Warren or Sanders?

[fishonjazz]

He was a candidate three years ago, did you vote then? Seems like there was a lot of hate for him in 2016 as well. The only difference now is the DNC knows he can win.

Even if many come out to vote against him, doesn't Trump's persona drive out a lot of people, that don't normally vote, who are willing to vote for an off-kilter reality TV star?

Yep I did. First time I ever voted in my entire life. Didn't even like the Democratic candidate. But Trump brought me to the polls to vote because he is such a worthless piece of **** and I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I didn't do what I could to keep him from being the president.

I will do my part again next election. After that, probably won't vote anymore.

There are lots of people like me.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Zombie]

Free College, Universal Healthcare, Student Loan Forgiveness, UBI..........these ideas only appeal to certain groups. Has anyone noticed that the Democrats have said virtually nothing about the Economy?

This statement seems contradictory.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Yep I did. First time I ever voted in my entire life. Didn't even like the Democratic candidate. But Trump brought me to the polls to vote because he is such a worthless piece of **** and I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I didn't do what I could to keep him from being the president.

I will do my part again next election. After that, probably won't vote anymore.

There are lots of people like me.

This is my point. Hating the president didn't drive out enough votes to win in 2016, and it likely won't be enough to win in 2020. A charismatic, likable, moderate candidate would drive more votes than a hatred for Trump. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

If you can check those boxes, and also be a minority, then you have a home-run candidate for the DNC.

 

[Zombie]

He was a candidate three years ago, did you vote then? Seems like there was a lot of hate for him in 2016 as well. The only difference now is the DNC knows he can win.

Even if many come out to vote against him, doesn't Trump's persona drive out a lot of people, that don't normally vote, who are willing to vote for an off-kilter reality TV star?

This will, in a lot of ways be the story of the election. It's true that Trump energizes people to vote for him, but three things will be in effect that weren't last time around.

First the Democrats aren't going to be running an historically unpopular candidate, second as you alluded to, lots of people (not just the DNC) assumed he would lose and either sat out or voted third party, finally he hadn't gone through an impeachment process. I just don't see that as a win for him, especially with the way he's lashed out and made a fool of himself over it in just the last week. Expect that to get worse.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

This statement seems contradictory.

Possibly. I think that there is a large contingent of moderate Democrats (or moderate people in general) that want to hear how a candidate's polices are going to help the economy in a real way. Average earnings, unemployment rate, small business growth, middle-class savings, retirement, etc. These are concepts people understand and know are feasible. UBI, Universal Healthcare, free college.......these ideas sound good to some, but many realize that these might be pipe dreams (at least in the short term) and not real solutions to improve their lives. Most moderate people don't see these topics as directly tied to "the Economy".

Democrats had the House and Senate majority for several years during Obama's administration. They were able to get Obamacare through, which is one small step towards Universal Healthcare. How could anyone possibly expect them to get some of these other progressive ideas enacted?

 

[LogGrad98]

He was a candidate three years ago, did you vote then? Seems like there was a lot of hate for him in 2016 as well. The only difference now is the DNC knows he can win.

Even if many come out to vote against him, doesn't Trump's persona drive out a lot of people, that don't normally vote, who are willing to vote for an off-kilter reality TV star?

I think the difference was in 2016 not enough people took him seriously. I remember watching the election results coverage and the looks of genuine shock on the faces of pretty much all the reporters as the results rolled in. Wait, you mean Trump might win this? That wasn't the script. What the ****? At one point one group (we channel surfed to keep up with everything) was simply speechless for like 30 seconds - an eternity on air really - before obviously someone off-camera prompted one of them. No one expected him to actually win so I think it pushed a lot of fence-sitters to sit out the election.

 

[NAOS]

Yep I did. First time I ever voted in my entire life. Didn't even like the Democratic candidate. But Trump brought me to the polls to vote because he is such a worthless piece of **** and I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I didn't do what I could to keep him from being the president.

I will do my part again next election. After that, probably won't vote anymore.

There are lots of people like me.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

There are plenty of people of Trump’s ilk in the presidential pipeline. Keep voting.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Democrats have a poor history of winning when they can’t increase turnout of those that are disenfranchised and disillusioned. If they send a moderate, they’ll suffer the same fate of Kerry, Hillary, and Gore (and Bill only won the first time because of Perot).

Republicans have representation because they are soldiers at the polls; the left and the silent, cynical majority haven’t figured that out yet and need to believe in candidates that fall into into their laps.

Because Warren is inching ever-closer to a moderate, that she hasn’t shown the same political courage that leftists and cynics need to turn out, she’s been dunked on by Trump repeatedly, and she lacks the support of traditional blue-collar voters (critical in swing states in the rust belt), I think Sanders is the better pick. I see Warren as uniquely vulnerable to losing to Trump.

But I like Warren and would be happy to vote for her. But it’s Sanders.

By the way, an aggressive climate policy is not a fringe issue or a luxury. It is the most important issue in this and every election hereafter.

 

[One Brow]

Democrats had the House and Senate majority for several years during Obama's administration. They were able to get Obamacare through, which is one small step towards Universal Healthcare. How could anyone possibly expect them to get some of these other progressive ideas enacted?

I believe that was for the first two years only with a House majority.

 

[Zombie]

I believe that was for the first two years only with a House majority.

It was, but this brings up the point that if anything like Healthcare and immigration reform, or student loan debt forgiveness are going to be passed the Democrats are going to have to flip the Senate.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

It was, but this brings up the point that if anything like Healthcare and immigration reform, or student loan debt forgiveness are going to be passed the Democrats are going to have to flip the Senate.

Just out of curiosity, what is of more importance to you, implementing new programs (student debt forgiveness, Single Payer or other Healthcare Reform, etc.) or balancing the budget to stop the increase of our Federal Debt? Can both be accomplished simultaneously? Can Democrats enact a tax rate structure that can collect enough revenue from constituents to pay for these programs, growing social security, Medicaid/Medicare, and stop the deficits?

 

[NUMBERICA]

It was, but this brings up the point that if anything like Healthcare and immigration reform, or student loan debt forgiveness are going to be passed the Democrats are going to have to flip the Senate.

Which requires... *drumroll*

TURN. OUT.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Just out of curiosity, what is of more importance to you, implementing new programs (student debt forgiveness, Single Payer or other Healthcare Reform, etc.) or balancing the budget to stop the increase of our Federal Debt? Can both be accomplished simultaneously? Can Democrats enact a tax rate structure that can collect enough revenue from constituents to pay for these programs, growing social security, Medicaid/Medicare, and stop the deficits?

K, but rewind: you know Republicans are AT LEAST as bad at deficit-spending, right? That’s a hollow, fake talking point of the GOP.

 

[Getting Traded]

I think most of the people "energized" to get rid of Trump are the people that are going to be voting regardless. At some point, people have to believe in the person they are voting for, not just the person they are trying to get out of office. Obama got a lot of people to the polls, especially African-Americans. Are Warren or Sanders going to drive those same people to the polls? The DNC would be better off backing a likable, charismatic, moderate candidate. Free College, Universal Healthcare, Student Loan Forgiveness, UBI..........these ideas only appeal to certain groups. Has anyone noticed that the Democrats have said virtually nothing about the Economy? The status of the Economy is one of the few topics that everyone is interested in, yet the Democrats are silent on it. If a Democrat announced a realistic plan to balance the budget (Trump has failed here) and promised to do so before implementing any new expensive programs, that is a candidate I could back. We can't keep running trillion dollar deficits and not expect a monumental economic collapse at some point.

Stop spending $1 trillion on the military budget and we will have plenty of money for programs to help the people. That money goes to the war profiteers. It would be much better spent on our crumbling infrastructure program and new green energy development. Things that help people and improve the environment. Those also create jobs. We need to get over the military crap. People won't want to terrorize us if we stop terrorizing them because that is essentially what are our wars to keep us "safe" (yeah, right) to protect democracy are.

 

[NAOS]

K, but rewind: you know Republicans are AT LEAST as bad at deficit-spending, right? That’s a hollow, fake talking point of the GOP.

There’s also no a priori or direct linkage between debt forgiveness and government payments. If there was sufficient strength on this issue, much of this debt could simply be wiped out.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

K, but rewind: you know Republicans are AT LEAST as bad at deficit-spending, right? That’s a hollow, fake talking point of the GOP.

I'm not a Republican.

 

[framer]

Unfortunately I agree with this 100%. History has shown contempt for a republican incumbent alone has never been enough - Eisenhower in 56, Nixon in 72, certainly Bush in 2004.

There's an old saying - democrats fall in love while republicans fall in line.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Unfortunately I agree with this 100%. History has shown contempt for a republican incumbent alone has never been enough - Eisenhower in 56, Nixon in 72, certainly Bush in 2004.

There's an old saying - democrats fall in love while republicans fall in line.

I’ve never heard this and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anything more true.

 

[One Brow]

Just out of curiosity, what is of more importance to you, implementing new programs (student debt forgiveness, Single Payer or other Healthcare Reform, etc.) or balancing the budget to stop the increase of our Federal Debt? Can both be accomplished simultaneously? Can Democrats enact a tax rate structure that can collect enough revenue from constituents to pay for these programs, growing social security, Medicaid/Medicare, and stop the deficits?

Medicare for All, or something similar, can be sold on the overall reduction of curent tax+premium to just tax for a smaller amount.

However, I have no idea what can be accomplished if the Senate is not flipped. Possibly nothing. Even if the Senate is flipped, probably very little.

 

[Jonah]

Unfortunately I agree with this 100%. History has shown contempt for a republican incumbent alone has never been enough - Eisenhower in 56, Nixon in 72, certainly Bush in 2004.

There's an old saying - democrats fall in love while republicans fall in line.

Overall good point comparing Trump with controversial and relatively unpopular presidents like Nixon and Bush who were both reelected, however, not sure why Eisenhower is being lumped in with Nixon in 72 and Bush in 04. Eisenhower was popular throughout his presidency and his approval leading up to the 56 election was around 70 percent.