2020 Democratic presidential primary

We aren't electing the leader of the revolution. Why would you think that an American president is going to fill that role, as opposed to, at best, competent executor of the law? Morbius would be less tedious if he would keep that in mind.

fwiw I haven't ruled out voting for Warren

I don't think it's weird to find EW's long Republican phase weird

...which makes AOC fans unquestioningly embracing EW kinda weird to me.

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, July 2, 2019 10:55 AM (twenty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

AOC has a lot of fans who would describe themselves as capitalist.

I had no idea Warren stayed a registered R til '96. Rather dubious.

Bob Dole was the last straw

tbf I registered as a Republican in 1996 because I wanted to attend a caucus in Iowa and the Dems had nothing going on that year

fwiw I haven't ruled out voting for Warren

gotta wait until she wins the nomination for that

I mean I'm currently planning to vote for Sanders when the OH primaries roll around, but in a ranked-choice scheme she's my second.

this is worth reading

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613

I had no idea Warren stayed a registered R til '96. Rather dubious.

I was a registered Republican until about a year ago (I'm now "unaffiliated"). I registered at a Frank Zappa concert and thought it would be funny to choose that team. Then I just left it alone, because it didn't affect who I actually voted for.

New Yorker profile addressed the same issues as the politico piece in a way that felt more measured and considerate to me. Emphasis seems to be that the more she learned about wealth inequality the more she realized the R party were the problem and not the solution.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/can-elizabeth-warren-win-it-all

yeah learning about her political conversion makes me like her more

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/02/hickenlooper-2020-campaign-1395051

lol gfy

Asked about his fundraising in the interview with MSNBC, however, Hickenlooper conceded “we certainly haven’t raised $24 million,” a reference to second-quarter sums reported by the campaigns of South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“I’m not going to get into it until we pull the numbers together,” he added. “But the bottom line is for a small campaign like us … it’s harder to raise money because we’re not promising free health care or, you know, to forgive free tuition for everyone, forgive student debt.”

"it's hard for my campaign, which offers absolutely nothing in the way of policy, to gain any support"

if we give people all those things, they might have the economic freedom to run hopeless vanity campaigns for president too!

yeah it's the bribes of intelligent governance that are swaying this primary season, totally unfair; we should all be longing for the day when being a leathery white guy in your sixties was what people cared about

"im from the weed state, what more do you dickheads want???"

New Quinnipiac National Poll (6/28 - 7/1):
Biden 22%
Harris 20%
Warren 14%
Sanders 13%
Buttigieg 4%
Booker 3%
All the rest at 1% or lesshttps://t.co/xhNqqT7crr

— David Wright (@DavidWright_CNN) July 2, 2019

that was fast. rip biden (🤞🏻)

wow

wau @ Bernie

I guess all Harris needed was to be able to talk on tv

Buttmentum seems to have subsided a bit too

Bernie and Warren still pretty much where they were pre-debate

this seems like it might come up if Harris keeps on as a frontrunner

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/kamala-harris-san-francisco-catholic-church-child-abuse/

Bernie and Warren still pretty much where they were pre-debate

― i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone),

Sanders was a solid #2 in most polls, no?

from the last QU poll done almost a month ago:

harris +13
booker +2
warren -1
o'rourke -2
buttigieg -4
sanders -6
biden -8

xpost % wise, i mean - they've both been hovering in the mid-teens, and in this poll they're in a statistical tie.

politico poll is the only one that has data right before the debate and right after. warren and sanders stayed where they were, harris ate into biden's lead, o'rourke lost some support.

Sounds like somebody better get to standing on some more tables...

the Intercept is a joke, conveys about the same amount of reliable/useful info as a shitty Dennis Perrin tweet

xps

I should probably stay out of this but just the idea of painting Hallinan as this tireless incorruptible paragon of virtue and Harris as a "she MUST be corrupt" cop is such ahistorical horseshit.

armchair lawyers litigating arcane legal maneuvering, what could go wrong

I mean the Intercept and Redstate are both running that "story", what does that tell you

what a coincidence that rightwing sources fed this to the AP to offset her debate performance, irrespective of any discussion of the actual legal issues involved

I abandoned ILX politics threads cuz I was getting p tired of the same old arguments and readily identifiable bullshit showing up constantly, evidence of our community's media-sifting not actually being better than any other fishbowl, it was just depressing

anyway...

based on MomTalk(tm) it seems like Harris provided a large percentage of the electorate the catharsis of seeing a woman tell an old white guy they were full of shit
dunno how lasting that gain will be

if she keeps doing it every time around I don't see it getting old

xp We'll have to see if old white guys continue spouting off shit going forward, I guess.

i guess i'm just suggesting that for the MomTalk(tm) demographic, any woman telling an old white guy he's full of shit will do

and, tbf, that's really Warren's jam

Pure horse race bullshit of the kind I profess to dislike but my take is: Harris is different enough to Biden to make people feel like they are voting for change while also feeling like a warm fuzzy continuation of Obama in both a policy and demographic sense.

next debate has a tougher threshold for admittance, right? no more of this two-night bullshit

I abandoned ILX politics threads cuz I was getting p tired of the same old arguments and readily identifiable bullshit showing up constantly, evidence of our community's media-sifting not actually being better than any other fishbowl, it was just depressing

hey if the story is total trash then fine but what I haven't spotted yet (here or in the wild) is an actual substantive refutation

The argument is predicated on the assumption that her declining to release those records was wrong, which the vast majority of the public is not qualified to judge. No refutation is required. The projection of suspect rationales onto Harris is what should carry the burdenof proof.

She was not required by law to releae those records. There could be all kinds of legal reasons for not doing so. Hallinan was a sloppy lawyer who was subsequently (for reasons not related to this issue tbc) disciplined by the Bar and is no longer allowed to practice law in CA.

The story makes arguments in bad faith and obscures them by highlighting abused victims. What is the argument being made? That she’s afraid of the Catholic Church? Hardcore catholucs were pillorying her for anti-Catholic bias just last year. That she doesnt actually prosecute abusers? This is demonstrably false based on her prosecutorial record. It’s abs hitjob from start to finish and u carried water for rightwing agent provocateurs, good job.

I’ve said my piece, I’m out

preciate u fam

same! I figured there had to be holes since the story was about a month old and I'd only just heard of it now