|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
When considering 2020 candidates, I can't help but focus on the greatest crisis in the history of humanity, climate change. Their advocacy, policy, and potential for success on this topic will be the make or break for not just this nation, but for the lives of billions of people. For a sense of the scale of what we would need to do at a bare minimum, is ban all new carbon emitting equipment, vehicles, buildings, facilities, wells, etc by 2030. Doing so will still fail to meet the Kyoto goals, but still leaves us with a potential for a life on earth we recognize. That's not hyperbole either. So unless our 2020 candidate advocates for a plan at least that aggressive then wins and implements it we're looking at centuries of decline, wars, famine, and disease. We all know the Republic won't survive even the beginnings of it. That's the stakes, so that's why its easy for me to dismiss as worthless any candidate that is unwilling to even pretend to advocate for a plan at least as aggressive as the one I outlined. Edit: this figure from the National Climate Assessment 2018 is a good overview of the increased harm if we fail to act radically and immediately https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/29#fig-29-2 
Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jan 17, 2019 |
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
crazy cloud posted:Brown could potentially try to pivot that direction by expanding the idea of dignity of work to include literally everything - labor rights, race, gender, identity protections, health care that's not dependent upon your employer, 20 dollar minimum wage, 30 hour work week, affordable housing within reasonable distance from your work and public transit, child care and parental leave, and so on. You can include a lot under the semantic umbrella of 'the dignity of work' if you want to. green new deal easily falls under dignity of work
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
I would sincerely like to hear from the two people who voted for Michael Bloomberg. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:When considering 2020 candidates, I can't help but focus on the greatest crisis in the history of humanity, climate change. Their advocacy, policy, and potential for success on this topic will be the make or break for not just this nation, but for the lives of billions of people. I hate to be a debbie downer, but I don't think there's any hope of even Bernie looking for a Climate Change stance that aggressive. We can expect a strong stance for green energy development and deployment, maybe even an actual War On Coal, but a total moratorium on all cars and natural gas power plants is not something anyone in 2020 is going to run on. Maybe we could see something like that in 2024 if whoever runs spends their entire 4 years beforehand laying a groundwork for it, because such a radical proposal is going to terrify people. Especially in Michigan, which Dems cannot afford to lose this cycle. What I do think we can see is a robust effort to help shore up things to protect us from Climate Change effects. New infrastructure in Hurricane Alley and the Northeast to deal with more extreme weather, aid for fire safety in the Northwest, better regulation and investment in agricultural regions to help make growing food more viable in the new climate conditions, some kind of plan for sinking Florida, and advocacy for Statehood for the territory islands so they can fight for their own climate protection initiatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
 why do people keep pretending sherrod brown is progressive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I hate to be a debbie downer, but I don't think there's any hope of even Bernie looking for a Climate Change stance that aggressive. We can expect a strong stance for green energy development and deployment, maybe even an actual War On Coal, but a total moratorium on all cars and natural gas power plants is not something anyone in 2020 is going to run on. Maybe we could see something like that in 2024 if whoever runs spends their entire 4 years beforehand laying a groundwork for it, because such a radical proposal is going to terrify people. Especially in Michigan, which Dems cannot afford to lose this cycle. I think the 100 by 50 Act is in the right ballpark: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/987 quote:To transition away from fossil fuel sources of energy to 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2050, and for other purposes. Only Booker and Bernie have cosponsored it of the Senators running.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
He's not AOC but he's better than most.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He's not AOC but he's better than most. corporate pac donations would seem to run counter to that statement, but i'm open to an explanation of why he's better than most of the field
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:corporate pac donations would seem to run counter to that statement, but i'm open to an explanation of why he's better than most of the field His voting record is better than a lot of the senators who have taken less corporate PAC money than he has though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Sherrod is #canceled for me now honestly He'd been on thin ice with me previously in that he has a good history but apparently has a chronic inability to say things in the present that inspire any sort of enthusiasm in me, and I'd venture to say that this would explain that
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:His voting record is better than a lot of the senators who have taken less corporate PAC money than he has though. he voted to defund acorn
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
nm can't read
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
I feel like unless Liz Warren succeeds in her effort to rebuild her national profile after a year of stepping on rakes (which is doubtless why she declared so early) the race is going to come down to Bernie vs whoever among the Top Three Ladies finds a way to distinguish herself and pull ahead of the pack. I honestly don't know enough about Gillibrand, Harris or Klobuchar to hazard a guess who that might be. I don't think Booker has much of a shot, nor does Tulsi Gabbard. I don't think any othet speculative candidate can even be called a serious contender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I feel like unless Liz Warren succeeds in her effort to rebuild her national profile after a year of stepping on rakes (which is doubtless why she declared so early) the race is going to come down to Bernie vs whoever among the Top Three Ladies finds a way to distinguish herself and pull ahead of the pack. I honestly don't know enough about Gillibrand, Harris or Klobuchar to hazard a guess who that might be. i don't think gillibrand will make it. she took well deserved swipes at the clintons, but her base is centrists, and that's not really something you can get away with with the centrist crowd. plus, it seems a lot of centrists are still upset about her having taken a principled stand on al franken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:corporate pac donations would seem to run counter to that statement, but i'm open to an explanation of why he's better than most of the field To be fair the bar is set pretty drat low for the rest of the non-Bernie field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Meanwhile in Beto land, he's facing a problem he could have never seen coming, people looking at his record and making judgement based on past actions! https://www.theroot.com/we-thought-beto-orourke-was-cool-until-we-found-out-he-1831817585 quote:Speaking to the congregants at a black church in Dallas about the shooting of Botham Jean by former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, O’Rourke brought the crowd to its feet when he asked, “How can we continue to lose the lives of unarmed black men in the United States of America, at the hands of white police officers?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
WrightOfWay posted:To be fair the bar is set pretty drat low for the rest of the non-Bernie field. and yet they still consistently fail to leap it sexpig by night posted:Meanwhile in Beto land, he's facing a problem he could have never seen coming, people looking at his record and making judgement based on past actions! this is generally why the manufactured hype for him died down from "obama's shining golden boy" to "just another 2020 primary clowncar contender" the obama scam only works when you have a spotless record to go with it
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Meanwhile in Beto land, he's facing a problem he could have never seen coming, people looking at his record and making judgement based on past actions! That guy is dogshit. Glad people have wised up to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:he voted to defund acorn Yeah. that was a cowardly, despicable vote. It's indefensible. The only candidate who voted against it was Bernie though. I mean Biden voted for the loving Iraq war... I still like a lot of things in Brown's record and I think he's very electable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah. that was a cowardly, despicable vote. It's indefensible. The only candidate who voted against it was Bernie though. I mean Biden voted for the loving Iraq war... I still like a lot of things in Brown's record and I think he's very electable. Gillibrand voted against it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah. that was a cowardly, despicable vote. It's indefensible. The only candidate who voted against it was Bernie though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
^^^ I'm supporting Bernie. I'm just saying that I like some things about Brown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I feel like unless Liz Warren succeeds in her effort to rebuild her national profile after a year of stepping on rakes (which is doubtless why she declared so early) the race is going to come down to Bernie vs whoever among the Top Three Ladies finds a way to distinguish herself and pull ahead of the pack. I honestly don't know enough about Gillibrand, Harris or Klobuchar to hazard a guess who that might be. I'd say of those three, Harris probably has the best shot - Gillibrand's going to have a problem with the Franken dead-enders who absolutely loathe her, and the only folks I've seen who strongly support Klobuchar are center-right Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
How many Franken dead enders can there possibly be? And she was 100% right in that case... and about Bill Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Gillibrand's going to have a problem with the Franken dead-enders who absolutely loathe her Plus she just has never had that good of an answer to the question, "Why were you such a lovely right-winger for so much of your political career?" It's tough to sell an answer like, "Well, I represented a horrible right-wing district in the House, and then I did a 180 when I got into the Senate because those are my REAL stances," and I don't think she's up to the task.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Plus she just has never had that good of an answer to the question, "Why were you such a lovely right-winger for so much of your political career?" It's tough to sell an answer like, "Well, I represented a horrible right-wing district in the House, and then I did a 180 when I got into the Senate because those are my REAL stances," and I don't think she's up to the task. That is basically the truth though...
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That is basically the truth though... Yes, it is - I'm saying it's a tough thing to sell though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:I'd say of those three, Harris probably has the best shot - Gillibrand's going to have a problem with the Franken dead-enders who absolutely loathe her, and the only folks I've seen who strongly support Klobuchar are center-right Republicans. The centrist circles I run in universally loathe the idea that Gillibrand should be seen negatively because of her thing with Franken and most of us are pretty keen on Klobuchar. We're most interested in who has the best chance to beat Trump. Once that bar is cleared, then we can start talking about our preferences for their views on markets and such. Essentially whomever makes it out of the democratic primary is getting the Neoliberal vote, no matter what we may or may not like about them. I just hope that if a candidate wins the primary that doesn't please a particular faction of the left, even if it's my faction that loses, that said faction doesn't throw a fit and stay home on election day. This one is important. I voted for Klobuchar. She's so dreamy. All hail the Midwest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Stonelegs posted:The centrist circles I run in universally loathe the idea that Gillibrand should be seen negatively because of her thing with Franken and most of us are pretty keen on Klobuchar. We're most interested in who has the best chance to beat Trump. Once that bar is cleared, then we can start talking about our preferences for their views on markets and such. Essentially whomever makes it out of the democratic primary is getting the Neoliberal vote, no matter what we may or may not like about them. I just hope that if a candidate wins the primary that doesn't please a particular faction of the left, even if it's my faction that loses, that said faction doesn't throw a fit and stay home on election day. This one is important. Pretty much. I like Booker but not enough to go participate in the caucus (assuming he's even still in the running by that point) so I don't really have strong feelings about of the candidates. I'm gonna vote for whoever wins it, at the end of the day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Stonelegs posted:Essentially whomever makes it out of the democratic primary is getting the Neoliberal vote, no matter what we may or may not like about them. Do you think it's likely that all the centrist candidates in the race will split the neoliberal vote, though? That's the assumption a lot of us are operating under, although I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Do you think it's likely that all the centrist candidates in the race will split the neoliberal vote, though? That's the assumption a lot of us are operating under, although I'd be interested to hear your opinion. In the primary? Yeah, there will be a split if the field still has a lot of candidates. There's not a center-left champion out there we're all hyped up about. But if it drops down to just a handful, I can see Gillibrand getting us as a voting bloc. The candidates that would least expect our support would be Bernie and Tulsi. In the general? Nope. Almost entirely voting Democrat. Trump's anti-globalist agenda has literally created the current neoliberal movement, as small as it is. This administration needs to be replaced, and while Bernie is nearly as bad economically, at least he's not a dishonest moron with questionable loyalties like Donald. EDIT: Plus, we are socially liberal so we'd like to see policies on immigration, LGBT, civil rights, etc. go in the right direction... which is left. Stonelegs fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Do you think it's likely that all the centrist candidates in the race will split the neoliberal vote, though? That's the assumption a lot of us are operating under, although I'd be interested to hear your opinion. I don't think the "neoliberal vote" is enough to be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How many Franken dead enders can there possibly be? And she was 100% right in that case... and about Bill Clinton. It's the "...and about Bill Clinton" that will sink her, not Franken, because it angers Hillary voters & staffers who pretended that Bernie went hard on her in 2016, and bc it also trashes Bill's legacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
How did the "Beto is actually bad" stuff only start popping up after after he lost? the gently caress was Ted Cruz doing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's the "...and about Bill Clinton" that will sink her, not Franken, because it angers Hillary voters & staffers who pretended that Bernie went hard on her in 2016, and bc it also trashes Bill's legacy. on the one hand, you can count the voters who were ride or die for Hillary Clinton personally without having to break out a fifth digit, so that part's probably not going to sink her but she's also really, really reliant on big donors keeping her in the race through the winnowing period, and publicly giving them a long-deserved backstabbing probably closes a couple of doors to her there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's the "...and about Bill Clinton" that will sink her, not Franken, because it angers Hillary voters & staffers who pretended that Bernie went hard on her in 2016, and bc it also trashes Bill's legacy. Voters, i'm not sure. Maybe people inside the DNC will try to ratfuck her. I could definitely see that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:How did the "Beto is actually bad" stuff only start popping up after after he lost? ted cruz revealing that his opponent ACTUALLY voted for conservative policy was not going to be a dealbreaker in texas beto's list of votes are tailor-made to get him statewide office and utterly disqualifying for national
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:How did the "Beto is actually bad" stuff only start popping up after after he lost? For a Texas Democrat Beto is great. For a democratic president, not so much. Cruz couldn't attack Beto from the left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:How did the "Beto is actually bad" stuff only start popping up after after he lost? Ted Cruz voters think all of those things are good. If Ted Cruz criticizes him for them, that makes it look like Ted Cruz thinks those things his voters think are good, are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
I just did a quick scan of his ontheissues page and he seems pretty boilerplate Democrat to me. What's the disqualifier?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:43
|
|