US Elections 2020

[broncofan]

Have I underestimated Amy Klobuchar? Truth is, I don't know who she is, can anyone enlighten me,

I also did even though a few people have told me they like her. It's difficult to find a lot of articles spelling out her positions but I'll link a couple of profiles. Matthew Yglesias says she has a "dorky midwestern shtick" but I think she comes across as sincere and it's not "shtick" which implies contrivance. The vox article says she supports an expansion of our public health care option without it being medicare for all, and she supports measures to curb climate change without a ban on fracking. She has moved to the center to distinguish herself from Sanders and Warren and has said she wants to build a big tent for the party.

Yet she also has a lot of accomplishments as a legislator that you can see in the second link, a Wikipedia of her positions. She "passed more legislation than any other senator by the end of the 114th Congress in late 2016." So while she may be labelled more of a moderate, she gets things done.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/211339...hire-electable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ar#Agriculture

[filghy2]

Edit: the article posted by filghy says Bloomberg opposed financial reforms in 2008. It's fairly obvious that deregulation and lax regulation leads to financial crises so that's a particularly bad sign.

It's a concern that some of his policy positions seem to be based on self-interest, though he's not as egregious as Trump. At least he's in favour of higher taxes on the rich.

That said, he might be the candidate best able to beat Trump. I certainly think he would be the opponent Trump most fears. I doubt the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in the swing states they need to win back.

It's interesting that we're all so focused on which candidate would be better able to beat Trump rather than who would make the best president. The man who thinks everything is about him has succeeded in making his opponents' selection process mainly about him. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-donald-trump

[broncofan]

It's a concern that some of his policy positions seem to be based on self-interest, though he's not as egregious as Trump. At least he's in favour of higher taxes on the rich.

That said, he might be the candidate best able to beat Trump. I certainly think he would be the opponent Trump most fears. I doubt the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in the swing states they need to win back.

I actually think Bloomberg would do an okay job. I know money has been an important part of our politics for a while but I don't like the idea of a self-funded campaign by a billionaire. If not for what his campaign says about our process I'm guessing he would be socially liberal and not corrupt like the President, the financial regulation stuff aside, which he has a serious conflict of interest with.

You're right that Trump has us worried about who can beat him rather than what we want but it is an effective form of blackmail. He has destroyed the rule of law at the federal level, most recently with the Roger Stone interference, in a way Richard Nixon couldn't have dreamed of. Every appointment to the Supreme Court takes us to a critical threshold where we may be set back 100 years socially.

A point that I think you've made is that pragmatism doesn't work because nobody can mysterious divine who has the magical quality of "electability" and the exercise sort of dries up any enthusiasm people have for the issues and political movements. That's fair but I haven't been inspired by anyone and I've invested some time. Obama was politically more to the center but I remembered actually liking him very early on. I liked the way he carried himself, liked his story, and he had a presence.

[Stavros]

I also did even though a few people have told me they like her. It's difficult to find a lot of articles spelling out her positions but I'll link a couple of profiles. Matthew Yglesias says she has a "dorky midwestern shtick" but I think she comes across as sincere and it's not "shtick" which implies contrivance. The vox article says she supports an expansion of our public health care option without it being medicare for all, and she supports measures to curb climate change without a ban on fracking. She has moved to the center to distinguish herself from Sanders and Warren and has said she wants to build a big tent for the party.

Yet she also has a lot of accomplishments as a legislator that you can see in the second link, a Wikipedia of her positions. She "passed more legislation than any other senator by the end of the 114th Congress in late 2016." So while she may be labelled more of a moderate, she gets things done.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/211339...hire-electable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ar#Agriculture

Thanks for your thoughts and the links, she looks to be a successful politician with standard Democrat positions on a lot of issues. The main weakness, if it is true, is her temper or claims of being abusive to her staff. I don't know how true it is or how it compares to the Mandarin who screams and shouts and swears and stamps his feet, when people seem most terrified of a negative tweet. Does she have the charisma that will win doubting voters? Can she deliver a rousing speech, like Obama? Curious, not long before reading your post, I clicked on a Yahoo news link to a Jmmy Kimmel excerpt on the President in which, among other things, he failed to pronounce her name properly, which means he will have to find a nickname to remember who she is. I don't know much about Kimmel but comes across as bland, whatever. Is Klobuchar bland, though? that may be the issue. But on policy she is safe, and maybe after the most reckless first term anyone can remember, safe sounds very very good.
I shall watch her with interest, as one watches that nauseating loud-mouth from Vermont with concern. I mean, you can see the ads already: Vote, Sanders, pay more taxes. Or, Feel the Bern: treble your bills.

[blackchubby38]

It's a concern that some of his policy positions seem to be based on self-interest, though he's not as egregious as Trump. At least he's in favour of higher taxes on the rich.

That said, he might be the candidate best able to beat Trump. I certainly think he would be the opponent Trump most fears. I doubt the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in the swing states they need to win back.

It's interesting that we're all so focused on which candidate would be better able to beat Trump rather than who would make the best president. The man who thinks everything is about him has succeeded in making his opponents' selection process mainly about him. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-donald-trump

Considering the state of NYC since Bloomberg left office, I don't think the stop and frisk thing would hurt him in this city or many other Democratic cities either.

[AlexisDVyne]

My thoughts on the Dems candidates..

Pete.. This is CIA Pete & he is the symbol of the fascist left..

Amy.. WTF is she even doing there?

Warren.. Trying too hard & looks fake & definitely can't beat the dotard..

Biden.. Wow this guy has issues & should retire yesterday..

Bernie.. His ideas are not radical, they are mainstream in the rest of the civilized world..

Everyone should help Bernie take America back from the oligarchs, multinationals & fascists..

[filghy2]

You missed Bloomberg - though I guess you would probably call him a fascist as well

[AlexisDVyne]

You missed Bloomberg - though I guess you would probably call him a fascist as well

Boomerberg is a republican.. and he's more of an oligarch..

[Stavros]

The problem is that is is the USA and its politicians seem always to have something there in the past, even Obama for those who are suspicious of the CIA, for whom he once worked.
Thus I don't know if the grubby things Bloomberg has said in the past will undo his ambition to get the nomination, but then when did Bernie Sanders ever run for the Senate as a Socialist? I don't think he ever did, and his past seems to include a lot of years when he was opposed to gun control laws, and if he is a Socialist, where other than on health, are his socialist policies -assuming his health care policy is socialist-?
I can't really see any inspiring politicians in the US, I think the best you might get is someone who is at least a good manager, though there must be room for the candidate who does not inspire but, when elected, grows into the job and becomes better at it as the first term evolves, rather than the present incumbent, who makes it worse by the minute. Apparently he now thinks is he the Chief Law Officer of the USA, which ironically, he probably is, given that William Barr seems to obey him at all times. And this from a man with 'deep religious beliefs' who has deep concerns about the decline of morals in the USA over the last 45 years!

[filghy2]

Apparently he now thinks is he the Chief Law Officer of the USA, which ironically, he probably is, given that William Barr seems to obey him at all times. And this from a man with 'deep religious beliefs' who has deep concerns about the decline of morals in the USA over the last 45 years!

His latest round of pardons is quite revealing. Basically, he's pardoning the sorts of corruption and fraud offences that he has been implicated in himself. Evidently, he doesn't think these should really be treated as serious crimes. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/19/211428...ons-corruption

It's quite a different story for the sorts of crimes committed by people who are not white, rich and well-connected. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/19/211441...s-hogan-gidley

Not only is the President above the law, but it seems that his cronies will be as well.