Politics 2020 Field - DNC

[Lanny]

Agreed.

Obama the war criminal should apologize for HIS behavior.

Maybe your side should find something about him somewhere to indict. I'm sure with all the screaming I've heard you do that you guys could easily dream up some indictments any day now.

 

[Stevenson]

What to do?

I don't think Bernie has a chance in hell in the general, even if I think many of his ideas are worth considering and debating.

Joe has just lost too much off his fastball.

Pete is too young, too inexperienced. Call us in a decade.

Amy is great, but it's tough to get fired up about her.

Liz doesn't do it for me. Her political instincts aren't good - taking the blood test, going all-in on Medicare for all, now she's an attack dog. Meh.

I thought Bloomberg was our best bet to get rid of the evil buffoon, but boy, did that debate bring him back down to earth.

What to do?? Help!

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

What to do?

I don't think Bernie has a chance in hell in the general, even if I think many of his ideas are worth considering and debating.

Joe has just lost too much off his fastball.

Pete is too young, too inexperienced. Call us in a decade.

Amy is great, but it's tough to get fired up about her.

Liz doesn't do it for me. Her political instincts aren't good - taking the blood test, going all-in on Medicare for all, now she's an attack dog. Meh.

I thought Bloomberg was our best bet to get rid of the evil buffoon, but boy, did that debate bring him back down to earth.

What to do?? Help!

So Im not at all a Bernie supporter or whatever but I think having him run is long term good for this country even if it means 4 more years of Trump (which I am not a fan of his either).
I think running Bernie even if he loses, gets the country to really talk about his idea’s good or bad, it makes us talk and have a serious talk about what his thoughts mean for us.
I know Im fairly against the DNC and GOP but at least he’s running on topics we really should “grapple” with and discuss. I think it could spell good things long run for us even if he loses if that makes sense. That of course assumed we can survive another 4 years of that...

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think Bernie has a chance in hell in the general, even if I think many of his ideas are worth considering and debating.

I think Sanders would be fine in a general election. A lot of people seem to worry that a "socialist" tag will sink him, but he polls well against Trump, even when the poll question reminds voters that he's a Democratic Socialist. Including in the Midwestern states that are important for the Electoral College.

Beyond that, a lot of winning a Presidential election is motivating your base, energizing them. Sanders is pretty good at generating energy, I think he'd possibly be better at turning out the Democratic base than the other candidates.

 

[crandc]

I am a Warren supporter but I agree with Minstrel. Sanders has massive base in Latino community, increasing support from black voters, won two white states, and in Nevada actually performed better than expected among moderates.

The question is what will happen when Trump campaign spends hundreds of millions trying to turn him into Pol Pot, Stalin, and Maduro (a capitalist BTW) rolled into one.

 

[Minstrel]

I've also been backing Warren. I was supporting Kamala Harris until her campaign ended. I'm fine with Sanders if he ends up as the nominee.

 

[crandc]

I honestly don't like Sanders much. I get tired of being screamed at, and don't like how he responds to challenges; not so much policy as personality. But compared to current occupant of the white house, no brainer.

 

[Road Ratt]

I'm not certain if anyone else is seeing the similarities between the 2016 Trump campaign and Bernie's 2020 campaign (Other than the Russians are helping both of them, of course. ). Everywhere you look, everyone is talking about Bernie. He is drumming up more talk in the media than any other candidate running right now, whether it be good or bad. Very much like Trump did. Unlike Trump, Bernie is a true populist. And populism is currently on the rise around the world. Bernie draws bigger crowds than any other candidate running and is breaking fundraising records.

http://www.vox.com/2020/1/2/21046153/bernie-sanders-fourth-quarter-fundraising-haul

 

[Minstrel]

I honestly don't like Sanders much. I get tired of being screamed at, and don't like how he responds to challenges; not so much policy as personality.

Yeah, I can understand that. Personality-wise, he's not my cup of tea, either. But I like his ambitious agenda, I like that he seems to have realized that he had blind spots, in the past, for issues regarding minorities and women and seems to have attempted to rectify that. He seems like a decent person who legitimately wants to change things for the better.

 

[Hoopguru]

What to do?

I don't think Bernie has a chance in hell in the general, even if I think many of his ideas are worth considering and debating.

Joe has just lost too much off his fastball.

Pete is too young, too inexperienced. Call us in a decade.

Amy is great, but it's tough to get fired up about her.

Liz doesn't do it for me. Her political instincts aren't good - taking the blood test, going all-in on Medicare for all, now she's an attack dog. Meh.

I thought Bloomberg was our best bet to get rid of the evil buffoon, but boy, did that debate bring him back down to earth.

What to do?? Help!

agree..don't think Sanders can beat Trump.
If Joe can do decent on super Tuesday and maybe team up with Amy or Pete, never know.

 

[Lanny]

So Im not at all a Bernie supporter or whatever but I think having him run is long term good for this country even if it means 4 more years of Trump (which I am not a fan of his either).
I think running Bernie even if he loses, gets the country to really talk about his idea’s good or bad, it makes us talk and have a serious talk about what his thoughts mean for us.
I know Im fairly against the DNC and GOP but at least he’s running on topics we really should “grapple” with and discuss. I think it could spell good things long run for us even if he loses if that makes sense. That of course assumed we can survive another 4 years of that...

Four more years of Trump would be worse than the Great Depression, worse than our Civil War. It's too horrific to contemplate. It simply can't happen. Hence I will support whomever the Democrats pick and I will support that person to the hilt. I'd rather support a neighbor that beats his wife and kicks his dog than vote for Trump. I mean, what is worse than treason?

 

[barfo]

Yeah, I can understand that. Personality-wise, he's not my cup of tea, either. But I like his ambitious agenda, I like that he seems to have realized that he had blind spots, in the past, for issues regarding minorities and women and seems to have attempted to rectify that. He seems like a decent person who legitimately wants to change things for the better.

I actually like his personality, it's the same as mine. Neither of us want you damn kids on our lawn, but we do want your damn votes.

I'm warming to Bernie politically, mostly because it's starting to look like I have no choice. I do like where he wants to go, but I don't see much evidence that he knows how to get from here to there. But then, arguably that's the job of congress anyway. Can his revolution-or-nothing rhetoric inspire congress to make modest, incremental changes to the current system? Certainly possible but it seems less than obvious to me.

And then there are the can-he-win-the-general worries. But we'll see.

barfo

 

[Chris Craig]

I have been somewhat undecided, though leaning between Klobuchar and Warren. I am ok with Bernie getting the nomination though. Should have bern his last election. I think he could team up with a moderate on the ticket like Amy and be fine against Trump. I could also see him picking warren.

Biden most incoherent these days, though he had a good showing last debate. I don't like him as the nominee though.

Bloomberg is terrible. He is really a republican and got rightfully destroyed last debate. He can spend all the money he wants on ads. He won't win the nomination.

Buttigeig comes off as very fake. His memorized talking points don't full me. I don't care for him.

It would be nice if Amy or Warren made the top of the ticket, but it looks at this point they don't have enough support. Still early though.

I think Bernie will ultimately win the nomination and that doesn't scare me. I could see the dems getting to the convention without anyone having the 1,991 delegates. I hope not though.

 

[Minstrel]

I do like where he wants to go, but I don't see much evidence that he knows how to get from here to there.

I agree, but I think that's true of all of them, even "I have a plan for that" Warren. She has plans that would work if she were solely in charge, but the problem isn't effective policy papers, it's navigating the politics of representatives and senators who don't want your policies to happen. I think the constraints on the President don't come from their imagination or ambition--it comes from Congress. And I think the constraints Congress will put on the next President will be lower than any of the current candidates' left-leaning ambitions (other than Bloomberg).

So, mostly I want someone who can win and who will advocate for good stuff, even if they can't achieve a lot of it. I think Sanders can win (I can't say whether he's the most electable or not--it's pretty hard to say which of the candidates are).

 

[barfo]

I agree, but I think that's true of all of them, even "I have a plan for that" Warren. She has plans that would work if she were solely in charge, but the problem isn't effective policy papers, it's navigating the politics of representatives and senators who don't want your policies to happen. I think the constraints on the President don't come from their imagination or ambition--it comes from Congress. And I think the constraints Congress will put on the next President will be lower than any of the current candidates' left-leaning ambitions (other than Bloomberg).

So, mostly I want someone who can win and who will advocate for good stuff, even if they can't achieve a lot of it. I think Sanders can win (I can't say whether he's the most electable or not--it's pretty hard to say which of the candidates are).

Agree entirely. And the work-with-congress thing is another unknown for Bernie - he certainly knows how the system works by now, but (a) is he suited to that sort of horse-trading, and more importantly (b) will he have sufficient electoral coattails to have enough democrats in congress to enact any legislation at all.

barfo

 

[Stevenson]

Bernie is great for we lefties, but I agree with the general consensus that he will lose us congress if he gets the nomination. Does he help or hurt senate candidates in Arizona, Alabama, Virginia etc? You know the answer, hurt.

Further, if elected, his Medicare for all will go nowhere in congress. Hell, Obamacare barely squeaked by and we had both chambers.

So he wins, has no majority, but has a big soapbox (which he clearly loves.) Yes, he will get us back on track with the Paris accords, etc. but I sadly see a loudmouth with no legislative victories and 4 years of bupkis.

 

[crandc]

Read an interesting column suggesting Elizabeth Warren could be suffering from smart kid phenomenon. You know, the smart kid who never got elected class president?

The writer compared several recent elections. In 1980 it was clear that Gore was smarter and more knowledgeable than the entitled fake cowboy Bush, but we kept hearing he was awkward and stiff and hey, who would you like to have a beer with, as if that was suddenly the criterion for voting for a president. In 2008 one reason for the absolute venom against Obama on the right was the outrage that the smartest guy in the room was a Black man with a brainy wife. Fortunately for him, Obama also had great personal charisma. That's something you either have or don't, and few of us do. In 2016 Clinton and Trump weren't even on the same planet as far as intelligence, knowledge, experience, and competence, but Clinton's policy proposals would get a small story on page 16 or a few seconds at the end of a telecast, while Trump saying Mexico would totally pay for the wall, which everyone knew was nonsense, was the top TV story and front page in newspaper. Like the head of CNN said, he was bad for the country but great for ratings.

And I still think Warren could be the unifying candidate. She has the progressive agenda without Sanders' abrasiveness or baggage, she is more likely to listen to others and more pragmatic, while he is "my way or the highway", her plans are good ones that when known are very popular.

 

[Minstrel]

And I still think Warren could be the unifying candidate. She has the progressive agenda without Sanders' abrasiveness or baggage, she is more likely to listen to others and more pragmatic, while he is "my way or the highway", her plans are good ones that when known are very popular.

If I could just select a nominee from the current candidates, it would be Warren. For one reason or another, she isn't getting much traction, though. It could be the "smart kid" thing--Americans have often been at least mildly suspicious of anyone who's "too smart." There's a long tradition of conflating education and academic credentials with elitism and lack of touch with the issues of "everyday Americans." However, that tradition is much more pronounced among the (modern era) Republican party, so I'm not sure if that explains her lack of success so far in the Democratic primaries.

 

[Hoopguru]

Read an interesting column suggesting Elizabeth Warren could be suffering from smart kid phenomenon. You know, the smart kid who never got elected class president?

The writer compared several recent elections. In 1980 it was clear that Gore was smarter and more knowledgeable than the entitled fake cowboy Bush, but we kept hearing he was awkward and stiff and hey, who would you like to have a beer with, as if that was suddenly the criterion for voting for a president. In 2008 one reason for the absolute venom against Obama on the right was the outrage that the smartest guy in the room was a Black man with a brainy wife. Fortunately for him, Obama also had great personal charisma. That's something you either have or don't, and few of us do. In 2016 Clinton and Trump weren't even on the same planet as far as intelligence, knowledge, experience, and competence, but Clinton's policy proposals would get a small story on page 16 or a few seconds at the end of a telecast, while Trump saying Mexico would totally pay for the wall, which everyone knew was nonsense, was the top TV story and front page in newspaper. Like the head of CNN said, he was bad for the country but great for ratings.

And I still think Warren could be the unifying candidate. She has the progressive agenda without Sanders' abrasiveness or baggage, she is more likely to listen to others and more pragmatic, while he is "my way or the highway", her plans are good ones that when known are very popular.

I would like if Warren would convey more of a unifying message which I predict she will. That would help her win some of the other 80%.

 

[Lanny]

If I could just select a nominee from the current candidates, it would be Warren. For one reason or another, she isn't getting much traction, though. It could be the "smart kid" thing--Americans have often been at least mildly suspicious of anyone who's "too smart." There's a long tradition of conflating education and academic credentials with elitism and lack of touch with the issues of "everyday Americans." However, that tradition is much more pronounced among the (modern era) Republican party, so I'm not sure if that explains her lack of success so far in the Democratic primaries.

Did you forget that JFK is considered one of the smartest people to ever enter politics? He did okay.

 

[Minstrel]

Did you forget that JFK is considered one of the smartest people to ever enter politics? He did okay.

So was Obama. Nothing in my post suggested smart people can't become President, just that there's a pretty strong bias against them among many Americans, in my opinion.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

So was Obama. Nothing in my post suggested smart people can't become President, just that there's a pretty strong bias against them among many Americans, in my opinion.

I kind of saw Obama as kind of par for the course in terms of intelligence. I mean thats better than 5 over and still swinging in the sand.... I never once remember thinking wow this guy is like next level smart though. Is this like a you agreed with him so he’s smart?(I know that sounds terrible I dont mean that in a derogatory way just that people in general tend to think others who have similar views are smarter than those who dont). Or is it just feel? Or was there like hard (IQ) type tests proving that?
This isnt meant as an argument, Im genuinely curious I dont think Ive ever heard someone talk about oh people were alienated by Obama’s intelligence. Im also not calling him dumb here.

 

[Lanny]

So was Obama. Nothing in my post suggested smart people can't become President, just that there's a pretty strong bias against them among many Americans, in my opinion.

The support for JFK was overwhelming except for those who hated Catholics which included most of the South.

 

[Minstrel]

Is this like a you agreed with hi
so he’s smart?

No. I've "agreed" (in the limited sense of being more similar to them politically) with many politicians, but I didn't specifically call out all the Presidents or candidates I was aligned with as unusually smart.

Every interview I read of Obama, his answers were extremely thoughtful and insightful, with a clear understanding of a wide array of concepts and the history involved. I don't know about "next level smart" which, to me, implies a genius who overturns traditional thinking--to me, Obama was one of the deepest and considered thinkers to occupy the position. I actually didn't always agree with him, but I found I always respected his positions just because they were so well considered.

In terms of perception, his education and his status as president of the Harvard Law Review were much commented on when he was running, and he was constantly referred to as a "technocrat," a word that most literally means, IMO, someone who focuses on data and science to find evidence-based solutions for social and government issues, but seems to me to carry connotations of being overly logical and not particularly emotional, like a computer. So, to me, the widespread perception of Obama was definitely that he was an intellectual and academically-based candidate.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

No. I've "agreed" (in the limited sense of being more similar to them politically) with many politicians, but I didn't specifically call out all the Presidents or candidates I was aligned with as unusually smart.

Every interview I read of Obama, his answers were extremely thoughtful and insightful, with a clear understanding of a wide array of concepts and the history involved. I don't know about "next level smart" which, to me, implies a genius who overturns traditional thinking--to me, Obama was one of the deepest and considered thinkers to occupy the position. I actually didn't always agree with him, but I found I always respected his positions just because they were so well considered.

In terms of perception, his education and his status as president of the Harvard Law Review were much commented on when he was running, and he was constantly referred to as a "technocrat," a word that most literally means, IMO, someone who focuses on data and science to find evidence-based solutions for social and government issues, but seems to me to carry connotations of being overly logical and not particularly emotional, like a computer. So, to me, the widespread perception of Obama was definitely that he was an intellectual and academically-based candidate.

Interesting. FWIW I really didnt mean that comment like with my nose up and oh you only liked him cause he was yours!! Or something like that.
My perception of him was like oh, I disagree with much of what he pushed, but I thought he was likeable, and a good leader for the most part. Really hadn't given a lot of thought to his intelligence. I actually respected him though. Thanks for your input.

 

[MARIS61]

How many indictments has the Trump administration issued against these miscreants?

Several have already been convicted and are in prison. Try to keep up.

 

[MARIS61]

I am a Warren supporter but I agree with Minstrel. Sanders has massive base in Latino community, increasing support from black voters, won two white states, and in Nevada actually performed better than expected among moderates.

The question is what will happen when Trump campaign spends hundreds of millions trying to turn him into Pol Pot, Stalin, and Maduro (a capitalist BTW) rolled into one.

WTF is a white state?

Bernie has praised some of the most prolific mass murderers in history, and peddles their policies of control over the masses through poverty while he personally lives an extravagant lifestyle.

 

[CupWizier]

WTF is a white state?

trump has praised some of the most prolific mass murderers and dictators in history, and peddles their policies of control over the masses through poverty while he personally lives an extravagant lifestyle.

fify

 

[Lanny]

Several have already been convicted and are in prison. Try to keep up.

Why don't you help me with a credible link? Meanwhile, I see a lot of high ranking Trump supporters headed for prison.

 

[MARIS61]

Fox News Poll: Sanders knocks Biden out of first, majority thinks Trump wins

As young voters embrace Sen. Bernie Sanders' promises of 'free' college and health care, a new study shows only 16 percent of millennials are 'financially literate.'

Bernie Sanders pushes Joe Biden out of the frontrunner spot for the Democratic nomination, capturing a record 31 percent support among primary voters in a new Fox News Poll. This is the first 2020 Fox national poll that finds Biden not leading the Democratic race.

The survey also finds a marked increase in the number of voters who think President Trump will win the election.

Sanders has gained 8 percentage points since January in the nomination race, while Biden drops into second with 18 percent, down 8 points. Close behind is Mike Bloomberg at 16 percent, up 6 points since last month and triple his 5 percent in December. Pete Buttigieg comes in at 12 percent (up 5), Elizabeth Warren at 10 percent (down 4), and Amy Klobuchar at 5 percent (up 2).

This is the first Fox News poll with five candidates in double digits. It was conducted Sunday through Wednesday. Sanders, notably, was the most attacked candidate during Tuesday’s contentious presidential debate in South Carolina.

Sanders performs well with groups across the board, with an extra boost from young voters, self-described liberals, whites without a college degree, and those looking for change.

Biden is strongest among women over age 45, voters who regularly attend religious services, and those who long for a return to the pre-Trump era.

The nomination race looks almost the same when narrowed to Democratic primary voters in the 14 Super Tuesday states: Sanders remains on top with 30 percent, followed by Bloomberg at 18 percent, Biden 17 percent, Warren 11 percent, and Buttigieg and Klobuchar each get 8 percent.