DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
Yeah, I think filibuster reform is important too. The current candidates seem to be all over the place on that. Booker, for example, seems to be against it.
In terms of winning the Senate - that's one of the reasons I'd prefer Brown not run. If he did win, it would be hard to keep his seat for a Dem. Same thing goes for Warren. Though I admittedly don't know the details for replacing them - I assume in both cases the Governor will name a replacement, but I don't know if or when a special election would be called. A Dem could definitely win in MA, but not so much in OH.
But I think the Dems should definitely kill the filibuster if they take the Senate in 2020. Killing the filibuster can't possibly make things any more messed up than they are now.
ETA: good overview of the filibuster issue from a Dem perspective: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/dems-irrational-love-of-filibusters-could-doom-their-agenda.html
drummerboy said:
nan said:yeah - no you don't. You're not going to get it all at once - there's nothing wrong with realizing that fact.
Thought this was a good discussion on AOC and Medicare for All: Basically you need a candidate who is all in for it, not someone who starts out with a compromise:
Here's an enlightening thread covering a Cory Booker Iowa campaign event.
https://twitter.com/danielmarans/status/1094040694392610816
You also don't negotiate with yourself and give up half of what you want before you even start.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:You also don't negotiate with yourself and give up half of what you want before you even start.
nan said:yeah - no you don't. You're not going to get it all at once - there's nothing wrong with realizing that fact.
Thought this was a good discussion on AOC and Medicare for All: Basically you need a candidate who is all in for it, not someone who starts out with a compromise:
Here's an enlightening thread covering a Cory Booker Iowa campaign event.
https://twitter.com/danielmarans/status/1094040694392610816
yes - good point.
I hope the Democratic Candidates engage in serious debate about M4A and other issues.
LOST said:
I hope the Democratic Candidates engage in serious debate about M4A and other issues.
Yes, I think the debates will be pretty interesting. With M4A and GND and repealing the tax cut there are some acutal meaty issues to discuss.
And if the media can get their collective attention away from crap like how Gillebrand eats her chicken, we might actually find out something,.
There’s an assumption here that Trump is vulnerable? Isn’t that what happened last time? So far no good with Dem candidates who have jumped in. Very weak and disconnected field. Don’t delude yourselves.
The GOP field in Feb 2015 was similarly weak and disconnected.
Someone will emerge from this field as a non-weak candidate and consolidate support.
Whoever it is will have to connect the moderates with the progressives. A huge concern. Look at MOL! People are dug in.
annielou said:
There’s an assumption here that Trump is vulnerable? Isn’t that what happened last time? So far no good with Dem candidates who have jumped in. Very weak and disconnected field. Don’t delude yourselves.
annielou said:
Whoever it is will have to connect the moderates with the progressives. A huge concern. Look at MOL! People are dug in.
I disagree on both counts. I do not see the candidates as weak or disconnected.
I do not see where anyone other than Nan and Paul have committed to one candidate exclusively.
But if you would care to elaborate ...
STANV said:
annielou said:
There’s an assumption here that Trump is vulnerable? Isn’t that what happened last time? So far no good with Dem candidates who have jumped in. Very weak and disconnected field. Don’t delude yourselves.
annielou said:I disagree on both counts. I do not see the candidates as weak or disconnected.
Whoever it is will have to connect the moderates with the progressives. A huge concern. Look at MOL! People are dug in.
I do not see where anyone other than Nan and Paul have committed to one candidate exclusively.
But if you would care to elaborate ...
Nan has not committed to one candidate exclusively, however Nan will be voting for a Progressive who supports M4A, Green New Deal, and an end to regime change wars. There will probably be at least two to pick from in that group.
I do think we have some candidates who are weak and disconnected and the latest would be Amy Klobuchar, who is a perfect Hillary 2.0 with "inspirational" stories and limited policy. Snoozer alert.
Nan,
I thought you were committed to Tulsi Gabbard. I apologize for my assumption.
What did you post a nonsensical joke about someone's name?
Sen. Klobuchar won re-election by a large margin in a State that almost went for Trump.
That is evidence that she is neither "weak" nor "disconnected".
I like Klobuchar -- need to learn more about her but I hardly think she is "Hillary 2.0". Much better than Crazy Bernie.
Sorry folks. I don’t see it. Heard announced candidates speak so far and I’m not impressed. Running against a master of media manipulation who can rip them at will. He may be dumb but he’s also a major league con artist who has mesmerized folks in critical voting precincts. Electoral college not going anywhere any time soon. Too much divisive talk among the Dems that he will definitely exploit to the max.
May as well cancel the 2020 election then. Dems can regroup and focus on beating Pence in 2024.
the biggest issue that the Democrats will have to face is the asymmetric media coverage. Trump is the most all-around terrible person to run for national office in our lifetimes. He's a lying, ignorant, incompetent, racist, misogynistic, malignant narcissist. With no expertise or experience in government.
And yet, the media covered Hillary's emails, Benghazi, and other trivial "baggage" as if it was equivalent to Trump's overall, deeply embedded horribleness.
I disagree. The mainstream media covers Trump's lies and low character up the wazoo. And I'm sure they will continue to do so through 2020 Election Day and beyond.
The biggest issue that the Democrats have to face is that so much of the U.S. electorate doesn't seem to be bothered by Trump's lies and low character.
Smedley said:
I disagree. The mainstream media covers Trump's lies and low character up the wazoo. And I'm sure they will continue to do so through 2020 Election Day and beyond.
The biggest issue that the Democrats have to face is that so much of the U.S. electorate doesn't seem to be bothered by Trump's lies and low character.
yes they do cover Trump's lies. And then they cover Democrats and use false equivalencies to try to equate their liabilities to Trump's. The coverage of Clinton in '16 tended to be more negative than that of Trump, despite Trump being objectively a much more dishonest person and generally terrible person and candidate.
Study: Trump Benefited From 'Overwhelmingly Negative' Tone Of Election News Coverage
There's no reason not to expect that 2019-20 won't bring us more of the same -- false equivalencies between Democrats and Trump.
First of all, HRC is not likable. This was evident in 2008 as well as 2016. Why she is unlikable is irrelevant. Elections are part popularity contest.
Secondly, Democrats need increased voter enthusiasm and around 200,000 votes in 3 states to send the mobster Trump packing.
Nothing is guaranteed, but there is reason for optimism.
tjohn said:
First of all, HRC is not likable. This was evident in 2008 as well as 2016. Why she is unlikable is irrelevant. Elections are part popularity contest.
Secondly, Democrats need increased voter enthusiasm and around 200,000 votes in 3 states to send the mobster Trump packing.
Nothing is guaranteed, but there is reason for optimism.
Totally. HRC was a supernaturally unlikeable candidate. Get that baggage off the ticket and 2020 should be a different story.
tjohn said:
First of all, HRC is not likable. This was evident in 2008 as well as 2016. Why she is unlikable is irrelevant. Elections are part popularity contest.
this is not true. Polls showed that she most admired woman in the U.S. for many years, and had a favorble approval rating as senator. It wasn't until she ran for president in '08 started getting hammered by the punditry that her likability took a hit. Then when she was SoS, her approval rating climbed again, until she rain for president in '16.
Hillary Clinton Approval Timeline
Michelle Obama ends Hillary Clinton's 17-year run as U.S.'s most admired woman
Smedley said:
Totally. HRC was a supernaturally unlikeable candidate. Get that baggage off the ticket and 2020 should be a different story.
any Democrat running in 2020 will be as unlikeable if the media gets away with what they did to Clinton, Gore, and Kerry when they ran.
There's a distinct patter here, and only Obama escaped the character assassination that was aimed at other Democratic presidential candidates. It seems quaint now that we have a malignant narcissist and avowed sexual predator in the White House, but it wasn't that long ago that the press managed to derail a then-popular Democratic presidential candidate by heaping scorn upon him for letting out an enthusiastic scream at a campaign event.
ml1 said:
tjohn said:this is not true. Polls showed that she most admired woman in the U.S. for many years, and had a favorble approval rating as senator. It wasn't until she ran for president in '08 started getting hammered by the punditry that her likability took a hit. Then when she was SoS, her approval rating climbed again, until she rain for president in '16.
First of all, HRC is not likable. This was evident in 2008 as well as 2016. Why she is unlikable is irrelevant. Elections are part popularity contest.
Hillary Clinton Approval Timeline
Michelle Obama ends Hillary Clinton's 17-year run as U.S.'s most admired woman
I only know what I feel - I found her to be smug, overconfident and condescending. Maybe these were superficial judgments, but apparently a lot of people have/had similar feelings. Maybe unfair. Who knows. Life is not fair.
tjohn said:
I only know what I feel - I found her to be smug, overconfident and condescending. Maybe these were superficial judgments, but apparently a lot of people have/had similar feelings. Maybe unfair. Who knows. Life is not fair.
Because that's how she was portrayed in the press. That's the only way any of us knows the candidates.
ml1 said:
tjohn said:Because that's how she was portrayed in the press. That's the only way any of us knows the candidates.
I only know what I feel - I found her to be smug, overconfident and condescending. Maybe these were superficial judgments, but apparently a lot of people have/had similar feelings. Maybe unfair. Who knows. Life is not fair.
I distinctly remember at some point is 2007 or 2008 - HRC personally saying "We're going to have a listening tour or a conversation" or some b.s. like that instead just coming out and saying she was running for President. She was so smug, so overconfident - talking like she had the nomination in the bag. So, for me, it wasn't the press, it was HRC.
tjohn said:
ml1 said:I distinctly remember at some point is 2007 or 2008 - HRC personally saying "We're going to have a listening tour or a conversation" or some b.s. like that instead just coming out and saying she was running for President. She was so smug, so overconfident - talking like she had the nomination in the bag. So, for me, it wasn't the press, it was HRC.
tjohn said:Because that's how she was portrayed in the press. That's the only way any of us knows the candidates.
I only know what I feel - I found her to be smug, overconfident and condescending. Maybe these were superficial judgments, but apparently a lot of people have/had similar feelings. Maybe unfair. Who knows. Life is not fair.
I would suggest that if that's the case, you might want to look inwardly at why that was the conclusion you came to about a female candidate.
ml1 said:
Because that's how she was portrayed in the press. That's the only way any of us knows the candidates.
Oh come on. There's also been about a million hours of public footage of her giving speeches and town halls and debates and interviews etc. over the years, all unfiltered, that people formed judgments about.
Blaming the press and claiming victimization by the press is Trump's shtick, one that I find super tiresome. I really hope the Dem candidate doesn't also adopt the strategy.
ml1 said:
tjohn said:I would suggest that if that's the case, you might want to look inwardly at why that was the conclusion you came to about a female candidate.
ml1 said:I distinctly remember at some point is 2007 or 2008 - HRC personally saying "We're going to have a listening tour or a conversation" or some b.s. like that instead just coming out and saying she was running for President. She was so smug, so overconfident - talking like she had the nomination in the bag. So, for me, it wasn't the press, it was HRC.
tjohn said:Because that's how she was portrayed in the press. That's the only way any of us knows the candidates.
I only know what I feel - I found her to be smug, overconfident and condescending. Maybe these were superficial judgments, but apparently a lot of people have/had similar feelings. Maybe unfair. Who knows. Life is not fair.
Irrelevant. Elections are popularity contests. Why a voter doesn't like a candidate is irrelevant except to the extent that understanding this helps the candidate win that person over.
I just tuned into this conversation and so I'll just give my opinion on 2020 for the Democrats. Pardon me for not commenting on more recently discussed sub-topics of the current political environment.
Given Trump's unpopularity, I think any of the Democrats will win the general election, but the effectiveness of the next Democratic president will depend on Congressional support, specifically, Senate support.
One thing we do know about 2020 is that the next Democratic president definitely isn't going to have as large a Senate majority as Barack Obama had 2009-11, and frankly might not have any majority at all.
So if I were a Democrat, the most important thing to me in the 2020 election would be which candidate is the most likely to have Senate coattails, and then assuming that that candidate *might* eke out a bare 51-50 Senate majority for the 2021-23 Congress, the success of that president depends on his or her willingness to eliminate the legislative filibuster.
I realize that a president doesn't have any direct control over Senate procedure, but as unofficial party leader, I think a president's support for filibuster elimination is important.
For the Democrats' sake, I hope their eventual winner is someone who realizes that the government needs structural reform before the Democrats can pass any of their policy reforms.
Of course, filibuster reform is moot if the Republicans hold their Senate majority. If that happens, the next Democratic president's legislative, judicial, and tax agendas will go nowhere. If the Republicans hold the Senate, the next Democratic president will be ineffective from Day 1 and that'll be an anchor in 2024.