. Thus far the scales of their actions are vastly different. The comparison as it is generally made is unhelpful.

 

Because Trump has not committed a genocide yet, do you think it is out of hand for Nazi scholars to bring up the similarities? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I would wager that part of the reason she couldn't solidify a sizable base in her 2020 campaign was due to her refusal to back the progressive candidate in 2016. It was a lot harder to make the "Bernie but wonkier" case when she wouldn't back Sanders over Clinton four years ago.

 

It is sad that there was an "electability" freakout in the fall when she came out with her M4A two step when she was the front runner, and there has been precisely none of that freakout over Sanders' support for M4A while the front runner.  Hmmm.

 

I think, for better or for worse, she was also seen as "Establishment Friendly."  That was mostly because she was tapped by Obama to create the CFPB and then encouraged to run for Senate.  She hasn't gotten all that much favorable media coverage in the Boston area, even though that's where she is from.  Her base consistently has been college-educated white liberals and not much else.  Similar to Pete, actually.  She polls well on the coasts ("elite" if you want) and in college-educated suburbs, but not all that well anywhere else.  Like every other non-Biden/Bernie candidate, she had a hard time making inroads in minority areas.

 

It is a weird dynamic because Bernie was trying to get her to run as a lefty candidate in 2015, but she declined - I would presume because she thought she wasn't ready yet?  Or didn't want to take on Clinton?  I don't know.

 

Either way, for Dems, I think she will be very important in the Senate going forward.  I much prefer her as Senate Majority Leader than Schumer.  But she will be very valuable as a lead policymaker in the Senate should the Dems take back the Senate in the fall.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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

 

Because Trump has not committed a genocide yet, do you think it is out of hand for Nazi scholars to bring up the similarities? 

No I think that is fine, but you are using those articles as blanket cover for referring to him as a Nazi, which has been shown to be ineffective and misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a naive question and ultimately politically fraught within the DNC, but what are the chances... let's say Joe keeps up the momentum while Bernie remains close behind and eventually they combine on a ticket? Strategic move to unite two wings of the party with two popular candidates? Bad idea to let the two old guys team up? Would their political differences be a problem or could they find common ground to serve as an example for uniting a common cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

We can survive and move on from any candidate that supports the Bill of Rights in its entirety.   Trump more or less does, Bernie I think does though perhaps not his supporters, Biden may be the worst of the three in this regard.  His people wrote the first draft of the "Patriot Act".  Bloomberg was horrible from this perspective.

 

I can't believe you think the man that regularly calls the press "enemies of the people" and supports violations of the 4th, among others, in his immigration policies, is a big fan of the Bill of Rights. Trump is a disaster for American rights.  As for the Patriot Act, it was bipartisan and supported by a Republican administration.  It's more than a little disingenuous to put that all on Biden or any one person.  It was a collective failure, and one that Trump hasn't exactly rejected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

This also shows the void in leadership from Gen X. It is interesting to see and reasonable to believe that there will be no president from Gen X. Come 2024, the millenials will be in their 30s and 40s and poised to move into leadership. They have been much more active as a political class than Gen X has been anyway, and they are much larger of a group.

Completely agree. Obviously Obama is the prime example of a Gen X leader (whether you like him or not), but the aimless Beto O' Rourke is a better example of the demographic as a whole. Class consciousness was continually eroded from 1970 forward and it shows.

Share this post


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

Btw, Hannity had a segment last night on Biden's "obvious cognitive decline," with some clips taken out of context for good measure.  They're already starting back up on the attacks.  I don't think people - even Biden supporters - can pretend this won't be a thing for months on Fox News and the Trump base.

 

They're going to lie and make these types of attacks whoever the frontrunner is.  As if Bernie doesn't have some obvious points in health and policy that they could latch onto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The most interesting thing about the overall race is interesting to see the generational balance of power. The Boomers are continuing to hold onto power well into their 70s and beyond. 30 years ago, when you were Trump, Biden, Bernie's age, you would never run a campaign 70 appeared to be the limit

 

This also shows the void in leadership from Gen X. It is interesting to see and reasonable to believe that there will be no president from Gen X. Come 2024, the millenials will be in their 30s and 40s and poised to move into leadership. They have been much more active as a political class than Gen X has been anyway, and they are much larger of a group. Go to the past 40 years. You have Ford, Carter, Kennedy, Bush, Reagan who were members of the Greatest Generation. You have Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and XXXX who are all Boomers. After them, you will likely see the millennial take over  and Gen X will not be represented in the highest office. 

 

2008: McCain was 72.

1996: Dole was 73.

1984: Reagan was 73.

1980: Reagan was 69.

 

Yeah, I don't think 70 was ever the limit on running a campaign.

 

Biden and Sanders aren't Baby Boomers, they are part of the Silent Generation.  Trump is literally right on the border, depending on which publication you believe (1945 or 1946 is the transition year to Baby Boomers and Trump was born in '46).  Gen X is roughly 1965 to 1980 (again, the years are slightly off depending on who you believe).

 

I think it's much more likely the next President is a Gen Xer than a Millennial.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonoh81 said:

They're going to lie and make these types of attacks whoever the frontrunner is.  As if Bernie doesn't have some obvious points in health and policy that they could latch onto.

 

This is whataboutism, though.  If you're a Biden supporter, how do you counter months and months of coverage of Fox News and probably all conservative media outlets showing clips of him that they'll say are proof he's in cognitive decline?  You can't just ignore that question.  Fox News has real pull, especially in areas where the Democrats need to win back in order to defeat Trump.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

 

People in this thread are non ironically comparing Trump to the rise of Hitler, who committed genocide and caused a world war.  If you are suggesting that you believe that the election of Trump will lead to the same, I believe the implications are that you believe that Trump will end the world.  I don't think anybody disagrees that a modern world war would have the power to end the world.

 

There are plenty of parallels between Hitler's rise to power in the early-mid 1930s and Trump's abuses of power and fear-mongering tactics.  Recognizing that is not saying that Trump is "literally Hitler" or that the outcomes will be the same.  Context and nuance are still a thing.

Share this post


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

Completely agree. Obviously Obama is the prime example of a Gen X leader (whether you like him or not), but the aimless Beto O' Rourke is a better example of the demographic as a whole. Class consciousness was continually eroded from 1970 forward and it shows.

 

Obama was a Boomer, though.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

No I think that is fine, but you are using those articles as blanket cover for referring to him as a Nazi, which has been shown to be ineffective and misleading.

 

No, I'm not. I never called him a Nazi. Someone here said that Nazi comparisons were stupid and that people making them were stupid. I simply pointed out that it is actual Holocaust and Nazi scholars that are making the comparisons. 

Share this post


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

 

No, I'm not. I never called him a Nazi. Someone here said that Nazi comparisons were stupid and that people making them were stupid. I simply pointed out that it is actual Holocaust and Nazi scholars that are making the comparisons. 

"simply pointing out" with no meaning behind it right

Share this post


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

I stand corrected. Born in '61. What's the cutoff, '65?

 

I think so, but different publications/groups use slightly different years.  Obama did seem more Gen X to me than Boomer, but that's more likely the fault of trying to group generations together that span 15-20 years.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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

 

This is whataboutism, though.  If you're a Biden supporter, how do you counter months and months of coverage of Fox News and probably all conservative media outlets showing clips of him that they'll say are proof he's in cognitive decline?  You can't just ignore that question.  Fox News has real pull, especially in areas where the Democrats need to win back in order to defeat Trump.

 

I don't think that's whataboutism, I am just saying that they're going to play dirty regardless, so this is not necessarily a weakness of Biden's alone. I agree that it can't be ignored either way, but I also don't want a lot of time spent playing defense.  I think Clinton did that too much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

"simply pointing out" with no meaning behind it right

 

No meaning other than that there are similarities and real scholars recognize them. There's nothing hidden here? No one here actually made the comparison, btw. @TH3BUDDHA tried to say that the comparisons (generally) were proof that the left has gone crazy or something. I just responded. I'm not sure what you're getting at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I think the culture of using that term and calling everybody Nazis and Hitler these days is f*cking dumb.  That's my point.  Open a history book and see some of true atrocities that some rulers have committed in history and tell me if you really think Trump compares to that.  If you are trying to tell me that he truly compares to people that have murdered tens of millions of people, then I can't take that seriously.  He says some ridiculous sh*t, sure.  But, I hardly think saying "grab her by the p*ssy" compares to those other atrocities.

 

And to my point about college students, I didn't say anything false.  They commonly try to shut down opposing speeches.  This is true and happens all the time.  And this is in fact something an authoritarian would do.  So it is ironic that people that are calling everybody Hitler and Nazis are also silencing opposing opinions.  But, I didn't call them anything.

 

@Cavalier Attitude this is the quote I was responding to. I simply pointed out that it is actual historians making the comparison. So it is a little ironic to have @TH3BUDDHA ranting about how people need to "open a history book" and stop making these comparisons. No one here actually made the comparison, but actual historians did.

Share this post


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

 

2008: McCain was 72.

1996: Dole was 73.

1984: Reagan was 73.

1980: Reagan was 69.

 

Yeah, I don't think 70 was ever the limit on running a campaign.

 

Biden and Sanders aren't Baby Boomers, they are part of the Silent Generation.  Trump is literally right on the border, depending on which publication you believe (1945 or 1946 is the transition year to Baby Boomers and Trump was born in '46).  Gen X is roughly 1965 to 1980 (again, the years are slightly off depending on who you believe).

 

I think it's much more likely the next President is a Gen Xer than a Millennial.

But up until Reagan 70 was the threshold. Age was an issue he overcame in his campaign and opened it up for older candidates later on

 

Good point on Biden or Bernie. I guess the silent generation was not represented either then, unless Biden wins?

Share this post


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

Context and nuance are still a thing.

Yes, context is a thing.  And in a conversation where people are telling me to do the "right thing" and fall in line behind Biden because of "serious consequences", mentioning the similarities between Trump and Hitler suggests what people think those "consequences" are.  However, my original comment that led to this line of discussion wasn't actually aimed at anybody in this thread in particular.  It was just commentary on the community as a whole.

Edited by TH3BUDDHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, seicer said:

Warren is out. I expect her to join the Biden bandwagon. She would make a great VP.

 

The powers that be within the Democratic party will tell her to stay in the senate until her term is up, and then she can join the cabinet, otherwise the Gov of MA will appoint a Republican.  The party is taking the senate races VERY seriously (most recently, evidenced by them convincing Bullock to run in MT).  Not taking a cabinet job is a sacrifice for her, so hopefully she is rewarded with some title with actual sway within the senate. 

 

If Biden is the nominee, I'm willing to bet with 95% confidence that it is Abrams as VP.

 

And to tie this all together a president Biden with Democratic control of the house and senate would:

-allow for a replenishment of liberal SC justices, giving progressive policies a chance over the next 30 years

-The house ultimately writes the bills, and as long as the progressive streak continues in there, some progressive priorities will make their way to Biden's desk, and it would be political suicide for him to veto a bill from his own party.  For example: M4A could at least be a possibility once an Obamacare expansion adding the public option becomes available and is popular.  And yes, this will pass if the trifecta happens.

 

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  Biden may not be a vocal figurehead for progressives, but make no mistake, the things progressives have pushed for will at least make some progress and have a chance in the future.  With 4 more years of Trump, that's just not going to happen with a 7-2 court.

Edited by 10albersa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

The powers that be within the Democratic party will tell her to stay in the senate until her term is up, and then she can join the cabinet, otherwise the Gov of MA will appoint a Republican.  The party is taking the senate races VERY seriously (most recently, evidenced by them convincing Bullock to run in MT).  Not taking a cabinet job is a sacrifice for her, so hopefully she is rewarded with some title with actual sway within the senate. 


I believe in Massachusetts the governor assigns a temporary replacement before there is a special election for the replacement. Her replacement would be elected after she assumes office.

 

I still don't think she would be chosen, but it wouldn't be a Republican appointment for the remainder of the term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Yes, context is a thing.  And in a conversation where people are telling me to do the "right thing" and fall in line behind Biden because of "serious consequences", mentioning the similarities between Trump and Hitler suggests what people think those "consequences" are.  However, my original comment that led to this line of discussion wasn't actually aimed at anybody in this thread in particular.  It was just commentary on the community as a whole.

 

You keep bringing up Hitler.  Not once did I make that comparison in any of my debate with you.  You're the one who brought up that comparison in this conversation, and honestly, I have rarely seen a direct comparison made by anyone here or in other media.  Furthermore, no one is telling you to fall in line because no one here has that kind of power..  They're making the case that voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that may end up being, is paramount because you would still be able to get much more of what you want than the alternative of helping ensure another Trump term.  Regardless of the level of danger or consequence you think exists with Trump, the bottom line is that he will not get you anything you want.  Biden will, if he's the nominee.  I'm not sure why this is such a difficult choice if you are serious about moving a more progressive agenda forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:


I believe in Massachusetts the governor assigns a temporary replacement before there is a special election for the replacement. Her replacement would be elected after she assumes office.

 

I still don't think she would be chosen, but it wouldn't be a Republican appointment for the remainder of the term

Yes, but you still dont want to give up a seat even if it is for a few months given the balance of power in the Senate. 

This is part of the reason why Tim Kaine was Hillary's VP pick in 2016.

 

Other more popular Dems like Sherrod Brown or a Senator from MA, MI, WI, MO, FL, etc. were never considered because they had a GOP governor and would appoint a GOP candidate to a Dem seat. That was the rule at the time, which was a reasonable one since Hillary appeared to be headed to victory and needed to ensure she also had the Senate to get her picks through, etc. 

Share this post


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

But up until Reagan 70 was the threshold. Age was an issue he overcame in his campaign and opened it up for older candidates later on

 

Good point on Biden or Bernie. I guess the silent generation was not represented either then, unless Biden wins?

Reagan had Alzheimer's in his second term. So yeah, he really did open the door for Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

I mean yeah she can do what she wants but if she doesn't endorse Sanders before Tuesday she loses whatever progressive credibility she still had.

 

Supporting Sanders is not the be all, end all of progressivism.  Some of us think Sanders is more likely to harm progressive causes in the US than help by losing the House and Senate on his way to losing the Presidency, and therefore the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

There's gonna be a lot of jabberjaw in a Biden vs. Trump debate.

 

I don't think a debate benefits either of them. Trump would get destroyed on the facts, Biden would normalize Trump's quasi-stream of consciousness speaking style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There is still hope for those who want a female president. 

 

Yes, but it's telling that the only people who seem to want Gabbard are Republicans.  At this point, though, she's irrelevant.  

Share this post


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

 

Yes, but it's telling that the only people who seem to want Gabbard are Republicans.  At this point, though, she's irrelevant.  

I recognize that, and so does every Republican and Independent, if they have even heard of her to begin with. It was said in jest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, X said:

 

Supporting Sanders is not the be all, end all of progressivism.  Some of us think Sanders is more likely to harm progressive causes in the US than help by losing the House and Senate on his way to losing the Presidency, and therefore the Supreme Court.

The Dems have shown they are not capable of passing progressive legislation when they are in power. Which is why people get disillusioned with the system, because they rightly see that it does not make a difference who they vote for or whether they vote or not.

 

No guarantee on those justices either. With how Biden praises conservatives, he's more likely to nominate Merrick Garland than another Sotomayor type.

 

And as I've said previously, I have little to no confidence that Biden would beat Trump. It would be 2016 all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...