Status Quo: The Second Round of Democratic Debates

Kjbartolotta said:

I think I'm good with saying I hold your opinion in high esteem and share some of your concerns though perhaps not at the same level vis-a-vis missteps and perceived electability issues. Who knows how we'll all feel by Thanksgiving. I still think Harris and Warren are strong buys and am willing to put mysef out there to support them (knowing full well they're gonna stomp on my heart repeatedly)

I'm interested in what you see in Steyer but his messaging doesn't appeal to me personally, besides his push for impeachment and his emphasis on environmental issues, I'm not sure what he really stands for, and even more unsure what puts him at the head of the class if the rest of the candidates are flunking.

The fact that he's a billionaire who's never served in public office maybe give me pause, and his money could do a lot of good for downballot candidates.

But I am always open to listen and change my mind, and, quite frankly, would support a Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Guy if I thought he could beat Trump. I'm willing to kick anyone to the curb if someone better can convince me, but in the meantime am finding some of the bleakness and cynicism I'm seeing all around me exhausting.

But thank you for responding.

Click to expand...

I think we should both plan on discussing these issues with each other over the coming months. Don't waste time trying to sell me Biden or Sanders (obviously other people are also in this discussion so I'm not saying not to say anything). But if you see things you like with the other candidates I''m open.

Auteur said:

There are some advantages to Biden being the Democratic candidate to go up against Trump. He has wide appeal and will get the votes of many independents. Nobody's going to accuse him of being a "socialist," which is the conservative bogeyman. He's well liked in Congress, which may help him get things done, although big money donors are really all Republicans care about. And, since he's uncontroversial, that may help Democrats win back the Senate and hold onto the House.

Click to expand...

What's the upside of being "uncontroversial?" That just sounds like another way to say unexciting and uninspiring.

Joe Biden has wide name appeal. Period. His biggest claims to fame is he stayed in the Senate for decades until Barack Obama brought him aboard to be the official Old White Dude Career Politician With Credentials. That's about it. The past two times Biden ran he was about as exciting as a bowl of cold soup. Being the Democrat in the race older than Trump is not freshly baked bread. It's old and it's stale and Biden is both. He seems to think he's can out-shittalk Trump and he's delusional. Trump would eat his ass alive in a Twitter fight.

Being the leading in the polls is not enough to galvanize the base, win back the Dems who defected to Trump (and seriously, who WANTS them back?), hold the House, take back the Senate, and beat the Racist-In-Chief in 2020.

Auteur said:

It would be nice to have a candidate people could get excited about, but we have to take what we can get. I just wish he didn't seem so frail.

Click to expand...

There been exactly zero--count 'em--ZERO votes cast in the Democratic primary. I'm still shopping for a candidate for 2020, but I want a better choice that "take what we can get." If take what we can get means Biden or Bust, I'm gonna hold out for a better choice. Enough of settling for what we can get. I went that way in 2016 and do not relish doing it again in 2020. I'm tired of voting against Republicans. I want to vote for Democrats and Biden's "well, I'm not as bad as Trump" tune isn't selling me on his viability or electability.

Biden doesn't seem frail. He is frail and all the Botox and hair plugs he's had done isn't doing him any favors either. Biden said it best himself in the first debate, "My time is up." Truer words were never spoken.

Introversion said:

Maybe it’s that simple, but I still don’t get it. Why do Democrats, notoriously not the party of old white men, seemingly prefer their candidates to be old white men?

Click to expand...

Because the majority of the party's leadership is made up Old White Guys and Gals and they scream "ageism!" when you point that out. Old White Guys and Gals are notorious for bragging how they're committed to "diversity" right up until the time it comes to getting the fuck off the stage and let them take over and run things for a change.

MaeZe said:

I am now starting to look at Tom Steyer. I was already on board with his need-to-impeach campaign.

Click to expand...

I'm not at all interested in putting a billionaire with zero political experience in the White House. Steyer is an egotistical, vain, bullshit artist who knows nothing about Washington or how to fix what's broken. He's a single-issue candidate and he has no chance of beating Trump.

Few have ever beclowned themselves quite as much as former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz, who ran what may have been the worst sort-of-campaign in memory. Schultz has mercifully suspended his effort to become president after back surgery sidelined him; we wish him the best and encourage him to take plenty of time recovering.


But Tom Steyer is no Howard Schultz. Though Steyer had flirted with a presidential run before, his involvement in politics as a liberal super-donor suggested that he had the good sense not to give in to the temptation to believe that what America really needed was him, and nothing more.


I say that because Steyer did not bow to the temptation that many a billionaire did before him — which is to decide they want to get involved in politics, then throw a whole bunch of money at media consultants who waste it on useless TV ads and their own hefty commissions. Instead, he put most of his focus on grass-roots organizing, spending more than $230 million since 2014 to support Democrats.

While Steyer has gotten most attention for his efforts to get President Trump impeached, between the organization he set up to do that and a partner organization called NextGen America, he has hired hundreds of organizers to do the difficult and long-term work necessary to build support for liberal candidates from the ground up.


In other words, Steyer seems to understand what really matters in campaigns, and was committed to doing a lot more than just writing a check every couple of years. So why does he want to run for president?


Think about it this way: If you look across the field of Democratic contenders, you could say, “Wow, there are a lot of interesting, smart, qualified people running. You’ve got a former vice president, senators, governors, House members, mayors — all people who have more experience in elected office than I do. This is very good for the party and will likely produce a nominee who has proven themselves a worthy foe for Trump.”


Or you could look at the field and say, “What a mess. What the American people are yearning for is obviously me.”

Click to expand...

nighttimer said:

I'm not at all interested in putting a billionaire with zero political experience in the White House. Steyer is an egotistical, vain, bullshit artist who knows nothing about Washington or how to fix what's broken. He's a single-issue candidate and he has no chance of beating Trump.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's something original that hasn't been done before. Let's go with him.

MaeZe said:

Don't waste time trying to sell me Biden or Sanders.

Click to expand...

LOL yeah no.

nighttimer said:

.....

I'm not at all interested in putting a billionaire with zero political experience in the White House. Steyer is an egotistical, vain, bullshit artist who knows nothing about Washington or how to fix what's broken. He's a single-issue candidate and he has no chance of beating Trump.

Click to expand...

I understand why people are writing Steyer off as an evil billionaire, et cetera. Not my POV of him, but that's not important.

I'd like to know who you are thinking would be good candidates and why, given this is early on.

Joe Biden is one big gaffe after another. I don't think his brain is connected to his mouth. There seem to be a few gears missing. If he's the front-runner, it's because he used to be VP under a popular president. I don't see any other reason for his being front-runner. The guy's got no charisma at all. Or any noteworthy ideas.

I also think that ex-vice-presidents make weak presidential candidates, and even weaker presidents. I think that this was the problem with George Bush Senior, who had been VP under Reagan. People voted for him because they liked Reagan. So Bush was riding the coattails of someone else. He wasn't standing on his own popularity. He was standing on someone else's. If you have to stand on someone else's reputation, you're not a strong candidate.

Ex-VPs don't have the battle that other presidential candidates have. They don't have to fight as hard to win the nomination. And they can't fight for much when they're in office.

If Biden hadn't been VP, he'd be doing worse than Bill DeBlasio.

Kjbartolotta said:

I think I'm good with saying I hold your opinion in high esteem and share some of your concerns though perhaps not at the same level vis-a-vis missteps and perceived electability issues. Who knows how we'll all feel by Thanksgiving. I still think Harris and Warren are strong buys and am willing to put mysef out there to support them (knowing full well they're gonna stomp on my heart repeatedly)

I'm interested in what you see in Steyer but his messaging doesn't appeal to me personally, besides his push for impeachment and his emphasis on environmental issues, I'm not sure what he really stands for, and even more unsure what puts him at the head of the class if the rest of the candidates are flunking.

The fact that he's a billionaire who's never served in public office maybe give me pause, and his money could do a lot of good for downballot candidates.

But I am always open to listen and change my mind, and, quite frankly, would support a Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Guy if I thought he could beat Trump. I'm willing to kick anyone to the curb if someone better can convince me, but in the meantime am finding some of the bleakness and cynicism I'm seeing all around me exhausting.

But thank you for responding.

Click to expand...

If Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Guy wins the Dem primary, I'm voting for him in the General Election.

nighttimer said:

Because the majority of the party's leadership is made up Old White Guys and Gals

Click to expand...

I agree, but my puzzlement is over why Biden polls so well. Unless pollsters are only asking party leadership, the results surprise me.

It must be simple name recognition. And that he's a dude. And maybe that he's white, though I'd expect this to matter less to anyone voting (D) today.

Or, is being that old seen as a plus by polled voters? I mean, I get that experience matters (or should), but I think anyone younger than Biden would prefer someone younger than Biden. I know I would. Are the pollsters only calling land lines??

I'm not at all interested in putting a billionaire with zero political experience in the White House.

Click to expand...

Nor am I. But if it's Trump or Steyer, I'll hold my nose and vote Steyer.

Diana Hignutt said:

If Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Guy wins the Dem primary, I'm voting for him in the General Election.

Click to expand...

He's a relative outsider but very animated and connects with WWC voters.

nighttimer said:

If take what we can get means Biden or Bust, I'm gonna hold out for a better choice.

Click to expand...

I'll be voting for him if I have too (an uncomfortably real possibility at this stage), but I've already had the 'I'm not gonna make you' conversation with the person in my household with a wall of Anita Hill fanart. Not looking forward to defending Joe if the time comes.

Night_Writer said:

If he's the front-runner, it's because he used to be VP under a popular president. I don't see any other reason for his being front-runner. The guy's got no charisma at all. Or any noteworthy ideas.

Click to expand...

I'm continually flummoxed when I see he's leading among Black voters by quite a significant percentage. Yes, there's the nostalgia of him as VP, but his history of playing nice with White Supremacists, not to mention what he did to Anita Hill for all the world to see, would surely make him suspect in any normal time.

'Course, we're not in normal times, so, yeah. Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Guy 2020!

ElaineA said:

Wacky Waving Inflatable Tube Guy 2020!

Click to expand...

He’s the hot air with a plan!*

*= to wave wildly at all times.

Introversion said:

He’s the hot air with a plan!*

Click to expand...

That is the best campaign slogan of this season.

ElaineA said:

That is the best campaign slogan of this season.

Click to expand...

Boris Johnson’s campaign really missed an opportunity there. Boris’ loss is WWITG’s gain.

The last time someone floated a joke candidate for prez it...well, you all know how it went. I'm not sure if WWITG can beat Trump, but I'd like to see him in a debate.

We don't have to talk about voting for Biden unless he win's the primary.

MaeZe said:

We don't have to talk about voting for Biden unless he win's the primary.

Click to expand...

True, but here in Mirror Universe, where some failed real estate developer and all-around con man rides down a golden escalator to the White House, it's never too early to be stocking the Bug-Out Bag Of Worst Possible Outcomes.

nighttimer said:

I'm not at all interested in putting a billionaire with zero political experience in the White House. Steyer is an egotistical, vain, bullshit artist who knows nothing about Washington or how to fix what's broken. He's a single-issue candidate and he has no chance of beating Trump.

Click to expand...

In some ways, isn't that because he is 'Trump'?
Why do we even let people with no previous experience in political office run for The Big Job?

frimble3 said:

In some ways, isn't that because he is 'Trump'?
Why do you even let people with no previous experience in political office run for the Big Job?

Click to expand...

For me: It's because of all the candidates with political experience, none of them are inspiring.

Sanders was in 2016, but I never believed for a minute the voting public was convinced. And now I don't believe voters are either. Warren has a chance, I'm keeping an open mind, but she made a big tone deaf mistake saying ALL private health insurance had to go.

MaeZe said:

I understand why people are writing Steyer off as an evil billionaire, et cetera. Not my POV of him, but that's not important.

I'd like to know who you are thinking would be good candidates and why, given this is early on.

Click to expand...

I think there are some very good candidates already running (Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Castro), but I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I will vote for damn near ANY Democrat over the Racist-In-Chief.

With the exception of Tulsi Gabbard because the longer this goes on, the more she looks like a Manchurian-By-Way-of-Moscow Candidate.

Introversion said:

I agree, but my puzzlement is over why Biden polls so well. Unless pollsters are only asking party leadership, the results surprise me.

It must be simple name recognition. And that he's a dude. And maybe that he's white, though I'd expect this to matter less to anyone voting (D) today.

Click to expand...

To the contrary. Democrats love diversity, but they still have a soft spot for dusty old White dudes.

The 2020 presidential candidate field is well stocked with women, people of color and millennials, but a majority of voters who said they expected to cast ballots in a Democratic primary thought that candidates who were white, middle-aged and male would be the party’s best bet for defeating President Trump.


That finding from the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times national poll illustrates the hurdles that female, black and Latino presidential candidates still face despite Democrats’ celebration of diversity in their ranks. The poll also illustrates the wariness — bordering on pessimism — that many Democratic voters continue to show in the aftermath of Trump’s upset victory in 2016.


Asked to describe the ideal candidate to beat Trump, two-thirds of Democratic primary voters said a white candidate had the best chance of winning in 2020; 7 in 10 said a man would have the best shot; and about three-quarters said the strongest candidate against Trump would be age 41-65. A small majority favored a moderate over a more liberal or progressive candidate.


Combined, 56% said they thought their best bet would be a white male candidate, with just over one-third opting for a white male moderate.


Such calculations about “electability” have become a prominent — and controversial — part of the 2020 campaign. The belief on the part of many voters that a white male candidate has the best shot against Trump has buoyed the candidacy of Vice President Joe Biden, who has led in polls this spring.

Click to expand...

For all the humblebrag about the eclectic, exotic and unusual flavors offered up at the Democratic Ice Cream Social, it's plain ol' vanilla taking on all comers and kicking butt.

Color me surprised.

nighttimer said:

For all the humblebrag about the eclectic, exotic and unusual flavors offered up at the Democratic Ice Cream Social, it's plain ol' vanilla taking on all comers and kicking butt.

Color me surprised.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if you're trying to combine the exotic, eclectic, and unusual into one glorious dessert, vanilla makes a sturdy reliable base, allowing the other flavours to shine, as opposed to fighting them.

Fudge, nut, pineapple, and litchi need something to bring them together. Peanut butter is too strong a flavour, and will compete, while vanilla is neutral enough to mix with anything.

Everyone seems to agree that the Democrats consist of a lot of diverse groups, with varying interests and concerns. Rather than someone strongly of one group or another, bland might be a better choice.

ElaineA said:

Besides which, there is at least one candidate on the Dem side who actually has a plan to get the money out of politics. So that thinking exists within the party, even if it may not yet be a plurality of office-holders. The voice exists, and that's more than anyone can say about anyone in the GOP. I'd rather take a chance on that voice gaining traction and attracting more support than having it go silent.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to Marianne Williamson? One of her main talking points is getting big money out of politics and the government, in general. Since she's said it, I've seen many of the others speaking about it in the past week or two. I've skimmed the threads and she doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. Her name doesn't even appear in the thread where other candidates are listed as the top post. Even though there are names in there who have dropped out. Whether people like her or they don't I'm surprised no one is discussing her at all. She's definitely "for the people".

Williamson is a dangerous woo-peddler and doesn't even deserve space on the debate stage. She's called vaccine mandates "Orwellian" and espouses "positive thinking" for curing disease. And never mind she's done so much work for people with AIDS when her ersatz spirituality on caring and treating the virus is questionable. So, yeah, you can bring her up but I'm not discussing her.

BenPanced said:

Williamson is a dangerous woo-peddler and doesn't even deserve space on the debate stage. She's called vaccine mandates "Orwellian" and espouses "positive thinking" for curing disease. And never mind she's done so much work for people with AIDS when her ersatz spirituality on caring and treating the virus is questionable. So, yeah, you can bring her up but I'm not discussing her.

Click to expand...

QFT

BenPanced said:

Williamson is a dangerous woo-peddler and doesn't even deserve space on the debate stage. She's called vaccine mandates "Orwellian" and espouses "positive thinking" for curing disease. And never mind she's done so much work for people with AIDS when her ersatz spirituality on caring and treating the virus is questionable. So, yeah, you can bring her up but I'm not discussing her.

Click to expand...

x2 OFT

And I believe Elaine was referring to Warren.