[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.

I'm sure the man who's been the primary sponsor of only seven laws that were actually passed in his 28 years as both a Representative and Senator--two of which were to rename post offices and one of which was to designate "Vermont Bicentennial Day"--is going to be equally successful persuading, cajoling, or otherwise convincing 50 state legislatures to enact his reforms, some of which seem to be lifted from plans published months ago by other candidates.

The Mooch is here to save us all.

And let's all take a moment to thank the 24 hour news networks for bringing us people like this.

So if Sanders has held a position for years but someone else writes an op ed about it before he does it means that Sanders is copying them? I like Warren but accusing Sanders of copying her is like accusing Dr Pepper of copying Mr Pibb, she’s essentially campaigning on slightly watered down versions of policies Sanders has been talking about for decades.

Sounds like good proposals.
I would have higher hopes of Warren accomplishing anything than Sanders, but yeah, if it is copying to have similar policy proposals, then Warren beats Sanders in yet another area.
There are only so many sensible policy positions to have, it would be crazy to attack people when they manage to settle on one of them.

ruhk wrote:

So if Sanders has held a position for years but someone else writes an op ed about it before he does it means that Sanders is copying them? I like Warren but accusing Sanders of copying her is like accusing Dr Pepper of copying Mr Pibb, she’s essentially campaigning on slightly watered down versions of policies Sanders has been talking about for decades.

That's fair. Googling a bit shows Bernie talked about abolishing private prisons during the last election.

But that doesn't change the fact that while Bernie may have good ideas, he's shown that he's largely incapable of turning any of those idea into laws or implemented policy. As Trump is showing there are limitations to what Presidents can achieve by themselves and the rest has to be accomplished by actual politics, something Bernie doesn't seem terribly good at.

Warren, on the other hand, has proposed and successfully executed major reforms, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And at the end of the day I'll take a slightly watered down policy that actually gets implemented over an ideologically pure policy that goes nowhere.

It would be poetic if Trump ends up destroying Fox news...

(CNN)Before he boarded Air Force One to fly back to Washington on Sunday afternoon, President Donald Trump was asked about a recent Fox News poll that showed him in serious trouble vis a vis the 2020 election. Trump, as he is wont to do, went off at length on his once-favorite network.
The poll showed Trump's approval rating in the low 40s and had him losing by six or more points to Democratic 2020 rivals Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Unsurprisingly, Trump didn't like that. Here's the key bit:
"Well, Fox has always given me -- I'll tell you, Fox is a lot different than it used to be, I can tell you that. ... Fox has changed. And my worst polls have always been from Fox. There's something going on at Fox, I'll tell you right now. And I'm not happy with it."

"There's something going on at Fox."

Criticizing candidates for having similar policy to other candidates is ridiculous. Pete Buttigieg also wants to decrease the prison population by 50%, so should Sanders campaign on doubling it instead just to be different? Good policy is good policy. Originality matters in video games and movies, but not politics.

As for Warren, yeah, I'd expect her to have something very similar to Sanders. They're both fantastic and I refuse to pick a favourite. I'm a Canadian watching your election from the sidelines, so I'm just glad I won't have to vote against one of them.

Time for them to learn a lesson: Trump has no loyalty or anyone or anything that isn't a blood relative*. He will turn on anyone the moment he sees advantage in it or has no further use for them.

* And I'm not even sure about that; Uday and Qusay might just agree with him, but their sycophancy could just as easily be a desperate attempt not to be first under the bus.

Kinda funny, considering we already had a round of whining be Bernie and his supporters that the other candidates were stealing his platform.

I said it then, we want politicians stealing the good ideas of others. That is how politics is supposed to work. You can have a good idea, but lack the ability to get it passed, or get elected. If someone else picks it up and gets elected and enacts the idea, that was the goal.

Jayhawker wrote:

Kinda funny, considering we already had a round of whining be Bernie and his supporters that the other candidates were stealing his platform.

I said it then, we want politicians stealing the good ideas of others. That is how politics is supposed to work. You can have a good idea, but lack the ability to get it passed, or get elected. If someone else picks it up and gets elected and enacts the idea, that was the goal.

I think Sanders would agree with that.

I think Sanders' supporters probably don't trust anyone else (outside of maybe Warren) to actually follow through.

Also, I think Sanders just getting elected would be a shock to the system similar to Trump. It would be a signal to the rest of the Democratic party to take these policies seriously and not just pay lip service to them, which is why many people, myself among them, see the election of Warren or Sanders as symbolically important and possibly the only way these policies don't get turned into watered-down technocratic tweaks.

If Warren hadn't deferred to Hillary in 2016 we might be on the way to this stuff already. So many mistakes.

Djinn wrote:

Criticizing candidates for having similar policy to other candidates is ridiculous. Pete Buttigieg also wants to decrease the prison population by 50%, so should Sanders campaign on doubling it instead just to be different? Good policy is good policy. Originality matters in video games and movies, but not politics.

As for Warren, yeah, I'd expect her to have something very similar to Sanders. They're both fantastic and I refuse to pick a favourite. I'm a Canadian watching your election from the sidelines, so I'm just glad I won't have to vote against one of them.

It is kind of irritating to have a candidate with an extremely consistent long-term voting record over the course of decades propose good policies only to be cut down and criticized every single time someone mentions something good simply because his name is Bernie Sanders. Anyone else proposes the exact same thing and they're practically hailed as gods. Sour grapes.

bekkilyn wrote:
Djinn wrote:

Criticizing candidates for having similar policy to other candidates is ridiculous. Pete Buttigieg also wants to decrease the prison population by 50%, so should Sanders campaign on doubling it instead just to be different? Good policy is good policy. Originality matters in video games and movies, but not politics.

As for Warren, yeah, I'd expect her to have something very similar to Sanders. They're both fantastic and I refuse to pick a favourite. I'm a Canadian watching your election from the sidelines, so I'm just glad I won't have to vote against one of them.

It is kind of irritating to have a candidate with an extremely consistent long-term voting record over the course of decades propose good policies only to be cut down and criticized every single time someone mentions something good simply because his name is Bernie Sanders. Anyone else proposes the exact same thing and they're practically hailed as gods. Sour grapes.

I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders, but his really low legislative output during all his time in congress seems like a valid criticism that needs to be addressed. And maybe it has been somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

absurddoctor wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
Djinn wrote:

Criticizing candidates for having similar policy to other candidates is ridiculous. Pete Buttigieg also wants to decrease the prison population by 50%, so should Sanders campaign on doubling it instead just to be different? Good policy is good policy. Originality matters in video games and movies, but not politics.

As for Warren, yeah, I'd expect her to have something very similar to Sanders. They're both fantastic and I refuse to pick a favourite. I'm a Canadian watching your election from the sidelines, so I'm just glad I won't have to vote against one of them.

It is kind of irritating to have a candidate with an extremely consistent long-term voting record over the course of decades propose good policies only to be cut down and criticized every single time someone mentions something good simply because his name is Bernie Sanders. Anyone else proposes the exact same thing and they're practically hailed as gods. Sour grapes.

I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders, but his really low legislative output during all his time in congress seems like a valid criticism that needs to be addressed. And maybe it has been somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...

https://www.alternet.org/2015/10/ber...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...

http://addictinginfo.com/2016/02/19/...

http://occasionalplanet.org/2016/03/...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/be...

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/1...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/u...

Shadout wrote:

Sounds like good proposals.
I would have higher hopes of Warren accomplishing anything than Sanders, but yeah, if it is copying to have similar policy proposals, then Warren beats Sanders in yet another area.
There are only so many sensible policy positions to have, it would be crazy to attack people when they manage to settle on one of them.

If the Senate doesn't flip, the ability to pass legislation won't really matter. "We're going to make X a one-term President" should be written on Moscow Mitch's tombstone when he dies. Who can lead the people to vote better is what will matter, and I think that's Warren.

Why?

CNN Poll: Joe Biden regains double-digit lead over 2020 Democratic field

I don't hate him, and I will vote for him over doofus, but why when there are so many other better candidates to people like him?

farley3k wrote:

Why?

CNN Poll: Joe Biden regains double-digit lead over 2020 Democratic field

I don't hate him, and I will vote for him over doofus, but why when there are so many other better candidates to people like him?

Name recognition and devil you know? Also many people or enough anyway aren't that progressive, but enough to not vote Trump.

farley3k wrote:

Why?

Voters are, on average, a bunch of idiots. In 2016, more than 10 people voted for Trump. In 2012, Romney got the majority of votes in more than 1 state. In 2008, people bought into the "McCain is a maverick" story, and nearly put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency. People complain all the time about their representatives in the House, and then vote people back in at a rate dictatorships dream of. The general flowchart for voting is:
1) Do they have the appropriate letter after their name? (D or R).
2) Do I recognize the name?
3) Have I heard something bad about them?
4) I guess I have to fill in something.

If we could find a way to limit voting to only the educated, or even just the marginally informed, and not have the test reek of racism, maybe we could trust democracy, but we can't.

Atras wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Why?

Voters are, on average, a bunch of idiots. In 2016, more than 10 people voted for Trump. In 2012, Romney got the majority of votes in more than 1 state. In 2008, people bought into the "McCain is a maverick" story, and nearly put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency. People complain all the time about their representatives in the House, and then vote people back in at a rate dictatorships dream of. The general flowchart for voting is:
1) Do they have the appropriate letter after their name? (D or R).
2) Do I recognize the name?
3) Have I heard something bad about them?
4) I guess I have to fill in something.

If we could find a way to limit voting to only the educated, or even just the marginally informed, and not have the test reek of racism, maybe we could trust democracy, but we can't.

Restricting voting is bad. Who decides who is educated/informed? I believe that making voting mandatory and making that day a public holiday would erase so many problems in this country and move us forward on just about every level.

farley3k wrote:

Why?

CNN Poll: Joe Biden regains double-digit lead over 2020 Democratic field

I don't hate him, and I will vote for him over doofus, but why when there are so many other better candidates to people like him?

Old people.

CNN wrote:

Twitter Democrats are far younger than actual Democratic primary voters. That's a big deal when you consider that Joe Biden actually trails Bernie Sanders 22% to 21% among voters under the age of 50 in our poll. He has a huge 37% to 12% advantage over Elizabeth Warren (with Sanders back at 7%) among voters 50 years and older in the poll. Keep in mind, those under 50 and those 50 and older make up about the same portion of the electorate.

Eh. So,

A) National polls are less valuable than Iowa/NH/NV polls at this stage
B) A single poll has relatively little predictive value compared to the entirety of polling - averages like 538's or RealClearPolitics absent specific large events will give a better sense of trendlines
C) 29% in the field may be a big lead over second place, but it means he's losing to the field 71-29

JC wrote:

I believe that making voting mandatory and making that day a public holiday would erase so many problems in this country and move us forward on just about every level.

I do wish that worked, but there are so many people out there who will believe that just because Fox news says so-an-so arranged a hit on someone else that having a public this stupid able to pick anything is a bad idea.

Atras wrote:
JC wrote:

I believe that making voting mandatory and making that day a public holiday would erase so many problems in this country and move us forward on just about every level.

I do wish that worked, but there are so many people out there who will believe that just because Fox news says so-an-so arranged a hit on someone else that having a public this stupid able to pick anything is a bad idea.

A large portion of the educated public likes Trump because racism isn't tied to education, and gross self-interest often favors Republican voting, if only in the short term.

farley3k wrote:

Why?

CNN Poll: Joe Biden regains double-digit lead over 2020 Democratic field

I don't hate him, and I will vote for him over doofus, but why when there are so many other better candidates to people like him?

I can think of two big reasons- the obvious one is familiarity, since people who don't follow politics like the posters here know him a lot better than most of the other candidates. The second is that he's where the 'electability' people are landing now. For better or worse, a lot of people believe it's so critical to beat Trump that we can't risk any deviation from the "norms" of politics, and that means "old white guy". Maybe this is just a low opinion of other voters, maybe it's denying one's own prejudices; probably a little of both. It's not a good argument but it's motivating a lot of people.

I think both reasons are going to fade together as the field narrows and more people start paying attention, especially if Warren or Harris do well in early primaries, but we're stuck with those opinions for now.

Julian Castro's just qualified for the third debate, bringing the current roster to:
Biden
Booker
Buttigieg
Castro
Harris
Klobuchar
O'Rourke
Sanders
Warren
Yang

farley3k wrote:

Why?

CNN Poll: Joe Biden regains double-digit lead over 2020 Democratic field

I don't hate him, and I will vote for him over doofus, but why when there are so many other better candidates to people like him?

Forming narratives around individual polls is a mistake. There was a poll released last week that showed Biden ahead of Warren by a single point (21% to 20%). There was another poll three weeks ago showing Warren in the lead with Bernie and Biden tied in second (26% to 23% and 23%).

bekkilyn wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
Djinn wrote:

Criticizing candidates for having similar policy to other candidates is ridiculous. Pete Buttigieg also wants to decrease the prison population by 50%, so should Sanders campaign on doubling it instead just to be different? Good policy is good policy. Originality matters in video games and movies, but not politics.

As for Warren, yeah, I'd expect her to have something very similar to Sanders. They're both fantastic and I refuse to pick a favourite. I'm a Canadian watching your election from the sidelines, so I'm just glad I won't have to vote against one of them.

It is kind of irritating to have a candidate with an extremely consistent long-term voting record over the course of decades propose good policies only to be cut down and criticized every single time someone mentions something good simply because his name is Bernie Sanders. Anyone else proposes the exact same thing and they're practically hailed as gods. Sour grapes.

I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders, but his really low legislative output during all his time in congress seems like a valid criticism that needs to be addressed. And maybe it has been somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...

https://www.alternet.org/2015/10/ber...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...

http://addictinginfo.com/2016/02/19/...

http://occasionalplanet.org/2016/03/...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/be...

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/1...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/u...

Some of those links have nothing to do with his record in congress. Many of them are filled more with personal opinion than information. There is quite a lot about his time before he join congress, or his own personal accomplishments. There is a good deal about how he tends to vote pretty far to the left (which, again, is why I like him). There is also quite a bit about how he voted in ways that I agree with, where the overall vote went in the other direction, which seems to counter the point that the group of links is supposed to make.

When I look through them and filter out all of the irrelevant stuff, the gist seems to be that he has been pretty good at getting very small things done via amendments, and that he is better at finding Republicans to partner with for making those changes then he is with finding Democrats to partner with. Which to me sounds like when he acts more like a 'centrist', and aims to make small bi-partisan changes, he can get work done. Which makes me wonder why I wouldn't just go with trying to nominate a centrist in the first place.

absurddoctor wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
Djinn wrote:

Criticizing candidates for having similar policy to other candidates is ridiculous. Pete Buttigieg also wants to decrease the prison population by 50%, so should Sanders campaign on doubling it instead just to be different? Good policy is good policy. Originality matters in video games and movies, but not politics.

As for Warren, yeah, I'd expect her to have something very similar to Sanders. They're both fantastic and I refuse to pick a favourite. I'm a Canadian watching your election from the sidelines, so I'm just glad I won't have to vote against one of them.

It is kind of irritating to have a candidate with an extremely consistent long-term voting record over the course of decades propose good policies only to be cut down and criticized every single time someone mentions something good simply because his name is Bernie Sanders. Anyone else proposes the exact same thing and they're practically hailed as gods. Sour grapes.

I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders, but his really low legislative output during all his time in congress seems like a valid criticism that needs to be addressed. And maybe it has been somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...

https://www.alternet.org/2015/10/ber...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...

http://addictinginfo.com/2016/02/19/...

http://occasionalplanet.org/2016/03/...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/be...

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/1...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/u...

Some of those links have nothing to do with his record in congress. Many of them are filled more with personal opinion than information. There is quite a lot about his time before he join congress, or his own personal accomplishments. There is a good deal about how he tends to vote pretty far to the left (which, again, is why I like him). There is also quite a bit about how he voted in ways that I agree with, where the overall vote went in the other direction, which seems to counter the point that the group of links is supposed to make.

When I look through them and filter out all of the irrelevant stuff, the gist seems to be that he has been pretty good at getting very small things done via amendments, and that he is better at finding Republicans to partner with for making those changes then he is with finding Democrats to partner with. Which to me sounds like when he acts more like a 'centrist', and aims to make small bi-partisan changes, he can get work done. Which makes me wonder why I wouldn't just go with trying to nominate a centrist in the first place.

Okay.

absurddoctor wrote:

When I look through them and filter out all of the irrelevant stuff, the gist seems to be that he has been pretty good at getting very small things done via amendments, and that he is better at finding Republicans to partner with for making those changes then he is with finding Democrats to partner with. Which to me sounds like when he acts more like a 'centrist', and aims to make small bi-partisan changes, he can get work done. Which makes me wonder why I wouldn't just go with trying to nominate a centrist in the first place.

I can understand being concerned over whether or not Sanders will be able to get his lofty ideas passed, but this part really doesn't make sense to me. You vote for a progressive over a centrist because you want to fight for more. You might fail and end up no better off than if you had elected a centrist in the first place, but then you lose nothing. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose by fighting for more. Voting for a centrist is giving up without even trying.

Djinn wrote:

Voting for a centrist is giving up without even trying.

November 2004, for example?

Bernie has great ideas, the world would be a better place with him in the Oval Office. I, personally, am really turned off by his tendency to shout. The Larry David comparisons come too easily (and I acknowledge that taking that as a negative borders on antisemitism) - I think the 24-hour news cycle will fall to the stereotyping and mockery, and that's what the problem would be. I don't have a lot of faith in his willingness or capacity to compromise - it's a useless skill with the Republicans controlling anything, but there are plenty of Democratic members who would demand some movement toward the (actual, not insane) center to get things done. If any candidate puts forward a great idea, I honestly don't care who came up with it, as long as they can implement it. That's what should be going on at these debates: people putting their ideas forward, and being pressed on how they would work. Sadly, that usually requires more than 30 seconds, and sometimes even longer than 2 full minutes, so it can't happen. Instead, we get promises of free doctors, no taxes, evil abolished, and everyone lives happily ever after.