2020 US Presidential Nominees

[Sweet Jesus]

This thread is going well. It's like watching a group of hillbillys argue over which one of the 3 stooges they'd prefer to bed their sister.

Who are the two other hillbillies disagreeing with you?

 

[pjcrows]

Who is "they"? Clearly there are Democrats uncomfortable with Bloomberg's candidacy. To suggest otherwise is obviously misleading/dishonest.

DNC.

As opposed to the base of the Democratic Party.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

It makes the point that Republican candidates aren't necessarily more popular, which is entirely relevant to the point you were making.

I haven't mentioned popularity at all, I've said that right wing parties win elections. Please don't tell me about the point I'm making.

It's not ridiculous at all. That's why the Republican establishment, including Fox News, tried to resist his nomination before buckling.

"Tried to resist his nomination" is on an entirely different plane of meaning to "Hostile takeover". If you're hinting that Trump wasn't immediately popular among the powerbrokers of the party who likely had their own people running then sure, not exactly a groundbreaking analysis but fair enough. However, pretending that Trump hijacked the party and grossly altered it's direction much to the chagrin of the republican party is indeed ridiculous. They voted for him to be their leader despite a myriad of other options.

That is a selective account of why Trump won.

Thanks.

But you say the Republicans have always been a "free market political party", but not necessarily in favour of free trade as a principle? How does that work? What does "free market" mean if they don't support free trade? Are they in favour of the free market but also supportive of tariffs? How does that work? Support for the free market and therefore free trade has been an article of faith for Republicans at least since Reagan, yet Trump eschewed it in favour of tariffs. If they're "free market" why do they support farm subsidies? It is an obvious reversal of long-standing conservative/Republican orthodoxy.

You're being pedantic about the significance of free trade to laissez faire capitalism. Tariffs against some foreign made products from highly competitive markets are perceived by some to work in their favour, and the results are usually easy to see in the form of increased intra-national business, therefore it is easy to understand why the republicans have been willing to embrace some forms of government economic regulation despite the fact they remain staunchly opposed to the concept as a whole. It's one of the myriad of exceptions to the rule that American conservatives are content with, like a small government with an all-pervasive border force or prioritising individual liberties in a country where you can't drink alcohol until you're 21.

Aside from that, there's more than likely a foreign policy reason as to why tariffs have been applied much more stringently on a certain asian country which the US has typically done a lot of trading with.

Other conservative bedrock ideas that have been abandoned include: the importance of institutions, law and order, US leadership in international affairs and the idea that moral character in high office matters. These have gone out the window under Trump. So to argue the conservatives have "stayed true to their beliefs" is patently nonsense. They jettisoned a smorgasbord of principles in order to embrace Trump.

Seriously, when have these ever been conservative bedrock ideas? Conservatives love government institutions and the justice system when they're working for them and hate them when they're working against them. US Leadership in international affairs has always been dictated by whether the US is winning or losing at the moment and moral character in office isn't a political belief.

You also mention gay marriage, but under Trump that culture war issue has basically been abandoned. Nor is it clear what Trump's actual position is when it comes to abortion.

His position on both of these issues is pretty clear, based on the laws he's changed, what he's changed in them and the history of the justices he appoints. Aside from that I don't understand what your point is here because opposition to gay marriage isn't a core tenet of republicanism either.

Obama wasn't running against Trump. Had he been allowed to run, he most likely would have secured a third term.

If Phar Lap was running in the Melbourne Cup last year he probably would have won as well. The reality is that Obama finished his term with a populace so jaded by politics that an "anti-establishment" candidate won the presidential election and he very nearly contested it against another anti-establishment candidate from Obama's own party. Is that a success?

Obama is not responsible for Trump. That's a jarring over-simplification.

And yet nothing happens in isolation.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I haven't mentioned popularity at all, I've said that right wing parties win elections. Please don't tell me about the point I'm making.

You said the right wins elections because they "stay true to their beliefs". That suggests popularity is a factor, when in fact Republican presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly less popular in presidential elections since 1990. They have won elections despite that because of the quirks of the electoral college, not because they "stay true to their beliefs".

"Tried to resist his nomination" is on an entirely different plane of meaning to "Hostile takeover".

This is not an argument. You are simple saying two phrases are not the same. The point remains: Trump was rejected by the Republican establishment but won anyway. That is not in dispute.

If you're hinting that Trump wasn't immediately popular among the powerbrokers of the party who likely had their own people running then sure, not exactly a groundbreaking analysis but fair enough.

It's not meant to be ground-breaking. If anything, it's quite obvious.

However, pretending that Trump hijacked the party and grossly altered it's direction much to the chagrin of the republican party is indeed ridiculous. They voted for him to be their leader despite a myriad of other options.

Whether there's chagrin is open to interpretation. Certainly the Republicans in government appear to have made peace with their utter subordination to Trump. Nevertheless, the fact remains he won the nomination despite initially being rejected and opposed by the establishment, which has since been forced to jettison several professed orthodoxies in order to embrace him. That establishment has been hollowed out and subjugated by a president many of them previously opposed and criticised as unfit for high office.

You're being pedantic about the significance of free trade to laissez faire capitalism. Tariffs against some foreign made products from highly competitive markets are perceived by some to work in their favour, and the results are usually easy to see in the form of increased intra-national business, therefore it is easy to understand why the republicans have been willing to embrace some forms of government economic regulation despite the fact they remain staunchly opposed to the concept as a whole. It's one of the myriad of exceptions to the rule that American conservatives are content with, like a small government with an all-pervasive border force or prioritising individual liberties in a country where you can't drink alcohol until you're 21.

This is a roundabout way of skirting the fact that conservatives have had to jettison their professed commitment to free trade under Trump. One of several embarrassing reversals.

Aside from that, there's more than likely a foreign policy reason as to why tariffs have been applied much more stringently on a certain asian country which the US has typically done a lot of trading with.

If only there was some kind of free trade deal that would have made life more uncomfortable for that Asian country while curtailing their influence in the Pacific.

Seriously, when have these ever been conservative bedrock ideas? Conservatives love government institutions and the justice system when they're working for them and hate them when they're working against them. US Leadership in international affairs has always been dictated by whether the US is winning or losing at the moment and moral character in office isn't a political belief.

The preservation of institutions, as opposed to their ongoing reform, has been central to American conservatism. Central to the conservative is the idea that we should not embrace radical new standards but rather preserve the things that have worked in the past and been time-tested. Trumpism, on the other hand, undermines, subverts and hollows out institutions according to the whims of the executive. Conservatives have had to swallow that in order to embrace Trump.

US leadership in international affairs has been a staple of the post-war international order. That's now out the window.

And the insistence on moral leadership in high office has absolutely been a hallmark of modern US conservatism. How many times have we heard the phrase "the party of Lincoln", as though that's some gold standard. To say it's "not political" is simply another attempt to disregard another jarring reversal required of conservatives. Something they claimed matters no longer matters. And that's the price of entry so they have to suck it up.

His position on both of these issues is pretty clear, based on the laws he's changed, what he's changed in them and the history of the justices he appoints.

OK, what is Trump's position on abortion? Does he want Roe v Wade overturned? Does he think abortion should be illegal? You say it's "pretty clear".

Aside from that I don't understand what your point is here because opposition to gay marriage isn't a core tenet of republicanism either.

You mentioned opposition to gay marriage as an issue that propelled Trump's election. In reality, it's a culture war issue from a generation ago that has basically been conceded. Opposition to gay marriage was a cornerstone of social conservatism and the religious right but Trump doesn't appear to have an interest in relitigating it. So if Trump voters wanted him to push back on gay rights, they haven't got what they paid for, have they? Another reversal.

If Phar Lap was running in the Melbourne Cup last year he probably would have won as well.

Because Phar Lap was successful. Likewise, if Obama had been allowed to run for a third term, he likely would have won. Because his presidency was successful.

The reality is that Obama finished his term with a populace so jaded by politics that an "anti-establishment" candidate won the presidential election and he very nearly contested it against another anti-establishment candidate from Obama's own party. Is that a success?

Obama's presidency was successful enough that if the Democratic party was in a position to replicate it, they'd take that with both hands.

The subsequent failure was in the party's ability to find/nominate a candidate capable of winning in 2016, once Obama left office. That's not on Obama. Nor is it a shortcoming of his presidency.

Was it Bill Clinton's fault that George Bush beat Al Gore in 2000?

And yet nothing happens in isolation.

That's a meaningless thing to say. Obama's presidency was not the proximate cause of Trump getting elected. Clinton bears infinitely more responsibility, for example.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Those blundstones have held me in good stead during fights against antifa operatives.

This thread is going well. It's like watching a group of hillbillys argue over which one of the 3 stooges they'd prefer to bed their sister.

Yes, I fondly recall your performance outside Lauren Southerns event in Melb, as eternalised in this YouTube vid. By my count, you personally neutralised 4 communists. Typical Richmond show off!

 

[Seeds]

Where is this from?

News.Com yesterday.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You said the right wins elections because they "stay true to their beliefs". That suggests popularity is a factor, when in fact Republican presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly less popular in presidential elections since 1990. They have won elections despite that because of the quirks of the electoral college, not because they "stay true to their beliefs".

Let me get this straight:

I have said that the right wins elections. You claim this suggests that I think "popularity" is a factor. You then go on to say that popularity isn't a factor anyway. So in otherwords, you're getting the impression that i'm talking about popularity even though you've explained yourself as to why you shouldn't be getting the impression that I'm talking about popularity.

You're giving me a headache.

This is not an argument. You are simple saying two phrases are not the same. The point remains: Trump was rejected by the Republican establishment but won anyway. That is not in dispute.

It's not meant to be ground-breaking. If anything, it's quite obvious.

They aren't the same, and you've gone from saying Trump did a hostile takeover of the republican party to backtracking to the bleeding obvious. I'm not interested in arguing the bleeding obvious. If you aren't going to stand by what you said originally then just say it and move on without shifting the goalposts.

Whether there's chagrin is open to interpretation. Certainly the Republicans in government appear to have made peace with their utter subordination to Trump. Nevertheless, the fact remains he won the nomination despite initially being rejected and opposed by the establishment, which has since been forced to jettison several professed orthodoxies in order to embrace him. That establishment has been hollowed out and subjugated by a president many of them previously opposed and criticised as unfit for high office.

There have been influential moderate republicans who have either left the party or find themselves on the outer, yes. Would you mind going into detail as to how the "establishment" of the GOP has been "hollowed out" since Trump was elected?

This is a roundabout way of skirting the fact that conservatives have had to jettison their professed commitment to free trade under Trump. One of several embarrassing reversals.

Compare this to the fact that left wing parties have had to jettison their professed commitment to workers rights and wealth equality to accommodate the interests of billionaires that now call the shots in a lot of modern left wing politics and ask yourself what the real embarrassing reversal is.

The preservation of institutions, as opposed to their ongoing reform, has been central to American conservatism. Central to the conservative is the idea that we should not embrace radical new standards but rather preserve the things that have worked in the past and been time-tested. Trumpism, on the other hand, undermines, subverts and hollows out institutions according to the whims of the executive. Conservatives have had to swallow that in order to embrace Trump.

Would you care to give some examples of your assertions in practice?

US leadership in international affairs has been a staple of the post-war international order. That's now out the window.

It's pretty obviously not.

And the insistence on moral leadership in high office has absolutely been a hallmark of modern US conservatism. How many times have we heard the phrase "the party of Lincoln", as though that's some gold standard. To say it's "not political" is simply another attempt to disregard another jarring reversal required of conservatives. Something they claimed matters no longer matters. And that's the price of entry so they have to suck it up.

Nah it's just being realistic about what's political and what's not. Wanting your presidents to be polite and literate is what many would assume to be a basic expectation to hold, stemming from common decency. Maybe it would be a political issue if the Democrats were running on a policy of not having moral leadership in the high office.

OK, what is Trump's position on abortion? Does he want Roe v Wade overturned? Does he think abortion should be illegal? You say it's "pretty clear".

not that I think we're going anywhere with this line of argument but see here

You mentioned opposition to gay marriage as an issue that propelled Trump's election. In reality, it's a culture war issue from a generation ago that has basically been conceded. Opposition to gay marriage was a cornerstone of social conservatism and the religious right but Trump doesn't appear to have an interest in relitigating it. So if Trump voters wanted him to push back on gay rights, they haven't got what they paid for, have they? Another reversal.

I mentioned gay marriage as one of the examples in which middle class, white, religious Americans thought their religious and personal freedoms were under attack. It is not a point about gay marriage itself. This is another case in which your nitpicking of finer details leads you on a tangent and sees us arguing about unrelated things.

Because Phar Lap was successful. Likewise, if Obama had been allowed to run for a third term, he likely would have won. Because his presidency was successful.

Obama's presidency was successful enough that if the Democratic party was in a position to replicate it, they'd take that with both hands.

The subsequent failure was in the party's ability to find/nominate a candidate capable of winning in 2016, once Obama left office. That's not on Obama. Nor is it a shortcoming of his presidency.

Was it Bill Clinton's fault that George Bush beat Al Gore in 2000?

That's a meaningless thing to say. Obama's presidency was not the proximate cause of Trump getting elected. Clinton bears infinitely more responsibility, for example.

Basically you're just saying that Obama's presidency was successful and therefore Obama's presidency couldn't have had any detrimental impact on the following election because his presidency was a success. And it was a success because of approval ratings when he left office. And the democrats in the swing states who previously voted for Obama but didn't vote for Hillary couldn't possibly have not voted for Hillary because of Obama because everyone likes Obama because his presidency was a success.

It's funny, all through this thread there's people explaining why they don't like centrist politics and there's clear evidence that candidates like Sanders and Warren are gaining real traction with voters, both being far more left wing than Obama was, and you're just like "nah, it's gotta just be Hillary that was the problem".

I don't think people are as dumb as you think they are.

 

[Seeds]

Yes, it's just a repeat of the same two hackneyed anti-Sanders "argument" his opponents have been making for 6 years.

The same arguments we saw ruin shorten and corbyn are now false are they? Lefties complain about the fear campaigns that won those elections (i.e. meaning the fear campaigns were successful) but now you want to pretend that the idea of another fear campaign in the US is just a hackneyed anti sanders argument? Which is it? Do fear campaigns work or not and if they dont work does that not mean that the people simply hated Shortens and Corbyns actual policies?

The only difference with this fear campaign is that Trump doesnt even have to lie about policies like Morrison and Johnson did. He can just tell the truth on health and thats enough. A vote for Sanders is a vote for losing your private health insurance and will send you back to the public system to wait in long lines with everyone else. That will change a lot of peoples votes.

 

[Seeds]

That's all both party's establishments care about. Keep the gravy train rolling.

I think its more that they care about power over policy and you need money for power. If money was the main objective they would all be in the private sector.

 

[Seeds]

Ultimately, violence is predominately perpetuated by the far-right. There is so little left-wing violence in today's society that it doesn't seem worth talking about.

Um China. Might want to recheck that thought.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The same arguments we saw ruin shorten and corbyn are now false are they? Lefties complain about the fear campaigns that won those elections (i.e. meaning the fear campaigns were successful) but now you want to pretend that the idea of another fear campaign in the US is just a hackneyed anti sanders argument? Which is it? Do fear campaigns work or not and if they dont work does that not mean that the people simply hated Shortens and Corbyns actual policies?

The only difference with this fear campaign is that Trump doesnt even have to lie about policies like Morrison and Johnson did. He can just tell the truth on health and thats enough. A vote for Sanders is a vote for losing your private health insurance and will send you back to the public system to wait in long lines with everyone else. That will change a lot of peoples votes.

Which, of course, is a good thing, for chrissake!
The proposition that those with money should be able to queue jump those without in access to and the use of scarce medical resources is just outrageous, totally bloody indefensible in the USA as it is in Australia.

And the obvious, that Trump's trogs are going to (read already have started, as we can see on here all day every day) use lies, bs and naked scare crap against any and every other candidate, shouldn't - doesn't - need to be pointed out yet again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

But using this this fact to decry Sanders' potential candidacy and his alone, is merely doing the dirty work of the "never-Sanders" DNC and their Billionaires' Media frontmen as well as that of Trump.

 

[pjcrows]

I think its more that they care about power over policy and you need money for power. If money was the main objective they would all be in the private sector.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[pjcrows]

The same arguments we saw ruin shorten and corbyn are now false are they? Lefties complain about the fear campaigns that won those elections (i.e. meaning the fear campaigns were successful) but now you want to pretend that the idea of another fear campaign in the US is just a hackneyed anti sanders argument? Which is it? Do fear campaigns work or not and if they dont work does that not mean that the people simply hated Shortens and Corbyns actual policies?

The only difference with this fear campaign is that Trump doesnt even have to lie about policies like Morrison and Johnson did. He can just tell the truth on health and thats enough. A vote for Sanders is a vote for losing your private health insurance and will send you back to the public system to wait in long lines with everyone else. That will change a lot of peoples votes.

Yeah, millions of Americans love forking out $10k per year for their health insurance, most of which doesn't even cover them when needed.

There's a reason most developed countries with universal healthcare don't have anyone with medical bankruptcy and the US have hunderds of thousands.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Um China. Might want to recheck that thought.

I'm talking about the past decade.

Only simpletons believe China is still communist. On a level with people who call Nazis socialists.

 

[spinynorman]

I'm talking about the past decade.

Only simpletons believe China is still communist. On a level with people who call Nazis socialists.

China's capitalist when we're talking about its economic strength but communist when we're talking about its human rights abuses, duh.

 

[pjcrows]

China's capitalist when we're talking about its economic strength but communist when we're talking about its human rights abuses, duh.

So they're State Capitalists then, but even some argue with that.

 

[FredLeDeux]

China's capitalist when we're talking about its economic strength but communist when we're talking about its human rights abuses, duh.

Don't worry, Chinese won't always be "the other" out here, I'm sure 160 years of history is bound to come to an end soon.

 

[Cooldude]

Still think a massive amount of stars would need to align for Bernie to become the Dem nominee

He'd need to do very well in Nevada and more importantly SC, yet at the same time hope Warren would drop out and her voters would magically go in his favour. He'd need to build a real head of steam as to sway the latter states in his favour in order to have a chance at a delegate majority

More than likely though, it's gonna be contested, what a s**t show it's gonna be in June

It won't be Buttigieg or Biden, more than likely be Bloomberg

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Still think a massive amount of stars would need to align for Bernie to become the Dem nominee

He'd need to do very well in Nevada and more importantly SC, yet at the same time hope Warren would drop out and her voters would magically go in his favour. He'd need to build a real head of steam as to sway the latter states in his favour in order to have a chance at a delegate majority

More than likely though, it's gonna be contested, what a s**t show it's gonna be in June

It won't be Buttigieg or Biden, more than likely be Bloomberg

We are yet to see how Bloomberg performs at the ballot box. He has a tonne of ads, but two massive weaknesses:

1) minimal ground game infrastructure. He came in late, so would have missed getting a lot of the key precinct captains, volunteers, and organisers. These are essential to actually getting people out to vote on the day (much of it is setting up logistics to shuttle people to booths, ensuring they have necessary support while waiting (ie food/drink), and of course making sure that they don't get knocked back due to bs rules or intimidation

2) he has one policy, trump has to go and he can do it. With super Tuesday that will start being examined, and he will face the same hurdles the others have when they have had to explain/defend their policies.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Still think a massive amount of stars would need to align for Bernie to become the Dem nominee

He'd need to do very well in Nevada and more importantly SC, yet at the same time hope Warren would drop out and her voters would magically go in his favour. He'd need to build a real head of steam as to sway the latter states in his favour in order to have a chance at a delegate majority

More than likely though, it's gonna be contested, what a s**t show it's gonna be in June

It won't be Buttigieg or Biden, more than likely be Bloomberg

Sorry, cut first part

Agree Nevada and SC will be massive. I can't remember a skew this severe in the Dems on Latino/black votes in years. The polling is horrid for some (is Pete) so it will be really interesting to see how the perform on the day.

Fwiw I can't see a pathway for Warren anymore. She has to hail Mary for super Tuesday, and be prepared to tap out if she fails there. Personally I can't see her doing it

 

[Cooldude]

Sorry, cut first part

Agree Nevada and SC will be massive. I can't remember a skew this severe in the Dems on Latino/black votes in years. The polling is horrid for some (is Pete) so it will be really interesting to see how the perform on the day.

Fwiw I can't see a pathway for Warren anymore. She has to hail Mary for super Tuesday, and be prepared to tap out if she fails there. Personally I can't see her doing it

Buttigieg put all his eggs in the New Hampshire and Iowa basket, but if his polling doesn't improve soon in other states then he's gonna get superceded by Bloomberg

Bloomberg in a debate is gonna be interesting, all the candidates will rip him a new one, but money and ads will talk, Bloomberg is no stranger in politics so he'll know what to do.

Biden is purely there to spoil other candidates at this point, he can't win the primary or election

 

[Seeds]

Yeah, millions of Americans love forking out $10k per year for their health insurance, most of which doesn't even cover them when needed.

There's a reason most developed countries with universal healthcare don't have anyone with medical bankruptcy and the US have hunderds of thousands.

Oh i think us health system is an utter disaster. But companies pay for many peoples health insurance. It may cost ridiculous money but many people have their employers pay it. I.e. in their minds these people get private health for free and sanders is taking it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Buttigieg put all his eggs in the New Hampshire and Iowa basket, but if his polling doesn't improve soon in other states then he's gonna get superceded by Bloomberg

Bloomberg in a debate is gonna be interesting, all the candidates will rip him a new one, but money and ads will talk, Bloomberg is no stranger in politics so he'll know what to do.

Biden is purely there to spoil other candidates at this point, he can't win the primary or election

Bloomberg cant be in the debates, as it doesnt meet the donor criteria (and he isnt going to do the dodgy bumper sticker shtick that Steyer did)

biden is deader than a Melbourne forward line

Pete has done the age old strategy of 5+ ranked candidates. Go all in on Iowa/NH, and hope you get enough buzz to get the money and media churning to push you into the next rounds. If pete starts raining money it worked, if not, he's in trouble

 

[pjcrows]

Oh i think us health system is an utter disaster. But companies pay for many peoples health insurance. It may cost ridiculous money but many people have their employers pay it. I.e. in their minds these people get private health for free and sanders is taking it.

A pretty simple equation to explain - "You will save money, and have health care".

Once again, full credit to the US corporate establishment. One of the most successful propaganda experiments ever.

 

[Seeds]

A pretty simple equation to explain - "You will save money, and have health care".

Once again, full credit to the US corporate establishment. One of the most successful propaganda experiments ever.

Except it saves no money for people whose employers pays for it and it results in worse health service.