[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.

Reaper81 wrote:

You know, I like Pete but goddamn if it isn't the height of American arrogance to have two mayors who feel like they have a shot at the Presidency.

At least they have more political experience than your current president...

thrawn82 wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

You know, I like Pete but goddamn if it isn't the height of American arrogance to have two mayors who feel like they have a shot at the Presidency.

an 11-time failed busisnessman turned gameshow host did it so...

Hoover was a mining engineer, Taft was an attorney, Eisenhower, Grant, and Taylor were career military who'd never served a day of political office, and they all thought they had a shot at the presidency. And those are just the ones who won. Wendell Wilkie (owned a utility company) and Winfield Scott (general) both came within 12% of securing their party's nomination. Buttigeg has his issues (many of them), and I don't necessarily think he's a good choice, but he's far from the least experienced person to ever run, and at least mayor of a major city is an executive political position.

Jayhawker wrote:

Never really disagreed with her on much, but would never want her arguing for me. For one, I have no idea when she will become "embarrassed" and revert to different views. I'm hesitant to support her in any larger role than Senator.

I’m not a fan of Gillibrand, but this just seems like a bizarre argument to me. People’s politics change. Hillary used to consider herself a Republican when she was younger and Warren ran as one until midway through her political career. If anything, that article makes me like her more, it shows that she has actually examined the consequences of her views and is willing to admit she was wrong and revise her stances. It’s more than can be said for most politicians.

That's why I led with:

My first exposure to her was really her interview with Maddow when she began her run. She just seems so superficial, making up for a lack of substance by constantly being the most outraged. She reminded me of a comment comedian Doug Stanhope once told me, that his job is to call everyone else an asshole for not knowing what he learned five minutes ago.

Politics change over time, but this is pretty extreme.

Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, had previously used her family tradition of hunting to cater to conservative voters in upstate New York. While serving as a congresswoman from 2007 to 2009 in a rural GOP district, she received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
While serving as a congresswoman, Gillibrand was also against amnesty for undocumented immigrants and so-called “sanctuary cities” for undocumented immigrants. And she opposed former Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give undocumented immigrants drivers’ licenses.

When asked if she can understand President Donald Trump’s position on immigration given that she once held similar views, Gillibrand said she does not and that his positions are “racist.”

She explained that she came from a district that was 98 percent white and did not have many immigrants, adding that she did not take the time to hear stories “about what it’s like to worry your dad could be taken away at any moment.”

My take is that both her conservative and liberal views are based on very little experience, and more emotion than rational thought. It's not that she used to be conservative, it's way she was, and how she changed. She wasn't just a conservative, she got an A from the NRA and had pretty abhorrent views on immigration. Now she has become the uber liberal. It feels more like fashion to her.

What events will change her again, and in what direction? She's a strong candidate, but there are several others i feel a million times more comfortable with.

Also, comparing her to Hillary, who was a Republican in high school and starting in college, but switched while in college, in 1968, is pretty weak.

trichy wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

You know, I like Pete but goddamn if it isn't the height of American arrogance to have two mayors who feel like they have a shot at the Presidency.

an 11-time failed busisnessman turned gameshow host did it so...

Hoover was a mining engineer, Taft was an attorney, Eisenhower, Grant, and Taylor were career military who'd never served a day of political office, and they all thought they had a shot at the presidency.

Hoover was a mining engineer, but he also ran the Commission for Relief in Belgium, which arranged for food and supplies to be delivered to millions in German-occupied Belgium and Northern France during WWI. That morphed into him running the U.S. Food Administration, which was responsible for managing both the US Army's and the allies food reserves during WWI. And that morphed into him running the American Relief Administration after the war where he delivered millions of tons of supplies to 23 European countries after the armistice. After that Harding appointed him as Secretary of Commerce where he implemented a lot of data-based practices, and shepherded the development of both broadcast radio and air travel.

Taft was an attorney, but he was also a state judge, the Solicitor General of the United States, the Governor-General of the Philippines, the Secretary of War, and was handpicked by Roosevelt to run for President.

Eisenhower, Grant, and Taylor were bonafide war heroes. Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force and helped the Allies defeat the Nazis. Grant helped the Union defeat the cowardly and traitorous Johnny Reb during the Civil War. And Taylor was a hero of the Mexican-American War where he won several victories against overwhelming odds.

Pete's lieutenant in the Naval Reserve and a two term mayor of the 306th largest city in America. He honestly doesn't have the experience to be considered a serious presidential candidate because being responsible for a town of 100,000 and a city budget of $370 million doesn't quite prepare you for running a country of 330 million and a federal budget of $4.8 trillion.

Jayhawker wrote:

That's why I led with:

My first exposure to her was really her interview with Maddow when she began her run. She just seems so superficial, making up for a lack of substance by constantly being the most outraged. She reminded me of a comment comedian Doug Stanhope once told me, that his job is to call everyone else an asshole for not knowing what he learned five minutes ago.

Politics change over time, but this is pretty extreme.

Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, had previously used her family tradition of hunting to cater to conservative voters in upstate New York. While serving as a congresswoman from 2007 to 2009 in a rural GOP district, she received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
While serving as a congresswoman, Gillibrand was also against amnesty for undocumented immigrants and so-called “sanctuary cities” for undocumented immigrants. And she opposed former Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give undocumented immigrants drivers’ licenses.

When asked if she can understand President Donald Trump’s position on immigration given that she once held similar views, Gillibrand said she does not and that his positions are “racist.”

She explained that she came from a district that was 98 percent white and did not have many immigrants, adding that she did not take the time to hear stories “about what it’s like to worry your dad could be taken away at any moment.”

My take is that both her conservative and liberal views are based on very little experience, and more emotion than rational thought. It's not that she used to be conservative, it's way she was, and how she changed. She wasn't just a conservative, she got an A from the NRA and had pretty abhorrent views on immigration. Now she has become the uber liberal. It feels more like fashion to her.

What events will change her again, and in what direction? She's a strong candidate, but there are several others i feel a million times more comfortable with.

Also, comparing her to Hillary, who was a Republican in high school and starting in college, but switched while in college, in 1968, is pretty weak.

*Shrug* She's walked the walk since she got the Senate seat. In my ideal world Warren always got the nomination this time around, I just assume I'm not living in my idea world*. Since she's gotten to her current seat I can't think of anything I find objectionable, and to my knowledge shes one of the only ones whos voted no on EVERY Trump appointee.
Happily it's increasingly looking like I could be living in my ideal world when it comes to the nominee.... so Yay!

Spoiler:

*In my real ideal world we had a socialist... revolution** 40 years ago and are on the way to communism by this point. But, so it goes.

**Revolution in the sense of a paradigm shift, not necessarily an armed uprising.

I like Pete ok too. But if he wins the nomination, Trump is guaranteed to win.

Republicans hate black people so much they elected Trump in retaliation. But a gay man might be the only thing they hate more than a black man. Could rally their "Christian" base for enough turnout to keep the Senate too.

Republicans (at least that kind of republicans) hate everyone, I'm sure they will find a reason no matter what.

Yeah I think, gay, woman, immigrant, immigrant looking, democrat, environmentalist, socialism, etc. All of these things are tired but they work on far too many people.

Stele wrote:

I like Pete ok too. But if he wins the nomination, Trump is guaranteed to win.

Republicans hate black people so much they elected Trump in retaliation. But a gay man might be the only thing they hate more than a black man. Could rally their "Christian" base for enough turnout to keep the Senate too.

I'm pretty sure they hate 'uppity' women just as much as they hate gay men and black men. No one we would want to put up will fail to generate that response from them.

Reaper81 wrote:

You know, I like Pete but goddamn if it isn't the height of American arrogance to have two mayors who feel like they have a shot at the Presidency.

Three. Messam, Buttigieg, and de Blasio

Valerie Plame, looking to corner the "voters who dig badass women" demographic.

Former CIA spy Valery Plame launches first TV ad

Biden can’t be the nominee. He’s literally losing it.

At least he wasn’t crying blood this time.

I’m assuming he didn’t at least, I had to work tonight.

DSGamer wrote:

Biden can’t be the nominee. He’s literally losing it.

Seems to be the prime qualification these days... /tongue-in-cheek

Who Won The Third Democratic Debate?

FiveThirtyEight partnered with IPSOS for polling immediately before and after the third debate. They present their findings in 6 handy charts. Warren continues to grow by all metrics while Sanders/Biden/Harris slowly decline/stagnate.

Djinn wrote:

Who Won The Third Democratic Debate?

FiveThirtyEight partnered with IPSOS for polling immediately before and after the third debate. They present their findings in 6 handy charts. Warren continues to grow by all metrics while Sanders/Biden/Harris slowly decline/stagnate.

Warren is gaining a lot of steam. I think it was fivethirtyeight that also posited somewhere that as the contenders like Castro, Beto and Amy drop out, that their voters tend to overlap more with her than any other front runners.

I'd be happy with President Warren and the rest of the candidates going to Congress to help out (Biden can retire though)

polypusher wrote:

I'd be happy with President Warren and the rest of the candidates going to Congress to help out (Biden can retire though)

As would I. I wouldn’t mind seeing Warren / Castro as the ticket at all.

Would have been even happier with Warren in 2016. Oh well.

Warren has shown the best balance between a respect for the system with a true progressive ideology to guide her decision making. That respect for the system takes the form of plans to accomplish goal over pronouncements over how things should be.

The thing about Biden is that he's managed to be fractally bad on basic issues.

The Intercept: JOE BIDEN’S STUNNINGLY RACIST ANSWER ON THE LEGACY OF SLAVERY HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED

Gremlin wrote:

The thing about Biden is that he's managed to be fractally bad on basic issues.

The Intercept: JOE BIDEN’S STUNNINGLY RACIST ANSWER ON THE LEGACY OF SLAVERY HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED

This is a good piece. I think many of us were so fixated on the fact that his brain was melting down that we didn’t adequately express how racist and paternalistic that response was.

And if he’s having trouble staying on message these are seemingly his actual thoughts.

No wonder Boomers still like Biden, he's speaking truth to their views.

Looks like Sanders is slipping further and further behind. At this point, it appears to be likely to be either Biden or Warren.

trichy wrote:

Looks like Sanders is slipping further and further behind. At this point, it appears to be likely to be either Biden or Warren.

Maybe, though there's enough noise in the polling movement that I've been ignoring polls until Iowa.

trichy wrote:

Looks like Sanders is slipping further and further behind. At this point, it appears to be likely to be either Biden or Warren.

The sad part is, it doesn't matter. He will ride this out to the very end, sabotaging Warren's (or whoever else gets the nomination) candidancy the same he he did Clinton's. See all the negative Warren stuff coming from Sanders' base now.

So I am going to the Polk County Steak Fry with all your favorite people who want to be President.

This cycle, I have met Warren, Biden, Beto, and Sherrod Brown (when he was still considering running). I heard Bernie in '16, but not yet this cycle. My family is going to see Pete Sunday. I want to try to hear from Kamala, Castro, and Bernie 2.0. I actively avoided seeing Andrew Yang when he was in town.

Ask me anything?

Jayhawker wrote:
trichy wrote:

Looks like Sanders is slipping further and further behind. At this point, it appears to be likely to be either Biden or Warren.

The sad part is, it doesn't matter. He will ride this out to the very end, sabotaging Warren's (or whoever else gets the nomination) candidancy the same he he did Clinton's. See all the negative Warren stuff coming from Sanders' base now.

Anyone got a link to that letter Hillary Clinton sent Sanders during the 2016 general election thanking him for flying all over the country giving speeches in support of her candidacy? Jay needs his weekly reminder that Sanders isn’t the literal devil.

Edit: Nevermind, found it:

IMAGE(https://i.postimg.cc/wMkcg88N/32952300-3-E5-E-478-C-BAD7-78697-D68-AA27.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.postimg.cc/d1fc6XS8/7-F103-F44-F4-DE-489-A-A5-EC-0-A0-D248-B89-EF.jpg)

UpToIsomorphism wrote:

So I am going to the Polk County Steak Fry with all your favorite people who want to be President.

This cycle, I have met Warren, Biden, Beto, and Sherrod Brown (when he was still considering running). I heard Bernie in '16, but not yet this cycle. My family is going to see Pete Sunday. I want to try to hear from Kamala, Castro, and Bernie 2.0. I actively avoided seeing Andrew Yang when he was in town.

Ask me anything?

What do they put on their Hot Dogs?