2020 Democratic presidential primary

involuntary lol @ IOWA PORK QUEEN

I mean, god be with her, but you'd think that with the title you'd get training on not pulling that face.

I went to the page to see if that was actually Ryan (it was) and I am now giggling at the smoldering look he's giving the pork dude

The Other White Meat

hard to say whether his fortunes will rise or fall in the more than one year between now and the election

Is it? Is it really? You can look at that 538 polling-average chart day by day. 15 days into his presidency he crossed the line where he was underwater - 44.2% approval, 47.1% disapproval. His highest approval rating ever was on March 12, 2017 - 44.8%. His next peak was 43.1% on October 23, 2018. People hate him, and that's not going to change in the coming year, because they've got three years' worth of reasons to hate him already and to cancel all that out and bring them to his side he would have to do something so massively different from anything he's ever done before - not just as president, but in his entire life, that you might as well just abandon the possibility of it ever happening. He will absolutely go down in history as this country's most hated and incompetent leader; the only question is whether he destroys the entire country on his way out the door, or Budd Dwyers himself in the Oval Office when the election results come in.

Trump is quite beatable, more so than Bush in 2003-2004.

So what you're saying is... Iran invasion, spring 2020.

Inslee tells Rachel Maddow he's dropping out

— A.P. Joyce (@AndrewPaulJoyce) August 22, 2019

Sensible choice by Inslee. Now we need about five more to follow him out.

Too bad. About 10 candidates I’d rather drop out before him.

Same here. But he was going nowhere and could see the writing on the wall. A national campaign needs a national campaign organization and that was not happening for him.

https://prospect.org/article/inslee-difference

he was going nowhere and could see the writing on the wall.

Inslee was openly running not to become president, but to try and ensure that climate change was discussed at every debate. He's a smart & apparently honourable politician, could estimate that his polling numbers weren't going to twitch enough to get him in the next debate, and would (I take it) rather focus on doing worthwhile things in his actual job than waste donors' money.

He should definitely run for a third term, but should also be appointed secretary of the interior by President Bernie or head of the EPA, with sweeping new powers, by President Warren.

otm

Hickenlooper is running for Senate. Good for him.

WASHINGTON — Senator Bernie Sanders on Thursday released a $16.3 trillion blueprint to fight climate change, the latest and most expensive proposal from the field of Democratic presidential candidates aimed at reining in planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Mr. Sanders unveiled his proposal one day after Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, who made climate change the central focus of his campaign, announced he was dropping out of the 2020 race. Mr. Inslee’s absence could create an opening for another presidential aspirant to seize the mantle of “climate candidate.”

Mr. Sanders was an early supporter of the Green New Deal, an ambitious but nonbinding congressional plan for tackling global warming and economic inequality. He is bestowing that same name upon his new plan, which calls for the United States to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2050.

It declares climate change a national emergency; envisions building new solar, wind and geothermal power sources across the country; and commits $200 billion to help poor nations cope with climate change.

...Mr. Sanders’s plan would be funded in part by imposing new fees and taxes on the fossil fuel industry. He described the proposal as putting “meat on the bones” of the Green New Deal resolution and laying the groundwork for a rapid energy transformation.

...Though the Vermont lawmaker was an early proponent of a carbon tax — he once called it “the most straightforward and efficient strategy for quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions” — his new proposal makes no mention of one.

Instead, he calls for converting the electricity and transportation sectors to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 and achieving “complete decarbonization” by 2050 through a massive spending plan.

nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.html

Sounds great to me, though of course you can count on the New York Times to emphasize how expensive this proposal to save our collective asses is in the very first sentence of their article.

converting the electricity and transportation sectors to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030

a laudable goal

completely unrealistic but hey, shoot high says I

Yeah, but that dollar figure is important for people who care about it, too - it demonstrates that the scale of the plan is beginning to approach the scale of the problem

xp

"beginning to approach"

still waiting for that $100 trillion proposal

We’ll get there eventually, proactively or not

With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states

just tbc "hundreds of billions" != 1 trillion and the US economy by comparison to this plan is about $20t large

If it's Biden I think he takes Harris. If it's Warren, a two-woman ticket doesn't fly. You need a minority, so take Castro. He's talented, young enough not to stab you in the back, and he's happy to be your son of a bitch.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) August 21, 2019

biden in 2008

Pop quiz: Which 2020 Democratic candidate said this about the future of health insurance? pic.twitter.com/9hCPzk5yYV

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) August 22, 2019

tbc "hundreds of billions" != 1 trillion and the US economy by comparison to this plan is about $20t large

Tbc, the value of the global ecosystem far exceeds $20 trillion.

just tbc "hundreds of billions" != 1 trillion and the US economy by comparison to this plan is about $20t large

That’s hundreds of billions of annual losses in some sectors alone, not hundreds of billions overall. That’s why I billed those parts above. The same report i linked to projects 10% annual loss to the entire us economy. All that adds up to a lot more than $50 trillion

projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century

lol society as we know it is not going to exist by the end of the century

Tbc, the value of the global ecosystem far exceeds $20 trillion.

the global ecosystem is priceless. unless you subscribe to MMT you have to imagine what dedicating about 80% of our economy to this issue would look like. it would take massive governmental involvement in almost every industry of this country on a level that greatly surpassed central control during WW2. in some ways it would really be backdoor communism - a way to nationalize 80% of our economic activity. it would also be ongoing + permanent- there would be no environmental surrender where we would begin to deconstruct the wartime economy. compare this to islee's deal which was a 9t dollar plan (still immense) or warren's which is 2t. i'm sure some ppl would find this very appealing and i don't think it's lost on sanders that this is a way he could potentially remake the entire economy + politics of this country. for me it's a nonstarter tho. i am in favor of massive spending to address climate change - even much higher than what warren is proposing.

* (i'm very happy to hear why i'm wrong btw and it is not as radical a plan as it seems - i'm not an economic expert and i could be missing something.)

Mordy, where are you getting this 80% figure from?

our GDP is 20t the plan is 16t = 80%

So, you want to take an amount to be allocated over the next 30 years and spend it all in the first year?

btw that's new spending - the gov already makes up a large % of our national economy that this would be added to

I appreciate the urgency but I don't think that matches Sanders' implementation plan

tbc it's a ten year plan and yes i'd imagine much of it would be upfront since he expects it to pay for itself within 15 years

Of course the DNC doesn't want debate about climate change. Their donors are still decorating their apocalypse bunkers, and this takes away from that.

— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) August 22, 2019

This has gone on long enough. https://t.co/KvspBPzwyN

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) August 21, 2019

wow a twofer

there should be a thread for Dennis Perrin tweets

i think it's the OUATIH thread

can we have @DennisThePerrin hatcatted?

^^^^

Replace with Socks the cat for maximum trolling

Guys? Fuck off.

why

Phil Collins

I support that suggestion

I suspect you faggots* will actually do this, so that's my last post of that type.

*in the oldschool nonwoke sense

Mordy, where are you getting this 80% figure from?

― Karl Malone, Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:54 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

our GDP is 20t the plan is 16t = 80%

― Mordy, Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:55 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

So, you want to take an amount to be allocated over the next 30 years and spend it all in the first year?

― brigadier pudding (DJP), Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:57 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

btw that's new spending - the gov already makes up a large % of our national economy that this would be added to

― Mordy, Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:57 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I appreciate the urgency but I don't think that matches Sanders' implementation plan

― brigadier pudding (DJP), Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:57 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

tbc it's a ten year plan and yes i'd imagine much of it would be upfront since he expects it to pay for itself within 15 years

― Mordy, Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:00 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

just because no one followed up on this...

it's a $16 trillion plan, over 10 years. that's $1.6T a year. assuming a $20T/year economy, that's 8%, not 80%. yes, that's still a lot. (also, if he somehow got elected and congress somehow decided to try to pass this bill, $16 trillion would be the starting point that would inevitably be reduced substantially.)

here's how the plan - https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/ - says that it will pay for itself within 15 years:

This plan will pay for itself over 15 years. Experts have scored the plan and its economic effects. We will pay for the massive investment we need to reverse the climate crisis by:

• Making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.
• Generating revenue from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Authorities. Revenues will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs.
• Scaling back military spending on maintaining global oil dependence.
• Collecting new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan.
• Reduced need for federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs.
• Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign estimated that roughly $3.1 trillion would be generated from “making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution” through new but unspecified fees and eliminating $15 billion in annual subsidies; another $1.2 trillion would come from “scaling back military spending on the global oil supply,” and $2.3 trillion would be collected from new income tax revenues from new jobs in the renewable energy industry, among other measures.

so people can and will quibble with how this would pay for itself, but let's not emulate rightwing talk radio and start saying that the plan would cost 80% of the US national economy and that it's all going to be spent in a few years, before we even read the fucking plan

also, the cost of a new stealth bomber is $46 trillion, according to leftwing talk radio