2020 Presidential Election

[Mr. Brooks]

In any event, I want a President that gets things done. Moves us forward. Brings his power to helping more liberals get elected all over the nation. Maybe that's a pipe dream......

 

Oh, and that can convince older liberal SCOTUS members o resign early in his term, so he can replace them. Sigh.

Yeah I'm sure those SCOTUS justices won't bristle at all over a President trying to trample over separation of branches, which is what even a gentle nudge towards retirement, for party benefit, would be.

[Mike Sixel]

Yeah I'm sure those SCOTUS justices won't bristle at all over a President trying to trample over separation of branches, which is what even a gentle nudge towards retirement, for party benefit, would be.

If you are a liberal, and care about the country, and you are really old.... Well, I'd retire for the good of the world. If RBG dies in the next two years, we're screwed. For decades. But then, I'm not a SCOTUS....

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think it will.  The most extreme voices just rise to the top in world of social media, where everything gets retweeted/shared.  I think all the 2020 candidates will eventually have the support of even the Bernie Bros.  I know more moderates who didn't vote for Clinton (or Trump) b/c of their personal dislike, than I do liberals, but that's just anecdotal. 

 

People used to call Coulter and Rush and those guys the extremes as well.  Until their messaging started being used by the President.  

 

What I'm talking about isn't an independent/moderate problem.  It's that if you allow the loud extremes to steer the party, they'll likely steer it WAY off course.  One of the things circa the early 2000s that I thought was really dangerous on the right was the invention of the "Rhino" and the demonization of independents as wishy/washy, believe-in-nothings.

 

I hear echos of the same right now.  I hope it doesn't evolve into the same kind of beast the right created.

[Mike Sixel]

Oddly, the right won with those people leading the way, and have many of their policies passed. Maybe liberals should learn some things from them. Though I share your distaste

[TheLeviathan]

 

Oddly, the right won with those people leading the way, and have many of their policies passed. Maybe liberals should learn some things from them. Though I share your distaste

 

Yes, but I'm not sure it's sustainable either.  I think we are approaching a breaking point.

[ashbury]

I hear echos of the same right now.  I hope it doesn't evolve into the same kind of beast the right created.

Healthy leeriness of the cozy relationship the establishment wing of the DNC has developed over the decades with big business is hardly the extreme POV you are describing.

 

If I lived in Iraq I'd be afraid of the power of Big Gubmint. Here in the US, I am more concerned with the power of unelected business interests when not counterbalanced by government power.

[Mr. Brooks]

If you are a liberal, and care about the country, and you are really old.... Well, I'd retire for the good of the world. If RBG dies in the next two years, we're screwed. For decades. But then, I'm not a SCOTUS....

Yes. But that is a personal decision. The President trying to persuade such a decision would likely backfire, big time.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Healthy leeriness of the cozy relationship the establishment wing of the DNC has developed over the decades with big business is hardly the extreme POV you are describing.

 

If I lived in Iraq I'd be afraid of the power of Big Gubmint. Here in the US, I am more concerned with the power of unelected business interests when not counterbalanced by government power.

 

But that's not really my complaint.  Criticize that relationship all you want, but cut out the purity test angle.  It'll harden people towards the fringes and that's not good.

[ashbury]

If RBG dies in the next two years, we're screwed.

Correction. If she dies in 2020, Mitch McConnell will refuse to bring a nominee to the floor of the Senate for hearings or debate or vote, in deference to allowing the American people to have their voice heard in the November elections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

People used to call Coulter and Rush and those guys the extremes as well.  Until their messaging started being used by the President.  

 

What I'm talking about isn't an independent/moderate problem.  It's that if you allow the loud extremes to steer the party, they'll likely steer it WAY off course.  One of the things circa the early 2000s that I thought was really dangerous on the right was the invention of the "Rhino" and the demonization of independents as wishy/washy, believe-in-nothings.

 

I hear echos of the same right now.  I hope it doesn't evolve into the same kind of beast the right created.

Who is the Coulter and Rush of the left?

 

There's nothing like Fox News and Clear Channel pushing an ideology from the top down on the left. (MSNBC certainly panders to liberals, but I doubt that's a dictate of NBC ownership).  

 

There's simply not a concerted effort to create a purity test on the left.  That people want to pull the party to the left is fine, and from my pov a good thing.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Who is the Coulter and Rush of the left?

 

 

Twitter.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Twitter.

I think social media group think alone is less dangerous than the directed efforts of a few talkingheads with a wide audience who work at the direction of their corporate masters and who also have their own social media presence with some help from Russia. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think social media group think alone is less dangerous than the directed efforts of a few talkingheads with a wide audience who work at the direction of their corporate masters and who also have their own social media presence with some help from Russia. 

 

I don't see how social media is any less a "wide audience".  It's probably wider.  

 

Group think is always dangerous and we've had lots and lots of examples of how that works in social media already.  I hope we don't get into a political pissing match that boils down to Rush vs. Twitter.

 

At that point if there's no Space Ark we're all screwed.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't see how social media is any less a "wide audience".  It's probably wider.  

 

Group think is always dangerous and we've had lots and lots of examples of how that works in social media already.  I hope we don't get into a political pissing match that boils down to Rush vs. Twitter.

 

At that point if there's no Space Ark we're all screwed.

Straw men.  No one's arguing against the effect of twitter.  But I don't think twitter alone will equal all the monied influence on the right which uses social media, and every kind of media to better effect.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Straw men.  No one's arguing against the effect of twitter.  But I don't think twitter alone will equal all the monied influence on the right which uses social media, and every kind of media to better effect.

 

They have used it to better effect.  If social media becomes the bastion of the political left and Democrats, I'm not sure that will continue.

 

Again, purity tests for politics are the worst possible thing.  I worry that's the drum beat I'm hearing as each candidate declares.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

They have used it to better effect.  If social media becomes the bastion of the political left and Democrats, I'm not sure that will continue.

 

Again, purity tests for politics are the worst possible thing.  I worry that's the drum beat I'm hearing as each candidate declares.  

I just don't think that will be a thing, but there are of course will be some worry about fence sitters who enrich themselves by pandering to the left, ala Kerry and Clinton.  

 

Beto sounds a bit like Kerry, fairly charming, capable guy who marries into wealth.  That said, Beto sounds articulate, authentic, and likable on a grand scale, and he might be a good messenger for what policy platform the democrats at large decide on; a lot of Bernie's policy was adopted during the Democratic Convention and Clinton played her part afterwards.  

[glunn]

I think that Democrats tend to fail at branding. Obamacare should have been consistently referred to as "The Affordable Care Act." Instead, Democrats went along with calling it "Obamacare", which I think was not a good label. No one called "Social Security" "FDR Care."

 

I think that "Medicare for All" will likely be a loser. It reeks of government control and socialism. I would prefer a public option, so government could compete with private insurers and people could have a choice.  I would call it "Medicare for Those Want It."

 

[glunn]

I see that Beto appears to like the public option approach -- https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/beto-orourke-policy-beliefs-2020-campaign/index.html

[Mike Sixel]

I see that Beto appears to like the public option approach -- https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/beto-orourke-policy-beliefs-2020-campaign/index.html

Basically the path I've suggested is most likely to work.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Basically the path I've suggested is most likely to work.

 

Most likely to work as far as helping the system or most likely to get through Congress and become law?

[Mike Sixel]

Most likely to work as far as helping the system or most likely to get through Congress and become law?

Both. As a step in a long process. Not the end game.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think that Democrats tend to fail at branding. Obamacare should have been consistently referred to as "The Affordable Care Act." Instead, Democrats went along with calling it "Obamacare", which I think was not a good label. No one called "Social Security" "FDR Care."

 

I think that "Medicare for All" will likely be a loser. It reeks of government control and socialism. I would prefer a public option, so government could compete with private insurers and people could have a choice.  I would call it "Medicare for Those Want It."

I think in past election cycles you'd be absolutely right, but "Medicare for All", just as a label is widely popular (though when you break down the actual policy each piece of it is less popular).

 

That Obama didn't get a public option the first time around is a stain on his legacy.  I'm tired of half-measures.  If we use the public-option to grand father in, Medicare for All over a few years, that's fine. However, I think running on the public option inspires no one, and won't at all motivate the base, much less bring more people in. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Surprised to see Warren doing so well.

 

But I don't like how close any of those numbers are.

[Badsmerf]

Polls mean nothing right now. Jeb Bush was the front runner in 2015 at this time. Beto is largely unknown nationally, but I expect him to start gaining quickly.

 

I really think it will be between the newcomers.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Polls mean nothing right now. Jeb Bush was the front runner in 2015 at this time. Beto is largely unknown nationally, but I expect him to start gaining quickly.

I really think it will be between the newcomers.

They don't but they are interesting fodder.  But it is concerning that Trump's lack of approval isn't showing up in the polling for 2020...

[TheLeviathan]

Concerning, but not surprising.  This is why running a candidate just based on their policies (and how left they are) is unwise.  

 

Trump can still carry every single state he did last time unless the Democrats run someone who can change that.  Winning has got to be priority number one - it's still an uphill climb at this point.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Concerning, but not surprising.  This is why running a candidate just based on their policies (and how left they are) is unwise.  

 

Trump can still carry every single state he did last time unless the Democrats run someone who can change that.  Winning has got to be priority number one - it's still an uphill climb at this point.

The moderates aren't exactly killing it (beyond Biden, e.g. brand), Levi.  I think it's premature to draw conclusions that favor our preferred narrative, just as of yet anyways.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The moderates aren't exactly killing it (beyond Biden, e.g. brand), Levi.  I think it's premature to draw conclusions that favor our preferred narrative, just as of yet anyways.

 

But you'll notice I didn't say that.  If winning is going further left with a candidate - fine.  If it's moderate - fine.  The conclusion to draw from this is Trump is not ripe for defeat despite all his foolishness.  

 

Vet the candidates and choose the one that will win.  Everything else can wait until after.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He comes out and the first question is "Is he liberal enough" and not "can he win" = why we are likely to get four more years of Trump.

Honestly, I think Beto is a crap candidate because he's all flash.

 

If we're going with "electable and moderate", give me Klobuchar all day. At least the woman has both experience and the ability to actually, god forbid, accomplish something.

 

And I'm not even really a Klobuchar supporter (I like her quite a bit where she is).

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Beto sounds a bit like Kerry, fairly charming, capable guy who marries into wealth.

Let's take about five to ten percent off there, Squirelly Dan.*

John Kerry was charming? The guy who looks like a cheap Bed Bath & Beyond candle left burning over a long weekend while college students did keg stands on the patio?

 

*if you don't get the joke, watch Letterkenny... or just go watch Letterkenny, period