USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Elfdude]

Alhoon starts by talking about how he believes in popular vote (which is still winner take all), gets confused by winner take all, starts talking about winner takes all (after others told him to stop confusing the two) and ends with an article talking about winner take all and how it should be proportional representation.

You really told them so Alhoon. Thanks for posting an article which supports what I was arguing with you several pages ago. I'm glad you finally understand why folks were objecting to your idea that popular vote would fix winner take all when popular vote/electoral vote are both winner take all.

[Ludicus]

Joe Biden disappoints me. Biden once said that he was afraid of Bolton not because of Bolton's views,but because of his effectiveness.

No, Biden, no. Bolton is an warmonger, with a general aggression towards other countries and civilizations.
Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the nuclear deal, and provoked the current crisis; but now Trump fired Bolton before he started a new war in the middle east. I'd never thought I'd say it, but for the first time I agree with Trump.

[Love Mountain]

Bolton is an idiot without an iota of strategic thought or acumen in his body. Bolton is one of many examples that politics often comes down to who you know, rather than what you know. If anyone doubts whether Ivy Leagues are worth the money, Bolton proves that they are.

Not a fan of Biden. He's far too "centrist", trying to appeal to older demographics where he has the edge. Biden is more liberal that Clinton (who I thought was a strong candidate) but Liked Clinton more. Her political positions felt more precise to me, and I've always thought she was more competent, more ruthless than Biden. But that's just my gut instinct. Currently, in my opinion, Elizabeth Warren would be the best POTUS in the current lineup. Give her the best Chief of Staff we can find, surround her with experienced political operatives, and let's see how far we can get her programs.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Bolton is an idiot without an iota of strategic thought or acumen in his body. Bolton is one of many examples that politics often comes down to who you know, rather than what you know. If anyone doubts whether Ivy Leagues are worth the money, Bolton proves that they are.

Bolton strikes me as the type of guy who is stuck in 1980 where the US can basically pick winners and losers in the world on a whim. Directionally he may be correct by chance in one case or another, but without the brains to fill in the blanks behind his positions, he basically just wants to bomb and invade everywhere at once. Brains are not allowed in the Trump Admin; only obedience.

Not a fan of Biden. He's far too "centrist", trying to appeal to older demographics where he has the edge. Biden is more liberal that Clinton (who I thought was a strong candidate) but Liked Clinton more. Her political positions felt more precise to me, and I've always thought she was more competent, more ruthless than Biden. But that's just my gut instinct. Currently, in my opinion, Elizabeth Warren would be the best POTUS in the current lineup. Give her the best Chief of Staff we can find, surround her with experienced political operatives, and let's see how far we can get her t.

I’m warming to Warren by default, if only because she seems competent and experienced in the way Clinton was. That said, the Atlantic put out a decent article on the fundamental problem with all the candidates:

Both Sanders and Warren essentially accept the diagnosis of more hawkish Democrats that the United States is locked in a geopolitical struggle with authoritarian regimes, but they depart significantly on the prescription—they would both slash the defense budget and would switch the topic away from geopolitical rivalries and toward inequality, economic policy, and democracy. This sets up a fundamental contradiction—Sanders and Warren will be forced to choose between waging the struggle against autocrats or cutting the defense budget and deemphasizing military power.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ilemma/597823/

This is my primary reservation about Democratic foreign policy. The problem is, Republicans are no better, if not worse these days, attempting to extort cash and cooperation from US allies while backing America into a corner on every major issue. Both parties are shifting towards isolationism, and Democrats score political points by denigrating the US military’s role in the world, promising fundamental shifts in how the US conducts itself abroad. At the same time, the Democrats in particular want to have their cake and eat it too: they want the political boost of behaving as peaceniks at the expense of national security and commitment to US allies, foolishly regarding US power as an indestructible law of nature.


The US has already been weakened by the war on terror at a time when the bellicosity and capabilities of US adversaries grow and become more aligned by the day. Only ensured US primacy and stability will allow the Democrats to finance their multi- trillion dollar economic restructuring programs whilst maintaining the insular bubble that protects the US from global instability, economic shocks, and the consequences of debt. However, they’ve already promised to tear down the international structures which maintain this protection. I’ve less and less doubt we’ll all learn the hard lessons of the Depression and World Wars all over again if and when the Democrats continue to try to sit on both sides of the table as Obama and Trump have done.

[Prodromos]

Warren is the weakest candidate in the field. A neurotic, far leftist female academic isn't going to beat Trump.

[Common Soldier]

Not a fan of Biden. He's far too "centrist", trying to appeal to older demographics where he has the edge. Biden is more liberal that Clinton (who I thought was a strong candidate) but Liked Clinton more. Her political positions felt more precise to me, and I've always thought she was more competent, more ruthless than Biden. But that's just my gut instinct. Currently, in my opinion, Elizabeth Warren would be the best POTUS in the current lineup. Give her the best Chief of Staff we can find, surround her with experienced political operatives, and let's see how far we can get her programs.

Clinton was greatly disliked, hated by lot of people, and she has had A many scandals surrounding her as Trump. As foreign policy, she was Secretary of State while a US Ambassador was murdered and was nowhere to be found in the crisis and did nothing about it, except lie to thr public how it was all the result of a spontaneous uprising, which we know is not true. Sure, she was exonerated, but it so was Trump in the Russian probe, and her caviler use of personal email for official government business, if not criminal showed very poor judgment on her part. Some us remember back to Bill Clinton administration and Travelgate, and how she completely hose up getting the health care bill passed. Her sneering contempt for stay at home mom's did not win her fans either.

Bad as as you may say Trump's foreign policy is, it was under Clinton's stint as Secrety of State that the Syrian Crisis began, and the Lybia as a country effecting dissolved. Had she sent a clear message to the Syrian dissents that the US would not back them militarily and they were on their own, I doubt they would have started the war against Assad. And had she and Obama backed the rebels early on, before the radicals had taken over the fighting, perhaps a decent democracy might have able.to be formed. But nowx the rebels are no better than Assad, and would-be less tolerant toward religious minorities than Assad.

And Clinton was Secretary of State when Obama made his infamous "don't cross that red line" warning to Syria. Syria crossed that "red line", Obama and Clinton did nothing. Is it any wonder that Russia realized they could grab a chunk of the Ukraine, and Obama would do nothing ofnreal substance?

As for Biden, he may be insipid, but he doesn't seem to generate animosity toward him the way that Clinton and some of the other Democrats do. I would say thr perception is that Clinton and Warren are more liberal, regardless of what the reality is. I any case, he he has been out of any office for 4 years, and he was another 8 years as just the shadow of Obama, so he might not generate the kind of opposition that some other Democrats who actual did things might generated.

There are some traditional Rebublicans who do not like Trump. Many of the traditional Republican leadership, the non Tea Party types, did not like Trump at all, and while they have kept quiet since Trump is currently the leader of the party by virtue of his winning thr presidency. That doesn't mean they like him. I think some people who traditional vote Republican might vote Democrat if given a half way acceptable candidate, and that would mean a strong centrist one, not a left leading one. These people voted for Trump because given the choice between Trump and Hillary, they reluctantly chose Trump,but they were not happy about the choices.

[alhoon]

Warren is the weakest candidate in the field. A neurotic, far leftist female academic isn't going to beat Trump.

She is also a lunatic.
People on the far left won't motivate the moderates to vote for them. They would motivate them to pick up the phone and answer "I would vote for democrats!" but they won't stand in the line to vote for the candidate.

[Elfdude]

That's not really true. Warren is well liked by moderate/conservative dems and independents. Only Sanders and Biden have more appeal but Warren has significantly fewer detractors than either of them.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...eptember-poll/

All polling considered, Warren or Sanders has the highest probability of winning at this point unless Biden can figure out how to stop hemorrhaging support.

Furthermore the polls Prod used are dated and wrong.

Warren vs Trump
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rren-6251.html

Average Warren by +5.2%

Sanders vs Trump
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6250.html

Average Sanders by +7.0%

Biden vs Trump
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-6247.html

Average Biden by 11.0%

[Love Mountain]

Warren is the weakest candidate in the field. A neurotic, far leftist female academic isn't going to beat Trump.

I actually agree. Warren is one of the weakest candidates against Trump. But I don't mind if Warren can win by a very slight margin, I'm more concerned who's better for the country overall.

Bolton strikes me as the type of guy who is stuck in 1980 where the US can basically pick winners and losers in the world on a whim. Directionally he may be correct by chance in one case or another, but without the brains to fill in the blanks behind his positions, he basically just wants to bomb and invade everywhere at once. Brains are not allowed in the Trump Admin; only obedience.

I’m warming to Warren by default, if only because she seems competent and experienced in the way Clinton was. That said, the Atlantic put out a decent article on the fundamental problem with all the candidates:

This is my primary reservation about Democratic foreign policy. The problem is, Republicans are no better, if not worse these days, attempting to extort cash and cooperation from US allies while backing America into a corner on every major issue. Both parties are shifting towards isolationism, and Democrats score political points by denigrating the US military’s role in the world, promising fundamental shifts in how the US conducts itself abroad. At the same time, the Democrats in particular want to have their cake and eat it too: they want the political boost of behaving as peaceniks at the expense of national security and commitment to US allies, foolishly regarding US power as an indestructible law of nature.


The US has already been weakened by the war on terror at a time when the bellicosity and capabilities of US adversaries grow and become more aligned by the day. Only ensured US primacy and stability will allow the Democrats to finance their multi- trillion dollar economic restructuring programs whilst maintaining the insular bubble that protects the US from global instability, economic shocks, and the consequences of debt. However, they’ve already promised to tear down the international structures which maintain this protection. I’ve less and less doubt we’ll all learn the hard lessons of the Depression and World Wars all over again if and when the Democrats continue to try to sit on both sides of the table as Obama and Trump have done.

Democrats have put themselves in an ideological conundrum where they want to be world policemen and humanitarians, but without paying the bills. Reminds me of working in retail, customers want top shelf products without the top shelf price.

Clinton was greatly disliked, hated by lot of people, and she has had A many scandals surrounding her as Trump. As foreign policy, she was Secretary of State while a US Ambassador was murdered and was nowhere to be found in the crisis and did nothing about it, except lie to thr public how it was all the result of a spontaneous uprising, which we know is not true. Sure, she was exonerated, but it so was Trump in the Russian probe, and her caviler use of personal email for official government business, if not criminal showed very poor judgment on her part. Some us remember back to Bill Clinton administration and Travelgate, and how she completely hose up getting the health care bill passed. Her sneering contempt for stay at home mom's did not win her fans either.

Trump was no exonerated. I've discussed this ad naseum in other threads. Nor is Clinton just "as scandalous". The mass of media attention on Hillary's "scandals" is not itself indicative of just how scandalous the actual issue was. Moreover, Hillary did not prevent the healthcare bill from being planed. Hillary was in charge of the whole thing from the moment it went on the agenda in the White House. The 1993 attempt at healthcare reform failed because it was far too complicated and offended all of the major players in the industry. The insurers, the manufacturers, and the doctors. What I'm trying to say, is that Hillary didn't come in and destroy something workable. She was involved from the beginning and the healthcare reform failed on its own lack of merits.

Bad as as you may say Trump's foreign policy is, it was under Clinton's stint as Secrety of State that the Syrian Crisis began, and the Lybia as a country effecting dissolved. Had she sent a clear message to the Syrian dissents that the US would not back them militarily and they were on their own, I doubt they would have started the war against Assad. And had she and Obama backed the rebels early on, before the radicals had taken over the fighting, perhaps a decent democracy might have able.to be formed. But nowx the rebels are no better than Assad, and would-be less tolerant toward religious minorities than Assad.

And Clinton was Secretary of State when Obama made his infamous "don't cross that red line" warning to Syria. Syria crossed that "red line", Obama and Clinton did nothing. Is it any wonder that Russia realized they could grab a chunk of the Ukraine, and Obama would do nothing ofnreal substance?

The "red line" is infamous because United States failed to reinforce their own commitments. Obama, in my opinion, had a fairly successful foreign policy. His notable failures are due to self-imposed constraints of refusing to get tied down in another large conflict. This fear ultimately did more harm than good. I'm not making excuses, Obama and Hillary's failures on foreign policy are their own.

As for Biden, he may be insipid, but he doesn't seem to generate animosity toward him the way that Clinton and some of the other Democrats do. I would say thr perception is that Clinton and Warren are more liberal, regardless of what the reality is. I any case, he he has been out of any office for 4 years, and he was another 8 years as just the shadow of Obama, so he might not generate the kind of opposition that some other Democrats who actual did things might generated.

There are some traditional Rebublicans who do not like Trump. Many of the traditional Republican leadership, the non Tea Party types, did not like Trump at all, and while they have kept quiet since Trump is currently the leader of the party by virtue of his winning thr presidency. That doesn't mean they like him. I think some people who traditional vote Republican might vote Democrat if given a half way acceptable candidate, and that would mean a strong centrist one, not a left leading one. These people voted for Trump because given the choice between Trump and Hillary, they reluctantly chose Trump,but they were not happy about the choices.

Biden generates plenty of animosity from the far left, and younger demographics. There is a reason why Sanders and Warren are polling so well on Democratic polls.

She is also a lunatic.
People on the far left won't motivate the moderates to vote for them. They would motivate them to pick up the phone and answer "I would vote for democrats!" but they won't stand in the line to vote for the candidate.

Voters tend to stick with their party. I'd argue that turn out, rather than broad appeal, is more important. A more partisan message can get more people into the voting booths.



Lastly, I'd like everyone to look at trends in the polls.



Note Warren's steady gains over time. Then there's the Biden and Sanders total flat line. However, what is striking to me, is that as establishment Democrats drop off, Warren tends to pick up in polls. Sanders and Biden clearly have a loyal following, however, if Warren or Sanders drop out of the race, who do you think they will jump on to? They'll jump to whichever progressive is left. In my opinion, Warren and Sanders are pretty a single entity. While there are significant platform differences between Sanders and Warren, they are ultimately the same message.

[sumskilz]

Furthermore the polls Prod used are dated and wrong.

Not dated, he posted New Hampshire: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rren-6781.html

Trump lost New Hampshire in the last election.

[Ludicus]

Not a fan of Biden. He's far too "centrist", trying to appeal to older demographics where he has the edge. Biden is more liberal that Clinton (who I thought was a strong candidate) but Liked Clinton more. Her political positions felt more precise to me, and I've always thought she was more competent, more ruthless than Biden. But that's just my gut instinct. Currently, in my opinion, Elizabeth Warren would be the best POTUS in the current lineup.

As a non American- that's my opinion. Sanders or Warren.

[alhoon]

That's not really true. Warren is well liked by moderate/conservative dems and independents. Only Sanders and Biden have more appeal but Warren has significantly fewer detractors than either of them.

Yes, but will she bring people to the voting booth or they would be "supporting" of her when someone calls them on the phone and won't bother to vote?

[Knight of Heaven]

As a non American- that's my opinion. Sanders or Warren.

As a non american i like Tulsi. Her Anti War, and Anti interventionism stance is very appealing to me as a Non American.

Also she appears to be reasonable, doesn't seem to fall in the line of the PC crowd, as much. That is a plus the way i see it.

I do like and respect Sanders, while i think is ideas are clear enough, the methods to achieve such ideas are not as clear.

And Warren? Warren is a joke imo.

Yes, but will she bring people to the voting booth or they would be "supporting" of her when someone calls them on the phone and won't bother to vote?

Warren was Popular in Social media, before Tulsi took her place as the candidate most googled.

[athanaric]

Alright, since the other thread lacks a poll, I felt prompted to fix that issue, before all the good candidates drop out and we're (again) left with "if it's down to one of these three clowns, I'd rather vote for Trump". Mods, feel free to merge this thread into the other if you deem it appropriate, or move it if that doesn't work. Ideally, I'd give every voter a fixed number of points to distribute, but as it is, maybe a poll with multiple votes per voter (ideally, three) will suffice.

[Vanoi]

I think its definitely down to Warren, Sanders, or Biden. Beto doesn't have a chance even if he gained some popularity last night.

[Prodromos]

I voted for all the ones I can tolerate, but Biden would be best.

[Love Mountain]

I'll have to watch the third debate again. I was almost bored to sleep the whole time.

[tgoodenow]

Only important part of that debate was Beto admitting he wants gun confiscation. Going to make a great commercial for Republicans, especially in swing congressional districts.

[Infidel144]

Only important part of that debate was Beto admitting he wants gun confiscation.

Bobby is, as is common with gun grabbing hoplophobes, a pathetic gutless coward who would never "molon labe" himself. He would only send armed men to do it for him.

[Ludicus]

Only important part of that debate was Beto admitting he wants gun confiscation. Going to make a great commercial for Republicans, especially in swing congressional districts.

I watched the "debate"... a debate with ten candidates is not a debate.It's a cacophony.
The CNN says Biden had his best debate night. And I say, doing the best he can, constantly summoning the spirit of Obama, I quote "Barack Obama is an extraordinary man, I watched up close, He has character, courage, and vision".But who is running for President? Obama - a man I truly admire- or Biden?
In some ways, politics is getting more childish, depressively funny when it comes out of the mouth of a 76-year-old man. Biden and Sanders are practically the same age, but Sanders voices his own opinions, and attracts young voters, the future of the country.