2020 Presidential Election

[C0LLETTE]

I'm hoping a candidate will be picked who can :
" #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain " (courtesy of John Oliver )

[Martina]

Asked what's the first and possibly only thing they'd do, Kamala says middle class tax cuts, and Bernie says take on the special interests. That tells you EVERYTHING. Kamala, while I like her, is another corporate liberal. Bernie is a true progressive. He never loses sight of what's important. That moment said EVERYTHING. There really is no one else to vote for. Bernie is by far the only one who has not bought in to corporate rule of our country.

Bernie's closing was the same. About what is fundamentally wrong and what change means.

Kamala did well, obviously. She was great on race. She kicked Biden's ass. She did a good job.

Mayor Pete was great, but if it's true that many African American voters won't vote for him, we can't afford his candidacy. He's young. He can wait a minute. I think he's amazing though.

Another good debate, I thought. I was never a big fan of Gillibrand, but she got my attention re standing up to Mitch McConnell.

I thought it was not a great night for Biden although he fought hard. His policies seemed -- and are -- behind the times. He looked old. Sort of strange really. Too much makeup?

Marianne Williamson is a trip, but I thought she made a great point about chemicals causing health problems.

I thought Rep. Swalwell did really well, especially on guns although Mayor Pete handled his defense well. A good showing.

But Bernie showed why he is the one to beat Trump and offer us a future, IMO.

[charley]

Originally Posted by Martina

Asked what's the first and possibly only thing they'd do, Kamala says middle class tax cuts, and Bernie says take on the special interests. That tells you EVERYTHING. Kamala, while I like her, is another corporate liberal. Bernie is a true progressive. He never loses sight of what's important. That moment said EVERYTHING. There really is no one else to vote for. Bernie is by far the only one who has not bought in to corporate rule of our country.

Bernie's closing was the same. About what is fundamentally wrong and what change means.

Kamala did well, obviously. She was great on race. She kicked Biden's ass. She did a good job.

Mayor Pete was great, but if it's true that many African American voters won't vote for him, we can't afford his candidacy. He's young. He can wait a minute. I think he's amazing though.

Another good debate, I thought. I was never a big fan of Gillibrand, but she got my attention re standing up to Mitch McConnell.

I thought it was not a great night for Biden although he fought hard. His policies seemed -- and are -- behind the times. He looked old. Sort of strange really. Too much makeup?

Marianne Williamson is a trip, but I thought she made a great point about chemicals causing health problems.

I thought Rep. Swalwell did really well, especially on guns although Mayor Pete handled his defense well. A good showing.

But Bernie showed why he is the one to beat Trump and offer us a future, IMO.

Yes, indeed, I did like Kamala and Bernie. But, I think Kamala was the only one who really showed that she could take on the Republicans. She won the night.

My take on Bernie is that he seemed out of place in the midst of all the other candidates, and I think it is because of all things, his platform indicates that while some refer to him as a socialist, a progressive, the main thing is that he is not a capitalist (just like me - chuckles). And all the other Dem candidates are capitalists, just like the Republicans, only the difference between the two parties is a question of degree. Of course, the Republicans are so far out in right field that they seem to have forfeited any sense of humanity. Bernie would have no chance of winning an election if he had been elected to run against Trump, because of his stance and because most Americans believe in capitalism - the American dream. So, yes, I agree with you, Martina, when you said that Bernie "is by far the only one who has not bought into corporate rule of our country." However, I don't think the Dem electoral peeps are prepared to accept Bernie's position. It would be a fantasy to imagine that most Americans would accept a pov that seems to attack capitalism in any form.

I liked Biden less and less...

I do not trust Pete, even though his ideas are engaging. But, as Mayor, he could easily fire his Chief of Police and fight for and force the adoption of a more sensitive agenda regarding race relations in his home town, but that particular position might place his own mayorship in jeopardy. It just seemed that he holds his position as a politician in his own home town because he knows how to play the political game, just like Biden - which means nothing to me personally.

I am just beginning to be curious to see who wins this Dem nomination.

As an aside, there is one thing I don't understand, and that is why Pelosi doesn't run herself.

[~ocean]

Harris would make a good candidate for a post on in the US cabinet ~ she doesn't have enough class to represent our country. We have a classless leader now why repeat that with Harris ~ a lot of the candidates showed potential placement's for the future US cabinet , IMO only 2 have shown a presidential potential ~

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

Harris would make a good candidate for a post on in the US cabinet ~ she doesn't have enough class to represent our country...

I have a tendency to agree...i abhor greed & grabs for power and i see Harris as too greedy for the presidency and apparently capable of enviserating anyone who gets in her way -her takedown of Biden was unnecessary, chiding him for something he did over 40 years ago...hello, we are in 2019..wasn't fair or civil nor relevant ... ...as i predicted this 2nd lot was deeply disappointing...they behaved like a pack of wolves circling prey-I will never vote for Harris.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

I have a tendency to agree...i abhor greed & grabs for power and i see Harris as too greedy for the presidency and apparently capable of enviserating anyone who gets in her way -her takedown of Biden was unnecessary, chiding him for something he did over 40 years ago...hello, we are in 2019..wasn't fair or civil nor relevant ... ...as i predicted this 2nd lot was deeply disappointing...they behaved like a pack of wolves circling prey-I will never vote for Harris.

If Biden didn’t keep digging his hole deeper, then I would agree with you...his mistakes were in the past. But...he keeps trying to justify what he did without giving thought to the damage he continues to cause.

Harris is a bit rough around the edges, but I want someone strong and take charge! Are we objecting to her because she is kick ass instead of “ladylike”? Well FUCK ladylike, we need an ass kicker to beat Trump!

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

If Biden didn’t keep digging his hole deeper, then I would agree with you...his mistakes were in the past. But...he keeps trying to justify what he did without giving thought to the damage he continues to cause.

Harris is a bit rough around the edges, but I want someone strong and take charge! Are we objecting to her because she is kick ass instead of “ladylike”? Well FUCK ladylike, we need an ass kicker to beat Trump!

well spoken Tinkerberry..but i must disagree..there is a time for everything but the calculated enviseration was needless, this was merely exercise to her..i detest using another's weakness to show power..like a snake ready to strike..is that beautiful? no, it should fill every democrat's heart with horror that we are no better then the Republicans and capable of every outrage and more...there is a time and place for revenge-against enemies, not friends..she is foolish and not nearly as clever as she needs to be..incompetent.

imo

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

Harris would make a good candidate for a post on in the US cabinet ~ she doesn't have enough class to represent our country. We have a classless leader now why repeat that with Harris ~ a lot of the candidates showed potential placement's for the future US cabinet , IMO only 2 have shown a presidential potential ~

Agree that she's inappropriately suited for President, but don't see lack of class as the reason. She is not stateswomenly.

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by cathexis

Agree that she's inappropriately suited for President, but don't see lack of class as the reason. She is not stateswomenly.

Help me out here: what does "stateswomanly" mean and why isn't Harris enough of what it does mean?

As for "class" in politics, that probably went out when Henry Cabot Lodge died, whenever that was. Three names are always very "classy".

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by cathexis

Noone in this lineup has me all that impressed. Warren has some pretty progressive ideas, but to distinguish between her and Sanders will be difficult.
Also, I don't know about hearing her grating voice for 4+years. It really is kind of whiny.

Bernie is further to the left economically. They're both pretty left-wing by current Democratic standards, but Bernie is more open about moving towards democratic socialism as a long-term goal, which is why I'm still drinking out of a Bernie coffee mug at this very moment and have been for the past four years.

Originally Posted by Andrea

Currently my fantasy is a Sanders/Warren, or Warren/Sanders, ticket because I really like where they are pushing us and because I like how they plan to accomplish getting us there.

I honestly wouldn't want to put the two of them on the same ticket. My primary reasoning for that is that I'd much sooner have one of them in the Oval Office and the other as their ally in the Senate; making one of them the VP would be a bit of a waste, IMO. The only situation in which I'd want to see both of them on the same ticket is if it turns out that they can't both get their supporters on the same page about getting behind whichever one of them ends up being the left-wing primary candidate: they unfortunately have very different demographics of support and it's not clear that either one's voters would get behind the other. It's fucking incomprehensible but apparently a lot of Bernie supporters have Biden of all fucking people as their second choice and apparently a lot of Warren supporters have Harris as their second choice. (If it's not clear, Warren is my second choice, and I will get behind whichever of Bernie or Warren shapes up to be the one in the best position to beat the bourgeoisie-approved candidate.)

Originally Posted by charley

Yes, indeed, I did like Kamala and Bernie. But, I think Kamala was the only one who really showed that she could take on the Republicans. She won the night.

My take on Bernie is that he seemed out of place in the midst of all the other candidates, and I think it is because of all things, his platform indicates that while some refer to him as a socialist, a progressive, the main thing is that he is not a capitalist (just like me - chuckles). And all the other Dem candidates are capitalists, just like the Republicans, only the difference between the two parties is a question of degree. Of course, the Republicans are so far out in right field that they seem to have forfeited any sense of humanity. Bernie would have no chance of winning an election if he had been elected to run against Trump, because of his stance and because most Americans believe in capitalism - the American dream. So, yes, I agree with you, Martina, when you said that Bernie "is by far the only one who has not bought into corporate rule of our country." However, I don't think the Dem electoral peeps are prepared to accept Bernie's position. It would be a fantasy to imagine that most Americans would accept a pov that seems to attack capitalism in any form.

Most Americans don't actually have any ideological commitments; they generally have a political tribe at most. If you actually poll members of the general public to ask about specific policy ideas rather than overarching political labels, left-wing policies are frequently extremely popular and right-wing policies are frequently extremely unpopular (to the point that it's not unusual for a voter confronted with information on what right-wing candidates actually support to have difficulty believing what they're seeing). For instance, the single most socialist thing Bernie has proposed so far is his plan to require companies to pay their employees not simply wages but ownership, which is both far more socialist than anything else in American politics at the moment and, believe it or not, actually a very popular idea.

Also, we are actively in a moment of obvious crisis where everyone who isn't in a bubble knows, if only in the sense that they don't like to think about it, that the world is kind of actively ending while we sit around feeling helpless to do anything about it. What I'm saying is, now is the exact time to offer an alternative to the status quo, because the political landscape right now is not simply about the traditional left-right distinction but also about a significant chunk of the electorate wanting any alternative to the sinking ship we're on. If we run a status quo candidate, it continues to look like only Trump and the fascists he represents are even admitting that there's a crisis. The situation is ripe to shatter the veil of misinformation surrounding what capitalism and socialism even are, and to start advancing the notion that opposing the exploiter class is not only possible but also legitimate. Which is to say, we get to start mainstreaming the idea that the material interests of the small minority of employers, landlords, and other exploiters are inherently anathema to the interests of the vast majority of people whose income comes from their labor, and that it is these material interests that determine who shares your survival interests and thus whom it is possible to peacefully coexist with, rather than membership in a racial, ethnic, or national tribe.

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Might be useful to remember that you're trying to defeat a Fascist president not adopt a cute puppy.

I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say here--whether you're suggesting that a candidate should be chosen on the basis of being a "centrist" and thus able to appeal to "swing voters" or simply that we should watch our infighting--but I will use this opportunity to make something clear.

Donald Trump is not even the disease. He is a symptom. Biden, for instance, is building his campaign around the message that the only problem is Donald Trump and that once we're rid of him everything will be hunky-dory again. The problem is that the "normal" we would go back to was the exact disease that led to Trump in the first place: Trump did not create our current political environment; he was created by it. Biden could defeat Trump in 2020 because Trump is simply that much of a god damn embarrassment, but he has already committed himself to letting the disease (capitalism and its death throes) fester, and the exact crises that led to Trump's election will simply continue to progress until the next election comes along and the public is even more desperate for any escape from the status quo Biden represents.

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Progressives should be their own party. And 2020 might be a perfect storm year for that.

Trump IS very weak. Bernie is very strong. Progressives may not get anyone as strong as Bernie for decades-- someone that could peel off enough support from centrism-- given the opportunity to run directly against it-- to outnumber what remains of Trump's base. There may be no other candidate for awhile who has enough grassroots support to be able to viably turn their back on a major party.

NEIN, NYET, NIX, NADA, NO

The two-party system isn't simply a political reality, it is a mathematical reality. The Spoiler Effect is so insurmountable that it would be more feasible to mount a hostile takeover of one of the two existing Actual Parties than it would be for a third party to win a presidential general election. Thankfully, it's looking like Bernie has a perfectly realistic shot at the nomination. His performance in 2016 wasn't half-bad considering he was up against one of the most powerful people in the Democratic Party at the time and the party machine was bending over backwards to coronate Clinton, and he's dealing with far less formidable competition this time around.

Originally Posted by cathexis

Agree that she's inappropriately suited for President, but don't see lack of class as the reason. She is not stateswomenly.

My primary concern with Harris is that she is a cop. (Well, that, and the capitalism, but I digress.)

also shout out to Katzchen, good to see you again too

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

thankfully we live in a freedom of speech country, with very tender subject like politics , we can SHARE our views ! always remember to nod that we are free thinkers and someone's views can open our eyes to another way to look at a subject ~ bashing is as classless as being ignorant to other country's politics. The up coming year is going to be intense . ** smiling ** and ^ 5's all my sister's. be kind ~

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Help me out here: what does "stateswomanly" mean and why isn't Harris enough of what it does mean?

As for "class" in politics, that probably went out when Henry Cabot Lodge died, whenever that was. Three names are always very "classy".

What was meant in my term, "not stateswomanly" refers to her apparent inability to maintain a calm, reserved, self assured demeanor. She seems to always be on the verge of flying off the handle.

This type of personality will probably not work well in International Relations. A candidate with that is "statespersonly" will be better to patch up what Trump has done to our relations, especially with Canada, Germany, and Great Britain. The candidates that fit that bill include Biden and Sanders also some way down on the polls like Bennet.
It is not an easy quality to put into words; however, "class" doesn't work either.
Class infers "bourgeoisie."

We also need to find one candidate that most Democrats and some people on the fence or passed off Republicans will vote for.

We don't need to follow the example of the Far Left and have a multi-candidate splinter resulting in a win for the other side.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by charley

Yes, indeed, I did like Kamala and Bernie. But, I think Kamala was the only one who really showed that she could take on the Republicans. She won the night.

My take on Bernie is that he seemed out of place in the midst of all the other candidates, and I think it is because of all things, his platform indicates that while some refer to him as a socialist, a progressive, the main thing is that he is not a capitalist (just like me - chuckles). And all the other Dem candidates are capitalists, just like the Republicans, only the difference between the two parties is a question of degree. Of course, the Republicans are so far out in right field that they seem to have forfeited any sense of humanity. Bernie would have no chance of winning an election if he had been elected to run against Trump, because of his stance and because most Americans believe in capitalism - the American dream. So, yes, I agree with you, Martina, when you said that Bernie "is by far the only one who has not bought into corporate rule of our country." However, I don't think the Dem electoral peeps are prepared to accept Bernie's position. It would be a fantasy to imagine that most Americans would accept a pov that seems to attack capitalism in any form.

I liked Biden less and less...

I do not trust Pete, even though his ideas are engaging. But, as Mayor, he could easily fire his Chief of Police and fight for and force the adoption of a more sensitive agenda regarding race relations in his home town, but that particular position might place his own mayorship in jeopardy. It just seemed that he holds his position as a politician in his own home town because he knows how to play the political game, just like Biden - which means nothing to me personally.

I am just beginning to be curious to see who wins this Dem nomination.

As an aside, there is one thing I don't understand, and that is why Pelosi doesn't run herself.

My guess would be that Pelosi does not run because of the structure of our government. We have (supposedly) 3 coequal branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial...Pelosi/McConnel hold nearly the same amount of power as the President, but in different ways...as does the US Supreme Court.

Have you ever heard of the Peter principle? It means taking a top performer from one job, and putting them into another job where they fail badly. Ie...Just because someone is a great singer, it doesn’t mean they have the ability to be a ballerina.