2020 U.S. Presidential Race

[Tyger Songbird]

2 hours ago, Sally said:

Because of the damned Electoral College.  

I honestly wish that were more talked about. I will give Buttigieg a point on that end. The Electoral college is flawed and has failed the American people too many times. i like ranked choice, but a national popular vote system would work better honestly.

[Tabula Rasa]

2 hours ago, Sally said:

But for god's sake, vote Democrat, no matter who the nominee is.  We just CAN'T deal with another 4 years of Trump.   He's already ripped to shreds the environmental regulations and the abortion allowances and the safety net protecting poor people and appointed a lot of  awful federal judges to non-Supreme Court courts.  

Do you think Trump's base will get slap happy and try to start their own civil war to "take the spoils" as it were, if he gets a second term? I'm concerned that the white supremacists will up the ante.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Tabula Rasa said:

Do you think Trump's base will get slap happy and try to start their own civil war to "take the spoils" as it were, if he gets a second term? I'm concerned that the white supremacists will up the ante.

No, I rhink they'll see what he has done to them by then. realize there's nothing they can do about it, and sink into apathy.  We simply don't revolt and protest in this country like they do in Europe and the East.  

 

[Back to Avalon]

20 hours ago, Zagadka said:

Whelp, Biden is still leading with about 33%, Sanders 15%, Harris 11%.

If Biden does, in fact, get the nomination, he needs to prepare better for debates and seem sharper than he did last week. When the group was asked what they would do on the first day of their term, Biden said, "Defeat Donald Trump." Pay attention, Joe. If he does get the nomination, let's hope he picks a youngish, dynamic candidate as a running mate. I guess that would be a throwback to Obama/Biden.

[Zagadka]

That is just another reason Biden is a poor candidate. I'd rather take that dynamic running mate and elect them. Cut out the inept middle man.

[Zagadka]

So the left is in a poor position. We collectively need to decide if the best tactic is to appeal to moderates, or to lead with ideas, and there is a lot of disagreement between the two sides. I lean towards the ideas bit, but not entirely. I can't say I'm sure. There is a lot to be said for courting the moderates and centrists, but also a lot for having inspiration. The copout of "just beat Trump" is kinda imperative as justification for both. I would agree that a moderate would obviously be better than Trump (hell, a normal Republican would be), but just giving up on having a platform of any kind just leads down the same path of nothing in the system ever changing.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

I have said many times since November, 2016 that the left is tone deaf.

 

Neither the voters who elected Donald Trump nor the average voter today cares about gerrymandering, the Electoral College, socialism, abolishing private health insurance, clean energy, teachers' salaries, etc.

 

When President Trump talks about securing borders, tariffs, etc. that resonates with people who have seen their manufacturing jobs go, their communities deteriorate, etc. It resonates with people who see young minorities with large families cashing in on entitlement programs. They probably believe--correctly or incorrectly--that those people are in the U.S. illegally. As Noam Chomsky puts it, they have spent their lives in the back of the line and see people moving straight to the front of the line.

 

Furthermore, some of those voters believe--correctly or incorrectly--that they are better off today than they were before Trump took office.

 

We keep hearing that one particular Democrat is out of touch with his party's base. I believe that they are all out of touch with the average voter. Candidates beating each other up over their civil rights credentials may arouse the extremists in the Democratic party, but they are not the swing voters in battleground states who decide presidential elections.

 

And if they do not start addressing the working class--if they do not start talking about things like manufacturing jobs, border security, etc.--then, with the U.S. Supreme Court the way it already is, it will be a very long time before those fringe issues like gerrymandering, the Electoral College, gun control, etc. will be resolved to the satisfaction of those who are dissatisfied.

[Guest]

I have breaking news... It's all fixed. It does not matter how much you cry and scream it's still fixed. 

[bare_trees]

I've enjoyed reading through this thread.  I've become quite fond of Marianne Williamson, embarrassing as some would say that is.  It might all be a pipe dream, anyway, but I suspect she would fare better in the South than Bernie did, and would then have a better chance of making it past the primaries.  Especially if Oprah would be up for endorsing her, since she was a regular on her show and apparently she and Oprah are on the same page in many ways.

 

Hard to say who I'll be voting for come 2020.  Since I'm in a firmly red state, I'd go third party if it felt right.  The political test from earlier in the thread said that I'm of the Peace and Freedom Party, which I confess I'd never even heard of.  Sounds hippy dippy enough for someone like me, lol

[Tabula Rasa]

3 hours ago, Zagadka said:

So the left is in a poor position. We collectively need to decide if the best tactic is to appeal to moderates, or to lead with ideas, and there is a lot of disagreement between the two sides. I lean towards the ideas bit, but not entirely. I can't say I'm sure. There is a lot to be said for courting the moderates and centrists, but also a lot for having inspiration. The copout of "just beat Trump" is kinda imperative as justification for both. I would agree that a moderate would obviously be better than Trump (hell, a normal Republican would be), but just giving up on having a platform of any kind just leads down the same path of nothing in the system ever changing.

This is the Achilles' heel of the left. It celebrates plurality (of ideas and identities), and so what happens? The left ends up not standing in solidarity behind one issue or candidate and staying there for the long haul. But that's how a party wins.

[AspieAlly613]

19 hours ago, Tabula Rasa said:

Do you think Trump's base will get slap happy and try to start their own civil war to "take the spoils" as it were, if he gets a second term? I'm concerned that the white supremacists will up the ante.

No, part of their mantra is that the coastal elites have too much of the money and the power.  They won't start a war they believe they can't win.

[Sally]

4 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Neither the voters who elected Donald Trump nor the average voter today cares about gerrymandering, the Electoral College, socialism, abolishing private health insurance, clean energy, teachers' salaries, etc.

 

When President Trump talks about securing borders, tariffs, etc. that resonates with people who have seen their manufacturing jobs go, their communities deteriorate, etc. It resonates with people who see young minorities with large families cashing in on entitlement programs. They probably believe--correctly or incorrectly--that those people are in the U.S. illegally. As Noam Chomsky puts it, they have spent their lives in the back of the line and see people moving straight to the front of the line.

 

Tariffs don't resonate with people positively, because tariffs have hurt American businesses, large and small, and thus workers.  As far as cashing in on entitlement programs, I don't think you know what's been happening to those programs during Trump's watch, and he intends to keep shredding them.   And the people  moving  to the front of the line are rich people, not poor people.  

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

2 hours ago, Tabula Rasa said:

The left ends up not standing in solidarity behind one issue or candidate and staying there for the long haul.

 

I think that it is the opposite: their strategy is to win the support of certain demographics that they believe will give them hegemony for the distant future.

 

You know, like when you hear that white people are now, or will soon be, less than 50% of the U.S. population for the first time.

 

It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Commentators on the left seem to like to take every opportunity they can to remind us that a certain demographic, college-educated people, is reliably liberal/progressive and supportive of Democrats in the voting booth. Well, women are now outpacing men in receiving bachelors and advanced degrees and going to medical school. As women entered the workforce in increasing numbers they chose jobs not traditionally unionized, and labor unions have therefore declined. Add it all up and it seems safe to say that working class men, once a significant part of the Democratic party's base, have been abandoned.

 

I don't know if I would be able to find the source, but not long ago I ran across something like this on the Web: a video showing a high-ranking Democratic party leader in Florida, herself a white woman, saying that it is her job to stop white people, or something like that.

 

It seems to me that the left in the U.S. has a clear platform and strategy and is very disciplined at not deviating from it.

 

Basically, Democrats, liberals, progressives, or whatever you want to call them, have dismissed a segment of the population. Their 2016 choice for President reminded everybody of that when she dismissed about 25% of the population as "deplorables". It was not some Joe Biden gaffe, I'm sure. It was calculated and meant to appeal to the people in the audience, I'm sure.

 

Maybe 2016 was a hiccup or a last gasp from the right; the race to take all power away from white, heterosexual, cisgendered, non-college-educated, working class males of religious faith will soon be won; and with the republic cleansed of the stains of patriarchy, white privilege and Judeo-Christian values we will at last have utopia.

 

Honestly, I don't know why I still support Democrats. They seem oblivious to the suffering of many. They show no empathy or compassion. They and their enthusiastic progressive liberal supporters seem powerless to escape the delusional myth of progress and see reality. Most of them are robotic (that candidate named Hillary Clinton in 2016, was that a human being?). They are tone deaf.

 

The enemy--you know, Donald Trump--seems to have connected with people from the moment he entered the 2016 race. His supporters said that his campaign was fun.

 

Democrats need to lighten up. Everybody in America needs to lighten up. Previous generations had to contend with the Great Depression, World War II, and other challenges. Were they bitterly divided like Americans today? Did they say, like I read one progressive/liberal say, that they wished that supporters of their opponent were all dead?

 

We live in an increasingly globalizing world. I do not think that any powerful person anywhere on the political spectrum has adjusted to that reality. The present and future demographics may favor Democrats in a few election cycles, but how long can neglecting significant segments of the population last? Rather than a United States of America with Democratic hegemony and cleansed of all conservative sin, a United States of America broken up and permanently ended by secession is probably more likely.

[daveb]

Still a long way to go in the presidential race, even to the nominations. And many months until even the first primaries. A lot can change in that time so I won't be counting chickens yet. That said, I think it is cool that Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have both gained in the polls recently. In my opinion it is good to have some real competition and not just one designated candidate before voting even happens. I don't believe in the idea of any candidate having some sort of right or destiny or something to be the nominee prior to the elections. Sometimes people show who they are and what they can do during the campaigns, which can improve their chances and maybe even overtake the presumptive "heir". I will continue to watch things and wait and see.

[Sally]

I think this time Biden is the one who thinks of himself as the presumptive heir -- just because he's tried several times before and didn't make it, and now he figures he's owed the nomination.  Nope, Joe.  

[Zagadka]

The habit some of these candidates have of speaking Spanish, while a nice gesture, is perceived by Hispanics as "Hispandering", and would only completely alienate many moderates (and enrage the right). Really hope they don't do that in the future. Better actual policies are far more important.

[uhtred]

On 7/2/2019 at 12:22 AM, tygersongbird said:

I honestly wish that were more talked about. I will give Buttigieg a point on that end. The Electoral college is flawed and has failed the American people too many times. i like ranked choice, but a national popular vote system would work better honestly.

The electoral college intentionally prevents the populous states (which tend to be the liberal states) from dominating politics.  Its the age-old city vs farm issue.  It might be a reasonable way to keep one side from dominating. 

[Zagadka]

I don't find it reasonable. A lot of income comes from those populous states, who end up underrepresented, and goes to subsidies in other states. If a democracy needs to handicap one side to prevent them from actually being represented as the majority they are, something is wrong. And city/farm is no longer a good descriptor. For instance, California has more variety in it than a lot of states combined. Our farming sector is huge, despite people (like Trump) only seeing LA and SF. California regularly elects Republican governors. The majority of farms in the US are large corporate plots that need nor have representation. The net result isn't economic, it is social conservatism versus progressive liberalism. The circumstances that required an electoral college stopped existing long, long ago. Polls show that Americans support addressing climate change overwhelmingly, even among Republicans, but that movement is stymied by corporations that exploit smaller states.

[FindingTheta]

Haven't decided. I see Yang's UBI as a means to destroy safety nets, leaving the most vulnerable of the working poor without the means to acquire the needed social services and usher in more privatization. I think Republicans will take advantage of the centrist's willingness to compromise, and that will lead the country further to the right.

 

I'll keep my eye out for candidates that want to improve our government and increase regulation that protects consumers and the environment.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

A few minutes ago a Google search for "neoliberalism" and "democrats" yielded the following article full of a lot of history I was unaware of.

 

The 2020 election is a lot clearer to me after reading the article just now.

 

Personally, I do not agree with either the "Atari Democrats" or the alternatives being presented by presidential candidates now.

 

If the choice is to either return to New Deal / Great Society redistribution or to have another four years of the technology / market-oriented neoliberal approach of the past 30 years, I choose neither.

 

I have never bought into "government is the problem, not the solution" conservatism. But I do not have much faith in "corporations are evil", "the problem is the 1%" government intervention either.

 

Individuals need to take more responsibility for their lives. Local communities need to have more control. Traditions that are at the heart of our civilization, such as liberal arts education, need to be preserved, not sacrificed for recent, unproven arrivals, such as digital technology. Government needs to be more hands-off, not be a vending machine dispensing even more goodies. A more diverse economy would be nice (you know, bring back some manufacturing jobs).

 

Every candidate from both of the two major parties offers more of the same, as far as I can tell.

 

What would really be a big improvement would be voters who think critically and question if this globalizing, de-industrializing economy that requires more and more costly investment in technical education and training and makes us more and more dependent on technology is really what we want. I see no sign of such critical thinking--just a lot of outrage over one candidate's statements about the distant past; rehashing of the Electoral College's role in the last election; etc.--so I am not holding my breath.

 

Anyway, here is the article:

 

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2019/6/11/18660240/democrats-neoliberalism

[Ringmaster04]

On 7/4/2019 at 7:01 PM, uhtred said:

The electoral college intentionally prevents the populous states (which tend to be the liberal states) from dominating politics.  Its the age-old city vs farm issue.  It might be a reasonable way to keep one side from dominating. 

Unnecessary, that's why we have the Senate. The legislature is constitutionally the most powerful branch of government (they just give up all their authority to the president for some reason) and the Senate is specifically designed to protect both states with the smallest populations and minority political parties, so you do not need to make the power of each citizen to select the president disproportional. Each voter should have an equal vote in electing the individual that presides over his / her jurisdiction. This exists in every seat of government except one.

 

Leaders in the past realized this in regards to the Senate, when they passed the 17th Amendment which changed Senatorial elections from elections by state legislatures to direct popular elections.

 

The argument today is that without the electoral college, candidates would just campaign in the most populous states; however, that's counterintuitive for two reasons: 1) with the EC, the most populous states still have the most electoral power, just not as much in proportion to their populations and 2) this ignores the modernization of campaigning through TV, social media, and other digital communications (not to mention, good old fashioned canvassing can be done anywhere). TV ads are more expensive in populous areas so a good campaign strategy might have heavy TV buys in cheaper markets and public appearance in too expensive ones. Either way, a one-person, one-vote system requires campaigns to reach as many people as possible, not just those in swing states, and with technology today, candidates will not have challenge reaching everyone that is willing to listen to them.

[iff]

The electoral college makes voters in a lot of states irrelevant. Voters in Kansas is as irrelevant as California and voters in oregon are as irrelevant as Texas. It really only gives power to voters in a few swing states like Michigan, florida much to the neglect of the rest of voters

 

If the state isn't a swing one, it ain't going to matter to the candidates.

 

To quote song lyrics

"It don't mean a thing,

If it ain't got that swing." 

[Tyger Songbird]

On 7/2/2019 at 7:49 PM, bare_trees said:

I've enjoyed reading through this thread.  I've become quite fond of Marianne Williamson, embarrassing as some would say that is.  It might all be a pipe dream, anyway,

You're actually not alone. I like Marianne as well. She is a long shot, though. I didn't think the debate stage was great for her, though.

[bare_trees]

3 hours ago, tygersongbird said:

You're actually not alone. I like Marianne as well. She is a long shot, though. I didn't think the debate stage was great for her, though.

I agree--it was quite cringeworthy.  But from what I've seen, she's a great speaker and has the potential to be a formidable debater, but maybe she was really out of her element at a political debate?

[Back to Avalon]

8 hours ago, bare_trees said:

I agree--it was quite cringeworthy.  But from what I've seen, she's a great speaker and has the potential to be a formidable debater, but maybe she was really out of her element at a political debate?

I think her element is spiritual advising. She should stick to that.

[Tyger Songbird]

On 7/17/2019 at 7:30 AM, bare_trees said:

I agree--it was quite cringeworthy.  But from what I've seen, she's a great speaker and has the potential to be a formidable debater, but maybe she was really out of her element at a political debate?

She brought up some really good points that didn't get highlighted well, because people only remember the weird moments from her. I mentioned that overall. She is right on some things. To beat Trump you really must sell the world that there's a better way to go. You really must sell it as much as the policy. You have to be proactive in calling him out, saying he's a failure, and everything else. Otherwise, it won't work.

 

She was also right on the crisis that created the immigration. We did make the gangs pop up in Central America. We helped make that happen. We need to fix some things. I am not sure we are overall going for that, but we must do better on that end to Central America. She's right. So, I'm not on the end that she will win anything, but I do believe that she is giving a lot of facts to things. That I won't deny for sure

[Gloomy]

Although I don't have a Twitter account I still like reading Adam Kokesh's Twitter feed.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[Tyger Songbird]

Reminder: Debate Night 2, at 8:00 p.m./7:00 ct Tonight! I'll be giving an update of what I thought and everything. 

 

Lineup tonight:

 

Marianne Williamson

Tim Ryan (Rep-OH)

Amy Klobuchar (Sen-MN)

Pete Buttigieg (Mayor South Bend, IN)

Bernie Sanders (Sen-VT)

Elizabeth Warren (Sen-MA)

Beto O'Rourke (fmr Rep-TX)

John Hickenlooper (fmr Gov CO)

John Delaney (fmr Rep- MD)

Steve Bullock (Gov-MT)

 

Spoiler

 

[Zagadka]

Honestly... I'm not going to watch the debates live. I'm super into them, but... I already know the candidates and I will reserve my judgements for their internet publication and fact checking. I don't trust one of them (even Bernie) without peer review. Harris can piss off though, slightly less than Biden.

 

... and the sad fact is that I'll probably vote for any of them, which really, really pisses me off.

[Zagadka]

"I wrote the damn bill" is the only quote I want out of tonight.

 

I am still pushing for Sanders. Warren... at least acceptable in a second-place kinda way. The rest, some are great, some aren't, but they're out of it.