Serious 2020 Democratic Primaries

[VisionofMilotic]

News related to the environment has been bleak lately. The Trump administration is doing their best to gut the endangered species act, the Amazon is burning right now under Jair Bolsanaro and the climate change advocate with integrity Jay Inslee has unfortunately dropped out of the primary race.

The most promising update related to the environment I have heard of in awhile comes from the Bernie Sanders camp. He has his own Green New Deal.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/bernie-sanders-proposes-16-3-trillion-green-new-deal-plan-1.7731884

This is the most detailed and ambitious proposal to combat climate change that I have seen from anyone in the race right now. I did take a look at Elizabeth Warren's Green Manufacturing plan too, but right now she isn't investing more than Joe Biden has proposed. So my choice is made. I'll l have to vote Bernie and see his 16 trillion to her 2 trillion. I would rather overspend than potentially underspend to avert climate crisis, especially since you would create 20 million jobs and make money, save on travel with new mass transportation systems and the cost of electricity would be virtually nothing by 2035 as it would be a public utility.

We would also oversee a significant reduction in military spending to pay for the Green New Deal by pulling back our military resources in wars for oil overseas. Bernie has called for scaling back defense spending to fund this environmental plan, whereas Warren would actually spend specifically on the military, overhauling it with new green technology. So this is an important point of distinction for me. When we spend on the military we tend to use it, and I don't want to.

Bernie's Green New Deal rivals even the plan that Inslee has put forward. I say this because I am wary of using nuclear energy as an alternative to reduce emissions due to the safety concerns. Greenpeace doesn't endorse it, yet Inslee does leave nuclear on the table, whereas Sanders would phase out the nuclear plants.

An excerpt here from a Rolling Stone I think does well highlighting the social justice implications of the Sanders environmental plan that are part of why it is so bold.

"Sanders plan distinguishes itself in how aggressively it targets the fossil fuel industry. Not only does it call for hiking up taxes and penalties on polluters, it taps the Justice Department to pursue litigation against them. "They have evaded taxes, desecrated tribal lands, exploited workers and poisoned communities," the plan reads. "President Bernie Sanders will ensure that his Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission investigate these companies and bring suits — both criminal and civil — for any wrongdoing, just as the federal government did with the tobacco industry in the 1980s."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-climate-crisis-874986/

He is also not just talking about funding clean, renewable energy, he's banning fracking, oil and gas exports, going after corporations who engage in pollution and drilling on public lands with not just civil, but criminal charges. Boy are the corporate wolves gonna try to take him down in the mainstream media more than ever now, and present this as something bad as they did with AOC's Green New Deal.

This plan even has provisions to help developing countries lower their global emissions with us. That makes sense as this is a global effort, and one of the counter arguments from the other side is how the move toward alternative energy would negatively impact third world countries in Africa or Asia too poor to make this transition. Well Bernie's got their backs too.

I think it has been a really productive and informative week from the Sanders campaign just going purely on the policy-based discussion, not based on who I think is likeable or who is electable, just based on the issues. There was his criminal justice reform bill, talk of leveraging the billions in US subsidies to Israel, but this environmental package has really sold me for Sanders 2020. If we were to get nothing else done during a Sanders presidency but the Green New Deal it would make the vote worth it to me. Get it done he would if elected president. He would declare the climate crisis a national emergency, and pass it by executive order.

It is time to act comprehensively, rather than incrementally judging by the United Nations IPCC report on climate change.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

We can't play the "middle ground" as Biden thinks we should.
https://www.apnews.com/92349bcb69917126e815f396e3607b84

Bernie's plan is on his website, if anyone cares to read. Have a nice day y'all, this has got me in a fantastic mood as I start my weekend!

https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/

 

[colours]

Less talking, more doing. Whoever it is that "cares" about the environment, I want to see action, not words. Whoever Democrat holds the Oval Office in 2020 (assuming they do, best case scenario it'd be Warren), we should hold them strictly accountable to do what they can to save this damn planet because honest to god I'm so tired of having all the sleazy anti-environmentalist companies and individuals get away with killing our own planet.

Come up with a plan, sure, but they should stick to that plan and follow through with it.

Also get Mitch McConnell out of the Senate for goodness sake so Bernie and Warren can actually do something. A Democratic President may be McConnell's worst nightmare, but it certainly isn't going to make him disappear. Get him out of the Senate, and then best case scenario Warren/Sanders can keep introducing more new progressive bills without some asshat stonewalling it.

 

[Her]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3avjw/the-dncs-climate-debate-is-as-good-as-dead

The Democrats voted not to host a debate focused entirely on the climate crisis — a conversation that all of the leading presidential candidates support.

Democratic National Committee officials voted down the resolution that would've called for an official climate debate by a margin of 17 to 8 at a party meeting in San Francisco Thursday. If the DNC doesn't host a climate debate, the candidates could opt to participate in a non-DNC sanctioned debate. But by participating, they could be sanctioned by the DNC, which means being potentially barred from any further DNC-sponsored debates.

'Biden isn't good on climate change, can't let Joe get up there and embarrass himself'

 

[EnglishALT]

Also get Mitch McConnell out of the Senate for goodness sake so Bernie and Warren can actually do something. A Democratic President may be McConnell's worst nightmare, but it certainly isn't going to make him disappear. Get him out of the Senate, and then best case scenario Warren/Sanders can keep introducing more new progressive bills without some asshat stonewalling it.

May I ask, what makes you think Senator John Thune or Senator Dick Durbin would be more receptive to progressive bills, considering they would be up next in leadership. Also if I may, what confidence do you have in Senator Sanders being able to push through a progressive bill as president considering his track record in the Senate is non existent.

 

[colours]

May I ask, what makes you think Senator John Thune or Senator Dick Durbin would be more receptive to progressive bills, considering they would be up next in leadership. Also if I may, what confidence do you have in Senator Sanders being able to push through a progressive bill as president considering his track record in the Senate is non existent.

I was speaking more in the sense of climate change in particular (sorry if that wasn't clear). But they too, should be voted out if they're get in the way of attempts to save a dying planet. The letter that's next to their name doesn't matter to me (although the Republicans have taken a piss on climate and stood with Trump on ignoring it being a thing so they have zero redemption, here), I want to see action because I'm tired of seeing us, on a everyday basis, killing the very planet that we live on. For what? What's the benefit?

Good thing Durbin seems to think the same way. I also mentioned this, by the way:

Less talking, more doing. Whoever it is that "cares" about the environment, I want to see action, not words.

This applies for any politician. Sanders and Warren are the bigger advocates on climate, but again, I want to see doing, not lip service. I want to see real action done on cleaning up the space junk around our planet because it's ridiculous and quite frankly troubling that no one seems to care about it. I want to see more done about the North Atlantic Garbage Patch, which is disgusting to see. I want to see more done in regards to conservation of animal habitat because as it stands, the more pollution that's in our oceans, the more that it destroys our sea life. And deforestation comes with its own set of problems, as well.

Also, with all due respect, I'm not really interested in debating this considering this is something I feel particularly strongly about, so it'd be a waste of time on both of our parts to even go into that. This is more explaining and hopefully clarifying a bit more on my initial post on the matter.

 

[Nah]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3avjw/the-dncs-climate-debate-is-as-good-as-dead


'Biden isn't good on climate change, can't let Joe get up there and embarrass himself'

Does this mean that climate change is not going to be a part of any of the future debates at all, or is it just shooting down the idea of one whose only topic is climate change?

 

[EnglishALT]

I don't see much upside for Democrats in doing a debate on climate change, as Her noted it puts Biden and other moderates in an uncomfortable position, it could give Republicans fodder for states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, of which Democrats are desperate to gain back. Not to mention any policy put forward will be bench marked with the Green New Deal, something the Democratic party seems to be trying to make disappear. Of course, you also have the fact that climate change does not rank as a top priority with voters.

 

[gimmepie]

Of course, you also have the fact that climate change does not rank as a top priority with voters.

Somehow this is the most depressing thing that's been said in a thread that already has some pretty sad content at points.

 

[AlolanRattata]

Here's something for you all to chew on. Tucker Carlson said emphatically that Vice President Biden, despite polling well and being a front runner, has no chance of receiving the nomination. Of the 22 remaining candidates, some will be cut when they fail to qualify for the third debate, and the current threshold is steady at 2%. When this happens, former dedicated voters will have to select a different candidate, which may or may not be indicative of anything.

 

[Ivysaur]

Here's something for you all to chew on. Tucker Carlson said emphatically that Vice President Biden, despite polling well and being a front runner, has no chance of receiving the nomination. Of the 22 remaining candidates, some will be cut when they fail to qualify for the third debate, and the current threshold is steady at 2%. When this happens, former dedicated voters will have to select a different candidate, which may or may not be indicative of anything.

Luckily Tucker Carlson is a professional idiot who is wrong about mostly everything ever and whose only job is to repeat white nationalists' talking points to Trump (and the other peopkle who watch Fox News, I guess), so that line actually makes me think that Biden has more chances to win than the polls give him.

Look, Biden is leading all polls and has been for months, by about the same margin Trump did in Republican polling four years ago. Obviously, his lead is nowhere near as dominating as, say, Clinton's back then (she was consistently over 50%, and I don't think she ever dipped under that number for any serious amount of time), so obviously the race is far more winnable for his rivals than it was for Sanders back then. (And, looking at it, Warren is still far behind but in a much better position than everybody else, as she's the only one whose support keeps creeping steadily up in every new poll).

The Economist has a very nifty poll summary that shows how Biden's support is mostly stable (so he's not exactly crashing down) and that half of everybody else's supporters have him as their top choices if their favoured pick drops out (Warren is in a much stronger position- she's seemingly everybody's second choice). Hell, even a good number of Bernie's supporters would seriously consider him if Sanders were to quit, right after Warren.

So while I understand that one of the far-right's main spokesmen -Carlson- really wants Biden to fail, fearing the polls saying he'd have the best shot to defeat Trump, for the time being there is no reason reason to believe that he's any less wrong about this issue than he is about most everything else he ever talks about.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

The right fearing a Biden win is honestly kind of funny. He's arguably the furthest right of any of the democratic candidates and things would not be changing significantly for the wealthy under a Biden presidency. Assuming he actually beat Trump and that all the Democrats under the age of 35 don't just refuse to vote if Biden gets the nomination which really wouldn't shock me.

 

[EnglishALT]

The right fearing a Biden win is honestly kind of funny. He's arguably the furthest right of any of the democratic candidates and things would not be changing significantly for the wealthy under a Biden presidency. Assuming he actually beat Trump and that all the Democrats under the age of 35 don't just refuse to vote if Biden gets the nomination which really wouldn't shock me.

The right fears Biden because he plays really well in states that Hillary lost, because he has spent his entire life cultivating a grandpa, down to earth type of personality that plays well in places like Pennsylvania. Much of the rest of the field is so extreme or has such outlandish personalities that Republicans are less worried they will be able to win over the Trump/Obama demographic.

 

[gimmepie]

The right fears Biden because he plays really well in states that Hillary lost, because he has spent his entire life cultivating a grandpa, down to earth type of personality that plays well in places like Pennsylvania. Much of the rest of the field is so extreme or has such outlandish personalities that Republicans are less worried they will be able to win over the Trump/Obama demographic.

Sure but, he's also not really against anything the republicans stand for. The point I was really making was that a Biden presidency, should one occur, isn't likely to see any drastic changes from a Trump one outside of less openly condoned racism.

 

[EnglishALT]

Sure but, he's also not really against anything the republicans stand for. The point I was really making was that a Biden presidency, should one occur, isn't likely to see any drastic changes from a Trump one outside of less openly condoned racism.

Well unless you are an indian....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMTBHU-oQdg

All joking aside, the top things I can think of at this late hour, is the Supreme Court, China, and Title 9 reform.

Everything else will probably remain the same.

 

[Ivysaur]

The thing is, to quote polling analyst G. Elliott Morris, "when your oponent is struggling to crack 40% vote intention, anyone is electable".

Biden clearly excels on the Obama/Trump swing demo that the democrats desperately want back, but there are other very winnable groups (suburban educated whites who thought were voting for 'a moderate Republican' in 2016 and grew increasingly incredulous to discover the person they had actually voted for) that can deliver other states (like, and I'm not kidding, Texas) so there isn't one single path, either.

So, while the Democrat in the race will matter, there's this black hole that makes literally everything ever about himself called Donald Trump who is doing pretty badly in approval polls (stuck in very low 40s, hardly ever cracking 43% on a very good week) and who, if you look at the few horse-race polls so far, is struggling to even get all his approvers to commit their support for him: his vote intention is consistently a few points below his (really bad) approval ratings, which is both unusual and very worrisome for him.

And a last part: Trump won in 2016 thanks to the late deciders who disliked both candidates but decided to go with the unknown quantity that seemed "different" from everything (Trump) than the known one who was more of the same (Clinton). Now the status quo is Trump and the people who disliked him but voted for him nonetheless to see what would happen know very well what has happened. The scenario is nowhere near the same.

 

[EnglishALT]

~Snip~

Problem is that it is highly unlikely on election day that Trump will be at 38 or 39%, more than likely history tells us that it will be a one or two percent differential. In that case as you said it becomes the "Status Quo", versus the "Apple Cart Thrower", in which case it comes down to how Democrats read the electorate.

Trump won, in large part because Obama's economic stagnation had exhausted the populous, thus the public choose the "Apple Cart Thrower", thinking that change, no matter how radical, was worth it.

Vice President Biden, like Hillary represents the "Status Quo" in that he returns to a more subdued Presidency similar to Bush and Obama before Trump came into office, something Hillary represented in 2016, and Americans rejected because they were sick of the economy.

Sanders, Warren, and Harris like Trump in 2016, represent the "Apple Cart Thrower", a radical swing in politics away from the normal, with all the positives and negatives that can bring, especially when it comes to health care, of which the American public voted in 2018 to elect centrist Democrats to not lose their health care.

So it becomes a question as to what Democrats believe this election will be, will the public hunger for a more "Status Quo" candidate, bringing back stability to the White House from the previous occupants, if so Biden has the advantage. Or will they want another "Apple Cart Thrower", that could upend the current political system for all that brings with it. In that case Trump probably has the advantage in terms of being the "Devil you know", and for not wanting to drastically overhaul health care.

 

[VisionofMilotic]

I think Alolan Rattata has a fair point. We have a dozen candidates polling at 1% or maybe a little more that have left the primary or may do so not long from now. What their supporters do next is a wild card. I think in particular fans of the younger or female candidates or candidates that had some form of progressive issue (anti-war, getting money out of politics, ending the electoral college system etc) might want an alternative to Biden this primary.

I don't know if Biden's recent turn downward in the polls is due to this or some other factor, but Biden's numbers are far from unmovable. This Monmouth poll has him 3rd this time under Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who are deadlocked right now at 20%.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_082619/

I also disagree that a good number Bernie Sanders supporters would seriously consider Joe Biden as their 2nd runner up after Elizabeth Warren. People who are backing Bernie Sanders in this primary are more likely to support progressive domestic policies. I would say this is true even more now than it was in 2016, since this is a record-breaking primary in size with I believe more candidates than have ever run in either party before. You can have your pick of anyone. You'd be voting for Bernie based on something unique he is running on like medicare for all, not taking super pac money, breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks, the green new deal etc.

Biden is the most conservative democrat in the race, especially with Hickenlooper out now. Bernie Sanders supporters don't like Joe Biden anymore than they miss John Delaney or hope Bernie would put Joe Manchin on the ticket if he was the nominee.

Now Warren is a more likely alternative for Bernie Sanders supporters. To transition from him to her would be a crossover from a progressive to a good liberal. He is the more left-wing option of the two, but Bernie and Elizabeth still share common ground on several policies that are priorities to Bernie voters like comprehensive housing plans and student debt-cancellation. He is advocating changing the economic system, and she is trying to more heavily regulate that system, but both agree that it can't continue as it is going for the sake of the middle class, and are offering different paths as the solution. Biden however is the very embodiment of the predatory, crony capitalistic policies that such voters feel disenfranchised by. He is pro-TPP, pro-Nafta, repealed glass-steagall, promoted the Bush era tax cuts, stripped away bankruptcy protections. Come on now...Occupy Wall Street supporters DO NOT have Wall Street among their top 3 choices. I would try to hold my nose in the worse case scenario of Biden, mainly for the Paris Climate Agreement's sake, but every voter is going to have their own set of concerns, and many will not be able to hold their nose, the stench would be awfully strong.

 

[Hands]

I think it's finally over for Biden. From classic gaffes like "poor kids are as smart as white kids" to confusing the town he's in to inexplicable comments about hypothetical assassinations of Obama, he has been a complete disaster. He has been savaged in debates, he constantly embarrass himself, his record is terrible and he cannot compete even with messy non-candidates like Harris.

Bernie and Warren now sit above him in the polls. They will continue to do so as both progressive candidates continue to perform well and the centrists and corporate candidates continue to perform like absolute pigswill. Bernie or Warren will get the nomination and the other will likely take the VP role

 

[Ivysaur]

I think Alolan Rattata has a fair point. We have a dozen candidates polling at 1% or maybe a little more that have left the primary or may do so not long from now. What their supporters do next is a wild card. I think in particular fans of the younger or female candidates or candidates that had some form of progressive issue (anti-war, getting money out of politics, ending the electoral college system etc) might want an alternative to Biden this primary.

Which is fair, but the big 5 frontrunners add up to 75% of the vote, so unless everybody who supports the 1%ers decides to jump into the same candidate, chances are they'll spread more or less equally around the big guns. May it be enough to, say, have Harris jump into second place? Perhaps (although unlikely). Will it be enough to have Marianne Williamson get up there? I'll bet my home it won't.

I don't know if Biden's recent turn downward in the polls is due to this or some other factor, but Biden's numbers are far from unmovable. This Monmouth poll has him 3rd this time under Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who are deadlocked right now at 20%.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_082619/

Which is a pretty weird poll. Perhaps it's because it polled about 300 people and has a 5% margin of error. That's why you have averages. And I say this as someone who is not into Biden, precisely. He's clearly not invincible, far from it, but we'll need a few more polls like that to change our priors (Morning Consult, released a few hours later, gives Biden 33, Sanders 20, Warren 15).

I also disagree that a good number Bernie Sanders supporters would seriously consider Joe Biden as their 2nd runner up after Elizabeth Warren. People who are backing Bernie Sanders in this primary are more likely to support progressive domestic policies. I would say this is true even more now than it was in 2016, since this is a record-breaking primary in size with I believe more candidates than have ever run in either party before. You can have your pick of anyone. You'd be voting for Bernie based on something unique he is running on like medicare for all, not taking super pac money, breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks, the green new deal etc.

I swear I'm not speaking out of my arse, but from the polls. I linked you to The Economist before, I'll paste the image here if you want to see it.

You don't believe it? Fine, again, it's a polling average, it's early and all that. But there seem to be a bunch of Sanders supporters who want to defeat Trump so much, they're willing to jump into Biden's boat if that's what it takes. Although, as you said, Warren is their second choice by far.

 

[Hands]

Which is fair, but the big 5 frontrunners add up to 75% of the vote, so unless everybody who supports the 1%ers decides to jump into the same candidate, chances are they'll spread more or less equally around the big guns. May it be enough to, say, have Harris jump into second place? Perhaps (although unlikely). Will it be enough to have Marianne Williamson get up there? I'll bet my home it won't.



Which is a pretty weird poll. Perhaps it's because it polled about 300 people and has a 5% margin of error. That's why you have averages. And I say this as someone who is not into Biden, precisely. He's clearly not invincible, far from it, but we'll need a few more polls like that to change our priors (Morning Consult, released a few hours later, gives Biden 33, Sanders 20, Warren 15).



I swear I'm not speaking out of my arse, but from the polls. I linked you to The Economist before, I'll paste the image here if you want to see it.

You don't believe it? Fine, again, it's a polling average, it's early and all that. But there seem to be a bunch of Sanders supporters who want to defeat Trump so much, they're willing to jump into Biden's boat if that's what it takes. Although, as you said, Warren is their second choice by far.

Biden is done dude. His "Poor kids are as smart as white kids" balls up is career ending. He will not be getting that nomination.