2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Impaled Nazarene]

Yes. Eat yourself Democratic Party.

+1

I'm looking forward to when the competition actually heats up. The knives are going to come out, and it is going to be glorious.

They're going full Mein Teil eh?

[Duhon]

And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

First Obama, now her.

She is also trying to make sure that the Israeli government isn't criticized too harshly, in a time that finally, at least someof the Dems are at long last starting to move beyond blind support for whatever crimes against humanity it commits. That alone makes me want Sanders to win - at least he's not scared to distinguish between antisemitism and criticizing a far right government.

Sanders has some super shitty views on Israel too. Some Dems are starting to move in the right direction about that country, but Sanders isn't one of them.

[Thuzbekistan]

I find it quite amazing how many people, most of them conservatives but some liberals too, are pushing this narrative that only a centrist Democrat has a chance against Trump and that the further "left" candidates would fail. When given the choice between Republican or Republican Lite, voters will choose the Republican, or just stay home.

Hillary Clinton didn't lose in her "firewall" states because she was too far left. Quite the opposite. She lost because she didn't offer the people anything of substance. The people who are rationing medicine and checking the status of a GoFundMe hoping they'll raise enough money to literally avoid dying didn't vote for Hillary because she thought Obamacare was enough and that single payer isn't necessary. Because those people realize neither Trump nor Clinton would do anything about the travesty of the American health care system. She lost because the people who lost their jobs to outsourcing realized she wasn't going to do a damn thing about it while Trump played populist - and although Trump's a liar and those people working for employers like Carrier had their jobs outsourced anyway, Hillary didn't even bother with the issue, she didn't even go to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. She lost because people who remember their homes being foreclosed upon found out she gave paid speeches absolving the vile usurers of the mortgage industry and blamed the Great Recession on the victims of predatory lending. She lost because she supported the endless wars in countries that never attacked us cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, while a great majority of Americans no longer want to spill blood and treasure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya. Don't forget Libya! She was convinced it was a great accomplishment to have overthrown Gaddafi. Now Libya is in a state of perpetual civil war, Islamist extremists operate with impunity, and slaves are sold in open markets.

If the nominee in 2020 makes a real commitment to single payer, a living wage, rebuilding infrastructure, creating renewable energy, absolving student loan debt, free college, and ending the wars, that nominee will win. If the nominee is a neoliberal centrist who thinks "America is already great", then say hello to 4 more years of spray tan stains on the White House furniture.

You do realize that your personal disagreements with the substance of what Clinton offered is literally the opposite of Clinton offering no substance?

I understand that the point of this canard is politics, and that politically you're incentivized to deploy hyperbole, but there's a point at which blatant dishonesty runs counter to the premise of offering ethical politics.

What did she offer?

I legit dont know because her whole campaign was "trump is ridiculous"

[Shrillland]

And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

[Thuzbekistan]

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

Pelosi is one if those dems that make me wish term limits were a thing

[San Lumen]

And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

So do I. Some of the people on the left dont get that you can't take someone like AOC and expect to win in Missouri

[Gormwood]

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

So do I. Some of the people on the left dont get that you can't take someone like AOC and expect to win in Missouri

It's like the Republicans are trying to push the narrative that any choice the Democrats make are automatically the Wrong Choice. Turning into a lousy meme.

[Hediacrana]

First Obama, now her.

She is also trying to make sure that the Israeli government isn't criticized too harshly, in a time that finally, at least someof the Dems are at long last starting to move beyond blind support for whatever crimes against humanity it commits. That alone makes me want Sanders to win - at least he's not scared to distinguish between antisemitism and criticizing a far right government.

Sanders has some super shitty views on Israel too. Some Dems are starting to move in the right direction about that country, but Sanders isn't one of them.

What statements by Sanders are you referring to? As far as I know, he's one of the preciously few American politicians who called the Israeli government out for its war crimes against Palestinian citizens.

And are any of those Democrats who, in your words, are moving in the right direction on Israel among the 2020 contenders? Because I have a hard time coming up with anyone doing a better job than Sanders. Apart from Buttigieg and Booker, who are simply pro-Israel, all others have avoided taking a clear position, just sharing platitudes about the special relationship between Israel and the States and about a two state solution.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sanders has some super shitty views on Israel too. Some Dems are starting to move in the right direction about that country, but Sanders isn't one of them.

What statements by Sanders are you referring to? As far as I know, he's one of the preciously few American politicians who called the Israeli government out for its war crimes against Palestinian citizens.

So I know this isn't exactly the most unbiased source but the main thing I'm going to quote is on video I believe.

If a two-state solution fails, Takruri asked Sanders, would he support “one-state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and equal citizenship?”

“No, I don’t,” he said. “I mean, I think if that happens, then that would be the end of the state of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist.”

Given the slow but steady grind of Israel annexing land via settlements it's really only a matter of time until Palestine more or less ceases to exist and the fact that he opposes just granting the Palestinians equal rights because that would end Israel's status as a Jewish state is SUPER shitty.

And are any of those Democrats who, in your words, are moving in the right direction on Israel among the 2020 contenders? Because I have a hard time coming up with anyone doing a better job than Sanders. Apart from Buttigieg and Booker, who are simply pro-Israel, all others have avoided taking a clear position, just sharing platitudes about the special relationship between Israel and the States and about a two state solution.

Not that I'm aware of. Despite my strong disagreements with them on other things people like Rep Omar or Rep Talib I believe her name is have the right idea when it comes to Israeli influence in the US and just how generally shitty they are.

[Juristonia]

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

So do I. Some of the people on the left dont get that you can't take someone like AOC and expect to win in Missouri

Even if she is right, you can be right about something and go about it in entirely the wrong way though.

Pelosi's been increasingly dismissive and lashing out at the progressive side of the party, and it's going to work against her.
You can't constantly snark at your own party members, snark at children, snark at anyone pushing ideals slightly to the left of yours and not expect there to be blowback.
It's making her look exactly like the arrogant and entitled Dem stereotype the GOP have so successfully been beating the Dems around the ears with.

If nothing else, it's a bad look, and if Pelosi is so pre-occupied with winning rather than ideals, she should know that looks are, unfortunately, important in politics.

[Liriena]

Tucker Carlson is horny on main

[Juristonia]

Tucker Carlson is horny on main

..My head hurts.

[The Black Forrest]

Tucker Carlson is horny on main

Excuse me. I have to go poke out my minds eye.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Tucker Carlson is horny on main

Yeet?

[Ifreann]

Tucker Carlson is horny on main

He likes his men like he likes his stew.

[Hakons]

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

A lot of progressive policies are a menace to many voters. Green New Deal, growing anti-Israel sentiment, radical abortion measures, upending the medical industry, ect... As someone that holds a few views in common with Democrats, the progressive wing just makes the party unpalatable.

[Zurkerx]

Oh, here's also what the candidates have raised, spent, have on hands: All Broken Down For You

Oh grateful Eternal Lotharia, please link this in the OP so we can track and scrutinize everyone's campaigns, por favor.

*leaves plate of cookies with chocolate milk.

Done.

Thank you, I love Choco Chip with Chocolate Milk.

If you need me though, leaving Burgers, Chicken Wings, or Fried Chicken are your best choices.

I will note that for sure

Oh, btw, that link does show the funding for the first quarter but I suspect it's going to keep track of all raised/spent throughout the duration of their respective 2020 campaigns.

[Telconi]

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

"Plenty" of people can support something (especially in the abstract) and yet the rest can still find it menacing.

[Hakons]

"But he rebuilt South Bend"
At the expense of the minority populations.

A black Police Chief revealed racism and corruption in the SBPD. Buttigieg threw him under the bus.

Allows gentrification to go ham across the city.

Has done nothing to meaningfully help the black communities in South Bend.

Actually thinks he can use his sexuality to make people think he's not bigoted. Gay people can't be racist you know?

Source: Living in South Bend, Working with politicians in South Bend, being a campaign worker in South Bend, having good friends who have been harmed by Buttigieg's policies.

Well, he wasn't on my top list anyway.

If I remember right, he sees court-packing as a viable option, which is just constitutionally horrendous.

[Shrillland]

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

"Plenty" of people can support something (especially in the abstract) and yet the rest can still find it menacing.

Yes, but I mean that a lot of Democratic voters will still support Progressive candidates as long as they show that their policies will help them rather than just the "Militant Tendency"(a little hyperbolic, but that's how many Americans see them)wing of the party that stays in its cities.

[Telconi]

"Plenty" of people can support something (especially in the abstract) and yet the rest can still find it menacing.

Yes, but I mean that a lot of Democratic voters will still support Progressive candidates as long as they show that their policies will help them rather than just the "Militant Tendency" wing of the party that stays in its cities.

Sure, but it gets harder to Express if John Q. Voter thinks you're a dangerous crazy person. Not to mention, staying home is an option too, and menacing candidates tend to encourage that.

[Ism]

Well, he wasn't on my top list anyway.

If I remember right, he sees court-packing as a viable option, which is just constitutionally horrendous.

It’s more like court reform than court packing, I don’t know why they call it that. The idea he supports is focused on depoliticizing the Supreme Court, rather than stuffing it full of yes men.

[Telconi]

If I remember right, he sees court-packing as a viable option, which is just constitutionally horrendous.

It’s more like court reform than court packing, I don’t know why they call it that. The idea he supports is focused on depoliticizing the Supreme Court, rather than stuffing it full of yes men.

How could you do that?

[Valrifell]

It’s more like court reform than court packing, I don’t know why they call it that. The idea he supports is focused on depoliticizing the Supreme Court, rather than stuffing it full of yes men.

How could you do that?

Ideas floated:

Term limits, rotating from the appelate court, ten appointees and five chosen unanimously from the previous ten.

The best part is any reform doesn't need bother the Constitution, since the supreme authority with establishing the courts lies with Congress. They'd just need a new Judiciary Act.