Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Romana]

Well, Major Pete must have someone worried; the usual suspects are trying their usual shtick:

 

[Ryanna Enfield]

Does the Trump Administration know that Jacob Wohl said he is working for a task force set up by the Trump Administration? How precious!

 

[Brenda Archer]

 

[Ariane]

 

[Beebo Brink]

My dream ticket would be Warren/Buttigieg.

I fully expect to get neither of them, which is probably one of the reasons I'm so grumpy about the early attempts to anoint Uncle Joe as the savior of the Democratic Party. I actually like Joe Biden, and I wish he had run in the last primary because I think he stood a better chance of beating Trump than Clinton did, with a larger vote win that might have tipped the electoral college. THAT was his time, and now is not. At least not for me.

 

[Pamela]

!!!Poll warning!!! No really this a a great clip of a bunch of poll results.

While enlightening, I personally would happily vote for my next door neighbor or the guy who works the counter at the convenience store.

.

 

[Cristalle]

!!!Poll warning!!! No really this a a great clip of a bunch of poll results.

While enlightening, I personally would happily vote for my next door neighbor or the guy who works the counter at the convenience store.

.

Is this another poll of 300 people that only uses landlines?

 

[Cristalle]

I was a Bernie supporter in 2016, but despite that stance, I can't blame the Democratic party for treating Sanders like a problem. He is not a party member, but he's using the party mechanisms and resources to run his primary campaign.

That's a basic conflict of interest and it's unreasonable to expect Democratic party members to just grin and bear it.

They had several years to fix that hole if they really wanted to. The rules permit it. They could have changed the rules if they really didn't want it.

That said, why is it ok to use him to grow their party and put him in party leadership if they don't expect or want him to run as one? They are lucky that he's not splitting the party in half right now, now that he has significant name recognition.

 

[Pamela]

Is this another poll of 300 people that only uses landlines?

“The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted from April 25 to April 28, 2019 among a sample of 1,007 respondents. The landline total respondents were 358 and there were 649 cell phone respondents. The margin of sampling error for total respondents is +/- 3.8 at the 95% confidence level. The design effect is 1.50. More information about SSRS can be obtained by visiting www.ssrs.com. “

 

[Cristalle]

They undersampled anyone under 49. That explains it.

 

[Kaimi Kyomoon]

Another way to look at it is that in 2016 the good became the enemy of the perfect, so to speak. A lot of Bernie supporters refused to vote for Hillary in protest. By a lot I mean enough to throw the election to a monster.

That could happen again, if people vote for their most ideal candidate rather than the one polling best against Trump. Not that that’s any guarantee.

I understand what you're saying but I want to start out aiming for the perfect. I'm in California where an independant like me can vote for anyone in the primary. I want my vote to say as clearly as possible what I want from my government, which is true equal opportunity and prosperity for all. What if everyone who wants that votes to reflect it and it turns out that's what most of us want? Even if I'm the only one who votes for the candidate who's the farthest to the left at least my true voice will be there.

Exactly! For decades the slogan of the Democratic party has been, "It's safe to vote for us because we're not really different from them." I want them to say, "We are not like them. We will fight against the oligarchs to address the needs of everyone else."

In the general we must all do everything we can to make sure Trump loses by a record margin.

 

[Pamela]

In the general we must all do everything we can to make sure Trump loses by a record margin.

Yes if he wins a second term nothing else will matter because the country will continue to be run by a crime family who are only there to line their pockets.

 

[Anya Ristow]

They had several years to fix that hole if they really wanted to. The rules permit it. They could have changed the rules if they really didn't want it.

They did change the rules. There's now a loyalty pledge that all the candidates are required to sign. It's the Sanders rule. You have to agree that if you receive the nomination, you will run in the General as a Democrat. It prevents Bernie from winning the primary and running as an Independent in the general.

Furthermore, at the party chair's discretion, a candidate can be judged not a Democrat in good standing and the party won't put them on the ballot. I'm assuming Perez and Sanders have already had this conversation. Imagine the chaos if Sanders found himself the frontrunner going to the convention and Perez disqualified him outright.

And then there are the superdelegates. These are party insiders and big donors. Each of them has the voting power of thousands of citizens. By DWS' own words, they exist to stop populist candidates like Sanders.

As to whether it's a conflict of interest that he's even running as a Democrat, whether he's taking advantage of the party apparatus...

It is undemocratic that these two parties are gatekeepers to the general election. You can say that it is a mathematical necessity, given our winner-take-all-in-each-state, first-past-the-post electoral college system, but here's something that most people don't realize: the primaries aren't real elections. The courts won't even intervene in disputes over the primaries, because they aren't elections. If you want proof, read the DNC defense in the lawsuit over the 2016 primary. In the DNC's own words, they are not obligated to be impartial or to even hold an election. They are free to choose the nominee over cigars. Their words.

So with such a non-democratic system of choosing which people have any chance whatsoever of winning the general election, should we be concerned that a only marginally democratic candidate participates? Isn't the larger issue that these two private, non-governmental, non-democratically controlled parties are gatekeepers to the presidency? Is it even possible in the 21st century to change the entities that control this process? Would it be better if Sanders and his supporters destroyed the Democratic party as the only means of changing the leadership that selects presidential candidates? Isn't that what will happen if the establishment democrats refuse to run on policies that people want? Isn't that what will happen if they continue losing seats at all levels of government? Is the only way to change the democratic party to run it into the ground until it is so weak a third party can defeat it?

 

[Cristalle]

They did change the rules. There's now a loyalty pledge that all the candidates are required to sign. It's the Sanders rule. You have to agree that if you receive the nomination, you will run in the General as a Democrat. It prevents Bernie from winning the primary and running as an Independent in the general.

Furthermore, at the party chair's discretion, a candidate can be judged not a Democrat in good standing and the party won't put them on the ballot. I'm assuming Perez and Sanders have already had this conversation. Imagine the chaos if Sanders found himself the frontrunner going to the convention and Perez disqualified him outright.

And then there are the superdelegates. These are party insiders and big donors. Each of them has the voting power of thousands of citizens. By DWS' own words, they exist to stop populist candidates like Sanders.

As to whether it's a conflict of interest that he's even running as a Democrat, whether he's taking advantage of the party apparatus...

It is undemocratic that these two parties are gatekeepers to the general election. You can say that it is a mathematical necessity, given our winner-take-all-in-each-state, first-past-the-post electoral college system, but here's something that most people don't realize: the primaries aren't real elections. The courts won't even intervene in disputes over the primaries, because they aren't elections. If you want proof, read the DNC defense in the lawsuit over the 2016 primary. In the DNC's own words, they are not obligated to be impartial or to even hold an election. They are free to choose the nominee over cigars. Their words.

So with such a non-democratic system of choosing which people have any chance whatsoever of winning the general election, should we be concerned that a only marginally democratic candidate participates? Isn't the larger issue that these two private, non-governmental, non-democratically controlled parties are gatekeepers to the presidency? Is it even possible in the 21st century to change the entities that control this process? Would it be better if Sanders and his supporters destroyed the Democratic party as the only means of changing the leadership that selects presidential candidates? Isn't that what will happen if the establishment democrats refuse to run on policies that people want? Isn't that what will happen if they continue losing seats at all levels of government? Is the only way to change the democratic party to run it into the ground until it is so weak a third party can defeat it?

But that's not good enough for the "But he's not a Democraaaaat" crowd. If they want to stop complaining about that, then they need to set the rules such that only registered Democrats can run. Simple, right? Why leave the door open if your base is bitching about it?

 

[Brenda Archer]

They did change the rules. There's now a loyalty pledge that all the candidates are required to sign. It's the Sanders rule. You have to agree that if you receive the nomination, you will run in the General as a Democrat. It prevents Bernie from winning the primary and running as an Independent in the general.

Furthermore, at the party chair's discretion, a candidate can be judged not a Democrat in good standing and the party won't put them on the ballot. I'm assuming Perez and Sanders have already had this conversation. Imagine the chaos if Sanders found himself the frontrunner going to the convention and Perez disqualified him outright.

And then there are the superdelegates. These are party insiders and big donors. Each of them has the voting power of thousands of citizens. By DWS' own words, they exist to stop populist candidates like Sanders.

As to whether it's a conflict of interest that he's even running as a Democrat, whether he's taking advantage of the party apparatus...

It is undemocratic that these two parties are gatekeepers to the general election. You can say that it is a mathematical necessity, given our winner-take-all-in-each-state, first-past-the-post electoral college system, but here's something that most people don't realize: the primaries aren't real elections. The courts won't even intervene in disputes over the primaries, because they aren't elections. If you want proof, read the DNC defense in the lawsuit over the 2016 primary. In the DNC's own words, they are not obligated to be impartial or to even hold an election. They are free to choose the nominee over cigars. Their words.

So with such a non-democratic system of choosing which people have any chance whatsoever of winning the general election, should we be concerned that a only marginally democratic candidate participates? Isn't the larger issue that these two private, non-governmental, non-democratically controlled parties are gatekeepers to the presidency? Is it even possible in the 21st century to change the entities that control this process? Would it be better if Sanders and his supporters destroyed the Democratic party as the only means of changing the leadership that selects presidential candidates? Isn't that what will happen if the establishment democrats refuse to run on policies that people want? Isn't that what will happen if they continue losing seats at all levels of government? Is the only way to change the democratic party to run it into the ground until it is so weak a third party can defeat it?

My biggest fear is exactly this scenario, but it might be necessary.

 

[Cristalle]

The clown car is bursting at the seams even more. Michael Bennet is in: Michael Bennet, Senator From Colorado, Is Running for President

 

[Pamela]

The clown car is bursting at the seams even more. Michael Bennet is in: Michael Bennet, Senator From Colorado, Is Running for President

I really liked him after his speech on the Senate floor about the govt shutdown, and wanted him for President for about five minutes. But whyyyyyyy jump into such a crowded race????

 

[Clara D.]

They really need to start thinning the herd.

 

[Cristalle]

I really liked him after his speech on the Senate floor about the govt shutdown, and wanted him for President for about five minutes. But whyyyyyyy jump into such a crowded race????

Again, to deny Bernie Sanders the delegates to win in the first round. If they all hang on until they reach their home state's primaries, they are likely to get at least 15% of the vote in that state and thus keep their delegates to pledge to the anointed winner. Thus it would be possible to have the anointed one win in the first round without having to use superdelegates to vote. Example: California. Kamala Harris was struggling a bit so now we also have Eric Swalwell running. If between the two of them they get 50% of the vote, they can keep their delegates. Bernie may win it in a plurality but unlike the GOP, there are no winner take all rules and with such a large number of candidates representing a number of vote-rich states, they can pick off enough delegates to deny him the nomination.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Well, Major Pete must have someone worried; the usual suspects are trying their usual shtick:

More than their usual shtick. They are also trying to pull in the 'eww, gay men' thing.