2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Which single (D) candidate would you vote/caucus for if you were voting/caucusing today?

Michael Bennet
0
No votes
Joe Biden
0
No votes
Michael Bloomberg
0
No votes
Pete Buttigieg
1
9%
Tulsi Gabbard
0
No votes
Amy Klobuchar
0
No votes
Deval Patrick
0
No votes
Bernie Sanders
7
64%
Tom Steyer
0
No votes
Elizabeth Warren
2
18%
Andrew Yang
1
9%
 
Total votes : 11

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Poster_Undefined » 11 February 2020, 13:08

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Poster_Undefined wrote:I want to see people talk about Pete Buttigieg more. I want to know peoples' opinions about him.

Ho-ly shit. Where the hell have you been? It’s like I’m talking to a revenant.

Hi, Pooler, nice to see you. I added everyone from GTF that I could to FB, which has now also transferred over to IG, and then ran off to do whatever it is that people do from their late teens to mid 20's. I'm happy to catch up sometime if you're really interested.

Derek wrote:More? Have you read the thread so far?

Hi, Egregious. Also nice to see you. I guess what I meant is that in my circles, and in the city and maybe even region I live in, Pete hasn't really been on the radar. I've read articles about why this is, but no one I know really talks about any of it. I wanted to see what people here thought about him because he did well in Iowa, and because people suppose that he should have a strong LGBT+ base. Do people think he'll keep doing well? What does he have to offer, and why do people like him?

This is of course all on the backdrop of me believing no one is really going to beat Trump in 2020 but that's neither here nor there this early in the game, I guess.
User avatar
Poster_Undefined
 
Posts: 114
+1s received: 2
Joined: 24 December 2012, 03:15
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Brenden » 11 February 2020, 14:18

Poster_Undefined wrote:
Derek wrote:More? Have you read the thread so far?

I guess what I meant is that in my circles, and in the city and maybe even region I live in, Pete hasn't really been on the radar.

Yeah, but like the last 5 pages in this thread have been about him.

He's probably not on your radar because he's a nobody mayor of a "city" most people have never heard of.

Poster_Undefined wrote:I wanted to see what people here thought about him because he did well in Iowa, and because people suppose that he should have a strong LGBT+ base.

Supporting someone just because they're LGBT+ is like women blindly supporting Hillary Clinton, who was on Wall-Mart's legal team while it was fighting against women getting equal pay, just because she has a vagina.

It's #stupIDpol. Stupid identity politics.

Poster_Undefined wrote:Do people think he'll keep doing well?

No. He put all his eggs into the Iowa basket, which has only paid off moderately well going into New Hampshire by him becoming in centrists' eyes the new, younger, hipper Joe Biden. Except unlike Joe Biden he, for good reason, doesn't have support amongst black voters, so will likely do poorly in South Carolina and elsewhere.

Poster_Undefined wrote:What does he have to offer, and why do people like him?

He has essentially nothing to offer. He won Iowa by putting a lot of money into a ground game and only has support in the polls by being, as I said earlier, a younger up-and-coming alternative to Joe Biden, who he resoundedly trounced in Iowa, for centrists to flock to.

I suppose there are LGBT+ people who like him for being gay. But as I said, that's a #stupIDpol reason to like a politician.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 7317
+1s received: 2207
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Derek » 11 February 2020, 19:47

To be embarrassingly honest, the fact that he's gay is a plus for me. But that's a tie-breaker at best.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5781
+1s received: 1835
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Poster_Undefined » 11 February 2020, 20:14

Brenden wrote:Yeah, but like the last 5 pages in this thread have been about him.

He's probably not on your radar because he's a nobody mayor of a "city" most people have never heard of.

I did read the other pages. Maybe I missed it, but there really wasn't that much analysis beyond "I don't like him" and "he's centrist." I was wondering if anyone had specific criticisms of his stances or, more importantly to me, any insight as to what he potentially has to offer in comparison to other candidates. I think you've answered some of that for me a bit in this post, though, so thanks.

Brenden wrote:Supporting someone just because they're LGBT+ is like women blindly supporting Hillary Clinton, who was on Wall-Mart's legal team while it was fighting against women getting equal pay, just because she has a vagina.

It's #stupIDpol. Stupid identity politics.
While I agree, I'm not so sure "identity politics" as a whole is stupid, but that's a conversation that could be saved for a whole different thread. All I'll say is what I think, and I'm happy to agree to disagree: Identity politics is politics. The idea that people, based on their identities, in a democracy will vote and elect people who will represent their interests (which can be informed by their identities) is not unreasonably stupid. It's an essential element of how the system works. I think critics of "identity politics" often don't like the identities that people are choosing to form their coalitions around, with the prominent ones in the US being race, sex, and sexual identity, with region and urban/rural also being important. People would rather talk about class, or state of residence, or ideology, but that's also identity politics. There are obvious downsides, but I think it's in the inability to place cross cutting issues between identities, or to address cross cutting issues with identity-nuanced solutions rather than a single solution, but not necessarily the identity coalitions in and of themselves.

This is why I said people suppose that Pete Buttigieg should be supported by the LGBT+ community. Unlike the narrative you gave in your Hillary example, it's not that people could vote for him for the sole purpose he identifies as a gay man, but rather that there is an underlying assumption that because he "identifies like me," that his interests in policy change should be similar to mine. Just like your Hillary example, though, that's not necessarily the case, and I think Pete Buttigieg could be a good example of this. His stances (whatever they are, I don't know), don't seem to be addressing the concerns of LGBT+ people considering that he isn't garnering as much support as anticipated, and that's rooted in the fact he's unrelatable to a lot of people who share this broad identity (a generalization problem with identity politics), or so I've read.

I can't say I know what his stances are, or why they're misaligned with the hopes of a lot of LGBT+ people. It'd be interesting to know, and based on what you and others have said, I'm guessing they're rooted in his centrism.

Brenden wrote:He has essentially nothing to offer. He won Iowa by putting a lot of money into a ground game and only has support in the polls by being, as I said earlier, a younger up-and-coming alternative to Joe Biden, who he resoundedly trounced in Iowa, for centrists to flock to.

I suppose there are LGBT+ people who like him for being gay. But as I said, that's a #stupIDpol reason to like a politician.
Well, considering that one of the narratives right now is that the Democrats lost and will lose because "they're too progressive and not centrist enough" isn't Pete Buttigieg being a rising centrist golden-boy a point of concern? I'm skeptical of his insignificance, because the last time people said "he's worth nothing, he won't go far" we got Trump. It's yet to be seen what happens after Iowa and the incoming New Hampshire counts, but considering he did so well I think it's worth discussing further and less dismissively, and actually explaining more concretely why Pete Buttigieg does or does not work for people.

Either way he's caught my attention (though not my political interest), and some articles I've been scouring over here and here just talk about how he's a palatable, moderate gay man. Only one, from a news source I've never heard of and that I don't think I would really pay much attention to, talked about specifics like economics as the reason for his inability to connect to parts of the LGBT+ community.
User avatar
Poster_Undefined
 
Posts: 114
+1s received: 2
Joined: 24 December 2012, 03:15
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Brenden » 11 February 2020, 20:40

I’m not saying that identity politics is stupid per se, I’m saying choosing a politician simply based on their identity is stupid identity politics, which is to say a subset of identity politics that is stupid.

The Democrats didn’t lose because they’re too progressive and not centrist enough. That’s literally the exactly opposite of what’s been happening the last 10 years, culminating in Hillary’s monumental loss to Donald Trump. Hillary is ridiculously centrist. Following Obama’s first victory, the Democrats ran centrist, moderate candidate after centrist, moderate candidate and lost thousands of seats at all levels of government across the country.

The last midterm, on the other hand, has been the best midterm result for Democrats since 2006, and that’s partly because of the significant number of progressive, anti-establishment candidates who ran and won.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 7317
+1s received: 2207
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby René » 11 February 2020, 20:50

There are many reasons to dislike PB, but one that particularly stands out to me after a recent healthcare experience is that, if I understand his position correctly, he wants to keep the horrendously inefficient healthcare system in the US largely the same, with a gigantic amount of money being spent each year just on billing administration and people unable to go see whatever doctor they want whenever they want at no cost to them or to go to whatever hospital they want when they need to.

Here in Scotland, I was recently in the hospital for a week. I got world-class treatment from a lot of highly proficient, really sweet, truly caring people; it doesn't get any better. There were no bills. It was efficient. The hospital was simply owned by the government and the staff were on the government payroll. It's not just that the government got the bill and paid it for me; there literally were no bills.

I'm certain that in the US, my hospital stay would have resulted in a complicated bill for tens of thousands of dollars, a lot of which would have actually gone to administration to make all the billing happen.

In the Scottish hospital I was taken to (by ambulance, which again cost me nothing and cost the government nothing beyond just owning the vehicle and paying the paramedics and buying the fuel), which was selected not because it was "in my insurer's network" or something dumb like that but simply because it was the one with the facilities most suited to my emergency, there was a cash department, but what it was there for was to pay my husband's taxi driver because there wasn't room for him in the ambulance. It's humane and efficient.

The government also has tremendous negotiating power because it by definition represents the healthcare spending of all the millions of people in the country, the result of which is that it pays way, way less for most drugs than patients and insurance companies and Medicare or whatever in the US do. And when I go to the pharmacy to pick up my medication, they just ask for my name and address and then hand it to me; I don't pay anything.

I'm quite convinced that a single-payer system like this is the only way to run a cost-effective healthcare system: it's an economy of scale, and you can't do it without taking the pathetic private insurance companies and private hospitals and so on out of the picture and relegating them to, at most, a supplementary role (but ideally none at all).

Note that the taxes that pay for the healthcare system and all the other public services we enjoy here aren't even that high: for example, most recently our effective tax rate (including both income tax and social-security contributions) on a household income of about $30,000 was about 3.7%.

PB doesn't get any part of what is fundamentally wrong with healthcare in the US.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 5221
+1s received: 1441
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Brenden » 11 February 2020, 20:58

One of the problems with Buttplug is that he actually does understand. He’s written essays about it in university, he used to support Medicare for All and Bernie Sanders, and he probably still supports them in his own private thoughts.

But politically he’s taking positions that are centrist and “moderate” because he’s just playing a political game and trying to court Joe Biden and Clinton type voters, and/or because he’s being paid to take the positions by his 40 billionaire and other wealthy donors who are telling him what they want him to say in their wine cave fundraisers.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 7317
+1s received: 2207
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Poster_Undefined » 11 February 2020, 21:28

Brenden wrote:The Democrats didn’t lose because they’re too progressive and not centrist enough. That’s literally the exactly opposite of what’s been happening the last 10 years, culminating in Hillary’s monumental loss to Donald Trump. Hillary is ridiculously centrist. Following Obama’s first victory, the Democrats ran centrist, moderate candidate after centrist, moderate candidate and lost thousands of seats at all levels of government across the country.

The last midterm, on the other hand, has been the best midterm result for Democrats since 2006, and that’s partly because of the significant number of progressive, anti-establishment candidates who ran and won.
For what it's worth, I agree with like 90% of what you've said. But I also keep in mind that what we agree on is just one of the narratives commonly presented, and other narratives, be they contrary to reality or not, are also present and strong. I think the narrative we see most is going to depend on where we're choosing to listen, and the narrative people hear shapes their political outlook especially in a time where people pay little mind to facts.

I'm liberal as fuck, and a lot of my circles exist in higher education university settings- specifically in my field where the healthcare debate drives both a professional and political interest. So I understand and hear often the "Democrats haven't gone far enough to the left" narrative. I wouldn't mind at all an imminent progressive heyday. I live for it.

I'm also obsessively interested in what moderates and conservatives think, because I live around a lot of them, and I think it's important to keep their arguments and concerns in mind so that we can, if nothing else and no compromise, work around and bypass them politically. Their narrative is that even Obama was too liberal and his government too inflated and too regulated- and that Clinton's administration was going to be too similar to his. They also say that the part of the Dems exemplified by AOC & Sanders are too radically left, and although they dislike Trump they feel far too alienated by the Progressive wings of the Democratic Party. Even as Trump continuously proves to be contrary to what some moderates wanted, they still cling to the "but at least he isn't a Clinton," or "he delivers on my conservative agenda."

Gallup just released an interesting poll that somewhat plays into this. Based on the narrative that a person is taking, do Bernie and the rest of the Progressives take on a "socialist" persona? It would be interesting to know, because according to those sampled in the poll, only 45% of Independents and 76% of Democrats would be willing to vote for him. Those numbers are concerning, but only if a person's narrative equates Bernie and the Progressives as "socialist." Does this leave room for Pete Buttigieg? Vox seems to think so.

A perception of relative moderation will most likely help, not hurt, the eventual nominee. The most rigorous studies on this question from political scientists tend to find that moderate nominees have a distinct advantage over ones perceived as more extreme, largely because they don’t activate their opponent’s base the same way a more extreme nominee would.
...
Put another way: Sanders would terrify and turn out Trump’s base, whereas Buttigieg likely would not.
...
Buttigieg’s position may inflame die-hard left partisans, but it might be a better general election play. The best evidence we have from the 2018 midterms, as compiled by Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz, suggests that supporting Medicare-for-all cost Democrats about 4.6 percentage points in swing districts; the average Democratic margin was higher in districts where the Democratic candidate didn’t back Medicare-for-all, despite those districts being more Republican-leaning overall than districts where pro-Medicare-for-all candidates ran.
User avatar
Poster_Undefined
 
Posts: 114
+1s received: 2
Joined: 24 December 2012, 03:15
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby René » 11 February 2020, 22:27

Poster_Undefined, I love you, but I submit to you that your narrative narrative (or meta-narrative, if you will) is itself no less a narrative and may not be the one that is the most helpful in the present context.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 5221
+1s received: 1441
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Poster_Undefined » 11 February 2020, 22:37

René wrote:Poster_Undefined, I love you, but I submit to you that your narrative narrative (or meta-narrative, if you will) is itself no less a narrative and may not be the one that is the most helpful in the present context.
Haha, that's fair. I just thought I'd ask GFO people about some of this stuff, and I enjoyed the discussion.

I'm going to sit back and see how the primaries, and eventually the general elections, go.
User avatar
Poster_Undefined
 
Posts: 114
+1s received: 2
Joined: 24 December 2012, 03:15
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Derek » 12 February 2020, 06:15

I'm astonished by Pete's performance. The man has no charisma and no platform. I think this is the sort of thing I'll only be able to digest in retrospect.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5781
+1s received: 1835
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Derek » 12 February 2020, 07:00

Poster_Undefined wrote:Vox seems to think so.

Blech.

A perception of relative moderation will most likely help, not hurt, the eventual nominee. The most rigorous studies on this question from political scientists tend to find that moderate nominees have a distinct advantage over ones perceived as more extreme, largely because they don’t activate their opponent’s base the same way a more extreme nominee would.
...
Put another way: Sanders would terrify and turn out Trump’s base, whereas Buttigieg likely would not.
...
Buttigieg’s position may inflame die-hard left partisans, but it might be a better general election play. The best evidence we have from the 2018 midterms, as compiled by Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz, suggests that supporting Medicare-for-all cost Democrats about 4.6 percentage points in swing districts; the average Democratic margin was higher in districts where the Democratic candidate didn’t back Medicare-for-all, despite those districts being more Republican-leaning overall than districts where pro-Medicare-for-all candidates ran.

This is a very pre-Trump analysis, and representative of how mainstream democrats refuse to learn lessons. Democrats think they can't win without moderates, despite eating shit in 2016 and 2004 when their whole strategy was to juxtapose a centrist and a right-wing lunatic and hope the discrepancy would speak for itself. But moderates will not turn out just to vote against someone, and even if they do it's not enough to flip districts in this dumpster we call a republic. What is the point of building a coalition of moderates anyway? It leaves the party with no mandate, no agenda, and no chance of accomplishing anything that the next guy won't merc on his first day in office.

This is where I'm at. If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, then I don't care who wins 2020. I'm prepared to admit that a Pete presidency is better on paper than a Trump one, but you have to consider the broader trajectory. Obama was swept in a wave of populist support, Democrats had both branches of Congress, and the financial crisis had created the biggest impetus for transformational reform in a generation. And now nothing is left of his tenure except that Trump defeated his hand-picked successor. What was the point? The party in its current configuration is not capable of wielding power, and what's more, it's not capable of combating an opposition party that actually is.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5781
+1s received: 1835
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Brenden » 12 February 2020, 13:03

Ugh. Why do young people not vote? :facepalm2:

Image
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 7317
+1s received: 2207
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 12 February 2020, 14:10

Derek wrote:If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, then I don't care who wins 2020.

What do you hope to get out of a Sanders presidency? I’m just trying to reconcile in my head your burning passion for a Sanders presidency with your economic worldview.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8342
+1s received: 1945
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Derek » 12 February 2020, 16:18

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, then I don't care who wins 2020.

What do you hope to get out of a Sanders presidency? I’m just trying to reconcile in my head your burning passion for a Sanders presidency with your economic worldview.

I'm not dumb enough to think the other two branches of government will let him get away with much, but a president like Sanders is necessary to move the Overton Window. For example, M4A is only a mainstream platform now because Sanders campaigned in 2016. But executive powers would let him do stuff like canceling student debt, actually leaving the Middle East, taking actual action on climate change, and ending immigrant internment camps. I don't think Pete would do any of those things.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5781
+1s received: 1835
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 12 February 2020, 16:33

Right but why do you want any of these things? A couple years ago you made a comment that whether people are entitled to subsistence in a conversation about AI potentially displacing millions of workers is “an emotional argument, on which [you] have no strong opinion.” All you need is a Dalmatian coat and you’d be perfect as a villain in a Disney movie. Sometimes the shifting of the Overton window must occur within ourselves.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8342
+1s received: 1945
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Derek » 12 February 2020, 16:41

poolerboy0077 wrote:Right but why do you want any of these things?

Because they're the morally and materially correct positions?

I haven't changed my mind about automation. There are enough resources in this country to give everyone a decent life.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5781
+1s received: 1835
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 12 February 2020, 16:50

So it’s safe to say you’ve changed your mind of having “no strong opinion” on people deserving subsistence? Or if we were in a situation where we didn’t have enough resources you’d be indifferent?
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8342
+1s received: 1945
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby Derek » 12 February 2020, 17:00

Yes, I've changed my mind on the moral part of the argument. That began when I realized the economic justifications for inequality were largely bs, but I've also since discovered that there's no point in having a worldview that lacks a moral core. It doesn't feel good and it doesn't lead anywhere.

There. Are you happy?
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5781
+1s received: 1835
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election | Primaries | NEW POLL

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 12 February 2020, 17:17

What even are the economic justifications for inequality that you once found convincing?
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8342
+1s received: 1945
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], John27, rado84, SEOkicks [Bot] and 76 guests