Who do you think Dems will run in 2020? This article says it's Sanders or Warren...but is it? What does Tildes think?
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- How Sanders and Warren Will Decide Which One Runs for President
- Aug 28 2018
- Word count
- 3028 words
Sanders is way too old, there's no way they'd run him.
Who he endorses, however, will be important.
He's only a year older than Biden, who everyone was begging to run in 2016.
Man I really hope people who knock it off with that when the times comes. Biden is.... like only funny and inspirational to waspy people who it reminds them of their cool uncle. He's got like zero charisma with anyone who has never picked up a golf club in their life.
Warren on the other hand is a Texan and stuff. She's got a sort of LBJ quality to her I think.
If Trump can make it to 2020 I think he could wipe the floor with the likes of Warren. I say this as a Warren supporter and someone who would vote for her in 2020. If it is anyone else I think she could win.
I think Avenatti could rattle Trump and he looks to be putting in 2020 bid.
Nikki Haley is another interesting person positioning herself for a 2020 run.
Avenatti strikes me as a creep.
Also there's no way that Nikki Haley tries to primary Trump unless things get real real real bad for him.
You're right, but I think his age alone is a reason he won't get too many people to vote for him in the primaries, assuming he still has his faculties and wants to run come 2020. I'm not sure I could support a 78 year old nominee.
It's a health thing. You're right the VP would take over, but it all depends on who the VP choice is and how healthy I think the candidate truly is.
It wasn't the deciding factor, no, but I would imagine it was an important one for many people who voted.
You can view it however you want, but it's a legitimate medical concern. Rates of dementia as correlated with age is an exponential curve... and that's just one aspect of aging related health. The president is expected to sleep very little and is in a high stress position where he has to make sound decisions that directly effect the lives of many Americans. While some people of older age may be capable of this, there's no question that it takes a toll on your body because it's a unique high stress environment that is very physically demanding.
I don't think Trump is a good example here. He had sort of a Mr. Burns' disease diagnosis effect going on (where he had so many issues with his candidacy that you couldn't focus on any particular one).
Instead it might be a better example to talk about what role age had on McCain's 2008 campaign. I'm old enough to remember the plethora of "one heartbeat away from the presidency" when it came to talking about Sarah Palin's qualifications. And frankly, it was a deciding factor in my vote too--as there was no way in hell I wanted someone who obviously wouldn't know anything about what they're doing near the oval office (a position I think I've been pretty consistent about through my adult life).
You then have to allow for the potential that he might serve two terms, making him 86 years old by the time he leaves office. The oldest president in office to date was Ronald Reagan, who was nearly 78 years old at the end of his second term - and there were serious concerns about his mental health in those later years of his incumbency.
Exactly why I'm not sure I can support a 78 year old nominee
You forget, the democrats DID stop Sanders from running in 2016.
I know we all like to blame the mouth breathing sheeple for cheeto but it was the get along gang going with their establishment candidate that forced out Sanders ( who the numbers foresaw CRUSHING the pile of orange peels at the polls as opposed to the scant victory Mrs Clinton was supposed to get ).
My wife is very excited by Kamal Harris and I like what I see as well. Cory Booker comes off as a shill to me and strikes me as a symbol of what's wrong with the party.
I like the idea of a Kamala Harris run as well. Her stances on the issues resonate with me for the most part, and I hugely respect how her experience as DA in SF informs her policy. I certainly prefer her over Booker any day of the week.
That's pretty much where I'm at now via process of elimination.
I said this in another comment a few seconds ago, but you just know the Republicans will brand her as the out-of-touch liberal from San Francisco who doesn't understand the needs of rural and blue collar Americans. Doesn't matter who the candidate is, there will be some nonsense message about them. I do think that Harris is a compelling figure with less baggage though.
70% of the country is simply done listening to Republicans again, ever, about anything. We just have to get them to vote.
I don’t think it’s that high. More like 60% based on polling numbers.
And once the Democrats take power again and fix everything, the American people will forget about Trump in another couple years and vote a Republican back in again to make sure the minorities don't get too uppity again.
Best way to mitigate the chance of that is winning veto-proof super majorities in Congress in 2020 then passing constitutional amendments. The electoral college has got to go. The fact that we elect a president using a system that doesn’t count votes equally and allows for the tyranny of a minority political ideology pisses me the fuck off.
That’s just one piece of the electoral reform I envision though. We need so much more at every level of government.
This mentality of 'working with the other side of the isle' worries me. Obama tried that, why would anyone else expect to get different results?
More and more I am coming down in the 'fuck the other side of the isle and throw them out of the building come november' camp. The Republicans will use very dirty trick in the book including blatant institutionalized treason to get what they want. That is not a group of people who will ever work 'with' anyone.
It's time to fight, and time for a war of ideas, not appeasement. Keep appeasing the traitors and there won't be much of a country left. My biggest problem with the Democrats is that they talk a good story, but as soon as it's time to fight they turn tail and run away, or take a check from someone and sell out. The entire party has been spineless for decades.
Obama didn't really try it after 2009. Then again, Republicans saw refusing to go along as an electoral strategy (and they were right). Obama was seen as intellectual to the point of arrogance by a lot of people, and refusing to play by his game was seen as deserved comeuppance, regardless of the actual motivations for that vengeful display.
This seems like a narrative more than a reality. Dems have dug in their heels when they have the power to do so. They've worked cooperatively and got things passed, when they have the power to do so. Blaming Dems for being weak on legislative priorities when the Republicans have been in charge of the Legislature for most of the past 20 years is a little unfair.
What's your opinion on the Dems not resorting to "dirty tricks" like the GOP often does? I'm forgetting the details now but read a few weeks ago that the Dems could pull some procedural shenanigans having to do with quorum and voting rules to block the SCOTUS nomination. Although, they're fairly limited now that the filibuster isn't an obstacle. I believe Pelosi said she wouldn't do any of that because she considers it an abdication of her duties.
EDIT: Here's a relevant article.
I'm pretty sure they'll get their shot at being in charge of the entire Congress this year. If they get the reins and still fuck it up, well, we're fucked. We'll be stuck with a Congress that's basically turned into a McDonald's drive-thru for corporate law take-out.
Did something about my comment give you the indication that I believe we should work with the other side, or is that just a derivative comment you're making as part of the discussion? Because I'm 100% in agreement with you. The time for bipartisanship is long gone because the Republicans don't participate in good faith. I haven't seen much of this misguided pragmatism in the current election cycle though aside from the Democratic candidate for senate in my state who was already fairly moderate to begin with.
Nah, I just saw that sentiment in other parts of the thread. :)
I desperately want a Democratic party that comes out swinging and kicks some fucking ass. I say that as someone who does not fully agree with many of their politics, too. At this point we're past being nice, and we're also running out of time. This corruption will eventually sink the country if it isn't dealt with. The Republicans are clearly a lost cause at this point. The Democrats are the only ones who can do this.
Ah word. As soon as the Dems take back control of either the House or Senate, I'll be disappointed if they do anything less than the obstructionist tactics the GOP has used to cripple the legislative branch.
I hate that you're probably right.
Seems like the only shot is to exile the Clinton-era bought and paid for Democrats and vote in as much fresh young blood as we can find. Even that may not be enough.
I'd be happy to see a Congress where there's no grey hair present.
Yeah, amen to that. I want new fresh faces with new ideas that don't come with a ton of baggage that you get with long-standing politicians. Obama was a great Presidential candidate because the Republicans had so little ammo against him other than a lack of experience.
I would love if more centrist Democrats get pushed out or forced to go harder to the left by a primary challenger in order to stay relevant. People like Ocasio Cortez and Beto O'Rourke are going to (hopefully) be the future of the party.
I sure hope so. They're still a bit young for a presidential run. That's the problem. Where are all the Gen Xers in politics? Is Booker and Harris really the best we can do? (someone earlier said Booker came off as a shill but the same is true to me for Harris. )
Ah come on, let's not get all negative on this stuff. Half the reason democrats can't win is because they keep being so morose about their prospects. Have some Hope!
Harris is as much a shill as Booker.
This might provide some stuff.
She's also done some crappy stuff with prosecuting non violent weed offenders etc if I remember.
If ever it's a good idea to run a young candidate, it's now.
Even if he was younger, the Democratic leaders hate his politics and would sabotage him or anyone like him
The Democratic party needs to listen to their base. Look at what happened today in Massachusetts.
Except that age won't be an argument that the Right can use against him, considering that Trump is the oldest President to ever serve.
Blatant hypocrisy doesn't matter anymore to the GOP, so the Dems shouldn't let that dictate the party vision. Trump could be 100 years old, and they'd still criticize an aging Democratic nominee for the same reason. That's not to say I want Bernie (I don't for a couple different reasons), just that a candidate's age as a criticism steeped in hypocrisy is meaningless. In my amateur opinion, the Dems have compromised far too much on vision over the years to cater to folks who will never join their side.
They shouldn't worry about every little criticism the Republicans can come up with - they'll figure out some kind of BS no matter who the candidate is. I can imagine if Kamala Harris is nominated, she'll be criticized just for being an out-of-touch liberal from California who doesn't understand the needs of rural and blue collar Americans.
I'd love to see what a democratic party with TEETH would look like.
We used to have a Democratic party with TEETH. And FDR used to be President.
Was re-watching Ken Burns documentary on T.R. and F.D.R. the other day. Both were amazing fellows! T.R. seems like a bleeding-heart-liberal when compared to today's Republicans, who would have reminded him more of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall than any Republican of his day.
Yeah, when Teddy Roosevelt got tired of dealing with the other Republicans, he literally formed the Progressive Party. Republicans and Democrats back then were opposites of what they are today, from a social perspective; Democrats represented the south and conservative union voters in the north (that's where the term "Dixiecrat" comes from), while Republicans represented the northeast and the far west, as well as businessmen and civil rights advocates. Pretty interesting that while they've swapped poles on their social politics, both parties stayed true to their economic foundations; Democrats are still the party of workers and government regulation over the economy, while Republicans still champion libertarianism and totally free markets.
Like that's stopped them before. It's not about what's true to them, it's about what's said most often by the people they trust, even if those are blatant lies.
It's not about what the right is going to use against him, it's about our own voters and centrist voters who are concerned about a president being in office while suffering from dementia (quite possibly Trump right now) or other mental health issues correlated with age.
Point taken. Booker or Harris could make a lot of that I think.
As far as the primary field goes, the question is more who isn't going to run. The 2016 Republican field had I think 18 or 19 at its high-water mark. Democrats in 2020 might exceed that.
The only person who I've committed to not supporting right now is Joe Kennedy. He gave the official response to the 2018 State of the Union, which is often a sign of a rising star, but also seems to be a political version of the Madden curse.
Joe Kennedy is not just anti-marijuana, but he described police officers' ability to search a car based on "I smell pot" as a foundational principle for law enforcement:
I oppose political dynasties just on principle, but that specifically sours me on JK3 permanently.
I confess that I like the youth and energy of JK3. I think he's an OK speaker and that's something he needs to work on. I watched his rebuttal - it was good but not great. On a side note, he had some glossy substance on his lips - probably lip balm - that was SUPER shiny and distracting to me as a TV viewer. That's not a criticism, but just an interesting note given the historical context that his great-uncle JFK whomped Nixon during a debate because of his strong TV performance.
However, the opinion you put above doesn't trouble me. He was a prosecutor so he's going to have a slightly different take on these things and it didn't sound writ in stone. Pot has been used as an excuse to search for a long, long time. Taking that away if a big impact (a positive one IMO) and he sees that effect that has had on arrest rates, etc. He has time yet for his positions to mature. I could see him as a front-runner in 2024 or 2028.
I say put'em back in and let'em bake awhile longer.
Beto is the one person that I've seen talked about that might beat out Kamala Harris for me. If he can unseat Ted Cruz then I think he has a real shot.
I fear that is true. Who knew that sexism was more ingrained than racisim?
Definitely a winning strategy. Here's to Beto beating Cruz!
Kinda. The problem with always playing the game you're in, is that you risk succumbing to the case where all you want to do is win, and you've lost sight of whatever it is you set out to do. I'd use today's Republican party as a prime example; I don't think much of Reagan and I know how often people like to gloss over his frankly disgusting stint with the welfare queen schtick, but I can't imagine even he ever aimed for someone like Donald Trump to succeed him. When Newt Gringich started the whole "contract with America" and started to use firebomb rhetoric, he fired up and won significant gains in the house; and in the process, he started the long and slow moral and ethical decline of the Republican party. While it's crucial the Democrats play to win and we don't let ourselves give up, we need to ensure we don't become so concerned with winning against Republicans that we become them in 15 years. I hope the focus stays on significant policy improvements - medicare for all, free community college, and eventually perhaps a basic income of sorts - and how we're going to achieve them, instead of just running against Republican candidates.
And my apologies if I misunderstood what you said, now I wonder if perhaps I misinterpreted your comment. Feel free to clarify if that's the case :)
While it seems plausible he was elected as a "insult comic", my view is that many Republican voters were tricked into voting for Trump. America has never had to deal with false information and sophistry on the level that is present in many media sources right now. I cite his massive unpopularity now as a realization from many of his former supporters that they were deceived.
We really are headed toward Idiocracy....
Beto seems very likely to be at least the VP pick. Especially if we end up with a woman at the top of the ticket (Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, etc) they'll definitely want, as you say, a silver-tongued white man as running mate. He'd be much like Biden was to Obama, softening the image in the eyes of the inevitable racist/sexist/etc voters.
Beto, if he wins in Texas this election.
I like Beto, but do you think he'd leave the Senate after one whole year?
For a shot at the presidency? Yeah I think he would. Also it'd mean there'd be less legislative history to hold against him if he ran.
Obama did it
How sad would it be if Ted Cruz won the special election to fill Beto's vacant seat though?
I would admittedly laugh my ass off at the irony. That being said, I'd happily trade a Senate seat in Texas in exchange for the presidency. Beto can do far more good there then he could as a senator, and hopefully come 2020, we'll have enough seats that losing 1 won't matter.
Obama had three whole years. Harris is the better comparison to Obama.
Beto seriously reminds me of Obama. He has this charm and sophistication about him that is befitting of a national leader. I'd have to take another look at his policies (I'm not a Texan), but I would definitely give him the go ahead.
Here is a link to his policy statements. Personally I think he's got a very strong platform of "Not-Ted-Cruz".
He does. I hope that he's also more truly left than Obama was. He was in a punk band after all.
If he wins in Texas, I'd rather keep him around for a couple terms before y'all snatch him away to run for president. Have Warren run before she gets too old and then nominate the youngsters after they've had a bit more experience and time in the public consciousness.
I'll be glad just have not-Cruz representing us tbh.
If we can just get Abbott out too.
Also, Beto's allure is that he's pretty much pure potential. A lengthy voting record isn't something that'd add to his chances to get elected as president IMO.
I think that's part of what is poisonous about our current approach to politics and potential candidates. Why should you trust anything people say if they don't have a record backing it up? If their record doesn't match what they say is important to them, isn't that crucially important information? How does having no information at all help us make better decisions about who should represent us?
Beto's allure to me is that he's a goddamn great campaigner who speaks easily and authentically to people who aren't 50 years and older. His lack of experience is a major black mark for my willingness to support him, and I would be beyond outraged if he decided to run for president after less than one year of being a Senator. No, the only way it would fly for me is if he loses the senate race in Texas. Then he gets to keep his amazing campaigning talent, point to his record in the house, without having the major stain of shirking his responsibility to his state as soon as he gained it.
All of the people I know that I consider very Left love Warren, and to me that's a warning sign. I think she'd struggle with independents and moderates, and if I'm honest with myself, men in general. I think she has an "angry school marm" vibe to her that doesn't go over well for many men (sorry for the sexism there, trying to mirror the electorate).
That said, I'd love to see her square off with Trump. She's smart as a whip and tough as nails. She's old enough to remember the progressive policies of the 70s and I'd support her.
The fact that she cosponsors with Republicans is a really good sign, though. It'll appeal to conservative-leaning people worried about a liberal president completely disregarding them.
Only if they can hear that point over the den from the Right who will paint Warren as HillBot 2.0
They already have her covered better than that - if you check any mainstream right-wing subreddit, for example, any mention of her is going to have a joke about her lying about her race in it. (Not enough knowledge about the subject to have an opinion on it, personally, but it's something to take note of.)
Yes, and the criticism is not off-base either and marks her as someone strongly entrenched in identity politics. Not a good look for 2020 IMO.
I think warren has the best policies and rhetoric out of all candidates, but I think Harris will appeal more to the average voter. I expect it to be between Harris and a white male slightly-left-of-center democratic candidate
I dunno. I don't avoid politics, but I never even heard of Harris that I can recall and without a first name I can't even do a Google search for her/him. Don't disregard name recognition.
Elizabeth Warren didn't show interest in 2016 when much of the electorate was primed for her style of politics (somewhat combative, somewhat at odds with political leadership, but still polite and willing to work with people who disagree with her). I can't imagine she'll show any more interest in 2020 unless actually all the options were hot garbage.
The only way Beto would be viable is ironically if he loses in Texas. That would free him to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary stages less than a year into the next senate term. It would be a no-fly zone (for me and many others, I'm sure) for him to jump straight to presidential candidate after winning the Texas Senate seat.
I absolutely will not, for any reason, consider supporting Bernie Sanders. It isn't about his politics (I am okay with most of that). It is his leadership style. He is a pugilist who is more interested than fighting people who disagree with him than in getting anything done. He was distressingly under-informed about economic policy the last go around, especially when it came to the core nuts and bolts of his policy agenda. As a rule, I don't vote for people who have no idea what they'll do when they get in office. I am honestly not sure who I would vote for in November 2020 if it came down to Sanders and Trump. They are different sides of the same, nasty, partisan coin that refuses to listen to a goddamn word that people who disagree with them say. Absolutely not.
Kirsten Gillibrand is brilliant, but probably likely to trigger all the same people who don't like Hillary or Cory Booker for their time representing states that have large, very politically active corporations lobbying them. I don't think she's as tainted as Booker on this point, and I'm a huge fan of her politics and leadership style, but I do think her formerly having been an ally of the Clintons (even as she harshly criticizes Hillary post-2016) will make her somewhat divisive. An underspoken part of her appeal, I think, is that she speaks very well to a folksy audience in a respectful way, reasonably true to her politics, without making that audience feel like she's out to destroy everything they know and love. "I may disagree with her, but goddamn I like her." At this point, Kirsten is my favorite of the potentials in this list.
Kamila Harris is similar to Gillibrand, but without the New York taint. However, she's a lawyer and people don't typically trust lawyers (see also: Hillary Rodham). She'll get flack from left and right for not meeting their expectations about what a candidate should be, but on the whole I'm willing to withhold judgment until I see her platform. I respect her and would strongly consider volunteering for her at early stages if I like what I see.
Michael Avenati? No. Good lawyer, doing good law, but I do not want to see him in office. I'm done with political neophytes. I wasn't even particularly comfortable with Obama until I saw his platform's specificity.
Dwanye "The Rock" Johnson. I respect his work, and I think he's intelligent. An excellent marketer. Not interested in him as a president.
Jill "Conspiracy peddler when it suits her" Stein? Absolutely not. With even more passion and furor than I have concerning Sanders, if that were possible. I consider her candidacy in 2016 and her attempt to discredit the election results immediately after the election a threat to American democracy. Electing Stein would be as good as electing a Putin sockpuppet--oh wait. So no. Absolutely not.
Martin O'Malley. Oh, he wants it. He wants it so bad. He'll play for your daughter's birthday party if it gets him a vote in Iowa. He's a pleasant guy to be around (I met him in 2016 when he stumped for Hillary), but I don't know how much I like his record in Maryland. Still, better than The Rock or Avenati. I just can't be too enthusiastic about him.
Uncle Joe Biden, or "Another Folksy Old White Guy." I like Biden. I really do. I think he represents an old part of the party that it lost to Trump (i.e., white laborers). Hell, I'd even happily vote for him. But if age was a problem we were vaguely worried about in 2016, it'll have four more years tacked onto this go around. I think people supporting a Biden run are simply not creative enough to think of other viable, younger candidates who can summon a similar folksy charm. Gillibrand, for instance, though cynical liberals will cry out she's a shill because they saw a dollar sign get close to her name. We can do better than Biden.
I'm sure there are others I've thought about that I didn't list. There's that guy who announced last year he's running for president hanging around somewhere. Haven't heard a story about him in a while. Don't even remember his name or what he's about. I guess I'll have to look around a bit and see.
I'm curious if you felt the same way about Obama running for President for the 2008 election right after winning his Senate seat in 2006.
I absolutely would have. I already said I was kind of iffy about Obama running in 2008 after he was elected in 2004. It was only after an incredibly detailed platform in the general election and his competition picking someone who was obviously unsuited for federal public office as a VP candidate that I made the firm decision to vote for him.
Edit: I didn't note it initially, but some of my hesitance when it comes to Kamila Harris is because she has only been a senator since 2017 herself. I'm persuadable, but I much prefer a candidate with a longer record, such as Gillibrand (who was appointed in 2009 and then elected in 2010 and 2012, as well as probably again this year; that will bring her to a little over 10 years as a senator by the time Presidential campaign season starts up big in Iowa and New Hampshire).
Wonderful write-up. I didn’t consider how short a time Beto would be in office - that wouldn’t sit well with me either. I cannot believe I forgot Gilibrand. Good call, I need to look into her more.
Thoughts on Joe Kennedy? “Come back when you start shaving, kid” or is there something there?
Didn’t even consider The Rock but hey Jesse Ventura did Ok so why not, right?
Oprah 2020? If anyone could be the first female president it’s her IMO.
Please no. She might be a better person, but she's almost as grossly unqualified as Trump is.
Oprah, Dwayne, Avenati. They all fall into the same camp of hopefuls that I'll not even lift a finger to support. I will argue passionately against them each. You do not replace an incompetent child who knows nothing about public governance with someone who knows nothing about public governance, whether they are children or not. It should not be done. There is a reason we typically value people who have some experience that is relevant to functionally running the entire executive branch of the federal government. It takes a lot of organization and knowledge about the political levers of power. Otherwise you end up offending a shitton of people you never meant to over shit that doesn't matter. Obama did that as well as Trump, so it's something that comes with the territory of electing novices who don't have deep, qualified networks of talent to pull into federal office.
I don't know enough about Joe to judge too harshly, but I wasn't particularly impressed by his State of the Union rebuttal. I would worry that he relies too much on his last name, and I've never been a huge fan of dynasties. Is he really the best we can put up for someone with a folksy charm to speak to people and the personal wealth to avoid looking like he's bought and paid for by corporate america?
But certainly you have to concede that Reagan, Bono, Ventura, and Schwarzenegger all had strong political careers and were effective (even if you didn't agree with their policies). It is a popularity contest after all!
Not that that means you must support them of course :)
Sure. But none of them just jumped into being President of the United States. Reagan and arnold went to be governor of California, a position which has its own quirks, but is a fine enough ground to build a suitable governance background. Ventura, governor of Minnesota as I recall. Whether you’d call them successful governors depends a great deal on what you look at, but the fact remains they actively cultivated a network at the state before dreaming of a federal level candidacy.
The most important example of those three is Reagan, who failed to get the 1976 nomination away from incumbent Gerald Ford before his successful bid in 1980. Then once in office you get to hear all sorts of weird stories about Reagan’s utter lack of concern for the facts of many policy issues.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. Nor is someone’s experience to run it.
Had never considered The Rock either, but it’s genius. The optics of those two on stage. He’s physically more imposing, and likely funnier. Can play the WWE part when necessary, or put on glasses to transform into serious and intellectual Rock. These family friendly movies like Moana and Jumanji, makes him seem like a big softie who can also protect our kids with his he-man strength. This may be Trump’s only weakness...
I feel like people need to learn eventually that a public personality doesn't make for a good public representative. The skillsets are not the same. I'd sooner vote for Arnold, knowing full well it's unconstitutional. At least he was a state governor already.
I’d like to see him in the primary debates at least. I agree, he’s not a sharp statesman, but him being on stage at least helps rebrand the party image in a way that’s accessible to middle America. We need to change the perception that we’re all about socialism and identity politics.
We’re the party that actually will help blue collar Americans, and yet they still don’t like us. I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh in a red state. That audience will always hate us as long as they can brand us the “weak, hippy, intellectual, safe space, college types without any real life experience.” I really just like the idea of The Rock, because he totally flips the script on the entire republican strategy. Hopefully in 20 years we can start voting in AI candidates.
Well the good news for you (and the reason I put him in my list of people who I could see running) is that he's been actively branding himself as someone who "wouldn't rule out" running for the nomination. Whether he actually does or seeks a bid as an independent (another rumored possibility) is open, but I think it's fair to suggest he's interested enough to put out feelers.
If we learn one thing from 2016, it should be that you shouldn't elect someone President just because they're a celebrity who aligns with you politically.
Optimistically, I really want O'Rourke to run. He'd be a very safe pick, and I agree with him on almost every major point barring one (which does disappoint me, but it's a lost-cause issue anyway); not to mention he has charisma for miles, which pretty much guarantees you win an election. Punks in political power never really hurt anyone.
I wouldn't mind them trying to snipe someone from a smaller party, albeit I think it'd be worse off for the party in general. Stein was a former Democrat, and with a bit of coaxing I could see it. EDIT: for the record, I don't like Stein. Better than any Democrat with a chance of winning other than O'Rourke, though.
Negatively, and probably most realistically, we're gonna see Hilldawg again. I'll probably end up writing in a third party candidate at that point.
If all hell freezes over and they run Pelosi I swear to God I'm going to jump off a bridge (or, less dramatically I guess, just throw a vote to the most anti-corp, pro-term limit party I can find, despite low chances of it being successful.)
There's this really stupid trend in the Democratic party of only allowing female candidates who are absolutely horrid people rise to decent positions. Can't say I'm a fan. Would much prefer a bit younger representation - there are like a hundred and fifty million of us in the country; and like 20% of that are Democrats - there's no reason we can't find a good candidate.
Stein is knee-deep in the Russian shit-show. The Green party should be disbanded.
Source 1: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-are-senate-russia-investigators-interested-jill-stein-n831261
Source 2: https://thinkprogress.org/jill-stein-campaign-russia-ecf424ac3b7e/
I have ZERO doubt that Stein has used the green party to get rich and has sold out the country in the process to push pro-Putin talking points. Remember, the Ruskies aren't actually republican, they're using whatever dingbat they can convince, and Stein is big dingbat.
I don't think the US Green party has ever been anything but a vehicle to split up the progressive vote. If they were a real political party, their behavior wouldn't be to hold zero elected offices across the country and then crawl out of the woodwork every four years in swing states to apparently attempt a moonshot run for the presidency. They didn't get the acronym "Getting Republicans Elected Every November" for nothing, if Nader hadn't campaigned in Florida in 2000, we would've had President Gore.
No way Pelosi runs. She's too valuable in the House.
There's a fairly decent chance of her being ousted from leadership, and if that happens I don't see a tonne of other ways we'd see things play out.
For my money the Dem primary is going to be Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Bernie or whoever he endorses. I don't think Warren will run, she's always seemed rather resistant. Booker and Harris are firmly in the camp of corporate Dems, but trying to clean up their images and present a more progressive face. Bernie or whoever he endorses already have my full support.
I was planning to skip the Democratic primaries. I'll be voting straight-ticket Democrat in the general election not because I like the Democrats, but because I want to see every Republican in office tarred and feathered.
I don't give a damn who's on the Democratic ticket. The Republicans are a disease, and they must be eradicated.
That's true, but it's no reason to give up your voice in who the Democrats run. It's a diverse party in more ways than one, you've got everything from rockefeller republicans to hardcore social democrats.
Tulsi Gabbard (Bernie protege) has my vote.
nice user name lol
Forgot all about Gabbard. Good thinking!
Sanders makes me wonder. Here in my state they elected a very bad / corrupt governor twice. Now they are almost gone and everyone agrees they were trash, but they are about to elect someone just like them.
The Republican runoff was a shock to a lot of people. The guy you didn't think would win won. Other guy was so much better. Had a way better reputation. The guy they picked is banned from doing business in an entire state and has been brought up on transparency and fraud charges.. It is between him and a man who would be great for the state. And my state will elect this man...
My state doesn't learn from its mistakes.... And it makes me wonder if people woukd open their eyes and take Sanders seriously this time around.
It's honestly hard for me to take Sanders seriously on some of his positions such as taxpayer-funded college. I don't doubt it could be done right, but I doubt America would get it even half-right.
An imperfect solution is still a solution - that's progress. I'm with you on Bernie being overly idealistic with some of his policies, but the perceived difficulty of implementing a solution should not discourage us from trying. I also can't agree with this idea that America is somehow uniquely inept when it comes to solving widespread societal problems. I'm not the slightest bit of an optimist, but a defeatist attitude guarantees defeat. What do we have to lose in trying? Even the worst possible outcome of attempting to implement taxpayer-funded college is a better alternative than the status quo.
The best modern example we have of an imperfect solution that was hard as hell to implement and still showed crucial progress is the ACA. We know it has plenty of flaws and didn't go far enough, but it helped the healthcare debate evolve from "we need healthcare reform" to "we need medicare for all".
I agree with everything you said but am still highly skeptical because I am not even sure if it’s a worthwhile goal.
I was either reading on here or listening to NPR the other day and were talking about the high cost of tuition being directly in correlation with the government granting cheap loans to whoever wanted them. That increases demand which when you have an inelastic supply must create a price increase. I need to do a bit of my own research before I fully endorse that but it makes sense.
If college is paid for by the state then even more people will go. In our current system that’ll only further increase costs. And then I started asking myself why do more people need to go to college anyways? For more liberal arts grads? A noble goal, sure but is it worth the high cost? More job-ready employees? Well if that’s the case then aren’t we footing the bill for training programs for giant corporations? What is the point of getting the degree? Isn’t it to distinguish us from others in the job market (at least for non academic careers)? If everyone who wants one has a degree then they’ed seem to lose some of their value.
I know other countries have implemented free college well but I don’t know if we’re ready for it because I don’t see us getting away from our private system - imagine no more Norte Dame or Harvard. I know that’s not what is proposed but I think it’s what would be needed or the system would be bled out by third parties and private education. I think it could quickly become like the charter school system which is ridden through with scams.
I know I need to do more research and I’m trying to be open minded, but I’ve yet to read anything that’s convincing.
as an aside: You ever think about how absurd it is that pursuing a higher education under capitalism is primarily about making ourselves more valuable to employers and not gaining knowledge to develop ourselves as human beings, or improving society for others?
Oh sure. I totally respect that view and share it. In a Platonic society I’d fully support state funded college supposing there were enough resources to address other needs.
I’d point out though that capitalism is by far the most ruthlessly efficient system for improving society as a whole. The problem is everyone thinks they are God’s-gift to flute playing or what not and so study that thinking they are “improving society.” It’s only too late after the degree that they learned that the market was telling them the whole time that was NOT the way to improve things because no one is hiring for that.
What you’re talking about is about following ones passions in a post-scarcity society, and we’re just not there yet
This is interesting enough that I thought it deserved its own thread: https://tildes.net/~talk/5y8/what_should_the_governments_role_in_education_be_how_much_schooling_should_be_compulsory_how_much
Good stuff! I'll post something over there soon-ish.
You're hitting on some great points, many of which I agree with. In making my argument that we should at least try to resolve widespread societal problems, I just used the taxpayer-funded college idea since you had mentioned it, but I don't necessarily agree with that policy as Bernie pushes it.
These are important questions. We really have to transition away from the notion that a bachelor's degree is somehow a prerequisite for basically every job. If everyone needs an undergrad degree, then an undergrad degree becomes devalued and meaningless. The biggest thing I can add to your discussion here is, what about vocational school? Does it make sense for everyone to go to college? Do most jobs legitimately need some arbitrary educational experience for an employee to be successful? Why can't we perform research to understand the current and future labor force then tailor our education system to those expectations?
IMO, we're already seeing the effects of devalued degrees, so I imagine that problem would be exacerbated without proper oversight under a policy such as Bernie's. The answer is pretty clear to me that college isn't necessary for way more jobs than they it's currently required for, and we've seriously dropped the ball on preparing the work force for blue collar employment through vocational school, apprenticeships, etc. Similarly, tech jobs have taken on their own crucial place in society - we could start treating programming classes like vocational school. Further, not everyone wants to take on jobs that fit into our rigid capitalist system. What about those who want to pursue the arts but don't have the moxie or personality to make it profitable? Or other subjects like humanitarianism, volunteerism, social work, journalism, etc.? Why does our end goal have to be placing people into a "work" force and keeping them busy generating corporate profits for a select few rather than identifying their aspirations, identifying societal needs, then matching those two groups with the backing of government programs? Why does profitability have to determine where people go to work? Why can't we think about benefiting society as a whole as the end goal even if it means some up-front cost from the taxpayers?
All that said, if student loans from the government are largely to blame for soaring tuition leading to bloated admin and other non-essential costs (e.g. that new football stadium), then what's to stop the government (ignoring politics for a second) from implementing cost controls similar to the ACA? As one example, why can't we peg admin pay to COL and inflation after performing research to determine how many provosts, vice presidents, deans, and all those are other bullshit positions are absolutely necessary? What if we required all non-essential costs like athletic facilities, ritzy student activity centers, etc. to be 100% funded by wealthy alumni rather than increasing tuition on current students? While I haven't thought about the details of every single expense, I think appropriate regulations on universities and protections for students while providing affordable tuition are within the realm of capability. Personally, I believe we should invest (read: improve) in our community college experiences, make them almost if not entirely taxpayer-funded, offer some % of taxpayer-funded experiences for major in-state institutions (the ones that aren't community colleges), then let the private institutions do what they want (and likely flounder when they fail to adjust).
Now I'm rambling, so I'll stop there for you to respond if you like. We really do have a ton of questions to answer as a society though. Nice talking with you.
I agree with much of what you said. Below are some thoughts:
They will be poor because they are not good at what they do, otherwise they'd be profitable. They have a hobby, not a vocation, which is fine, just don't expect to ever be well-off.
I am very skeptical of "identifying societal needs" and backing funding for those through government programs as that sounds like a boon doggle if done on a grand scale. A moderate approach, not too far removed from the current grant system is easier for me to digest. Again, if we were in a post-scarcity society then I'd be all for everyone going to study whatever, because we wouldn't be taking resources from elsewhere to do it.
Your comment makes an artificial distinction between "societal need" and "profitability" as separate goals that are at odds with one another, when they're instead complimentary. I'd say much of what is derided about capitalism can be more accurately attributed to the corrupting influence of regulatory capture.
Capitalism has historically been the best method at achieving this.
Nothing, only the will of the people and the corruption of our current system by corporations. This is what I meant when talking about a society that more closely resembles a Platonic ideal. I honestly don't think we have the stomach for it - that's a LOT of control to put in the hands of the government. It'd be a hard sell for sure.
I've enjoyed chatting with you as well.
If you want to continue, let's jump over to this other thread made specifically for these questions: https://tildes.net/~talk/5y8/what_should_the_governments_role_in_education_be_how_much_schooling_should_be_compulsory_how_much
I actually agree with you there.
Kamala Harris? Cory Booker? Hillary Clinton? Beto? Someone else? What do you think, who do you like and why?
They would be insane to run Hillary again. Yes trump is a dumpster fire, but the nation chose a dumpster fire over Hillary. Running her again this soon would be akin to handing the presidency over to the Republicans again.
They were insane to run Hillary in the first place. The woman's been the subject of one GOP witch hunt after another, but the 2016 DNC honestly thought that Congressional Republicans would work with her if she were elected, instead of continuing the same obstructionism that characterized the Obama administration?
Fixed that for you.
Assange was compromised by Russia a while back (speculation of course). Here's why I think that: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/wikileak-hashes-dont-match-so-whats-going-on.html
3 million more votes, etc
You're right, it's wrong to say the nation chose it. The electoral college is outdated and unfair. But the outcome is still the same.
I 100% agree and unfortunately could absolutely see it happening again.
It's politics, not poltics. You mispelled the tag.
I don't see that I misspelled that - were you referring to the tag? If so, perhaps @Deimos fixed it for me? I did see I misspelled the tag "conversation." Thanks for the help!
Check the topic log, @Calico fixed it for you :)
Ah, see I knew it took a village! Thanks @Calico and @starchturrets
EDIT: Found the topic log, cool feature I didn't know existed!
They would be wise to run Sanders or at least a Sanders-style progressive, but I imagine the party machinery will strongly oppose anyone who's not a moderate, given that the DNC seems to have learned nothing from 2016. The real question in my mind is will the candidate be selected on the basis of policy or who yells about Russia the loudest? I'm concerned it's going to be the latter, which imo is a terrible electoral strategy and will probably result in either
A Trump reelection
A Trump-style candidate but not senile and more openly fascist winning in 2024