DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

STANV said:

nan said:

 Bernie is a "Democratic Socialist" which is like being FDR, not Stalin or whatever image you are getting.
Biden's actions over the years may be viewed differently in a different time.  For example the MeToo movement has made some formerly loved celebrities now pariahs. Biden is rumored to have some of those problems and if any of them should prove to be true there could be some bombshells.  I listed some other possible problems above, but there could be more:  He was a cheerleader for TPP.  He supported student loan debt problems.  He supports any and all regime changes. He's openly against Progressives and Medicare for All.  He has said things that seem to be against social security and Medicare. 

 FDR never called himself a Socialist of any type. His enemies on the Right may have but I believe the Socialist Party ran candidates against him every time.
All of a sudden you want to start or spread rumors about Biden's "MeTo" problems. What's your source?
And suddenly this consistent main-stream Dem is against social security and Medicare?


Just because you favor one candidate doesn't mean you have to hate or disparage all the others.

nan said:

 Because, as I explained, the Democrats have moved to the right.  Way over to the right. 

 Really, are they now opposed to legal abortion? Do they favor Trump's harsh immigration policies. Is the Democratic Party now against the Minimum Wage or environmental protections?
Not only don't you have to attack every other candidate in order to support your favored one, you do not have to engage in hyperbole to express your opinions.

 How many times do I have to say this?  Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, not a Socialist.  He's like an FDR New Deal Democrat.  

When it comes to discussing presidential elections, I don't see the point of being nice.  We are not talking about Ian Grodman here--we are talking about very public individuals who might run our country someday. They are not reading MOL and if they are they should be able to handle what we say. We should vet them thoroughly--so there are minimal surprises. That said I have to say I was woken up this morning by a text from my Sister-in-Law telling me that Bernie had announced and how much she hated him and how he  was too old and had no chance and was going to spoil it for everyone else and Larry David had a better chance of getting elected than he did.  My sister-in-law barely ever communicates with me, so I was surprised that she felt she needed to share these thoughts with me and I thought it was pretty crappy.  So, I will not be calling people up that I know are voting for people I don't like and forcing my views on them, but this is a public forum where we all agree to discuss politics so I think just about anything is fair and this is the place to say stuff, not lashing randomly at relatives.

So, that's why I'm sharing my views on Joe Biden. To me, he is a deeply flawed out of touch candidate.  I really don't understand why he gets those high popularity ratings and i was genuinely interested in hear why people like him.  I definitely admit that I might be wrong on him.  As far as his MeToo stuff, it's been discussed on line quite a bit and I expect it would come up during a campaign.  Here is one example: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-harvey-weinstein_us_5a0a0ba8e4b00a6eece3a13e

On Democrats moving to the right, I could talk for a long time about that and they do favor harsh immigration policies (Obama was the deporter in chief) and especially harsh law and order policies (Bill Clinton's crime bill), resistant to raising minimum wage and not so great on the environment (Obama allowed drilling in the Artic twice and Clinton promoted fracking all over the world).  They also would not even be saying the words "Medicare For All" were it not for the influence of Bernie Sanders.  Hillary famously said that we would never get Medicare for All.  

Here's Obama admitting his policies are basically moderate Republican:

nan said:

Here's Obama admitting his policies are basically moderate Republican:

 And we love Obama.  Further evidence that Commies like Sanders don't stand a chance.

One thing I don't understand about complaints about the primary process -- why would we expect a candidate who had trouble with this stage to be an effective president? If, for instance, Sanders was was unable to defeat the Democratic Party Machine in 2016, what basis is there for believing he'd have been able to defeat the McConnell Senate and Ryan House?

To be somewhat more provocative, would it be unfair to suggest that any "true" progressive who succeeded in winning the general would be doomed to either succeed as president, and so be denounced as not being a true progressive because of the compromises such success would require, or retain their ideological purity but be completely ineffective in office?

galileo said:
On Election Day 2020 here are the ages: Biden 77,Sanders 79,Warren 71,Trump 75. The oldest president was Reagan at 73. According to Scopes Obama could run as vice-president with Biden as president. What about that?

When the encumbent will be 75 at election time, age of the other candidate is a 100% non-issue. Probably the only time it doesn’t matter.

Obama’s not going to run as VP. That’s dumb.

Biden is the only potential candidate right now who could beat Trump. When Biden declares, many should withdraw and rally around him early.

Biden should go retire. Today he said David Brooks "is an enlightened columnist". What a maroon.

Gaah,  we went this far moving the country to the left in the last couple of years , and we end up with Biden? What a freaking waste of a democracy.

Go home Joe!!

====================================================

But apart from that, here's a question to toss around:

What is the single most important quality/campaign-tactic that a candidate needs to be effective against Trump?

(there is only one correct answer   )

tjohn said:
The Baby Boom generation has failed rather completely in comparison to previous generations - didn't survive the Depression, didn't win WW II, didn't win the Cold War, hasn't grappled with global warming, etc, etc.  I think it is time to turn the reins over to younger people.

 It's because of all the drugs they used.. not to mention the hearing loss from all that heavy metal poisoning...

Joe Biden is not a Boomer.  He's actually older than that.

If he isn't a boomer, then he's an old fogey and we don't need an old fogey President.

in 2016, turnout among Democratic-leaning voters was lower than it had been when Obama ran in 2008.  Had it been the same for Clinton, she would have won the election easily.  It would have been a near Electoral College landslide because she likely would have picked up PA, MI, WI, FL and possibly NC.

The question for Democrats in 2020 is pretty simple.  Polling suggests that they aren't going to get any of he hard core Trump base to switch.  That's roughly 44-45% of the voters.  So how do they get the 2016 non-voters to come out, and can they do so without losing the Clinton voters.  Maybe I'm wrong, but even if the Democrats nominated Sanders or someone like him, I don't see any 2016 Hillary Clinton voters choosing to stay home in 2020 in response.  Maybe a small percentage will, but the question is whether that will be more than compensated for with an increase in young voters and people of color.

I'm personally biased in favor of more progressive candidates so maybe I'm wrong.  But I don't see a safe, corporate centrist type candidate (I'm looking at you Mike Bloomberg) energizing the 2016 non-voters.  It will take someone who has a more progressive platform (not extreme, but not someone who says that it's impossible to cover everyone with health insurance for example) to bring those people out.  And I don't see a big downside in turning off the reliable Democratic voters who came out for Clinton.

And the notion that a competitive primary season handicaps the Democratic nominee is pretty dubious IMHO.  The 2008 primary was pretty aggressively contested, and IIRC a lot of Clinton supporters came out of it feeling pretty bitter that their candidate didn't win the nomination.  And then Obama won a convincing Electoral College victory.  After the experience of 2016 it might be better that voters perceive a fair and open competition for the nomination instead of one that they perceive was planned to deliver a pre-determined outcome for a preferred candidate.

Overall I'm not as pessimistic as a lot of Democrats seem to be.  I don't see any scenario in which Donald Trump convinces any significant number of voters to switch to supporting him in 2020.  His base is what it is.  It's the Democratic candidate who will have whatever upside exists between now and next year.

Or not.  Predictions are really difficult, especially about the future.

If ya wanna consider old guy candidates, there’s a strong likability factor with joe. By comparison, Bernie is the red faced angry old man shaking his fist at the local block meeting. We’ve had enough angry old man with Trump. 

annielou said:
If ya wanna consider old guy candidates, there’s a strong likability factor with joe. By comparison, Bernie is the red faced angry old man shaking his fist at the local block meeting. We’ve had enough angry old man with Trump. 

 I agree -- Bernie comes across as cranky and always ranting and raving about this that and the other thing in his raspy Larry David voice.

Yes Biden is old and gaffe-prone, but he is sunny and optimistic which counts for something. 

drummerboy said:
Biden should go retire. Today he said David Brooks "is an enlightened columnist". What a maroon.

Gaah,  we went this far moving the country to the left in the last couple of years , and we end up with Biden? What a freaking waste of a democracy.
Go home Joe!!
====================================================

But apart from that, here's a question to toss around:


What is the single most important quality/campaign-tactic that a candidate needs to be effective against Trump?
(there is only one correct answer   )

 I am shocked to say that drummerboy and I are agreeing on Joe Biden (and AIPAC too).  Pigs must be flying.

Here is Robert Reich's take on what kind of candidate we need in 2020.

Come the general I will vote for a ham sandwich with a D by its name but, for now, I am not even considering anyone over 70. Its a non starter.

Klinker said:
Come the general I will vote for a ham sandwich with a D by its name but, for now, I am not even considering anyone over 70. Its a non starter.

 So Warren's out too?

And here's a healthier choice.

https://www.theedgyveg.com/2016/01/14/best-vegan-sandwich-ever-the-tlc-vegan-blt/

I honestly believe it is too early for any of us to be picking candidates.   There are however two thing of which I am fairly certain: 

As has been said by others the Dems need to win PA, MI, and WI in order to win.   I see nothing in any other purple states that would lead me to believe we can pick up EV’s anywhere else.  

Secondly the biggest thing the Dems have going for them is that the nominee will not be HRC.   The irrational hatred of her will not be a factor in 2020.  

Morganna said:

Klinker said:
Come the general I will vote for a ham sandwich with a D by its name but, for now, I am not even considering anyone over 70. Its a non starter.

 So Warren's out too?
And here's a healthier choice.
https://www.theedgyveg.com/2016/01/14/best-vegan-sandwich-ever-the-tlc-vegan-blt/

 Unless you're on a ketogenic diet, in which case all the carbs in that coconut bacon will kick you out of ketosis.

Having said that, I'd vote for Warren.

nan said:

STANV said:

nan said:

 

nan said:

  

  

 How many times do I have to say this?  Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, not a Socialist.  He's like an FDR New Deal Democrat.  

 I don't know why you keep harping on this.  It doesn't matter how many times you say it.  Do  you really believe it makes a difference whether Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, a Socialist, or a free pony for everyone Socialist?  The electorate that put Trump in office is either too stupid, too lazy, or too ignorant to know the difference or care.  

Perception is reality.  Bernie is dead in the water.  On the good side if Biden does win you'll have plenty to complain about.  Take comfort in that.  

Red_Barchetta said:

nan said:

STANV said:

nan said:

 

nan said:

  

  

 How many times do I have to say this?  Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, not a Socialist.  He's like an FDR New Deal Democrat.  

 I don't know why you keep harping on this.  It doesn't matter how many times you say it.  Do  you really believe it makes a difference whether Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, a Socialist, or a free pony for everyone Socialist?  The electorate that put Trump in office is either too stupid, too lazy, or too ignorant to know the difference or care.  


Perception is reality.  Bernie is dead in the water.  On the good side if Biden does win you'll have plenty to complain about.  Take comfort in that.  

 I think people are capable of knowing the difference.  I think there will always be a group who would not vote for Bernie anyway who will deliberately stay ignorant and bring it up as often as possible--because they can't really argue against his platform. 

whoever is the Democratic nominee, Republicans will label him or her a "socialist" and millions of people will believe it.  They said Obama was a socialist for jeebus' sake.

Morganna said:

Klinker said:
Come the general I will vote for a ham sandwich with a D by its name but, for now, I am not even considering anyone over 70. Its a non starter.

 So Warren's out too?  

I'll vote for her in the General if that is the choice but, for the primary, she is just too old.  Her generation has had its time, now they need to pass the torch.

Warren’s fake ethnic identifier on an application (s) is disturbing. Not only because it is delusional , but because there are specific advantages to be gained. 

Klinker said:

Morganna said:

Klinker said:
Come the general I will vote for a ham sandwich with a D by its name but, for now, I am not even considering anyone over 70. Its a non starter.

 So Warren's out too?  

I'll vote for her in the General if that is the choice but, for the primary, she is just too old.  Her generation has had its time, now they need to pass the torch.

 So based on age alone you want the older people with the new ideas (Warren, Sanders) to pass the torch to the younger people with the old establishment centrist ideas (Harris, Booker, et al)?  The only young person with new ideas is Tulsi Gabbard.  I think she is great, but are you a fan too?

I'm  sorry Elizabeth Warren made the claim that she never sought advantage from her native ancestry. She obviously felt strongly enough about her heritage that she felt it was necessary to put on official documents. Whether she was actually seeking some kind of advantage is arguable but I have to admit the optics are bad. 

She definitely strikes a chord with me with her involvement with the CFPB. I think one important role for government is to protect citizens from abuse by corporations. There's too much power in the hands of wealthy large financial institutions for average folks to combat in cases of fraud or misinformation. So I'll be looking for a candidate that supports careful government oversight of such institutions.

annielou said:
Warren’s fake ethnic identifier on an application (s) is disturbing. Not only because it is delusional , but because there are specific advantages to be gained. 

 how is it delusional?  She has said that her family lore was that their grandparents were descendants of Native Americans.  How did any of us know our family heritage before DNA tests?  We know what we were told by our parents and grandparents.   And there is zero evidence that Warren received any advantages from claiming that heritage.

I think the most accurate description is that Warren was one of those people whose families told a few tall tales about their history, and modern DNA testing has shown those legends to be greatly exaggerated.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

ml1 said:

annielou said:
Warren’s fake ethnic identifier on an application (s) is disturbing. Not only because it is delusional , but because there are specific advantages to be gained. 

 how is it delusional?  She has said that her family lore was that their grandparents were descendants of Native Americans.  How did any of us know our family heritage before DNA tests?  We know what we were told by our parents and grandparents.   And there is zero evidence that Warren received any advantages from claiming that heritage.
I think the most accurate description is that Warren was one of those people whose families told a few tall tales about their history, and modern DNA testing has shown those legends to be greatly exaggerated.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

 The fact that Democratic voters like annielou think it's 'delusional' is the thing that worries me about Warren's candidacy. Any rational reading of this Native American thing would clearly see that Warren, as you said, simply believed her family's lore.

Yet people like annielou want to believe that Warren is delusional for believing it. Just like people believed every damn thing that people said about Hillary.

How do we get past crap like this?

Re: Warren. Plucking a Native American ancestry out of her a***, above and beyond all of her other known and provable ancestries, screams of impropriety. Whether she actually gained advantage has nothing to do with the intention.

I don't think she pulled it out of nowhere. I have no doubt it was something she learned from childhood. It does look like she might have played it up for whatever reason.

Funny thing is that 20-30 years ago she might have been able to face up to her past mistakes, apologized and moved on.

In today's world of social media, though, it's going to dog her right up until her ultimate exit from campaigning (either into the Oval Office or, well, not). 

annielou said:
Re: Warren. Plucking a Native American ancestry out of her a***, above and beyond all of her other known and provable ancestries, screams of impropriety. Whether she actually gained advantage has nothing to do with the intention.

 I have no idea where you get this nonsense. out of her a**? HER MOTHER TOLD HER!  And the DNA tests show there was some truth to it.

I just don't get it. The information is out there. Do you just choose to disbelieve it and make up your own version of the truth?

mrincredible said:
I don't think she pulled it out of nowhere. I have no doubt it was something she learned from childhood. It does look like she might have played it up for whatever reason.
Funny thing is that 20-30 years ago she might have been able to face up to her past mistakes, apologized and moved on.
In today's world of social media, though, it's going to dog her right up until her ultimate exit from campaigning (either into the Oval Office or, well, not). 

 It's not the world of social media that's the problem. It's the sorry state of journalism, which chooses to focus on trivialities. Like hot sauce.