2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races
- Thread starter mc_brew
- Start date
I don’t but I’ll look for it. I’m just going off the breaks downs that I’m seeing on Twitter while on break. But remember this is the poll that had Hillary plus 40 over Sanders and still had him losing by double digits in December only for him to lose by .2. Pollsters correct as a primary goes on to maintain credibility when they realize their models are inaccurate. However, Pete has flooded Iowa with ads over the past two weeks. He is on TV constantly.
BootyGang
No I don’t like Biden. There are several reasons.
1. He have a horrible history when it comes to Black issues. He was one of the main voices on the war on drugs. He was the architect of the Crime BIll which had crippling results in the Black Community. He saw no problem bragging about working with racist ass segregationist. I have no confidence he would address the economic issues that specifically effects the Black community.
2. He supported the War In Iraq. Maybe the worse foreign policy decisions in my lifetime. I was in the Military when the Iraq War popped off. He was Vice President when we decided to do Air Strikes on Libya. Another terrible FP decision. I have no confidence in him to make the right decision when it comes to foreign policy.
3. He was a major supporter of the bankruptcy bill which was a terrible piece of legislation. He is not for tuition forgiveness or free college. He has a ton of big financial interest that have donated to him over the years. He voted to repeal Glass Steagall which help to create the 2008 recession. I have no confidence in him making the right decision when it comes to financial issues.
4. His starting point on health is a political mistake. He is starting from a moderate position that eventually is going to get watered down. Under a Biden presidency I highly doubt we will even get a public option even though his plan calls for one. And even if we get one it would probably be extremely watered down.
With that said I will vote for Biden if he is the nominee because we must get Trump out of office. And he is a better option than Buttigieg or Klobuchar, but I doubt if we will get any significant change in a Biden administration, which may lead to a smarter Trump getting elected in 2024. Hell,
I’m not even confident he would beat Trump in 2020. His support of NAFTA and TPP will not play well in the Mid West.
saturn7
Politics is an EXCHANGE!!!
‘Warped by runaway egos’: Paul Krugman scorches billionaires like Bloomberg who think America needs them to ‘save the day’
Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering running for president as a Democrat; Tuesday, the billionaire former New York City mayor officially filed paperwork for the March 3 Democratic primary in Arkansas. Bloomberg believes that Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders are too left-of-center for 2020’s general election and that former Vice President Joe Biden, a centrist, is running a weak campaign. Liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman isn’t the least bit enthusiastic about a Bloomberg presidential run, and he stresses in his November 11 column that the last thing the U.S. needs is a billionaire coming in to “save the day.”
“Billionaires aren’t necessarily bad people, and most of them probably aren’t,” Krugman writes. “However, some are, and my unscientific sense is that billionaires are more likely than the rest of us to exhibit bad judgment warped by runaway egos — especially in the political sphere.”
Bloomberg, Krugman notes, isn’t the first billionaire who has been touted as a political savior for 2020: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz also considered a presidential run.
“When Howard Schultz — remember him? — ran that combination up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted, only about 4% of voters approved,” Krugman observes. “And early indications don’t show Bloomberg doing much better, even though as someone who successfully ran New York, he has a much better case to offer.”
Billionaires, Krugman stresses, don’t necessarily make wise decisions — and millions of American voters find the “bubble” they inhabit to be problematic.
“The billionaires in the bubble find themselves in an environment in which concerns about soaring inequality, about the extraordinary concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, finally seem to be getting political traction,” Krugman notes.
Looking back on the 20th Century, Krugman cites 1980 as a turning point in the U.S. economy — and not one that was a change for the better.
“American economic history since World War II falls fairly neatly into two halves: a first era, ending roughly in 1980, during which progressive taxation, strong unions and social norms limited extreme wealth accumulation at the top — and the era of soaring inequality since them,” Krugman explains. “Did the new prosperity of plutocrats ‘trickle down’ to the nation as a whole?”
Krugman’s answer to his question is a definite “no.” 1980, of course, was the year in which Ronald Reagan was elected president, ushering in an era of trickle-door economics, major tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and a weakening of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and its sequel: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.
With the rise of Warren and Sanders, Krugman asserts, one sees a growing appetite for a return to liberal/progressive economics — although he fears that their Medicare-for-all proposals might be too much too soon.
“I’m not saying that the U.S. public is necessarily ready for the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders,” Krugman asserts. “I worry in particular about the politics of Medicare for All — not because of the cost, but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters.”
But billionaires, Krugman quickly adds, are not necessarily well-equipped to run the country simply because they are billionaires.
“The idea that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to save the day by riding in on a white horse — or, actually, being driven over in a black limo — is just silly,” Krugman emphasizes. “It is, in fact, the kind of thing only a billionaire could believe.”
Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering running for president as a Democrat; Tuesday, the billionaire former New York City mayor officially filed paperwork for the March 3 Democratic primary in Arkansas. Bloomberg believes that Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders are too left-of-center for 2020’s general election and that former Vice President Joe Biden, a centrist, is running a weak campaign. Liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman isn’t the least bit enthusiastic about a Bloomberg presidential run, and he stresses in his November 11 column that the last thing the U.S. needs is a billionaire coming in to “save the day.”
“Billionaires aren’t necessarily bad people, and most of them probably aren’t,” Krugman writes. “However, some are, and my unscientific sense is that billionaires are more likely than the rest of us to exhibit bad judgment warped by runaway egos — especially in the political sphere.”
Bloomberg, Krugman notes, isn’t the first billionaire who has been touted as a political savior for 2020: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz also considered a presidential run.
“When Howard Schultz — remember him? — ran that combination up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted, only about 4% of voters approved,” Krugman observes. “And early indications don’t show Bloomberg doing much better, even though as someone who successfully ran New York, he has a much better case to offer.”
Billionaires, Krugman stresses, don’t necessarily make wise decisions — and millions of American voters find the “bubble” they inhabit to be problematic.
“The billionaires in the bubble find themselves in an environment in which concerns about soaring inequality, about the extraordinary concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, finally seem to be getting political traction,” Krugman notes.
Looking back on the 20th Century, Krugman cites 1980 as a turning point in the U.S. economy — and not one that was a change for the better.
“American economic history since World War II falls fairly neatly into two halves: a first era, ending roughly in 1980, during which progressive taxation, strong unions and social norms limited extreme wealth accumulation at the top — and the era of soaring inequality since them,” Krugman explains. “Did the new prosperity of plutocrats ‘trickle down’ to the nation as a whole?”
Krugman’s answer to his question is a definite “no.” 1980, of course, was the year in which Ronald Reagan was elected president, ushering in an era of trickle-door economics, major tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and a weakening of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and its sequel: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.
With the rise of Warren and Sanders, Krugman asserts, one sees a growing appetite for a return to liberal/progressive economics — although he fears that their Medicare-for-all proposals might be too much too soon.
“I’m not saying that the U.S. public is necessarily ready for the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders,” Krugman asserts. “I worry in particular about the politics of Medicare for All — not because of the cost, but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters.”
But billionaires, Krugman quickly adds, are not necessarily well-equipped to run the country simply because they are billionaires.
“The idea that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to save the day by riding in on a white horse — or, actually, being driven over in a black limo — is just silly,” Krugman emphasizes. “It is, in fact, the kind of thing only a billionaire could believe.”
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
Not for another woman. Women go harder at each other. I saw a clip from yesterday and McCain’s daughter and the Huntsman daughter from the View were shytting all over Haley with basically the same criticism that many had for Clinton - the power hungry evil/conniving bytch character flaw. My guess is that a lot of those same suburban whites want the first female president to look like them
dems really dont want to win running a moist cac black ppl dont fukk with.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
A VP doesn’t help but it can hurt. See: Sarah Palin.
the rest of us. 
dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
given that i work for a company HQ'ed in Iowa and work with a ton of Iowans...I'm literally going to be so passive aggressive to all of them if 1) Bootyjudge wins Iowa and especially if 2) that shyt gives him momentum and he starts winning other states
This is not good. If Buttigieg wins Iowa that might be enough to get Biden the nomination. Liz or Bernie must win Iowa to get enough momentum to convince enough Black people that they can win. Without that Biden is most likely going to sweep the south.
I personally think Trump and allies could be anticipating Bootyman winning ( what my mom calls him 
) and that's part of the reason they seem to think there's an opening with black voters. I guess they feel like they could peel black voters off from Biden too?
We'll see though, November debate could be important to cause some shifts, Warren by all means should be more prepared for Pete and other attacks and Pete no longer has Beto to use as a foil.
) and that's part of the reason they seem to think there's an opening with black voters. I guess they feel like they could peel black voters off from Biden too?We'll see though, November debate could be important to cause some shifts, Warren by all means should be more prepared for Pete and other attacks and Pete no longer has Beto to use as a foil.
Last edited: