Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Soen Eber]

Well I am not following that race so close, since the Brexit and its implications is far more nearer to my own comfort zone for the time being. This sounds like a good change for the time being.

Just proves your sanity is all.

I wasn't cutting you for not being 100% on top of American politics. You've obviously other things to focus on that are more immediate, and the scene right now is a constant mind fuck bordering on mind rape. Best to not get too close if you don't have to.

 

[Pamela]

The only significant issue I have with Bernie is his age, which puts him at much greater risk of illness. However if he had a strong running mate that would not be an issue.

I would prefer a younger, female, POC but what matters is who has the best chance of winning.

 

[Lianne Marten]

Is it only me, or has Trump really ignited a fire within the female part of the Democrats, that the majority of Democrats putting their hat in the ring at the moment are smart and aspiring women? So that even that dream of a female president isn't too far fetched any longer?

The Women's March 2017 was held the day after the inauguration. It was the largest single-day protest in US history.

Yeah, women are fired up and the two years (heavy sigh) between then and now have only made things moreso.

 

[Lexxi]

I get that Bernie grew up with a rural POV, but I did not. None of the candidates get a pass on the all important gun issue from me. This doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a candidate because I view them as lenient on gun regulations. The Democratic field is full of candidates who don't even have the courage to touch gun regulation. A huge percentage of my fellow Americans think that every household should have an AR15. Unfortunately, they would be his constituents too. It just means it is an important issue to me, and I factor that into my vote. Maybe he would like to know that, or maybe he doesn't GAF.

Bernie here is Bernie Sanders, right? I just want to make sure before I act all confused (since, and I might have overlooked a post, I see no one commenting on that specific 'rural POV' comment (though there was a post noting Sanders from Brooklyn)). Bernie grew up with a rural POV? He grew up in Brooklyn. At some point he ended up in Chicago (again not rural) for part of his college education, but returned to Brooklyn after that.

All this made me look at his thoughts (as per Wikipedia) on gun laws. *reads* So he says he supports 'banning assault weapons, universal federal background checks, and closing the gun show loophole', but in practice in 1993 voted against Brady bill; 2005 voted for gun manufacture legal immunity (again 'says' he is now, 2016, 'for' repealing that law, but that's say not do); 1996 voted against funding for CDC to do research on gun issues (and in 2016 'called for' more funding for CDC, though I think (think mind) that that is more talk and less 'doing', again). Ooh, okay, there's one - April 17 2013 voted for Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Proposal (though that amendment failed to pass) - so he does occasionally 'vote for' instead of just talk for gun control (Defeats Manchin-Toomey Background... - S.649: A bill to ensure that all individuals who...).

 

[Lexxi]

Proposed gun bills -
S.66 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) -
This Act may be cited as the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019”.
Text - S.66 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Assault Weapons Ban of 2019

Has only been introduced and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sponsors:
Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs.Gillibrand, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Mr. Casey, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Smith, Mr. Wyden, Ms.Hassan, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Merkley)

Let's see, of the candidates, I see Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Warren, Harris, Booker, and Sanders. Which is all of the Senator level candidates for President.

Well, that didn't add anything. mmphs. If one of them hadn't put their name on there . . . but all did.

*looks at prior attempt - S.2095 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 - yep, all (the Senator level candidates) here as cosponsors*
Cosponsors - S.2095 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Assault Weapons Ban of 2017


---
House version -
H.R.1296 - To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Cosponsors - H.R.1296 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Representatives who sponsored and are running for President: Tulsi Gabbard
Representatives who did not sponsor and are running for President: John Delaney (because he no longer in House, hmms, did not release that he was not currently a Representative)

 

[Pamela]

Oh look.

Trump Job Approval 50% or Higher in 17 States in 2018

 

[detrius]

Oh look.

Trump Job Approval 50% or Higher in 17 States in 2018

So he's below 50% in 33 states.

Is it just me or is the way Gallup frames news like this slightly biased?

 

[Beebo Brink]

Open Letter to the Editors on the Recent Coverage of Amy Klobuchar

What seems most glaring to me about this LTE from the Klobuchar staffers is that they are not denying the facts of the negative coverage. Instead, they're objecting to what they see as a lack of "fair and balanced" reporting that has overlooked the good stories. I'm sure they meant well, but to my mind this verifies everything we've heard about Klobuchar's temperament. I'm not worried about the good qualities she undoubtedly possesses -- I'm worried about the character and temperament of someone who throws things at other people when she doesn't get her way.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

So he's below 50% in 33 states.

Is it just me or is the way Gallup frames news like this slightly biased?

You are not taking into account the system of the electoral college, so this news is far from being biased.

As Gallup puts it into their article: "In order to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, Trump would have to win all but one or two of the states in which his 2018 approval rating was between 41% and 49%."

Which in other words means that the Democrats are in for a rough election.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Bernie here is Bernie Sanders, right? I just want to make sure before I act all confused (since, and I might have overlooked a post, I see no one commenting on that specific 'rural POV' comment (though there was a post noting Sanders from Brooklyn)). Bernie grew up with a rural POV? He grew up in Brooklyn. At some point he ended up in Chicago (again not rural) for part of his college education, but returned to Brooklyn after that.

All this made me look at his thoughts (as per Wikipedia) on gun laws. *reads* So he says he supports 'banning assault weapons, universal federal background checks, and closing the gun show loophole', but in practice in 1993 voted against Brady bill; 2005 voted for gun manufacture legal immunity (again 'says' he is now, 2016, 'for' repealing that law, but that's say not do); 1996 voted against funding for CDC to do research on gun issues (and in 2016 'called for' more funding for CDC, though I think (think mind) that that is more talk and less 'doing', again). Ooh, okay, there's one - April 17 2013 voted for Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Proposal (though that amendment failed to pass) - so he does occasionally 'vote for' instead of just talk for gun control (Defeats Manchin-Toomey Background... - S.649: A bill to ensure that all individuals who...).

Grew up is not exactly correct, slit my wrists, you know what i mean. His political career has been with a rural constituency so his personal views should be and are less important than the people in his state, who did grow up with those views. Or is that not clear enough for you?

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

So he's below 50% in 33 states.

Is it just me or is the way Gallup frames news like this slightly biased?

Highly biased. The tone of the article was playing up Trump's chances of winning reelection in 2020, explaining what it would take, how achievable it is, and how his numbers have been improving, and completely playing down the fact 66 percent of the states rate him at less than 50 percent. It was a bit of a nauseating read.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The fact that he is only at 41% in Texas and is 42-43% in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio is a major problem for Trump's reelection. The Rust Belt states were where he made the most surprising wins, and that looks like it is not holding for him. If Florida and Texas are in play, that would force a massive defensive spending in two very expensive media markets. And while the wall may be popular in states away from the border, he could end up mobilizing more culturally conservative Hispanic communities to vote in higher numbers and piss off conservatives over private property as the number of eminent domain cases increases. Putting Texas in play would be a huge problem for Trump (Carter was the last Democrat to win Texas), and losing Georgia or North Carolina would make the math harder but not impossible.

Not saying that anything is in the bag or this will be an easy race, far from it, but that poll shows some serious problems for Trump, not optimistic numbers.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

It does occur to me though that it is wiser to play up how popular he is, so people will actually go out and vote; rather than stay at home because he doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

It does occur to me though that it is wiser to play up how popular he is, so people will actually go out and vote; rather than stay at home because he doesn't stand a chance.

That's actually a good point. I like that.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

You are not taking into account the system of the electoral college, so this news is far from being biased.

As Gallup puts it into their article: "In order to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, Trump would have to win all but one or two of the states in which his 2018 approval rating was between 41% and 49%."

Which in other words means that the Democrats are in for a rough election.

What the article says is

Although much can change between now and Election Day 2020, a job approval rating of 50% or higher would presumably put Trump in good position to win a state in the presidential election. The 17 states with 50%+ approval ratings account for a combined total of 102 electoral votes. In contrast, the states in which Trump has an approval rating below 40% account for 201 electoral votes.

In order to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, Trump would have to win all but one or two of the states in which his 2018 approval rating was between 41% and 49%. Some of the more challenging states to win from among this group, based on that approval rating, would be Texas (41%); Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (all at 42%); and Arizona and Florida (43%). Trump won all of those states in 2016, and thus it is certainly possible that he can do so again. But he clearly has a lot of ground to make up in those states to get close enough to 50% that he can finish with more electoral votes nationwide than the Democratic candidate.

Though I think it's pretty pointless to speculate about what may happen in almost 2 years' time on the basis of one poll now.

 

[Cristalle]

Obviously it's not a plan. It's wishful thinking until you get a Democratically controlled Senate. It's a rather unfair question, to be honest. The plan is to replace as many GOP Senators as possible until we can get a majority that will support DC as a state, but that's not much of a plan either, it's more wishful thinking.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Obviously it's not a plan. It's wishful thinking until you get a Democratically controlled Senate. It's a rather unfair question, to be honest. The plan is to replace as many GOP Senators as possible until we can get a majority that will support DC as a state, but that's not much of a plan either, it's more wishful thinking.

That's quite possibly the case, but it doesn't seem to be what he said his plan was -- apparently his plan is not "to replace as many GOP Senators as possible" but, on the contrary, to hope that his "Republican colleagues" who have't been replaced will "do the right thing" (and presumably he plans to achieve that by using his powers of persuasion on them).

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

That's quite possibly the case, but it doesn't seem to be what he said his plan was -- apparently his plan is not "to replace as many GOP Senators as possible" but, on the contrary, to hope that his "Republican colleagues" who have't been replaced will "do the right thing" (and presumably he plans to achieve that by using his powers of persuasion on them).

The population of Washington DC is mostly Democrats? Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I hesitate to intrude in the Democratic Party's internal affairs -- quite seriously, I realise I'm commenting on something about which I know little -- but I don't think this exchange would fill me with confidence were I a US Democrat: