The Race for the 2020 POTUS elections

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,941
No, another 4 years of Trump and his GOP agenda will continue the disastrous policies of the US.
It seems like you are refusing to acknowledge any difference between the Trump agenda and the alternative (that of whoever wins the Democratic primary). Setting yourself up to justify why you won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it isn't Sanders?
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,602

The Root got together a panel of older black voters. What they had to say about the primary race is interesting.


Older black folks are watching, they’re engaged and they want Trump out of office by impeachment, election or God’s plan. Any way will work. Which got the committee thinking, why not dedicate one week of The Root Presidential Black Power Rankings to a committee of older black folks? Thus Senior Week was born. This week, the entire rotating ranking committee is composed of black folks over 60, from activists to retired folks and everything in between. Let me tell you up front, American journalists and pundits need to spend more time talking TO black seniors than ABOUT them. All the conventional wisdom out there about older black voters (they only like Biden because of Obama; only young people support Bernie Sanders; they don’t support Mayor Pete because he’s gay) was completely blown out of the water by our committee.
 

allezfred

Baby Jolly Man Face
Staff member
Messages
55,491
I still cannot believe that a person who is not a member of the Democratic Party is running to be the Democratic candidate.....
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
I still cannot believe that a person who is not a member of the Democratic Party is running to be the Democratic candidate.....
Sanders is a member of the party in every functional way. He is part of the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate. He fundraises for other Democrats. He has pledged to support the party's nominee if he himself does not win. There is no functional difference between him and any other Democrat.

When was the last time Sanders said he is not a Democrat? Its a technical point at most.

I can't believe people are still focused on something of literally no importance, given all else that matters in this race.

I'm not saying this because I support him, I don't. But I just don't think it is relevant at all.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,769
Reading this, I can understand why sitting USA presidents usually get a second term. The process of the rival parties choosing a presidential candidate is so very divisive for the other side.
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,623
If he ran as the Socialist he is; even a "Democratic" one, the "rank and file" voter would not support Sanders.
I doubt that he can defeat Trump, in any case.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
He's not a Socialist--that would imply he belongs to the Socialist Party, he doesn't, he's a socialist.

I'm more concerned about the media trying to create a schism for clicks with the current controversy. Warren says Bernie told her he didn't think a woman could win. A lot of people here have said the same thing. Its an open question really.

Personally, I think his actions speak louder than words. He obviously either didn't think Warren could win or didn't think she was a good enough candidate or he wouldn't have gotten in the race long after she had told him she was running. I think he should have supported her rather than running and if he had we wouldn't be where we are right now. She wouldn't have won all his voters but if she had half of them considering where they both are in the polls right now, we'd have our progressive nominee. I wonder why that wasn't good enough for Sanders supporters?
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,769
I was just reading this article to catch up on what was happening with the election and.. woah $474 million has been raised so far simply for financing the presidential campaigns??? That sure is some expensive politics.

I note that Bernie Sanders has raised the most money at an eye watering $74 million dollars. Elizabeth Warren is second at $60 million and Buttigieg is 3rd at 51 million.


It seems like a hard battle when Democrats are splitting money between so many candidates and arguing about who is the better one, when the Republican movement will be putting it's entire weight behind just one candidate.

I'll wait with interest to see who gets chosen. I suppose the ultimate goal will be to find someone that can win back the support of some of the people that voted Trump in the previous election.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
However you define him; the term, I still don't believe that he should represent the Democratic Party.
I think that is a matter of the members of the party defining it. The Democratic Party is not a socialist party but is it a big tent party? Are there room for far left voters in the party? I think there should be but I think when all is said and done the party's voters won't choose a far left nominee for president. But I do think the party should have room for socialists as much as centrists. But a nominee should be more in the center of the party than either edge.

Now on another subject, I got a huge ad for Mike Bloomberg when I opened the Post this morning where he shouts "No Big Donors!" Um, lie. You are the big donor Bloomberg.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,859
Catching up on the Warren-Sanders controversy this morning & the thing I find the most interesting is how a number of people are calling out Warren negatively on Twitter for supposedly leaking the story about Bernie reputedly saying a woman couldn't win. One person even called it "cold-blooded" to leak the story so soon before Iowa. Now, that annoys me. Because would anyone bat an eye at a male candidate "leaking" a story? Would a male candidate be called "cold-blooded" for making a campaign move to undercut a rival (if that's even what Warren did)? No, I don't think a male candidate would be taken to task for this. They'd probably in fact get praised for making a clever move to enhance their own standing.

I find that every attack on Warren only makes me more likely to support her, because I read the majority of the attacks as motivated by either sexism or greedy self-interest (millionaires, business leaders, et al).

@BlueRidge makes a very good point above. If Sanders really believed in Warren as a candidate, he wouldn't be in this race, plain and simple. Since he is, unfortunately, conflict between them is inevitable.

I also found his staffers' framing of potential talking points against Warren to be sexist. By arguing that she only appeals to "educated" voters, they're just furthering the stereotype of Warren as a wonky librarian-esque nerd. It's such a tired old stereotype of intelligent women, and it just needs to die.
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,623
I believe that their attitude and performance in tonight's debate may be crucial in determining the Democratic nominee.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
I believe that their attitude and performance in tonight's debate may be crucial in determining the Democratic nominee.
Indeed, tonight's debate is the first one that is really going to be of significance.

Who are the moderators tonight? I hope they are going to handle it responsibly.
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,239
Who are the moderators tonight? I hope they are going to handle it responsibly.

More on Brianne Pfannenstiel and the Des Moines Register in this story:
 
Last edited:

oleada

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,254
@clairecloutier speaks for me.

I feel like I’ve gone from having quite a few Dem candidates that I liked to hating everyone not named Elizabeth Warren and if she drops out before Super Tuesday I have no idea who I will vote for. I will vote blue no matter what in the general but this entire process has me so disillusioned.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
I will say I am glad that Amy Klobuchar will be there tonight. It is really good that it won't just be Liz and the boys.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,192
I feel like I’ve gone from having quite a few Dem candidates that I liked to hating everyone not named Elizabeth Warren and if she drops out before Super Tuesday I have no idea who I will vote for. I will vote blue no matter what in the general but this entire process has me so disillusioned.
Me too.

And it's not because any candidates have dropped out, it's because of what the candidates have said. Well, if Corey Booker had stayed in and Warren had withdrawn, I would most likely have voted for him.
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
I still like a whole host of candidates. But they've all dropped out. Gillibrand, Inslee, Harris, Castro, Booker. Warren is the last one standing of my preferred candidates.

I would still support Klobuchar if she had an unlikely rise and Warren were out. Otherwise, I'll support Biden if Warren drops out at some point.

Any other scenario and I'll just wait until the general and support the Democratic nominee.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
For those who would rather fiddle than work :saint:

The Post has a new and improved quiz to see which candidates agree with you most:

It definitely works better than the last one because the candidate who agrees with me most is:

Elizabeth Warren :encore:

Oddly enough the next two candidates who agree most with me are Steyer and Bloomberg. But there was no question asking me if I think billionaires should run for president...
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,941
Personally, I think his actions speak louder than words. He obviously either didn't think Warren could win or didn't think she was a good enough candidate or he wouldn't have gotten in the race long after she had told him she was running.
@BlueRidge makes a very good point above. If Sanders really believed in Warren as a candidate, he wouldn't be in this race, plain and simple. Since he is, unfortunately, conflict between them is inevitable.
I believe there is a simpler explanation - a huge ego. Only he can save the Democratic Party and the people of America! It is all about him and his wonderfulness and doesn't really have anything to do with Warren's candidacy and electability.

*I don't know why he entered the race, just putting out there that there is another plausible explanation that doesn't involve him questioning Warren.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,429
It seems like you are refusing to acknowledge any difference between the Trump agenda and the alternative (that of whoever wins the Democratic primary). Setting yourself up to justify why you won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it isn't Sanders?
Nope, I don't negate any difference between the Trump Admin and the GOP agenda. They are the same.
I'll vote for democratic nominee whomever it is but Trump is still going to win.

I'm going to lay it out and be completely transparent.

The DNC and state's democratic parties have done very little to improve the conditions or access to voting for college students, black and brown people since the 2016 election. Voter purges in several states that specifically target voters that would vote democratic have continued without much organizing from state parties to mobilize voters. Civil groups said the purge was an obvious attempt to make it more difficult for students and minority populations – who tend to favor Democrats – to vote.

The base of the democratic party is black and brown people. In particular, Black women. Black women vote democratic 90% of the time. The democratic party downplays this and does not fully acknowledge their base. Until recently, the party has not fully supported issues that affect Black and Brown people disproportionately. Issues like $15 minimum wage, student loan debt, criminal justice reform, environmental issues, etc. Issues that many people on this thread have ridiculed as being unattainable, not realistic and unimportant. The state democratic party provides very little help in mobilizing minority voters too. When they do provide assistance is always on their terms, in which I mean having a white liberal be in charge of the process. My father tried over 20 years in Milwaukee County to speak about redistricting and how this would affect future voting results for the state. His ideas were ignored, mostly because the state party did not want African American input nor control of the process.

Last month, a conservative advocacy group won a lawsuit that required WI elections committee to purge 230,000 voters. The purge was an obvious attempt to make it more difficult for students and minority populations – who tend to favor Democrats – to vote.

Trump won Wisconsin by 23,000 votes in 2016; 70,000 folks in Milwaukee did not vote, voter turnout in Milwaukee was down 41,000 from 2008 and 2012; now 230,000 voters have been purged from the system. You do the math.

But voter purges and suppression are happening all over the country - Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Alabama.


There were zero discussions or debate questions about voter suppression during the 2016 election. To my knowledge, I don't recall any or very little discussion about voter suppression so far during the Democratic debates.

The GOP purging of voting records; the state, and national Democratic party's meager to non-existent addressing of voter suppression and the widespread polling that the majority of Trump voters in 2016 will vote for him again in 2020.

This is the reason why I believe Trump will be re-elected.
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,239
Trump won Wisconsin by 23,000 votes in 2016; 70,000 folks in Milwaukee did not vote, voter turnout in Milwaukee was down 41,000 from 2008 and 2012; now 230,000 voters have been purged from the system. You do the math.
FYI, the Wisconsin case is still under appeal.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
This from the Guardian

Though he won’t be on the debate stage in Iowa tonight, billionaire and presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has over 1,000 staffers across the country. Over 700 are based in 33 states while hundreds more work out of Bloomberg’s campaign headquarters in Manhattan, Politico reported this morning.

Since his late entry into the Democratic pool in November, Bloomberg is running an unconventional campaign that focuses on the states whose primaries fall on Super Tuesday, March 3.

To attract staffers to his campaign, Bloomberg has been offering salaries that “far exceed typical wages paid by his opponents,” Politico reported. The campaign has also agreed to pay the staffers through the November election, regardless of whether he wins the primary.
He doesn't have to have a single supporter to do this. But by doing this he is taken seriously by the media and thus is presented to us as a serious candidate.

Why do people think this is acceptable in a democracy? Only billionaires need apply...
 

BittyBug

Wishing it weren't so
Messages
22,131
@BlueRidge, you make it seem like Bloomberg is some completely unqualified rube. The man was mayor of NYC for 12 years and has been an active advocate for action on public health, gun reform and climate change for many years. Further, he is using his platform to combat the constant stream of disinformation and outright lies emanating from the Trump administration and has pledged to continue to fund his staff through the election on behalf of the eventual nominee, regardless of whether it's him.

As long as we have unlimited dark money in politics thanks to Citizens United, I have no problem with Bloomberg using his own funds to counter Trump's messaging machine.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,343
@BlueRidge, you make it seem like Bloomberg is some completely unqualified rube. The man was mayor of NYC for 12 years and has been an active advocate for action on public health, gun reform and climate change for many years. Further, he is using his platform to combat the constant stream of disinformation and outright lies emanating from the Trump administration and has pledged to continue to fund his staff through the election on behalf of the eventual nominee, regardless of whether it's him.

As long as we have unlimited dark money in politics thanks to Citizens United, I have no problem with Bloomberg using his own funds to counter Trump's messaging machine.
It has nothing to do with his qualifications. It has to do with his buying his way in. No one who is not a billionaire can do this.

I cannot believe anyone is okay with this. I find it completely against the values of our democracy.

There is no democracy if billionaires can buy their way into office. That's how Russia works, not the US.

And if one wants to say that he has to win the votes so his money doesn't matter, well then why do we regulate money in politics at all?
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,429

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 3, Guests: 12)

  • Top
    Do Not Sell My Personal Information