Democratic Nomination
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,907
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,903
Location: Long Island, New York
Personal favorite Andrew Yang
We need a person who is both an outsider and nice.
He knows about autism and seems to have a decent attitude about it.
As a never Trumper electabity is the most important thing to me. IMHO both Bloomberg and Tulsi Gabbard would do well one on one with Trump
Bloomberg has more money than Trump and can knowingly take him down on financial issues both national and personal. As much as money is an asset for Bloomberg it is also a deficit with a lot of voters.
Tulsi's personal story is a simple and effective answer to Trump's bullying. Because of her military background her civility is not a deficit as would be for other candidates. A lot of the voting population desires not to have another old white man and she is not any of those things.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
Michael Bennet is probably the candidate who is closest to me. Like me, he has no chance of becoming President this year.
The other candidates I was enthusiastic about were Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand. All have dropped out and were sensible to do so.
There is a large group I consider broadly acceptable. Patrick, Steyer, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are the survivors of this group. However, while they are more electable than Bennet, it looks like none of them have the ability to win the nomination any more.
Andrew Yang deserves a special mention. On policies he’d probably be my second choice after Bennet, but I don’t think he has the essential personal qualities that a President needs, including his complete lack of political experience and his suspect views on race. I’m also concerned that his generalised support for “autism treatments” will probably translate to ABA. He often uses his autistic child as a prop, which firstly I wish he wouldn’t do (his child has a right to privacy) and secondly is disappointing because his autism policies fall well short of Hillary Clinton. Don’t say “I have an autistic kid”, set out your vision!
There are two candidates I would be happy to see in the White House who still have a realistic chance. They are Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. I think Buttigieg has two big weaknesses: his lack of experience, and his alienation of the black population of South Bend which seems to have impacted his wider appeal to black voters. I get the impression he wouldn’t have run if Ted Cruz was President.
Joe Biden, well, it all goes without saying. He’d be an excellent president and he has a broad coalition of support. My concerns are his age, and his tendency to make mistakes when speaking from the cuff.
Then there are two candidates who I would still prefer to Trump but it would mean I spent months holding my nose and biting my tongue.
Bernie Sanders is far too left-wing for my tastes. He has also made several populist attacks on freedom (his dismissal of open borders as “a Koch brothers proposal” was particularly nauseating). But on some issues, he takes bold positions that I agree with. Although he’s anti-immigration, he is also anti-deportation. I think that would probably be a viable stepping stone to the US returning to an open-borders policy, even though it is plainly incoherent in itself. Sanders also supports expansion of franchise for felons and prisoners, which is a key issue.
Elizabeth Warren has tried to market herself as “Bernie if he wasn’t an idiot”. Unfortunately this has led to her keeping his rubbish economic policies (abolishing private healthcare, free college for millionaires) but not the radical social positions which unite some socialists with liberals and libertarians.
Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A truly disgusting individual who cuddles up to dictators and has a long history of anti-LGBT statements. She has the worst of Sanders’ economics and the worst of Trump’s conscience. If she won the nomination it would be as devastating to the Democratic Party as Trump’s nomination was for the Republican Party, and would represent the total hollowing out of American democracy. Supporting Gabbard would be just a case of supporting “the blue team” and would be just as morally unconscionable as Republicans sticking by Trump because he’s “on the red team”. Fortunately, Gabbard’s refusal to impeach Trump has destroyed her already-low support with Democrats.
^ from what I’ve seen of him I agree on Sanders, from a ‘so leftist I still read Marx’ perspective, he seems to follow the same pattern as Corbyn: very good at grand ideological rhetoric and moralised castigation of opponents, but little in the way of credible analysis of the situation leading to policy positions that can be credible implemented to work with the grain of a world where most people like market relations in general, and want to keep them. Which I struggle to see as anything other than arrogant in opposition and a high risk of potentially tyrannical mismanagement if office were granted.
At this point I think the Democrats are almost certain to lose the 2020 election regardless of candidates, and can best serve their country by selecting a credible semi-outsider moderate with a view to positive conciliatory messaging for the next mid-terms.
Labour in the UK similar allowing for different timings of electoral cycle and constitutional so forth.
At this point I think the Democrats are almost certain to lose the 2020 election regardless of candidates, and can best serve their country by selecting a credible semi-outsider moderate with a view to positive conciliatory messaging for the next mid-terms.
Labour in the UK similar allowing for different timings of electoral cycle and constitutional so forth.
I think all the current polling points to a Democratic victory, but with the usual caveats about hypothetical polling and margins of error. Not saying Trump won’t win, but it’s a long way from a certainty. Gut feeling right now is that it is probably around the 1 in 3 chance it was at last polling day.
At this point I think the Democrats are almost certain to lose the 2020 election regardless of candidates, and can best serve their country by selecting a credible semi-outsider moderate with a view to positive conciliatory messaging for the next mid-terms.
Labour in the UK similar allowing for different timings of electoral cycle and constitutional so forth.
I think all the current polling points to a Democratic victory, but with the usual caveats about hypothetical polling and margins of error. Not saying Trump won’t win, but it’s a long way from a certainty. Gut feeling right now is that it is probably around the 1 in 3 chance it was at last polling day.
Ah! Haven’t been paying attention to the opinion polls to be honest. That may be over abundant skepticism on my part: polling in the run up to our last election was a much more accurate reflection of the actual ballot than across the years 2015-17, similar revisions to sampling and interpretative modelling will have been applied in the US no doubt.
I’ll try to be more positive, but without holding my breath
At this point I think the Democrats are almost certain to lose the 2020 election regardless of candidates, and can best serve their country by selecting a credible semi-outsider moderate with a view to positive conciliatory messaging for the next mid-terms.
Labour in the UK similar allowing for different timings of electoral cycle and constitutional so forth.
I think all the current polling points to a Democratic victory, but with the usual caveats about hypothetical polling and margins of error. Not saying Trump won’t win, but it’s a long way from a certainty. Gut feeling right now is that it is probably around the 1 in 3 chance it was at last polling day.
Unfortunately, the red states also have voter suppression on their side. And look at how poor Mitt was treated.
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
Last edited by Tim_Tex on 08 Feb 2020, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's not a single democrat or republican I support but I chose Tulsi Gabbard in this poll as I think she's the only one that will stop all the senseless killing of citizens in sovereign nations that we have no right to be forcing ourselves upon. I can't think of anything more important that I wish would stop on this planet.
incumbency is an extremely powerful force and no opposition ever won a US election in modern times by being a milquetoast snoozefest who won't bring change.
i would love to see a bernie ticket with tulsi as VP.
_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.
i would love to see a bernie ticket with tulsi as VP.
Well, yes: I do prefer my politicians grey, bland and
unexciting.
Which is a bias of a kind.
Sanders.
-looks 80
-declared Socialist
-immediately legalize all illegal aliens
-ban private health insurance
-FREE health care for illegal aliens
-FREE college
-FREE college for illegal aliens
-create new taxes on everyone (family leave tax, new health care tax...)
[sarcasm] How can he lose?
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
1) None of them are running as milquetoast snoozefests who won't bring change.
2) Nobody has ever won a US election running as a socialist.
3) In every single US presidential election, a "nobody has ever won..." statement has ceased to hold.