2020 Presidential Election 2: The Primaries are upon us

[Mama Mia]

9 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Great, I just saw that Bernie went on 60 Minutes tonight and partially defended Fidel Castro, giving the Republicans some great clips and pretty much ensuring that he'll lose Florida. How are we supposed to win without Florida? Not only that, but he was unable to give any details about how he would actually get his plans paid for. This is the Republicans' dream opponent.

Not sure if I’m doing this right, but here is Obama doing the exact same thing: 

Also, the arguments against Bernie are often the same ones tried against Obama, who had a whole lot else to fight against. And he seemed to do ok. Peace.

 

[nausicaa]

14 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Seriously though, do we really know what the Dems are planning? And more importantly, should we? At this point, we have no idea what they might be cooking up behind the scenes -- and that's just as it should be.

I'd rather be surprised by their tactics. Because if we're surprised, so are the Rs.

I don't. I am just doubting that this flailing, divided party has some magic card up their sleeve. That fact that the contenders at the debates aren't just constantly hammering at Trump's poor economic choices makes me think they really don't understand how best to leverage Trump against himself. 

I genuinely hope I'm wrong though. 

13 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Not sure if I’m doing this right, but here is Obama doing the exact same thing: 

Also, the arguments against Bernie are often the same ones tried against Obama, who had a whole lot else to fight against. And he seemed to do ok. Peace.

Obama didn't make that speech in the lead up to the 2008 elections. He made it in 2016, in his second term when he didn't have to give two craps about Florida electoral votes. 

Again: We need 270 electoral votes. That's it. That's the whole game we're playing here. 

And Obama didn't have forty years of oppo research on him, including an extended speech sitting in the USSR talking about how nifty it is after his 10 day honeymoon there. Obama also didn't have a very serious health condition (again, why aren't we talking about this?!?!) and wasn't 80 years old and it was highly unlikely he would become physically incapacitated before the general election. He was also running during an economic downturn and not against a sitting president. 

[Rachel333]

Anyone talking about "canceling" is missing the point. It's not necessarily that it's morally wrong to talk about Fidel Castro's literacy program (opinions will vary on that), it's that what he said is unbelievably stupid when you're running for president, and will almost certainly cost us Florida if he's the nominee.

I'm tired of people using Obama that way too; I think it's pretty unfair to Obama. He didn't have anything near the history Bernie has, and still the lies about him being a socialist probably did hurt him (I heard people complain about his supposed socialism all the time), just not enough for him to lose. Imagine how much worse it would be if a candidate actually calls himself a socialist, has a long history of praising dictatorships, and doesn't have Obama's unique charisma and ability to inspire to make up for it.

[Dandruff]

5 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Do...do they not have any strategists on this campaign? Or is he another live wire like Trump who doesn't like "being handcuffed?"?

Unlike Trump, I don't think he's stupid. So why on earth would he think this is a good idea?

Kudos for "live wire" - I think that's a great description.  Perhaps he is so driven by his ideology, and the sense of an impending, deserved win, that he's now going fast and loose.  He really does remind me of Trump in a way; e.g., the lack of filtering and his refusal to release medical records.

I suspect the strategy, if there is one, is to win (obviously) or have the ability to influence his many supporters' votes if he turns out to not be the candidate.  I doubt he'll go anywhere near quiet, at least until Election Day.

[SassyPants]

I think it’s time for Warren and Klobuchar to drop out. They aren't racking up delegates and both have money issues. It’s too bad, because Warren is smart and has worked so hard cultivating and sharing her plans, and yet she can’t get any traction. She’s just not sexy or bombastic enough for lazy Americans who want to be entertained. 

[Marmion]

40 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

I think it’s time for Warren and Klobuchar to drop out. They aren't racking up delegates and both have money issues. It’s too bad, because Warren is smart and has worked so hard cultivating and sharing her plans, and yet she can’t get any traction. She’s just not sexy or bombastic enough for lazy Americans who want to be entertained. 

I think that this article , I just read today , says it all .  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/her-strategy-failed-her-warren-finally-took-sanders-it-may-n1141291  We'll have to see how things stand , after subsequent state primaries . 

[Rachel333]

Not only did he double down on the Castro stuff, he praised authoritarian China as well.  

 

[Marmion]

10 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Not sure if I’m doing this right, but here is Obama doing the exact same thing: 

Also, the arguments against Bernie are often the same ones tried against Obama, who had a whole lot else to fight against. And he seemed to do ok. Peace.

 

Here is the entirety of Pres. Obama's speech , in context , for anyone interested .  

 Nice attempt at making a tu quoque argument though .  And lastly , if Sanders is the eventual nominee , I will of course be sure to rally in support of him , in opposition to the looming fascist dictatorship of Trump . I just think that for myself , and others of the democratic progressive left , we are concerned about ending up like Huber Matos , whom after helping Fidel Castro oust then dictator Fulgencio Batista , subsequently discovered that Castro was in reality not a democratic socialist , as he was , and had believed him to be as well , but rather someone aligned with Communism . 

Quote

Huber Matos, a military commander and former guerrilla aligned with the non-communist left, was arrested in October. He twice tried to resign his position, citing the growing influence of communists in government, and was given a twenty-year prison sentence. Like other political prisoners, Matos described forms of torture, including frequent beatings, solitary confinement, and being left in a dark pit filled with rats. Dissent became dangerous and potentially criminal. At the end of 1959, pro-revolutionary newspaper workers began by inserting little comments responding to articles and columns that they considered denigrating to the revolution. But, encouraged by official messages from Fidel, in early 1960 they seized news outlets, placing them in state hands. A pluralistic scene including new revolutionary voices instead developed into a state monopoly on information and publishing, and labor unions too were gradually brought under full state control. Those who didn’t conform to Cuba’s ideas of revolutionary behavior, including gays and those who demonstrated “counterrevolutionary” ideas and practices, were sent to labor camps. “For the Cuban people,” wrote Carlos Franqui, a longtime friend of Fidel’s and an independent socialist, “opposition and counterrevolution became synonymous.”

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/fidel-castro-myths-left-right-obituary   ,  https://panampost.com/david-unsworth/2016/11/28/huber-matos-real-hero-cuban-revolution/ , https://havanatimes.org/opinion/cuban-democratic-socialists-write-to-their-peers-in-the-us/  

[Mama Mia]

41 minutes ago, Marmion said:

Here is the entirety of Pres. Obama's speech , in context , for anyone interested .  

 Nice attempt at making a tu quoque argument though .  And lastly , if Sanders is the eventual nominee , I will of course be sure to rally in support of him , in opposition to the looming fascist dictatorship of Trump . I just think that for myself , and others of the democratic progressive left , we are concerned about ending up like Huber Matos , whom after helping Fidel Castro oust then dictator Fulgencio Batista , subsequently discovered that Castro was in reality not a democratic socialist , as he was , and had believed him to be as well , but rather someone aligned with Communism . 

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/fidel-castro-myths-left-right-obituary   ,  https://panampost.com/david-unsworth/2016/11/28/huber-matos-real-hero-cuban-revolution/ , https://havanatimes.org/opinion/cuban-democratic-socialists-write-to-their-peers-in-the-us/  

So weird how a very few short years ago people were excited and hopeful about normalizing relations with Cuba when Obama did it. And appalled when Trump shut it down. Yet somehow Bernie is a horrible commie authoritarian because he praises their literacy program. Extremely disingenuous. 

[Rachel333]

It's just a really bad move when Democrats need to win Florida. You can debate all you want about whether their reaction is fair or not, but it doesn't change the fact that Bernie offended a lot of Cuban-Americans whose vote he desperately needs.

[Mama Mia]

7 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

It's just a really bad move when Democrats need to win Florida. You can debate all you want about whether their reaction is fair or not, but it doesn't change the fact that Bernie offended a lot of Cuban-Americans whose vote he desperately needs.

I agree it wasn’t the best statement for that group. But I’d like to point out that Cuban Americans are currently around 30% of the Latino vote  in Florida, and 6% of the total Florida vote, and that the majority voted for Trump in ‘16. There is no real reason, based on voting history, to think they would switch to Dem regardless of who the nominee is or what they say. Younger voters in the community are more likely to vote Democratic, but that is based on sharing values with other young people, not on their linkage to Cuba. 
 

 https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/scott-and-desantis-won-the-florida-election-but-cuban-american-voters-are-beginning-to-vote-democrat/2078297/

[fraurosena]

Genuine question.

Why does everybody suddenly think Bernie has the nomination all but in the bag? Three states have voted. Three. Of the fifty. Super Tuesday hasn't even been yet. And still there is this conviction that Bernie is probably going to win the nomination. Is it because these sentiments are being whipped up by news sites and social media? 

Granted, he has 45 delegates. Of 3979 total. The eventual candidate will need 1991 delegates in the first ballot to win the nomination outright. I've been reading that Biden is the frontrunner to win SC. That would be a total of 54 delegates, which would definitely put Biden back in the running. 

So personally, I think it's far from a done deal. But maybe I'm missing something?

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus. How desperate must you be?

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by fraurosena

[BernRul]

On 2/23/2020 at 4:16 PM, nausicaa said:

Unfortunately, more people are exposed to those ads (which I have to admit are very well done) than to the debates. People vote for superficial and emotional reasons on both sides of the aisle. Even the more political types who vote in primaries. 

And 538 gave HRC a 71% chance of winning in 2016, so its methodology isn't faultless. 

Bloomberg is investing heavily in the delegate heavy Super Tuesday states, while mostly ignoring the early primary states. We haven't seen the effects of his ads yet. 

And Bloomberg can drag this thing out as long as he wants since he basically has unlimited funds. While he is ramping up spending, Warren, Biden, and Buttigieg are running out of money, so Bernie is likely his only real competition. 

I didn't think Bloomberg stood much of a chance after Nevada either, but my very smart, political adviser friend (who isn't even a Dem, doesn't like Bloomberg, and is watching this whole thing pretty disinterestedly) stated this morning he is sure Bloomberg will win. I was really taken aback and started looking into it. I'm not as certain as him, but I'm really curious to see the results on March 3rd. 

I don't think he's a monster. 

I'm confident he wouldn't run third-party against any other nominee, and would even campaign for them. Except Bloomberg. And I do worry about the latter situation happening as described above.

538 gave Clinton a 66% chance of winning the day of the election, compared to a 33% chance for Trump. That means the day of the election, Trump had a 1 in 3 chance of winning. Those aren't bad odds at all. It's also much different than Sanders 7 in 10 chance of plurality compared to Bloomberg's 1 in 10.

538 also correctly predicted that Trump had a shot at winning the EC but not the popular vote. So 538 was more accurate in 2016 than people give them credit for.

Sanders is likely to win California and Texas, the two states with the most delegates. He also is the favorite in virtually every state poll, except South Carolina (even then, he's turned a clear Biden win to something a little more competitive). In national polls, he's getting 27 to 30%, while all other candidates are in the teens or lower.

Does that mean he has it in the bag? Nope. Way too early to tell. But he has a much better shot than anyone right now. Looks like the only way he doesn't win is if DNC gives it to someone else in a contested convention, or if something drastic happens this week.

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Genuine question.

Why does everybody suddenly think Bernie has the nomination all but in the bag? Three states have voted. Three. Of the fifty. Super Tuesday hasn't even been yet. And still there is this conviction that Bernie is probably going to win the nomination. Is it because these sentiments are being whipped up by news sites and social media? 

Granted, he has 45 delegates. Of 3979 total. The eventual candidate will need 1991 delegates in the first ballot to win the nomination outright. I've been reading that Biden is the frontrunner to win SC. That would be a total of 54 delegates, which would definitely put Biden back in the running. 

So personally, I think it's far from a done deal. But maybe I'm missing something?

It's not a done deal, but he has major momentum, which is a factor in any election. Also, as @BernRul indicated, he's likely to win California, which has a huge number of delegates. Finally, you posted the piece about NV Rs switching parties same day and voting for Sanders, then switching back to R. Here in VA, we don't register by party and have open primaries. So, since there is no R primary in VA (the state Repug leadership bowed down to Twitler and cancelled their primary), Rs are free to vote in the Dem primary. Most will vote for whomever they feel is weakest against their lord and master. VA has 99 delegates, so it's not anywhere near the number CA has, but more than the states that have gone so far.

[BernRul]

7 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

It's just a really bad move when Democrats need to win Florida. You can debate all you want about whether their reaction is fair or not, but it doesn't change the fact that Bernie offended a lot of Cuban-Americans whose vote he desperately needs.

Some one beat me to it, but Cubans are not all of the Latino vote in Florida. Bernie has a significant lead with Latinos, so that could possibly make up for Cubans, depending on turnout.

Trump has praised several dictators. So it seems like praising a dictator does not disqualify any one in this day and age. The people who care probably weren't going to vote Dem anyway. 

 

 

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Sweet Rufus. How desperate must you be?

 

Trump is a liar and a conman. We have a high chance of a contested convention. A lot of Dems are scared of Bernie because they think he doesn't stand a chance against Trump. What better way to sow the seeds of a contested convention, and have Dems implode on themselves, than by stoking these inner party conflicts. "Oh no, Trump likes Bernie! Quick, let's rally behind Bloomberg!" Trump's a moron but he's a sly moron.

I've already posted an article about why populist conservatives think that Bernie is actually the worst person for Trump to face.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, BernRul said:

Trump has praised several dictators. So it seems like praising a dictator does not disqualify any one in this day and age. The people who care probably weren't going to vote Dem anyway. 

Yes, he has - and it may not disqualify someone in the Trump camp, none of those people are voting D anyway.

If the best that can be said is "Trump did it, too" it's a terrible argument for why one would make a good president.

[BernRul]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Yes, he has - and it may not disqualify someone in the Trump camp, none of those people are voting D anyway.

If the best that can be said is "Trump did it, too" it's a terrible argument for why one would make a good president.

My point is I don't think it will matter to as many people as others have implied. 

The people who like Bernie like him because he seems genuine. He was arrested for Civil Rights activities in the 60s, and he stood up for gay rights in the 90s when no one else does. When most politicians flip flop, he comes off as principled. So I really don't think this will tank him, especially in this day and age.

 

[Rachel333]

1 hour ago, BernRul said:

The people who like Bernie like him because he seems genuine. He was arrested for Civil Rights activities in the 60s, and he stood up for gay rights in the 90s when no one else does. When most politicians flip flop, he comes off as principled

Okay, so this is something that really bugs me as a gay person myself. People act like Bernie is the ultimate LGBT rights hero and I should be grateful to him. I really do like that he expressed support for LGBT rights early, but he hasn't actually been in favor of gay marriage the entire time and was even behind other Vermont politicians in expressing support for it. (https://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/)

Honestly, I'm really not bothered by that. Even just 10 years ago it was a different time and I'm not offended that a lot of politicans were slow to publicly support gay marriage. What does irritate me is that people say that Bernie has always been consistent on the issue when that's not entirely the case.

(I actually think consistency is overrated anyway -- I want someone who is able to change their mind rather than stubbornly stick to the same positions -- but that's a different matter.)

And I think it's great that Bernie went to a civil rights march in the 60s, but that alone doesn't make him a civil rights hero. Mitch McConnell was at the same march, after all! And then Bernie moved to a super white state and didn't do much for racial justice since then. I think he's done a better job at reaching out to minority communities this time around, but in 2016 it really bothered me the way a lot of white supporters acted like black people were obligated to support Bernie because of that one event 50 years ago. I also strongly disagree with Bernie's philosophy that class inequality is the most important issue and other things, like racism and sexism, are secondary. I don't like how when asked about those issues he always pivots to his speech on class. I really dislike how he has claimed that racism is largely a product of economic insecurity. He is very wrong about that.

Really, I would have a lot less of an issue with this stuff if so many of the arguments for him didn't rely on him being "consistent" and essentially infallible on these issues.

(Oh, and I find it very funny how much Bernie has flip flopped on whether someone with a plurality of delegates should definitely be the nominee. He espoused the exact opposite opinion in 2016 from what he is saying now. Again, it's kind of just typical politician opportunism, but it's the contrast with the claims of his consistency that makes it stand out.)

[Rachel333]

To say something nice about Bernie, I really enjoyed his "sick and tired of hearing about her damn e-mails" moment in a 2015 debate. It made me like him more then, and I still appreciate how he stood up for a competitor in the face of a manufactured scandal. I liked Pete's defense of Biden in a debate a few weeks ago for the same reason. It's nice to see stuff like that when the primaries get so ugly.

[SassyPants]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Genuine question.

Why does everybody suddenly think Bernie has the nomination all but in the bag? Three states have voted. Three. Of the fifty. Super Tuesday hasn't even been yet. And still there is this conviction that Bernie is probably going to win the nomination. Is it because these sentiments are being whipped up by news sites and social media? 

Granted, he has 45 delegates. Of 3979 total. The eventual candidate will need 1991 delegates in the first ballot to win the nomination outright. I've been reading that Biden is the frontrunner to win SC. That would be a total of 54 delegates, which would definitely put Biden back in the running. 

So personally, I think it's far from a done deal. But maybe I'm missing something?

I actually believe that Biden will be the candidate. The Democrat party will see to it. If Trump had been a Dem, he wouldn’t be the President. Super delegates...

3 hours ago, BernRul said:

Looks like the only way he doesn't win is if DNC gives it to someone else in a contested convention, or if something drastic happens this week.

BINGO! Would anyone be surprised? 

[Irishy]

Reading this thread periodically with interest. A little surprised at the skepticism here on FJ for Sanders. Here in Ireland it seems everyone is rooting for him. Hoping he will ‘fix’ America. Also not sure what’s wrong with calling oneself a socialist ? But I know, I know, it’s akin to declaring yourself a raging communist in the US. 
 

Fascinating reading. Carry on comrades 

[Maggie Mae]

I adore Sanders. I give him money on the reg. I think it's past time for single payer healthcare. Other countries have had it since WWII and we've been talking about it since McGovern tried to run against Nixon in 72. It's  well past time that we grew up and became civilized. 

Socialism isn't a boogyman or scary. We already have socialist policies. 

He has a plan to pay for it. He has multiple plans, actually. You can read it on his Senator website. 

When Bernie talks, it's like he gets it. It's like being heard for the first time by a politician. He really understands wealth inequality and class struggles.

He's the only candidate that excites me. I'd vote for Warren or pretty much any of the candidates (they are all fine) but Bernie, to me, seems like the one who can excite disaffected and apathetic independent/sometimes Democratic voters. 

My state is a polerized socialist state, though, and I'm surrounded by extremely liberal people and extremely racist conservatives. (And independent libertarians who hate politics and don't vote) So I am not the best person to chime in on this thread. Initial voting in my caucus in 2016 showed 96% of Dems wanted Sanders. That since changed but we love him and Warren here. So does Washington and Oregon. 

I dont think he'll get the nom, but I'm extremely happy to be proved wrong. We donated to him because we want him reminding Americans that socialist policies aren't the death of America, that socialism isn't a dirty word, and that other countries have had single payer medical systems since the end of WWII and the outcome is generally better. Medicare for some won't work, building on the ACA is like building a hotel on the ruins of an old hotel destroyed in an earthquake without fixing the foundation first. It'll eventually collapse. 

And as someone living in an area where the effects of climate change are real,they are here, and they are changing lives, I want someone who has a real, sweeping overhaul. I don't just want lipservice and a promise that we are looking into it. Sanders climate plan is ambitious. I find that being ambitious is better - you might get more done if you reach for the moon that if you have "sign an agreement" on a short list. 

 

[SassyPants]

21 minutes ago, Irishy said:

Reading this thread periodically with interest. A little surprised at the skepticism here on FJ for Sanders. Here in Ireland it seems everyone is rooting for him. Hoping he will ‘fix’ America. Also not sure what’s wrong with calling oneself a socialist ? But I know, I know, it’s akin to declaring yourself a raging communist in the US. 
 

Fascinating reading. Carry on comrades 

American exceptionalism. America sees herself the mother of capitalism. Embracing socialism would mean that America is just like most countries, and not the BEST and GREATEST. Many have drunk the kool-aid. Also, you’ll hear lots of people kvetching about lazy people or that socialism is a precursor to communism...all while they head to the SS office to sign up for their Medicare and Social Security benefits. See, lots of Americans view their own safety nets as earned, while others’ are some form of aid. In truth, much of America has some socialist programs: schools, roads, healthcare for many, many, many citizens (Medicare, government workers, the military, the disabled, the disadvantaged). Those who scream the loudest about socialism are most likely operating from a position of fear. The evil you know, is better than the perceived evil that you do not. 

 

 

 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

I adore Sanders. I give him money on the reg. I think it's past time for single payer healthcare. Other countries have had it since WWII and we've been talking about it since McGovern tried to run against Nixon in 72. It's  well past time that we grew up and became civilized. 

Socialism isn't a boogyman or scary. We already have socialist policies. 

He has a plan to pay for it. He has multiple plans, actually. You can read it on his Senator website. 

When Bernie talks, it's like he gets it. It's like being heard for the first time by a politician. He really understands wealth inequality and class struggles.

He's the only candidate that excites me. I'd vote for Warren or pretty much any of the candidates (they are all fine) but Bernie, to me, seems like the one who can excite disaffected and apathetic independent/sometimes Democratic voters. 

My state is a polerized socialist state, though, and I'm surrounded by extremely liberal people and extremely racist conservatives. (And independent libertarians who hate politics and don't vote) So I am not the best person to chime in on this thread. Initial voting in my caucus in 2016 showed 96% of Dems wanted Sanders. That since changed but we love him and Warren here. So does Washington and Oregon. 

I dont think he'll get the nom, but I'm extremely happy to be proved wrong. We donated to him because we want him reminding Americans that socialist policies aren't the death of America, that socialism isn't a dirty word, and that other countries have had single payer medical systems since the end of WWII and the outcome is generally better. Medicare for some won't work, building on the ACA is like building a hotel on the ruins of an old hotel destroyed in an earthquake without fixing the foundation first. It'll eventually collapse. 

And as someone living in an area where the effects of climate change are real,they are here, and they are changing lives, I want someone who has a real, sweeping overhaul. I don't just want lipservice and a promise that we are looking into it. Sanders climate plan is ambitious. I find that being ambitious is better - you might get more done if you reach for the moon that if you have "sign an agreement" on a short list. 

 

I will vote for him if he's the nominee, but I wanted to chime in on why some of us really, really bristle at the socialist thing.

Our government sucks.  The parties work for themselves, not the country.  Our elected officials work for themselves, not their constituents.  There are endless examples of the government being completely incompetent and wasteful with tax dollars.  

It is vulnerable to a bad election giving us someone like Trump, and the Presidency has too much power vested in one person.

When an institution shows itself to be incompetent, grifting, and self serving it's really hard to get on board with giving them MORE to do.  More power, more authority, more money.

Big government only works (in theory, imo) if there are people of integrity running it.  One person isn't enough.  Even if Bernie were all the wonderful things his supporters claim, one person cannot override a corrupt system overnight.

We have to drastically reform health care. We have to address immigration and fund needed programs to help those who need it.  I think many of us agree on the end goals, but some of us are scared as hell of the idea of government being the solution when it's the problem.  

And there are also people who are near the end of their working lives who have played by the rules under our economic system and prepared themselves financially for retirement terrified of losing everything in ill defined wealth taxes.  I'm not talking about the 1%, I'm talking about regular upper middle class to middle class people who are old enough they won't be able to recover from a loss if the tax scheme hurts them enough.

We do have to address income inequality and leveling the playing field, but we can't ignore that there are voters out there who are afraid for their own financial well being and that's a reasonable fear.

And also...

Quote

Democratic socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned, but the country has a democratic system of government.

Has he disavowed the first part of how he self defines.  The government coming for the factors of production is scary af and people get nervous of what could be coming down the road.  They do that there will be a revolt and I'll be on board with it.  If he's not in favor of the gov taking factors of production than why is he using that term to describe himself?