2020 Democrats

[Geremia]

What about NY governor Andrew Cuomo or VA governor Ralph Northam?

[1714957391]

1714957391

[1714957391]

1714957391

[mOgliE]

I think everybody has to rally around Bernie; its the only real shot for victory

Dude if USA gets Bernie as a president I hereby swear I leave my country and migrate to USA xD

But that won't happen.
That would be cool, but that won't happen.

[nutildah]

I think everybody has to rally around Bernie; its the only real shot for victory

Dude if USA gets Bernie as a president I hereby swear I leave my country and migrate to USA xD

But that won't happen.
That would be cool, but that won't happen.

Well people said the same thing about Trump, that he'd never win, and he did!

I don't think I'd ever been wronger about anything in my life than who would win the last election!

[theymos]

Gabbard has been knocking it out of the park on foreign policy, and making this the central issue of her campaign. Eg.:

Speech: https://youtu.be/4VOUuylYHIc?t=813

Short-sighted politicians & media pundits who've spent last 2 years accusing Trump as a Putin puppet have brought us the expensive new Cold War & arms race. How? Because Trump now does everything he can to prove he’s not Putin’s puppet—even if it brings us closer to nuclear war.

Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”

She's become by far my favorite of the bunch, though she has little chance of winning. It looks like she might not even get enough donations to satisfy the DNC's requirements to get into the debates, the deadline for which is approaching soon.

Dude if USA gets Bernie as a president I hereby swear I leave my country and migrate to USA xD

But that won't happen.
That would be cool, but that won't happen.

I wouldn't dismiss it as completely impossible. In the primaries the DNC will try to stop him, and socialism polls very poorly in the general election electorate. But he has excellent name recognition along with a large group of die-hard supporters/donors, many of his individual policies poll well, and Trump isn't very popular, so it's definitely within the realm of possibility for Sanders to become president.

I'd be really happy with a Sanders vs. Trump race, since they're both anti-establishment and skeptical of the endless wars.

[Diamond Member]

Gabbard has been knocking it out of the park on foreign policy, and making this the central issue of her campaign. Eg.:

Speech: https://youtu.be/4VOUuylYHIc?t=813

Short-sighted politicians & media pundits who've spent last 2 years accusing Trump as a Putin puppet have brought us the expensive new Cold War & arms race. How? Because Trump now does everything he can to prove he’s not Putin’s puppet—even if it brings us closer to nuclear war.

Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”

She's become by far my favorite of the bunch, though she has little chance of winning. It looks like she might not even get enough donations to satisfy the DNC's requirements to get into the debates, the deadline for which is approaching soon.

The Democrats appear to believe they will win the 2020 Presidential election, no matter who is nominated (similar to how they thought Clinton would win in 2016, but we know how that turned out). As a result, they are competing with each other to move as far left as they can to appeal to the Democrat base who will donate and vote in larger numbers during the Primaries.

Gabbard is probably too moderate to have a realistic chance of getting the nomination. Her lack of playing the hysteria game on topics Democrat party elders want discussed is making it difficult for her to fundraise.

I cannot see Democrats nominating a candidate with a moderate enough platform that has any realistic chance of not getting blown out in the electoral college, let alone win the presidency. Proposals such as the Green New Deal will flip traditional Democrat strongholds such as the "Rust Belt" into Republican strongholds in 2020, and possibly for decades.

[coins4commies]

The Democrats appear to believe they will win the 2020 Presidential election, no matter who is nominated (similar to how they thought Clinton would win in 2016, but we know how that turned out). As a result, they are competing with each other to move as far left as they can to appeal to the Democrat base who will donate and vote in larger numbers during the Primaries.

Gabbard is probably too moderate to have a realistic chance of getting the nomination. Her lack of playing the hysteria game on topics Democrat party elders want discussed is making it difficult for her to fundraise.

I cannot see Democrats nominating a candidate with a moderate enough platform that has any realistic chance of not getting blown out in the electoral college, let alone win the presidency. Proposals such as the Green New Deal will flip traditional Democrat strongholds such as the "Rust Belt" into Republican strongholds in 2020, and possibly for decades.

Who cares about "traditional democratic strongholds" flipping if the green new deal has 81% support nationwide?  GND would change the map by bringing out that silent majority.  Lets not forget who won Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania and that a moderate democrat lost it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/green-new-deal-poll_us_5c169f2ae4b05d7e5d8332a5

Also why do you try to frame Tulsi as moderate?  She is a progressive who backs free college, medicare for all and off fossil fuels in 15 years.   The "democratic base" is moderate. 

[mOgliE]

I'd be really happy with a Sanders vs. Trump race, since they're both anti-establishment and skeptical of the endless wars.

Can't say that Trump decisions have been very peaceful until now. Agreed that he's far less terrible than Obama kamikaze but still not what we all hope for.

Anyway USA turning socialist might create the best possible country in the world. Only troubles of USA are the undless wars, the lack of welfare and the complete inhuman way of treating citizens. Without that it might become a super country

[Spendulus]

I'd be really happy with a Sanders vs. Trump race, since they're both anti-establishment and skeptical of the endless wars.

Can't say that Trump decisions have been very peaceful until now. Agreed that he's far less terrible than Obama kamikaze but still not what we all hope for.

Anyway USA turning socialist might create the best possible country in the world. Only troubles of USA are the undless wars, the lack of welfare and the complete inhuman way of treating citizens. Without that it might become a super country

Someone from France should know, the outcome of a people's revolution is not likely what it was at first dreamed to be.

[theymos]

Agreed that he's far less terrible than Obama kamikaze but still not what we all hope for.

Yeah, he's still very pro-war, but better than average, and better than all but a small handful of the Dem candidates.

I think that Sanders is intuitively much more anti-war than Trump, but he'd also be more willing to be a mere cog in the machine, which might give results similar to Obama. Not sure.

Anyway USA turning socialist might create the best possible country in the world. Only troubles of USA are the undless wars, the lack of welfare and the complete inhuman way of treating citizens. Without that it might become a super country

Even if Sanders wins, the US is not going to become socialist overnight (thank goodness...). The Senate, Supreme Court, and (periodically) the House will block basically every little thing he does. If he plays his cards right, he might be able to push through one or two major things, but it won't be exactly what he wants, and it's not going to completely reshape US politics.

[_Miracle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

So although I recognize that those living in capitalist societies define communism as totalitarian state,  I am trying to establish the actual definition of a communist society in any discussion. You not thinking I'm altogether there as a result of that is just a reflection of your ignorance, not mine.

coins4commies--- you are linking to a definition that is fairly accurate, while still not understanding that those ideals are based on a wish for the way society could work together but has---in actuality failed.
The results you wish to have are laudable and (I almost want to say: "don't worry your pretty little head" ;-)) we're already firmly headed towards socialism.
 
It's a lot to ask regular people to read books on economics or Wealth of Nations or -->The Road to Serfdom but if you want to be able to properly defend your position you might want to read something that opposes your view.

Hayek speaking on The Road to Serfdom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r4vFnPCCjU

More simply stated by Milton Friedman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15idnfuyqXs

@about 8mins in
“a subtle analysis of why well-meaning people who only wish to improve the lot of their fellows tend to favor courses of action which have exactly the opposite effect”

[nutildah]

Even if Sanders wins, the US is not going to become socialist overnight (thank goodness...). The Senate, Supreme Court, and (periodically) the House will block basically every little thing he does. If he plays his cards right, he might be able to push through one or two major things, but it won't be exactly what he wants, and it's not going to completely reshape US politics.

The presidency is more of a figurehead than administrative position IMO. There's no way for 1 person to effectively govern 300,000,000. The ability of one president to have a broadly transformative effect on the entire country just isn't something that happens. There's too many machinations at work to allow a single person to upset the power structure... I think Obama was a good example of this. Much like with Trump, people thought Obama becoming president was going to destroy the country. Instead, he largely produced more of the same.

Sanders being elected would definitely represent a shift in attitude that is reactive of Trump, but I agree that ultimately he'll have to put any grand ideals on hold and compromise down to the status quo, just like every other president of the last 30 years.

[Daniel91]

I think that democrats making very big mistake here.
They already have to many candidates and they will ''kill each other'' and fight a lot before somebody finally win.
Such candidate will already be damaged an tired before fight with TRump.
I think that people will loose respect towards democrats and confidence, specially if some radical left candidate win.
Because of their disunity Trump may win again.
Who will be good candidate from democrats?
It's really difficult to say but maybe former vice president Biden manly because of his experience in the White House.

[coins4commies]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

So although I recognize that those living in capitalist societies define communism as totalitarian state,  I am trying to establish the actual definition of a communist society in any discussion. You not thinking I'm altogether there as a result of that is just a reflection of your ignorance, not mine.

coins4commies--- you are linking to a definition that is fairly accurate, while still not understanding that those ideals are based on a wish for the way society could work together but has---in actuality failed.
The results you wish to have are laudable and (I almost want to say: "don't worry your pretty little head" ;-)) we're already firmly headed towards socialism.
 
It's a lot to ask regular people to read books on economics or Wealth of Nations or -->The Road to Serfdom but if you want to be able to properly defend your position you might want to read something that opposes your view.

Hayek speaking on The Road to Serfdom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r4vFnPCCjU

More simply stated by Milton Friedman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15idnfuyqXs

@about 8mins in
“a subtle analysis of why well-meaning people who only wish to improve the lot of their fellows tend to favor courses of action which have exactly the opposite effect”

You shouldn't assume someone who holds an opposing view is just unread.  A leftist living in the USA cannot help but read things that oppose their view.  Most of what I have ever read and experienced was written from a capitalist point of view and operates with the same ill-defined use of socialism as a centrally planned economy with a strong state running things.  

The road to serfdom is nothing more.  Its simply a criticism of state socialism, central planning, and the soviet style system with a lot of narrative of how those systems are connected to fascism. None of that has anything to do with my view or anyone in this thread.  I am on the opposite end of the spectrum (libertarian left).  Medicare for all and  not government takeover healthcare nor is it central planning.  These candidates you call socialists are really just center-left liberals.  These policies are just a form of welfare, regulation, or "stimulus".  Posting those links makes me think you have ignored the proposals by these candidates entirely and just listened to conservative news calling them socialists.  No one wants central planning.  

Even if Sanders wins, the US is not going to become socialist overnight (thank goodness...). The Senate, Supreme Court, and (periodically) the House will block basically every little thing he does. If he plays his cards right, he might be able to push through one or two major things, but it won't be exactly what he wants, and it's not going to completely reshape US politics.

The presidency is more of a figurehead than administrative position IMO. There's no way for 1 person to effectively govern 300,000,000. The ability of one president to have a broadly transformative effect on the entire country just isn't something that happens. There's too many machinations at work to allow a single person to upset the power structure... I think Obama was a good example of this. Much like with Trump, people thought Obama becoming president was going to destroy the country. Instead, he largely produced more of the same.

Sanders being elected would definitely represent a shift in attitude that is reactive of Trump, but I agree that ultimately he'll have to put any grand ideals on hold and compromise down to the status quo, just like every other president of the last 30 years.

Executive branch has a lot of direct power, can end the wars, and enforce tighter regulation.  Don't underestimate the direct power. Also, the president has the largest influence and can talk directly to the American people to get a message out to the people who then put pressure on congress to pass it.

The house is changing.  Maybe not in 2020 but by 2022 and 2024, you will continue to see more and more leftists enter congress.  I admit the senate is far from changing but will simply lag.  The math is changing quickly as old conservatives continue to die earlier and more young people can vote in each election.  The more realistic plan is to have a president sanders lay the groundwork for 2028 when congress will definitely be ready and AOC or someone like her can really achieve a leftist agenda as president.  

[_Miracle]

1.   You shouldn't assume someone who holds an opposing view is just unread.  A leftist living in the USA cannot help but read things that oppose their view.  Most of what I have ever read and experienced was written from a capitalist point of view and operates with the same ill-defined use of socialism as a centrally planned economy with a strong state running things.  

The road to serfdom is nothing more.  Its simply a criticism of state socialism, central planning, and the soviet style system with a lot of narrative of how those systems are connected to fascism. 2.  None of that has anything to do with my view   3.   or anyone in this thread.  I am on the opposite end of the spectrum (libertarian left).  Medicare for all and  not government takeover healthcare nor is it central planning.  These candidates you call socialists are really just center-left liberals.  These policies are just a form of welfare, regulation, or "stimulus".  4. Posting those links makes me think you have ignored the proposals by these candidates entirely and just listened to conservative news calling them socialists. 5. No one wants central planning.

 

Moderators don't like it when I just say "OK" to something like this
So
1. You're right
2. It really should
3. Wrong but also right: most politicians are lacking the understanding of how their policies negatively effect economic outcomes for the individual --or it's too profitable for them not to understand...and we as citizens don't seem to have much respect for the individual anymore.
4. You should re-read your #1 quote
 and
you've got it twisted:
My views come from a deep and growing appreciation for Milton Friedman ---aside from his books, series and at least 50 (free) hours of online interviews-lectures;
today's politicians and pundits are constantly trying to attach themselves to his ideas.
5. Prepare for collective cognitive dissonance.

[_Miracle]

Thank you to theymos:
 Tulsi Gabbard has been worth the listen.

*of course one of my favorite interviews is her on Joe Rogan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIb2lmHgd5s

[nutildah]

Just saw this on FortuneJack today:



That gap between Bernie and Biden needs to get a little wider for me to feel comfortable. Effin' Biden... He's the past, Bernie is the future, even if he's older. If Bernie wins he'll be the oldest president to ever take office.

Here are the rest of the contenders and odds if you're interested:

Warren, Elizabeth
39.00
Booker, Cory
43.00
Klobuchar, Amy Jean
49.00
Pence, Mike
60.00
Gabbard, Tulsi
60.00
Gillibrand, Kirsten
66.00
Haley, Nikki
70.00
Bloomberg, Mike
94.00
Kasich, John
94.00
Castro, Julian
98.00
Obama, Michelle
100.00
Hickenlooper, John
105.00
Romney, Mitt
105.00
Winfrey, Ophrah
110.00
Clinton, Hillary
115.00
Cuomo, Andrew
115.00
Rubio, Marco
125.00
Johnson, Dwayne
140.00
Cuban, Mark
145.00
Walker, Scott
145.00
Paul, Ryan
155.00
De Blasio, Bill
155.00
Gore, AL
155.00
Kennedy Iii, Joseph Patrick
160.00
Kaine, Tim
165.00
Fiorina, Carly
175.00
Zuckerberg, Mark
180.00
Newsom, Gavin
180.00
Ellison, Keith
180.00
Avenatti, Michael
185.00

It will be interesting to see what this looks like in about 6 months.

[Huskerz1]

So much ideologically wrong socially and economically with the democrat party.  Mature Americans understand that todays democratic party is a shit ideology.  Just look at Europe.  Trump will reign in 2020. 

[Quickseller]

Just saw this on FortuneJack today:

It looks like FJ (or their odds maker) is pretty confident whoever gets the Democrat nomination will beat Trump, giving him only a ~39% chance of winning.

Politico published a piece last week saying that, based on economic models, Trump would win in a landslide if the election was held today, and that Trump would win by a fairly large margin in 2020 if economic growth becomes more mediocre than what it is today.   

[TECSHARE]

Just saw this on FortuneJack today:

It looks like FJ (or their odds maker) is pretty confident whoever gets the Democrat nomination will beat Trump, giving him only a ~39% chance of winning.

Politico published a piece last week saying that, based on economic models, Trump would win in a landslide if the election was held today, and that Trump would win by a fairly large margin in 2020 if economic growth becomes more mediocre than what it is today.   

One huge topic Democrats seem to have shot themselves in the foot over is the "post birth abortion" laws they have been pushing. Unfortunately for them Mexicans are soon to be the majority in the USA (if they aren't already), and they are statistically VERY Catholic. These laws have jumped the shark, and as a result there are a tidal wave of Hispanics jumping the Democrat ship. Oopsey.

[nutildah]

Politico published a piece last week saying that, based on economic models, Trump would win in a landslide if the election was held today, and that Trump would win by a fairly large margin in 2020 if economic growth becomes more mediocre than what it is today.   

I remember during the last election many oddsmakers wouldn't even put Trump as an option for most of the election season, as he was just too much of a wildcard. The two prominent choices were Hillary Clinton vs. Republican. Hillary was favored by 70%.

Clinton won the popular vote by quite a wide margin, and the main reason why she lost is because she was so hated and polarizing among her own country. Depending on who the Dems nominate, it won't take much to put them over the top in 2020. During campaigning the country will be reminded of all the reasons why Trump is a dildo, and there are arguably more now than last time.