Democratic Primary Season 2020

[mrsleeve]

So you are bitching about the people that vote based on the Roe v Wade stance only. The single issue voter is the biggest issue we have going on this country right now.

[decay]

i used the words "stances" and "issues". the S on the end makes it plural.

and i didn't mention anything about abortion in general, or roe v wade specifically?

[z31maniac]

To me that sounds like the exact doomed 2016 thinking -- everyone get out of the way for the obvious pre-determined Front-runner. What a disaster.

You misinterpreted me.

I don't think that Bernie should.be immediately crowned frontrunner or anything. I think the vastly scattered field is bad for the DNC.

They need a non-establishment nominee (not stealing votes from Bernie, or the aging out of touch Clinton, or Kamala Harris and listening to Snoop in college 6 years before he released an album).

I think the best bet, from what I can see so far, is Beto or Booker.

[mrsleeve]

i used the words "stances" and "issues". the S on the end makes it plural.

and i didn't mention anything about abortion in general, or roe v wade specifically?

And many many people do that, but only on 1 issue that they care about, Pro lifers, LGBT's "rights", Gun Control, Church/State issues, Animal rights/protections etc.... And thats how they vote, they dont care about the rest so long as the candidate says they are not for abortion, or for the abolishment of the 2A or harsh firearms controls etc.. or that an individual with a cock can use what ever bathroom "he identifies with". That we stop trapping/hunting, or any other hot button issue you can come up with.

I have found that many people are very well educated on 1 issue, and how their choices of representation stand on that 1 issue, but very little else is know about their stance on other things. Hence why I said what I did, there are lots of people out there that do educate themselves but only on what they deem important to them. The pro life crowd is the most stereotypical of this, thus the example, my inlaws are this way, so long as the candidate is prolife in all cases, they dont care about the rest

[phillipj]

You misinterpreted me.

I don't think that Bernie should.be immediately crowned frontrunner or anything. I think the vastly scattered field is bad for the DNC.

They need a non-establishment nominee (not stealing votes from Bernie, or the aging out of touch Clinton, or Kamala Harris and listening to Snoop in college 6 years before he released an album).

I think the best bet, from what I can see so far, is Beto or Booker.

Well, "bad" for the DNC and good for the country/electorate are vastly different things! The more choice the better, as long as there's substance behind the conversation.

Regardless, the DNC and Big Money will put forward the most Neoliberal candidate. Booker would be a perfect choice.

[mbonder]

Actually, I think if you're looking for Neoliberal, Biden is your best bet. Booker does also have this stance, but is less well-liked by the general public compared to Biden.

He isn't in the race yet, but if he does get in (which I'm assuming will happen), he will be the nominee unless he does something ridiculously dumb. Look at all the polls, he currently leads all others by near double digits if not more.

It's obviously really early on, anything could happen, but if Biden runs a campaign with a consistent message (which I think he can given that he is a known commodity and a fairly well-liked one at that) and a limited number of gaffs, he should be able to maintain his advantage as the others tear each other apart.

[phillipj]

Actually, I think if you're looking for Neoliberal, Biden is your best bet. Booker does also have this stance, but is less well-liked by the general public compared to Biden.

He isn't in the race yet, but if he does get in (which I'm assuming will happen), he will be the nominee unless he does something ridiculously dumb. Look at all the polls, he currently leads all others by near double digits if not more.

It's obviously really early on, anything could happen, but if Biden runs a campaign with a consistent message (which I think he can given that he is a known commodity and a fairly well-liked one at that) and a limited number of gaffs, he should be able to maintain his advantage as the others tear each other apart.

It's all our opinions of course, but I don't agree at all. It's mainly because Biden has always ran supremely unsuccessful, weak Presidential campaigns. Agism will work against him here as well, and the American people in general really do not want an Establishment candidate; I don't think we want Obama 2.0 either. Biden is no front-runner, maybe more like a Jeb!2016 if he even gets in the race, which I personally do not think he will.

And, hmm...? I'm not so sure if Joe is more bought than Booker. I see him as the type that has less to lose after all he's been through, his age, duties & experiences. My own speculation...

---

Separately, I don't think any 'polls' on Democratic contenders mean much, especially whatever ones are being taken today. I also don't anticipate any of them tearing each other apart-- I think it'll be competitive but quite positive. They all know there is a greater, unhinged threat to the Country out there and will not jeopardize that.

[mbonder]

Biden ran for President in 1988 and in 2008. Tough to say that running for president 30 years ago in 1988 is the same as running for president today. I read up a little on that 1988 campaign and it appears as though he made some novice errors in the process that led him to lose popularity. I'd imagine that given the amount of experience he now has he'd be able to steer clear of those types of mistakes that doomed his campaign.

Also, 2008 is a tough one as well given that he was fighting the tides of history, Obama becoming the first African American President. He was also going up against the possibility of Hillary Clinton becoming the first female President. Both of these factors would make it tough for anyone else to win.

I also wouldn't describe him as Jeb Bush. Comparing being the governor of Florida to the Vice President of the US for eight years doesn't seem like apples to apples to me.

Age wasn't a problem for Trump, who is only a couple years younger than Biden.

Current Public Polls:

Morning Consult: Biden: +10%
Emerson: Biden: +9%
Monmouth: Biden: +13%
Harvard-Harris: Biden:+11%
CNN: Biden: +16%
Politico: Biden: +18%

Given these polls (and you can dismiss them if you want, but they are what they are right now so I figure let's use them for discussion), what do you think is putting him so far ahead of the others right now? Sanders is the only one within striking distance of Biden with some polls putting him 7-9% back, otherwise its double digits for everyone else.

Although some might argue otherwise, I believe Obama to have been a neoliberal while taking a moderate stance on many issues. He saved the banks from failing and didn't really penalize the entire financial system, he generally allowed the markets to recover without a heavy hand in regulation, he also continued to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while also killing Bin Laden.

Although many will never admit to it, people didn't like Obama specifically because he was black. If I had described any other white man president with the previous set of accomplishments he would be considered a fairly good president. America still suffers from the racism of the past that is still present today. The fact that Biden has so much support actually kind of proves this point, people wouldn't mind many of the policies that Obama put forth, as long as it's white guy Joe Biden putting them out there instead of that foreign-born Muslim terrorist.

[Schnitzer318is]

Given these polls (and you can dismiss them if you want, but they are what they are right now so I figure let's use them for discussion), what do you think is putting him so far ahead of the others right now? Sanders is the only one within striking distance of Biden with some polls putting him 7-9% back, otherwise its double digits for everyone else.

I think the answer to that is simple. Familiarity. They are the two most recognizable names. As Sleeve said, most voters aren't very well informed. Those are the two names they have been the most exposed to and so, when asked, from a list of 5-10 possible candidates... they are really only choosing between those two.

Although some might argue otherwise, I believe Obama to have been a neoliberal while taking a moderate stance on many issues. He saved the banks from failing and didn't really penalize the entire financial system, he generally allowed the markets to recover without a heavy hand in regulation, he also continued to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while also killing Bin Laden.

Although many will never admit to it, people didn't like Obama specifically because he was black. If I had described any other white man president with the previous set of accomplishments he would be considered a fairly good president. America still suffers from the racism of the past that is still present today. The fact that Biden has so much support actually kind of proves this point, people wouldn't mind many of the policies that Obama put forth, as long as it's white guy Joe Biden putting them out there instead of that foreign-born Muslim terrorist.

Obama's voters certainly didn't discriminate against him for being black. Probably quite the opposite, it probably garnered him votes. I liked that he was the first black president, for history's sake. I disliked that he was a typical politician who did not deliver on campaign promises. He got my vote the first run and lost it the second. He did do good things, as you listed, but was hardly the instrument of "change" that he campaigned on. I don't consider him a "bad" president by any stretch of the imagination... especially compared to who we are dealing with now.

Now, if you are talking about the people who did not vote for him. Then I think they would have denigrated him just the same if he were white. There just would have been different talking points rather than the birth certificate, religion, etc. That's just the state of politics in this country. The other party's voters will never admit the other's office holder is did a good job on any issue.

[phillipj]

It's a good discussion, and I appreciate it. :cheers:

Biden ran for President in 1988 and in 2008. Tough to say that running for president 30 years ago in 1988 is the same as running for president today. I read up a little on that 1988 campaign and it appears as though he made some novice errors in the process that led him to lose popularity. I'd imagine that given the amount of experience he now has he'd be able to steer clear of those types of mistakes that doomed his campaign.

Ha, like plagiarism, amongst others -- although in this day and age he looks relatively saintly(!) especially compared to a pathological liar like Trump, or a Clinton, however you can set the bar no lower!!

He's likely learned a lot from his past experiences, and running today is far different than in 1988, but he has never been considered or performed like a strong candidate when he had his chances.

He also has a past record that puts him wayyyy out of step with today and leaves him open to valid criticism. His actions in the Clarence Thomas confirmations kind of loom large given the recent storyline with Kavanaugh; the Clinton Crime Bill, Bankruptcy reform bill, etc. He's probably 'evolved' though? (But don't we so hate when politicians say that...)

I also wouldn't describe him as Jeb Bush. Comparing being the governor of Florida to the Vice President of the US for eight years doesn't seem like apples to apples to me.

My only comparison here is that all the 'polls' may have pointed to a reasonably well-liked, familiar, establishment Jeb as the clear GOP front-runner before the 2016 race even started... and we all know how that played out!

Age wasn't a problem for Trump, who is only a couple years younger than Biden.

Age will be a criticism for a Biden or a Sanders, whether it is valid or not. (Being of sound mind should -- every candidate should be independently evaluated). And let's be quite honest: it looms larger for Sanders because the power-brokers of this country do not want him in office -- he also does not have the hair-plugs, fake teeth and orange tan of Trump or Biden. (gross).

Although some might argue otherwise, I believe Obama to have been a neoliberal while taking a moderate stance on many issues. He saved the banks from failing and didn't really penalize the entire financial system, he generally allowed the markets to recover without a heavy hand in regulation, he also continued to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while also killing Bin Laden.

Although many will never admit to it, people didn't like Obama specifically because he was black. If I had described any other white man president with the previous set of accomplishments he would be considered a fairly good president. America still suffers from the racism of the past that is still present today. The fact that Biden has so much support actually kind of proves this point, people wouldn't mind many of the policies that Obama put forth, as long as it's white guy Joe Biden putting them out there instead of that foreign-born Muslim terrorist.

Obama is to the right of Reagan in many ways, whether people want to judge his time truthfully is another story. Like you, the thing that bothered me is the cartoon-making of him by the Right into this impossibly villainous bogeyman, which has definite roots in racism. The birther thing is one of the most deplorable stunts we could've ever seen -- shame on all those who exploited it.

[z31maniac]

He did do good things, as you listed, but was hardly the instrument of "change" that he campaigned on.

It's hard to do when you are fighting the Senate, the House, lobbyists, corporate interests, foreign affairs, etc.

No politician will ever accomplish, or possibly even try to accomplish, everything they promise to get elected.

[Schnitzer318is]

It's hard to do when you are fighting the Senate, the House, lobbyists, corporate interests, foreign affairs, etc.

No politician will ever accomplish, or possibly even try to accomplish, everything they promise to get elected.

And I appreciate that point of view as being the unfortunate truth. But he did not go far enough to try to push his agenda. Should have been much more vocal and attempted more. If it fails in the legislative... that's fine, he can blame them at that point. The only thing he fought really hard for was the ACA. And it got watered down.

Edit: I was also extremely disappointed in his lack of transparency that was promised and the expanded use of the surveillance apparatus of the Gov't. That really turned me off. He campaigned on change and then was pretty much more of the same. And again, he did good things as well... I would not call him a bad president by any means, just not what was promised.

[z31maniac]

And I appreciate that point of view as being the unfortunate truth. But he did not go far enough to try to push his agenda. Should have been much more vocal and attempted more. If it fails in the legislative... that's fine, he can blame them at that point. The only thing he fought really hard for was the ACA. And it got watered down.

Edit: I was also extremely disappointed in his lack of transparency that was promised and the expanded use of the surveillance apparatus of the Gov't. That really turned me off. He campaigned on change and then was pretty much more of the same. And again, he did good things as well... I would not call him a bad president by any means, just not what was promised.

This is why I constantly tell people outside of abortion and a few social issues, the R's and D's are basically the same party.

Erode our rights, support the Patriot Act, never ending war (Obama continued or started bombing 7 different countries during his 2 terms), Democrats take money from big pharma and have no problem with them screwing us on drug prices, etc etc.

[phillipj]

This is why I constantly tell people outside of abortion and a few social issues, the R's and D's are basically the same party.

Erode our rights, support the Patriot Act, never ending war (Obama continued or started bombing 7 different countries during his 2 terms), Democrats take money from big pharma and have no problem with them screwing us on drug prices, etc etc.

Right on. The powers that be want to keep it this way. The system really needs upheaval, but, given how money has been allowed to rule our politics it'll just never happen. Even if you have a well-meaning Independent run on individual, small donations and somehow win, they are going to need a lot of help from others tied up in the party-structure to truly reform campaign finance, elections, lobbying to get us to a truer "democracy".

Truly the best window we had for all this was in 2008, given the immense fear and anger with the Financial meltdown and the overall disgust with the Wars/Bush years. I'm not sure when the next window comes, or, sadly, if it ever comes at all.


**edit: I do believe we'll see a sizable Economic downturn + even more stressing times come Fall 2020, however I do not think the opportunity will be as ripe as 2008 nor will we have the leadership in the right place for real, systematic change. God, it sure sucks to be so pessimistic.

[mbonder]

It's a good discussion, and I appreciate it. :cheers:

Ha, like plagiarism, amongst others -- although in this day and age he looks relatively saintly(!) especially compared to a pathological liar like Trump, or a Clinton, however you can set the bar no lower!!

He's likely learned a lot from his past experiences, and running today is far different than in 1988, but he has never been considered or performed like a strong candidate when he had his chances.

He also has a past record that puts him wayyyy out of step with today and leaves him open to valid criticism. His actions in the Clarence Thomas confirmations kind of loom large given the recent storyline with Kavanaugh; the Clinton Crime Bill, Bankruptcy reform bill, etc. He's probably 'evolved' though? (But don't we so hate when politicians say that...)


Age will be a criticism for a Biden or a Sanders, whether it is valid or not. (Being of sound mind should -- every candidate should be independently evaluated). And let's be quite honest: it looms larger for Sanders because the power-brokers of this country do not want him in office -- he also does not have the hair-plugs, fake teeth and orange tan of Trump or Biden. (gross)

I read up on the plagiarism thing and I think it was overblown, he used similar speeches on multiple occasions and gave credit within them to the original author. I can't say with absolute certainty that he did or didn't want to do the same in the one that he got nailed for, but you'd assume that if he gave credit before he would have done it again. He took responsibility for it afterward, but that definitely sunk his campaign in 1988. I was only 3 at the time so I'm only speaking from what I read, I wasn't old enough to actually have a memory of it.

If age is brought up, won't it be just as much of an issue for Trump? The argument certainly can be made that they're all within a few years of each other and therefore age is irrelevant.

Certainly, being in government for over 30 years has left Biden with plenty of skeletons in his closet from years past, but honestly, the world is a lot different now than it was during the Clinton years, generally everyone that voted (Rep and Dem alike) for the Crime Bill and mandatory minimums as well as harsh punishments have nearly to the person accepted that it didn't work out. I don't necessarily see that as a flaw of character or decision-making process, but as the continued evolution of a politician (Sorry philipj, can't they change their mind and evolve?). I'd rather that than for them to stick to a flawed position long after it's been deemed flawed (Think segregationists in the 1970s).


As for Obama, I will say that he put many of his political eggs into the healthcare basket. If it didn't get passed he would have been considered a failure by nearly everyone. Because of this there were compromises that were made, which in hindsight probably shouldn't have been. I don't know that you can necessarily fault him for this completely as the legislation wasn't a one-man effort. Additionally, I think that healthcare took longer and wasted too much political capital for him to do much else that he had promised. There were smaller accomplishments along the way, but nothing like the soaring rhetoric of his campaigns, especially the one in 2008. The death knell to his ability to maneuver was when Congress flipped in 2010 and he was emasculated for the two remaining years of his presidency.


Disclaimer: I'm not committed to any of the Dem candidates at this point, I think it's too early to tell who actually will have a chance (However it's nice to actually discuss things in this subforum). However, you sort of know what you are getting with Biden and in my eyes, it's better to have a known quantity than an unknown one. Trump was an unknown quantity which we are learning new things about every day, he'll clearly always have his devoted supporters, but my guess is that he has lost some of those that were on the fence and voted for him out of a hatred for Hillary/the Democrats in general. Biden might be a return to "normal" for some after four years of Trump, which is part of why I think he's getting early support. I think this goes beyond just "name recognition", although I don't wholly discount that either.


Let the fun continue!