[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

OG_slinger wrote:

Heck, I'll admit I dislike Bernie largely because I found his (primarily online) supporters to be smug, toxic douchebags in 2016. I know it's not rational, but I also know my opinion of him isn't going to change.

Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't expose myself to *any* liberal content, and just watch Fox News so when I get angry at people saying stupid sh*t, I'll be getting angry at conservatives only.

Aesop nailed it two and a half millennia ago: “A man is known by the company he keeps.”

There was never any good old days.. its just the same sh*t in a different era with a different medium.

TheGameguru wrote:

There was never any good old days.. its just the same sh*t in a different era with a different medium.

Yeah, but Make America Just As sh*t Again doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Maybe this is the piece you ran across: All About Pete

Thanks for the link. Its an interesting read. I don't think I found it helpful, however.

The author is laser focused on what Pete didnt do, didnt say, didnt realize, with no attention paid to the opposite; and he bases far too much on the contents of his book instead of outside perspectives like articles and interviews.

Like this bit

“I did not carry an assault weapon around a foreign country so I could come home and see them used to massacre my countrymen.”

This was an odd remark by Pete Buttigieg. Assault weapons are fine for shooting foreigners abroad, just not Americans over here.

Perhaps you think that’s an unfair spin on the remark. He apologized if it “came out wrong.” But from Buttigieg’s account of his time in Afghanistan, it doesn’t seem as if he has thought very hard about American militarism or empire.

That's a ridiculous take. The statement is about the militarization of US Police. To use the author's own tactic, the author is implicitly stating that such militarization is fine.

OG_slinger wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

I did think about not including the words "current day" in my response because I know that, at least relatively speaking, America has always been a bit shallow, but I do also think that we have somehow gotten even more shallow, and since our attention spans are practically non-existent, we have even less patience for anything remotely substantial.

Disclaimer: #notallamericans

Political campaigns in America have always been a popularity contest. Our first president was the hero who won our War for Independence. The next five were prominent Founding Fathers. The sixth was the son of a Founding Father. The seventh was Andrew Jackson, our country's first brush with an anti-establishment populist candidate.

I seriously doubt there's ever been a candidate who won a national election because of their "substantial" policy positions that voters took time to investigate and think about.

A voter in 1800 had very little information about Jefferson's policies short of the fact Jefferson railed against the Federalist Party, which he claimed was going to reinstate the aristocracy in America.

All the information that voter got about Jefferson came from a network of hundreds of exceptionally partisan newspapers founded by the Democrat-Republican Party. The editors of those newspapers didn't debate policy. They slung mud. They stoked fears. They were the talk radio and partisan YouTube channels of the day.

And Jefferson loved them, calling them "the engine" of politics. And while he loved them and encouraged his friends and supporters to pen articles on his behalf, he made it clear he wanted his name kept out: “Do not let my name be connected with the business.”

Jefferson also eagerly embraced what would be the tabloid/gossip "journalists" of the day. In particular, Jefferson directly helped James Callender. Largely forgotten today, Callender was a scandalmonger who destroyed Hamilton's political career by exposing his affair with Maria Reynolds, a married woman, in 1797.

By 1798 Callender was drunk, broke, and being chased by the Federalists and his wife had just died of Yellow Fever. Jefferson loaned him the equivalent of $1,000 and got him a job at a Democrat-Republican newspaper in Philadelphia. In exchange for his continued patronage, Jefferson wanted Callender to turn his pen against John Adams. Callender did just so, writing "The Prospect Before Us," which accused the Federalist Party and the Adams administration of corruption.

[Callender was subsequently arrested and successfully tried by the Adam's administration under the Sedition Act and received the longest jail sentence. Jefferson pardoned Callender when he became president.

Callender wanted Jefferson to make him the Postmaster General and when Jefferson didn't, Callender turned against him and got a job at a Federalist newspaper in Virginia where he wrote articles about corruption in the Jefferson administration. When Jefferson's allies accused Callender of abandoning his wife to die of a venereal disease, he went nuclear: he revealed Jefferson's affair and children with Sally Hemings, Jefferson's slave.]

Americans haven't substantially changed over the past 200 years. We still largely don't care about policy details, not that most Americans even have a basic understanding of how our government functions or how laws are made. The people who do vote aren't doing so because of a detailed and rational analysis of the candidates and their positions. They're human and base their voting decisions much more on emotions, like whether or not they could have a beer with a candidate.

Heck, I'll admit I dislike Bernie largely because I found his (primarily online) supporters to be smug, toxic douchebags in 2016. I know it's not rational, but I also know my opinion of him isn't going to change.

Wonderful response! Thanks for the time and effort you put into this, and while I do not disagree with any points in particular, I just want to mention that (1) The quote was from the Rotunda on UVA campus... obviously any materials displayed there would be to build him [Jefferson] up and not tear him down. (2) Despite Jefferson's actions, I do believe that it is possible that Jefferson truly believed what was reportedly recorded.

To be fair, man's reach exceeds his grasp is something I see quite a bit where people with high ideals and aspiration stoop way below those lofty ideals because "the people is not ready" or whatever. Perhaps Jefferson could simply have thought something like "I have to play the game now to win, because when I win I can perhaps push us in the right direction that will allow us to stop playing these games in the future." Of course, it could be equally true that despite all his inspiring rhetoric, Jefferson knew people was just people and he just said that because it sounded good.

polypusher wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Maybe this is the piece you ran across: All About Pete

Thanks for the link. Its an interesting read. I don't think I found it helpful, however.

The author is laser focused on what Pete didnt do, didnt say, didnt realize, with no attention paid to the opposite; and he bases far too much on the contents of his book instead of outside perspectives like articles and interviews.

Like this bit

“I did not carry an assault weapon around a foreign country so I could come home and see them used to massacre my countrymen.”

This was an odd remark by Pete Buttigieg. Assault weapons are fine for shooting foreigners abroad, just not Americans over here.

Perhaps you think that’s an unfair spin on the remark. He apologized if it “came out wrong.” But from Buttigieg’s account of his time in Afghanistan, it doesn’t seem as if he has thought very hard about American militarism or empire.

That's a ridiculous take. The statement is about the militarization of US Police. To use the author's own tactic, the author is implicitly stating that such militarization is fine.

Understand that the Bernie Bros have been taking aim at Buttigieg, so every negative spin that gets published will get amplified, regardless of how relevant it actually is.

The sooner Bernie drops out the better. But it is going to be awhile. And Russia, as well as other countries (and now the GOP) are well aware of how easy it is to get the Bernie Bros to spread FUD, as all they want is to get the progressives fighting among themselves.

oh, FFS.

Maybe people are criticizing him because, like Beto and Biden, he’s running an entirely superficial campaign with only vague references to actual content. He didn’t even have a policy section on his website until recently, though he did have a nifty page dedicated to typesets and color swatches from day one so people could advertise for him.
In almost every interview I’ve seen of him, when asked a direct policy question his response is typically emotional rhetoric and appeals to nostalgia instead of actionable policy.
I’ve also seen him heavily gaslight people when he does talk actual policy, see his cnn town hall for example, where he talks about how much he loves and supports medicare for all, then goes on to describe a public option plan that he couches in the language of medicare for all, but which definitely isn’t.

Also, waving away any criticism as meddling or counterproductive is dangerous. The entire point of the primary process is weeding out the bad candidates, if there’s any time for criticism, it’s now. Solidarity comes later, but if we don’t drag all the skeletons out of the closet now you can guarantee that they’ll come out next year when it’s just our person and Trump.

ruhk wrote:

Also, waving away any criticism as meddling or counterproductive is dangerous. The entire point of the primary process is weeding out the bad candidates, if there’s any time for criticism, it’s now. Solidarity comes later, but if we don’t drag all the skeletons out of the closet now you can guarantee that they’ll come out next year when it’s just our person and Trump.

The piece seemed to willfully ignore actions and focused instead on negative space (in the artistic sense, the space not used). It was a book review. I had hoped it would be a factual accounting of actions (Like this article which details known facts about Pete's military service)

I want to hear facts and I hoped that an example article that attempted to persuade me not to be interested in Pete would have some facts.

polypusher wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Also, waving away any criticism as meddling or counterproductive is dangerous. The entire point of the primary process is weeding out the bad candidates, if there’s any time for criticism, it’s now. Solidarity comes later, but if we don’t drag all the skeletons out of the closet now you can guarantee that they’ll come out next year when it’s just our person and Trump.

The piece seemed to willfully ignore actions and focused instead on negative space (in the artistic sense, the space not used). It was a book review. I had hoped it would be a factual accounting of actions (Like this article which details known facts about Pete's military service)

I want to hear facts and I hoped that an example article that attempted to persuade me not to be interested in Pete would have some facts.

Uh, here's all the times the words 'in his book' or 'he wrote' show up in some form in (edit) the article you linked to:

In his book “Shortest Way Home,” Buttigieg wrote about how he expected to spend the bulk of his time as an intelligence analyst “behind a sophisticated computer terminal in a secure area.”

In his book, Buttigieg wrote about the soldiers who were killed after the announced drawdown.

By 2013, Buttigieg had reached the rank of lieutenant, making his deployment more likely. But he deployed alone rather than with his unit and suggests in his book that he proactively sought out deployment to Afghanistan during his first term as mayor.

“In a ritual to be repeated dozens of times, I would heave my armored torso into the driver’s seat of a Land Cruiser, chamber a round in my M4, lock the doors and wave a gloved goodbye to the Macedonian gate guard,” Buttigieg wrote.

Buttigieg also wrote about the threat of roadside explosive devices and how he was constantly on the lookout for signs of danger.

“I fell back on my training from Camp McCrady, eyes out for the known signs that we were about to get blown up,” he wrote.

“I did not believe the Afghanistan War was a mistake,” Buttigieg wrote.

[i]“ made sure my chain of command knew that I would rather go sooner than later, and would rather go to Afghanistan than anywhere else,” Buttigieg wrote.

“Because I was a specialist in counterterrorism, Afghanistan represented the best place in the world to practice my craft,” Buttigieg wrote.

Whatever else, I think we should leave the 'book report' criticism by the wayside ; D

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Whatever else, I think we should leave the 'book report' criticism by the wayside ; D

What? The whole premise of the article is stated here. The author intends to use the book to dissect the man.

It has been called the “best political autobiography since Barack Obama,” revealing Buttigieg as a “president in waiting.” Indeed, I recommend that anyone considering supporting Buttigieg read it from from cover to cover. It is very personal, very well-written, and lays out a narrative that makes Buttigieg seem a natural and qualified candidate for the presidency.

It also provides irrefutable evidence that no serious progressive should want Pete Buttigieg anywhere near national public office.

The book is quoted or used extensively throughout. (link to make sure we're talking about the same article)

polypusher wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Whatever else, I think we should leave the 'book report' criticism by the wayside ; D

What? The whole premise of the article is stated here. The author intends to use the book to dissect the man.

It has been called the “best political autobiography since Barack Obama,” revealing Buttigieg as a “president in waiting.” Indeed, I recommend that anyone considering supporting Buttigieg read it from from cover to cover. It is very personal, very well-written, and lays out a narrative that makes Buttigieg seem a natural and qualified candidate for the presidency.

It also provides irrefutable evidence that no serious progressive should want Pete Buttigieg anywhere near national public office.

The book is quoted or used extensively throughout. (link to make sure we're talking about the same article)

Yeah, it's that you then wrote:

I had hoped it would be a factual accounting of actions (Like this article which details known facts about Pete's military service

When I clicked on your link, all those passages are in the article you linked to.

It's just strange to say you wanted an article that focused on facts and not on his book, and then for an example of what you wanted you linked to an article that is mostly quotes from his book.

Ok I do see book quotes in The Hill article, when I didnt remember them before. In that context they're connecting statements he's made to the paper trail.

polypusher wrote:

Ok I do see book quotes in The Hill article, when I didnt remember them before. In that context they're connecting statements he's made to the paper trail.

Well, statements he's made wouldn't be actions either, so I don't see how that figures in. In the "All About Pete" piece, there's plenty about his actions, it's just about why he chose one action over another, and what that says about the kind of President we could expect. It's fine to question whether it draws unsupported inferences and goes too far, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

IMAGE(https://i.postimg.cc/90wKqQKn/rhscyps5tr331.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/picard-facepalm.jpg)

How are we going to distribute this cancer cure?

eh nevermind. Too harsh.

DSGamer wrote:

How are we going to distribute this cancer cure?

After Trump is voted out cancer will come to it’s senses and spontaneously go into remission.

Al the talk is that Biden had a great day in his back and forth with Trump, but, I just don’t see it. Yes, he sucked the oxygen out of the day from every other candidate, but it was just one day.

Debates are coming. If holds his own and comes out of the early debates with his lead intact, he may go all the way. But, I think he is going tumble huge. Too many of the candidates have a more thought out plan for the nation than his platitudes.

I think the debates will tell us who gets Biden’s poll numbers. I would put money on Warren getting a second surge out of the first and early debates. I think she offers the same bulldog persona on Trump as Biden, but she also has better policies.

The sooner we get this to 5 candidates the better. Biden, Bernie, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg make for a solid field.

DSGamer wrote:

How are we going to distribute this cancer cure?

Onager, ballista or trebuchet, depending on the season.

ruhk wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

How are we going to distribute this cancer cure?

After Trump is voted out cancer will come to it’s senses and spontaneously go into remission.

Oh snap. That’s why we don’t need universal healthcare. Biden 2020.

I mean, I'm all for funding medical research. And scientific research in general, for that matter--our spending on research is ridiculously low for the benefits we get from it. So I'm not going to disparage it too much. Though I will caution that there can't be a cure for cancer because cancer is many things, not one thing.

And also curing heart disease would save more people.

Also, the president focusing on curing cancer clearly means we won't be able to solve world hunger.

Jayhawker wrote:

I think the debates will tell us who gets Biden’s poll numbers. I would put money on Warren getting a second surge out of the first and early debates. I think she offers the same bulldog persona on Trump as Biden, but she also has better policies.

Yesterday's Quinnipiac poll showed an interesting trend for Biden and Sanders. Over 50 Democratic voters love Biden and really hate Sanders while under 50 voters love Sanders and hate Biden.

Of course an issue is that 44% of Democratic voters are under 50 and 56% are over 50 meaning we need a candidate that doesn't turn off entire age groups.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/6s1i9q7.png)

OG_slinger wrote:

Yesterday's Quinnipiac poll showed an interesting trend for Biden and Sanders. Over 50 Democratic voters love Biden and really hate Sanders while under 50 voters love Sanders and hate Biden.

So a Biden/Sander ticket in 2020. Then Sanders/Biden in 2024. They can trade off like the vampires in Underworld.

Of course an issue is that 44% of Democratic voters are under 50 and 56% are over 50 meaning we need a candidate that doesn't turn off entire age groups.

Am I missing something in that table? Because I don't see anything about candidates turning anyone off.

I mean, I guess you can say it suggests that, because if a candidate didn't turn anyone off they would have equal numbers whether big or small. Then again, it could be that there are preferences that break along age lines but it's not the people are turned off by one candidate vs. another, it's that they're turned on more by one vs. another.

This why we need rank-based voting.

Also, is that Sandra Bullock on that list? Hell, yes!

Found this from February:

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are the most popular potential Democratic presidential candidates, but they are also the top second choices among registered voters, according to a Morning Consult survey released this week.
.
The poll found that Sanders was the second choice for 27 percent of Biden's supporters. Another 15 percent of Biden supporters said they would back Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) while 9 percent said they supported Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
.
Among Sanders's supporters, 26 percent said they supported Biden as a second choice, followed by Warren at 16 percent and Harris at 7 percent.
Gremlin wrote:

And also curing heart disease would save more people.

You mean curing heart disease would give cancer more victims!

Mixolyde wrote:

This why we need rank-based voting.

Also, is that Sandra Bullock on that list? Hell, yes!

Clearly it's Harvey Bullock, bringing that Gotham PD cred

Can't hit like enough timed on ranked choice voting. Unfortunately, it's that one neat trick that incumbents will hate.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Am I missing something in that table? Because I don't see anything about candidates turning anyone off.

I mean, I guess you can say it suggests that, because if a candidate didn't turn anyone off they would have equal numbers whether big or small. Then again, it could be that there are preferences that break along age lines but it's not the people are turned off by one candidate vs. another, it's that they're turned on more by one vs. another.

Biden's 23 point drop between the 50+ and 18-49 crowd is a pretty big sign that younger Democrats aren't particularly thrilled about him. And Sander's 27 point drop between the 18-49 crowd and the 50+ crowd more than hints that older Democrats aren't terribly enthused about him.

I imagine Biden's under 50 numbers have something to do with things like this, which happened when a regional director of the Women’s March in Iowa questioned his commitment to women's reproductive health:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D80IX5dXUAQlx_4.jpg)

And while it's purely ancedata, I know my late 70s parents and their friends look at Bernie like he's a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary. And that is definitely generational. They absolutely don't understand how much harder things have gotten for young people.

Ideally a Democratic candidate wouldn't lose half their support between age groups, but clearly something's happening with Biden and Sanders. And, no, I don't think 2020's the election for Democrats to rock the double-super-old-white-guy ticket.

thrawn82 wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Also, is that Sandra Bullock on that list? Hell, yes!

Clearly it's Harvey Bullock, bringing that Gotham PD cred

Nuh-uh. Clearly its Seth Bullock, which the HBO marketing team got on the ballot to promote the much anticipated Deadwood: The Movie.