2020 Presidential Election

[kittygrrl]

Free College is a nice idea but unless we get a Democrat in the White House, win 61 seats in the Senate and sweep the House, not very likely..and forget Medicare for all..our country isn't ready for that much social change yet. Besides, Medicare is almost broke, Social Security without fixes will be in deep trouble by the mid 2020's. And we are looking at a 23-25 trillion dollar deficit in 2021. I'm not saying these things won't ever be possible but probably not in my lifetime or for those over 30. I wish these things were already in place but society (as a whole) isn't ready. Currently we have too much debt, baby boomer political power will have to be neutralized and societal norms have to change drastically before these things can be a possibility

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

Free College is a nice idea but unless we get a Democrat in the White House, win 61 seats in the Senate and sweep the House, not very likely..and forget Medicare for all..our country isn't ready for that much social change yet. Besides, Medicare is almost broke, Social Security without fixes will be in deep trouble by the mid 2020's. And we are looking at a 23-25 trillion dollar deficit in 2021. I'm not saying these things won't ever be possible but probably not in my lifetime and perhaps not in the Millennials lifetime either.

Then maybe it's time to get dirty. Lie about the true agenda. Say nice soothing things. Get elected and work on the agenda in the shadows till the power is there. The electorate's memory seems very short. Maybe they'll forgive the lies once they get the benefits. Seems to have worked for others. Politics is a dirty business. Getting elected in front of 380 million people is even dirtier. Particularly if the vast majority are dumb as dirt or don't give a shit. ( Why are so many afraid to say that?)

[Martina]

We just had a tax cut that could have paid for these things. We've thrown away enough to pay for these things twenty times over in war and tax breaks. It's not at all out of the range of the possible. Polls show the majority of Americans support Medicare for all. It could happen by 2021. That was the whole point of a post I made previously about how people have forgotten how many progressive policies were considered mainstream forty years ago.

The point is the money, and we have it if we'd stop letting the rich out of paying their fair share. We wouldn't be in this position if mainstream Dems had not handed our wealth over to banks and exported our jobs to benefit corporations. The world is NOT the one mainstream Dems describe where we are doomed to poverty because of the irresistible workings of a global economy.

Re having a puppet, we've had those. Reagan and W. It doesn't tend to work out well. People love Bernie, and he is not handsome. In spite of our having elected Trump, most of us do take our government and electoral process seriously. While our political process and politicians may seem a joke to some, we are not alone. The world is struggling with these issues. I'd rather be facing something like Brexit than have Trump as President, but honestly, Trump will be gone in two years, and they're going to have a hell of a time undoing Brexit.

And while there are many dumb and apathetic Americans, we are not unique in these qualities.

I have to say that as disturbing as it has been to see all of the racism post Trump (I am white. I was in denial.), we don't hold a candle to France, for example. Even Scandinavian countries don't have a clue how to live in a multi-cultural society. Their non-native speakers drop out of high school in numbers that make us look great. I read an article about Eastern Europe the other day, and they are sick of getting blamed for the rise of populism in Europe, but not long before that I saw a video of an orthodox priest justifying segregation. Not a right wing fanatic, just an ordinary guy to whom it seemed obvious that people would not want to mix with folk from other races . The U.S. has a long and bloody history of racism, but we've actually learned a lot.

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Then maybe it's time to get dirty. Lie about the true agenda. Say nice soothing things. Get elected and work on the agenda in the shadows till the power is there. The electorate's memory seems very short. Maybe they'll forgive the lies once they get the benefits. Seems to have worked for others. Politics is a dirty business. Getting elected in front of 380 million people is even dirtier. Particularly if the vast majority are dumb as dirt or don't give a shit. ( Why are so many afraid to say that?)

Maybe it's because, you play a good game of pin the donkey (elephant). His base is the 1st graders in the room. What deplorables! First graders have more ability to evaluate trust v con

[Martina]

Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by Martina

Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

Well, bless her heart and best of luck to her!

[C0LLETTE]

Elizabeth Warren:

Early kindling in the fire for a male Dem winning candidate. Hope she isn't deluded and gave informed consent.
She might want to have a chat with Kim Campbell, our 19th Prime Minister...and that BBQ wasn't even turned on yet...not to mention that they didn't even use tongs to pull her out of the dying coals.

I'm not sure where she is now.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by Martina

Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by homoe

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

Remember, she was out there simply to prove herself worthy to walk the same pathway as the other Senators. She was trying to right herself after all the ethnic baiting about having Native American blood. She was also trying to fend off others claiming her to be uppity. She had her plate full.

[dark_crystal]

Elizabeth Warren drinks beer, gives 2020 thoughts in Instagram livestream: By Gregg Re, Fox News

In a seemingly spontaneous livestream posted on Instagram that channeled similar social-media efforts by former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke and incoming New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren cracked open a beer on-camera and took some questions from her followers on New Year's Eve.

Warren announced at a news conference outside her home hours earlier Monday that she was filing paperwork to launch an exploratory committee for president, becoming the first candidate to take the major step toward a 2020 run -- and she reminded her audience that the day had been a break from her normal routine.

"I'm here in my kitchen, uh, and um, I thought maybe we'd just take some questions and I'd see what I can do," Warren, 69, began as she looked into a camera apparently set up on a countertop.

She continued: "It's been kind of an amazing day. So, today, I, um, got up early this morning, and, uh, talked to a bunch of folks on the phone, and then went outside and talked to the press -- and this is our house, and has been for a long time, and there are all these reporters, and trucks, and everybody outside the house."

The liberal firebrand pointed to her dog, Bailey, who was also in the kitchen and who accompanied her earlier in the day.

"And I went out and talked to the press, and Bailey went out -- it was his first press conference -- and my husband Bruce [Mann] was with me," Warren said.

Seconds later, Warren's apparent craving struck: "Hold on a second -- I'm gonna get me a beer," she said, as she walked out of view of the camera.

"Um, want a beer?" she then asked as her husband briefly entered the room.

"No, I'll pass on a beer for now," he responded. Then, matter-of-factly from across the camera as he left the kitchen, he offered a quick farewell: "Enjoy your beer."

The senator then elaborated on her plans for the evening.

"Here it is -- getting ready for New Year's Eve. It's easy for Bruce and I to make plans, because we pretty much do the same things every year," Warren said. "Um, for New Year's Eve we watch Casablanca, we get some good food ... and, um, we sit there upstairs and we watch Casablanca." She added that the movie "fills me with hope."

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, popularized the use of Instagram stories and livestreams earlier this year to connect with her supporters. O'Rourke, too, often broadcast himself while in his home cooking and performing other tasks.

Charles Hurt on Warren's Lack of 'Authenticity': 'Only to Trump's Advantage'

Fox News contributor and Washington Times opinion editor Charles Hurt said Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren's lack of "authenticity" will only help President Trump heading into the 2020 election.

The Massachusetts senator on Monday announced she was forming an exploratory committee in preparation of what will likely be a presidential run.

Hours later, in a seemingly spontaneous Instagram livestream, Warren cracked open a beer and took some questions from her followers.

On "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, Hurt said it was an unsuccessful and inauthentic attempt to channel similar social-media efforts by Democrats like former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke and incoming New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

"Imagine a Donald Trump announcement video or any kind of announcement, and you imagine the electricity that's involved, the authenticity that's involved, and you compare that to this," Hurt said, calling Warren's livestream "low-energy" and "devoid of anything that seems real whatsoever."

In an interview with Fox News Monday, Trump said he hopes Warren gets the nomination, saying that would be a "wonderful thing for me."

Hurt agreed, saying that Trump's natural, off-the-cuff style would provide a strong contrast.

"The juxtaposition is only to Trump's advantage."

LOL Fox News is extra salty today.

Do we think Warren has an authenticity problem?

When i saw the livestream my thought was that i hope she does a lot more, and i realized this was bc i am looking forward to getting to know her, and that i don't really have a sense of her personality except a vague impression of a less wooden Hillary.

She always seems very sincere and concerned when i see or hear her on TV, etc., though

[Martina]

She seems kinda awkward to me. Hillary could be genuine, but she schooled herself not to improvise or veer from the party line. You could see her thinking sometimes during pauses. Then she'd take a deep breath and resume the same ole script.

I don't care that Warren is kinda Minnie Mouse in her demeanor. The people who vote for movie star smarminess or parental figures are probably going to vote Biden. I don't know. There's so much misogyny out there that I am not looking forward to another woman candidate. Hillary Clinton was an asshole and deserved much of the animosity directed towards her. But not all of it. Not looking forward to the screaming and bile that will come from the right. I'd far prefer Warren to Biden, but she's still not a true progressive. It doesn't matter. Only Bernie is, of the candidates I know, and while I think he could beat Trump, I have little hope of him getting through the primaries even without super delegates.

[Martina]

I could totally live with Sherrod Brown.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by homoe

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

Two years ago if Warren would of ran, I would of volunteered or gave her campaign $$, BUT now, if Harris runs, I'd back Harris!

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Martina

She seems kinda awkward to me. Hillary could be genuine, but she schooled herself not to improvise or veer from the party line. You could see her thinking sometimes during pauses. Then she'd take a deep breath and resume the same ole script.

I don't care that Warren is kinda Minnie Mouse in her demeanor. The people who vote for movie star smarminess or parental figures are probably going to vote Biden. I don't know. There's so much misogyny out there that I am not looking forward to another woman candidate. Hillary Clinton was an asshole and deserved much of the animosity directed towards her. But not all of it.

This was a good twitter thread:

THREAD: After seeing this tweet from Politico, I decided to search for tweets by several mainstream news orgs and see how they use the terms “likeable,” “unlikable,” and “likability” when applied to men vs. women. The results are...stark.

First of all, those words are used far more often to refer to women. Politico did note in 2014 that Hillary Clinton—who at the time had a favorable rating in the 60s—was now “likable enough” vs 2008.

If you’re Politico and reporting that a male politician—former Illinois Mayor Rod Blahojevich—has been found guilty of trying to sell a US Senate seat like, though, it’s important to note that the jurors found him likable, criminality aside.

During the 2008 Democratic primary, the New York Times sarcastically referred to Hillary Clinton’s campaigning as a “likability tour.”

Last year, the @nytimes tweeted out a quote about British Prime Minister Theresa May that described her as “not human enough to be likable.”

In 2016, the Washington Post pondered whether Hillary Clinton was likable enough to win the election.

When it came to Republican former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, though, the Washington Post argued that “‘electability’ is not ‘likability.’”

The Washington Post also wondered if Mitt Romney would even “need to be” “likable” to win in 2012. Like, is that really necessary for a candidate?

Over at the Atlantic, we find that Gary Johnson — who had no idea what Aleppo was — was very likable in 2016 despite his “troubling economic policy.”

Of course, “Hillary Clinton’s whole likability thing” was “still an issue,” The Atlantic noted that year.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton should have asked NJ Gov Chris Christie how—a year after the Bridgegate scandal that saw his approval rating plummet to the lowest in the nation at 15%—he managed to get The Atlantic to consider that he might be the guy to “make Republicans likable again.”

Fox News has good news for at least one Democrat in 2016, though: Voters considered Sen. Bernie Sanders—known for lots of shouting and doom-and-gloom finger wagging—“likable enough to serve effectively we president.”

Also on Fox News, Newt Gingrich praised Sen. Marco Rubio for being “very likable.”

Republicans at Fox News even had high praise for Vice President Joe Biden’s likability in 2015. “One of the most likable people in Washington,” Dana Perino said.

Hillary Clinton, though? “When she’s not being criminal, she’s just being wooden and unlikable.”

If you’re Politico and reporting that a male politician—former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich—has been found guilty of trying to sell a US Senate seat like, though, it’s important to note that the jurors found him likable, criminality aside.

This follow-up thread includes A. Receipts of folks who argued in 2015/2016 that Elizabeth Warren would be a “likable” alternative to Hillary Clinton and B. Social science research that explains the “likability” conundrum for women in leadership.

Any woman who runs, it's going to be "of course a woman can be president, just not that particular woman."

Along with a heaping helping of "you shouldn't vote for a demographic but for the best candidate."

For 232 years all candidates were from a single demographic, which means exactly zero of them can now be remembered as "the best candidate."

"Its not fair to dismiss people's achievements in the past just because they were white males."

Actually it is because the means by which they were out into position to have the opportunity to achieve anything were unfair.

Is any election from before 1920 even still legitimate?

[Martina]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...illary-clinton

[Kätzchen]

I think dark_crystal's post raises some important things that are persistent in current day American society: 1) sexism, 2) privilege and access to power, and 3) the voting and electoral system by which presidential candidates are measured as having 'won' any executorial seat of power.


And the article by The Guardian, found by Martina (her latest post): One of the persistent ideas I found in this particular article seems to pair nicely with the prevailing sexist tide of how sexism prevails within American Society. Per the article, Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin, yet wasn't chosen as President, due to what? Can it be said that her loss was due to unlikability? I don't think it can solely be said that unlikability was the determining factor. I think the reason Clinton couldn't secure the Presidency was related to the implementation of the super vote, the Electoral vote. I could be entirely wrong about that, but it just seems like what needs to be addressed is the voting system and use of the super delegate seat of determinant power utilized in the Electoral vote system.


Now that the House of Representatives (USHOR) is seated with an majority of Democrats, I wonder if the USHOR will make it a priority to address and rectify voting issues, which seem to persist in too many states of the Union.



On a personal note: Things I think about in choosing who I want to vote for in any election process seem to share a set of criteria I look for in any person who seeks an executorial seat of power. What I look for is things the person has done. For example, their track record pertaining to:

1) current and future US social policy, 2) labor, 3) economy, 4) who they partnered with to get things accomplished (past, present or future), 5) will they uphold past case law ruled in favor of Women's rights, LGTBQ rights, and Race (ie, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) because in my mind, it's about social equity. Social equity issues and how do we collaborate to provide the best possible way to co-exist. These types of things are of importance to me when deciding who gets my proverbial vote of approval.

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Then maybe it's time to get dirty. Lie about the true agenda. Say nice soothing things. Get elected and work on the agenda in the shadows till the power is there. The electorate's memory seems very short. Maybe they'll forgive the lies once they get the benefits. Seems to have worked for others. Politics is a dirty business. Getting elected in front of 380 million people is even dirtier. Particularly if the vast majority are dumb as dirt or don't give a shit. ( Why are so many afraid to say that?)

When we legitimize playing dirty and lying in order to further our cause, we are no longer a Constitutional Democracy true to what the Founding Fathers were trying to create in our country. When the country advocates going against it's principles, we widen the crevasse to a canyon permitting right wing and fascist ideologies to further chip away at our democratic principles.

The electorate has awakened and begun to care again. We just need to assure that they vote the path of freedom instead of towards the right or "alt-right" to a more Nationalistic and Populist form of government which would lead to a more xenophobic, racist, and homophobic insular society. If the rural "silent majority" gives us another reactionary blindside, we are really in trouble. I hope this "blue wave" is sustained. We can be celebratory and elated, but looking out the back to Check Six is a prudent move given the 2016 shock.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by Martina

I'll let them fight it out as long as they don't cheat. I would vote for Kamala, but not Corey Booker and certainly not Eric Fucking Holder, the man who wanted the right to assassinate US citizens on American soil. If I am healthy enough to campaign, I will campaign for Bernie. I will certainly donate to Bernie. I would also vote for Elizabeth Warren. Biden is better than Obama was, but he's a mainstream Dem. But if he wins the primary, I'd vote for him. If Hillary were to get the nomination this time, I would not vote for her again. I'd just leave it blank.

People who start attacking progressives can kiss my fat white ass. Trump needs to go, but it's on the Dems to field a candidate who is not a corporate pawn. BTW, Corey Booker is.

Edited to add: I would also like someone who can kick ass. Sweet little Bernie can. Kamala can. Warren can. I think Biden can. Holder can, but he's a piece of shit. Corey Booker has kissed way more ass than he has ever kicked.

Why Bernie, if I may ask?

[WheatToast]

I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rs-stein-trump

To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions.
He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's.

[Kätzchen]

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.