2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[tennbengal]

What’s your favorite Beto policy position?

The ones he will inevitably adopt to win.

Eta- that wasn’t meant to be snarky. I am super interested in a candidate who came that close to winning the Texas senate seat from Cruz. Clearly he is able to connect with voters in a meaningful way. That is important to me in a candidate. I have no reason to think in a climate meaning as left as this one is that he will somehow stray too far from that if he is going to be successful.

[Joe K]

Nonlinear has made this point before but there will inevitably be massive pressure from big donors and lobbyists on whoever emerges from the Democratic primary to walk back any commitment to meaningful economic or environmental reforms. Because Beto is a relative newcomer without many significant accomplishments, is already a bit wishy-washy on policy, and does the Obama thing of making performative outreach to the GOP, I currently have very little confidence that he would stick with whatever policies he adopts as part of the primary process. I’d be somewhat reassured if he surrounds himself with really good policy advisors, so I’m not yet ruling him out, but I’m very skeptical.

[govmentchedda]

What’s your favorite Beto policy position?

The ones he will inevitably adopt to win.

Eta- that wasn’t meant to be snarky. I am super interested in a candidate who came that close to winning the Texas senate seat from Cruz. Clearly he is able to connect with voters in a meaningful way. That is important to me in a candidate. I have no reason to think in a climate meaning as left as this one is that he will somehow stray too far from that if he is going to be successful.

I'm interested in him as well, and the idea of anyone defeating Cruz, and his past life in a band with guys that went on to be in one of my favorite bands, how articulate he is, how great of a campaign he ran, etc. all led to me buying a BETO T-shirt. That being said, his voting record in Congress wasn't the best, and it's going to trail him in a national race, in a party that is moving (hopefully) in a more progressive direction.

[Giff]

He should be running against Cornyn.

[Joe K]

He should be running against Cornyn.

Agreed, and he still might if he fails to emerge as a frontrunner in the Presidential primary. That’s what Rubio did in 2016.

[Steve of phpBB]

What’s your favorite Beto policy position?

Given the makeup of the Senate, I'm not sure the differences between the policy positions of the Dem candidates are relevant. They will also appoint basically the same judges and cabinet members, and basically push for the same regulations. And because Joe Manchin having the swing vote is basically the best-case scenario in the Senate, having the President be slightly more or less liberal really won't matter.

[brian]

This. The liberal bonafides of the candidate won't matter if they get beat by Trump. But all that said, I'm legitimately keeping an open mind over the next 12 months and encourage everyone to do the same.

[mister d]

It matters huge in getting what should be the base that counters the GOP out to vote.

[brian]

Most years, yes but I think that will be overblown in 2020. Turning people out to vote against Trump isn't going to take some magical liberal unicorn candidate.

[Joe K]

What’s your favorite Beto policy position?

Given the makeup of the Senate, I'm not sure the differences between the policy positions of the Dem candidates are relevant. They will also appoint basically the same judges and cabinet members, and basically push for the same regulations.

I’m not sure about this as I think the positions of Democrats on cabinet appointees and regulatory policy can vary a lot. Had she won, HRC wanted Howard Schulz and Sheryl Sandberg in her cabinet. Obama picked a JP Morgan executive as chief of staff. I think it’s fair to say that Warren or Sanders would have very different sets of advisors.

[mister d]

Most years, yes but I think that will be overblown in 2020. Turning people out to vote against Trump isn't going to take some magical liberal unicorn candidate.

Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... s_received

[Steve of phpBB]

It matters huge in getting what should be the base that counters the GOP out to vote.

If the base doesn't come out to vote against Trump, then fuck them. Seriously.

[brian]

I mean if people don't come out to vote for Beto or even Joe Biden against Trump then there's basically no hope for the Republic anyway, so might as well be best to know that now.

[mister d]

Lets say Biden comes out against M4A, should that not cost him support?

[Joe K]

It matters huge in getting what should be the base that counters the GOP out to vote.

If the base doesn't come out to vote against Trump, then fuck them. Seriously.

I don’t think the base is the issue. I think it’s voters who are less politically engaged and/or just disenchanted with politics as a whole. Enough of those voters fell for Trump’s “outsider” pitch in 2016 to make a difference.

ETA: to Mr. D’s point, promising concrete new benefits like M4A, a $15 minimum wage, free college or free child care is one way to win back the type of disenchanted voters I am referring to. People who think about politics regularly are going to go out and vote — the challenge is breaking through to everyone else.

[mister d]

Right. Take the 4 or whatever key swing states and tell me what percentage of their traditional non-voters (to say nothing of R voters) would be positively and tangibly affected by higher tax rates on millionaires, by M4A and/or by raising the minimum wage. With those issues taking the forefront, there's no turning back on them. "We aren't Trump (but we do still govern to the benefit of the wealthy)" is less sustainable now than in the past, not more.

[brian]

I think we're talking about two different things then. I largely fail to see a scenario where the most moderate candidate wins the nomination, but putting that aside if young voters or disenchanted voters or whomever else can't be compelled to vote against Trump -- of all candidates -- then it's pointless to worry too much because there's no hope for the future.

[mister d]

I don't agree. Atleast in my voting lifetime, Dems have always been reactionary but they've followed societal trends. If they start actively going against issues polling at or well above 50% because of corporate interests, why should the people hurt by those decisions be compelled to support them?

[brian]

By the other token, I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy that the most progressive candidate is going to magically drive turnout where it didn't exist before which seems to be a philosophy espoused by some.

Personally I don't think that means "settling" for a moderate, but even if there is an unserved market a candidate is catering to there probably is a point on an axis where the "liberality" of the candidate starts to become a net negative (either by driving turnout for the other candidate or defections from the middle).

[mister d]

That comes down to messaging when its the issues in the prior posts. There's nothing liberal about M4A and you can prove that pretty easily by threatening a conservative 70 year olds Medicare.

[Steve of phpBB]

Lets say Biden comes out against M4A, should that not cost him support?

In a general election? No.

I think there's three ways to look at that.

1. Instrumentally, unless you think Joe Manchin and every Dem to the left of him is going to support M4A, it doesn't really matter whether the President does.

2. From a more policy-based standpoint, if he proposes an alternative proposal that guarantees universal coverage and affordability, then it shouldn't cost him support because such as approach is probably better than M4A.

There are other ways to get universal (and affordable) coverage that aren't single payer. Hell, just add a public option and expanded subsidies to the Affordable Care Act, and let Medicare negotiate with providers and drug companies, and you're 90 percent of the rest of the way there. I'm not aware of any country that has switched from a system based on widespread usage of private insurance to a single payer system. I'm not confident that this country, with its huge size and its hostility toward basic competence, can pull that off without causing major disruption and pain.

3. Really? We're okay with having Trump stay in office? Donald Trump isn't going to support M4A. If a person thinks that a non-M4A-supporting Trump is just as good as a non-M4A-supporting Biden, if they are okay with deliberate separation of families because they're brown, reactionary judges with lifetime tenure, corporations writing environmental laws, closing our borders to refugees, open racism, etc., because Biden isn't pushing a policy that won't get through the Senate anyway, then fuck them.

[brian]

When push comes to shove and I'm participating in the first in the West Nevada primary (well, caucus), I'm probably gonna back the candidate that I think has the best chance of beating Trump, ideology be damned.

My ideology for 2020 is beating Trump. Everything else is secondary.

[degenerasian]

Lets say Biden comes out against M4A, should that not cost him support?

In a general election? No.

I think there's three ways to look at that.

1. Instrumentally, unless you think Joe Manchin and every Dem to the left of him is going to support M4A, it doesn't really matter whether the President does.

2. From a more policy-based standpoint, if he proposes an alternative proposal that guarantees universal coverage and affordability, then it shouldn't cost him support because such as approach is probably better than M4A.

There are other ways to get universal (and affordable) coverage that aren't single payer. Hell, just add a public option and expanded subsidies to the Affordable Care Act, and let Medicare negotiate with providers and drug companies, and you're 90 percent of the rest of the way there. I'm not aware of any country that has switched from a system based on widespread usage of private insurance to a single payer system. I'm not confident that this country, with its huge size and its hostility toward basic competence, can pull that off without causing major disruption and pain.

3. Really? We're okay with having Trump stay in office? Donald Trump isn't going to support M4A. If a person thinks that a non-M4A-supporting Trump is just as good as a non-M4A-supporting Biden, if they are okay with deliberate separation of families because they're brown, reactionary judges with lifetime tenure, corporations writing environmental laws, closing our borders to refugees, open racism, etc., because Biden isn't pushing a policy that won't get through the Senate anyway, then fuck them.

Republicans think about this, they play the long-term game.
Conservatives, by definition, want the status quo and rail against those who want to tear things away from them. This includes racism, sexism, everything.

They don't care about Donald Trump. They care about the [R].

Do Democrat voters think this way?
Or does their candidate have to be cool and then stay home if they don't get their way?
ie, vote for Obama and Bernie but not for Hillary.

[brian]

Meanwhile:

[mister d]

3. Really? We're okay with having Trump stay in office? Donald Trump isn't going to support M4A. If a person thinks that a non-M4A-supporting Trump is just as good as a non-M4A-supporting Biden, if they are okay with deliberate separation of families because they're brown, reactionary judges with lifetime tenure, corporations writing environmental laws, closing our borders to refugees, open racism, etc., because Biden isn't pushing a policy that won't get through the Senate anyway, then fuck them.

I don't disagree with anything you listed, but can't you just as easily add in "if you're ok with my mother dying of cancer because we couldn't afford treatment, if you're ok with my father essentially wasting his life working 80 hours every week at multiple jobs, etc"? Its where you draw the lines on the intolerables versus the nice to haves and now, with the majority of the country taking up these causes, either you have one party that works for the majority or you find a new option.

[Pruitt]

Meanwhile:

His ship sailed a long time ago. The guy is going to turn 78 just after election day. Time to move on.

[Steve of phpBB]

Do Democrat voters think this way?
Or does their candidate have to be cool and then stay home if they don't get their way?
ie, vote for Obama and Bernie but not for Hillary.

I think you need to distinguish "Democratic voters" with "Democratic voters on Twitter".

Democratic voters generally vote for the Democrat (and clearly preferred Hillary to Bernie).

[Steve of phpBB]

3. Really? We're okay with having Trump stay in office? Donald Trump isn't going to support M4A. If a person thinks that a non-M4A-supporting Trump is just as good as a non-M4A-supporting Biden, if they are okay with deliberate separation of families because they're brown, reactionary judges with lifetime tenure, corporations writing environmental laws, closing our borders to refugees, open racism, etc., because Biden isn't pushing a policy that won't get through the Senate anyway, then fuck them.

I don't disagree with anything you listed, but can't you just as easily add in "if you're ok with my mother dying of cancer because we couldn't afford treatment, if you're ok with my father essentially wasting his life working 80 hours every week at multiple jobs, etc"? Its where you draw the lines on the intolerables versus the nice to haves and now, with the majority of the country taking up these causes, either you have one party that works for the majority or you find a new option.

I don't think that's a logical analogy, because it assumes that Trump would be better than Biden on those points.

Also, and maybe this is just a fundamental issue that can never be resolved here, but do we have evidence that strong liberals - the kind willing to support trillions in taxes for single payer - are a majority? I just think back to the NY governor primary, where Cynthia Nixon won 95% of my Twitter feed and 36% of the vote. Or the Washington carbon tax initiative, in which a carbon tax was solidly voted down in a solidly Democratic state.

"[Dem nominee] will take your insurance away and triple your taxes to pay for it" is going to be a persuasive argument for many.

[brian]

And there's no evidence that Bernie voters didn't turn out to vote for Hillary (just as 90+ percent of Hillary supporters in 2008 turned out to vote for Obama in 2008). The idea that either occurred (Hillary primary supporters staying home or Bernie primary supporters staying home) is a myth.

Anyone who regularly votes is going to vote for whichever candidate is nominated. I agree with Mr.D that there is a calculus for engaging new voters (those who weren't eligible in 2016) and non-voters in the past, but I suspect it's more personality-based (see: Obama, Barack) than policy-based (but is a combination of both). That's where he and I might differ some.

[Joe K]

Lets say Biden comes out against M4A, should that not cost him support?

In a general election? No.

I think there's three ways to look at that.

1. Instrumentally, unless you think Joe Manchin and every Dem to the left of him is going to support M4A, it doesn't really matter whether the President does.

Why is it that conservative Dems like Manchin are viewed as immovable objects who will block any progressive legislation, while GOP leadership can almost always get its supposedly moderate members to fall in line? To use a recent example, Manchin can vote to confirm Kavanaugh and still keep his preferred Committee seats when it’s hard to fathom the converse happening with a GOP Senator. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that Democratic leadership is happy being a socially liberal party for the rich and doesn’t actually care to exert any pressure on folks like Manchin to try and change that.

[mister d]

"[Dem nominee] will take your insurance away and triple your taxes to pay for it" is going to be a persuasive argument for many.

Beyond the questionable (disproven?) math, there are other means of generating new revenue than taxes on the upper middle through lower classes.

[brian]

I do agree if M4A is going to be on the table (which it should be) there's going to have to be a relatively concrete plan to pay for it. Warren has proposed one and even though she's not running of course AOC has as well.

But I'm not keen on policy proposals without a roadmap of how we get there.

[mister d]

I do agree if M4A is going to be on the table (which it should be) there's going to have to be a relatively concrete plan to pay for it.

This feels like another thing that's only a Dem burden. What was the revenue stream that offset the military increase in the last budget?

(But again, taxing top 10% income or higher taxes on cap gains or closing loopholes personal or corp or any of a lot of things can apply here.)

[degenerasian]

Everything is Dem burden because the status quo is not a burden and has benefitted a lot of power people. Conservatives just make the same arguments.

Change is tough and a burden. When Tommy Douglas bought healthcare to Canada people thought he was the devil.

Just take it at a micro level and try to be progressive at work.

[cerrano]

question: to what extent does the electoral math change after april 15th? blue states are gonna get bluer after they do their taxes, but i haven't heard much concerning how the new tax laws are impacting middle class folks who don't have high property taxes that they used to be able to write off along with other shit. haven't done mine yet, but my coworker with whom i'm very much in the same boat saw a $4500 swing in the federal return and owes $3200 this year. bottom line, he isn't as conservative as he used to be. but i guess it depends on whether taxpayers who don't think about politics all the time know that the dick poking them in the ass belongs to an elephant.

[brian]

question: to what extent does the electoral math change after april 15th? blue states are gonna get bluer after they do their taxes, but i haven't heard much concerning how the new tax laws are impacting middle class folks who don't have high property taxes that they used to be able to write off along with other shit. haven't done mine yet, but my coworker with whom i'm very much in the same boat saw a $4500 swing in the federal return and owes $3200 this year. bottom line, he isn't as conservative as he used to be. but i guess it depends on whether taxpayers who don't think about politics all the time know that the dick poking them in the ass belongs to an elephant.

Even non-politically savvy people tend to blame the party in the presidency when stuff like this happens

[cerrano]

question: to what extent does the electoral math change after april 15th? blue states are gonna get bluer after they do their taxes, but i haven't heard much concerning how the new tax laws are impacting middle class folks who don't have high property taxes that they used to be able to write off along with other shit. haven't done mine yet, but my coworker with whom i'm very much in the same boat saw a $4500 swing in the federal return and owes $3200 this year. bottom line, he isn't as conservative as he used to be. but i guess it depends on whether taxpayers who don't think about politics all the time know that the dick poking them in the ass belongs to an elephant.

Even non-politically savvy people tend to blame the party in the presidency when stuff like this happens

well, we should all fucking hope so.

[degenerasian]

Everything is Dem burden because the status quo is not a burden and has benefitted a lot of power people. Conservatives just make the same arguments.

Change is tough and a burden. When Tommy Douglas bought healthcare to Canada people thought he was the devil.

Just take it at a micro level and try to be progressive at work.

More on Tommy Douglas. He brought in Medicare in his 16th year of being premier of Saskatchewan.

https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTS ... PA4LE.html

He was called a communist and the doctors went on strike.

And that was Saskatchewan, population 900,000.

[mister d]

Timely ...

[Joe K]

Timely ...

Pelosi is a perfect embodiment of what I was talking about by the Democratic establishment positioning itself as a socially liberal party for the rich. She’s an ultra-wealthy politician whose husband has made tens of millions from the finance and real estate sectors, and yet she thinks we “can’t afford” giving healthcare to low-income people.