Maybe it’s just because I’m from MA but I would say Warren is one of the bigger names...at least if anti-corruption and financial regulation are something you care about since she’s been a fierce fighter on that front for years. Probably the only person running with more name recognition is Sanders and maybe Booker.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
Yeah, true. When I said bigger names I meant Kamala and Sanders who I think will probably be the two to look out for. Kamala has a big following in the west (Arizona here) but even before when I lived in Miami Warren wasn't really talked about as much as she was imo. But yeah she's a contender too, and I wouldn't mind her getting far because she's had some good stances I can get behind despite her scandal.
Machoke I didn’t know about this speech until I just saw an article in the Atlantic about Bernie differentiating himself on foreign policy but it is fire:
Hope he brings this fire to the campaign trail— this is one that Kamala simply cannot follow him and Tulsi on.
Wow, lots of good points he's making in this. I'm glad he's willing to publicly call out US imperialism and some of the examples of it wreaking havoc on other nations like Iran. I want to see him push this into specific key point policies at the front of his campaign. Aside from Tulsi I'm not seeing much of energy in the other candidates.
I did I Side With and got a three way tie between Buttegieg, Yang and Warren at 95%. Sanders came in lower than Harris and Booker, which was surprising and kinda makes me question the accuracy of the questions, but an interesting experiment nonetheless and will certainly have me paying more attention to Buttegieg and Yang going forward. Buttegieg in particular has started tackling how broken our legislative system is, which already perked my ears up. Here’s a good piece from ThinkProgress on that (feel free to ignore the Bernie comparison it’s framed around): https://thinkprogress.org/bernie-sanders-loves-the-filibuster-too-much-3b51bc9aca0e/
Also curious what people’s thoughts are on the continued revelations about Klobuchar’s brutal management style. Centrists seem to be brushing past it and chalking it up to sexism but I’m wondering if she’ll even make it to the primary if she’s already getting so much negative press and all she’s offering up in return are milquetoast policies like tax-advantaged education savings accounts.
Also curious what people’s thoughts are on the continued revelations about Klobuchar’s brutal management style. Centrists seem to be brushing past it and chalking it up to sexism but I’m wondering if she’ll even make it to the primary if she’s already getting so much negative press and all she’s offering up in return are milquetoast policies like tax-advantaged education savings accounts.
I think part of it is that it’s taking their stated positions— not dedication to them. Example: Harris and Bernie are both “for a single payer system.” I also got a score of 77% with Harris (Bernie 80).
Wow though Bernie... I’m disappointed in the remarks about the filibuster. (I had only seen clips and not the full CBS interview) that’s one we will have to apply pressure on.
If you are on the candidate's profile you can see some sources on where they got their answer from sometimes, but other times there are no sources and you'll have to dig yourself. There have been issues I've tried looking up and couldn't find any legislation, speeches, reports, etc connecting the candidates with those issues which can be frustrating. There's also the fact that there's variance especially in what a yes or no might mean. "Do you support a UBI?" may yield yes for both Yang and Booker, but their applications would be pretty different.
On the test I got a 95% match with Yang (highest match). I didn't do the "ranking" system they have for what issue is most and least important to me though, so I don't know how that'd change if I were to do it.
On the test I got a 95% match with Yang (highest match). I didn't do the "ranking" system they have for what issue is most and least important to me though, so I don't know how that'd change if I were to do it.
Anyone notice Yang is getting a big boost from Bernie World? Don’t know about others, but many of the pro-Bernie channels I watch (Secular Talk, TYT, David Pakman Show, The Humanist Report, couple others) have pushed for donations to Yang (and Gabbard). There is a pretty big push to get them to the debate stage to represent their causes.
I actually donated to both of them (in addition to Bernie) a while back for the same reason. An article I read today said Yang’s got $250k so far, ave. 19 dollars each. Not bad at all, but he’ll need the numbers (even $1) to get there— personally think he’s got this.
I bet if we added him to the poll here he’d be ranked 5th after Gabbard (though of course Smogon’s much further left and much younger than America).
Edit: Okay, I guess the link I had was old. Apparently Andrew Yang has already cleared the requisites to make the debate stage-- and he talked about the DNC reaching out to him on Fox Business.
Man, I really hope Bernie gets a different night from Yang; and it's Yang with Booker, Kamala, and Gilibrand when the topic of economics comes up. He is going to WRECK FACE and they're going to be "shit, he's not supposed to talk about any of that!! The donors don't want us talking about automation what is he doing???"
They're going to come in having prepared nothing to take him on, because he'll be totally overlooked, and he is going to stomp them into the ground. xD
I actually donated to both of them (in addition to Bernie) a while back for the same reason. An article I read today said Yang’s got $250k so far, ave. 19 dollars each. Not bad at all, but he’ll need the numbers (even $1) to get there— personally think he’s got this.
I bet if we added him to the poll here he’d be ranked 5th after Gabbard (though of course Smogon’s much further left and much younger than America).
Edit: Okay, I guess the link I had was old. Apparently Andrew Yang has already cleared the requisites to make the debate stage-- and he talked about the DNC reaching out to him on Fox Business.
Man, I really hope Bernie gets a different night from Yang; and it's Yang with Booker, Kamala, and Gilibrand when the topic of economics comes up. He is going to WRECK FACE and they're going to be "shit, he's not supposed to talk about any of that!! The donors don't want us talking about automation what is he doing???"
They're going to come in having prepared nothing to take him on, because he'll be totally overlooked, and he is going to stomp them into the ground. xD
Last edited:
He's certainly getting a boost for indie/independently-affiliated programs from what I've seen. And yeah, he did make the requirement to get to the debate stages! Pretty exciting to see, even if he doesn't gain popularity like the others, that the issues he brings up are going to get a platform to a wider audience. It's about time.
I'm really wondering what the randomization is going to be like and if it'll truly be random or if there will be some interference in that. But I agree, I'd love to see him debate with some of the establishment dems about issues that they seem not to want to talk about.
I think he has a great head on his shoulders. My biggest fear for him is that he has never held office before, which might be his Achilles heel when he's going up against all the others who have.
Exactly.
My ideal first round that I would foresee working best for progressives if we get Tulsi, Bernie, Kamala, Klobuchar one night and Booker, Gillibrand, Yang, Warren the other. As much as I’d like to see Yang stomp on Harris, I’d rather see Bernie and Tulsi get the chance to draw a clear line in the sand on war/diplomacy/trade.
And then Booker and Gilibrand, faced with Andrew Yang’s automation message and Warren’s economic chops will get utterly wrecked and make it really really clear to the American people we need to go aggressively more Keynsean.
So apparently Joe Biden is putting up hiring posts in early primary states-- this is pretty solid evidence that he is going to throw his hat in the ring. I actually thought that he was waffling on it because of how bad Schultz' public reception was (and Joe pretty much represents the same kind of politics) but perhaps the favorable polling convinced him.
Personally I don't think Joe is going to hit a good stride if people start looking through his background-- and we have the most politically engaged populous and energized Democratic base in modern history.
Joe voted 3 times for the bankruptcy bill that Hillary was heavily criticized from waffling on-- it's basically regulation that makes it harder for working families to apply for bankruptcy protections. Joe's record economically to the right (and significantly so) of Hillary and Bill. His criminal justice record is firmly to the right of Kamala Harris, who is already getting heavy critique from the left. He voted for the Iraq War, and was pretty terrible on civil rights in his early political career (same era when Bernie was getting arrested in demonstrations).
Also as I mentioned in a previous post, Joe started out polling strong both times he previously ran for President only to flame out as the race went on.
For all these reasons, I don't think this is Biden's year, but I'm also not sure if his entering benefits progressives. On one hand he could split the centrist vote with the faux-progressives like Kamala Harris, on the other hand he might make them seem more progressive and help them run in Bernie's lane (though I don't see this happening because there is a VERY big distinction on Foreign Policy, Trade, & probably Automation). No matter what, his entrance into the race is going to massively be felt.
But interested in other opinions.
1) People who like Joe Biden, why do you like him and why do you think we should have him?
2) People who think he has a really good chance of winning, why do you think so?
3) People who disagree that he's going to have a major impact, if you think he's really just going to flame out, why?
Personally I don't think Joe is going to hit a good stride if people start looking through his background-- and we have the most politically engaged populous and energized Democratic base in modern history.
Joe voted 3 times for the bankruptcy bill that Hillary was heavily criticized from waffling on-- it's basically regulation that makes it harder for working families to apply for bankruptcy protections. Joe's record economically to the right (and significantly so) of Hillary and Bill. His criminal justice record is firmly to the right of Kamala Harris, who is already getting heavy critique from the left. He voted for the Iraq War, and was pretty terrible on civil rights in his early political career (same era when Bernie was getting arrested in demonstrations).
Also as I mentioned in a previous post, Joe started out polling strong both times he previously ran for President only to flame out as the race went on.
For all these reasons, I don't think this is Biden's year, but I'm also not sure if his entering benefits progressives. On one hand he could split the centrist vote with the faux-progressives like Kamala Harris, on the other hand he might make them seem more progressive and help them run in Bernie's lane (though I don't see this happening because there is a VERY big distinction on Foreign Policy, Trade, & probably Automation). No matter what, his entrance into the race is going to massively be felt.
But interested in other opinions.
1) People who like Joe Biden, why do you like him and why do you think we should have him?
2) People who think he has a really good chance of winning, why do you think so?
3) People who disagree that he's going to have a major impact, if you think he's really just going to flame out, why?
I think Biden’s support will fall fast once he actually starts campaigning and has to put out a platform, plus any oppo will start getting more attention. I think people find his personality enticing and link him to their warm feelings about Obama but his politics aren’t great and people’s views have shifted even on Obama himself in the last 2 years.
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
Yeah all the early polling rn is just basically testing name recognition. Biden is like Hillary in that when he opens his mouth, people like him less, but when he hasn’t campaigned for a while, people know his name so they think they want him. He’s far to corporate establishment to win the nomination, especially considering he ran multiple times before.
There’s also more stuff going against him. There’s the creepy Joe Biden meme and the fact that he’s been caught plagiarizing multiple times before in school and in presidential campaigns.
I fully believe that, while he may have a big effect at first due to Obama nostalgia, he won’t make a big overall impact and will probably drop out before the Iowa caucus.
There’s also more stuff going against him. There’s the creepy Joe Biden meme and the fact that he’s been caught plagiarizing multiple times before in school and in presidential campaigns.
I fully believe that, while he may have a big effect at first due to Obama nostalgia, he won’t make a big overall impact and will probably drop out before the Iowa caucus.
Wow, Kirsten Gilibrand made a fool of herself on Fox over rich donor fundraising events (which only Warren and Bernie have refused to do). Unable to hide how bought she is by Big Pharma.
This is exactly why people who are genuinely serious about “beating Trump no matter what” should not vote for a fake progressive like Kamala, Gilibrand, Booker over a real progressive— not only will the Democratic base lose all energy and fail to show up and vote for such a candidate; but Trump would rip them to shreds.
If you’re serious about beating Trump, your candidate is the guy who raised 10 million dollars (including 40% new donors) and signed up 1 million volunteers representing ALL congressional districts in less than a week, and who has not only universal name recognition but has universal platform recognition.
Money out of politics, Medicare for All, $15 an hour, Free College Tuition.
Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie...
Pop quiz— name 3 for Harris? Biden? Booker? Cloud-Boot-Jar? Jello-brand?
Top of my head for Harris: 1) Medicare for um... 2) Middle class tax cuts (yay?) 3) .... .... ....
I can do it for Tulsi— 1) End regime change wars 2) Massive domestic infrastructure investment 3) Medicare for All
Warren— 1) Pass massive comprehensive anti-corruption/money out of politics package 2) Wealth tax on billionaires 3) “Paths to Medicare for All” :/
Yang— 1) Freedom Dividend UBI 2) Medicare for All 3) Create a new, Human-Centric version of GDP or throw out GDP altogether, 4) give every citizen 100 dollars that can only be spent on elections 5) move to blockchain based cell phone voting and make voting day a national holiday 6) immediately forgive all non-violent drug offenders 7) monetary easing to forgive student loans and demand Federal oversight of higher education cost inflation 8) Create a new system of time banking to support social capital development, etc etc etc
Last edited:
Tulsi and Yang, as expected, pulling massive positive responses from the audience of Fox’s most popular host.
This is why it’s 100% false that the Republican-light candidates will get more swing voters... it’s the PROGRESSIVES that can win more swing voters.
Trump won by promising to get our boys out of war, protect Medicare/Medicaid, stop making shitty corporate trade deals and work to build American jobs— while facing a disastrous neoliberal candidate who promised none of that. Only the real left is dedicated to those promises.
I mean I get your point but that’s a pretty wild oversimplification of why people voted/didn’t vote for Trump and also kind of glazes over the fact that he lost the popular vote significantly. I do agree overall that pushing farther left will actually get more former Trump voters on board than moving towards the center, though.
It’s a simplification but a very salient one. If we want to get technical it’s better described as “one of the key driving dynamics within the complexity of voter motivations.”
When you talk to Trump voters and go to Trump voter media though, they’re not in love with corporate tax cuts or Paul Ryan’s healthcare ideas— they love Trump mostly for his anti-war, protectionist trade, and protectionist immigration instincts—
All of which lines up with the agenda of a traditional pro-labor left party (even immigration is. Labor supply control).
There is no massive voter base of moderate gated community 1% Republicans waiting to have their economic interests served by corporate tax cuts and deregulation in exchange for a “civil” leader who doesn’t hate on gay people and people of color. No, the Republicans serve that group while only maintaining a voter base by playing up conservative social issues while Dems offer no alternative working class economic agenda.
The voters could have picked Ted Cruz, they much preferred Donald Trump. Tucker Carlson’s show and Trump’s platform serves the base of the GOP, not its donors— and that explains the popularity.
There are no swing votes for Dems catering to the GOP donor class. If you want electoral wins, you go after the GOP BASE— and the base loves Trump, they love Tucker, they love Tulsi, and in truth they love Bernie too.
Last edited:
I think there is a significant segment of the Republican voting base that’s been brainwashed by Fox and other right wing news sources to believe in things like trickle down economics. But I think you hit on something that’s part of my frustration with their Trump support, which is that Trump didn’t actually have any plans for any of those talking points to. He paid them lip service and then distracted people from caring about how he was actually going to bring back jobs by ranting about immigration (among other social issues). I’m hesitant that the left will be able to sell that message as successfully to Trump voters if they can’t pair it with his racism/xenophobia that stokes their rage and keeps them from really caring about the specifics.
“Everyone I knew was voting for you [Bernie], or Trump. Folks here would never vote for Clinton.”
As I said again and again, I believe in the wisdom of Democracy— I guess I have more faith in the people than even many on the left. There’s all sorts of systemic issues subverting Democracy but as a collective the people are smarter than we think, and are smarter still when we level with them; when we don’t patronize them.
Trump winning is far more indicative of the corruption of the system than the stupidity of the people. It’s more about Trump promising [something] compared to the GOP field/Clinton offering them nothing. A calculation than maybe Trump would be good for them, where Clinton would definitely be bad. "Paying lip service" is SIGNIFICANTLY better than "Things are good as they are." "I'm with Her" "If you don't vote for me, you are a deplorable", "Never mind that my husband helped ship your jobs overseas, deregulated wall street, and turned his backs on the unions and most of you remember us doing that and used to vote Democrat. And don't worry about what's in my record either. Or how the DNC just rigged the election. I'm breaking the glass ceiling!"
The left won't need racism/xenophobia... we just need honesty. There's a reason Ojeda, AOC, and Bernie can pull massive crowds in West Virginia (or any similar Trump-voting white working area).
Before America's secret police purged them in the Cold War, which state had the most Socialists? Ohio.
Last edited:
Ughhhh... Warren continues to disappoint...
On one hand, it's good that the left can forget about worries on splitting its vote and know we've already clearly got our candidate. On the other, it's painful to watch-- don't think the 2nd best Senator in the country joined the campaign just to spoon us reasons to dislike her... Come on Liz, your anti-corruption package was just sexy enough that I was just starting to forget that you back-peddled on Medicare for All, made yourself look dumb over the Native American thing, and endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie... But this is just another Liz gaff painfully reminding why she's not the candidate.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that she's in a rung below Tulsi and Yang, who are at least issues candidates with something to add beyond Bernie. Yang is the one wild card-- he's complete enough (where Tulsi isn't strong enough on domestic policy), and appealing enough to elites that he could actually be a challenge to Bernie's control of the left if he actually takes off.
Last edited:
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
lol come on bro, if you can't name 3 policies for each of them, then that's your problem. It just says that you're so willfully uninformed that you haven't bothered to even google the top candidates. Browsing cth memes doesn't constitute doing research.
the reality is that most people don't care enough to research. the candidate that is able to market the policy positions through memes will have a strong advantage in the primary.
democrts be like how does i even win an election
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/progressive-agenda-us-military-funding
"
This year the US military budget is $716bn – and boy is it ripe for slashing.
That military budget represents about 53 cents of every discretionary dollar in the federal budget – and it’s one of the biggest reasons that people so often throw up their hands and shake their heads when they think about funding innovative ways to end poverty.
They don’t need to throw up their hands, though. The politicians and pundits should just start listening to children.
When young organizers from the Sunrise Movement recently challenged Senator Dianne Feinstein to support a Green New Deal, she told them “there’s no money to pay for it”. She probably didn’t expect those eight- and 10- and 11-year-old kids to respond immediately: “Yes, there is, there’s tons of money going to the military.”
"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/progressive-agenda-us-military-funding
"
This year the US military budget is $716bn – and boy is it ripe for slashing.
That military budget represents about 53 cents of every discretionary dollar in the federal budget – and it’s one of the biggest reasons that people so often throw up their hands and shake their heads when they think about funding innovative ways to end poverty.
They don’t need to throw up their hands, though. The politicians and pundits should just start listening to children.
When young organizers from the Sunrise Movement recently challenged Senator Dianne Feinstein to support a Green New Deal, she told them “there’s no money to pay for it”. She probably didn’t expect those eight- and 10- and 11-year-old kids to respond immediately: “Yes, there is, there’s tons of money going to the military.”
"
Yup yup
And just eliminating the Bush and Trump tax cuts gets you halfway to paying for Medicare for All before you even look at enhanced negotiating powers and the military budget.
Also I think Bernie’s Wallstreet speculation tax is desperately needed even on its own merits before you start using it to pay for tuition.
At the very least we need to slow down the capital markets and encourage intelligent investment in the future of companies > hedging the margins with robots. We need to increase the cost of changing your bets so that capital owners have more of a sense of ownership and responsibility to the future of the companies...
...and at least move to the German/Japanese setup where workers vote for worker representatives to get a few seats on board of directors.
Last edited: