2020 Democratic Presidential nominee

Jimmy Dore. Pfff. A 'progressive' conspiracy theorist and failed comedian following in the steps of the OG of failed comedians, Dennis Miller, who now think they are political scientists.

My 10 year old niece is more politically woke than that idiot Dore.

I got a question for the US democrat presidential candidates.

Will there ever be a US president to end the US perpetual never ending war on the world? And if so, when? If no, why?

I'm sure 100% of the non brainwashed have asked this question to themselfs.

Her "no first use" stance could be problematic in a U.S. general election.

josh wrote:

Her "no first use" stance could be problematic in a U.S. general election.

This conservative would disagree:

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1156596805100027909

Cody87 wrote:

Not sure if anyone here watched either of the debates. I watched the second one - inattentively at times. The most interesting thing I saw was my wife's reaction.

Prior to the debates I was losing faith in my Kamala Harris nominee prediction, in part because I was expecting more support for her from the establishment (read: corporate media), but so far most of the boosting has been for Biden and more recently, Warren.

That said, based on what I saw in the debate (and heard about the first one), including my wife's reaction to the candidates, I'll now double down on my Kamala Harris prediction, and I will go further. Not only will Harris win the nomination, but of the entire field of candidates, she's one of the two candidates who, if they become nominee, are likely (70%+ odds) to beat Trump (this part is contrary to my predictions in the past). The reason her odds are so good is because while all candidates have flaws/skeletons/etc, all of Harris' flaws/skeletons Trump has worse. For example, on a personal level, some partisans on the right who lack any degree of self-reflection towards their own candidate like to attack Harris for her affair with Willie Brown. This is obviously a ridiculous, hypocritical attack that will lose more support for Trump than it will for Harris.  On a policy level, Harris is not a progressive, she's essentially a younger, healthier version of Hillary Clinton, and she has a bad political past as a prosecutor. But compared against Trump? That won't matter.

For the curious, I also think Yang would beat Trump with high likelihood, should he somehow win the nomination, but he won't win the nomination. That all said, I don't consider Kamala Harris for nominee as a sufficiently ambitious prediction, so there are two further questions to predict on that will be a lot more challenging.

First, of the 9 most significant candidates (Harris, Warren, Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, Booker, Yang, and Gabbard), who will be the first to drop out? Personally, I'd bet on Biden and would hedge with Beto. I'm including Yang and Gabbard and not Klobuchar, Castro, and Gillibrand, because Yang and Gabbard have a lot of internet support that makes me distrust the polls I've seen, and unlike the other three in their polling league, they have unique ideas they are advancing that will cause them to stay in as long as possible so they can advance their ideas. Those two don't need to win, they just need to influence.

Second, who will be the VP pick? In my case, I'm assuming Harris will be the nominee and if that's correct, I expect none of the other candidates will be VP (not saying Harris would discriminate against her rivals because they were rivals, just that none of the other candidates would be a good fit for the ticket - she'll probably pick a white male democratic governor, possibly Tom Wolf or Tony Evers, if either of those is a good fit).

In sum, my predictions:

1. Kamala Harris will be democratic nominee

2. Kamala Harris will be a strong favourite against Trump

3. Biden will be the first significant candidate (defined above) to drop out (but Beto is unpredictable). If Beto drops out first, Biden will be second.

4. Kamala Harris won't pick any of her rivals as VP, she will pick a white male between the ages of 50 and ~70 who has a spotless record on race relations.

Anyone else want to go on record with some predictions? It's gonna be a long primary season, let's have some fun along the way!

While you may be right about how this plays out within the Democratic Party, I disagree with your assessment that Kamala would be a strong candidate to take on Trump. Sure she'll rack up huge wins in New York and California. So did Clinton, and she still lost. It's the swing states that will decide this thing. Her record as a prosecutor will absoultely hurt her with African-American voters. They won't vote for Trump, but they may just not vote at all. In Florida, Michican, Pennsylvania and Ohio, this lowers the bar that Trump would have to clear. On the flip side, what exactly is she offering to the white working class? You also have to contend with a small-town culture that is anywhere from suspicious to outright hostile to outside influences, often going into full blown racism and homophobia.  That's a recipie for Trump to keep the swing states.

On a more basic level, if you're looking for intergity, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard have repeatedly shown that they have that huge amounts. Why would you even waste time looking at other candidates who have either shown themselves to lack integrity or whom haven't been around long enough to demonstrate that?

Andrew Yang is a fascinating story...worth a follow.

pookie wrote:

I'm not that invested in anyone, but in response to #319 if Harris were to be nominated I really can't see African Americans staying home just because she was a tough prosecutor.  If the Democratic Party saw fit to elevate her they would absolutely turn out.

 She likely would face other demographic issues, but not that one.

I stand by my contention

josh wrote:

Harris may not get Obama level black support, but she’ll certainly get better than Clinton.

Clinton's involvement with Haiti caused problems for her among Hatian voters in Florida, possibly costing her that particular state. Harris is going to have to answer for her record as a prosecutor to black voters across the country.

Elizabeth Warren Wants Green Bombs Not A Green New Deal

http://www.blackagendareport.com/elizabeth-warren-wants-green-bombs-not-...

"Warren prides herself in fighting for a kinder capitalism but has no problem with a nasty, murderous imperialism..."

Surprised no mention was made of her buddy Modi.  Or maybe it’s not so surprising.

No, I generally support an anti-war stance.  I’m just surprised she’s not patrolling Kashmir right now.

NDPP wrote:

And a Putin puppet too, or perhaps you missed that....? But have no fear, it's a fixed game anyway and she hasn't got a chance except as lib-left window-dressing. Like sheepdog Sanders, Gabbard's role will ultimately be to simply bait discontented party progressives back into the Dem big tent where the elite elements and 'super-delegates' etc will arrange the coronation of 'the chosen one.' American elections almost always just prove PT Barnum right over and over again. In bourgeois politics there really is 'a sucker born every minute.'

Essentially the DNC wanted to play up the divide between Kamala Harris and Joe Biden to paint the former as a fresh voice against an old status quo. By throwing this little grenade at the Harris campaign (which has cost Harris a great deal of support among African Americans), she's clearly not co-operating with this game. That's why the establishment is trying to stop her.

Does that mean there aren't aspects of her past or policy positions that are problematic? Of course not. But, as you said, the core of her message of anti-interventionism is why the establishment hates her.

It’s not her religion, but her politics.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Not sure if anyone here watched either of the debates. I watched the second one - inattentively at times. The most interesting thing I saw was my wife's reaction.

Prior to the debates I was losing faith in my Kamala Harris nominee prediction, in part because I was expecting more support for her from the establishment (read: corporate media), but so far most of the boosting has been for Biden and more recently, Warren.

That said, based on what I saw in the debate (and heard about the first one), including my wife's reaction to the candidates, I'll now double down on my Kamala Harris prediction, and I will go further. Not only will Harris win the nomination, but of the entire field of candidates, she's one of the two candidates who, if they become nominee, are likely (70%+ odds) to beat Trump (this part is contrary to my predictions in the past). The reason her odds are so good is because while all candidates have flaws/skeletons/etc, all of Harris' flaws/skeletons Trump has worse. For example, on a personal level, some partisans on the right who lack any degree of self-reflection towards their own candidate like to attack Harris for her affair with Willie Brown. This is obviously a ridiculous, hypocritical attack that will lose more support for Trump than it will for Harris.  On a policy level, Harris is not a progressive, she's essentially a younger, healthier version of Hillary Clinton, and she has a bad political past as a prosecutor. But compared against Trump? That won't matter.

For the curious, I also think Yang would beat Trump with high likelihood, should he somehow win the nomination, but he won't win the nomination. That all said, I don't consider Kamala Harris for nominee as a sufficiently ambitious prediction, so there are two further questions to predict on that will be a lot more challenging.

First, of the 9 most significant candidates (Harris, Warren, Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, Booker, Yang, and Gabbard), who will be the first to drop out? Personally, I'd bet on Biden and would hedge with Beto. I'm including Yang and Gabbard and not Klobuchar, Castro, and Gillibrand, because Yang and Gabbard have a lot of internet support that makes me distrust the polls I've seen, and unlike the other three in their polling league, they have unique ideas they are advancing that will cause them to stay in as long as possible so they can advance their ideas. Those two don't need to win, they just need to influence.

Second, who will be the VP pick? In my case, I'm assuming Harris will be the nominee and if that's correct, I expect none of the other candidates will be VP (not saying Harris would discriminate against her rivals because they were rivals, just that none of the other candidates would be a good fit for the ticket - she'll probably pick a white male democratic governor, possibly Tom Wolf or Tony Evers, if either of those is a good fit).

In sum, my predictions:

1. Kamala Harris will be democratic nominee

2. Kamala Harris will be a strong favourite against Trump

3. Biden will be the first significant candidate (defined above) to drop out (but Beto is unpredictable). If Beto drops out first, Biden will be second.

4. Kamala Harris won't pick any of her rivals as VP, she will pick a white male between the ages of 50 and ~70 who has a spotless record on race relations.

Anyone else want to go on record with some predictions? It's gonna be a long primary season, let's have some fun along the way!

While you may be right about how this plays out within the Democratic Party, I disagree with your assessment that Kamala would be a strong candidate to take on Trump. Sure she'll rack up huge wins in New York and California. So did Clinton, and she still lost. It's the swing states that will decide this thing. Her record as a prosecutor will absoultely hurt her with African-American voters. They won't vote for Trump, but they may just not vote at all. In Florida, Michican, Pennsylvania and Ohio, this lowers the bar that Trump would have to clear. On the flip side, what exactly is she offering to the white working class? You also have to contend with a small-town culture that is anywhere from suspicious to outright hostile to outside influences, often going into full blown racism and homophobia.  That's a recipie for Trump to keep the swing states.

On a more basic level, if you're looking for intergity, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard have repeatedly shown that they have that huge amounts. Why would you even waste time looking at other candidates who have either shown themselves to lack integrity or whom haven't been around long enough to demonstrate that?

Kamala Harris will uniquely appeal to suburban white women, which are the largest swing demographic in the general election. I remain convinced she will beat Trump if she wins the nomination. After the 2nd debate, it remains to be seen if she can recover from Tulsi's (excellent) attack in order to win the nomination. It remains hard to see anyome else except Warren winning the nomination. 

My post didn't talk about integrity because I wasn't predicting that the candidate with the most integrity would win. In fact, it seems the candidate with the most integrity usually loses. My predictions aren't based on my favorites (Tulsi = Yang > Bernie >>>> Warren) because I'm in no way representative of the average American voter.

Cody wrote:

After the 2nd debate, it remains to be seen if she can recover from Tulsi's (excellent) attack in order to win the nomination. 

No offense intended, but does anyone outside of formally left-wing circles pay attention to what Tulsi Gabbard has to say about anything?  

Again, I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but I also know that, outside of sites like Counterpunch etc, the idea that centrist Democrats like Biden and Warren are indistinguishable from Republicans, and the only hope we have is from people further left, has very little traction. Most people subscribe to the idea that the Republicans are right-wing, the Democrats as a whole left-wing, and if you want to block the former, you should vote for the latter. Entities like the US Green Party or the Democratic far-left don't seem to factor into most peoples' worldview. 

And it isn't just brainwashed American liberals who think this way. Lots of Canadians and Brits of my acquaintance basically see US politics the same way, don't even bother thinking about the Greens or anyone else to the left of the Democratic centre. And the Canadians among them also think the same way about Justin Trudeau(there is a bit more of a tendency to entertain the possibility of voting NDP among the Canadians, but few of them would think Trudeau is a carbon-copy of Harper.)

I'm not saying that the perspective of Counterpunch, Matt Tabibi, and a good chunk of babble is wrong, just that it's not one that's likely to be very influential among the general public. Hence my opening question about Gabbard. 

OK, Cody, I'll play.

At this point, I think the only viable contenders for the Dem nomination are Biden, Sanders and Warren. Harris has dropped back below 10% in the polls, and seems to have lost the confidence of the major Dem elites, who have decided that Warren is their best bet to stop Sanders.

I expect Biden to be eliminated after finishing third or worse in Iowa and New Hampshire. From there on, it'll be Bernie against Elizabeth, and I think either could win. Interestingly, many polls have shown that Sanders and Warren draw their supporters from quite distinct demographic subsets of the party. Warren's supporters are richer, more well-educated, older, and more white than Sanders' supporters, who include many more millennials and visible minorities.

I think Bernie's ground game may be strong enough to win it for him. He has signed up over a million volunteers who are willing to knock on doors and make phone calls. He has plenty of funding and has set up strong organizations, consisting mostly of local activists, in all the early primary states. I expect him to impressively out-perform the polls. Even so, I only make him about 60% likely to win the nomination.

If Sanders wins the nomination, I think he should, and probably will, choose Warren as VP. This would unite the party effectively because of the demographic breakdown I noted above. If Warren wins the nomination, I think she should choose someone who can appeal at least somewhat to Bernie's supporters, perhaps Julian Castro or Bill DeBlasio. However, I think she would be more likely to choose a centrist like Cory Booker or Pete Buttigieg.

I think either Warren or Sanders would have an excellent chance of beating Trump, but Sanders would crush him, winning all the swing states, and even some considered pretty red.

I'd love Warren or Sanders as the candidate but don't see how either can pick each other for VP, since 2 older northeasterners on one ticket seems like a stretch.  Point taken about their different demographics of support though.