2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[mister d]

Is “don’t support a centrist who publicly threatens the party” a fantasy world? If so, touché I guess?

[brian]

I'm not defending Manchin but it certainly seems better to have him in the Senate as opposed to Morrisey though as long as McConnell is blocking all legislation coming from the House I suppose it really doesn't matter too much in the Year of our Lord 2019.

If Manchin is a hypothetical swing vote in a 51-49 Dem-controlled Senate in 2021 (a not ridiculous possibility) I'll sure as shit be glad he's in there compared to Morrisey even if he's occasionally a pain in the ass.

I'll love to smoke whatever it is you're smoking where you get to live in a world where anyone significantly to the left of Manchin stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning election to the Senate in West Virginia though. Must be some good stuff.

[Joe K]

The issue isn’t whether Manchin’s brand of conservative Dem plays well in WV. Is that he’s openly suggesting that he may vote for Trump over the Democratic nominee! Show me one progressive Congressperson who has done that. Tulsi Gabbard, who voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry, had been essentially accused of being a traitor to her country for far less than that.

ETA: I have absolutely no issue with Manchin strongly backing Biden. But saying he’d vote for Trump — not even a third party but Trump — over a progressive? He can pound sand for that. Any progressive would get killed for saying they’d vote third party, let alone for Trump.

[brian]

The issue isn’t whether Manchin’s brand of conservative Dem plays well in WV. Is that he’s openly suggesting that he may vote for Trump over the Democratic nominee! Show me one progressive Congressperson who has done that. Tulsi Gabbard, who voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry, had been essentially accused of being a traitor to her country for far less than that.

You're right and I meant to say that's my only beef with what he said. His line should be the line every Dem uses -- "I'll support whomever the candidate is." Period.

But expecting Manchin to all of the sudden start supporting M4A or any kind of crazy nonsense like that isn't going to happen. To take back state houses especially the Dems are going to have to accept some candidates that maybe don't conform to every bit of liberal orthodoxy.

Should also mention I wouldn't mind trying to expand the tent a little bit in order to bring moderate Republicans into the fold but as long as they're being yelled at for their past support of Trump they're not gonna be interested in getting that pound of flesh extracted. I think the Democratic Party is strong enough to support a wide range of viewpoints even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them.

Manchin's quote about maybe voting for Trump was idiotic, but the shrill bleating about some his positions reminds me of the outcry relative moderates like Kasich got from the right about wavering about supporting Trump. We rightfully called them out for the hypocrisy of casting out anyone who doesn't agree with the extremists in the party, but mimicking the same behavior for anyone who doesn't support all of Bernie's policies is just as self-defeating.

[mister d]

I think it would be fun to see if him voting D “sometimes” has ever actually tipped an issue or if he gets to play both sides and his only true voters are shit.

[A_B]

Yes, let’s keep piling on the guy with deep ties to the coal industry for financial reasons but still might have sympathetic and actually leans significantly to most of the left’s agenda! Fuck that guy!

[mister d]

Coalvanaugh.

[Steve of phpBB]

I think it would be fun to see if him voting D “sometimes” has ever actually tipped an issue or if he gets to play both sides and his only true voters are shit.

In 2017 a law repealing the ACA failed by one vote in the Senate (after passing the House). That was the one where McCain did his "thumbs down" thing.

[mister d]

[Pruitt]

Realizing the incredibly disproportionate influence that Iowans and New Hampshirites have makes me wonder if there's a better way to run the primaries.

Maybe rotate the order of when they're held?

Wouldn't it be more consequential to see what the Texas or California or Florida Democrats are thinking at this stage?

[brian]

And pass up the chance to let the rubes in Iowa and New Hampshire have an outsize influence on the nominee for one of the most important jobs in the world? That's crazy talk.

[mister d]

Beto(ut).

[govmentchedda]

And pass up the chance to let the rubes in Iowa and New Hampshire have an outsize influence on the nominee for one of the most important jobs in the world? That's crazy talk.

Please don't give dumbfuck Floridians any more sway. At least Iowans really take the process seriously.

[Johnnie]

Beto(ut).

[Joe K]

Hmm...



I know we had the debate about CNN tinting Sanders but in this case they just flat out flipped him and Warren in their graphic for the New Hampshire poll. Funny how these things just seem to occur by chance.

[rass]

Hmm...



I know we had the debate about CNN tinting Sanders but in this case they just flat out flipped him and Warren in their graphic for the New Hampshire poll. Funny how these things just seem to occur by chance.

Looks like Biden and Buttigieg are within striking distance of Warren.

[brian]

Who is more disrespected — Pats fans or Bernie fans? Might actually need Rush’s expertise on this one.

[Joe K]

Great find here that points out how disingenuous Pelosi is on M4A.

She knows damn well that single payer is better, and made a very eloquent case for it back in the 1990s, but is trying to couch her current opposition on policy grounds when it’s really just fear of Republican boogeymen.

[Rush2112]

Who is more disrespected — Pats fans or Bernie fans? Might actually need Rush’s expertise on this one.

Personally, I think it's the Hillary apologists that are the most disrespected.

[sancarlos]

Magary is not a fan of Mayor Pete

[Pruitt]

Magary is not a fan of Mayor Pete

No, he clearly does not.

This man is not going to bring us together as Americans. He represents backroom interests that have a vested interest in making sure that NEVER happens. Mayor Pete is a fucking fraud. A sleeper agent. The fact that he’s the fresh face in this race is terrifying because it means that some young Democrats (and Pete is younger than me!) are gonna be just as willing to sell themselves out as some of the older ones already are. He belongs to a cadre of establishment Democrats who are not unifying the country but are, in fact, standing in the goddamn way.

[brian]

No argument.

[govmentchedda]

That was fantastic

[Joe K]

Obama probably needed to run as a “unifier” to have any shot of even getting through the primary, given how much skepticism there was about whether the US was ready for a black President. But with Pete it comes across as more cynical to me for a variety of reasons, some of which Magary touches on there.

[EnochRoot]

Obama probably needed to run as a “unifier” to have any shot of even getting through the primary, given how much skepticism there was about whether the US was ready for a black President. But with Pete it comes across as more cynical to me for a variety of reasons, some of which Magary touches on there.

The whole unifying schtick with Trump in office is what makes me think it's all a troll job anyway.

Fuck that guy. But more importantly, fuck the ignorant lefties that can't get out of bed to vote if their hero doesn't win the nomination.

[mister d]

Hmmm ...

[Johnnie]

Yeaaahhhhh, gotta delete the avatar after that.

[brian]

My boss donates a lot of money to the DNC* and I've talked to him about this. He's raising money for Mayor Pete and helping organize some events for him in Iowa, but his main concern is the electability of Warren and Sanders.

I think if you support one of those candidates, which at this point is probably most of us, then you really just have to talk to your friends with similar concerns off the ledge and explain that there's probably no difference in electability between the major Dem candidates this time around. That might not be true in a "normal" election with a "normal" Republican running, but this is as good as opportunity as there has been to elect a truly progressive Democratic candidate (relative to the times) since FDR probably.

ETA: Talking rationally with Biden, Pete and Harris supporters also helps avoid the circular firing squads which Democrats are so good at. Those guys want all the same things that we all want for the most part. It's not the end of the world if Buttigieg were to win the nomination and the election. Any serious structural change has to come in subsequent elections resulting in a Senate majority and majorities in state legislatures. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here.

* - He's got some interesting stories about MO politics. He was also executive producer of a pretty interesting doc called "Can Mr. Smith Still Get To Washington?" (or something like that).

[BSF21]

I'm not going to let one Magary article shape my thoughts about a person, but he raises some interesting points. The problem I'm seeing isn't in the nominee and whether or not they meet the "progressive enough" litmus test. It's that the more and more I read and the long this goes on you realize we've all turned into Trump voters. This is American politics right now. It's the latest hit piece that sticks with us, it's the newest zing that's been plastered on social media.

We all need our guy/gal that we've so heavily researched and lauded for to win this nom and they can take back the White House and fix all this pain that Orange45 has caused and they're the only Superman that can do it. That's the wrong way to think and it's dangerous. Democrat voters need to take a hard look in the mirror at themselves in my opinion and realize what the last 3 years of rhetoric has done to the average person's thoughts about politics in this country. People who think just because their person, be it Warren/Sanders/Pete/Whoever, is going to walk right in and tear down the establishment on day one are dreaming. As much as we want progress, it comes in chunks not in landslides. Sometimes you've got to nibble away at the lead and kick some field goals instead of leaving points on the field. How do you think your rights to privacy in this country were eroded? How do they get you to pay what they want at the store? It's not a 30% increase on 11/15 take it or leave it. It's a shiny new box that costs 3% more. Now that's the standard. Move it along and win the game in the end. I want the grand slam home run moment as much as many other Dem and progressive people do, but the absolute willingness by MANY to strike out trying when the bases are loaded is chilling to me.

I understand the money out of politics game and I think most people would like to see that undone (I think it's the most important issue facing Americans on a day to day basis other than Gerrymandering), but people want Dems to play by rules that no one else is. Results speak, I know that much, and to say X person took Y dollars from someone who is related to Z corporation so he's totally in their pocket is a gross misrepresentation of what is happening in my opinion. I'm not saying I'm all in on anyone here, but the demonization of guys on the same team in troubling to me.

I like a lot of them. I'm not giving one of them a penny right now. I'm interested to see where things go as long as we can get away from this circular firing squad bullshit.

[DSafetyGuy]

Congrats to Pete on accomplishing the important thing with his campaign: gaining enough notoriety that he'll never have to work a real job again. He's gonna build a mountain of cash with generic speaking engagements and other future campaigns that never amount to anything other than a place for lobbyists to send money. Well done, Mr. Nothing.

[BSF21]

Congrats to Pete on accomplishing the important thing with his campaign: gaining enough notoriety that he'll never have to work a real job again. He's gonna build a mountain of cash with generic speaking engagements and other future campaigns that never amount to anything other than a place for lobbyists to send money. Well done, Mr. Nothing.

What about his path up to now gives you that impression?

[Joe K]

As much as we want progress, it comes in chunks not in landslides. Sometimes you've got to nibble away at the lead and kick some field goals instead of leaving points on the field. How do you think your rights to privacy in this country were eroded? How do they get you to pay what they want at the store? It's not a 30% increase on 11/15 take it or leave it. It's a shiny new box that costs 3% more. Now that's the standard. Move it along and win the game in the end. I want the grand slam home run moment as much as many other Dem and progressive people do, but the absolute willingness by MANY to strike out trying when the bases are loaded is chilling to me.

For better and worse, the last 85 years of American politics and governance has been defined by the course set by the Presidents with big visions, and not by the incrementalists. Think FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, Reaganomics, and Bush’s Global War on Terror.

[DSafetyGuy]

Congrats to Pete on accomplishing the important thing with his campaign: gaining enough notoriety that he'll never have to work a real job again. He's gonna build a mountain of cash with generic speaking engagements and other future campaigns that never amount to anything other than a place for lobbyists to send money. Well done, Mr. Nothing.

What about his path up to now gives you that impression?

The first major profile that came out made me feel that he's basically a blank slate, almost engineered to be the least offensive to both sides, who ended up falling on the Democratic side strictly due to his sexual orientation. He launched his campaign with virtually no substance, then when challenged on it, magically had policies appear on his website about a week later. He's jumped from being the mayor of a modest-sized city to the national stage while being basically structured from generic platitudes designed to upset people as little as possible. He's just kind of a walking "aw, shucks" who has turned into a cash draw without changing any substance.

[BSF21]

As much as we want progress, it comes in chunks not in landslides. Sometimes you've got to nibble away at the lead and kick some field goals instead of leaving points on the field. How do you think your rights to privacy in this country were eroded? How do they get you to pay what they want at the store? It's not a 30% increase on 11/15 take it or leave it. It's a shiny new box that costs 3% more. Now that's the standard. Move it along and win the game in the end. I want the grand slam home run moment as much as many other Dem and progressive people do, but the absolute willingness by MANY to strike out trying when the bases are loaded is chilling to me.

For better and worse, the last 85 years of American politics and governance has been defined by the course set by the Presidents with big visions, and not by the incrementalists. Think FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, Reaganomics, and Bush’s Global War on Terror.

I don't disagree that big ideas are a great thing and can drive a campaign. I just don't want to miss to the forest for the trees because people are so locked in on a big idea attached to one candidate that it becomes central to their entire political identity. (Yang's Freedom Dividend, M4A, whatever the next thing is) I think it's OK to want to better many things in increments instead of having to hit a deep 3.

[A_B]

As much as we want progress, it comes in chunks not in landslides. Sometimes you've got to nibble away at the lead and kick some field goals instead of leaving points on the field. How do you think your rights to privacy in this country were eroded? How do they get you to pay what they want at the store? It's not a 30% increase on 11/15 take it or leave it. It's a shiny new box that costs 3% more. Now that's the standard. Move it along and win the game in the end. I want the grand slam home run moment as much as many other Dem and progressive people do, but the absolute willingness by MANY to strike out trying when the bases are loaded is chilling to me.

For better and worse, the last 85 years of American politics and governance has been defined by the course set by the Presidents with big visions, and not by the incrementalists. Think FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, Reaganomics, and Bush’s Global War on Terror.

I don't disagree that big ideas are a great thing and can drive a campaign. I just don't want to miss to the forest for the trees because people are so locked in on a big idea attached to one candidate that it becomes central to their entire political identity. (Yang's Freedom Dividend, M4A, whatever the next thing is) I think it's OK to want to better many things in increments instead of having to hit a deep 3.

If the NBA has taught us anything, it's that the little things are good if they are layups. But the three ball is the real game changer.

[tennbengal]

Can I ask a question about Mayor Pete and "electability"...why are the centrists so sure that the first openly gay presidential candidate is any more acceptable and electable than Warren or Sanders? I don't see a lot of former or allegedly persuadable MAGA-types being cool with that, but perhaps I am too much of a cynic...

[brian]

Can I ask a question about Mayor Pete and "electability"...why are the centrists so sure that the first openly gay presidential candidate is any more acceptable and electable than Warren or Sanders? I don't see a lot of former or allegedly persuadable MAGA-types being cool with that, but perhaps I am too much of a cynic...

Yeah, ironically it's just as cynical for them to back a corporatist white man thinking it's going to bring "moderates" back into the fold when they're just going to reject him for being gay, even if he isn't a "socialist".

[BSF21]

Congrats to Pete on accomplishing the important thing with his campaign: gaining enough notoriety that he'll never have to work a real job again. He's gonna build a mountain of cash with generic speaking engagements and other future campaigns that never amount to anything other than a place for lobbyists to send money. Well done, Mr. Nothing.

What about his path up to now gives you that impression?

The first major profile that came out made me feel that he's basically a blank slate, almost engineered to be the least offensive to both sides, who ended up falling on the Democratic side strictly due to his sexual orientation. He launched his campaign with virtually no substance, then when challenged on it, magically had policies appear on his website about a week later. He's jumped from being the mayor of a modest-sized city to the national stage while being basically structured from generic platitudes designed to upset people as little as possible. He's just kind of a walking "aw, shucks" who has turned into a cash draw without changing any substance.

OK, fair but a few thoughts:

1) First Major Profile doesn't give a lot of context. Who/what drove that?

2) The idea that Pete is a democrat because he is gay is narrow. Pete campaigned for Dems coming up, campaigned for State Treasurer as a Dem, worked on Obama's campaign, as well as his mayor...ship?

3) I disagree with the notion that his campaign has no substance, in fact I find it to be some of the most clearly laid out plans that anyone has put forth outside of Liz Warren. From what I've seen he's built clear and concise plans and ideas to move forward a (mostly) progressive agenda. I don't see how the timeframe his campaign rolled it out in as being relevant.

The guy is a Harvard grad who worked for a huge consulting firm in Chicago and walked away from that to be the mayor of his hometown. I think the narrative that he's now some cash grab speaking engagement guy is a terrible characterization of him based on little more than "oh look a white guy from the Midwest that's falling somewhere a little right of 'political revolution', he must be up to something".

Again, I'm not endorsing anyone here, but I feel like I know a little about Pete being from Indiana myself and I'm guessing the "first major profile" you read was some pretty lazy journalism. I've got qualms about every candidate as I think everyone should. You shouldn't line up 100% with anyone or you're not doing any actual analysis of your real thoughts and feelings. I'll support anyone trying to do the most good for the most people and I'll give priority to my preferred issues, but if you are all in on one candidate, you're not that much different from "I vote pro-life and that's the way it is" people.

[mister d]

I've seen people comp him to Obama and the more I think about it, the less far off I think it is.

[brian]

All bullshit aside, I think this is the stuff right here. For anyone to beat Trump they're going to have to have a coherent plan for health care (I think M4A qualifies of course and I think it's even better if the candidate can explain how it's going to be paid for like Warren has).