2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[Johnnie]

Why have leadership when you can have third rate dad jokes?

[govmentchedda]

As always, Florida as microcosm of the larger problem.

[degenerasian]

I have a general, probably ignorant, question to ask. Do Americans make a distinction between black americans or African-Americans, many generations in America and recent black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. I find this distinction important when talking about civil rights, slavery and reparations.

If so, then does the Kamala Harris count as "black" enough? I know that seems a dumb question but in politics it matters. I mean she is 1st generation born in the US, Indian mother, Jamaican father. She a person born from immigrants, like me, like a lot of others. So is she considered a politically black candidate that will bring out more black voters?

I recall there were some black people in media the commentating when Obama was first running that he wasn't culturally the same as African Americans who were decedents of slaves. More recent African immigrants do tend to fair better financially than those that were hurt by slavery, for obvious reasons. Do black people see them as different?

Also as an aside, I once read a book called "Black Masters" that caused some controversy in 1984 when it outed some prominent black families. The book talks about black slave owners in America and how it was more common than people realize. Some black families in the U.S. go through great lengths to erase it from their family trees because once the word gets out, they become resented by others in their community. There definitely are some divisions still today based on origin.

[brian]

Bloomberg has already spent well over $350 million for Democrats this cycle, according to his team, including the following investments:

• $275 million in anti-Trump ads during his primary campaign

• $35 million for a digital and data platform he gives to Democratic campaigns at cost.

• $18 million transferred from his campaign to the Democratic Party.

• $10 million to House Majority PAC, the lead outside group backing House Democrats.

• $5 million to Fair Fight, the voting rights group led by Stacey Abrams.

• $2 million to Collective Future, focused on registering Black voters in key states.

• $2 million to Swing Left, which supports Democratic volunteer efforts.

• $500,000 to Voto Latino, focused on registering young Latino and Hispanic voters.

It seems to me that the $275 million should never have been included, since it was money he spent during his own primary. I have no idea about the $35 million for the data platform, whether that was something he did for himself anyway, or what it means that he "gives" the platform to Dem campaigns "at cost."

The other stuff, the dollar amount isn't that impressive for a multibillionaire, but on the other hand, the election is a long way away, it isn't clear that a lot of additional spending is needed beyond what the DNC and campaigns already have, and it certainly appears that he's spending the money mostly the right way, for useful things that will pay dividends beyond this November.

This is why I was serious when I said that if the worst they can tag him with is "some say he should be spending more," he's probably not doing that bad of a job right now.

But let's see how things look in a few months.

Bloomberg commits $60M to House Democratic candidates.

[Shirley]

I have a general, probably ignorant, question to ask. Do Americans make a distinction between black americans or African-Americans, many generations in America and recent black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. I find this distinction important when talking about civil rights, slavery and reparations.

If so, then does the Kamala Harris count as "black" enough? I know that seems a dumb question but in politics it matters. I mean she is 1st generation born in the US, Indian mother, Jamaican father. She a person born from immigrants, like me, like a lot of others. So is she considered a politically black candidate that will bring out more black voters?

I recall there were some black people in media the commentating when Obama was first running that he wasn't culturally the same as African Americans who were decedents of slaves. More recent African immigrants do tend to fair better financially than those that were hurt by slavery, for obvious reasons. Do black people see them as different?

Also as an aside, I once read a book called "Black Masters" that caused some controversy in 1984 when it outed some prominent black families. The book talks about black slave owners in America and how it was more common than people realize. Some black families in the U.S. go through great lengths to erase it from their family trees because once the word gets out, they become resented by others in their community. There definitely are some divisions still today based on origin.

Where do you think all those black Jamaicans came from?

[Steve of phpBB]

I have a general, probably ignorant, question to ask. Do Americans make a distinction between black americans or African-Americans, many generations in America and recent black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. I find this distinction important when talking about civil rights, slavery and reparations.

If so, then does the Kamala Harris count as "black" enough? I know that seems a dumb question but in politics it matters. I mean she is 1st generation born in the US, Indian mother, Jamaican father. She a person born from immigrants, like me, like a lot of others. So is she considered a politically black candidate that will bring out more black voters?

I recall there were some black people in media the commentating when Obama was first running that he wasn't culturally the same as African Americans who were decedents of slaves. More recent African immigrants do tend to fair better financially than those that were hurt by slavery, for obvious reasons. Do black people see them as different?

Also as an aside, I once read a book called "Black Masters" that caused some controversy in 1984 when it outed some prominent black families. The book talks about black slave owners in America and how it was more common than people realize. Some black families in the U.S. go through great lengths to erase it from their family trees because once the word gets out, they become resented by others in their community. There definitely are some divisions still today based on origin.

Where do you think all those black Jamaicans came from?

I can't imagine there were too many Africans who immigrated to Jamaica in the past few decades, so yeah, I'd think most black Jamaicans are descended from slaves.

But being descended from slaves is only part of the Black experience in the US. In the past 155 years since abolition, there's been reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynchings, segregation, etc., etc., etc. Does anyone have any idea how that compares to the experiences of Blacks in Jamaica?

[P.D.X.]

The other assumption I'd quibble with is that blacks under colonial rule were/are more prosperous than those with American slave heritage. And "recent immigrants" are pretty likely to be refugees... probably much more so than 'wealthy' Africans who decided to immigrate (when our country allowed that sort of thing).

[degenerasian]

You also have to be wealthy to be a refugee. When everyone is trying to flee, there are only so many spots.

[degenerasian]

I have a general, probably ignorant, question to ask. Do Americans make a distinction between black americans or African-Americans, many generations in America and recent black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. I find this distinction important when talking about civil rights, slavery and reparations.

If so, then does the Kamala Harris count as "black" enough? I know that seems a dumb question but in politics it matters. I mean she is 1st generation born in the US, Indian mother, Jamaican father. She a person born from immigrants, like me, like a lot of others. So is she considered a politically black candidate that will bring out more black voters?

I recall there were some black people in media the commentating when Obama was first running that he wasn't culturally the same as African Americans who were decedents of slaves. More recent African immigrants do tend to fair better financially than those that were hurt by slavery, for obvious reasons. Do black people see them as different?

Also as an aside, I once read a book called "Black Masters" that caused some controversy in 1984 when it outed some prominent black families. The book talks about black slave owners in America and how it was more common than people realize. Some black families in the U.S. go through great lengths to erase it from their family trees because once the word gets out, they become resented by others in their community. There definitely are some divisions still today based on origin.

Where do you think all those black Jamaicans came from?

I can't imagine there were too many Africans who immigrated to Jamaica in the past few decades, so yeah, I'd think most black Jamaicans are descended from slaves.

But being descended from slaves is only part of the Black experience in the US. In the past 155 years since abolition, there's been reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynchings, segregation, etc., etc., etc. Does anyone have any idea how that compares to the experiences of Blacks in Jamaica?

The British used a different form of slavery. While obviously no slavery is good, it wasn't the same brutal form of chattel slavery that was practiced in the U.S. The British also abolished slavery 35 years before the U.S. and maintained Jamaica as a colony until the 1960s. While slavery in Jamaica ensured most black Jamaicans would be poor, they weren't essentially abandoned overnight like most American blacks were when slavery ended. For the same reason African immigrants tend to fair better, black people from the Caribbean who moved to the U.S. tend to have come from means.

[Nonlinear FC]

This needs its own thread, frankly. It has very little to do with how people view Kamala and probably even less to do with how African Americans, specifically, are going to vote.

It's also slightly bonkers to ask a bunch of 30-40-50 year old white dudes to break down the incredibly nuanced issue of how blacks view each other, based on distant history and recent immigration. I can give you my take, and it's informed by *some* level of interaction with black folks from various backgrounds... But it's by no means comprehensive.

The more important issue, which most people that are living as black in America... Racists don't give a fuck. You're black/brown/yellow/different... Go back to your country.

Even if they have nuanced versions of that, they still view non-whites as lesser than.

[Steve of phpBB]

Yeah, I always figured that even though Obama didn’t have slavery or lynching in his family history, women still protected their purses whenever he walked into an elevator.

[Nonlinear FC]

I guess a Convention thread is out of the question.

But Bernie is fucking KILLING IT

Nero fiddled while Rome burned...

Trump golfs.


Seriously, fellas, as a writer. Fuck the fuck off. Mic drop, chef's kiss... it's over.

[Nonlinear FC]

Yo.

Michelle Obama just fucked his shit.'

whats' funny is that CNN doesn't full get how racial that was.

[Steve of phpBB]

Yo.

Michelle Obama just fucked his shit.'

whats' funny is that CNN doesn't full get how racial that was.

That was some good stuff.

[tennbengal]

Ending republican night with Bernie and Michelle was well done.

[psunate77]

[The Sybian]

Yeah, I always figured that even though Obama didn’t have slavery or lynching in his family history, women still protected their purses whenever he walked into an elevator.

This sums up something Obama said when he first ran for President. Someone challenged him that he wasn't "black enough" or couldn't claim to be black when he is half-White and raised by his White mother and grandparents. Obama said that when people see him and judge him by his race, they see a black man and treat him as a black, so for that reason he identifies as a black man. I'm paraphrasing and may be a bit off in my retelling as it's been 12 years, but it struck a chord with me because of my friend I've mentioned, whose mother is white and father is an immigrant from Nigeria. His parents were married and together, but otherwise he was raised in an almost all white town (well, we had a lot of Asians and Asian-Indians), but very few black families.

Anyways, I get the question Degen was asking, and from my POV, I think the term "African American" is basically interchangeable with "Black," and we don't have any terms for the nuances between the cultural, historical, family differences between recent immigrants from Jamaica or anywhere and lineage that dates back to the Colonial slave trade. We probably should, but we do a 2 second look and lump infinite differences into one label. And in that last sentence, "we" means White people, I can't speak to how it's viewed in Black communities.

[Johnnie]

The fact that we're splitting hairs about "African-American" and "black" is self evident enough for me. This is the current "barracks lawyering" going on right now with racists online and elsewhere.

She isn't technically "African American"? And what's gained by bringing that up? We're talking about her race right now. She's being questioned because she's black and Indian and very successful and you're complaining over verbiage? Bravo. It's an argument that goes nowhere.

Until the American experience for all Americans of every walk of life is exactly like what a rich white family experiences at a country club, these arguments are pointless strawmans.

Was she treated like shit at points in her life because of her skin color or gender? There's the baseline. When people try to figure out how dark her hue is and actual genealogy, the point gets proven.

[P.D.X.]

Trump accused Michelle Obama of pre-recording her speech because her covid death toll wasn't high enough.

[degenerasian]

The fact that we're splitting hairs about "African-American" and "black" is self evident enough for me. This is the current "barracks lawyering" going on right now with racists online and elsewhere.

She isn't technically "African American"? And what's gained by bringing that up? We're talking about her race right now. She's being questioned because she's black and Indian and very successful and you're complaining over verbiage? Bravo. It's an argument that goes nowhere.

Until the American experience for all Americans of every walk of life is exactly like what a rich white family experiences at a country club, these arguments are pointless strawmans.

Was she treated like shit at points in her life because of her skin color or gender? There's the baseline. When people try to figure out how dark her hue is and actual genealogy, the point gets proven.

Perhaps I'm coming from an Asian point of view (Asians are very petty and evil). Who does the Kamala Harris selection cater to? As you all have said, the selection doesn't cater to a state or region, California is won. If it caters to blacks, then I'm curious if it will or will not bring out blacks voters for these reasons.

For Asians, this differences are evident. As you all know, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and the rest don't get along at all. I can tell you how complex Vietnamese are. If you're Vietnamese and to America before 1976 you're different then 80s boat people Vietnamese, who are different then 90s immigrant Vietnamese (under US programs) who are different married into immigrants, who are different then today's international student Vietnamese, those guys are commies. These groups hate each other. I think it's the same for Latinos, but I'm not certain.

So I'm curious if these dynamics exist in the black community as well. Yes, to most whites, a Black guy is a Black guy, and Asian guy is an Asian guy, a Latino guy is a Latino guy etc.. But within the communities themselves, how is this viewed? Because the DNC strategists seem to think if you're black, you're black and I think that might backfire.

[The Sybian]

The fact that we're splitting hairs about "African-American" and "black" is self evident enough for me. This is the current "barracks lawyering" going on right now with racists online and elsewhere.

She isn't technically "African American"? And what's gained by bringing that up? We're talking about her race right now. She's being questioned because she's black and Indian and very successful and you're complaining over verbiage? Bravo. It's an argument that goes nowhere.

Until the American experience for all Americans of every walk of life is exactly like what a rich white family experiences at a country club, these arguments are pointless strawmans.

Was she treated like shit at points in her life because of her skin color or gender? There's the baseline. When people try to figure out how dark her hue is and actual genealogy, the point gets proven.

Perhaps I'm coming from an Asian point of view (Asians are very petty and evil). Who does the Kamala Harris selection cater to? As you all have said, the selection doesn't cater to a state or region, California is won. If it caters to blacks, then I'm curious if it will or will not bring out blacks voters for these reasons.

For Asians, this differences are evident. As you all know, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and the rest don't get along at all. I can tell you how complex Vietnamese are. If you're Vietnamese and to America before 1976 you're different then 80s boat people Vietnamese, who are different then 90s immigrant Vietnamese (under US programs) who are different married into immigrants, who are different then today's international student Vietnamese, those guys are commies. These groups hate each other. I think it's the same for Latinos, but I'm not certain.

So I'm curious if these dynamics exist in the black community as well. Yes, to most whites, a Black guy is a Black guy, and Asian guy is an Asian guy, a Latino guy is a Latino guy etc.. But within the communities themselves, how is this viewed? Because the DNC strategists seem to think if you're black, you're black and I think that might backfire.

I don't think this was so much a pick to "cater" to any specific ethnic groups. Obviously Biden set it up as catering to women, since he announced months ago he would select a female running mate. I think there was perceived pressure to select a minority after the BLM protests, but I don't think they selected Kamala primarily on race. I think it's a perceived added bonus, but I think they needed to select the safest choice that would raise the least red flags, and I think they wanted to "cater" to anti-Trump Republicans and allow them an option they could vote for. If you put on a hardcore Lefty, you'd lose some anti-Trump GOPers. They also wanted someone well vetted, because they can't afford an relatively unknown candidate and have a major scandal uncovered in October.

[Johnnie]

My big brained conspiracy theory: since James Clyburn's endorsement saved Biden's presidential hopes, it was an 'owed' selection to select a woman 'of color' since 'woman' was predetermined at the debate.

We're playing politics after all. She's the highest profile one and was therefore annoited. It had nothing to do with anything else, IMO.

[psunate77]

Can someone refresh my memory on AJ Delgado? She is a former senior Trump advisor, has several photos of her and Trump on IG, but rips him to shreds on Twitter.

I know she had an affair with a Trump aide, while he was married during the 2016 campaign, but why her hate for trump?

[Nonlinear FC]

I don't know anything about her, really, but.. The story appears quite complicated:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... om/536892/

[Steve of phpBB]

We're playing politics after all.

Bingo. And if Harris was shrewd enough to position herself to be the anointed one, good for her.

[psunate77]

What is everyone's thoughts on AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Coretz)? She is said to the future of the party, but for some reason she really pushes me the wrong way how she rants.

[mister d]

Would you be more open to her if she was less ranty but more pedophile enable-y?

[psunate77]

Would you be more open to her if she was less ranty but more pedophile enable-y?

That is a funny one

[tennbengal]

What is everyone's thoughts on AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Coretz)? She is said to the future of the party, but for some reason she really pushes me the wrong way how she rants.

Would it be as rant-y if it was a he and not a she?

She's awesome.

[govmentchedda]

She's the absolute best.

[Johnnie]

The way she triggers Republicans makes me happy.

[sancarlos]

My only problem with AOC as a candidate on a larger stage is that every Republican knows who she is and every Republican hates her guts. It’s irrational, but so was the hatred for Hillary. And it cost her the election I think. One can win House elections as a polarizing candidate but it gets harder otherwise. (Of course Trump fits that bill on the reverse side, so what do I know?)

[Johnnie]

Sixty Seconds to Self-Sabotage. The DNC’s choice of who to feature speaks volumes about the party’s inability to see its own future.

[govmentchedda]

That's really well written.

[psunate77]

I still don't get the whole Sanders nomination thing.. I know the delegate count is brought in, but still seems odd.

[Steve of phpBB]

Sixty Seconds to Self-Sabotage. The DNC’s choice of who to feature speaks volumes about the party’s inability to see its own future.

As awesome as AOC is, I don’t see how the failure to “showcase” a first-term representative mostly famous for being farther left than 90-95 percent of the electorate - in the middle of an event designed to appeal to the electorate as a whole - is a bad move.

[govmentchedda]

Sixty Seconds to Self-Sabotage. The DNC’s choice of who to feature speaks volumes about the party’s inability to see its own future.

As awesome as AOC is, I don’t see how the failure to “showcase” a first-term representative mostly famous for being farther left than 90-95 percent of the electorate - in the middle of an event designed to appeal to the electorate as a whole - is a bad move.

At a minimum, giving her 60 seconds, less than what was given to an actual republican, is a major problem. She's clearly one of the major voices of the progressive wing of the party, and she's proven herself quite adept at getting her point across. Having very few latinx speakers at all (where the fuck is Julian Castro?), is also a major issue. I'd argue having Bill Clinton there at all is a big problem too. It's really the whole boomer argument all over again. I got mine, and I'm going to ride it into the ground and not pull anyone from the next generation up, or even recognize that the party and the electorate are changing. It's a failure to think about anything but this very second, dismissing a future that might be a bit different from what has been done for so long. If the democratic party wants to survive and be relevant they need to expand their tent, or they won't have their tent anymore.

[Nonlinear FC]

Well said, Chedda. I'm so over the Clintons at this point.

[DSafetyGuy]

AOC is also waythefuckahead of where some dude named Obama was when he got his star-making spot at a DNC. I seem to recall a lot of people saying his energy was appealing. Whatever happened to him?

Instead, a rehash of ghosts past, including a reliance on those from the other side of the aisle. I mean, between John Kasich and Colin Powell and Liz Cheney and the grifters at the Lincoln Project, why would anyone on the left actually want to vote for Biden without the "must get Trump out" trope? Nah, we're going to roll out a bunch of our tired retreads and completely disregard the youth who are driving the current social movement that blends with the stated policies of our party.

Two nights in and the universally highest regard for everyone who has spoken is for a former First Lady. Prior to Hilary Clinton, all a First Lady had to do was be well-dressed and have manners. Now, a former one is about the most appealing thing they have to offer. And I don't think its a stretch to say that her husband will be the other speaker held in highest regard when its all said and done.

Other poor decisions they have made:

Offered up Clinton when trying to hurt Trump for his relationship with Epstein

Opted to not have a virtual convention when their candidate and party members are constantly harping on Trump's poor response to it. Instead, they postponed it and stayed with it instead of canceling it months ago, giving up that possible advantage. And now that the RNC went virtual, there is nothing to gain. Had you beaten them to the virtual punch, you would look like the leader and the party who cares about saving lives. Instead...

Tell me, if Trump wins, who gets the blame? The left for not throwing voting blue no matter who or the party for courting Republicans (the enemy) and failing to win over enough of them?

[Johnnie]

Chedda nails it.

The failure of the current Democratic leadership, intentional or otherwise, is realizing that their party is shifting hard right now but ignoring it completely.

There are charismatic personalities, especially POCs, who have brought forth dynamic ideas and absolutely trigger the fuck out of Republicans. These folks are the future of the party whether the current establishment likes it or not. And many voters want progress.

Giving zero of these people any sort of real platform during a time when it's standard procedure to highlight someone gives the impression that Democrats are just nicer about being craven political assholes than Republicans. An entire night of the DNC could've been dedicated to The Future of the Party. But no. Fuck off kids. This ain't your party yet.

I liken it to the military retiree who, even after they've been out of uniform for years and years, picks up a GS job and immediately decides to "do things the way I did it when I was in" despite a changing demographic, technology, or regulation stating otherwise. It makes for a shitty work environment to say the least.

ETA: DSafe nailed it too.