2020 Presidential Election 2: The Primaries are upon us

[SassyPants]

Every one of the Democratic candidates has a perceived by someone or some group, major flaw. And, until the current group of living octogenarian plus is no longer voting, I seriously doubt that a women will be elected. I know way too many of these folks and the vast majority are Democrats. I’m in a very liberal part of the country, in fact, my county cast the highest % of Bernie votes in 2016, in the state of CA. Recently, I was listening to a liberal talk radio show and caller after caller stated that a gay man could not be elected in the US, sad, but very likely true. Sanders has the Democratic Socialist label and his past to overcome, and Bloomberg is Trump (hell Trump May as well be the Dem and Bloom. The Rep, as they were in the past). And what are we left with? The Swamp, Ukraine and Joe Biden. Can yo hear me screaming over here? 
 

The more I think about this, we can not nominate Bloomberg. No, no, no! The rest would all be better than Trump!

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[front hugs > duggs]

If anybody truly has a problem with Pete being gay, than this won't matter anyway. But I LOVED his argument on family values. The idea that people shouldn't elect Pete because he rejects traditional family values is absolute nonsense. As Pete said, "I never had to pay hush money to a porn star I had an affair with in my marriage." 

Well ?Fucking ?Said?

Edited February 21, 2020 by front hugs > duggs
I don't think I got this word for word, but that is effectively what he said.

[sableduck]

My dream was a Warren/Buttigieg presidency but dreams rarely come true.

I’m really concerned Bloomberg will be the nominee. Bloomberg and Trump are basically the same person in my mind, regardless of what party they claim to affiliate with.  I’ve pretty much given up on both parties; the leaders just seem to be so fucking stupid on both sides. 

[front hugs > duggs]

My personal choice would be Warren/Buttigieg at this point. However, I think it would be very difficult for many Americans to vote for a woman/gay man ticket WHICH IS SO DUMB.

I think we're on the road to a Sanders' ticket. I'm not really thrilled about this personally, but will still vote blue no matter who. I think Bloomberg's numbers that he's been trending so well for will slowly diminish now that he is officially on the public stage. 

[Marmion]

I think that in the minds of many Americans this is what it's all going to come down to , in the end .  

Quote

Joe Biden said he was best equipped to beat Donald Trump. Mike Bloomberg said he would spend his money to beat Donald Trump. Amy Klobuchar said she won in Minnesota so she would obviously beat Donald Trump. Only Bernie Sanders sounded like he would dismember Donald Trump.

This would be fine if there weren’t a billion dollars of disinformation headed towards Sanders for his socialism and his medical records. If there weren’t endless examples of successful scare tactics against socialists, Sanders could sail on regardless.

Instead we face an election between a Democratic nominee who was pro-Soviet Russia versus a Republican president who is pro-Putin Russia. What a time to be alive.

“We shouldn’t have to choose between a candidate who wants to burn this party down and another who wants to buy this party out,” said Mayor Pete in one of the lines his developers hardcoded into his haircut.

They shouldn’t. But they will.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/19/bernie-sanders-democratic-debate-centrists?

[fraurosena]

Oh.

 

[Pleiades_06]

20 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Oh.

 

Not exactly-the governor appoints a temporary replacement until a special election can be held.

The phrasing of this tweet almost makes it sound like the governor takes the position  themself.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_appointed.htm

ETA: There is a wide range of Democrats and Republicans all over the US. Although the US has 2 dominant political parties, there are big differences between the Republican governor of Massachusetts (Charlie Baker) and the Cheeto in Chief. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Pleiades_06

[Dandruff]

Following the last debate, I'm honestly not sure who I'm most rooting for now...except not Sanders.  Please.

While I'm not a Warren fan I think she did a superb job calling out Bloomberg.  I'm impressed.  I was feeling very positive about him but his apparent lack of preparation, along with the business about the NDAs, etc. was a real turnoff.  I'm interested to see how he's going to try to unload his baggage in the coming weeks.

Biden appears to be back in the game, but I don't know if he has a real chance of becoming the candidate.  I have some doubts about how well he would do in a debate against Trump.  Still think very highly of him, though. 

I liked Buttigieg and Klobuchar, as usual.  If I had to pick one I think it would be Klobuchar, due to her experience.  I also think a lot of Americans would not vote for a gay president, no matter how competent he might be.  I'm guessing fewer Americans are "ready" to vote for a gay man than a woman at this point, which is sad on both counts.

I'm still focused, and hope the non-Trumpers in this country can stay focused, on choosing a Democratic contender who (isn't Sanders and) has a realistic chance of winning.  I want a Moderate but it won't matter if the candidate can't win.

[fraurosena]

If I had a vote, then based on what I know now, I'd choose Warren. Even though I'm far left (for Americans) in my political beliefs, and what Bernie stands for fits more with my views, I would rather not vote for him.

There are two reasons for that. One rational, one emotional. Emotionally, I just don't like the guy. I don't like the fact that he always seems so righteously angry. That just rubs me the wrong way. It's not.. presidential. Rationally, I wouldn't want to vote for him because, frankly, the dude is too old. He's nearing 80 and has already had a heart attack -- that we know of. I'm quite wary of the fact that he refuses to share his medical records. So how healthy is he, and can he keep up with the incredible pressure that a presidential role entails? I wouldn't bet on it. That's not fair on him as  a person (even though he's choosing it) and it's certainly not fair on the country. You need a strong candidate, mentally, physically and politically. 

 

[front hugs > duggs]

Also, very selfishly I admit, I would hate that America's first Jewish president would be men as divisive as Bloomberg or Sanders. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by front hugs > duggs
Selfish because I am Jewish I guess...

[Dandruff]

22 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

He's nearing 80 and has already had a heart attack -- that we know of. I'm quite wary of the fact that he refuses to share his medical records. So how healthy is he, and can he keep up with the incredible pressure that a presidential role entails? I wouldn't bet on it.

If he became candidate, he'd first have to handle all the work needed until November.  Imagine if he had another heart attack in, say, October.  It would be politically devastating.

[SassyPants]

My #1 issue is healthcare. Our current system is unsustainable . People need not be afraid of the evil socialized medicine. Between government employees, the retired over 65, the disabled and many lower income folks, a large number of Americans already have government insurance,  and how many people do you hear complaining or REFUSING these programs, especially those over 65? Not many!! At this point, my husband, over 60 but less than 65, only works for the lousy health care benefits. If you took all the money that companies pay to insurance companies and big pharm, and put that money into the new health care system, the change would be doable. Take the for profit insurance companies out of the mix and watch the prices fall. I am tired of hearing how this can’t be done, or that people are “afraid” of losing what they have. Where do people that these doctors are going to go? 

Edited February 21, 2020 by SassyPants

[Pleiades_06]

2 hours ago, Dandruff said:

Following the last debate, I'm honestly not sure who I'm most rooting for now...except not Sanders.  Please.

While I'm not a Warren fan I think she did a superb job calling out Bloomberg.  I'm impressed.  I was feeling very positive about him but his apparent lack of preparation, along with the business about the NDAs, etc. was a real turnoff.  I'm interested to see how he's going to try to unload his baggage in the coming weeks.

Biden appears to be back in the game, but I don't know if he has a real chance of becoming the candidate.  I have some doubts about how well he would do in a debate against Trump.  Still think very highly of him, though. 

I liked Buttigieg and Klobuchar, as usual.  If I had to pick one I think it would be Klobuchar, due to her experience.  I also think a lot of Americans would not vote for a gay president, no matter how competent he might be.  I'm guessing fewer Americans are "ready" to vote for a gay man than a woman at this point, which is sad on both counts.

I'm still focused, and hope the non-Trumpers in this country can stay focused, on choosing a Democratic contender who (isn't Sanders and) has a realistic chance of winning.  I want a Moderate but it won't matter if the candidate can't win.

Klobuchar has a terrible reputation with staff:

https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/amy-klobuchar-no-feminist-hero?utm_content=buffer281b9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR0W-LmOGGeAJ0AhzP-SvchP2HV_v7a4tgAf4jKOhDzcTDPqh8fdluDUpEk
 

As for moderates, the only-and I really mean only-thing I appreciate about the Trump presidency is it has forced the Democratic Party to re-evaluate its  platform. With the possible exception of Obama, the presidential candidates from 1992 onwards were so moderate that they barely could be considered liberal. I think Obama won because he really was a liberal. I’m wary of candidates like Biden because it’s more of the same old thing from the 90’s.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Pleiades_06

[GreyhoundFan]

"Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign"

Spoiler

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump.

“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.

“In 2016, Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020. Some of the ugly stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.”

A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign declined to comment on the briefing by U.S. officials on Russia’s efforts.

Sanders has frequently warned about the threat of foreign interference in U.S. elections and criticized Trump for not doing enough to stop it.

“Let me be clear: We must not live in denial while allowing Russia and other state actors to undermine our democracy or divide us,” the senator in January. “Russia targets the divisions in our society; we will work to heal those divisions.”

Sanders’s opponents have blamed some of his most vocal online supporters for injecting toxic rhetoric into the primaries. At a Democratic candidates debate Wednesday in Las Vegas, Sanders indirectly blamed Russia, saying it was possible that malign actors were trying to manipulate social media to inflame divisions among Democrats.

“All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up,” Sanders said. “I’m not saying that’s happening, but it would not shock me.”

Also this week, a senior U.S. intelligence official said Russia had “developed a preference” for Trump in the 2020 campaign — an assessment that infuriated the president. Trump lambasted his acting intelligence director, Joseph Maguire, and DNI staff for sharing that information with lawmakers, believing that Democrats would use it to hurt Trump in the election.

Despite Trump’s skepticism of Russian efforts to damage American democracy, officials in his administration have repeatedly warned that Russia has ongoing plans to interfere in U.S. elections and foster divisions among Americans, part of a strategic goal to undermine U.S. standing in the world. Some analysts believe the Kremlin’s goal is to cause maximum disruption within the United States and that it throws the support of its hackers and trolls behind candidates based on that goal, not any particular affinity for the people running.

After Sanders’s remarks at the debate, some social media analysts were skeptical of the notion that Russians already were masquerading as the candidate’s supporters.

“We have seen no evidence in open sources during this election cycle that an online community of Sanders supporters, known as Bernie bros, were catalyzed by what Sanders suggested could be ‘Russian interference,’ ” said Graham Brookie, director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council, which tracks disinformation on social media sites. “Any candidate or public official casually introducing the possibility of Russian influence without providing any evidence or context creates a specter of interference that makes responding to real interference harder.”

It now appears, however, that Sanders may have had a reason to suspect Russia was again injecting itself into the U.S. electoral process, repeating some of what occurred in 2016.

In a February 2018 indictment of 13 Russian individuals and three companies that were alleged to have orchestrated the 2016 social media scheme, prosecutors alleged that the group “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

Prosecutors alleged that in February 2016, while Clinton and Sanders were locked in a bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, an internal memo was circulated at the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which prosecutors said led the online effort, instructing their paid online trolls to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).”

The Internet Research Agency was bankrolled by a Russian oligarch close to President Vladi­mir Putin, according to U.S. officials.

Why am I not surprised?

[Smee]

3 hours ago, Dandruff said:

I liked Buttigieg and Klobuchar, as usual.  If I had to pick one I think it would be Klobuchar, due to her experience.  I also think a lot of Americans would not vote for a gay president, no matter how competent he might be.  I'm guessing fewer Americans are "ready" to vote for a gay man than a woman at this point, which is sad on both counts.

I wonder about this. I’m not there so I don’t know, but of the Americans who wouldn’t accept a gay president, how many could be persuaded to vote Democrat at all? I mean, we have our fair share of homophobes but they’re 90% right wing conservatives anyway so just as unlikely to pick a woman over the “anti-abortion” candidate.

[JenniferJuniper]

42 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

As for moderates, the only-and I really mean only-thing I appreciate about the Trump presidency is it has forced the Democratic Party to re-evaluate its  platform. With the possible exception of Obama, the presidential candidates from 1992 onwards were so moderate that they barely could be considered liberal. I think Obama won because he really was a liberal. I’m wary of candidates like Biden because it’s more of the same old thing from the 90’s.

I consider Obama to be a moderate.  John Kerry was further left. 

I detest Biden.  (Anita Hill.  God, what a dick he was to her).  And I'm probably voting for him on Super Tuesday.

In a perfect world, Liz Warren would be my candidate.  But she's splitting the progressive vote with Bernie and he's in the lead right now.  Regardless what anyone thinks of him, I see no chance of him beating Trump.  There is no way someone who identifies as a "socialist" anything is going to prevail in the electoral college.   And it seems Trump's Russian bosses agree.  

Edited February 22, 2020 by JenniferJuniper
rediculoius missspellings

[Dandruff]

9 minutes ago, Smee said:

I wonder about this. I’m not there so I don’t know, but of the Americans who wouldn’t accept a gay president, how many could be persuaded to vote Democrat at all?

I think quite a few folks who voted for Trump, or who didn't vote, would be inclined to vote for a Democrat as long as the candidate was reasonably within their "comfort zone".  I can't, for example, imagine most non-liberal men in the middle of the country voting for a gay man - period.  Then there are the religious zealots to contend with, who, if they happened to have a moral moment and were going to sit the election out might decide to vote for Trump instead.

[GreyhoundFan]

4 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I detest Biden.  (Anita Hill.  God, what a dick he was to her).

Right there with you about how he treated Anita Hill. Also, his "apologies" on that subject are piss poor. If he had come out with a sincere apology and acknowledgement that he did wrong by her, I would feel a little better about him. The other thing that annoys me is that he exudes a sense of entitlement, as if he's owed the presidency.

[SassyPants]

21 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I consider Obama to be a moderate.  John Kerry was further left. 

I detest Biden.  (Anita Hill.  God, what a dick he was to her).  And I'm probably voting for him on Super Tuesday.

In a perfect world, Liz Warren would be my candidate.  But she's splitting the progressive vote with Bernie and he's in the lead right now.  Regardless what anyone thinks of him, I see no chance of him beating Trump.  There is no way someone who identifies as a "socialist" anything is going to prevail in the electoral college.   And it seems Trump's Russian bosses agree.  

A couple of weeks ago, I thought that Biden was dead in the water, but my opinion on that is starting to change. He might be the only one who can beat Trump. A lot depends on the youth vote too. Aside from Bloomberg,  all of the other candidates in the field are far better than Trump.

13 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I think quite a few folks who voted for Trump, or who didn't vote, would be inclined to vote for a Democrat as long as the candidate was reasonably within their "comfort zone".  I can't, for example, imagine most non-liberal men in the middle of the country voting for a gay man - period.  Then there are the religious zealots to contend with, who, if they happened to have a moral moment and were going to sit the election out might decide to vote for Trump instead.

Yet, Pete was able to be elected Mayor in South Bend, IN. Norte Dame is not exactly UC Berkeley!

Edited February 22, 2020 by SassyPants

[JenniferJuniper]

7 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

A couple of weeks ago, I thought that Biden was dead in the water, but my opinion on that is starting to change. He might be the only one who can beat Trump. A lot depends on the youth vote too.

Ah, the elusive youth vote.  Come out, come out, wherever you are.  

Just a feeling, but I think everything hinges on the "reasonably" sane people who voted for Trump the last time and are now tired of the endless insanity.  Fundies and racists and rednecks love him and always will.  But we need to get people who just thought it would be fun to vote for the "you're fired!" TV guy to come out and vote against him.  Democrats need to very carefully consider who is most likely to get them to do that.  Otherwise, it's 4 more years.  Four much worse years. 

[front hugs > duggs]

1 hour ago, Smee said:

I wonder about this. I’m not there so I don’t know, but of the Americans who wouldn’t accept a gay president, how many could be persuaded to vote Democrat at all? I mean, we have our fair share of homophobes but they’re 90% right wing conservatives anyway so just as unlikely to pick a woman over the “anti-abortion” candidate.

This is just one person, but she withdrew her support from Buttigieg after finding out he's gay

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/watch-iowa-caucus-voter-ends-pete-buttigieg-support-after-hearing-he-is-gay.html

[Rachel333]

I saw this poll the other day. (And, ahem, notice what's lowest on this list...)

 

I've read before that one issue with electing a woman is simply the perception that other people wouldn't vote for a woman, even if that's not actually true. A lot of people would vote for a woman themselves but think others won't, therefore they don't vote for a woman. It's the perception that's the issue rather than the reality.

That said, I do think being female is a significant barrier for a candidate. Even if people don't have a problem voting for a woman theoretically, there's a lot of sexism in how they tend to perceive the particular woman running.

I saw this satire piece recently, "I don't hate women candidates — I just hated Hillary and coincidentally I'm starting to hate Elizabeth Warren."

Quote

So bring it on, ladies! I’d love to see a female President. Just not Hillary Clinton. Or Elizabeth Warren. I am totally open to all other women leaders, but I have to admit that Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar are beginning to make me angry and I’m not sure why yet, but I know the reason will become clear soon, and I’m also wondering what they might look like if someone photoshopped their heads onto the bodies of prisoners and put them behind bars.

[Pleiades_06]

1 minute ago, Rachel333 said:

I saw this poll the other day. (And, ahem, notice what's lowest on this list...)

 

I've read before that one issue with electing a woman is simply the perception that other people wouldn't vote for a woman, even if that's not actually true. A lot of people would vote for a woman themselves but think others won't, therefore they don't vote for a woman. It's the perception that's the issue rather than the reality.

That said, I do think being female is a significant barrier for a candidate. Even if people don't have a problem voting for a woman theoretically, there's a lot of sexism in how they tend to perceive the particular woman running.

I saw this satire piece recently, "I don't hate women candidates — I just hated Hillary and coincidentally I'm starting to hate Elizabeth Warren."

Holy shit on the billionaire. I mean, one of these things is not like the other...