2020: The Two Year Long Election

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

I normally agree with and appreciate all your posts, but like I said, people must be careful not to write us off because of our age. I encounter that crap so much now, ageism is real.  Despite the fact that with advancements in health care, older folks are in better condition than ever before.  Any effin democrat , regardless of age, race, or sex, would be better than the current dumpster fire.

We are more in agreement with each other than you realize. I too am not that young, and I'm not ready to be written off that easily either. Maybe I should state my opinion a little clearer: No matter the age, any candidate should be 'tested' as to their abilities to rule. And I would like the government of any country to reflect (as best as possible) the public it serves. 

2 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

My DD used this word yesterday. I hadn't seen it in ages before that. Now I see it again the next day. I like this word and must find an opportunity to use it myself.

LOL, I've been binge re-reading old Victoria Holt novels the past couple of days and I think the language has been rubbing off on me... 

[SilverBeach]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

No matter the age, any candidate should be 'tested' as to their abilities to rule.

ITA. I stated a while back that candidates should be subject to fitness standards and examinations as is done in the military. Government in the US will probably always skew older and whiter in the US because it's so expensive to run a campaign, and yes, racism. But I agree that the goal should be true representation in that demographics are reflected to the maximum degree possible.

9 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Then the candidate for that office should have mental and physical check-ups

I just thought of something...would FDR have been disqualified because of his polio and wheelchair usage? Would JFK have been disqualified because of his bad back? I think the mental part may be more important here. Perhaps having prior elected experience too, nobody coming off the street into the highest office in the land. Government is very much NOT business. 

[fraurosena]

43 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

I just thought of something...would FDR have been disqualified because of his polio and wheelchair usage? Would JFK have been disqualified because of his bad back? I think the mental part may be more important here. Perhaps having prior elected experience too, nobody coming off the street into the highest office in the land. Government is very much NOT business.

Oh, good question! Were the campaign trails then as gruelling as nowadays? I don't think a physical disability would necessarily disqualify one for office. I do think they would need to have some stamina to be able to keep up with things. But as you say, one's mental faculties are the most important issue.

[AmericanRose]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-latest-gaffe-biden-claims-he-was-vice-president-during-2018-parkland-shooting/ar-AAFD19N?ocid=spartanntp

Biden claimed the Parkland teens visited him when he was VP. I can understand confusing the timeline, but.. it's not a good sign. We already have Trump who confuses things, we don't need a Democratic presidential nominee who does the same. And of course, that just gives Trump more ammunition (which he's happily using on Twitter).

This was followed by an article about the caucus in Iowa and how Dems are nervous because Biden is the favourite but he keeps making gaffes. Who are they polling? No one I've spoken to is in favour of Biden. I've heard Warren, Sanders, Gabbard, Buttigieg, & Harris... Biden tends to elicit a "I don't know why he's running". At this point, I really don't understand it. He has to understand that even if he doesn't mean it, his mistakes make Democrats look bad.

[Smash!]

Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren hugging makes me happy in this current climate ? (you have to find the positive in small things these days)

https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/1160301570887704579?s=21

[Don'tlikekoolaid]

Question from Canada here.  How does the NRA generate so much money for themselves and who are the people who run it?   Millions of dollars for politicians are given out by them.  How?  Do they make money from gun sales?  Do they get kickbacks from manufacturers.  Why don’t some good Journalists expose this Organization?  Would it be dangerous? Are they afraid?   Just wondering.

[fraurosena]

8 minutes ago, Don'tlikekoolaid said:

Question from Canada here.  How does the NRA generate so much money for themselves and who are the people who run it?   Millions of dollars for politicians are given out by them.  How?  Do they make money from gun sales?  Do they get kickbacks from manufacturers.  Why don’t some good Journalists expose this Organization?  Would it be dangerous? Are they afraid?   Just wondering.

Memberships and Russian donations. 

This is an old Mother Jones article about the NRA with more information.

Why the National Rifle Association Is Under Fire Like Never Before

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Julián Castro has a message for Trump. He bought a ‘Fox & Friends’ ad to reach him."

Spoiler

Julián Castro, a Democratic candidate for president, plans to release a television ad Wednesday directly addressing President Trump and faulting his incendiary rhetoric for the massacre in El Paso that left 22 dead and dozens more injured.

The ad, which the campaign will also promote on social media, is targeted specifically at the president. The campaign bought several television spots — a small buy of just $2,775 — throughout the day Wednesday on Fox News in Bedminster, N.J., where Trump is spending the week at his private golf club.

The ad will also appear in the Bedminster area that morning during “Fox & Friends,” a show the president frequently watches. 

Castro — the former mayor of San Antonio and secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama — is the only Latino candidate in the 2020 Democratic field.

In the ad, set at an empty Iowa warehouse, he directly addresses the president.

“President Trump: You referred to countries as shitholes,” Castro says, wearing a blue suit and white shirt, with no tie. “You urged American Congresswomen to ‘go back’ to where they came from. You called immigrants rapists.”

Turning to the recent mass shooting in El Paso, where authorities believe the alleged gunman wrote a document that echoed much of Trump’s language on immigrants and warned of a “Hispanic invasion,” Castro squarely blamed the president.

“As we saw in El Paso, Americans were killed because you stoked the fire of racists,” Castro says. “Innocent people were shot down because they look different from you. Because they look like me. They look like my family.”

Castro concludes by invoking the ad’s Spanish title, “Ya Basta,” which roughly translates into “Enough!” “Words have consequences,” he says. “¡Ya Basta!”

The ad comes after a recent Twitter attack by Trump on Castro and his twin brother, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), chairman of the Castro campaign. 

“I don’t know who Joaquin Castro is other than the lesser brother of a failed presidential candidate (1%) who makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth,” Trump tweeted several days ago. “Joaquin is not the man that his brother is, but his brother, according to most, is not much. Keep fighting Joaquin!”

The president seemed to be responding to a controversial tweet by Joaquin Castro in advance of his trip to El Paso last Wednesday, in which the candidate’s brother shared the names of more than three dozen major Trump donors in his San Antonia district, as well as their business interests.

In statement, Castro’s campaign manager Maya Rupert focused on Trump’s hardline and nativist comments about immigrants, portraying Castro as best equipped to stand up to the president.

“Donald Trump’s hateful rhetoric inspired the largest violent attack on the Latinx community in history,” Rupert said. “Yet, even in the wake of this attack his campaign continues to use words like ‘invasion’ to describe immigrants, and attacks two of the most prominent Latino politicians. Julián isn’t afraid of Donald Trump or his bigoted agenda, and will continue to expose his racism and division until he defeats him next November.”

 

[fraurosena]

Here's the ad mentioned in @GreyhoundFan's post:

 

[SilverBeach]

On 8/10/2019 at 10:09 PM, AmericanRose said:

This was followed by an article about the caucus in Iowa and how Dems are nervous because Biden is the favourite but he keeps making gaffes.

There are probably some undecided and current Repubs who will only vote for an old white guy. I still think anybody, anybody at all, is better than the pretend president we presently are suffering under. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Hickenlooper has dropped out. Hopefully he will run for senator instead. "John Hickenlooper’s graceful exit sets a standard"

Spoiler

Former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper is getting out of the presidential race. His exit video was classy and responsible:

Judging from the video’s tone and production value, I’d put good money on him running for Senate in Colorado. Recent polls show him clobbering Republican Sen. Cory Gardner in what would be a critical pickup for the Democrats.

Other presidential candidates should take note. Hickenlooper certainly wasn’t a good candidate but he was far more plausible president than a slew of entrants including former Maryland congressman John Delaney, Marianne Williamson, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Tim Ryan (Ohio). And let’s get real. The candidates who don’t make the September debate — including officeholders such as Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (N.Y.), Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Sen. Michael F. Bennet (Colo.), many of whom I think would be equally if not better suited to the presidency than top-tier candidates — need to consider when and how to drop out.

Do they, as did Hickenlooper and Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.), want to get out before they officially miss a debate, or do they want to be cut from the race and watch their donations and poll numbers sink to nothing. It’s difficult to ask staff and donors to stick with you when your chances of surviving even to the first primary are so tiny.

Frankly, failure to make the September debate should be one — but not the only — threshold for excusing oneself from the race. If, by the end of the year, a candidate is not raising millions of dollars per quarter, is not in the top five or six places in any early-state poll, it’s time to bow out. Perhaps they don’t need to pull the plug this month, but by, say, Thanksgiving, they need to acknowledge reality.

Why? First and foremost, some of the other candidates could mount successful Senate races in winnable red states. Former HUD secretary Julián Castro in Texas and Bullock in Montana could put seats in play that otherwise would be out of reach. Second, we cannot stress enough that the smaller the field and the fewer people on the debate stage, the easier it will be for voters, staff and donors to pick the most viable nominee. This is not a system set up to assuage the ego of candidates; it’s designed to produce the nominee with the best chance to beat President Trump.

Once the field gets down to serious and viable candidates (former vice president Joe Biden; Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala D. Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker; South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke), it will be possible for voters to compare and contrast. A voter who is super-progressive can decide whether Sanders or Warren is a better standard-bearer, or whether both are too risky and someone else is progressive “enough.” A moderate voter can better assess whether Biden is sharp enough to take on Trump or whether Harris, Klobuchar, O’Rourke or Booker are ideologically palatable but have a better shot at beating Trump. Those fine distinctions are simply too difficult to make when 20 candidates are cluttering the stage over two nights.

Hickenlooper deserves praise, and a bunch of others deserve a strong shove off the stage.

 

[fraurosena]

Good!

 

[fraurosena]

Somebody is finally picking up on the hackable voting machines.

 

[AuntK]

I really think that age of the candidates is something that must be considered. I have nothing against seniors, I'm one myself, but, I've noticed that my energy and stamina are waning as I approach my late 60s. And I consider myself fairly active, going to the gym, yoga classes, gardening, volunteering, travelling, yet I cannot imagine having to deal with the stress of the presidency. My brain still functions, but a late night for me is 10 p.m. I broke my foot this year, requiring surgery and discovered that the healing and recovery process is totally different when you're in your 60s, as opposed to your 30s, and even a minor injury will slow you down considerably! 

All I'm saying is that Biden will be 79 in 2021, Sanders will be 80. That is REALLY OLD to have the most stressful job in the world! I like Joe, but quite frankly, I just think the presidency is too tough a job for anyone in their 80s.  I think it's time we turn away from old white men and give women a chance! It seems to have worked well for other countries!

[WiseGirl]

56 minutes ago, AuntK said:

I think it's time we turn away from old white men

especially 45.

I totally agree about giving women a chance.

[smittykins]

I’m old enough to remember that there were concerns about Reagan’s age at his inauguration(68?).

[AuntK]

I didn't mention Trump's age in my earlier post because obviously he is unacceptable, (incompetent, lazy, racist, sexist, ignorant, unfit, heartless, callous, narcissistic, vacuous, self-centered, etc), lacking in any positive qualities or character. However, as bad as he is, it appears that as he ages, (and he is 73), he IS getting WORSE!  I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but having taken care of my elderly mother with dementia prior to her passing, I have seen clear signs of it in Trump's behavior and it appears to be escalating.  

Oh how much I miss OBAMA!

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, AuntK said:

However, as bad as he is, it appears that as he ages, (and he is 73), he IS getting WORSE! 

If you listen to his speech patterns during his rallies or the debates in 2016 and compare them to his current speech patterns there is a distinctive decline in how he speaks. He cannot formulate clear sentences anymore, while he still could in 2016. Now, his mouth just spouts what his brain thinks at that precise moment and if he's distracted, he'll veer off into something completely different in the space of a single sentence.

I can't say if it's dementia or something else, but the deterioration of his communicative skills is clearly recognizable for anyone with working ears and the ability to bear to listen to his voice.

[SilverBeach]

15 hours ago, AuntK said:

I think it's time we turn away from old white men

As a black woman, I certainly support this. But the reality is that many undecided/former Trumpers will not vote for either. Trump must be defeated.

Aging is very individual. Mr. SB is 66 and works full days doing heavy renovation work. He may be a little sore at the end of the day, but his energy level is more than men half his age. 

[fraurosena]

47 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

But the reality is that many undecided/former Trumpers will not vote for either.

This may be true, but how many are there, really? Should that much importance be accorded to them, or are they simply a fringe group that just happened to get a loud voice because so many others didn't vote last time? 

Look, I'm not saying they aren't important, but I really wonder if they are such a large group that they must be won over or Trump will get a second term. I believe (but could be wrong) that the group that didn't vote in 2016 is larger by far than any other eligible voting group. All efforts must be turned on them in order to get them out and vote, by helping them register, defeat voter suppression, and show them that there really is something worth voting for. If that is done and this group does turn out to vote, Trump hasn't got a chance in hell to win again. 

Unless the Russians/Repugliklans hack and cheat, that is. 

[SilverBeach]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Look, I'm not saying they aren't important, but I really wonder if they are such a large group that they must be won over or Trump will get a second term. I believe (but could be wrong) that the group that didn't vote in 2016 is larger by far than any other eligible voting group.

We'll see. Apathetic, non-voting people are always a problem.

[AmericanRose]

I don't think we can really count on anything in 2020. 

If Trump really has dementia, what will his state be a year from now? It might be true that evil people live longer, but from my understanding, dementia doesn't care who you are; it'll keep progressing.

What horrible things will have happened between now and then? I doubt he's going to wake up one day and realise he better get his shit together and be a decent person if he wants to win. It's not like his behavior is *new*… it's just not under the slick veneer he used to have. And if he does have dementia, I imagine it will become harder for him to stay on message / not insult large groups of Americans. You can censor his tweets, but not his rallies.

Will he even remember that leaving office = trial in NY (and/or various other states)?

If it wasn't for that whole Russian meddling, I would feel fairly confident that he won't win a second term. I think the largest groups to be won over were the apathetic people who had an aversion to Trump and Clinton, and I can't think of a current candidate who has that much baggage. And then there were the people who heard his version of 'hope and change' (which was actually more like blame and go back to the past) and voted for him out of desperation. The Midwest sucked. It still sucks. They realise his 'policies' aren't any better for them.

At least now they've seen what Trump will do if elected. Though I still don't understand how a man with a gold-plated toilet and a reputation as a shitty employer convinced working people that he was for them. These same people believe in things like Pizzagate. It's weird how they'll do backflips to convince themselves that Trump is for them. But yeah, I don't think we need to worry about picking a Democratic candidate that will appeal to those voters. To be honest though, I don't understand why Democrats worry about picking candidates that appeal to Republicans. Republicans sure don't care what Democrats think.

Edited August 18, 2019 by AmericanRose

[BernRul]

On 8/17/2019 at 9:46 AM, SilverBeach said:

Trump must be defeated.

This should be the ultimate goal, no matter what. Trump defeated at all cost. If the Dems run a paper bag with a donkey badge, we should vote for it.

Besides, the Dem primary winner will likely pick someone opposite as their running mate. Likely one of their primary opponents. So if Biden/ Sanders wins, he will likely have a young man/women VP who can step in if he has health issues. 

What's most important is having a Democrat president, with a Dem majority congress. That will make more progress than any specific candidate. 

[RosyDaisy]

Democrats get your shit together. Everyone except the top 3 candidates should withdraw from the race now rather than later. You need to support each other and talk about issues without mud slinging. Personally, I prefer a Sanders/Warren or vice versa. But, any Democrat will do.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an excellent op-ed: "Real change after 2020 depends on who controls the Senate"

Spoiler

There are two quite different paths toward change in the 2020 elections. One would involve getting rid of President Trump but leaving Washington gridlocked. The other would see a Democratic president elected with a Democratic Congress. For the first time in a decade, progressives, with some help from moderates, would have a chance to govern and begin to push back against the conservative takeover of the federal judiciary.

It will all come down to the fight to control the Senate.

And the Democrats’ chances of winning a majority took a modest step forward last week when former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper ended his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and signaled he was considering taking on Republican Sen. Cory Gardner. While there are already other potentially strong Democrats in that contest, polls show Hickenlooper leading Gardner by double digits.

If Democrats won the White House, they would need a net three-seat gain to control the Senate with the vote of a Democratic vice president. It’s difficult to imagine this happening without the defeat of the three most vulnerable Republican incumbents, Gardner and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.). Alabama Sen. Doug Jones (D) faces a very tough reelection campaign in a deeply Republican, pro-Trump state. A Jones loss would move the Democrats’ victory line to four pickups.

Their chances of getting there depend in part on whether Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock decides to end his own presidential candidacy to take on Republican Sen. Steve Daines. It’s hard to see any other Democrat beating Daines. Bullock — as he never tires of pointing out — has shown he can run far ahead of his party’s ticket. Bullock has insisted he doesn’t want to be a senator, but Democratic Senate strategists, with an accent on hope, sense a softening in Bullock’s stance on the Senate.

Hickenlooper’s decision to withdraw points to two important dynamics in the Democratic presidential race. The first is that former vice president Joe Biden is blocking the emergence of any other moderate or center-left candidate. Absent a Biden collapse in the next few months, there will be little room for candidates such as Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota or Michael F. Bennet of Colorado.

It was striking that a Quinnipiac University poll this month found that Biden was winning just 19 percent of Democrats who said they were “very liberal” and 28 percent who called themselves “somewhat liberal.” But he was taking 43 percent among those who called themselves moderate or conservative.

This leads to the other dynamic: Aggressively taking on the left, as Hickenlooper did, is not, for now at least, a winning strategy for more moderate presidential candidates. This is partly because their real competition comes from Biden but also because progressive Democrats have shown themselves far more open to moderate candidates in Senate and House races than in the presidential race. Progressives have been willing to make pragmatic judgments about who is best positioned to win a given Senate or House seat but want to make a strong statement in the presidential contest. Thus, in the same Quinnipiac poll, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led Biden by more than 2 to 1 among very liberal Democrats.

It’s notable that in his dignified withdrawal video, Hickenlooper stressed three issues that appeal across the Democrats’ moderate/liberal divide and also to swing voters: lowering prescription drug costs, dealing with climate change and taking action on guns. He sounded like a Senate candidate.

If Senate Democrats are hopeful that Hickenlooper and possibly Bullock could help them take the Senate, they are also looking to what they call “the Heller Effect” to get them the rest of the seats they need. In 2018, Nevada’s Republican Sen. Dean Heller lost in part because he was cross-pressured between showing support for Trump to rally his Republican base and demonstrating independence from Trump to attract middle-of-the-road voters.

This political inconstancy didn’t work for Heller, and Democrats think the same neither-one-thing-nor-the-other dynamic could hurt Republican Sens. Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Joni Ernst in Iowa — as well as Gardner, Collins and McSally. Tillis was already embarrassed earlier this year when he wrote a Post op-ed opposing Trump’s emergency declaration to build a border wall and then turned around and voted with Trump on the same issue. His flip-flop left both sides unhappy.

As for Hickenlooper, he often seemed uncomfortable as a presidential candidate but was eloquent whenever he talked about his bipartisan achievements as governor of Colorado. It’s an approach that could serve him well as he heads home.