2020 Democratic Presidential nominee

laine lowe wrote:

Why was that last nomination race so laclustre with only 2 candidates. 

The perception that it was a done deal.

laine lowe wrote:

Why was that last nomination race so laclustre with only 2 candidates. We might have avoided the Trump disaster had there been a more vibrant race last time.

The Democratic establishment made it clear that it was Hillary's turn and that everyone else was to stand out of the way. Bernie didn't listen and instead said that he had a public policy program that would help the average US citizen. Now that the Democrats lost what should have been an easy election, they have to create the appearance of an open race in order to make it look like this contest is worth following, or that it may produce a candidate who can beat Trump.

When it Comes to US Militarism, Elizabeth Warren is No Progressive

https://twitter.com/sarahlazare/status/1129523878114537474

"I wrote this because it's been frustrating to see article after article hail Warren as a progressive without taking a closer look at her record on militarism..."

NDPP wrote:

2020 Elections: Its Militarism and the Military Budget Stupid!

https://blackagendareport.com/2020-elections-its-militarism-and-military...

"The Trump military budget is more than a third higher than five years ago, while cutting non-defense programs by 9 percent - but the corporate media ignore the issue and Democratic candidates are silent. Most of the neoliberal candidates running in the Democratic electoral Party's electoral process haven't spoken a word in opposition to Trump's budget..."

militarism=imperialism (in the western context anyways)

And it’s not going away in the US! At most, it will get a new face lift among the democrat presidential candidates. Such as someone young? Female? Gay/lesbian? Different religions but never an atheist (US isn’t there yet)?

As long as the candidate unconditionally supports imperialism, they’re in the running!

Why Biden is the Worst (and vid)

https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1130928710490574849

"Abbie and Robbie discuss the 20+ Democratic Party contenders running against Trump and scrutinize the insanity of DNC running Joe Biden to take us down a painful repeat of 2016..."

In the meantime it appears as if Biden is willing to defend himself against accusations of plagiarism by admitting he pipped his climate action plan from the fossil fuel lobby.

Josh Nelson, vice president of the progressive organization CREDO Mobile, was the first to highlight possible instances of plagiarism in Biden’s plan, noting on Twitter that the section “about carbon capture and sequestration includes language that is remarkably similar to items published previously by the Blue Green Alliance and the Carbon Capture Coalition” — two organizations backed by major fossil fuel companies and labor unions.

“Membership of the Carbon Capture Coalition, where some of Biden’s language seems to have originated, includes Shell, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy,” wrote Nelson, who tweeted side-by-side screenshots of language from the Carbon Capture Coalition and Biden’s plan.

https://truthout.org/articles/biden-campaign-admits-lifting-section-of-c...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In the meantime it appears as if Biden is willing to defend himself against accusations of plagiarism by admitting he pipped his climate action plan from the fossil fuel lobby.

Josh Nelson, vice president of the progressive organization CREDO Mobile, was the first to highlight possible instances of plagiarism in Biden’s plan, noting on Twitter that the section “about carbon capture and sequestration includes language that is remarkably similar to items published previously by the Blue Green Alliance and the Carbon Capture Coalition” — two organizations backed by major fossil fuel companies and labor unions.

“Membership of the Carbon Capture Coalition, where some of Biden’s language seems to have originated, includes Shell, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy,” wrote Nelson, who tweeted side-by-side screenshots of language from the Carbon Capture Coalition and Biden’s plan.

https://truthout.org/articles/biden-campaign-admits-lifting-section-of-c...

 

Shocking.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/democrats-biden-policy-plagiarism-2020-1355869

11.06.2019 Author: Henry Kamens

Tulsi Gabbard: Best Choice for US President?
https://journal-neo.org/2019/06/11/tulsi-gabbard-best-choice-for-us-president/

NDPP wrote:

"She already invoked Israel's typically anti-Palestinian 'concerns' on so-called 'demographic realities' of too many Palestinian babies 'baring down' on Israel. Now in NYT, Elizabeth Warren says occupied Palestine is a 'tough neighborhood'. Pure colonial racism."

https://twitter.com/AsaWinstanley/status/1142081801957064704[/quote]

Why does anybody care what TYT thinks?

I thought folks reading rabble.ca were into uni?

Edit   UBI

Not sure if anyone here watched either of the debates. I watched the second one - inattentively at times. The most interesting thing I saw was my wife's reaction.

Prior to the debates I was losing faith in my Kamala Harris nominee prediction, in part because I was expecting more support for her from the establishment (read: corporate media), but so far most of the boosting has been for Biden and more recently, Warren.

That said, based on what I saw in the debate (and heard about the first one), including my wife's reaction to the candidates, I'll now double down on my Kamala Harris prediction, and I will go further. Not only will Harris win the nomination, but of the entire field of candidates, she's one of the two candidates who, if they become nominee, are likely (70%+ odds) to beat Trump (this part is contrary to my predictions in the past). The reason her odds are so good is because while all candidates have flaws/skeletons/etc, all of Harris' flaws/skeletons Trump has worse. For example, on a personal level, some partisans on the right who lack any degree of self-reflection towards their own candidate like to attack Harris for her affair with Willie Brown. This is obviously a ridiculous, hypocritical attack that will lose more support for Trump than it will for Harris.  On a policy level, Harris is not a progressive, she's essentially a younger, healthier version of Hillary Clinton, and she has a bad political past as a prosecutor. But compared against Trump? That won't matter.

For the curious, I also think Yang would beat Trump with high likelihood, should he somehow win the nomination, but he won't win the nomination. That all said, I don't consider Kamala Harris for nominee as a sufficiently ambitious prediction, so there are two further questions to predict on that will be a lot more challenging.

First, of the 9 most significant candidates (Harris, Warren, Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, Booker, Yang, and Gabbard), who will be the first to drop out? Personally, I'd bet on Biden and would hedge with Beto. I'm including Yang and Gabbard and not Klobuchar, Castro, and Gillibrand, because Yang and Gabbard have a lot of internet support that makes me distrust the polls I've seen, and unlike the other three in their polling league, they have unique ideas they are advancing that will cause them to stay in as long as possible so they can advance their ideas. Those two don't need to win, they just need to influence.

Second, who will be the VP pick? In my case, I'm assuming Harris will be the nominee and if that's correct, I expect none of the other candidates will be VP (not saying Harris would discriminate against her rivals because they were rivals, just that none of the other candidates would be a good fit for the ticket - she'll probably pick a white male democratic governor, possibly Tom Wolf or Tony Evers, if either of those is a good fit).

In sum, my predictions:

1. Kamala Harris will be democratic nominee

2. Kamala Harris will be a strong favourite against Trump

3. Biden will be the first significant candidate (defined above) to drop out (but Beto is unpredictable). If Beto drops out first, Biden will be second.

4. Kamala Harris won't pick any of her rivals as VP, she will pick a white male between the ages of 50 and ~70 who has a spotless record on race relations.

Anyone else want to go on record with some predictions? It's gonna be a long primary season, let's have some fun along the way!

"Called a 'surprising Israel hawk' by Forward. During 2014 Gaza War, defended $225m in emergency aid providing more weapons. Blamed civilian casualties on Hamas. Says 'Israel is in a really tough neighborhood."

https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1146596986780413952

(Perhaps it's just not for them...)

Ralph's day is past. I do not believe has opinion will have any effect at all on the Democratic candidates or the voters.

voice of the damned wrote:

I think he's correct about Warren at least(not sure about Sanders, I think progressives overestimate his sellability in a general election), but I concur that Nader himself is a has-been. I'm 50 years old, and I think I'm unusual for my cohort in knowing that he was once most famous for criticizing dangerous cars.  And he's had next to zero media presence for the last ten to fifteen years.

Perhaps I'm just indulging in wishful thinking, but I think Bernie would crush Trump. It's a case of the real populist against the fake. Real wins big in my opinion. I also would like to see Sanders pick Warren as VP, so I mostly agree with Nader too. Being quite a bit older than you, I remember pretty clearly when Unsafe At Any Speed came out in 1965. Ralph has always been one of my heroes, and I would have voted for him in 2000 had I been an American voter. But his opinions today have no more impact than our scribblings here on babble.