2020 election cycle thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by AgelessDrifter, Dec 31, 2018.

  1. AgelessDrifter

    AgelessDrifter TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    43,824
    might as well start now, right


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020-president-announcement.html

    Elizabeth Warren Announces She Is Running for President in 2020

    The Massachusetts senator is the most prominent Democrat to have announced a run against President Trump in 2020. The two already have a long history of trading barbs, and it’s likely to get even nastier.Published OnDec. 31, 2018CreditCredit

    By Astead W. Herndon and Alexander Burns

    • Dec. 31, 2018
    Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat and a sharp critic of big banks and unregulated capitalism, entered the 2020 race for president on Monday, becoming the first major candidate in what is likely to be a long and crowded primary marked by ideological and generational divisions in a Democratic Party desperate to beat President Trump.

    In an 8:30 a.m. email to supporters on New Year’s Eve — 13 months before the first votes will be cast in the Iowa caucuses — Ms. Warren said she was forming an exploratory committee, which allows her to raise money and fill key staff positions before a formal kickoff of her presidential bid. Ms. Warren also released a video that leaned on the populist, anti-Wall Street themes that are sure to be central to her campaign message.

    [Make sense of the people, issues and ideas shaping American politics with our newsletter.]

    “I’ve spent my career getting to the bottom of why America’s promise works for some families, but others, who work just as hard, slip through the cracks into disaster,” she said in the video. “And what I’ve found is terrifying: these aren’t cracks families are falling into, they’re traps. America’s middle class is under attack.”

    “But this dark path doesn’t have to be our future,” she continued. “We can make our democracy work for all of us. We can make our economy work for all of us.”

    The race for the 2020 Democratic nomination is poised to be the most wide open since perhaps 1992, with the party leaderless and lacking obvious front-runners. After a midterm election that saw many women, liberals, minorities and young Democrats win, the primaries and caucuses next year are likely to be fought over not only who is the most progressive candidate but also which mix of identities should be reflected in the next nominee.

    Ms. Warren, 69, is among the best-known Democrats seeking to take on Mr. Trump, who has already announced his re-election campaign, but she also faces challenges: recent controversy over her claims to Native American heritage, skepticism from the party establishment and a lack of experience in a presidential race.

    This is your last free article.

    Subscribe to The Times
    Two potential top-tier candidates who have run before, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Senator Bernie Sanders, are eyeing 2020 and are expected to disclose their plans this winter. Yet both men carry political baggage and would be in their late 70s on Election Day 2020, and many Democrats say they want a fresh face as their next nominee.
    The presidential race is expected to draw several women and nonwhite contenders like Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times

    Image[​IMG]
    The presidential race is expected to draw several women and nonwhite contenders like Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California.CreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
    More than three dozen Democratic senators, governors, mayors and business leaders are also weighing bids — most of whom have not sought the White House before. The race is expected to draw several women and nonwhite contenders as well as liberal and more moderate politicians — making for the most diverse field in history. Several Senate colleagues of Ms. Warren are likely to enter the race soon: Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

    Getting a jump on the competition, Ms. Warren plans to head to early voting states in the coming weeks, including Iowa, which holds its first-in-the-nation caucus in early February 2020. According to a person familiar with Ms. Warren’s thinking, the timing of her announcement had been decided weeks in advance.

    How early do presidential campaigns start? Earlier than you may think.]

    Ms. Warren has ascended rapidly in politics. A longtime bankruptcy law professor at Harvard who never held public office before 2013, Ms. Warren became the first woman elected to the Senate from Massachusetts after defeating a self-styled moderate Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, with a populist message based on advocacy for strict Wall Street regulation. Now, just six years later, Ms. Warren is stepping into the 2020 race, particularly well regarded among liberal activists who often criticized Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee, as insufficiently tough on bankers and Wall Street firms that had been allies and donors to her.

    “How did we get here?” Ms. Warren said in her announcement video. “Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie, and they enlisted politicians to cut them a fatter slice.”

    Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
    A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

    Ms. Warren has both assets and possible drawbacks in a White House run. Strategists for several other likely Democratic candidates say private polling found Ms. Warren’s political brand — as a warrior against big banks and other powerful corporate interests — to be exceptionally strong with Democratic primary voters. Her signature initiative in recent months has been a sweeping bill to crack down on government corruption, effectively adapting her longtime focus on private-sector greed for the public-sector scandals of the Trump era.

    But Ms. Warren has also become a favorite target of conservatives, who have sought to brand her as an out-of-touch liberal from academia. In 2012, the political director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Ms. Warren represented a “threat to free enterprise” and, this year, two Democratic senators — facing difficult re-election races in states Mr. Trump won in 2016 — took the unusual step of distancing themselves from Ms. Warren, their own colleague.

    There is also the issue of her decades-old claim of Native American ancestry. Mr. Trump regularly slurs Ms. Warren as “Pocahontas,” a reliable applause line at his rallies. In October, Ms. Warren released results of a D.N.A. test showing strong evidence that she has Native American pedigree dating “6-10 generations ago.” Not only did the test not quiet her critics, it puzzled many Democrats and angered leaders of several Native American tribes who said Ms. Warren’s actions contributed to a harmful narrative that blood, not cultural kinship, determines tribal affiliation.

    The blowback over the D.N.A. test has caused some longtime supporters to question Ms. Warren’s political acumen, since any Democratic nominee seeking to oppose Mr. Trump would have to deftly navigate his constant barbs and often inflammatory rhetoric.

    “The biggest risk in engaging a bully is that bullies don’t usually stop, regardless of what the truth is,” Charles Chamberlain, executive director for the progressive political group Democracy for America, said earlier in December. The group began a “Run Warren Run” campaign in 2014 to encourage her to seek the 2016 presidential nomination, but was caught off guard by the D.N.A. test decision.


    “When you can’t win an argument,” he added, “then sometimes it’s not worth having that argument.”

    A Quinnipiac University poll in mid-December underscored Ms. Warren’s strengths as a primary candidate, finding her better-known and better-liked by Democrats than any other candidate who had not run for president before. Three in five Democrats had a favorable opinion of her, compared with just 12 percent who viewed her unfavorably, a ratio outdone only by Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders.

    Only about 30 percent viewed her favorably, with 37 percent holding an unfavorable view and the rest undecided.

    Another poll, taken recently by CNN and the Des Moines Register, found Ms. Warren in fourth place in Iowa, the leadoff caucus state, with 8 percent of the vote, far back from Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders and slightly behind Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas.

    To the extent that Democratic primary voters are inclined to cast their ballots tactically — in favor of a candidate who appears likeliest to beat Mr. Trump in the general election — Ms. Warren may have some serious convincing to do. If the clarity and intensity of her political message have made her a hero to many liberals, it may have left a less-favorable first impression elsewhere that could be difficult to change. And Ms. Warren is regarded with anxiety or worse by much of the Democratic political establishment, including some Senate colleagues who complain that she has pursued an inflexible agenda on matters like bank regulation, at the cost of party unity.

    During her Senate years, Ms. Warren has demonstrated the most influence as a member of the Banking Committee, aggressively questioning leaders of the financial industry about excesses and abuses; seeking accountability for the Great Recession; and challenging the Obama and Trump administrations to take tougher lines on regulations and trade policy. In 2015, Ms. Warren sunk the nomination of Antonio Weiss, the Wall Street banker selected by the Obama administration to serve as third-ranking official at the Treasury Department, taking on her party on the grounds that Mr. Weiss, the former head of investment banking for Lazard, was too closely connected to the financial services industry to serve in public office.

    Ms. Warren is not known for shepherding major legislation successfully through Congress, though Democrats were never in control of both chambers during her time there. In recent years, Ms. Warren has also tried to shore up her foreign policy credentials: securing a spot on the Senate Armed Services Committee after the 2016 presidential election, and taking high-profile trips to visit troops with Republicans such as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator John McCain of Arizona.

    “Whether our leaders recognize it or not, after years as the world’s lone superpower, the United States is entering a new period of competition,” Ms. Warren said in a foreign policy speech at American University in November. “Democracy is running headlong into the ideologies of nationalism, authoritarianism and corruption.”

    The map of states with early nominating contests appears, at least on the surface, to be an inviting one for Ms. Warren: The race begins in Iowa, where Farm Belt populism long defined Democratic politics, before moving to her political backyard of New Hampshire. During the midterm elections, she got a rousing reception in Nevada, an early state that suffered grievously in the 2008 financial crisis, and where rhetoric lashing Wall Street and major mortgage lenders tends to resonate.

    Ms. Warren’s prospects in the race may also depend, in part, on which other Democrats decide to run. Several other fiery economic populists could join the Democratic field, including Mr. Sanders and Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, potentially splintering the voters most energized by Ms. Warren’s core themes. Should most or all of those candidates stay out, Ms. Warren might face weaker competition on the left.

    And like other white liberals in a historically diverse field, Ms. Warren may have to work harder to win over black primary voters in South Carolina, another early voting state, and across the country. African-American Democrats have played a decisive role in settling the last two open contests for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Ms. Warren is expected to be competing against her party’s only two black senators, Ms. Harris and Mr. Booker.

    In Ms. Warren’s video announcing her candidacy, she pointed to the unique discrimination that nonwhite families face — another sign of how seriously she is taking outreach to minority voters, and particularly black Democrats.

    Whatever obstacles her candidacy faces, Ms. Warren may be well positioned to serve as an ideological pole star in a diffuse field of Democratic candidates. And she has a history of surprising skeptics who might have been inclined to view her as a wild-eyed caricature. One of her potential foes for the Democratic nomination, Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor, confided to associates after a chance meeting with Ms. Warren that he found her impressive and smart despite their drastically different views of the economy.
     
  2. Red

    Red TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    15,846
    Change the title of this thread to "Democrats can't stop bickering and fuck everything up in 2020"
     
  3. Vlaara

    Vlaara Maaruk the Mighty

    Post Count:
    22,070
    I might vote for Warren.

    I also might vote for Trump.

    I might just not show up, because what this country needs is a cultural change, not a political one.
     
  4. Harper

    Harper encrypted account, pls don't sniff my packet

    Post Count:
    5,163
    i felt embarrassed for warren when she posted her Ancestry.com results. engaging with trump trolling in the first place is stupid, but trying to use a DNA test to lay connection to any tribal nation is just out of touch and inappropriate

    i dont foresee her doing well against trump
     
    Velox likes this.
  5. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    5,783
    My impression also.

    Maybe one of the three B's has a chance.
     
  6. AgelessDrifter

    AgelessDrifter TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    43,824
    I agree about the DNA test thing but I don’t think it’ll kill her if she avoids any similar flubs going forward

    In terms of positive name recognition I dunno if the Dems can do any better short of Bernie right now. Leftists have already been making noise against the prospect of a Biden ticket just in case
     
  7. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    5,783
    The far left echo chamber is usually more noise than substance though. It has to go mainstream to affect voters. Biden seems like a safe and sane choice. Safe is good in the current climate.

    EDIT: Not saying he will win the primary, but he would have a better chance against Trump than Warren imo.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2018
  8. Skars

    Skars I never troll

    Post Count:
    41,689
    Vote for Bernie idiots.
     
  9. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,897
    This.

    She might be the worst possible candidate that Dems could pick to run against Trump. So it will probably happen.

    Biden/Beto is what needs to happen.
     
  10. Utumno

    Utumno Administrator Staff Member

    Post Count:
    40,804
    I love Bernie but he's 107
     
  11. Red

    Red TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    15,846
     
  12. Red

    Red TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    15,846
    Bernie is so fucking old. Big Diamond Joe is also old as shit but if he has Beto it might work.
     
  13. AgelessDrifter

    AgelessDrifter TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    43,824
    I'm open to Biden/Beto being more viable in the GE but Warren being the "worst possible candidate to run against Trump" seems like a stretch. Are you guys basing that on the DNA test thing or what? She's been wildly popular with the core and Bernie camp of the Dems every time she's attacked Trump (and basically every time she's appeared in the media) with the exception of the DNA thing afaik. Beto doesn't have the experience to run alone and Biden probably can't get more than half the Bernie camp once his voting record starts getting scrutiny.

    upload_2018-12-31_21-22-24.png

    https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-...E6s-Ww864cLBjmqwIcrwMqfV0y4MZgr9Ig0IbrOQHCT5w

    Millennials who think that times are tough in 2018 have no room to complain, according to former Vice President Joe Biden, who said that he had “no empathy” for young people who compared today to the struggles of the 1960s.

    “The younger generation now tells me how tough things are—give me a break,” said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times to promote his new book. “No, no, I have no empathy for it, give me a break.”

    Biden compared the complaints of millennials to what he experienced growing up in the 1960s and '70s, mentioning the civil rights and women’s liberation movements that were gaining traction simultaneously with the Vietnam War, making the United States a troubling place for young activists at the time.

    [​IMG]
    Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks onstage during Glamour Celebrates 2017 Women Of The Year Live Summit at Brooklyn Museum on November 13, 2017, in New York City. Craig Barritt/Getty Images

    “Here’s the deal, guys,” continued Biden. “We decided we were going to change the world, and we did.”

    Whether Biden agrees or not, there is evidence to support the idea that millennials, the generation born between the early 1980s and mid-'90s, have inherited a slew of problems that have put them at an economic disadvantage compared to previous generations. Millennials are more likely to have advanced college degrees, but earn 20 percent less than baby boomers when they were the same age. Healthcare, housing and education are more than five times more expensive than they were just a few decades ago, writer Michael Hobbes tells NPR. Student debt has skyrocketed, making homeownership unrealistic for many, reports Bloomberg. And the struggle to advocate for civil rights continues today, as recent movements like #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter and #TimesUpNow have demonstrated.

    Biden stuck with the “entitled millennial” characterization while speaking on Wednesday, calling on young people to get involved in politics rather than complain.

    “There's an old expression my philosophy professor would always use from Plato,” said Biden. “‘The penalty people face for not being involved in politics is being governed by people worse than themselves.’ It's wide open. Go out and change it.”
     
  14. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,897
    She's female and yeah the DNA/Pocahontas shit is just a ready-made target. All that matters in 2020 is not reelecting Trump, and it was obvious that our shitty country wasn't ready to elect a female president in 2016.

    I don't know why you think that the Bernie camp won't vote for Biden. Far-left voters are voting against Trump in any scenario, so what matters here are getting the moderate-left votes that Clinton couldn't get. Do you really think Elizabeth Warren is the right candidate for that?
     
  15. Kilinitic

    Kilinitic 6,000 feet beyond man and time

    Post Count:
    16,092
    Citation plz
     
  16. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    5,783
    While I'm not sure people could agree on an exact age range for "millenials", most people think that today's first-time employees are a bunch of spoiled whiners. Perhaps it has always been like that throughout the ages. In any case, Biden will probably win more votes than he loses on that quote.

    I make sure to read Fox News regularly (as they currently dictate US policy), and there are weekly attacks on Warren. Biden was last mentioned in a rather positive light. While this would not last into an election season, it goes to show the large amount of mistrust against Warren on the right.
     
  17. Agrul

    Agrul TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    45,531
    I think Warren's got the best combination of principled cajones and macroecon knowledge to actually do something material and useful about the shitty state our country's in, but the DNA thing was a really stupid gaffe and makes me share the conventional wisdom here's fears about how well she'd do against Trump, and there's no doubt she scares conservatives a lot more than most candidates (though a lot of that angst seems unavoidable if you want someone who actually gives a shit about not giving massive corporations a pass, or want someone who'll push for real change in healthcare, etc). I'd like to think the increase in his net disapproval over time opens a gap for running a wonky genuine lib like Warren, but betting on his political weakness more than her political appeal didn't go so well last time around.
     
    Utumno likes this.
  18. Samassi Abou

    Samassi Abou TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    5,580
    I don’t think that there are many people who could lose to Trump, but Warren is one of them. I like her but I don’t think she has much appeal outside wonky liberal world.

    If they were guaranteed to win, I’d probably like a Bernie / Ocasio Cortez ticket, despite her inexperience. Like Obama she’s someone you think will be President one day after a few minutes of listening to her.

    Back in the real world where you have to win an election and you can’t guarantee that the Russians won’t find a novel way to swing the election, I think Biden has the best chance against Trump. We’re starting to get back to 2016 levels of complacency if you’re turning your nose up at Biden because you think the election is in the bag.
     
  19. AgelessDrifter

    AgelessDrifter TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    43,824
    This feels completely backwards to me. The far left didn't "vote against Trump in any scenario" last cycle (remember Bernie or Bust?) but the center Dems almost certainly will because it's the only thing the core party even stands for at this point.

    Hillary didn't lose the center last time, she lost the fringe because her voting record looks a lot like Biden's and she was seen as representing the rotten core of the party. (Full disclosure: I'm not super familiar with Warren's record; I'm just going on how she seems to be received by the leftists I know, all but the most radical of whom love her [modulo the DNA thing]).

    I really *hope* the far left learned its lesson and will shut up and get on board with whoever wins the primary but it really doesn't look that way, but I also hope the wider party learned its lesson and doesn't start sniping candidates right out the gate in the primary because they "aren't electable". I would personally be fine with Biden if that's what it comes down to.

    This also feels completely backwards. We didn't lose last time because Hillary was too far to the left (lmao) we lost because she couldn't excite anyone who wasn't going to vote Dem either way. If Trump hadn't been so manifestly horrible she'd've lost a lot of the left votes she did get--not to Trump but just to sheer disinterest

    Agrul's take is the only one that makes sense to me here
     
  20. Samassi Abou

    Samassi Abou TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    5,580
    It’s nothing to do with whether Biden is centrist or leftist. The polls all make him the most popular candidate and the one most likely to defeat Trump.

    I have no doubt that he would have beaten Clinton and Trump if he’d run in 2016, and the same applies now.