SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Caught a bit of the debate. Buttigieg I think attacking Warren for being too radical on health care while basically saying they have the same goals (while Bernie people say Warren is too conservative).

I find this whole argument increasingly ridiculous and nitpicky, and am getting damn sick of it.

Then they got to Gabbard, who once again tried to frame the primary as a race between her and Hillary Clinton, while going full "both sides" narrative, basically portraying the Democrats as being as bad as the Republicans, and generally attacking and undermining the very party who's nomination she's ostensibly running for.

I turned it off at that point, because I couldn't stand to listen to any more of that scumbag. Why is there a Republican on the stage again? She's not going to win (thank God for small miracles), so she's basically there either to self-aggrandize, or to help Trump by dividing the Democrats.

[Mr Bean]

I turned it off at that point, because I couldn't stand to listen to any more of that scumbag. Why is there a Republican on the stage again? She's not going to win (thank God for small miracles), so she's basically there either to self-aggrandize, or to help Trump by dividing the Democrats.

Well you missed a great take down by Harris right after about Gabbard Fox News service and later on in the evening by Mayor Pete about Gabbard buddying up to Trump.

As well as Biden's amazing gaffs (Saying he had the support of the only black senator while Booker calls bs and Harris saying she's right here) or Steyer looking decent at his few at bats.

You also missed a few spirited back and forth and Warren and Sanders continue to play very nice with each other.

[The Romulan Republic]

I turned it off at that point, because I couldn't stand to listen to any more of that scumbag. Why is there a Republican on the stage again? She's not going to win (thank God for small miracles), so she's basically there either to self-aggrandize, or to help Trump by dividing the Democrats.

Well you missed a great take down by Harris right after about Gabbard Fox News service and later on in the evening by Mayor Pete about Gabbard buddying up to Trump.

As well as Biden's amazing gaffs (Saying he had the support of the only black senator while Booker calls bs and Harris saying she's right here) or Steyer looking decent at his few at bats.

You also missed a few spirited back and forth and Warren and Sanders continue to play very nice with each other.

Caught Harris's comeback. Missed Buttigieg's.

I heard Biden fumbled a lot tonight. Glad to hear Steyer did okay. He's not my first choice, but I think he gets more hostility than he deserves.'

Sanders and Warren know what they're doing, keeping the progressives intact.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some news regarding the Democrats Abroad primary (its effectively treated as a state primary, with 13 pledged and 8 "automatic" delegates to the convention, and Bernie won it in 2016 by a landslide).

As of November 14th, Pete Buttigieg is the only candidate to have gotten enough DA members to sign online to qualify for the DA primary (I think the others still have till some time in the new year), so if you're an American living abroad and you are a member of Democrats Abroad, and you've got a favorite you want to make sure is able to compete, think about signing.

Edit: Though I've only seen Buttigieg posted to Facebook, according to the Democrats Abroad site, Elizabeth Warren qualified as well as of the 18th.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Interestingly, Mike Bloomberg has officially entered the race for the presidency:

Can money buy you the US presidency? Or at least, can it buy the Democrat nomination? We are about to find out.

For entering the presidential race - belatedly, and with a decidedly mixed reputation - is a man worth at least $50 billion dollars.

Michael Bloomberg is, by some estimates, the 14th richest man in the world, and in the top ten in the United States. And he is not shy about spending it in this quixotic bid to win the White House - he has already paid $35 million for an opening salvo of TV ads.

Bloomberg, however, is not just wealth and ego. He is a former mayor of New York City, an activist on climate change and gun control, and he despises Donald Trump. He is pitching himself as “a doer and a problem solver, not a talker” and as a man who relishes a tough fight.

And on winning the presidency next year he promises voters, “I’m all in.”

You don’t need to be told how this is going down with established Democratic contenders. The other 17 candidates have been criss-crossing the lonely prairies of Iowa and the rust belt cities of the Mid-West, valiantly raising money, shaking hands and posing for selfies for two years.

Now in waltzes a billionaire who won’t even bother contesting the opening primaries.

Elizabeth Warren has warned him the money can buy you cars and houses, but “not democracy.” Bernie Sanders sees Bloomberg as the very type of entitled plutocrat that his whole campaign is designed to combat.

But the American media will cover him with fascination. Not only because money does buy you influence and a place at the top table in American politics, but because there is a compelling story-line to go with his candidacy: Bloomberg versus Trump would be a New York grudge match for the ages. Two of the city’s billionaires - both in their 70s - fighting it out on the greatest stage of all.

Bloomberg has real flaws for Democrats. He was once a Republican, he is the author of a stop-and-search policy on New York’s streets that antagonised a generation of African-Americans and he has a history of making belittling comments about women.

Furthermore, Trump is likely to relish the arrival of Bloomberg into the maelstrom of presidential politics. It muddies the waters for an already confused Democratic field of candidates.

I suspect Bloomberg’s campaign will stall quickly. But America is talking about him again, and for Bloomberg that will be worth the small change of $100 million dollars or so that it’s going to cost him.
Last updated Mon 25 Nov 2019

Link.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yawn. Rich guy decides to piss away his own money.

Biden's too strong to knock out before SuperTuesday, has too much of the Centrist establishment vote (and most of the rest will likely got to Buttigieg) for much to be left over for Bloomberg, and progressives won't touch a Centrist billionaire with a thirty-foot poll.

He's wasting his time.

[FaxModem1]

The Hill

Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sanders: report

BY JUSTINE COLEMAN
TWEET SHARE EMAIL


President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday.

The former president reportedly said if Sanders held a strong lead in the Democratic primary, he would speak out to prevent him from becoming the nominee.

A close adviser to Obama told Politico he could not confirm whether Obama would stand up against Sanders.

"He hasn't said that directly to me," the adviser said. "The only reason I'm hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don't think that's likely. It's not happening."

An Obama spokesperson, when asked about his previous comments on Sanders, referred to the president's past comments that he would back whomever became the Democratic nominee.

"Look, we have a field of very accomplished, very serious and passionate and smart people who have a history of public service, and whoever emerges from the primary process I will work my tail off to make sure that they are the next president," Obama said earlier this month, according to his spokesperson.

Obama has stayed quiet throughout the campaign about which candidate he would support, but has offered to meet with any candidate in the primary and has given advice to those who meet with him, according to the news outlet.

A close adviser told Politico that "I can't even imagine with this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something," referring to Obama speaking out against a candidate.

But earlier this month, the former president warned the 2020 candidates of leaning too far left at a speaking engagement, saying "the average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it."

Politico also described the relationship between Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Obama as "famously complicated." The former president reportedly said in a private conversation that if Democrats supported her when she was considering a 2016 run, it would serve as a rejection of his economic policies.

The Hill reached out to the Sanders and Warren campaigns for comment.

IE, "If the progressive looks like he might win the primary, I'm going screw him over because I don't really want change."

[His Divine Shadow]

Obama was a bad president and is a bad person.

[His Divine Shadow]

Not that I trust polls, but encouraging news none the less

[Elheru Aran]

Hah. 'Someone Else' got more votes than Bloomberg. Granted it probably falls within the margin of error, but still. Fuck Bloomberg.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

There's a question mark over Sanders' health after his heart attack last month, though.

[LadyTevar]

Once again, I wish to state that I wish the US would dedicate ONE DAY for Primaries, like they do the National Elections in November.

ONE DAY. Make it a Holiday for all, so everyone can vote for their favorite without New Hampshire and Iowa becoming fuckin' Kingmakers by narrowing the field to the point those of us voting in May only have two-three choices left, because the rest have dropped out from either negative press or poor voting results in the early Primaries.

This 'Early Primary" shit has got to stop. It's UnDemocratic.

[Gandalf]

Once again, I wish to state that I wish the US would dedicate ONE DAY for Primaries, like they do the National Elections in November.

ONE DAY. Make it a Holiday for all, so everyone can vote for their favorite without New Hampshire and Iowa becoming fuckin' Kingmakers by narrowing the field to the point those of us voting in May only have two-three choices left, because the rest have dropped out from either negative press or poor voting results in the early Primaries.

This 'Early Primary" shit has got to stop. It's UnDemocratic.

Do you mean "UnDemocratic" as in not in keeping with the ideas of democracy, or not in keeping with the Democratic Party?

[LadyTevar]

Once again, I wish to state that I wish the US would dedicate ONE DAY for Primaries, like they do the National Elections in November.

ONE DAY. Make it a Holiday for all, so everyone can vote for their favorite without New Hampshire and Iowa becoming fuckin' Kingmakers by narrowing the field to the point those of us voting in May only have two-three choices left, because the rest have dropped out from either negative press or poor voting results in the early Primaries.

This 'Early Primary" shit has got to stop. It's UnDemocratic.

Do you mean "UnDemocratic" as in not in keeping with the ideas of democracy, or not in keeping with the Democratic Party?

The former.
Right now, all the 'early voters are acting as gatekeepers, allowing only the candidates THEY approve of through. And since the Early Voting States are all Fly-over Conservative Meccas, this means a lot of the more liberal candidates are sidelined for more centralist candidates, and some of them are no different from Republicans.

[Gandalf]

Thanks. I follow you now. It does make me wonder about why there are even primaries in the first place.

[LadyTevar]

Thanks. I follow you now. It does make me wonder about why there are even primaries in the first place.

To narrow down the field so you have 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Which again is something that wasn't planned on by the Founding Fathers, but it's now TRADITION that there can be only ONE Candidate per Party when the November election comes along.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Hill

Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sanders: report

BY JUSTINE COLEMAN
TWEET SHARE EMAIL


President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday.

The former president reportedly said if Sanders held a strong lead in the Democratic primary, he would speak out to prevent him from becoming the nominee.

A close adviser to Obama told Politico he could not confirm whether Obama would stand up against Sanders.

"He hasn't said that directly to me," the adviser said. "The only reason I'm hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don't think that's likely. It's not happening."

An Obama spokesperson, when asked about his previous comments on Sanders, referred to the president's past comments that he would back whomever became the Democratic nominee.

"Look, we have a field of very accomplished, very serious and passionate and smart people who have a history of public service, and whoever emerges from the primary process I will work my tail off to make sure that they are the next president," Obama said earlier this month, according to his spokesperson.

Obama has stayed quiet throughout the campaign about which candidate he would support, but has offered to meet with any candidate in the primary and has given advice to those who meet with him, according to the news outlet.

A close adviser told Politico that "I can't even imagine with this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something," referring to Obama speaking out against a candidate.

But earlier this month, the former president warned the 2020 candidates of leaning too far left at a speaking engagement, saying "the average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it."

Politico also described the relationship between Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Obama as "famously complicated." The former president reportedly said in a private conversation that if Democrats supported her when she was considering a 2016 run, it would serve as a rejection of his economic policies.

The Hill reached out to the Sanders and Warren campaigns for comment.

IE, "If the progressive looks like he might win the primary, I'm going screw him over because I don't really want change."

Note the the Hill is a bit of a right-leaning source. They're anti-Trump, so I trust them to a degree on some things, but I'd take criticisms of Obama, or things that look to be trying to drive a wedge in the Democratic Party, with a grain of salt.

Personally I am skeptical that as savvy a politician as Obama would be so monumentally stupid as to intervene in a manner that would give "rigged primary" narratives massive credence and potentially lead to a mass walk-out of Sanders supporters going into the general. If he did, then fuck him, he might as well be working for the Trump campaign.

Though, I'm curious about you characterizing it as Obama being against "the progressive". Has he made such strong objections to Warren? Or are you one of those who thinks Warren is Not A Real Progressive?

[Gandalf]

Thanks. I follow you now. It does make me wonder about why there are even primaries in the first place.

To narrow down the field so you have 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Which again is something that wasn't planned on by the Founding Fathers, but it's now TRADITION that there can be only ONE Candidate per Party when the November election comes along.

I follow you, but has anyone ever decided "fuck the primaries, sort it at the convention?" Because having a building full of the party's people at one time should be a good time to pick the candidate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thanks. I follow you now. It does make me wonder about why there are even primaries in the first place.

To narrow down the field so you have 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Which again is something that wasn't planned on by the Founding Fathers, but it's now TRADITION that there can be only ONE Candidate per Party when the November election comes along.

I follow you, but has anyone ever decided "fuck the primaries, sort it at the convention?" Because having a building full of the party's people at one time should be a good time to pick the candidate.

The usual approach is to use the Convention as basically a show of unity to rally the party around whoever the nominee is. Actually fighting out the nomination on the convention floor could be messy and divisive- but given how many people are running this time, and the fact that the Dems don't have winner take all primaries (any candidate who gets over 15% in a state gets some delegates for that state), its quite possible.

[Rogue 9]

The Hill

President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday.

IE, "If the progressive looks like he might win the primary, I'm going screw him over because I don't really want change."

Pretty sure it has at least as much to do with what I highlighted there. It should not be a surprise that the organization that is the Democratic Party doesn't like someone who is not in the organization attempting to step in and hijack it. You'll be hard pressed to find an organization whose leaders are open to that sort of thing regardless of purpose.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Hill

President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday.

IE, "If the progressive looks like he might win the primary, I'm going screw him over because I don't really want change."

Pretty sure it has at least as much to do with what I highlighted there. It should not be a surprise that the organization that is the Democratic Party doesn't like someone who is not in the organization attempting to step in and hijack it. You'll be hard pressed to find an organization whose leaders are open to that sort of thing regardless of purpose.

Yeah.

Its also really, really stupid.

Shouldn't we WANT to expand our appeal beyond die-hard Democrats in order to win? If they're going to allow Sanders to run at all, then they shouldn't hold his outsider status against him.

The idea that Sanders shouldn't be the nominee because he's "not a real Democrat" is idiot tribalism. What should matter is: what would his policies be, and could he win?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

AoC decided to back Sanders last month instead of Warren, despite his hospitalisation from the aforementioned heart attack.

[The Romulan Republic]

AoC decided to back Sanders last month instead of Warren, despite his hospitalisation from the aforementioned heart attack.

Yeah. No surprise there, mind. Didn't she work on his campaign in 2016?

[FaxModem1]

IE, "If the progressive looks like he might win the primary, I'm going screw him over because I don't really want change."

Note the the Hill is a bit of a right-leaning source. They're anti-Trump, so I trust them to a degree on some things, but I'd take criticisms of Obama, or things that look to be trying to drive a wedge in the Democratic Party, with a grain of salt.

Personally I am skeptical that as savvy a politician as Obama would be so monumentally stupid as to intervene in a manner that would give "rigged primary" narratives massive credence and potentially lead to a mass walk-out of Sanders supporters going into the general. If he did, then fuck him, he might as well be working for the Trump campaign.

Though, I'm curious about you characterizing it as Obama being against "the progressive". Has he made such strong objections to Warren? Or are you one of those who thinks Warren is Not A Real Progressive?

Loaded question aside, it has to do with Obama having had a Moderate presidency wrapped in the clothing of a liberal one, and how making more steps to the left than he is comfortable with would be something he would speak out against.

He's not exactly on Team Warren either

[The Romulan Republic]

Its fair to say Obama had a disappointing and indeed dangerous lack of spine when dealing with the far Right, and laboured far too long (and to some extent perhaps still does) under the delusion that they could be worked with. And no doubt he's sensitive to the fact that a Sanders victory would be in some sense a repudiation of his Presidency by his own party.

But he's a savvy enough politician that I'm skeptical he'd actually go through with something that could very well split the party.