And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[greg]

Show me one single country in the world where people vote principles and ideas as opposed to how their own lives have been going.

Imagine: "hey, I lost my job and my house due to bad policies brought forth by the president, but at least he's a pretty rad dude!"

[SimonNZ]

Show me one single country in the world where people vote principles and ideas as opposed to how their own lives have been going.

In every country there would be a wide range of motivations.

Furthermore the cheapening or destruction of institutions will ultimately affect "how their lives are going"

[Madiel]

Show me one single country in the world where people vote principles and ideas as opposed to how their own lives have been going.

I can't. And that's frankly depressing. Because believing that the core function of the leader of the country is to determine your individual welfare is really kind of illogical and self-centred. But most people are actually really bad at distinguishing systemic issues from individual-case issues.

It's also depressing that, for many people, that question about the state of their own lives seems to be determined by finances, and not anything else. Which feeds into the continuing myth that governments actually have that much control over the state of the economy in this day and age. The levers that any one government has to influence a multinational financial system aren't that significant.

Unless perhaps you're the government of China. In which case, interest in election voting patterns is minimal.

[Mirror Image]

How should they react to his abuses of power? By ignoring them and not pushing back at all for fear of looking "negative"?

What they need to do is focus on issues that are affecting the lives of American people. That's what they should be doing, but they're not hence why there's not a Democratic president in office right now. People are concerned about the economy and the general welfare of the American people should be of upmost concern for them. The reality is they've ignored this and it'll cost them another election.

[SimonNZ]

You didn't answer my question.

And it'll "cost them another election" if there's election interference, and its allowed to go unchecked.

[71 dB]

The left has concerns over the Nevada Caucus and that it may not be fair. They aren't using the Shadow Inc. app, but they will use iPads. Nevada Dems hired Buttigieg organizer as voter protection director.

https://www.youtube.com/v/CJFXSSYOwsA

[Herman]

I suspect if the nominees come down to Bernie vs. Trump the results will end up not particularly different from if the candidates were "Generic Democrat" and "Generic Republican".

With the "Generic Republican" claiming a great economy.

[greg]

You didn't answer my question.

And it'll "cost them another election" if there's election interference, and its allowed to go unchecked.

Because most people, including many Democrats, don't have a stronger grudge against him vs. hearing about issues that will benefit their own lives. If all they have to offer is not being that person, how are they demonstrating they will be better than that person?

Bernie said that making going after Trump top priority would be a losing game, and look where he is now.

It's going to be funny if it's both guys against the media this time. It's like watching a snake trying to escape from a trapped sroom full of poison. 

[SimonNZ]

And you dodged the question as well.

Do you really think the best response to his criminality is to ignore it?

[greg]

And you dodged the question as well.

Do you really think the best response to his criminality is to ignore it?

You are throwing the assertion that he is committing crimes is a given so the question is unanswerable.
They already finished the trial for all of that stuff.

[SimonNZ]

Again: that's what I thought you were going to say, though in this instance I was hoping you'd try a little harder.

If you honestly can't see the criminality and honestly think that was a thorough trial then there's not much point in us continuing this discussion.

Though I guess it brings us back to the discussion of how you get your news.

[greg]

Again: that's what I thought you were going to say, though in this instance I was hoping you'd try a little harder.

If you honestly can't see the criminality and honestly think that was a thorough trial then there's not much point in us continuing this discussion.

Though I guess it brings us back to the discussion of how you get your news.

Your question was asking if they should ignore him. And they didn't.

I didn't follow the trial much- not that interested. Whether it was fair or whatever is open to debate, separately.

[greg]

Also one thing that bugs me a little about that is what it leads to... a non-American thinking they know better than what Americans on what they should be focused on.

Bernie and Trump being the top two right now points to the people not wanting the mission of punishing Trump to be top priority (double check me on this conclusion, of course).

So the democrats need to be focused on what the people care about instead. Doing otherwise would be a very authoritarian mindset.

[71 dB]

According to Democratic primary voters Joe Biden is not the most electable candidate anymore.
Post New Hampshire Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg are.
The new national poll number post N.H. by Morning Consult are:

Sanders 29 % +4
Biden 19 % -3
Bloomberg 18 % +1
Buttigieg 11 % 0
Warren 10 % -1
Klobuchar 5 % +2

[SimonNZ]

Also one thing that bugs me a little about that is what it leads to... a non-American thinking they know better than what Americans on what they should be focused on.

Bernie and Trump being the top two right now points to the people not wanting the mission of punishing Trump to be top priority (double check me on this conclusion, of course).

So the democrats need to be focused on what the people care about instead. Doing otherwise would be a very authoritarian mindset.

They can do two things at the same time. Campaigning on how they're going to address the voters concerns as well as trying to halt Trump's Putinesque impulses.

I don't necessarily think I "know better", but I'm certain you should be more concerned than you are.

[greg]

They can do two things at the same time. Campaigning on how they're going to address the voters concerns as well as trying to halt Trump's Putinesque impulses.

Certainly is possible. But definitely going to be difficult to manage both at the same time.

[SimonNZ]

I would expect any serious candidate for President to be someone who can deal with multiple concerns and crises simultaneously. It's what the job requires.

And as I've opined before ignoring attempts at election interference isn't optional if you're heading into an election.

[Madiel]

Your question was asking if they should ignore him. And they didn't.

I didn't follow the trial much- not that interested. Whether it was fair or whatever is open to debate, separately.

Not that interested in the trial (which was only going to have one outcome) is very different to whether or not you're interested in whether the leader of your country engaged in illegal behaviour.

I don't just mean you individually, I mean generally. To the extent that voters aren't interested in whether the man in power has any sense of how public power differs from being the CEO of his own personal company kingdom, in a country that tells itself it was founded to escape personal tyranny, that's downright scary.

Time and again Trump shows he doesn't actually understand what being President MEANS in a system with separation of powers and rule of law. And the biggest problem is millions of Americans don't understand either.

You have a narcissistic would-be king who becomes enraged the moment anyone crosses him. Be more worried.

[greg]

Not that interested in the trial (which was only going to have one outcome) is very different to whether or not you're interested in whether the leader of your country engaged in illegal behaviour.

I don't just mean you individually, I mean generally. To the extent that voters aren't interested in whether the man in power has any sense of how public power differs from being the CEO of his own personal company kingdom, in a country that tells itself it was founded to escape personal tyranny, that's downright scary.

Time and again Trump shows he doesn't actually understand what being President MEANS in a system with separation of powers and rule of law. And the biggest problem is millions of Americans don't understand either.

You have a narcissistic would-be king who becomes enraged the moment anyone crosses him. Be more worried.

Of course it's a problem if an illegal activity took place. But we don't know for sure, which was the purpose of the trial.

His attitude is problematic of course. But there is an order of concerns and that is secondary to other issues like people feeling like they are economically secure.

Even if he is doing something illegal and gets away with it, he is out in four years. Is there any effect where future presidents can get away with the same thing?

If he wanted to extend term limits... then that would be more of a concern than anything. But that's not gonna happen.

[Madiel]

Read Mitt Romney. The evidence that Trump was placing conditions on funding for Ukraine that Congress had approved (so it's not even his money to control), and that those conditions were focused on getting something on Biden, is overwhelming.

Much of the evidence was provided directly by the Trump administration BECAUSE he doesn't understand that he's not the CEO and that the money didn't belong to him. He didn't think he'd done anything wrong because he thought that as the man in charge he could do anything.

And that's my point. Him trying to break the law would in some way be less scary than him not understanding that what he was doing was wrong.