U.S. Democratic Primary

[Ten oz]

I know it is still early but candidates are already throwing their hats in the ring. So let's discuss it. At present the following candidates (in last name alphabetical order) have already announced their candicacy or filed the necessary paperwork to begin organizing their campaigns. There will be more candidates to come but for now I would like to discuss the ones currently in rather than speculate about others. 

How does everyone feel about these candidates? 

Julian Castro

Tulsi Gabbard

Kristen Gillbrand

Elizabeth Warren

 

 

 

 

[MigL]

The only one I'm familiar with to any extent, is E Warren.
She would make an excellent candidate.

If the bar is only as high as to who would be a better POTUS than D Trump, I'm sure any of them would be ( and even a few Republicans ).
But why wait. Impeach now !

[iNow]

Gabbard interests me. She has a great story, but came a bit out of nowhere. Hawaii is great and all, but she doesn’t really have a national presence like the others.

Castro I think is positioning himself as a VP for someone like Warren, and Gilibrand will help shape the conversation, but I have a hard time seeing her winning. Time will tell. I also hope Biden amd Sanders wit it out amd advise or consult from,the sidelines.

I’ve got my eye on Kamala Harris. She’s a fighter and wicked smart, good traits to have in an arena like this. I think she could get a lot done, but I’m unclear what policy priorities she favors. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

The only one I'm familiar with to any extent, is E Warren.
She would make an excellent candidate.

If the bar is only as high as to who would be a better POTUS than D Trump, I'm sure any of them would be ( and even a few Republicans ).
But why wait. Impeach now !

I think Warren missed her chance. I was really hoping she'd run in 2016. That fact she didn't run despite such a strong appetite for a candidate with her  populist liberal credentials makes me question her political instincts. Political environments shift very quickly and I don't feel Warren has shown the right amount flexibility, ingenuity, and quick thinking to manage a successful national campaign. I like her domestic politics but don't think she is the right candidate for 2020. 

Also, since you brought up Trump, Trump's mess goes far beyond a domestic policy. Trump has created a foriegn policy nightmare. Warren's politics are too domestically focused. Anyone who replaces Trump will have serious international issues to deal with. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, China, North Korea, and even Canada are all countries where Trump has upended decades worth of U.S. foriegn policy and altered relationships. Foriegn policy appears to be outside Warren's comfort zone. 

[MigL]

Maybe that's what the US needs after the Trump disaster.
A little more navel gazing and less foreign involvement.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Gabbard interests me. She has a great story, but came a bit out of nowhere. Hawaii is great and all, but she doesn’t really have a national presence like the others

Her history on some issues are troubling. She use to anti LGBTQ and pro Assad. That said she has apologized and called those previous positions stupid. She is young so it is very possible she had an awakening or whatever. 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Castro I think is positioning himself as a VP for someone like Warren, and Gilibrand will help shape the conversation, but I have a hard time seeing her winning. Time will tell. I also hope Biden amd Sanders wit it out amd advise or consult from,the sidelines.

I think TX is ready to turn blue. In 12' Romney got 1.2 million more votes than Obama. In 16' Trump got 800k more votes than Clinton. Then this past Nov. Cruz only got 150k more votes than O'Rourke. Texas should be a treated as a swing state in 2020 in my opinion. Having someone like Castro, who is from Texas, in the race this early is terrific. Castro will hopefully bring some much needed Democratic exposure to Texas. I am glad he is running. 

I need to read up on Gillbrand. I don't know what he platform is.

 

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe that's what the US needs after the Trump disaster.
A little more navel gazing and less foreign involvement.

Ignoring the rest of the world won't accomplish anything. After Trump Russia will still scheme, trade with China will loom over stock markets, and etc. The person who follow Trump will need to address certain matters. 

[Ten oz]

Gabbard has gotten some press today out attempting to deal past comments. While the press might be the kind many Politician's wouldn't want an argument could be made all press in good press. It is raising her profile.

Quote

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who last week announced she was running for president, apologized Thursday for her record of anti-gay rhetoric and her past work for an anti-gay advocacy group — issues that have emerged as an early obstacle as she pursues a long-shot bid for the Democratic Party’s nomination.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-gay-lgbtq.html

 

[iNow]

Kamala Harris is now in, too. She announced this morning on GMA:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020-president.html

[Ten oz]

Boom goes the dynamite!! Harris is an excellent candidate. Harris is direct and grounded. As the nominee or VP I fully anticipate she will be on the ticket in 2020. 

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Boom goes the dynamite!! Harris is an excellent candidate. Harris is direct and grounded. As the nominee or VP I fully anticipate she will be on the ticket in 2020. 

Agreed. I think Harris is a good candidate.

AOC is inexperienced and not eligible because of her age, but she a rising star to millennials and the old guard alike. Not only does she have thick skin and brilliant retorts, her mere presence triggers the right into resorting to their childish character assassinations and dog whistle politics.

She's a fresh version of Bernie, savvy to Trump's antics and causes other democrats to take heed.

I don't know enough about Beto, but they love him in Texas. I never thought I'd see the day when that state goes purple, no less blue.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Agreed. I think Harris is a good candidate.

AOC is inexperienced and not eligible because of her age, but she a rising star to millennials and the old guard alike. Not only does she have thick skin and brilliant retorts, her mere presence triggers the right into resorting to their childish character assassinations and dog whistle politics.

She's a fresh version of Bernie, savvy to Trump's antics and causes other democrats to take heed.

I don't know enough about Beto, but they love him in Texas. I never thought I'd see the day when that state goes purple, no less blue.

Castro has already announced he is running and Castro is popular in Texas. Castro also has experience as a Cabinet member. 

A Harris/Castro ticket would be excellent in my opinion. Both are pragmatic politician that know how to speak accurately to issue without ideological rhetoric. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Kamala Harris is now in, too. She announced this morning on GMA:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020-president.html

Not a fan of some of her tactics, but she is certainly a force to be reckoned with.

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not a fan of some of her tactics

You’ve mentioned the term tactics a few times in a few threads recently, generally preceded by the word leftist. I’m unclear what you mean here, however. Please elaborate. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

You’ve mentioned the term tactics a few times in a few threads recently, generally preceded by the word leftist. I’m unclear what you mean here, however. Please elaborate. 

As you might know, the Washington Post gave her "four Pinocchios" last year:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/11/did-brett-kavanaugh-offer-dog-whistle-abortion-foes/?utm_term=.b765f9dcf4b1

It was one they considered too be among the biggest of 2018, on a list of course dominated by Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/14/biggest-pinocchios/?utm_term=.fb63d8d16b2f

She of course has agendas, as do all politicians, and can make good arguments very forcefully (a good thing), relentlessly  overstates her case and is misleading (understandable in the current political climate, if not forgivable.), but unfortunately has demonstrated a willingness to lie...not a white lie...but a bare false witness level accusatory  lie.

 

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As you might know, the Washington Post gave her "four Pinocchios" last year.

Republican's are anti abortion, anti planned parenthood, and etc. Republicans literally make campaign promises to nominate Judges for their pro life views. Here is video of Trump at one of the debates in 2016 stating he will put pro life judges on the bench and that provided he can get enough of them on the bench Rove vs Wade will be overturned, Link.

Trump has been trying to roll back the ACA mandates related to Birth Control. Just this past Friday a Federal court step in to block his most recent effort, Link. So this is a real issue that is in federal court. I think it goes without saying Kavanaugh 100% will side with Trump on this if it makes it across his desk. What Harris was saying about Kavanaugh and the threat he poses to Birth Control is a legitimate concern. The Pinocchios were for omitted a couple words from his statement Kavanaugh which may have provided different context. Considering  it is true that Kavanaigh will rule against birth control I hardly see why different context for his statement matters. In official opinions written as a Judge Kavanaugh has already stated support for Hobby Lobby, Link. It is public record. I think giving Harris a Pinocchio on this is semantics. By design Dog Whistles can always be denied. They are identified subjectively. A nod, an extra pause, well timed smirk, emphasis on a key, or etc can all change the meaning of a statement. The overall implication was accurate regardless of whether or not one thinks she misused Kavanaugh's statement. 

Despite the sour feeling some have about the way Kavanaugh was treated I think it was a great moment for Democrats. It led directly into winning the popular vote in the mid term by over 9 million votes and we now have a record number of women serving in Congress. 60% of women voted Democrat in the mid term and House Democrats did 7 points better among White women than they did in 2016. I think Kavanaugh's ugly behavior during his hearing was a real shot of adrenaline for voters. Kavanaigh came across to me as privileged, self centered, stupid, and inept. 

Kamala Harris calling Kavanaugh out on his B.S. was a good thing in my opinion. Print and Cable media is fighting to stay alive. More people are cutting the cord and using social media to get their news. In their attempt to stay relevant a lot of Print and Cable news has become very superficial. In 2020 candidates will need to avoid the trap of getting caught up in their narratives by focusing on speaking directly to their audience. It is something Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezis (AOC) is leading the way on. I do not agree with all of AOC's politics but I admire the way she ignores cable news cycle and speaks to people directly. That seems to be the right direction to move in my opinion. Arguing semantics with a round table of pundits isn't worthwhile. I think Kamala Harris understands that. She is to the point about her views and accepts some people won't like her for it. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I think that is how Kamela Harris might justify it as well. The ends justify the means.

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think that is how Kamela Harris might justify it as well. The ends justify the means.

You are entitled to your own charactizations and opinions. However you won't be voting in the Democratic Primary (or general election) so it would be best for Harris not to pay your view any attention. 

All the Democratic Candidates will face various ridicule from outside (non-Democratic) entities but at the end of the day to win the nomination they will need to appeal those who might actually consider voting for them.

I have already seen a few news articles questioning how Harris's time as Prosecutor might hurt her in the era of Black Lives Matters (BLM). Such questions are false narratives in my opinion which play on the notion that BLM is anti law enforcement. People who would consider her time as a Prosecutor to be at odds with BLM aren't people who are likely to vote Democrat and certainly don't understand BLM or the Democratic position regarding criminal justice reform. As such Harris would be smart to not waste too much time addressing those misplaced concerns.

Ignoring media spin designed to put people at odds for ratings will be a challenge everyone vying for the Democratic nomination will face.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It was one...

Thank you for clarifying.

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thank you for clarifying.

You're welcome.

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What Harris was saying about Kavanaugh and the threat he poses to Birth Control is a legitimate concern.

Because of his views on Hobby Lobby?

Hobby Lobby offers it's employees 16 different forms of birth control fully covered under their healthcare plan.

It rejects 4 of them because it views them as or equivalent to, abortion. 

Hardly the great threat to "birth control" that Harris made him out to be. 

53 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

but at the end of the day to win the nomination they will need to appeal fool those who might actually consider voting for them.

FTFY

ON a side note, this applies to both Republican and Democratic candidates.

[J.C.MacSwell]

49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You are entitled to your own charactizations and opinions. However you won't be voting in the Democratic Primary (or general election) so it would be best for Harris not to pay your view any attention. 

I agree. I doubt she will be challenged on it by Democrats. Which is why I characterized her as a "force to be reckoned with" despite my view of some of her tactics, which INow requested I elaborate on.

[Ten oz]

Considering all the women who were elected in 2018 I think there is a lot of energy currently among voters who want to see equal representation. Of the 4 candidates who have already announced they are running 3 are women. My whole life I have heard people on all sides insist that the country was willing to elect a woman  yet it has never happened. I hope Democrats nominates a woman for 2020. Two highly qualified Senators are already running. It is difficult for me to imagine Booker, Biden, or anyone else still expected to possibly announce have a platform with any meaningful differences than Harris or Warren. 

 

[Ten oz]

As an edit to my above post there are currently 5 candidates announced and 4 are women. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Ten oz

[Ten oz]

Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind., announced on Wednesday that he was entering the Democratic presidential primary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-south-bend-president.html

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Pete Buttigieg

I pay pretty close attention to this stuff and I’ve gotta say, he was decidedly NOT on my radar. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by iNow