Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Han Held]

Or Russian trolls/bots.

Not just Russian, fyi.

I'd suggest following /r/activemeasures /r/trollfare /r/digital_manipulation and /r/disinformationwatch if you're interested in the subject.

[edited to correct the list]

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Or Russian trolls/bots.

Except that some of them are, and clearly a portion of what call themselves "progressives" aren't anything of the sort. Sure, they might have a small list of things that they want changed (usually that benefit themselves alone), but if their list is more important to them than the rights and lives of the human beings that this administration is violating they can fuck off with calling themselves progressive. A few of us have been progressive longer than they've been alive.

There are more than a few menfolk in the Bernie camp, as an example. Let's call them "fauxgressives" (Yep, I'm going to use that word. I kind of like it) They want a nice slice of the pie he is offering the working man, but they sure as hell don't support true civil rights for black folks, brown folks, people of other religions or women. Don't make the mistake of believing they want anything more. Watch their actions and pay attention to who they decide is important to attack.

There is also a contingent of far left folks who are VERY susceptible to both Russian propagandists and our own home-grown alt right, as well as those who actively target the dull-minded. Hint: If you are trying to make a point about how evil you think mainstream democrats are, when you link to an alt-right video or shit they've been spreading, you just might be susceptible.

So, maybe before this contingent of whiny babies who have all these tests for every candidate but Bernie could be a little cognizant of the fact that we currently have both a president and the slimy slugs who came out from under a rock to support him who want to turn this country back, not 20 years, not 50 years, but 150 years and are working very hard to accomplish. You could be cognizant of just how important both the last election and the upcoming one were and are in terms of where we will go and what we stand to lose if a loud enough group of malcontents refuse to see the forest for the trees, AGAIN.

 

[Han Held]

It's not what's on the label that matters. It's what's inside that counts. True for both consumer goods and politics. The US Congress, for example, has a bad habit of putting names on bills that are the opposite of what the bill does. And all those "People's Republics" are nothing of the sort. We need truth in labeling for politics.

They were socialists in name only -and only because it was part of what was popular at the time. As you said -what was on the label did not match what was in the tin.

We do need a truth in advertising clause for politics -that way we'd know when folks were only pretending to be left and that they were going to veer center at the first sign of trouble.

It'd save a lot of headache!

 

[Salome]

Except that some of them are, and clearly a portion of what call themselves "progressives" aren't anything of the sort.

I mean...Bill Maher calls himself progressive ffs.

Sure, they might have a small list of things that they want changed (usually that benefit themselves alone), but if their list is more important to them than the rights and lives of the human beings that this administration is violating they can fuck off with calling themselves progressive. A few of us have been progressive longer than they've been alive.

THIS. When you spend your time telling women and POC their issues are side issues and economics will cure racism and misogyny while you center the WWC and excuse racists...you can fuck off with your performative progressive RP.

There is also a contingent of far left folks who are VERY susceptible to both Russian propagandists and our own home-grown alt right, as well as those who actively target the dull-minded.

Yep. Which is why anyone pushing the “it was rigged” nonsense disqualifies themselves. I’m not voting anyone into office who‘s stupid enough to be duped by, or actively willing to trash other Dems with the words Russia and/or the GOP put in their mouths.

 

[Han Held]

...this is the point where I put Salome and Jolene on ignore -buh bye!

 

[Han Held]

Yes, we all agree that Trump needs to be gone, but stop acting like people driving hard for good policy are the problem.

 

[Han Held]

Citing debunked “gateway drug” myth, Joe Biden comes out against legalizing marijuana

Studies have long refuted the "gateway drug" claim, instead linking hard drug use to issues such as poverty

www.salon.com

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I mean...Bill Maher calls himself progressive ffs.

Yet, he yuks it up alongside Ann Coulton and Milo Yiannopolous.

THIS. When you spend your time telling women and POC their issues are side issues and economics will cure racism and misogyny while you center the WWC and excuse racists...you can fuck off with your performative progressive RP.

Exactly. They are too busy telling those who have fought for civil rights for decades to shut up and take yet another bite of the "All boats will rise" argument that has been pushed for decades with still-raging inequality and discrimination. When a member of any group that is discriminated against speak up they are told that they are "too loud, too angry, too this or that. Apparently only white men have the right to raise a stink in the form of electing a white nationalist because the economy, or that's the lie we're supposed to believe.

Yep. Which is why anyone pushing the “it was rigged” nonsense disqualifies themselves. I’m not voting anyone into office who‘s stupid enough to be duped by, or actively willing to trash other Dems with the words Russia and/or the GOP put in their mouths.

Yep.

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

*Cuts giant line and snorts it*

 

[Cristalle]

This is just a garbage narrative, trying to weaponize identity and keep on with the white male narrative, as if health care isn't a women's issue. As if a living wage isn't a women's issue. As if climate change isn't a women's issue. As if criminal justice isn't a women's issue. Bernie's base - the donors, that can be identified? The largest profession noted are teachers. Most of the donors are women. And it's very diverse, lots of people of color. You'd see them at the rallies, if you bothered to watch the scant coverage. Stop swallowing whatever Neera Tanden and the like are trying to push on you.

On policy, only Warren comes close to anything Sanders has. This is not to say that there aren't good ideas out there, but his are the most far-reaching and transformational. He's the only one who's put out a plan that actually tries to get rid of ICE. His plans are thoughtful and comprehensive. Are they perfect? No. But very few candidates have any plans that reach for truly transformational results.

The only identity-related issue that Bernie can be criticized on is reparations, but even then, everyone else is either against it or faking it. Do you really think that Warren, Harris, Biden or any of these candidates that won't pay for health care will carve out money for reparations? Bottle up whatever you're on and sell it.

 

[Salome]

*Cuts giant line and snorts it*

That better be powdered sugar, little missy!

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

That better be powdered sugar, little missy!

Powdered shark actually, EEEEYYYYYY!!!

 

[Salome]

Powdered shark actually, EEEEYYYYYY!!!

You know that stuff makes you horny.

 

[Salome]

Pete’s been a non-starter for me for a while, but here’s hoping this is the end of him.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

This is just a garbage narrative, trying to weaponize identity and keep on with the white male narrative, as if health care isn't a women's issue. As if a living wage isn't a women's issue. As if climate change isn't a women's issue. As if criminal justice isn't a women's issue. Bernie's base - the donors, that can be identified? The largest profession noted are teachers. Most of the donors are women. And it's very diverse, lots of people of color. You'd see them at the rallies, if you bothered to watch the scant coverage. Stop swallowing whatever Neera Tanden and the like are trying to push on you.

On policy, only Warren comes close to anything Sanders has. This is not to say that there aren't good ideas out there, but his are the most far-reaching and transformational. He's the only one who's put out a plan that actually tries to get rid of ICE. His plans are thoughtful and comprehensive. Are they perfect? No. But very few candidates have any plans that reach for truly transformational results.

The only identity-related issue that Bernie can be criticized on is reparations, but even then, everyone else is either against it or faking it. Do you really think that Warren, Harris, Biden or any of these candidates that won't pay for health care will carve out money for reparations? Bottle up whatever you're on and sell it.

This is all good and all, but doesn't mean a hill of beans if he can't knock Trump off his perch and out of the White House. Keep in mind he lost the primary to someone who lost to Trump.

 

[Cristalle]

This is all good and all, but doesn't mean a hill of beans if he can't knock Trump off his perch and out of the White House. Keep in mind he lost the primary to someone who lost to Trump.

He's in a much different position now than he was against her, as he's much better known now, thanks to the fact that he's been pretty much campaigning ever since the last cycle. He's the only candidate that has more donors than Trump and of the Democrats, he's the only one with over 1M individual donors. In the polls, he's the candidate people trust the most on a number of issues. Why are those not indicators that he can beat Trump? Because neoliberals say so? Because the sore loser who won't take responsibility for her loss says so?

which links to: Detailed Maps of the Donors Powering the 2020 Democratic Campaigns

You have to take him out to see where the rest of the field was, and he was nearly double his closest competitor (Warren). Why are those facts meaningless?

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

He's in a much different position now than he was against her, as he's much better known now, thanks to the fact that he's been pretty much campaigning ever since the last cycle. He's the only candidate that has more donors than Trump and of the Democrats, he's the only one with over 1M individual donors. In the polls, he's the candidate people trust the most on a number of issues. Why are those not indicators that he can beat Trump? Because neoliberals say so? Because the sore loser who won't take responsibility for her loss says so?

which links to: Detailed Maps of the Donors Powering the 2020 Democratic Campaigns

You have to take him out to see where the rest of the field was, and he was nearly double his closest competitor (Warren). Why are those facts meaningless?

Where is he in the polls right now? If he's not running away with the polls by now, that's a real problem.

 

[Salome]

This is all good and all, but doesn't mean a hill of beans if he can't knock Trump off his perch and out of the White House. Keep in mind he lost the primary to someone who lost to Trump.

Every person I know personally who voted for Bernie in the last primary (including me) wouldn't piss on him now to put him out if he were on fire, except for one. Bronx is the only exception I'm aware of. I assume she’s still voting for him in the primary.

 

[Cristalle]

Where is he in the polls right now? If he's not running away with the polls by now, that's a real problem.

No, it's not. There are 20 people in the field and of course that is going to split the polling. Even so:

What we can learn from the 2004 presidential race

By December, Dean had pulled ahead in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, opening up a considerable lead over Lieberman, 31 percent to 13 percent. Clark and Kerry drew 10 percent, and Gephardt received 8 percent.

(Multiple other polls, including those for CBS News, Newsweek, ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal showed the same movement to Dean.)

A little more than a month later, on Jan. 19, Kerry won the Iowa caucuses with 38 percent, while Edwards surged into second place with 32 percent. Dean and Gephardt finished much further behind.

Clark and Lieberman did not really compete in the caucuses, preferring to devote their time to New Hampshire.

The first CNN/USA Today/Gallup national survey after the caucuses, conducted Jan. 29 to Feb. 1, 2004, showed Kerry leading nationally with 49 percent to Dean’s 14 percent, Edwards’ 13 percent and Clark’s 9 percent. The race for the Democratic nomination was effectively over.

In a matter of weeks, Kerry went from a political basket case to the de facto Democratic nominee.

And this field was much smaller.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Where is he in the polls right now? If he's not running away with the polls by now, that's a real problem.

National:
Biden 30
Sanders 18
Warren 15
Buttigieg 7

In Iowa:
Sanders 22
Biden 22
Buttigieg 21
Warren 18