2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[metalhead]

Age alone is not a problem. However, he has picked up some baggage since last time that would make things more difficult. The bench for progressive democrats is small though. Keith Ellison is great, but his religion will almost certainly drive turnout for Trump's base. Tulsi Gabbard is also a solid progressive, but she met with the guy the Military-Industrial Complex arbitrarily decided was the worse of two evils, so now the establishment shills want her head on a pike. Jeff Merkely doesn't seem like to type to seek something out in front like the Oval Office.

I wish people would stop saying that Tulsi Gabbard is progressive. She went to Syria for the purpose of providing political cover for Assad to continue to commit war crimes and atrocities. She is not a progressive. She's abhorrent.

The interesting thing about 2020 is that unless Joe Biden runs, and I kind of don't want him to, there isn't really a "next (wo)man up" in the rotation. Been a while since Democrats didn't have a logical next candidate. You may very well see a repeat of GOP 2016, where you have 17 candidates humiliating themselves, paving the way for President Jay Z. Even some of them good-ol-boy crackers would have to admit, Bey would be a hell of a first lady. She's practically first lady now anyways.

 

[danjuno]

I wish people would stop saying that Tulsi Gabbard is progressive. She went to Syria for the purpose of providing political cover for Assad to continue to commit war crimes and atrocities. She is not a progressive. She's abhorrent.

I wish YOU would actually provide some evidence that she's a "puppet" of Assad.

 

[Lexicus]

I wish YOU would actually provide some evidence that she's a "puppet" of Assad.

When was the word "puppet" used?

This article discusses the many problematic aspects of Gabbard's politics at some length.

 

[danjuno]

When was the word "puppet" used?

This article discusses the many problematic aspects of Gabbard's politics at some length.

MH called her a puppet of Assad and the Kremlin in another post.

I'm not entirely comfortable with her view on using secular dictators as a the lesser of two evils against Islamists, but nothing metalhead has posted actually shows her to be a puppet of Assad as opposed to simply finding him useful at the moment.

 

[metalhead]

The quick version, as outlined in WaPo: Tulsi visits Assad in January, outside of normal diplomatic channels. A chemical weapons attack is launched on rebels. Tulsi uses multiple media platforms to cast doubt that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack. While also claiming in response to Trump's missile strike that American belligerence in Syria may precipitate nuclear war.

I don't know about you, but when someone carries water for Assad and Putin, basically repeating their talking points domestically as a sitting member of the House while debating foreign policy, I think "puppet" is an apt description.

Neither the visit nor her stance on intervention in Syria alone merits that conclusion. Taken together, I think it's pretty clear whose foreign policy outcome she's championing, and whose interests she is serving.

 

[Lexicus]

Taken together, I think it's pretty clear whose foreign policy outcome she's championing, and whose interests she is serving.

I don't think it's at all accurate to call her a Russian/Assad puppet. She's just a reactionary nationalist and Islamophobe.

 

[danjuno]

The quick version, as outlined in WaPo: Tulsi visits Assad in January, outside of normal diplomatic channels. A chemical weapons attack is launched on rebels. Tulsi uses multiple media platforms to cast doubt that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack. While also claiming in response to Trump's missile strike that American belligerence in Syria may precipitate nuclear war.

I don't know about you, but when someone carries water for Assad and Putin, basically repeating their talking points domestically as a sitting member of the House while debating foreign policy, I think "puppet" is an apt description.

Neither the visit nor her stance on intervention in Syria alone merits that conclusion. Taken together, I think it's pretty clear whose foreign policy outcome she's championing, and whose interests she is serving.

Again, all I see is conjecture and insisting that correlation is causation. Not to mention you sneer at her for going "outside diplomatic channels" as if there were any way in hell she'd have been allowed to meet him inside diplomatic channels. As if a member of Congress would be allowed to meet with the guy the military industrial establishment arbitrarily decided was the greater of two evils.

 

[metalhead]

Why is she meeting him at all? What possible purpose could that serve?

The only outcome is a PR win for Assad, when Tulsi comes back stateside and starts obfuscating the situation on the ground to try to cover for Assad's war crimes, which is exactly what she did. And I can't figure out why anyone would defend her when she has been equivocating on behalf of a war criminal since she got back.

There is no foreign policy justification for her going there, in secret. The secrecy alone kind of tells you it wasn't above board. You can have the foreign policy debate and advocate against intervention in Syria without either visiting there, or insisting we don't know who launched the chemical weapons attack. "I went there and it's the so-called rebels committing all the war crimes?" No, Tulsi, you don't defend war criminals, or worse, lie and say we don't even know if they're a war criminal. EVER. That's a bright line, and I'm very disappointed you don't seem to agree.

 

[danjuno]

Why is she meeting him at all? What possible purpose could that serve?

At the very least, to pick his brain figure and out how he works.

"I went there and it's the so-called rebels committing all the war crimes?"

You got a source for that, bubba? I definitely didn't see anything like that in the article.

No, Tulsi, you don't defend war criminals, or worse, lie and say we don't even know if they're a war criminal. EVER

I like how you spun her skepticism of Assad's involvement in one particular attack into her supporting every thing he's ever done.

You couldn't even be bothered to accept Lexi's compromise that she is acting independently, albeit for the wrong reasons. You just HAD to cling to the conspiracy theory that she is Assad's puppet.

 

[onejayhawk]

Going back to the point of the thread... 2020... As others have said, he's too old for 2020, and he has additional baggage... the albatross of losing in such a high profile manner is often a tough stigma to shake, even for the younger candidates.

It has been said that Republicans relive their crimes but the Democrats eat their dead. The point is that Republican 2nd and 3rd place finishers often do better in the next open cycle, or the one after, but it is rare for a Democrat. Hillary is the exception that proves the rule. In this case, expect Ted Cruz to be a power on the GOP side in 2020 or 2024, whenever the Donald does not to run. Bernie Sanders will not be a principal Democrat.

What you are saying is that things will go back to normal. Republicans will anoint their frontrunner, unlike 2016, but the Democrats will have a clown car, unlike 2016. If so, I look forward to it. Iam not thrilled with the prospect of Ted Cruz in the Oval Office, but I see little to stop him today. It could be worse. Everyone will know where they stand.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ted Cruz can't run in 2020, regardless of what happens with Trump. In fact if Trump resigns, it will be even harder for Cruz since Pence will be the incumbent. However, I agree with you that we haven't seen the last of ol'TrussedTed

 

[danjuno]

My short list for Ds at this point:
Keith Ellison

Pros: One of the few post-Boomers on the Ds short federal bench, progressive to drive grassroots turnout, minority to drive minority turnout, has home-field advantage on Trump in the Great Lakes states.
Cons: No one since James Garfield has gone directly from the House to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Muslim candidate will definitely drive turnout among social conservatives for Trump.​

Martin O'Malley

Pros: Nearly half of US Presidents have been Governors, may benefit in a more crowded fielded versus the two horse race that developed early between Hillary & Bernie from a lack of candidates, strong but pragmatic liberal and as such not particularly offensive to Bernie or Hillary supporters, re-elected in landslide amidst 2010 GOP wave.
Cons: Still largely unknown after 2016, not an electrifying speaker, flopped in Iowa despite campaigning there early, left office with lukewarm popularity.​

Julian Castro

Pros: Executive (Big City Mayor) experience, cabinet experience, one of the youngest candidates in consideration, would drive Latino turn out as first Latino nominee.
Cons: Too close to HRC for some Berniecrats' liking, unhelpful last name, may have burned some bridges back home by getting his successor as mayor knocked off, no elected experience at the national level.​

Joe Biden

Pros: Blue-collar appeal and background, long resume in DC, one of the few politicians who can match Trump in a "straight talk" match, originally from a state in the blue wall that Ds likely need to retake to unseat Goldylocks (Pennsylvania).
Cons: One of the few politicians who can match Trump in a gaffe-making match, DC insider is not a popular label, Mid-Atlantic is not really competitive aside from PA.​

John Bel Edwards

Pros: Statewide Democrat elected by double digits in the Deep South, defended LGBT rights despite being in the Bible Belt, military and law enforcmenet background.
Cons: Still a Blue Dog on social issues besides LGBT rights, still has to face re-election in 2019, out of step with blue-collar voters on NAFTA.
​

 

[AdrienIer]

Isn't Biden from Delaware ? So a pretty pointless state ?

 

[danjuno]

Yes, but he was born and grew up in Scranton, Pennsylvania, so he has ties to that area as well, and HRC's bad performance in NE Pennsylvania contributed to her loss in that state.

 

[onejayhawk]

Ted Cruz can't run in 2020, regardless of what happens with Trump. In fact if Trump resigns, it will be even harder for Cruz since Pence will be the incumbent. However, I agree with you that we haven't seen the last of ol'TrussedTed

Forget Trump resigning. I expect him to decline to run. Pence will be the other name at the top of the list. Straight up, I think Cruz rolls, but there would be others.

The contrast to the Democratic roster is stark. The GOP has some old guard, like Kasich (65), but even he is several years younger than the headline Democrats. Christie is 55. Scott Walker is 49.

My short list for Ds at this point:
Keith Ellison - Still a lightweight. His support of an admitted racist like Rev. Farrakhan is problematic
Martin O'Malley - He's their most practically accomplished possibility. No traction in 2016 cycle.
Julian Castro - Another interesting guy with no real resume. Give him success in Texas politics and I would take him more seriously.
Joe Biden - Been there, didn't do that, didn't even get the T-shirt.
John Bel Edwards - Yet another future possibility. I like him best of this group, but we haven't seen what he can do in Louisiana yet. 2020, no. 2024, maybe.

J

 

[metalhead]

At the very least, to pick his brain figure and out how he works.


You got a source for that, bubba? I definitely didn't see anything like that in the article.


I like how you spun her skepticism of Assad's involvement in one particular attack into her supporting every thing he's ever done.

You couldn't even be bothered to accept Lexi's compromise that she is acting independently, albeit for the wrong reasons. You just HAD to cling to the conspiracy theory that she is Assad's puppet.

The Guardian has a more complete rundown.

Upon her return to the United States, she insisted all of the rebels are terrorists, a blatant regurgitation of Assadist propaganda. She claimed that all the places the Assad government showed her were full if nothing but Assad supporters, the implication being that Assad is the good guy fighting all those rebel terrorists. This isn't a conspiracy theory, Tulsi is being used as a prop to help Assad. Perhaps it is unwitting, but it's absolutely disgraceful.

I don't know what else you call that. Puppet, stooge, what have you, she is quite clearly defending a war criminal and insisting he is just killing terrorists. Picking the war criminal's brain? Seriously? To what end? Is she writing a book report on war criminals?

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know what else you call that. Puppet, stooge, what have you, she is quite clearly defending a war criminal and insisting he is just killing terrorists.

Stooge, yes. Puppet, no. Different connotations.

 

[danjuno]

“Repeatedly I was told there is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or Isis – they are all the same,” Gabbard wrote.

How did you manage to conflate was Gabbard said her guide/the people she met said and what she herself said?

Picking the war criminal's brain? Seriously? To what end? Is she writing a book report on war criminals?

Yes, to figure out how to get him to agree to some sort peace deal (Whether she is actually capable of doing so is beside the point). Do I have to hold your hand through all of this?

 

[metalhead]

How did you manage to conflate was Gabbard said her guide/the people she met said and what she herself said?

Come on man. Be better than this.

"During her interview with CNN, Gabbard claimed the US was funding terrorist groups by assisting Syrian rebels and further pushed a talking point propagated by the Assad regime and the Russian government that there are no moderate rebels in Syria."

She has directly claimed that the rebels are terrorists. The implication of this is quite clear. It's not conflating anything - they told her that, and she is stating it as fact.

Yes, to figure out how to get him to agree to some sort peace deal (Whether she is actually capable of doing so is beside the point). Do I have to hold your hand through all of this?

You need to hold my hand through the explanation of why you're willing to buy such an obvious BS explanation. Whether she is capable of doing so is exactly the point, because it makes it completely clear that this stated reason is BS.

 

[caketastydelish]

The dem party should either nominate Hillary again, or Chelsea Clinton.

Surely you're not serious. That's the worst thing they could possibly do. Even the Kanye West suggestions are more likely to actually succeed.