2020 Presidential Election

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Martina

Re Kamala, I would be so happy to have someone who cares about the rule of law after this law breaking motherfucker. I lived in California when she was AG. I loved her.

But my first choice is Bernie. I love him. He changed the world. He made the Dems take economic inequality seriously. Well that and losing to Trump. Dumb ass motherfuckers. Hillary's recent statement about immigration in Europe just showed who she is and always has been. She wants to placate the center right no matter what principle gets sacrificed. That's the Clinton MO. They don't get that it doesn't work anymore.

I have never cared about having a woman President. It doesn't mean much to me. I was glad that Obama was elected. I do think it mattered having a person of color in that office. Will it matter when a woman is elected? Some. But it depends on who. I don't like to think of what type of person felt empowered by Margaret Thatcher or is inspired by Teresa May.

I would love for Bernie to get the nomination. I think that would be a high-energy, very positive, very clear campaign. I say "clear" because the choice voters would be making would be very sharply defined. Would definitely be an end to the "basically-Republican-except-not-bigoted" vibe that Clinton went with-- and which i think would be a temptation for Biden and Harris.

And here i have to indict myself because part of the appeal of a Bernie campaign, to me, is that he is a white man. He will be painted as a Socialist, and Socialism is scary, and having those proposals delivered by a white man makes them less scary to other white men. That represents a huge opportunity to have a national conversation about very bold ideas, and it is just a fact that such proposals will be taken more seriously coming from a white man.

Of course, all that would happen then is that the Republicans will try to pull his white card by dog-whistling Antisemitism.

The piece i was looking at when i made the OP was Five Thirty-eight: Who’s Behaving Like A 2020 Presidential Candidate

It has a list of people who are "behaving like" they plan to run, with 7 "behaviors" indicated and a score based on who has done them.

These are the indicators:

VISITED IOWA
VISITED N.H.
VISITED S.C.
BOOK
POLL
MAGAZINE PROFILE
CAMPAIGNED

Bernie is the only one who has hit all 7, then Biden with 6, then Booker/Bullock/Castro, etc with 5

I haven't done a deep dive on either Castro, but here in Texas they are seen as Mexican Betos. Bullock seems ok but not exciting.

[Martina]

I saw Rahm Emanuel on David Axelrod's show last night. I would bet money he's running. He's a fighter, but a mainstream Dem with a questionable record of success. If he runs, you will really see the Republicans dog-whistling anti-Semitism.

[dark_crystal]

The question in my original post was about a plan B in case the Democrats make a disappointing choice that causes progressives to peel off again.

Rather than screaming at each other about whether we should or should not be supporting the lesser of two evils, like last time, i want to figure out what steps can be taken preemptively so that there is a structure that could support a breakaway movement that would be believably viable to the Democratic base.

It was messy last time-- some people supported Stein and some people supported a Bernie write-in and the fracture itself seemed fractured. The plan B was improvised and there was no time to build momentum underneath it by the time we realized we needed one.

The DSA has been doing amazing things here in Houston-- they were very visible in Harvey relief and there is considerable goodwill from that.

Can they support a Presidential campaign? Do they want to? Their model is very bottom-up. If Sanders is shut out of the nomination and decides to run as an Independent, can the DSA provide infrastructure for that?

The word "President" is not mentioned on their Electoral committee page.

[Martina]

Now that would be an interesting election.

Truly I think any non-Clinton Democrat will beat Trump. Not everyone believes that, but I do. I think the Dems would have to make an egregious choice to mobilize progressives enough for your scenario. But I don't put it past them.

I know Hillary is considering a run. Given the progressive victories in the midterm, I just can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to consider her. There was a big gasp after she made that comment about European immigrants. I think people know she's part of the past.

Biden is the most likely mainstream Dem, and because of his union politics, I think he is marginally palatable to the left. I could be wrong.

[dark_crystal]

Emmanuel is being roasted on twitter today bc he said Trump was a good politician in the Axelrod interview.

I would have voted for Biden with stars in my eyes the night he did that interview with Colbert where they discussed the loss of his son.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I would have voted for Biden with stars in my eyes the night he did that interview with Colbert where they discussed the loss of his son.

Some of the reason I have a soft spot for Biden may be that his son died of the same disease that killed my mother: glioblastoma. It's a horrible disease, almost 100% fatal. My mom lived a little longer than his son did. They both had the average trajectory of about a year and a half. Treatment, a few months of remission that give you hope, and the inevitable unbeatable recurrence. It's brutal. As I am sure you know, McCain also passed away from it. I feel something of a bond with people who've lost family members to it.

[Martina]

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

http://www.politico.com/amp/story/20...ocrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

http://www.politico.com/amp/story/20...ocrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

Chuck Schumer would also be a great candidate, but unfortunately I think right now when the country thinks of NY, Trump immediately comes to mind. Many people already think all NYers are of similar disposition and trustworthiness as him. Think we need someone that Mid-America can identify with. Not sure who, though.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

http://www.politico.com/amp/story/20...ocrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

Bloomberg looks good on a lot of issues as long as you pretend not to notice the gigantic Wall Street monkey on his back.

I think a Bloomberg candidacy would trigger Trump very badly, as Bloomberg has quadruple the wealth Trump claims.

I think it would be interesting, in the case of both Bloomberg and Sanders, to see what the GOP does against a Jewish candidate. In the Obama years, we saw a whole bunch of racism come out of the woodwork that we thought had been exorcised in the 60s.

With a Jewish dem. nominee, will we find out we had vastly underestimated Holocaust deniers (lol yes)? A lot of holocaust denial and general Antisemitism has already emerged under Trump, think how much more would emerge with Trump running against a Jewish billionaire who actually is everything Trump pretends to be-- and Trump's so-called Christianity is the only place he diverges form Bloomberg.

I also looked into Klobuchar. It was not a deep dive (Wikipedia), but she does not seem like she is very far to the left of Clinton. I think running her would be like running Clinton minus the baggage. Maybe that will turn out to be what people want.

One thing i learned about myself over the past 3-4 years is that i do not vote as a progressive or as a centrist, i exclusively vote as A Gay. My choice is always the choice that makes us the safest. This is why i didn't "peel off" last time, despite having rejected every Clinton in every primary they were ever in. It's why i am so worried about a peel-off movement in 2020. Peel-off movements endanger minorities.

As long as you have one huge party that pays lip service to minorities and one huge party that welcomes people who want queers executed, there is going to be a natural ceiling on how far an insurgency from the left can go. We are not going to see a viable third party on the left until minorities feel they can abandon the democratic party without risking their lives.

[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.

[Lyte]

Dear God... I hope not! For the sake of the party and the country... she needs to ride off into the sunset and be done with elected office.

Originally Posted by Martina

I know Hillary is considering a run.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I watched Senator Amy Klobuchar on “The Rachael Maddow show” recently; she is considering a campaign, and figures that the field of likely candidates will be more than 20 to start.

I’m with Martina on how outstanding a President Kamala Harris would make; she is strong and confident and knows the law. She was an excellent AG for California and would be someone I would have faith in to run this country. Hillary Clinton? Fuck Hillary Clinton and the horse she road in on. She was unable to win before because she’s an arrogant white elitist, with no concept of what middle America (or real people) cares about.

Bernie? You know, I STILL think Bernie is a great Senator, but I don’t think he is President material. In any case, (and it shows my prejudice) NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN!!!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Whoops! I didn’t see the direction you were leading the discussion in...sorry!

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Whoops! I didn’t see the direction you were leading the discussion in...sorry!

You’re cool! That q is not the thread topic, just the concern that prompted me to start the thread

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

I watched Senator Amy Klobuchar on “The Rachael Maddow show” recently; she is considering a campaign, and figures that the field of likely candidates will be more than 20 to start.

I’m with Martina on how outstanding a President Kamala Harris would make; she is strong and confident and knows the law. She was an excellent AG for California and would be someone I would have faith in to run this country. Hillary Clinton? Fuck Hillary Clinton and the horse she road in on. She was unable to win before because she’s an arrogant white elitist, with no concept of what middle America (or real people) cares about.

Bernie? You know, I STILL think Bernie is a great Senator, but I don’t think he is President material. In any case, (and it shows my prejudice) NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN!!!

Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million popular votes, so I guess she was able to win in spite of whatever negative propaganda (or truth) is out there.
This thread begs the topic--if every qualified Democratic candidate is so hated by a segment of people because they don't fulfill their personal desires, that opens the door for some bland scrub nobody likes to sneak in via a consensus of every other candidate being hated by voters.
I think we should simplify, and let's stop adapting rhetoric from GOP assclowns who hate all Democrats and make no efforts to legitimatize their insults with facts.

By example, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. So many GOP used her as a prop to represent all that's horrible in politics, a lot of Democratic men fell for it and also starting saying she was crazy, etc.
But on the day she was sworn in as House Majority Leader, it was clear to see that all the shit piled on her was due to fear, jealousy and misogyny.

When I see lesbians talk shit about any Democratic female candidate, it's painful, especially when the woman in question is well qualified to represent most of our interests.

P.S. If I was married to Bill and he screwed Lewinsky, and people wanted me to say something PC about her, my line would be, "Fuck her." Hillary should be allowed to have her own feelings about this mess without having to pretend that Monica had no role whatsoever and should be considered an innocent victim. For the record, I like Lewinsky and considered her a young, naive fool who fell for the charms of a powerful old lecher. But then I would have divorced him when Hillary opted to stay. That made the whole thing a personal matter between those three, and who am I to condemn any of them?

I say we refuse to give the GOP talking points for more of their hatred. Yes?

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by WheatToast

Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million popular votes, so I guess she was able to win in spite of whatever negative propaganda (or truth) is out there.
This thread begs the topic--if every qualified Democratic candidate is so hated by a segment of people because they don't fulfill their personal desires, that opens the door for some bland scrub nobody likes to sneak in via a consensus of every other candidate being hated by voters.
I think we should simplify, and let's stop adapting rhetoric from GOP assclowns who hate all Democrats and make no efforts to legitimatize their insults with facts.

By example, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. So many GOP used her as a prop to represent all that's horrible in politics, a lot of Democratic men fell for it and also starting saying she was crazy, etc.
But on the day she was sworn in as House Majority Leader, it was clear to see that all the shit piled on her was due to fear, jealousy and misogyny.

When I see lesbians talk shit about any Democratic female candidate, it's painful, especially when the woman in question is well qualified to represent most of our interests.

P.S. If I was married to Bill and he screwed Lewinsky, and people wanted me to say something PC about her, my line would be, "Fuck her." Hillary should be allowed to have her own feelings about this mess without having to pretend that Monica had no role whatsoever and should be considered an innocent victim. For the record, I like Lewinsky and considered her a young, naive fool who fell for the charms of a powerful old lecher. But then I would have divorced him when Hillary opted to stay. That made the whole thing a personal matter between those three, and who am I to condemn any of them?

I say we refuse to give the GOP talking points for more of their hatred. Yes?

I think everyone is allowed an opinion here, whether you feel they are right or wrong. If you go about pulling everyone’s posts apart, you will have no one interested in interacting with you. You may not care about that, but i have seen people much like you wanting to stir the pot, and I will not engage.

Please do not address me in any way...no questions...no comments...no reps...no nasty rep notes...no private messages . DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE my existence in any way.

I will extend to you the same courtesy.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by WheatToast

Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million popular votes, so I guess she was able to win in spite of whatever negative propaganda (or truth) is out there.
This thread begs the topic--if every qualified Democratic candidate is so hated by a segment of people because they don't fulfill their personal desires, that opens the door for some bland scrub nobody likes to sneak in via a consensus of every other candidate being hated by voters.
I think we should simplify, and let's stop adapting rhetoric from GOP assclowns who hate all Democrats and make no efforts to legitimatize their insults with facts.

By example, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. So many GOP used her as a prop to represent all that's horrible in politics, a lot of Democratic men fell for it and also starting saying she was crazy, etc.
But on the day she was sworn in as House Majority Leader, it was clear to see that all the shit piled on her was due to fear, jealousy and misogyny.

When I see lesbians talk shit about any Democratic female candidate, it's painful, especially when the woman in question is well qualified to represent most of our interests.

P.S. If I was married to Bill and he screwed Lewinsky, and people wanted me to say something PC about her, my line would be, "Fuck her." Hillary should be allowed to have her own feelings about this mess without having to pretend that Monica had no role whatsoever and should be considered an innocent victim. For the record, I like Lewinsky and considered her a young, naive fool who fell for the charms of a powerful old lecher. But then I would have divorced him when Hillary opted to stay. That made the whole thing a personal matter between those three, and who am I to condemn any of them?

I say we refuse to give the GOP talking points for more of their hatred. Yes?

<<<enjoyed your post

i think GOP pollution(ie hatred, intolerance, evil) has crept into our consciousness and some of us have decided that since it's working for them, we had better adopt the same malignant zombie rhetoric only with our talking points. I'd like to believe we're better then that, but now i'm worried we're not. If we use their propaganda we can't claim higher ground. We're kidding ourselves, we are in the same cesspool and no better and maybe far worse because we know better but lower ourselves to wallow on their level.

At this point, i'm not in love with any of the tentative candidates that are out there. Meh....none are impressive. And any candidate that wants to play footsie with Russians is definitely out. You can't make a pet out of a rattlesnake.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

<<<enjoyed your post

i think GOP pollution(ie hatred, intolerance, evil) has crept into our consciousness and some of us have decided that since it's working for them, we had better adopt the same malignant zombie rhetoric only with our talking points. I'd like to believe we're better then that, but now i'm worried we're not. If we use their propaganda we can't claim higher ground. We're kidding ourselves, we are in the same cesspool and no better and maybe far worse because we know better but lower ourselves to wallow on their level.

At this point, i'm not in love with any of the tentative candidates that are out there. Meh....none are impressive. And any candidate that wants to play footsie with Russians is definitely out. You can't make a pet out of a rattlesnake.

People have opinions they deserve to express--but when the premise is based on horseshit that is wholly inaccurate, shall we refrain from correcting the record lest we hurt someone's little feelers? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Politics is a rough business and a rough topic.
Mollycoddling is for kids and old people.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by WheatToast

People have opinions they deserve to express--but when the premise is based on horseshit that is wholly inaccurate, shall we refrain from correcting the record lest we hurt someone's little feelers? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Politics is a rough business and a rough topic.
Mollycoddling is for kids and old people.

agreed we're not entitled to our own facts..nevertheless the infection is invading the democratic base..it's like the plague, it doesn't discriminate

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by WheatToast

People have opinions they deserve to express--but when the premise is based on horseshit that is wholly inaccurate, shall we refrain from correcting the record lest we hurt someone's little feelers? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Politics is a rough business and a rough topic.
Mollycoddling is for kids and old people.

What patronising muddled poppycock!

Am I to understand from this that you are tough and can handle the rough business/topic of politics while I, an old woman, am to be sidelined, mollycoddled and lumped in with kids? My "little feelers" are definitely hurt.