And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[greg]

You're clearly a conservative so just vote for Trump... 

I might end up doing so this time, which is a shame since I hate him. More likely I won't vote, though.

I'd probably be considered slightly more liberal if it were the 90's, but I guess the goalpost has shifted so far left that I might be conservative by today's standards.

[Muzio]

'People Don't Want To Be Stupid Twice': Foreign Diplomats Betting On Trump Win In 2020

Full article here: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-18/people-dont-want-be-stupid-twice-foreign-diplomats-betting-trump-win-2020#comment_stream:

"In 2016, nobody believed he was going to be elected. People don't want to be stupid twice," former French Ambassador to the US, Gerard Araud, told Politico.

"The way it looks to people is it's going to be another four years," one Arab diplomat said, adding. "If he gets reelected, he's bound by nothing, except Congress. And I don't know how that's going to play out."

One Asian ambassador told Politico that every embassy in Washington is operating "on the basis that the president has more than an even chance at being reelected."

There's no known scientific survey on the topic — few foreign officials would participate in one given diplomatic norms that preclude them from commenting on another country's internal politics. But none who talked to POLITICO were willing to say that Trump will lose. Instead, they pointed to three key advantages for Trump: He's the incumbent, the U.S. economy is strong and the Democrats have no definitive front-runner to challenge him.

...<snip>...

"It's not Trump, it's much wider than him," a senior EU diplomat told Politico. "It's not anymore that we are the two allies fighting together against threats like terrorism. The way they look at us now is mainly as a market to conquer against Chinese interests. It has become a bilateral struggle between them and the Chinese for who conquers Europe or Africa."

"What I'm saying right now is, I think, shared by many people," said a Middle Eastern diplomat of the 2020 election, adding "It's his to lose."

[71 dB]

I might end up doing so this time, which is a shame since I hate him. More likely I won't vote, though.

I'd probably be considered slightly more liberal if it were the 90's, but I guess the goalpost has shifted so far left that I might be conservative by today's standards.

Maybe it's you who has moved to right due to brainwashing? The Overton Window in the US has been moving to right so much that the corporate Dems of today are what the Republicans used to be a few decades ago while the Republicans have become an insane far-right nazi party. For example ObamaCare is originally a Republican right wing healthcare plan crafted by Heritage Foundation to protect the interests of insurance companies by mandating people to have private healthcare plans. That's also why the Dems lost over 1000 seat during Obama: Too right wing policy - too much corruption - too much serving the top 1 %. If you want living wage, tuition free education, single-payer healthcare and so on why would you vote for a party that is merely interested in bailing out the Wall Street, expand the military budget, start new wars (Obama the Nobel peace prize winner took Bush dumber's 2 wars and started 5 more) and so on?

Where is "left" and how left should we be? Label are labels. Policies are wise or they aren't. Empirically we know many lefty policies are wise so what's the problem?

[Florestan]

Maybe it's you who has moved to right due to brainwashing? T

I should have thought you had finally seen the light and stopped, and I commended you for that. I was obviously wrong. You are so fond of accusing others of being "brainwashed" that it has become your second nature --- try as you might to stop it, you simply can't. That's why I reiterate my sincere, friendly and well-meant piece of advice: do seek professional help, now! (both psychological and sexual).

[71 dB]

Cop-mala Harris shows her priorities and skips climate town hall for fundraiser.

[Pat B]

There is a large segment of voters who are conservative but don't like Trump. The Democrats need them to either vote for the Democrat, or at least feel comfortable enough with him/her to stay home and not vote. But if presented with a candidate who aggressively pushes leftist policies, they will feel motivated to vote for Trump just to defeat the Leftist.  Biden is clearly the winner in that category,

Getting people to not vote for Trump is at least as essential as getting people to vote for the Democratic candidate.

I'm not sure that the identity or actual politics of the D nominee has any bearing on R turnout. The R bosses will find some way to terrify their voters of the D candidate, and their voters will show up for Trump, even those who are peeved by his ineptitude, braggadocio, divisiveness, or whatever.

In Wisconsin 2016, Clinton ran alongside a progressive (Bernie-ish) senate candidate, Russ Feingold. Both lost. Feingold lost by slightly more. Feingold significantly outperformed Clinton throughout rural areas and small towns in the state, but Clinton significantly outperformed Feingold in the populous Milwaukee and Madison suburbs, which hold a greater percentage of the state's population and are growing while rural areas are shrinking. That said, Feingold and Clinton both significantly underperformed Obama in 2012 or 2008, and those Democratic voters did not return to the fold in 2018 either (although high turnout in Democratic areas was able to narrowly unseat the state's Republican governor).

Assuming that pattern holds throughout the country, a Clinton-like candidate probably has a slightly better chance to win than a Sanders-like candidate. Certainly Sanders could win mostly-rural states like Iowa, Michigan or Wisconsin. But mostly-suburban states that are currently Democratic strongholds, like Virginia, New Jersey and Maryland, could well end up going the other way. In any case the reality seems to be that open white nationalist candidates are very difficult to defeat in America's democratic-for-white-people-only electoral system.

Policies matter, but so do personalities and campaigns.

Feingold ran a terrible campaign whose central message seemed to be "Ron Johnson has not denounced Donald Trump." A coattail campaign is a normally a bad decision, a negative coattail campaign even worse. It shouldn't even be contemplated when the candidate at the top of your ticket is viewed unfavorably, failed to win the primary (unlike her opponent), and then takes your entire state for granted to the point of not visiting it.

For all the talk about rural voters, there just aren't that many of them, even in Wisconsin (30%, and not all of them voted for Trump). The real problem for Ds in Wisconsin in 2016 was plummeting turnout in Milwaukee County. I think the single most important important thing for Ds in Wisconsin in 2020 is to not take black voters for granted.

[schnittkease]

Well put.

[Karl Henning]

I'm not sure that the identity or actual politics of the D nominee has any bearing on R turnout. The R bosses will find some way to terrify their voters of the D candidate, and their voters will show up for Trump, even those who are peeved by his ineptitude, braggadocio, divisiveness, or whatever.

For all the talk about rural voters, there just aren't that many of them, even in Wisconsin (30%, and not all of them voted for Trump). The real problem for Ds in Wisconsin in 2016 was plummeting turnout in Milwaukee County. I think the single most important important thing for Ds in Wisconsin in 2020 is to not take black voters for granted.

Yes, the R's are in for a pound. The thing is going to be, strong appeal to the center.

[greg]

Maybe it's you who has moved to right due to brainwashing? The Overton Window in the US has been moving to right so much that the corporate Dems of today are what the Republicans used to be a few decades ago while the Republicans have become an insane far-right nazi party.

I honestly don't know if I can respond to this politely because of how dumb these two sentences are, but:

1) I'm not even solidly left or right as far as American politics are concerned and haven't changed much overall... mostly I just hang around the center and either don't have an opinion on individual issues or just make up my own mind to decide what sounds the most logical.

This identity politics stuff from the left is something I haven't seen since the last less than 10 years (maybe 6-7 years), a few years starting after occupy wall street. Not really seeing anything change much from the conservative side except more acceptance of gays.


2) "Far-right nazi party" sounds like brainwashing from American mainstream media which is overwhelmingly leftist. Not saying that's the media you consume, just saying it's the same phrase they use. I must have missed the plans where the president is trying to genocide people- perhaps I need to watch TV more to find out about this. 



There were some studies done about the shift of the left. I don't know much about the details, but if you have studies that prove the opposite, then you can post that as a counter-argument.

[amw]

Feingold ran a terrible campaign whose central message seemed to be "Ron Johnson has not denounced Donald Trump." A coattail campaign is a normally a bad decision, a negative coattail campaign even worse. It shouldn't even be contemplated when the candidate at the top of your ticket is viewed unfavorably, failed to win the primary (unlike her opponent), and then takes your entire state for granted to the point of not visiting it.

For all the talk about rural voters, there just aren't that many of them, even in Wisconsin (30%, and not all of them voted for Trump). The real problem for Ds in Wisconsin in 2016 was plummeting turnout in Milwaukee County. I think the single most important important thing for Ds in Wisconsin in 2020 is to not take black voters for granted.

I think what struck me is that if every Democrat in Milwaukee County had voted straight ticket, Feingold would be a senator right now. But for whatever reason there was a small number of Clinton/Johnson voters, and a larger number of people who just voted for president and apparently left the rest of the ballot blank.

Clinton obviously did not campaign in Wisconsin or do any turnout operations there, but there was also a very significant voter suppression effort by Scott Walker's administration targeting black voters (which are almost entirely concentrated in Milwaukee). I believe estimates are that some 40,000 people could not vote due to the new law, whereas Trumps margin of victory was about 18,000.

In any case the Clinton underperformance/Feingold overperformance existed almost entirely in the northern and western parts of the state (including La Crosse, Eau Claire, Stevens Point, Superior etc; not including Green Bay or Appleton; plus outlying bastions of Feingoldism in Kenosha and Racine). Clinton was definitely more popular than Feingold in the more densely populated parts of the state. None of this is to deny the impact of Clinton not campaigning in Wisconsin or the voter suppression—just a small but noticeable trend that also seemed to play out elsewhere in the country.

[SimonNZ]

(Obama the Nobel peace prize winner took Bush dumber's 2 wars and started 5 more) and so on?

Which are the five wars that Obama started?

[schnittkease]

Yes, the R's are in for a pound. The thing is going to be, strong appeal to the center.

It's becoming more and more apparent that there is no center (at least, not in the way there once was). The decider in this election will be voter turnout: if the Republicans succeed in suppressing turnout, they will win. Democrats need a candidate that can excite and energize; Biden is not that.

This identity politics stuff from the left is something I haven't seen since the last less than 10 years (maybe 6-7 years), a few years starting after occupy wall street. Not really seeing anything change much from the conservative side except more acceptance of gays.

Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).

[greg]

Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).

They are small but extremely vocal- that's the issue. (on the right they are also small but fortunately only vocal in certain spaces, like some internet sites or in more secretive meetings IRL)

Like you said, "cancerous," meaning it will spread- over time it won't be a worshipping, it will just become a normal way of thinking.

But I think for now, you're right if you're meaning to say that most people, even on the left, care more about the politicians who prioritize the more important/day-to-day issues. (i guess those two people are supposed to be examples of people who play to identity politics?)

In the long run, there could end up being a schism in the left, like a person seeing the cancer travel through their arm and deciding to cut it off before it takes over them. 

[Karl Henning]

It's becoming more and more apparent that there is no center (at least, not in the way there once was). The decider in this election will be voter turnout: if the Republicans succeed in suppressing turnout, they will win. Democrats need a candidate that can excite and energize; Biden is not that.

Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).

I certainly agree both that voter turnout will be crucial, and that Biden won't have that juice.

[JBS]

It's becoming more and more apparent that there is no center (at least, not in the way there once was). The decider in this election will be voter turnout: if the Republicans succeed in suppressing turnout, they will win. Democrats need a candidate that can excite and energize; Biden is not that.

Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).

Agree with the first paragraph, more or less.

I would like to think you are right about the identity crowd being small, but they are certainly loud (and amplified by the media), and seem to dominate the "conversation". Perhaps it's a part reaction to Trump's bigotry and rhetoric, but it does seem to overshadow everything else.
Buttigieg doesn't seem to me to be an identity candidate. Or at least, his approach as someone sane and normal and thoroughly middle class negates that. He just happens to be gay, and to care about certain things because they are important to him because he's gay. Similar can be said about Yang.

[schnittkease]

I would like to think you are right about the identity crowd being small, but they are certainly loud (and amplified by the media), and seem to dominate the "conversation". Perhaps it's a part reaction to Trump's bigotry and rhetoric, but it does seem to overshadow everything else.
Buttigieg doesn't seem to me to be an identity candidate. Or at least, his approach as someone sane and normal and thoroughly middle class negates that. He just happens to be gay, and to care about certain things because they are important to him because he's gay. Similar can be said about Yang.

Just another instance of the media trying to make a profit at the expense of (people's perception of) the left.

[SimonNZ]

Warren works to overcome hurdles with black voters in S.C.

"Other candidates, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, also tried to expand their appeal among nonwhite voters this weekend, as they campaigned in South Carolina and Georgia.
Black voters are key to winning South Carolina, the fourth nominating contest in the Democratic calendar, along with the slew of Southern primaries where African Americans also represent large shares of the vote. Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Democratic presidential primary here because of her support among black voters.

Buttigieg, whose support among blacks has been too small to measure in some polls, spent his Sunday morning glad-handing at Bethel AME church in Georgetown, S.C. Later, during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," he made an appeal to blacks, saying President Trump's supporters are "looking the other way on racism."

Sanders used his trip to release a wide-reaching criminal justice plan. "This state is a state which has an even more broken criminal justice system than the country, and the country is pretty bad," Sanders said.

His plan would end for-profit prisons, abolish the death penalty, set national standards for the use of force by police officers and cut the prison population in half.

"We have the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and yet we have more people in jail today — 2 million people — than any other country on Earth," Sanders said at a partitioned-off area at a luncheon hosted by Brookland Baptist Church in West Columbia.

Although black churchgoers ate nearby, Sanders delivered his remarks to a group of mostly white voters who came just to see him. Several Sanders supporters insisted they shouldn't have to pay for the luncheon since they had come only to hear the candidate.

The overall effect — a crowd of largely white outsiders descending on a weekly lunch for a black church — alienated several churchgoers.

"I was eating when he spoke," said Maxine Moses, an African American woman. Although she sat with her son just feet from Sanders, she didn't go listen to him. "I might have gone and listened to him if he had attended the Sunday service," she said.
[...]

But in South Carolina, Warren and her team appeared to be navigating the racial landscape more astutely than Sanders. Among the speakers warming up a crowd for her Saturday evening in Aiken, S.C., was Lessie Price, a local black leader and the first vice chair of the state's Democratic Party.

Warren's message, Price said, speaks to African Americans. "Often­times, it's getting that message out over and over and over, and someone starts hearing it," said Price, who is staying neutral in the primary."

[71 dB]

I honestly don't know if I can respond to this politely because of how dumb these two sentences are, but:

1) I'm not even solidly left or right as far as American politics are concerned and haven't changed much overall... mostly I just hang around the center and either don't have an opinion on individual issues or just make up my own mind to decide what sounds the most logical.

This identity politics stuff from the left is something I haven't seen since the last less than 10 years (maybe 6-7 years), a few years starting after occupy wall street. Not really seeing anything change much from the conservative side except more acceptance of gays.


2) "Far-right nazi party" sounds like brainwashing from American mainstream media which is overwhelmingly leftist. Not saying that's the media you consume, just saying it's the same phrase they use. I must have missed the plans where the president is trying to genocide people- perhaps I need to watch TV more to find out about this. 



There were some studies done about the shift of the left. I don't know much about the details, but if you have studies that prove the opposite, then you can post that as a counter-argument.

It's true that Dems have become SOCIALLY more liberal, but on economic issues corporate Dems are not more left. The study you post shows Repubs have moved a little bit more conservative on social issues. Overton Window means the allowed spectrum of political discource in the media. You have lefty politicians like AOC and ilhan Omar in DC, but that doesn't mean their ideas are allowed in the corporate media. They are outside the Overton Window and smeared for that.

[71 dB]

Which are the five wars that Obama started?

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/07/11/the-obama-wars/

Yemen Syyria Somali...

[SimonNZ]

It's true that Dems have become SOCIALLY more liberal, but on economic issues corporate Dems are not more left. The study you post shows Repubs have moved a little bit more conservative on social issues. Overton Window means the allowed spectrum of political discource in the media. You have lefty politicians like AOC and ilhan Omar in DC, but that doesn't mean their ideas are allowed in the corporate media. They are outside the Overton Window and smeared for that.

There has been considerable coverage in what you call the corporate media of their ideas, and while some may have been critical they weren't "smeared" - well, apart from at Fox, of course.