2020 Democratic presidential primary

Y'all can correct me but I'm confident WI and MI are back in the blue column for 2020.

a dozen caveats about Not Taking Anything for Granted, of course

but you're also right that, like Obama, her coolness would make her an uncannily frightening executor of the national security apparatus.

yeah, this is the worst thing about Harris. Trump's inability to focus on anything has probably made him the least destructive foreign-policy president in 40 years.

(Making the country a laughing stock and fucking up trade > starting a bunch of new wars and murdering foreign civilians)

the least destructive foreign-policy president in 40 years.

he isn't finished, yet.

very nearly added a "so far"

Ok, so can someone give me some reasoning behind the 'Bernie too old' thing? Too old to campaign? to win? to be president?

I don't understand the issue, if he falls ill or dies? But thats what a VP is for.

Possible cognitive decline at that age is a legit issue, particularly given the stress and schedule of a President.

xps If by least destructive we mean leading the global march of authoritarianism by emboldening the likes of Duterte, Bolsenaro, Netanyahu, MBS, al-Assad, Matteo Salvini, Putin, Victor Orban etc ad nauseum...ok?

Weren't almost of all of those in power before Trump?

I don't think Trump emboldened Putin in 1999..

yes of course, I said “emboldening” which I don’t think is debatable?

I don't really get the "Sanders has done nothing" argument. Even setting the Yemen bill aside, greatly expanding the leftward limits of acceptable policy talk is very far from nothing, not to mention inspiring new pols like AOC (and, uh, Mayor Pete)

give me some reasoning behind the 'Bernie too old' thing

Presidents get to have a lot more staff than senators, but it is still an exhausting job. The less energy you have to devote to it, the more you need to delegate. The more you delegate, the easier it is for cabinet members or executive staff to siphon power to themselves. Just keeping a good grip on your cabinet secretaries and national security advisors takes a ton of effort.

How Bernie handles all that would depend heavily on his appointments to key positions, but he's from a tiny state and has self-consciously stood aside from the mainstream of Washington politics, so his connections may not cover his needs when it comes to filling key positions. That's not precisely an age issue, but it is part of the mix.

also he is literally an old man who yells a lot

yeah that wld be really weird if we had an old president who yells a lot

Would be really nice if we didn't

Yeah the being old and yelling are def what's wrong with trump

Presidents get to have a lot more staff than senators, but it is still an exhausting job. The less energy you have to devote to it, the more you need to delegate. The more you delegate, the easier it is for cabinet members or executive staff to siphon power to themselves. Just keeping a good grip on your cabinet secretaries and national security advisors takes a ton of effort.

How Bernie handles all that would depend heavily on his appointments to key positions, but he's from a tiny state and has self-consciously stood aside from the mainstream of Washington politics, so his connections may not cover his needs when it comes to filling key positions. That's not precisely an age issue, but it is part of the mix.

This is exactly right. Trump entered office with no connections and no coattails so he staffed up with the people he knew - crooks and psychos. Sanders, if he was elected, would enter office with a similar lack of talent to draw upon and could easily wind up with a cabinet stuffed with ineffectual cranks (though far fewer outright criminals, I'll give him that much).

yeah, along similar lines im also skeptical of his ability to organize congressional dems once in office.

The fact that he actively relishes clashing with the Democratic party is really the biggest strike for me. I don't need a super insider or centrist, but I'd like someone who can actually lead and strengthen the party effectively.

That's a two way street.

clashing w/ the democratic party is one of his greatest attributes

Certainly is, haven't really seen Sanders make much effort on his end, so not really surprised there's a lack of love on the other

I'll take pretty much anyone that has grassroots support and a solid commitment to M4A lol

yes of course, I said “emboldening” which I don’t think is debatable?

Yes, of course it is. Putin was in power for almost two decades before Trump and his biggest power move came while Obama was in office.
The Saudis have been emboldened and propped up by the US for decades, obviously.
Orban has been on the scene as long as Putin.

You're seeing Trump as the cause rather than a symptom - we just finally got our own openly authoritarian nationalist reactionary.

Learning that unperson sees the US as inherently and irrevocably an international death machine but also is fine with that explains a lot.

Y'all can correct me but I'm confident WI and MI are back in the blue column for 2020.

― recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 7 April 2019 18:40 (fifty-five minutes ago) Permalink

how bout FL?

You're seeing Trump as the cause rather than a symptom

I believe it is more accurate to say Hadrian VII views him not as a cause, but as an accelerant. In the same sense that adding gasoline to a small fire makes it a much larger fire that is more capable of setting other material on fire.

Y'all can correct me but I'm confident WI and MI are back in the blue column for 2020.
― recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 7 April 2019 18:40 (fifty-five minutes ago) Permalink

how bout FL?

― buttigieg play the blues (crüt), Sunday, April 7, 2019 2:39 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

v possible, but i'd throw PA in this mix of back in blue and thats a wrap

Learning that unperson sees the US as inherently and irrevocably an international death machine but also is fine with that explains a lot.

I'm not fine with it, but I see no realistic path to changing it. So I'm doing what's best for me, an almost-50-year-old with health issues, which is making concrete, real-world efforts to get me and mine the fuck out of the US before it goes up/down in flames.

The realistic path to changing it is electing a plurality of representatives opposed to it, which gets easier the more a counter-death-machine set of policies gets airtime. Which is never gonna happen if a Harris gets in.

how bout FL?

― buttigieg play the blues (crüt), Sunday, April 7, 2019 2:39 PM

Not so fast.

/Learning that unperson sees the US as inherently and irrevocably an international death machine but also is fine with that explains a lot./

I'm not fine with it, but I see no realistic path to changing it. So I'm doing what's best for me, an almost-50-year-old with health issues, which is making concrete, real-world efforts to get me and mine the fuck out of the US before it goes up/down in flames.

So I'm doing what's best for me, an almost-50-year-old with health issues

Wait, I don't get this. Isn't a proper healthcare system a positive for you? And isn't Bernie the most realistic path to that?

So, other than Biden's coyly playing footsie with announcing his candidacy, are there any names out there who haven't made clear their intention to run or not run, but are spoken of as strong potential contenders?

Obama.

Isn't a proper healthcare system a positive for you?

Yes, very much so.

And isn't Bernie the most realistic path to that?

Ha ha ha ha ha, fuck no. Two words: Mitch McConnell. How are Bernie's magical powers of "revolution" going to overcome McConnell and his relentless efforts to dismantle the shitty American health care system that currently exists?

Stacey Abrams xxp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

i don't get the argument that trump is "the least destructive foreign-policy president in 40 years" at all. by at least some reports, trump has already killed more civilians in drone strikes than obama managed in eight years. he also trashed the iran nuclear deal and reversed obama's efforts at detente with cuba. he's not down there with W or even reagan, but he's pretty bad.

xxp Stacey Abrams isn't running. She has more sense than Beto O'Rourke.

I don't think she will, but she hasn't definitively ruled it out yet, right?

idk if she's "definitively" ruled it out but I don't see why she would throw her hat in the ring.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/the-jolt-blitz-stacey-abrams-nixes-biden-pact-and-questions-beto-appeal/trl7OWsdhJrwR8H5ao83aI/

why am I running? Well my favorite book is "Red Harvest" and it taught me that America needs a steady and amoral hand to play all sides of the ongoing vicious struggle for power

— 'Weird Alex' Pareene (@pareene) April 6, 2019

Unperson

get me and mine the fuck out of the US before it goes up/down in flames

I have met this attitude and, yeah, I get it, I understand its pull.

But it also seems kinda contrary to progressive/liberal/left politics as I understand them. Namely, a politics based on compassion for the downtrodden and those less fortunate.

On the "me and mine" view, once you are able to get "you and yours" "the fuck out," well, that's the extent of your moral duty.

Those poor schmucks without the resources or opportunity to get the fuck out? Well, too bad so sad.

Personally I find it very hard to distinguish that attitude from the right-wing "I got mine, fuck you if you didn't plan as well as me" attitude.

Idk, it's ok to think of your own family first in some circumstances. Some of my family took that attitude and got the hell out of eastern Europe in the early 20th century. The ones who didn't or couldn't all got slaughtered. At some point, it's just about basic survival.

Y'all can correct me but I'm confident WI and MI are back in the blue column for 2020.

Not only are you wrong to be confident about this as regards Wisconsin, people in the past were also wrong to be confident that Wisconsin was going to go Dem in the presidential election. Yes, it did so a bunch of years in a row, but that's because Democrats won the popular vote umpteen years in a row! In 2000 and 2004 the Democrat won by less than half a percent. Wisconsin is half Democrats and half Republicans, has been for a while, and these "now Wisconsin is a blue state" / "now Wisconsin is a red state" takes come roaring in after every election and they are always wrong. (So yes, to be clear: any idea of Wisconsin as part of a "blue wall" is wrong, but so is the laughable idea that Wisconsin is "Trump Country.")

I have zero idea which Dem nominee would have the best chance to win Wisconsin. (Well, I mean, Tammy Baldwin would, but she's not running and I'm pretty sure never will.)

so what youre saying is "turnout is important"

That's definitely a big part of what I'm saying. There are certainly voters in Wisconsin who vote for different parties in different years, but my general sense is that most Wisconsin voters have pretty strongly defined party preferences and it matters a lot more which group of voters shows up.

well, yeah