Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

11718202223

Comments

  • No no no no no no. That's fine for most parents and children Gramps, and its fine for most Parents who hold high office and most of their children in most jobs. But it is absolutely not fine where the job is $50k a month working for a corporation in a pivotal country with problematic relationships internationally and where the elite are incestuous and corrupt themselves. That is the appearance of corruption, in the same category as continuing to own businesses dealing with the Govt. and giving your family jobs in the White House. These things should cause us to spurn the offenders, and cast them out. Biden is not the guy to take on Trump.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I did say part, if you will notice.
    This is not horseshoes or hand-grenades, Hillary LOST. This is important because who sits in Oval Office is more important than conciliatory rhetoric about winning the popular vote.
    Unless you want a repeat, enough people have to vote for whoever runs against Trump to make a difference. And anyone not voting for whoever that might be is directly supporting Trump.

    The number of people voting, and for whom, plainly was not the deciding factor in 2016. As you point out, Hillary lost. She lost despite winning the popular vote by some 3 million ballots. It's the electoral college which decided that outcome. Based on your comment here . . .
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Kinda stupid thing to hang one's hat on. If the Democrats cannot pull support cleanly, Trump is going to be renominated.
    Whinging because one's preferred candidate didn't get the nod is part of why he got the White house the first time.
    . . . I understood you to be claiming that Bernie Bros' defections are somehow to blame for the 2016 Democratic lose. If a candidate can lose by a 3-million vote majority, then what majority -- if any -- can guarantee victory? I'm not sure there's evidence for your claim about turnout unless it can be shown that a major shift in the electoral college vote would have followed on from a Bernie / Donald matchup with a huge Bernie turnout. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.
    3 million make it sound like a lot. It was not. It was a victory of 2.1%. Pretty damn close.

    The point is that division is not beneficial to removing Trump form office. None of the Democratic candidates demonstrate the kind of interest Obama did, so counting on the extra voters his campaign enticed to vote is shaky. You have to work with what you've got and that means focusing on one candidate pretty damn soon. Otherwise, people invested in other candidates will not vote or vote for other than the democratic choice. And those are voted for Trump.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited September 30
    I mean this most sincerely: Solidarity forever. Solidarity for ever. Solidarity for ever. For the Union makes us strong.

    It is not acceptable for people who support the principles of justice, fairness and equity to refuse to turn out to vote for the candidate chosen by the party, even if the party has chosen a candidate with whom you disagree. It is a fundamental betrayal of the ongoing struggle, a selfish and self-defeating move which should result in expulsion.

    Fight hard and dirty in house if you must, but once you are facing the bully boys, stand your ground comrade. Solidarity is the only real power working people have.
  • Whenever I try to parade my working class background my wife, the only working class thing about me, just looks at me and laughs. I say, "Yeah, but we are like the kulaks in Russia - rich peasants." She then usually says something like, "Your Mum has a flat on the Gold Coast and a house in Sorrento. And you went to a private school." Then I say, "It was a Catholic school, and I do a working class job." She says, "slumming it dear?" Then I fall on my knees and beg her to let me in to her class. She never does. It's terrible.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Today was the day the list of participants in the mid-October Democratic presidential debate was finalized. Twelve candidates have fulfilled the requirements to participate in the next round of Democratic primary debates. In order to qualify a candidate had to receive at least 130,000 donations from unique donors and poll at least 2% support in four recognized national or early state polls. These are the same qualifying criteria as last time so the list includes the ten who were on stage in September plus Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard.

    The Debatables
    • Joe Biden
    • Corey Booker
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Julián Castro
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Kamala Harris
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Tom Steyer
    • Elizabeth Warren
    • Andrew Yang

    There was one candidate who qualified by number of donors but fell short in polled support.

    Close But Not Quite
    • Marianne Williamson

    And then there were those who didn't qualify by either polled support or donations.

    Not Even Close
    • Michael Bennet
    • Steve Bullock
    • John Delaney
    • Wayne Messam
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak

    Despite earlier claims that more than ten candidates on stage at a time was unacceptable the DNC has announced that all twelve will debate on a single night, October 15. This will be the largest number of candidates on a single stage in the history of U.S. presidential debates.

    We've also got an inkling of who will be in the fifth debate in November (date TBD). This debate has slightly higher qualifying criteria but we've already got a few who have qualified.

    Already In
    • Joe Biden
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Kamala Harris
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren

    These are the same top 5 who, as of now, seem to be the only realistic possible nominees.

    Almost There
    • Tom Steyer
    • Andrew Yang

    These two have qualified in terms of number of donors and only need one more poll showing 3%+ support to qualify.

    Tough Road Ahead
    • Cory Booker
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Beto O'Rourke

    The candidates above qualify in terms of donors and have one or two of the four required polls showing 3%+ support.

    Longshots
    • Julián Castro
    • Tulsi Gabbard

    The Longshots are candidates who have the qualifying number of donors but no polls (yet) showing 3%+ support (or 5%+ support in an early state).

    Abandon All Hope
    • Michael Bennet
    • Steve Bullock
    • John Delaney
    • Wayne Messam
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Marianne Williamson

    These candidates have no qualifying polls and have not met the donor threshold. They're the same folks on the "Not Even Close" list above, plus Marianne Williamson.
  • I reckon what I said about the Bidens might have been off base. At one stage of his career Hunter was running a lobbying firm, and he got out of that business when his Dad became VP. So back then at least they were aware of the importance of avoiding conflicts. I still haven't worked out how he came to be offered a position on the Ukraine Co. board.
  • Biden only has one corrupt offspring? Have standards fallen that much?
  • Bernie :(

    Assuming this puts him out of the race, that leaves us I guess with Warren as the only semi-decent candidate.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Shipmate
    edited October 2
    Get well soon Bernie.

    I don't see any talk of him dropping out just yet. They're being quite cagey about how serious it was AFAICT. But it does rather support the argument that he's too old for the job.

    If he does end up dropping out, I think that probably a major boost for Warren.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited October 2
    Assuming this puts him out of the race, that leaves us I guess with Warren as the only semi-decent candidate.

    That's too bad. Analysis...

    I agree that Sanders was the best candidate ideologically, but I think he would be a disaster as a presidential candidate. He had some following among Democrats, but would have been red-baited to death in a general election. One photo of him sharing a podium thirty years ago with a kid wearing a Che t-shirt, and that would be it for him.

    Warren: I agree she's the next best candidate, but somehow, I just can't get past the fact that she was a voting-age adult all through the Reagan years, but didn't come to the realization that the GOP had been hijacked by assholes until 1996.

  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 2
    I don't think the red-baiting would work the same way it might have a while ago. The GOP have stretched "socialism" beyond meaning in their relentless labeling of centrists like Obama as socialists. The Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers connections didn't seem to help them. And also, actual socialism (or social democracy) is becoming more palatable to younger people. A few years ago a lot of people would have understandably assumed that an open and obvious creep like Trump was unelectable but it seems the old ideas of electability are not so solid.

    Warren's record is indeed very questionable but, well, not as bad as Biden's. For whatever reason Reagan-worship still prevails even in some corners of Dem centrism. I think Warren's Cherokee DNA thing was a real blunder. Admittedly, compared to the long list of Trump's crimes it's nothing, but this is not a fair game, and that bit where she talks about her grandfather's high cheekbones isn't going to do her any favors.

    Yeah, I guess I'm pretty pessimistic about 2020.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I don't think the red-baiting would work the same way it might have a while ago. The GOP have stretched "socialism" beyond meaning in their relentless labeling of centrists like Obama as socialists.

    And yet early indications seem to be that running against "socialism" is going to be a major Republican strategy in 2020, not just in the presidential race but downticket as well. When everything is "socialism" any opponent is a "socialist".
  • Which is why it's pointless to worry about getting red-baited because they'll do it to everyone. For some people the sun rising in the morning is a communist plot.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited October 2
    Which is why it's pointless to worry about getting red-baited because they'll do it to everyone. For some people the sun rising in the morning is a communist plot.

    Yeah, they can do it to everyone, but the results aren't going to be uniform across the board. Obama got away with "Bill Ayers was just some guy whose house I visited once" because he(Obama) didn't seem like the kind of guy who would make a habit of hanging out with mad bombers, at least not to the average swing voter.

    But I would guess that Sanders has a few dozen "Bill Ayers" in his personal history, so he's not gonna be able to dismiss any revealed meeting as a meaningless one-off.

    Plus, he openly calls himself a socialist. I recall an interview Biden gave on Fox News during the 2008 campaign, and they asked him if it was true that the Democrats want to make the USA into "a socialist country, like Sweden". Biden replied that no one outside the far-right of the Republican party thinks that. Could Sanders issue the same sort of blanket denial?

    (And personally, I don't care if a candidate has gone to a few parties with a guy who set off bombs in the 1960s, certainly no worse than being golf buddies with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, or wants to emulate Sweden. But that's not how it's gonna play in Peoria.)

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Neurotic self-correction...

    The Weather Underground set off almost all their bombs in the early 1970s, not the 1960s.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    One of the big problems is that the lefties who don't think socialism is a dirty word also are less likely to vote. My experience is that the most of the demographic that votes (i.e. older people) still think that socialism is teh evilz.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Neurotic self-correction...

    The Weather Underground set off almost all their bombs in the early 1970s, not the 1960s.

    And, apart from the ones who blew themselves up, they more or less got away with it scot-free. Meanwhile Black Panthers got murdered or incarcerated for much less.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    No no no no no no. That's fine for most parents and children Gramps, and its fine for most Parents who hold high office and most of their children in most jobs. But it is absolutely not fine where the job is $50k a month working for a corporation in a pivotal country with problematic relationships internationally and where the elite are incestuous and corrupt themselves. That is the appearance of corruption, in the same category as continuing to own businesses dealing with the Govt. and giving your family jobs in the White House. These things should cause us to spurn the offenders, and cast them out. Biden is not the guy to take on Trump.

    But the point remains that there is no credible evidence that there is any wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden. Both American and Ukrainian investigators have said Hunter did nothing wrong.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited October 3
    stetson wrote: »
    Neurotic self-correction...

    The Weather Underground set off almost all their bombs in the early 1970s, not the 1960s.

    And, apart from the ones who blew themselves up, they more or less got away with it scot-free. Meanwhile Black Panthers got murdered or incarcerated for much less.

    And when the Symbionese Liberation Army got going in the late 70s, there was some media spin that maybe Weather had become the acceptable, moderate face of armed militancy by comparison. Cynics argued that this partial rehabilitation was because Weather, unlike the SLA, was a whites-only group.

    EDIT: Holy cow, I really need to start checking my dates. Apparently, the SLA was finished by the end of 1975, IOW they never made it into the late 70s. I think I thought otherwise because Patty Hearst was still a big media darling in the late 1970s, when I started becoming cognizant of current events.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    No no no no no no. That's fine for most parents and children Gramps, and its fine for most Parents who hold high office and most of their children in most jobs. But it is absolutely not fine where the job is $50k a month working for a corporation in a pivotal country with problematic relationships internationally and where the elite are incestuous and corrupt themselves. That is the appearance of corruption, in the same category as continuing to own businesses dealing with the Govt. and giving your family jobs in the White House. These things should cause us to spurn the offenders, and cast them out. Biden is not the guy to take on Trump.

    But the point remains that there is no credible evidence that there is any wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden. Both American and Ukrainian investigators have said Hunter did nothing wrong.

    I've had a look at Hunter Biden's CV Gramps. He was qualified for that Ukraine position no worries. They recruited a couple of senior people from outside the country at the same time. It looks like they wanted gravitas and corporate governance experience and Biden ticked those boxes.

    The impressive thing about his history is that he was running a lobbying firm when Joe was elected VP. He wound that business up when his Dad was elected and I think became a partner in a law firm.

    So you are right. The Bidens have nothing to answer for.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The Sanders Campaign have said their candidate will be at the next debate on October 15.
  • I am obviously an outsider, but I really like everything about Warren. There's obviously the Pocahontas thing which her adversaries will blow up out of proportion, but what else is there that other Democrats will be against her for?
  • Warren’s voiced support of Israel in some very ugly moments are a mark against her. She’s also made it pretty clear that the national security establishment had nothing to fear from her. Domestically she is more or less adopting Bernie’s program with questionable sincerity. Even so she would be better than perhaps any democrat candidate for decades... which is a pretty sad commentary on American politics.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I am obviously an outsider, but I really like everything about Warren. There's obviously the Pocahontas thing which her adversaries will blow up out of proportion, but what else is there that other Democrats will be against her for?
    Domestically she is more or less adopting Bernie’s program with questionable sincerity.

    As @SirPalomides illustrates there's the idea that Bernie Sanders singlehandedly invented the American left and the notion that any woman in politics is obviously a pale imitation of some male candidate/politician.
  • Keep the smears coming, it makes you look mature and grounded.
  • My Bernie-supporting friend was talking about how she'll vote Green if Bernie isn't the nominee. She lives in Chicago, so how she votes is basically irrelevant, but I suspect her views are shared with a number of other socialists. She's admitted that because she lives in a very blue state, she doesn't have to think about this - from what she's said, I think she'd have to do a lot of thinking to decide whether she'd rather hold her nose and vote for some pro-war, pro-military industrial complex Democrat to get Trump out, or vote for the Green.
    She refers to Senator Warren as "the Senator for Raytheon" which gives you some idea of her opinion of a Warren candidacy.

    AIUI, the only candidate other than Bernie that she has any time for is Tulsi Gabbard.

    As far as Warren goes, the whole DNA test thing was really really stupid. She should never have brought that up at all. Accept that she made a mistake based on some family tradition, apologise, and move on. This isn't an argument that she can win - everybody knows that Senator Warren isn't Native American in any real sense, everybody knows that she hasn't suffered any prejudice or disadvantage as a result of being Native American - every time she talks about the subject, she loses. Yet somehow instead of letting it die, she dragged the whole thing back into the spotlight with her DNA test claiming that she was technically correct or some nonsense. What did she think she was going to gain by doing that?

  • Yeah that wasn’t just a gaffe. She or someone on her team somehow thought that was smart politics. That’s pretty worrying.

    I do live in a swing state and will easily vote for Warren or even Biden. But it’s not looking good.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited October 5
    Yet somehow instead of letting it die, she dragged the whole thing back into the spotlight with her DNA test claiming that she was technically correct or some nonsense. What did she think she was going to gain by doing that?

    This represents a misconception that this was something that was going to die on its own. Political opponents have been calling Warren racial slurs based on her family history for seven years (i.e. as long as she's been in elective politics) at this point. That includes the man she hopes to run against in the general election. In other words "letting it die" doesn't seem to be a realistic option. I'm also not convinced that "she's not enough of an Injun" has more (or even the same amount of) bite than "she's not a real Injun".
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    As far as Warren goes, the whole DNA test thing was really really stupid. She should never have brought that up at all.
    How long ago did she have that DNA test? Has she referred back to it since then?
    Is Warren had a DNA test something that is really going to be a crucial talking point without Democrats keeping on saying what a really stupid thing it was to do?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I am obviously an outsider, but I really like everything about Warren. There's obviously the Pocahontas thing which her adversaries will blow up out of proportion, but what else is there that other Democrats will be against her for?
    Domestically she is more or less adopting Bernie’s program with questionable sincerity.

    As @SirPalomides illustrates there's the idea that Bernie Sanders singlehandedly invented the American left and the notion that any woman in politics is obviously a pale imitation of some male candidate/politician.

    I think it's possible to have questions about Warren's progressive credentials, without being a sexist.


  • Warren could have just done what she ended up doing anyway- apologize and retract. Instead she took Trump’s bait, took the DNA test, and publicized it in a move widely taken as an opening to her presidential campaign.

    Of course the GOP were going to use “Pocahantas” no matter what she did; that doesn’t make handing them more ammunition any less stupid.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited October 5
    Dafyd wrote: »
    As far as Warren goes, the whole DNA test thing was really really stupid. She should never have brought that up at all.
    How long ago did she have that DNA test? Has she referred back to it since then?
    Is Warren had a DNA test something that is really going to be a crucial talking point without Democrats keeping on saying what a really stupid thing it was to do?

    She had the test a little under a year ago, in October 2018.

    I think the Republicans will try to make an issue of it, but the thing is, the kind of people most likely to be offended by cultural appropriation are also the kinds most likely to be highly averse to a second-term for Trump. So most of those people will probably just hold their noses and vote for her anyway.

    Though there are probably a few left-wingers who would otherwise be inclined to vote Democrat, but for whom Warren's dubious Native American posturing could be a deal-breaker. I suppose that, in a very close swing state, they could make a difference.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    As @SirPalomides illustrates there's the idea that Bernie Sanders singlehandedly invented the American left and the notion that any woman in politics is obviously a pale imitation of some male candidate/politician.

    I think it's possible to have questions about Warren's progressive credentials, without being a sexist.

    It's theoretically possible to make such an argument, but claiming that Elizabeth Warren is insincerely copying Sanders' 2016 domestic platform ignores pretty much everything Elizabeth Warren has done between becoming politically active in 2005 and the 2016 campaign. To borrow from the link in my earlier post:
    But what I really want to focus on here is the repeated claim that Warren is simply a product of Sanders (“see: Bernie”; “emulated”), who made her what she is (or, in Day’s fevered imagination, is pretending to be.) This is some serious sexist bullshit. The values Warren has expressed throughout this campaign were all evident when started her path to public office by taking a major public role in opposing the bankruptcy bill. They were evident in Warren’s first campaign for Senate. They were evident in all points in between and after. Warren didn’t become something new after 2016.

    Indeed, this formulation erases the very substantial role that Warren herself played in moving the party to the left. This is not to deny the impact of Bernie’s 2016 campaign, which was also important. But it was as much effect as cause, and Warren was a very important part of this movement as well.

    Also of note is this 2010 statement by Bernie Sanders endorsing Elizabeth Warren to become head of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    Number one, she understands what this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is all about because it was her idea in the first place.

    You'll note he doesn't try to claim credit for the CFPB himself, indicating that Sanders himself recognizes that Elizabeth Warren isn't "just a Bernie cover band". (Quote also cribbed from Scott Lemieux.)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    “Medicare for all” is not the entirety of a domestic political program.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    As far as Warren goes, the whole DNA test thing was really really stupid. She should never have brought that up at all.
    How long ago did she have that DNA test? Has she referred back to it since then?
    Is Warren had a DNA test something that is really going to be a crucial talking point without Democrats keeping on saying what a really stupid thing it was to do?

    She had the test a little under a year ago, in October 2018.

    And discussion of it now is the 2019-20 equivalent of "but her emails!!!" Gah. Move on.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited October 5
    Ruth wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    As far as Warren goes, the whole DNA test thing was really really stupid. She should never have brought that up at all.
    How long ago did she have that DNA test? Has she referred back to it since then?
    Is Warren had a DNA test something that is really going to be a crucial talking point without Democrats keeping on saying what a really stupid thing it was to do?

    She had the test a little under a year ago, in October 2018.

    And discussion of it now is the 2019-20 equivalent of "but her emails!!!" Gah. Move on.

    Well, somehow, I don't think the Republicans are going to be heeding any advice to "move on".

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate

    I generally dislike argument by linkbomb. Usually there's some kind of dubious assumption the linker either doesn't notice or doesn't wish to state outright. Sure enough:
    In reality, Medicare for All isn’t some vague concept at all, and it’s certainly not a “framework.” It’s a specific and detailed piece of legislation written by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

    There it is, the axiomatic razor in the rhetorical apple. "Medicare for all" is a generic term used by those who note that the U.S. already has a single-payer health care system for its citizens aged 65 or older and suggest simply expanding the program to cover all Americans as a reasonable path to universal health coverage. The phrase itself has been in use since at least 1970. Bernie Sanders is indeed a big supporter of this approach and @SirPalomides / Kasparian want you to buy into the notion that since he put it on a piece of legislation he now owns the term and any time anyone uses it they must be referring to the specific contents of his bill. That's just not how language works, and even if it did it would mean that Sanders and Warren were both just copying John Conyers.

    As @Dave W already noted @SirPalomides wants to go even further than than Kasparian and argue that agreement on a single issue means that everything on Warren's domestic agenda (child care, anti-trust, agricultural policy, everything) all counts as Bernie Sanders' idea instead. Note that this doesn't work the other way. Sanders' endorsement of the CFPB back in 2010 doesn't make all his ideas hers.

    Or at least that seems to be what @SirPalomides is trying to say. It's hard to tell since he won't make his case explicitly.
  • It’s cool, no need for me to poison the air with what I actually think- thankfully I have you on hand to do it. Class act Croesus.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    As far as Warren goes, the whole DNA test thing was really really stupid. She should never have brought that up at all.
    How long ago did she have that DNA test? Has she referred back to it since then?
    Is Warren had a DNA test something that is really going to be a crucial talking point without Democrats keeping on saying what a really stupid thing it was to do?

    She had the test a little under a year ago, in October 2018.

    And discussion of it now is the 2019-20 equivalent of "but her emails!!!" Gah. Move on.

    Well, somehow, I don't think the Republicans are going to be heeding any advice to "move on".

    Why do you think you're going to get the Republicans to "move on" in any way, shape or form anyway?

    Speaking as a Republican... (if in name only, at this point, and largely for purposes of doing my bit to fuck up Trump's primary in my state)

    Seriously, ignore what the already-committed-and-doomed think, and get on with convincing the undecided. Who IMHO are not going to give a shit about such an old and well-meaning-if-boneheaded issue.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I agree completely, LC, about not bothering trying to appeal people who are never going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. I think it's people who oppose Trump who need to move on from the DNA discussion. We'll get enough of that BS from the NY Times next year if Warren continues on her current trajectory.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    As far as Warren goes, the whole DNA test thing was really really stupid. She should never have brought that up at all.
    How long ago did she have that DNA test? Has she referred back to it since then?
    Is Warren had a DNA test something that is really going to be a crucial talking point without Democrats keeping on saying what a really stupid thing it was to do?

    She had the test a little under a year ago, in October 2018.

    And discussion of it now is the 2019-20 equivalent of "but her emails!!!" Gah. Move on.

    Well, somehow, I don't think the Republicans are going to be heeding any advice to "move on".

    Why do you think you're going to get the Republicans to "move on" in any way, shape or form anyway?

    Speaking as a Republican... (if in name only, at this point, and largely for purposes of doing my bit to fuck up Trump's primary in my state)

    Seriously, ignore what the already-committed-and-doomed think, and get on with convincing the undecided. Who IMHO are not going to give a shit about such an old and well-meaning-if-boneheaded issue.

    Well, Ruth complained about continued discussion of Hillary's e-mails, and then admonished unnamed individuals to "move on". Since the people pushing the discussion of Hillary's e-mails are Republicans, I assumed she meant they should "move on". My point is simply that that is not something they are going to do.

  • I think the Bernie v Warren argument is pointless and destructive. Neither candidate shows any taste for attacking the other. Indeed, they both show every sign of liking and respecting the other.

    One can expect the far left ( @Leorning Cniht's Chicago friend seems to be in that category in American terms at least) to die in the ditch for their principles. They share many characteristics of the Tea Party radicals which form a section of Trump's base. For these people, ideological purity beats achieving power every time. Unfortunately, these fractious and destructive radicals get air in the press, who love controversy.

    The medicare for all thing is a massive furphy, but I suppose an unavoidable one. I find it incredibly frustrating that so much time is devoted to dissecting the detail of the various models when the fact is that none of these plans will be legislated unless there is a massive blue tidal wave, washing republicans away in the House, Senate and Executive. There is no way I am going to let myself think that is even a possibility. The medicare plan legislated by a Democratic President will be like most other legislation: a compromise designed to get it through Congress.

    Personally, I love Warren. She sits very well with my politics, looking to work within the system to bring changes that tweak the economic balance of power in favor of working people. I like Bernie too, but I feel in my bones that he is unelectable, and I don't think my nerves could take his candidacy.

    I'm not much interested in the other candidates. I would like to see Kamala Harris or someone with her temperament as AG in a Warren administration. I reckon she would jump at the chance to pursue Trump over the crimes set out in the Mueller Report. I do very much hope that happens.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The DNC has decided that the fifth Democratic presidential debate will take place on November 20 in Georgia. This means that candidates have until November 13 to qualify for this debate. The fourth Democratic will be taking place on Tuesday (October 15).

    There are currently seven candidates qualified for the November debate, two more than when I last posted this list a week ago.

    Already In
    • Joe Biden
    • Cory Booker
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Kamala Harris
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Tom Steyer
    • Elizabeth Warren

    Booker and Steyer have joined what are now the perennial top 5 in qualifying. It should be noted that Steyer's qualifying polls all come from state-level polls of South Carolina and Nevada, which is probably a function of his pumping a lot of ad money into those two states.

    Almost There
    • Andrew Yang

    Yang has qualified in terms of number of donors and only needs one more poll showing 3%+ support to qualify.

    Tough Road Ahead
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Beto O'Rourke

    The candidates above qualify in terms of donors and have one of the four required polls showing 3%+ support. Qualifying isn't impossible though, since Cory Booker was on this list a week ago and now he's qualified to debate and they have more than a month to get the required polls.

    Longshots
    • Julián Castro
    • Tulsi Gabbard

    The Longshots are candidates who have the qualifying number of donors but no polls (yet) showing 3%+ support (or 5%+ support in an early state).

    Abandon All Hope
    • Michael Bennet
    • Steve Bullock
    • John Delaney
    • Wayne Messam
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Marianne Williamson

    These candidates have no qualifying polls and have not met the donor threshold. The Longshots and Abandon All Hope lists are the same as they were last week.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    From the sounds of it, Bernie will be cutting back his campaign activities way back to no more than a few hours a day. On air he said four hours a day, his wife standing beside him said two hours a day.

    It looks to me like he wants to be the Kingmaker if not the King, in so many words.
  • I received my guide to the Canadian federal election in the mail a few days ago. It reminded me how much effort is expended in the USA to prevent citizens from voting. Our election is run by a federal government agency - no elected officials are involved. We will have 4 days of advance polls the week before (Thursday-Sunday, 9 am - 9 pm) at the same locations as on election day. If you don't have ID, another voter in your poll can vouch for you. And of course, you can vote by mail or by special ballot until a week before the election. Canada isn't exactly known for fraudulent elections, so obviously that's not the reason for all the crazy rules and restrictions in the USA. IIRC, Barack Obama is making free and fair elections one of his post-presidential projects.
  • FWIW:

    Here, in SF, voting for the upcoming Nov. 5th election started on October 7.

    Early voting has to be done at City Hall. The regular voting places (e.g., schools, hotel mezzanines, etc.) are borrowed for election day only. (And any set-up time.)

    Many people mail in absentee ballots. Convenient; but, sometimes, they don't necessarily make it to City Hall for counting, or aren't counted when they do.

    I prefer voting at City Hall, because I at least know the ballot goes right from my hand to where it's supposed to be. Can't control what happens after that. I've had to switch to a mail-in ballot, due to health and logistics. Not happy about that, but I'm glad to have the option!
  • I also shake my head and wonder Soror Magna. I still can't get over what happened in the Georgia Gubernatorial election in 2018, and Croesos opened my eyes on the full extent of the shenanigans that go on, mostly lawfully, in various parts of the country.

    I'm really pleased though that GK and others are around to balance things out, and remind me that the whole country is not in fact riddled with unspeakable levels of corruption. It's good to remember that because I only really experience the USA on a day to day level through the news. I do see and hear good things about America through stories on PBS and NPR, and also through shows like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. If it wasn't for that and my shipmates here, I could well fall into a massive funk about the USA.
  • I just realised I wasn't logged on. I read the whole first page of this thread before I realised it was old. It is depressingly similar to what could be written today.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Tulsi Gabbard is toying with the idea of not participating in next week's Democratic Presidential Debate. The reason she gives is that the DNC has "rigged" the process by insisting candidates have support within the Democratic Party, as demonstrated by ability to attract donors and have people say they support you in polls.

    It should be noted that according to Ballotpedia there are 282 people who have filed papers to run for president as a Democrat. Some kind of winnowing process would seem to be in order. Also saying "anyone who fills out this paperwork gets free TV time" is a sure way to guarantee that a lot more than 282 people file papers to run for president as a Democrat.

    Anyway, this seems like a particularly obnoxious thing to contemplate since Gabbard's fundraising pitch for the last several weeks has essentially been based on getting enough contributors to get her in to this specific debate (after falling short of qualifying for the third debate) and, having accomplished that, now she's going to say "never mind".

    A cynic might think that this is a pretense to avoid a situation where Gabbard is likely to be asked about Syria or Kashmir, where she holds views considerably to the right of the median Democratic primary voter. I am cynical.
Sign In or Register to comment.