2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[brian]

Yeah, Bernie comes with some pros, but also some cons. Everyone knows this. The fact that Trump didn't want to run against Biden and preferred Bernie is almost proof enough for me that this is probably going to be for the best. But no one is especially enthused about him. At the end of the day, a moderate, well-known, mostly well-liked white man is probably good enough to beat Trump. Just consider him an avatar if you have to. I get all of the arguments about the policies, but the truth is that if the Dems don't win the Senate or even if they only have a small majority (which the best case is probably something like 51-49 or 52-48 at best) then M4A and some of that other stuff wasn't going to happen anyway. Maybe with Biden we can get the minimum wage boosted to a more reasonable amount like $12 or something and start to make some incremental progress. Also, it's critical to start getting some liberal justices on the appeals courts, so winning the White House is absolutely critical even if nothing else happens.

[tennbengal]

I get that, JoeK, and don't disagree (re: volunteers). What I am wondering is IF the anti-Trump sentiment as a selling point on all on its own, will be enough. I don't know that it will, but that's one read of the 2018 mid-terms and what's happening with Biden now.

[Ryan]

1.19M total votes in the 2016 Michigan DEM primary. Biden just got 840,000.

[Rush2112]

Bernie was one of the only white politicians who endorsed Jackson when he ran for President in the 80s.

If anyone wants a Jesse Jackson for Vermont poster I've got a whole bunch that my mom saved for some reason (one I can understand this is a roll of like 30.)

[Rush2112]

Lesser of two evils. Is Trump being a historically horrible president enough? I've been saying yes for 3.5 years. We'll obviously see soon enough. (Though not soon enough for any of us, I'm sure.)

He is a horrible president, but he also has a staunch band of supporters that are fired up about how great he is, the suppression of likely Democratic voters (and whatever the election security folks are on about,) as well as the Russian / Fox propaganda machine on his side.

Biden has "I'm not Trump."

[degenerasian]

Lesser of two evils. Is Trump being a historically horrible president enough? I've been saying yes for 3.5 years. We'll obviously see soon enough. (Though not soon enough for any of us, I'm sure.)

He is a horrible president, but he also has a staunch band of supporters that are fired up about how great he is, the suppression of likely Democratic voters (and whatever the election security folks are on about,) as well as the Russian / Fox propaganda machine on his side.

Biden has "I'm not Trump."

You guys are looking at the macro picture but when a voter stands in the voting booth, it comes down to very micro questions.

Am I better off than I was 4 years ago?
Am I voting retrospectively, assessing past economic performance, or voting prospectively, based on expectation?
Has my community and/or school improved or gotten worse?
Do I worry about the overall US Economy or my own pocketbook?

I think most voters vote micro-level, ignorantly and selfishly.

[Steve of phpBB]

Lesser of two evils. Is Trump being a historically horrible president enough? I've been saying yes for 3.5 years. We'll obviously see soon enough. (Though not soon enough for any of us, I'm sure.)

He is a horrible president, but he also has a staunch band of supporters that are fired up about how great he is, the suppression of likely Democratic voters (and whatever the election security folks are on about,) as well as the Russian / Fox propaganda machine on his side.

Biden has "I'm not Trump."

And I’ll protect abortion rights and I’ll reinstate the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and I won’t deport the Dreamers and I’ll enforce environmental laws and I’ll expand health coverage and I’ll protect gay marriage and I’ll protect workers’ rights and I’ll protect Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid

[Jerloma]

"And I'll pay off the trillions of dollars in debt I helped to create in ill-advised wars."

[Giff]

Lesser of two evils. Is Trump being a historically horrible president enough? I've been saying yes for 3.5 years. We'll obviously see soon enough. (Though not soon enough for any of us, I'm sure.)

He is a horrible president, but he also has a staunch band of supporters that are fired up about how great he is, the suppression of likely Democratic voters (and whatever the election security folks are on about,) as well as the Russian / Fox propaganda machine on his side.

Biden has "I'm not Trump."

And I’ll protect abortion rights and I’ll reinstate the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and I won’t deport the Dreamers and I’ll enforce environmental laws and I’ll expand health coverage and I’ll protect gay marriage and I’ll protect workers’ rights and I’ll protect Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid

Don't forget the Supreme Court. RBG is not likely to make it past the next term.

[A_B]

Lesser of two evils. Is Trump being a historically horrible president enough? I've been saying yes for 3.5 years. We'll obviously see soon enough. (Though not soon enough for any of us, I'm sure.)

He is a horrible president, but he also has a staunch band of supporters that are fired up about how great he is, the suppression of likely Democratic voters (and whatever the election security folks are on about,) as well as the Russian / Fox propaganda machine on his side.

Biden has "I'm not Trump."

And I’ll protect abortion rights and I’ll reinstate the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and I won’t deport the Dreamers and I’ll enforce environmental laws and I’ll expand health coverage and I’ll protect gay marriage and I’ll protect workers’ rights and I’ll protect Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid

Don't forget the Supreme Court. RBG is not likely to make it past the next term.

She will almost certainly retire, no?

[brian]

Lesser of two evils. Is Trump being a historically horrible president enough? I've been saying yes for 3.5 years. We'll obviously see soon enough. (Though not soon enough for any of us, I'm sure.)

He is a horrible president, but he also has a staunch band of supporters that are fired up about how great he is, the suppression of likely Democratic voters (and whatever the election security folks are on about,) as well as the Russian / Fox propaganda machine on his side.

Biden has "I'm not Trump."

And I’ll protect abortion rights and I’ll reinstate the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and I won’t deport the Dreamers and I’ll enforce environmental laws and I’ll expand health coverage and I’ll protect gay marriage and I’ll protect workers’ rights and I’ll protect Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid

Don't forget the Supreme Court. RBG is not likely to make it past the next term.

She will almost certainly retire, no?

Probably not. I think she'd like to die on the bench. If we get into year three of a Biden or Bernie administration, she probably would at that point though.

[brian]

FWIW, Bernie's presser today seemed to set the right tone. It's pretty clear he sees the writing on the wall. It's more critical than ever that he get him and his supporters behind Biden and work behind the scenes to try and move Biden to the left, which I believe IS possible to some degree. That would be a solid legacy for him and his movement if he works to move Biden left and get him elected.

ETA: With the important caveat I don't blame him for staying in the race. But some more outcomes like last night in the next two or three weeks would make his candidacy untenable at that point.

[brian]

If you want to see in one graphic why Biden might be a better candidate in the general than Bernie this year and Hillary in 2016, here you go. If Biden alone is enough to swing MI/PA/WI back to blue, then that's the ballgame.

[Gunpowder]

This is the first point where I'm starting to think that Trump is actually going to win again.

Ok starting to change my mind on this one

[sancarlos]

The year's campaign theme:

[Steve of phpBB]

This is the first point where I'm starting to think that Trump is actually going to win again.

Ok starting to change my mind on this one

Yeah. The irony* is that if Coronoairus had gotten here a month or two earlier, Sanders might have actually won the nomination and the general.



*It's probably not irony.

[brian]

The year's campaign theme:

If this gets as bad as a lot of people think, the GOP will have no choice but to throw Trump overboard. Ironically, the fact he put Pence in charge of the coronavirus response means that it won't matter (which is why I think Trump tasked Pence with the job -- if so, pretty genius to be fair.)

[brian]

(Honestly, in a weird way, a legit worst case scenario for the election in November is Trump dying in the next couple of weeks and Pence somehow pulling things together after.)

[Joe K]

(Honestly, in a weird way, a legit worst case scenario for the election in November is Trump dying in the next couple of weeks and Pence somehow pulling things together after.)

Maybe I’m wrong but I think it’d be easy for any Democrat to beat Pence in a general election, even if Pence projects competency. I don’t think Pence’s particular brand of fundamentalism plays outside of deep red states.

[Steve of phpBB]

(Honestly, in a weird way, a legit worst case scenario for the election in November is Trump dying in the next couple of weeks and Pence somehow pulling things together after.)

Maybe I’m wrong but I think it’d be easy for any Democrat to beat Pence in a general election, even if Pence projects competency. I don’t think Pence’s particular brand of fundamentalism plays outside of deep red states.

Plus, he doesn't have that overt racism that appeals to the white nationalist. He's just a guy who wants to regulate sex and deregulate business.

[brian]

Not sure it really matters when conservatives' parents and friends start dying en masse here shortly. The GOP is going to (rightly) get the blame, no matter who sits in the White House at that point.

[mister d]

They'll direct their anger to a mean leftist tweet and ignore the actual cause.

[Steve of phpBB]

Am I missing something, or is this a really dishonest tweet from Bernie?



The way I understand it, what the Fed is doing is taking its own money and lending it to banks by buying bonds. It transfers money to the banks but gets financial assets in return. The banks will repay the Fed by either paying on the bonds or buying them back. Or the Fed can sell the bonds.

Government spending on health care (or anything else) involves the federal government taking money from taxpayers or borrowing money (by selling bonds), and then spending that money without getting *financial* assets in return. The people and government get other benefits, but it is still an expense of funds. So whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's different from the Fed injecting money into the economy.

That's my understanding, anyway. Is my understanding incorrect?

[govmentchedda]

I don't know enough about the specifics, but I assume that is part of the point. It doesn't sound good though.

[Steve of phpBB]

I don't know enough about the specifics, but I assume that is part of the point. It doesn't sound good though.

I guess maybe a simpler question is ... does what the Fed did today create a debt that requires repayment out of future federal budgets? My understanding is that it does not.

[govmentchedda]

I don't know enough about the specifics, but I assume that is part of the point. It doesn't sound good though.

I guess maybe a simpler question is ... does what the Fed did today create a debt that requires repayment out of future federal budgets? My understanding is that it does not.

And my follow up to that would be even if it doesn't, should it? I ask that not knowing the answer.

[Steve of phpBB]

I don't know enough about the specifics, but I assume that is part of the point. It doesn't sound good though.

I guess maybe a simpler question is ... does what the Fed did today create a debt that requires repayment out of future federal budgets? My understanding is that it does not.

And my follow up to that would be even if it doesn't, should it?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Can you clarify? (I think I'm getting caught up on "should")

[govmentchedda]

I don't know enough about the specifics, but I assume that is part of the point. It doesn't sound good though.

I guess maybe a simpler question is ... does what the Fed did today create a debt that requires repayment out of future federal budgets? My understanding is that it does not.

And my follow up to that would be even if it doesn't, should it?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Can you clarify? (I think I'm getting caught up on "should")

I guess what my last question meant was, "if it's not "officially" counted for some reason, is there an argument to be made that it should?" I can't imagine this has as few consequences as it would seem.

[Rams Fanny]

It is a continuation of the Obama Administration's policy of Quantitative Easing (2008-15?) in response to the Banking Crisis. It is to make sure banks continue to loan each other money and keep it flowing rather than having them hoard it like Costco toilet paper.

[Steve of phpBB]

I guess what my last question meant was, "if it's not "officially" counted for some reason, is there an argument to be made that it should?" I can't imagine this has as few consequences as it would seem.

I don't think it's a matter of official versus unofficial counting. I think it's a difference between doing a transaction that affects your balance sheet and one that doesn't.

If I start the day with $10 in cash, but then I deposit that in a savings account, I no longer have the $10 in cash, but I have an asset worth $10.

But if I start the day with $10 in cash, and then spend it at a restaurant, I no longer have the cash or an asset worth $10. I did, however, take care of my eating needs for a period of time, so the money wasn't necessarily wasted. But financially, I am $10 poorer.

And if I start the day with $10 in cash, then borrow $10 and spend all $20 at a restaurant, now I am $10 in debt and still have no asset. I did get value again, but I still have to find a way to repay that $10.

I think the first thing is what the Fed did today.

I think the third thing is what government deficit spending is. This doesn't mean it's bad. But as I understand it, it's not really comparable.

[govmentchedda]

I guess what my last question meant was, "if it's not "officially" counted for some reason, is there an argument to be made that it should?" I can't imagine this has as few consequences as it would seem.

I don't think it's a matter of official versus unofficial counting. I think it's a difference between doing a transaction that affects your balance sheet and one that doesn't.

If I start the day with $10 in cash, but then I deposit that in a savings account, I no longer have the $10 in cash, but I have an asset worth $10.

But if I start the day with $10 in cash, and then spend it at a restaurant, I no longer have the cash or an asset worth $10. I did, however, take care of my eating needs for a period of time, so the money wasn't necessarily wasted. But financially, I am $10 poorer.

And if I start the day with $10 in cash, then borrow $10 and spend all $20 at a restaurant, now I am $10 in debt and still have no asset. I did get value again, but I still have to find a way to repay that $10.

I think the first thing is what the Fed did today.

I think the third thing is what government deficit spending is. This doesn't mean it's bad. But as I understand it, it's not really comparable.

I hope you're right, but I am curious of the opportunity cost, and concerned about how much capacity we have to continue to do this during times when the market seems to chew up and spit out such stimulus so rapidly.

[sancarlos]

I hope you're right, but I am curious of the opportunity cost, and concerned about how much capacity we have to continue to do this during times when the market seems to chew up and spit out such stimulus so rapidly.

The Fed threw its best fastball, and the market smacked it off the centerfield fence.

And, now there's no baseball.

[brian]

I feel like today will be the most obvious day you can point to when Biden is elected president. He nailed what he needed to in his speech and seemed to have it all together.

[Johnnie]

I kinda like this idea:

[Joe K]

I feel like today will be the most obvious day you can point to when Biden is elected president. He nailed what he needed to in his speech and seemed to have it all together.

Yeah, I’ve obviously been a Biden skeptic but if the health effects of the pandemic are anywhere close to what we’re expecting, it’ll be hard for Trump get re-elected. His handling of this week has been beyond incompetent.

[Gunpowder]

They'll direct their anger to a mean leftist tweet and ignore the actual cause.

SOROS

[Joe K]

I feel like today will be the most obvious day you can point to when Biden is elected president. He nailed what he needed to in his speech and seemed to have it all together.

Yeah, I’ve obviously been a Biden skeptic but if the health effects of the pandemic are anywhere close to what we’re expecting, it’ll be hard for Trump get re-elected. His handling of this week has been beyond incompetent.

To my point:

You’ve gotta be a sociopath with a deep seated hatred of the poor to think this is anything other than a moral outrage.

[brian]

I think Trump and his minions are really failing to see this is a 9/11 or Kennedy assassination type moment in American history and that even most Republicans expect a president who is going to try and unite the country, especially as things get worse over the coming days and weeks. Trump's normal playbook is only going to piss a lot of people who support him off (and further cement his incompetence and narcissism to those who don't support him).

He was never going to be capable of it, because he's who he is, but if he had managed to be even remotely "presidential" through this, he probably could have cemented his re-election. Now, I honestly think it's 50/50 he's even president come November.

[L-Jam3]

It'd totally on brand for Trump to skip town after sending everything into the toilet. That's been his M.O. for 40 years.

[P.D.X.]

?