• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Serious 2020 Democratic Primaries

colours said:
So, taking a look at this 538 article, we can see a few things:

  • Sanders isn't really that strong of a spot; in fact he's lost ground in the polls while Biden gained.
  • Warren and Buttigieg kind of gained ground, but Buttigieg mostly stayed the same or lost a point.
To be honest, regardless of one's personal feelings towards Sanders, I feel like going from the numbers alone, he doesn't seem like that strong of a candidate. I don't know specifically the causes of this or what people find in Biden that they don't really see in Sanders. Maybe most democrats are more moderates than progressives and prefer Biden as a first choice and Sanders mostly as a second, who knows.

In fact, Qunnipiac University actually has Sanders behind Warren. This is a pretty big deal because this is strongly implying that Sanders' appeal is going to plateau at some point and with his name recognition, I'm not sure if he has room to gain, anymore.

At any rate, it's worth keeping an eye on whether Biden's "bounce" will fade as more and more people find out about him (he also has really high name recognition, which limits his ceiling here), and whether his campaign will continue to be slammed by scandals and the like.

Warren's gain is actually semi-surprising for me. I honestly wish she wouldn't have gotten into the whole DNA bullmuk because if it wasn't for that I think she would've been in a clear third place position right now instead of Buttigieg. Perhaps people's lukewarm feelings towards her will fade over time as she dishes out policy idea after policy idea, but it's very clear that Warren has quite the mountain to climb.

These are still very early days, but even early primary polls can be pretty telling of who will win early on. For now, it seems like the one thing that will move the needle in any sort of direction barring some scandal cropping out of nowhere or a gaff is the debate stage.
Click to expand...

Its important to look at the problems Sanders faced last weekend at the She The People event, he does not really pander to the one specific race or sex, and instead prefers to go for class warfare. That just does not work well in today's Democratic party and will probably be his undoing.
 
I meant to post about this way back in May, but I have been awfully tied up. There is still time though to share. I have some very important news for potential democratic voters who want to learn more about the various 2020 candidates running. The primary debates are about to commence. This is a great way to compare and contrast the dems if you are undecided, let them stand on the stage together and persuade you who is the best. Even if you have fully committed to a democratic candidate, the debates still can offer you an opprtunity to see more of your preferred candidate and create lively discussion.

As the field of candidates is huge there will be two different debate nights back-to-back on June 26th and 27th in Miami, Florida to help divide up the lot.

I mentioned previously the maximum number of candidates the DNC will accept into the debates is 20. The DNC requires candidates running as democrats to meet a polling threshold of 1% or more to qualify for the first debate, and/or a donation threshold of 75,000 individual donors from 20 different states to qualify for their first debates, with preference to candidates who meet both qualifications.

Below is a list from NPR of candidates who will officially be in the debates. I was a little surprised that the spiritual guru and writer Marianne Williamson qualified, but welcome aboard Marianne. She seems like a kind person. I am likewise a little saddened that Florida mayor Wayne Messam won't be joining us on the debate stage. He is young, articulate, takes no corporate money, and has a great record on green energy and gun control, and presented one of my favorite college plans. Alas, he didn't meet the requirements.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/13/730432210/who-made-the-cut-dnc-announces-primary-debate-contenders

We know who is for sure in the debates now. The next question is what will the matchup be? Since the candidates are going to be split into two groups then who debates with whom? According to NBC the names of each candidate were drawn in lots and each candidate had the opportunity to send a representative to oversee the picking of names. That sounds fair, and dramatic too.

*slowly pulls back curtain* Hit the New York Times link to find out who is versing who.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/democratic-debates-2020.html

I think the second night is going to have the higher viewership, that is where most of the big names seem to be. I will probably watch both nights though because there are 2 or 3 candidates that I am thinking about voting for in the primary on night one.
 
Last edited:
I'm just really hoping Joe doesn't get the nomination. He's such a creep, but he's definitely got the basic liberals convinced.

I might've previously said Buttigieg looks ok, but I'm actually team Elizabeth Warren right now. I've listened to a few of her speeches lately, and she's definitely changed my mind.

I'll definitely be watching both nights either way.

@VoM who are you rooting for?
 
Last edited:
I'm Warren/Buttigieg currently. This meaning that if Warren doesnt't get the nomination, Buttigieg would be my second choice.

As long as it isn't Biden that wins. ._.
 
I too would not like to see Biden get the nomination, as he's both not what this country needs right now and would not make for a particularly strong opponent for Trump (I don't think that the Dems get that fielding anyone who is roughly similar to the candidate that lost the 2016 election is a bad idea), but unfortunately I think the most likely outcome at the moment is Biden will get it.

While there's been a growing split in the political left in America over the past few years, the majority of the non-right wing part of the active voterbase is still very moderate and so not likely to vote for anyone more than slightly left of center. Of the more moderate candidates, Biden is THE candidate for this majority, as he's well-known and has the benefit of being Obama's VP, evoking nostalgia from the DNC's most recent "good ol' days".

Even if Biden somehow doesn't get it, the person who does in place of him will most likely be one of the other very moderate candidates, i.e. someone probably not very exciting.
 
Nah said:
I too would not like to see Biden get the nomination, as he's both not what this country needs right now and would not make for a particularly strong opponent for Trump (I don't think that the Dems get that fielding anyone who is roughly similar to the candidate that lost the 2016 election is a bad idea), but unfortunately I think the most likely outcome at the moment is Biden will get it.

While there's been a growing split in the political left in America over the past few years, the majority of the non-right wing part of the active voterbase is still very moderate and so not likely to vote for anyone more than slightly left of center. Of the more moderate candidates, Biden is THE candidate for this majority, as he's well-known and has the benefit of being Obama's VP, evoking nostalgia from the DNC's most recent "good ol' days".

Even if Biden somehow doesn't get it, the person who does in place of him will most likely be one of the other very moderate candidates, i.e. someone probably not very exciting.
Click to expand...

Are there any candidates you're partial to?
 
Ghost Owl said:
Elizabeth Warren 95%.

5% hesitation based on her position on breaking up big tech.

95% enthusiasm based on basically everything else.
Click to expand...

Genuine curiosity: what's your hesitation there? Her desire to eliminate consolidation within the industry and curtail the increasingly anti-democratic ambitions of those that run it is one of the positions that makes her notable compared to others in the race, as most other candidates have yet to speak much further than 'stop fake news' buzzwords.
 
Personally, I think that Warren and Sanders have the best platforms and I agree that electing another moderate like Biden (even ignoring other issues with him) wouldn't really end up solving any of the problems currently facing the US. Assuming he could get elected, which is certainly a possibility if he wins the nomination but it's far from a certainty given how divided the left is currently. That being said, I can't see the majority of the left really risking a second Trump term just to avoid Biden, who is most likely to get the nomination since he seems to be developing something of a cult of personality of his own.
 
Warren has been unveiling innovative policies all season. She has good plans for education, housing, childcare, worker representation on boards and more. I would say she is running on more of a liberal domestic platform rather than the hardcore progressive one, but still an interesting and appealing platform nevertheless.

Warren also has a history of working to curtail excesses from the banking and credit industry which leads me to believe that she is sincere about the economic justice policies she has put forward, rather than just parroting populist policies.

I just wish she would fight the establishment, particularly on foreign policy. With the possibility of war with Iran becoming a more real and frightening possibility after this week's events, I am hungry for a candidate that can govern well at home but also be a peacemaker abroad.

Of the people who qualify for the debates Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders have voting records that hold together better on moving away from military spending and intervention, but my mind is open to several different candidates and I am watching debates to learn more, before officially committing to Warren, Sanders or anyone yet. The gold standard of progressivism I think is Mike Gravel, but he doesn't want to be president and his campaign is a political statement to influence the third debate if he gets in.

Again, I am not ready to endorse Warren this early in the primary, but what I ultimately do appreciate about Warren and wanted to come to this thread to give her credit for is that she is really offering a policy-based discussion at least and trying to woo voters with her positions, unlike Biden who is simply piggyback riding on Obama's name.

I had not planned to discuss Biden, but his face has triggered me now. Biden's entire campaign is built around himself in relation to other people, i.e Vote for me because of your fear of Trump. He stands for nothing on policy, nothing that is good. Some of the establishment candidates in the race are willing to throw the left a bone out of political strategy at least, but Biden's attitude is just, let them eat cake. He doesn't have the respect to include any of our issues as a focal point of his campaign.

I think it would be a pyrrhic victory if Biden won the nomination. Even If I were to ignore the disturbung harassment allegations, which I am not able to, I'd still be voting for all of the conservative policies I don't want enacted and defeat much of the purpose of why I am voting for a democrat anyway. I can't think of one issue that Biden will not get into bed with republicans on, immigration, war, trade, women's reproductive rights, criminal justice, the death penalty.

As a person who does not consider herself of the conservative wing of the party I find voting for Biden selling out so many core values of the left so that Trump is gone in name only.

Sometimes you have to cut your losses, but a loss is still a loss. If the primary is over and Biden was the only thing left standing between Trump then I'll be more inclined to talk about throwing myself off a cliff to escape being devoured by a scary monster, which is what choosing Biden to evade Trump is. But I am still dead in that scenario, and I would rather be alive than dead. There are dozens of other people in the race, some of them look pretty good, and I'm going to fight to be alive and attempt any route of escape with a good candidate before I resolve to die with a bad one just so I can die in a nicer way than I might otherwise. Destroying myself is the last option. Right now it's Hell no to Uncle Joe.
 
Last edited:
I just wish she would fight the establishment
Click to expand...

I ask this genuinely and not throwing shade or being snarky: what does "establishment" even mean?

I feel like the rise of Bernie Sanders had some unfortunate consequences and with that is the "split" of the Democratic Party. There was such a toxic atmosphere in the 2016 election because you had #BernieorBust voters that would rather set the country on fire than accept their losses, and this attitude will always continue to mystify me. Don't get me wrong, when you look at Bernie compared to Hillary, there's a lot of appeal to see there compared to Hillary who seemed massively status quo by comparison. Her favourables were not great (in fact they were pretty bad) so it's easy to see Bernie in a great light. Therefore, the term "establishment" was made into a buzzword to mean the elite donor class of the Democratic Party. In short, it was a shady insult meaning out-of-touch, party-line Democrats like Clinton who don't want to upend the system. That's how it was.

But Hillary isn't running, so does the word even mean anything, anymore? Bernie, as we now know, is a millionaire and has been in politics for three or so decades. Does that mean he's establishment, too? What I'm getting at here is that it's so easy to stretch the word "establishment" to pretty much isolate or insult anyone who doesn't agree with your views as a party line "hack" (to use another unhealthy word) or "sellout" when that's not always the case. I suppose Bernie has been attempting to shift the democratic climate (for a lack of a better word to use) so far left that it seems like by comparison anyone who is not specifically Bernie is seen as a centrist when in reality they're pretty liberal, just not far left.

I'm not sure what weight the term has in current-day politics, anymore. "Fuck the Democratic Party" isn't an attitude that's so widespread like it used to be, and it can be seen in Bernie's poll numbers where sometimes he's even trailing behind Warren when taking into account name recognition. When you put Bernie in a field of many other candidates who are unknowns just like Bernie was an unknown, it gives the public time to shop around and warm up to whoever candidate puts their best foot forward. That gives them a lot more options than just a guy who screams about class warfare.

Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie as an idealistic individual. I think he has the right goals in that the poor are continuing to get poorer while the rich get richer and that's unacceptable. I just don't think waging a war against the Democratic Party and framing the party itself as the Elite Class and therefore the "establishment" is the right way to go about with it, which is why I haven't been so fond of him lately.
 
Last edited:
colours said:
I ask this genuinely and not throwing shade or being snarky: what does "establishment" even mean?
Click to expand...

Angie, I am really glad you asked me for clarification actually, because I had an entirely different meaning than It seems came across. So thank you for sharing why this is a divisive word to you. I can take this opportunity to be more detailed hopefully.

When I said the establishment I was literally talking about our political establishment, more specifically I was talking about the prevailing foreign policy of the American government of the last several decades. You could say that Bernie Sanders stood up to the same establishment by voting against the Iraq War when doing so could result in political consequences. In this context it would be the Bush era that I would be referring to as opposed to the 2016 election.

My concern was simply if Warren is also candidate who can really push back against the establishment she works within to fight the tide for the position that is right, even if it is unpopular in today's climate such as not sanctioning Venezuela or Iran, decreasing military spending, an even-sided approach to Israel-Palestine or talks with North Korea just as a series of examples. Does this perhaps make more sense?
 
Last edited:
I dislike Biden more and more every time I see him. He's better than Trump in many key ways, so, of course, I'd still vote for him in 2020 over Trump (although my vote, being in an unambiguously red state, is completely worthless), but I really don't care for him. He's far too conservative, and the way he was treated women is super creepy. I completely chastised (and continue to) Trump over this. Of course, as far as we know, Trump is worse, but it doesn't matter. We shouldn't have to pick between one man who is a creeper and another man who proudly boasted about sexual assaulting because he knew he was in a position he could get away with it.

We're in a very sad place right now. But this topic isn't about that. I wish someone like Elizabeth Warren could get the nomination and become president. She's so much better. But gosh darn it, we just need Trump out of office no matter what. If the Republican party steals anymore Supreme Court seats it'll be far worse than not having the Democratic candidate I want.
 
Honestly, this is why populism on either side is really scary. Biden's platform basically amounts to having no actual policies, not being Trump and riding on Obama's coattails. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being a centrist, but there is with having no real principals or policy of your own. Even if you can ignore that he's a bit of a creep, which oddly enough a lot of Democrat voters can't, the problem with Biden is that he's weak and his campaign is devoid of substance. It's very much the Democrat equivalent of Trump 2016. It's not as aggressive or divisive sure, but it's a flimsy campaign that is succeeding through populism and a cult of personalty. He won't improve anything. He won't be as divisive, but he'll be a wishy-washy President who doesn't stand for anything beyond being President.

He's even said it himself, if he is elected, nothing will fundamentally change. What he was saying at the time, was basically that nobody had to fear him coming for their money (because heaven forbid the rich give up excess wealth they'll never use). But this is a much deeper truth than that. Think about it, he was saying that if he is elected over Trump, it will still be the same America. That's great if the status quo is working for you but for a lot of people it isn't. He's saying that he will do very little to reverse the social and political damage done by Trump. What's worrying is that a lot of people are only hearing the nice words and are totally missing the ramifications of what he's saying.

This is why Warren is such a good candidate. Arguably a better candidate than Sanders, even though I prefer his policy. Because she has very strong views that she has been expressing for years and those views are fundamentally the opposite of just about everything to ever leave Trump's mouth. But unlike Bernie, her views are not nearly as far left and therefore aren't nearly as divisive or scary for more centre-left or right-wing voters. Sanders might have the most pleasing policy, but ultimately I think Warren might be a stronger candidate since she has a wider appeal and has a better chance of snagging Republicans/undecided voters who also don't like Trump.
 
Can Biden really be called a centrist, though? Even considering the Overton window and American politics, I wouldn't really consider the guy a centrist by any definition - he's the most Republican-lite out of the Republican-lite Dems that the public will have to consider, and his previous political stances pretty clearly show that he doesn't like... fundamentally disagree with a significant amount of what the GOP offers, he just doesn't care for the Trump cult.
 
Last edited:
Her said:
Can Biden really be called a centrist, though? Even considering the Overton window and American politics, I wouldn't really consider the guy a centrist by any definition - he's the most Republican-lite out of the Republican-lite Dems that the public will have to consider, and his previous political stances pretty clearly show that he's doesn't like... fundamentally disagree with a significant amount of what the GOP offers, he just doesn't care for the Trump cult.
Click to expand...

I mean, his views aren't overall that different from Obama who I'd consider just left of centre. During his time in politics he's been against tax cuts for the wealth, for student loan forgiveness and reducing the cost of education, he's mostly been fairly green and pro-gun control. His main issue, other than being a creep, is that he's too happy to toe the line so as not to offend Republican sensibilities even if historically his positions have been left leaning for the most part. So yeah, I'd say he's fairly centrist.
 
So, I watched the first part of the first debate. Keeping it short, I liked Warren, Gabbard and Castro. Most of the others either didn't stand out to me or annoyed me. In particular I didn't like de Blasio, O'Rourke or Booker. Booker in particular was my least favourite, even if O'Rourke was arguably pandering more. I do want to say that Klobuchar represented herself and her policies very well but personally I prefer the more left candidates. Delaney spoke well but he was irritating with his constant attempts to interject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top