Democratic Primary Thread (Updated Poll #2)

[Irish YJ]

There's not a single pro-life Democratic candidate, so I don't have much choice on that front. But Yang follows a bunch of pro-life accounts on Twitter, and his anti-porn tweets indicate that he's more likely to convert on those issues than others.

I thought TG was the most disliked by the PC crowd.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

#YangGang with Tulsi as VP would be my ideal Democratic ticket.

Surprised you're #YangGang given his stance on abortion and BC.

There's not a single pro-life Democratic candidate, so I don't have much choice on that front. But Yang follows a bunch of pro-life accounts on Twitter, and his anti-porn tweets indicate that he's more likely to convert on those issues than others.

I believe Tulsi used to be pro life, but understands it's not politically convenient to classify her position on the left that way. So I've heard her say she's personally pro Life but her political positions is "safe, legal, rare."

Regardless, I agree with you two that Yang/Gabbard or Gabbard/Yang would be a no-brainer for me.

 

[NorthDakota]

I believe Tulsi used to be pro life, but understands it's not politically convenient to classify her position on the left that way. So I've heard her say she's personally pro Life but her political positions is "safe, legal, rare."

Regardless, I agree with you two that Yang/Gabbard or Gabbard/Yang would be a no-brainer for me.

Tulsi comes from a socially conservative family I believe.

I'm not going to vote for any of these guys. Yang, Tulsi, and Klobuchar at least seem like decent people.

 

[Irish YJ]

I believe Tulsi used to be pro life, but understands it's not politically convenient to classify her position on the left that way. So I've heard her say she's personally pro Life but her political positions is "safe, legal, rare."

Regardless, I agree with you two that Yang/Gabbard or Gabbard/Yang would be a no-brainer for me.

I googled after the exchange with Whiskey yesterday. TG is absolutely the most hated by the pro choice crowd. While she has moved left, she is still called "stuck in the 90s" for saying things like it should be "safe, and rare" or whatever the quote was.

 

[Irish YJ]

Tulsi comes from a socially conservative family I believe.

I'm not going to vote for any of these guys. Yang, Tulsi, and Klobuchar at least seem like decent people.

Not voting for them either, but they are by far the least full of BS, and are easily the most genuine about their beliefs. I used to think Bernie was genuine, but he's just as full of BS as the others (his own taxes, wife, pay of him employees).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I googled after the exchange with Whiskey yesterday. TG is absolutely the most hated by the pro choice crowd. While she has moved left, she is still called "stuck in the 90s" for saying things like it should be "safe, and rare" or whatever the quote was.

She took that quote from HRC, if I'm not mistaken. Hillary moved way left though afterwards. Pretty sure HRC supported the right to abortion up until birth. Which is the most insane thing I think I've ever heard.

Not voting for them either, but they are by far the least full of BS, and are easily the most genuine about their beliefs. I used to think Bernie was genuine, but he's just as full of BS as the others (his own taxes, wife, pay of him employees).

Almost embarrasses me that I supported Bernie in 2016 considering the stunts I've seen him pull the last couple of years. To all my friends/family/intraweb peers...I wish I could explain to them why I voted. Instead, they all pretty much think I'm a socialist loving progressive. Haha.

I still support Bernie in terms of pushing back against corruption in DC, corporate corruption, I support a version of MFA, rebuilding our infrastructure, less war, fighting climate change, among a few other issues. I don't always support his ideas on how to fix these problems though. Lately, I can't take him seriously anymore but I'm glad he paved the way for more open-mindedness and more discussion on issues that I feel are pretty important.

 

[GowerND11]

Not voting for them either, but they are by far the least full of BS, and are easily the most genuine about their beliefs. I used to think Bernie was genuine, but he's just as full of BS as the others (his own taxes, wife, pay of him employees).

I agree. Last cycle, he came across as someone, to me, that meant everything he has said. Now when I look at him, I just picture:

 

[Irish YJ]

She took that quote from HRC, if I'm not mistaken. Hillary moved way left though afterwards. Pretty sure HRC supported the right to abortion up until birth. Which is the most insane thing I think I've ever heard.

Almost embarrasses me that I supported Bernie in 2016 considering the stunts I've seen him pull the last couple of years. To all my friends/family/intraweb peers...I wish I could explain to them why I voted. Instead, they all pretty much think I'm a socialist loving progressive. Haha.

I still support Bernie in terms of pushing back against corruption in DC, corporate corruption, I support a version of MFA, rebuilding our infrastructure, less war, fighting climate change, among a few other issues. I don't always support his ideas on how to fix these problems though. Lately, I can't take him seriously anymore but I'm glad he paved the way for more open-mindedness and more discussion on issues that I feel are pretty important.

I came very close to voting for Bernie myself. I do like similar areas as you do. I don't like the how like you as well.

The whole up until birth thing should be a deal breaker for even the most lapse Catholic or Christian. I'm personally pro life but could accept a political compromise that would draw a line based on development. Anyone who votes for someone with an "up until birth policy" is straight up evil to me.

I agree. Last cycle, he came across as someone, to me, that meant everything he has said. Now when I look at him, I just picture:

Same here. He's now just crazy angry bull shit Bernie to me.

 

[Legacy]

I posted this towards the beginning of the thread. It's been updated, but still has the original Dem candidates photos.

The Issues
The most comprehensive guide anywhere to the issues shaping the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. Search by candidate, issue or category.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I came very close to voting for Bernie myself. I do like similar areas as you do. I don't like the how like you as well.

The whole up until birth thing should be a deal breaker for even the most lapse Catholic or Christian. I'm personally pro life but could accept a political compromise that would draw a line based on development. Anyone who votes for someone with an "up until birth policy" is straight up evil to me.



Same here. He's now just crazy angry bull shit Bernie to me.

Deal breaker for most human beings with a heart, soul, and brain. I don't think there needs to be a religious component to it at all.

 

[ACamp1900]

I came very close to voting for Bernie myself. I do like similar areas as you do. I don't like the how like you as well.

The whole up until birth thing should be a deal breaker for even the most lapse Catholic or Christian.

Deal breaker for most human beings with a heart, soul, and brain. I don't think there needs to be a religious component to it at all.

It's almost like we are posting on a Catholic school webpage..... honestly I know SO MANY (Including Catholics and other practicing Christians) people that rationalize the up to birth thing...

On one side you hear how declawing cats is inhumane and soulless out of the other side you hear don't you DARE tell a woman what to do with her own body!!!!!

Like many things, once race or gender are brought into the picture many get too emotional to see straight. It's exactly why those seeking power bring race and gender into literally everything these days.

 

[NorthDakota]

It's almost like we are posting on a Catholic school webpage..... honestly I know SO MANY (Including Catholics and other practicing Christians) people that rationalize the up to birth thing...

On one side you hear how declawing cats is inhumane and soulless out of the other side you hear don't you DARE tell a woman what to do with her own body!!!!!

Like many things, once race or gender are brought into the picture many get too emotional to see straight. It's exactly why those seeking power bring race and gender into literally everything these days.

Yep. Here at school I have met one...yes one...remotely pro-life person. And the extent of his pro-life feelings were "if my girlfriend got pregnant and got an abortion I'd dump her."

These folks harp and harp on how harmful it is to have any restrictions whatsoever.

 

[Irish YJ]

Deal breaker for most human beings with a heart, soul, and brain. I don't think there needs to be a religious component to it at all.

Agree. For the life of me I can't understand how anyone, religious or not, can be pro abortion after the point a fetus is viable outside of the body (which is the case 3rd trimester). My personal deal breaker line is much earlier.

It's almost like we are posting on a Catholic school webpage..... honestly I know SO MANY (Including Catholics and other practicing Christians) people that rationalize the up to birth thing...

On one side you hear how declawing cats is inhumane and soulless out of the other side you hear don't you DARE tell a woman what to do with her own body!!!!!

Like many things, once race or gender are brought into the picture many get too emotional to see straight. It's exactly why those seeking power bring race and gender into literally everything these days.

It's twilight zone type of stuff anymore. For the left, it's immoral to do XXXX and people die because of XXXXXXX, but it's OK to kill viable human beings because someone was irresponsible (most) and doesn't want further responsibility.

 

[IrishLax]

Agree. For the life of me I can't understand how anyone, religious or not, can be pro abortion after the point a fetus is viable outside of the body (which is the case 3rd trimester). My personal deal breaker line is much earlier.



It's twilight zone type of stuff anymore. For the left, it's immoral to do XXXX and people die because of XXXXXXX, but it's OK to kill viable human beings because someone was irresponsible (most) and doesn't want further responsibility.

I agree here. I'm willing to tolerate arguments about abortion before that point. I' also... legally speaking not ethically speaking... pro-choice.

But at the point the baby can be born alive, there is no ethical or legal argument for being able to "abort" it. You're just killing a living person. It's quite black and white.

 

[Irishize]

It's almost like we are posting on a Catholic school webpage..... honestly I know SO MANY (Including Catholics and other practicing Christians) people that rationalize the up to birth thing...

On one side you hear how declawing cats is inhumane and soulless out of the other side you hear don't you DARE tell a woman what to do with her own body!!!!!

Like many things, once race or gender are brought into the picture many get too emotional to see straight. It's exactly why those seeking power bring race and gender into literally everything these days.

I never understood the “safe, legal & rare” stance. If pro-choice folks don’t think it’s killing a human being why make it rare? Why not have Dyson make an attachment so folks can do them at home and avoid the hassle? Safe & legal makes sense. But rare? Sounds like guilty conscience to me.

 

[BGIF]

Bloomberg In!

Bloomberg In!

Michael Bloomberg is the latest 2020 Democratic hopeful
By Dan Merica, Cristina Alesci and Jake Tapper, CNN

Updated 1:20 PM ET, Sun November 24, 2019

(CNN)Michael Bloomberg officially announced his late-entry Democratic presidential bid on Sunday, unveiling a campaign that the former New York mayor said will be squarely aimed at defeating President Donald Trump.

Bloomberg, in a letter explaining his candidacy on his campaign website, lays out a more moderate vision for the country and casts himself as "a doer and a problem solver -- not a talker."

"I'm running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America. We cannot afford four more years of President Trump's reckless and unethical actions," Bloomberg wrote.

Bloomberg's late 2020 bid -- along with the money the billionaire can spend to fund his campaign -- injects a new level of uncertainty into the race less than three months before the first voting in the race begins. In the last several days there was little doubt he was running.

Bloomberg, who had said earlier this year that he would not run, reversed his decision because he doesn't think there's a candidate in the current field of Democrats who can beat Trump next November, several people close to the former mayor told CNN. That includes former Vice President Joe Biden, who Bloomberg has watched fade in Iowa polling and struggle with fundraising.

Just hours after officially entering the 2020 Democratic race, Bloomberg was making calls throughout the day from New York, according to a person close to him.

Bloomberg is not the first late entry candidate to get into the race. Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick also announced earlier this month that he, too, would run for the Democratic nomination.

To kick start his campaign, Bloomberg has placed at least $37 million worth of television advertising over the next two weeks, according to data from Kantar Media/CMAG.

The ads highlight the mayor's biography -- "He could have just been the middle class kid ... but Mike Bloomberg became the guy who did good," said the ad -- and his post-mayoral work on combating climate change. Then the spot turns to Trump, saying now the mayor is "taking on him" as an image of Trump freezes on screen.

The spot ends with narrator saying "'Mike Bloomberg for President" with Bloomberg saying "I'm Mike Bloomberg and I approve this message."

Bloomberg's massive buy -- 60 second spots across some 100 markets -- will begin next week, representing more than the entire Democratic field has spent on TV advertising in the race so far, excluding businessman Tom Steyer, who will have aired nearly $63 million of TV ads by the end of Bloomberg's initial bookings.

A 77-year-old entrepreneur and philanthropist, Bloomberg made his fortune creating technology that bankers and traders use to access market data. After building a successful financial information business, he turned to politics. He officially launched a bid to become mayor of New York in 2001. Despite running as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, Bloomberg won the election and was reelected twice. During this second term, he switched parties and became an independent -- only to re-register as a Democrat in 2018.

Because of his late entry, aides to the former mayor have said he won't compete in the first four voting contests, in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Instead, Bloomberg is staking his chances on an unconventional strategy of building support in the states that hold primaries on March 3, also known as Super Tuesday.

It's a strategy that has never been successful in Democratic presidential politics. Party officials in Iowa and New Hampshire have publicly expressed disappointment with

Bloomberg can tout his recent efforts advancing causes important to Democratic voters. He's put his significant financial resources behind efforts to defend reproductive rights and to tackle climate change and gun violence.

He spent more than $100 million to help the party take control of the House during the 2018 midterm elections and, more recently, contributed to important state races in Virginia.

But a Bloomberg candidacy could face several challenges, including countering the narrative that progressive candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have already set: that billionaires shouldn't be able to "buy elections." It may also be difficult for Bloomberg to meet the polling and donor thresholds to make it onto debate stages.

The first opportunity for Bloomberg to make the debate stage will be in December, when those Democrats who meet the DNC's thresholds - receiving 4% in at least four national or early state polls that meet the DNC's criteria or 6% in two early state polls and receiving donations from at least 200,000 unique donors, with a minimum of 800 from at least 20 different states - gather in Los Angeles on December 19.

That could be a difficult climb for the former mayor, who only has until December 12 to reach the thresholds, but Steyer - who spent millions on digital ads to drum up the needed smaller dollar donations - proved it is possible.

This criticism of Bloomberg grew over the weekend when it became clear that Bloomberg was slated to spend tens of millions of dollars on ads at the outset of his campaign.

"I see this as one more example where how come when you have someone who is already a multimillionaire in the White House do you think that the people in this country are going to go, 'Oh, we need someone wealthier,'" Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said in New Hampshire on Saturday.

And California Sen. Kamala Harris turned Bloomberg's entry into a call for campaign finance reform. "Listen, we got to get money out of politics," she told an audience in Iowa. "I mean, I got to raise a ton of money to be competitive."

Then there's his past support for "stop and frisk," a type of aggressive policing that allowed -- critics say encouraged -- officers to detain a person on virtually any type of vague suspicion. After defending it for years, Bloomberg apologized last week at a predominantly African American church for implementing the controversial policy.
Some questioned the timing of his backtrack on the issue as he made moves toward a presidential run.

"It's interesting timing that the mayor would apologize for that now," said one of his rivals for the nomination, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro.

Bloomberg had flirted with jumping into the crowded contest for months in 2018 and early 2019. During that time, he crisscrossed the country, holding events in early-voting states that ranged from visiting factory workers in New Hampshire to hosting a premiere of his climate change documentary in Iowa.

It had looked like the beginning of a campaign. About a year ago, Bloomberg's longtime adviser Kevin Sheekey said they were building a team, including hiring former President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, among others.

But in March, Bloomberg said he wasn't running. Instead, the former mayor said he wanted to double down on his efforts to attack climate change and gun violence.

"I've come to realize that I'm less interested in talking than doing," he wrote in an opinion piece that was published in Bloomberg News.

 

[Irish#1]

I saw his announcement and thought WTF? I could be wrong, but I don't think he'll have much of a chance coming to the party this late. Politics is not one place where you want to be fashionably late.

 

[IrishLax]

I saw his announcement and thought WTF? I could be wrong, but I don't think he'll have much of a chance coming to the party this late. Politics is not one place where you want to be fashionably late.

Allegedly, he is doing it not to win the primary but to be able to run millions and millions of dollars of anti-Trump ads under the guise of being a "candidate." We'll see if this is true or a conspiracy theory.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Agree. For the life of me I can't understand how anyone, religious or not, can be pro abortion after the point a fetus is viable outside of the body (which is the case 3rd trimester). My personal deal breaker line is much earlier.

I agree here. I'm willing to tolerate arguments about abortion before that point. I' also... legally speaking not ethically speaking... pro-choice.

But at the point the baby can be born alive, there is no ethical or legal argument for being able to "abort" it. You're just killing a living person. It's quite black and white.

I credit you both for this stance, but any legal standard that focuses on viability is incoherent, and cannot result in a stable political settlement (which is why the DNC has trended consistently more extreme on abortion since Roe was passed). Keeping infanticide legal up until "viability" (a constantly moving target) is basically the Three-Fifths Compromise of modern liberalism. It seems reasonable due to the way Overton Windows work; we naturally try to find a centrist compromise between the poles of acceptable mainstream political discourse. But if one of those poles is intrinsically evil, the centrist compromise just ends up putting a respectable gloss on some terrible policies.

But I don't want to derail Lax's thread, so let's take this over to Politics if anyone is interesting in continuing the discussion.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

It's a waste of money either way, imo. This election will come down to the one thing that determines any election - who's base gets out to vote. If the Dems throw out a garbage candidate like Warren, he could win again based on poor Dem turnout. Trump would eat her alive and rally his base once again. No amount of advertising is going to change that scenario, imo.

 

[Irish#1]

SNL had a great skit Saturday night. Woody Harrelson played Biden, Larry David played Bernie and Will Ferrell as Steyer.

<iframe width="1035" height="582" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y8EQFhj8ca4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Irish YJ]

SNL had a great skit Saturday night. Woody Harrelson played Biden, Larry David played Bernie and Will Ferrell as Steyer.

<iframe width="500" height="240" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y8EQFhj8ca4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I caught it, and some of it was funny AF. At least one late night show isn't afraid to make some fun of the left.

 

[IrishLax]

It's a waste of money either way, imo. This election will come down to the one thing that determines any election - who's base gets out to vote. If the Dems throw out a garbage candidate like Warren, he could win again based on poor Dem turnout. Trump would eat her alive and rally his base once again. No amount of advertising is going to change that scenario, imo.

Especially considering she does consistently unlikable shit that the media refuses to hold her accountable for. All of these chickens will come home to roost in the general election, and the only argument to vote for her will be "she's not as bad as Trump." Good luck with that strategy.

Just this past weekend she got caught lying to the face of John Q citizen about where her children went to school. Why lie? Because a black woman was pushing her on school vouchers and why it's ridiculous policy to deprive high aptitude minority children the opportunity for a safe, enriching education just because they can't afford it. The woman was asking Warren why she should be forced to send her kids to public school but public school wasn't good enough for Warren's kids... and Warren -- rather than address the policy point! -- just lies and says her kids went to public school.

Why don't they hold her accountable? Well on the left, it's because she follows the #woke dogma to the letter; and on the right, it's because she's by far the easiest candidate for Trump to beat. So many sheep getting herded towards Warren, but recent polls seem to suggest many people are getting wise to it. In October, she was in a virtual tie with Biden. Now she's fallen 8% in about 2 months and trails Bernie by a point in second place. Too bad Bloomberg might hand the nomination to her on a silver platter.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Especially considering she does consistently unlikable shit that the media refuses to hold her accountable for. All of these chickens will come home to roost in the general election, and the only argument to vote for her will be "she's not as bad as Trump." Good luck with that strategy.

Just this past weekend she got caught lying to the face of John Q citizen about where her children went to school. Why lie? Because a black woman was pushing her on school vouchers and why it's ridiculous policy to deprive high aptitude minority children the opportunity for a safe, enriching education just because they can't afford it. The woman was asking Warren why she should be forced to send her kids to public school but public school wasn't good enough for Warren's kids... and Warren -- rather than address the policy point! -- just lies and says her kids went to public school.

Why don't they hold her accountable? Well on the left, it's because she follows the #woke dogma to the letter; and on the right, it's because she's by far the easiest candidate for Trump to beat. So many sheep getting herded towards Warren, but recent polls seem to suggest many people are getting wise to it. In October, she was in a virtual tie with Biden. Now she's fallen 8% in about 2 months and trails Bernie by a point in second place. Too bad Bloomberg might hand the nomination to her on a silver platter.

All true.

Unrelated: Saw this opinion piece on Buttigieg was trending. Read it. Curious everyone's thoughts. It's kinda funny to me how the Left either loves him or hates him. I've literally heard him called "Republican Lite" in my office because he doesn't toe the Progressive line. "White male privilege," and all that stuff...

https://www.theroot.com/pete-buttigieg-is-a-lying-mf-1840038708

 

[drayer54]

I think I want Warren or Biden. I think Trump beats both handily. Biden isn't so squeaky clean all of the sudden and I don't think he's the great communicator. I can't wait to see the money wall street puts up to defeat Warren.

 

[ulukinatme]

I caught it, and some of it was funny AF. At least one late night show isn't afraid to make some fun of the left.

It rarely happens on that show anymore, I've all but quit watching it. I typically check their Youtube channel these days and just checkout the videos that get big hits. I will say the Democratic Debate didn't disappoint. It's a shame they hated to Tulsi though, still think she has the best chance to beat the Don among that awful selection of possible candidates.

 

[Irish YJ]

It rarely happens on that show anymore, I've all but quit watching it. I typically check their Youtube channel these days and just checkout the videos that get big hits. I will say the Democratic Debate didn't disappoint. It's a shame they hated to Tulsi though, still think she has the best chance to beat the Don among that awful selection of possible candidates.

I rarely watch either. I've got a multi TV set up, and typically are ramping down and watching a PAC game at the time, and toss SNL or whatever on the other screen. If FB wasn't on, SNL wouldn't be on lol. I don't think they hate Tulsi, I actually took it as SNL making fun of all the Tulsi hate by the left. IDK, maybe I read it wrong.

I think I want Warren or Biden. I think Trump beats both handily. Biden isn't so squeaky clean all of the sudden and I don't think he's the great communicator. I can't wait to see the money wall street puts up to defeat Warren.

I don't want Biden. IMO, all the far left will vote him simply because he's not DT, and he'll get the moderates. Warren will get the far left but will scare a lot of the moderates away. I think DT can beat any of them, I just prefer the biggest lefty socialist possible.

 

[IrishLax]

Biden and Warren both tanking hard in some recent New Hampshire polling. Sanders out front with Buttigieg nipping at his heels.

The candidates with the strongest positive trend besides Buttigieg? Yang and Gabbard.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Biden and Warren both tanking hard in some recent New Hampshire polling. Sanders out front with Buttigieg nipping at his heels.

The candidates with the strongest positive trend besides Buttigieg? Yang and Gabbard.

Yet only Buttigieg with any meaningful and consistent MSM coverage. This has been going on for awhile too. It's one thing to not take every candidate seriously in the beginning but they're still in the field after it's been thinned AND they're surging.

https://www.axios.com/andrew-yang-2020-media-attention-acc2652a-e43b-45fb-8e88-42e606ab0be8.html

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/0...eive-disproportionately-small-media-coverage/

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabb...r-andrew-yang-speaking-times-revealed-1473256

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Earlier on UP, we aired a poll graphic that inadvertently left off <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewYang</a>. This was a mistake that we've since corrected on air. We apologize to Mr. Yang. Here's the correct graphic: <a href="https://t.co/SDoqsxdiiD">pic.twitter.com/SDoqsxdiiD</a></p>— Up on MSNBC (@UPonMSNBC) <a href="https://twitter.com/UPonMSNBC/status/1196177898178334722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 17, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Joe Rogan had Jocko and Tulsi on the podcast recently. It's a good one. Although, I wish Joe would've tried to get more policy talk out of her. Joe, sometimes, likes the sound of his own voice too much and rambles in his own thoughts instead of letting the guests talk. Quite a few times Tulsi could barely get a word in and would just say, "I agree." The whole idea behind 3 hours of podcasting should focus on 1) getting the know the candidate better, both personally and what their positions are and 2) what are their actual ideas and plans for fixing the problems. Joe's rants take away from both of those items more often than not.