Democratic primary watch

Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
Post Reply
User avatar
Marty [Mori Chu]
Posts: 9447
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Democratic primary watch

Post by Marty [Mori Chu] » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:07 pm

In light of Elizabeth Warren announcing officially that she's formed a committee to run for President in 2020:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/p ... ement.html

I thought I'd make a thread where we can post about the various updates to the Democratic primary candidates as they announce, what their platforms are, any debates, etc. Here we go!

User avatar
Marty [Mori Chu]
Posts: 9447
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Marty [Mori Chu] » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:55 am

Here's a FiveThirtyEight analysis of Warren and some theories about her electoral chances. She's got a lot of overlap with Sanders voters in terms of her policies and message.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... c-primary/

User avatar
ShelC
Posts: 4438
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:00 am

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by ShelC » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:50 am

Unfortunately, it's going to be about who can win rather than the issues. Even as down as some Rs are on Trump, they're not voting for Warren or Sanders. Neither has a shot.

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack » Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:19 pm

The R’s aren’t going to vote for D’s and the D’s aren’t going to vote R’s. The D’s are going to settle on one candidate eventually and most Dems will vote for that person. What their stances are on issues might be important to those trying to decide on one of those candidates. A year before the election nobody thought Trump would win.

If Warren wasn’t such a threat Trump wouldn’t be spending so much time attacking her. Warren took a lot of flack with the indian thing but it means absolutely nothing to me. Trump has had dozens of much worse publicity events and none of them hurt him in the slightest bit. I am not counting anybody out on the Dem side yet except the porn star lawyer.


I haven’t decided on a candidate yet at all.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 5112
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition » Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:19 am

What are the issues that are important to you?
"Our Suns are DEAD!!!"

Possibilities at 32:
Isaiah Roby, Darius Bazely, Ty Jerome, Mfiondu Kabengele, Daniel Gafford, Dylan Windler, Chuma Okeke, Carson Edwards, Arturs Zagars

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:00 am

The big issues that are important to me would be healthcare, the debt and getting money out of politics. There are other issues too like education, infrastructure, environment, term limits, alt energy sources, keeping alliances with allies intact, world peace. Illegal Immigration is low on my priority list compared to all the rest.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 8287
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Indy » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:10 pm

I have a hard time narrowing it down to 3, and a ton of what you listed are important to me, too. If I had to pick my top 3 shorter term items, it would be:

1) Get (corporate) money out of politics
2) Healthcare
3) Debt/alternative energy sources

Longer term items for me:
1) Get all money out of politics (your net worth should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
2) Equal representation in congress (the state you reside in should not be a factor in how many votes you get)

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 5112
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:14 pm

Nothing wrong with those, and I am pretty convinced that getting money out of politics would lead to affordable universal healthcare. Right now, according to the benefits companies I've talked to, the large majority of health care costs and the overwhelming reason for increases every year is based on the pharmaceutical companies. They aren't going to change as they spend $$$ to keep the politicians in their pocket. The same exact meds I take and pay for here at my local Walgreens costs me a fraction of the price if I go across the border in Nogales. I can pay $150 per month here, or pay $5 without a prescription or insurance in MX.
"Our Suns are DEAD!!!"

Possibilities at 32:
Isaiah Roby, Darius Bazely, Ty Jerome, Mfiondu Kabengele, Daniel Gafford, Dylan Windler, Chuma Okeke, Carson Edwards, Arturs Zagars

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 5112
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:16 pm

Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:10 pm
I have a hard time narrowing it down to 3, and a ton of what you listed are important to me, too. If I had to pick my top 3 shorter term items, it would be:

1) Get (corporate) money out of politics
2) Healthcare
3) Debt/alternative energy sources

Longer term items for me:
1) Get all money out of politics (your net worth should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
2) Equal representation in congress (the state you reside in should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
I'm trying to figure out in my head how you fix that last one, or maybe what you mean by it.
"Our Suns are DEAD!!!"

Possibilities at 32:
Isaiah Roby, Darius Bazely, Ty Jerome, Mfiondu Kabengele, Daniel Gafford, Dylan Windler, Chuma Okeke, Carson Edwards, Arturs Zagars

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 8287
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Indy » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:44 pm

In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:10 pm
I have a hard time narrowing it down to 3, and a ton of what you listed are important to me, too. If I had to pick my top 3 shorter term items, it would be:

1) Get (corporate) money out of politics
2) Healthcare
3) Debt/alternative energy sources

Longer term items for me:
1) Get all money out of politics (your net worth should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
2) Equal representation in congress (the state you reside in should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
I'm trying to figure out in my head how you fix that last one, or maybe what you mean by it.
It would require an amendment to the constitution, which is why I said "long term." ;)

The entire structure of having the "Upper chamber" of Congress be controlled by fewer people in the senate, and not based on population, leads to fewer people having more influence over our government. There is no good reason that the half a million people in Wyoming get an equal number of votes in the Senate as the 7 million people in AZ, and that is happening for every singe vote in the senate.

In a more extreme example, if we ever came to the situation where 3 (or more) viable candidates are running for president, and none of the them get the 270 EVs needed, the House decides who will be president. And they do that via a single vote for each state. So the half million people in Wyoming, represented by a single House member, get an equal number of votes as the 7 million in AZ, or the 40 million in California.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 5112
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:16 pm

Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:44 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:10 pm
I have a hard time narrowing it down to 3, and a ton of what you listed are important to me, too. If I had to pick my top 3 shorter term items, it would be:

1) Get (corporate) money out of politics
2) Healthcare
3) Debt/alternative energy sources

Longer term items for me:
1) Get all money out of politics (your net worth should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
2) Equal representation in congress (the state you reside in should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
I'm trying to figure out in my head how you fix that last one, or maybe what you mean by it.
It would require an amendment to the constitution, which is why I said "long term." ;)

The entire structure of having the "Upper chamber" of Congress be controlled by fewer people in the senate, and not based on population, leads to fewer people having more influence over our government. There is no good reason that the half a million people in Wyoming get an equal number of votes in the Senate as the 7 million people in AZ, and that is happening for every singe vote in the senate.

In a more extreme example, if we ever came to the situation where 3 (or more) viable candidates are running for president, and none of the them get the 270 EVs needed, the House decides who will be president. And they do that via a single vote for each state. So the half million people in Wyoming, represented by a single House member, get an equal number of votes as the 7 million in AZ, or the 40 million in California.
I can't imagine that this wasn't taken into account when they created the House and Senate. In contrast to the Senate, Wyoming only has 1 Representative vs. 53 for California. What I'm saying is, yes this is an extreme example, but it's a problem that doesn't need to be fixed. The architects of the Constitution and Government structure were far far smarter than myself.
"Our Suns are DEAD!!!"

Possibilities at 32:
Isaiah Roby, Darius Bazely, Ty Jerome, Mfiondu Kabengele, Daniel Gafford, Dylan Windler, Chuma Okeke, Carson Edwards, Arturs Zagars

User avatar
Cap
Posts: 5812
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:08 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Cap » Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:40 pm

All I really demand out of our Federal government is acceptance of two basic facts: climate change is real, and trickle-down economics is not. This really shouldn’t be conservative-vs-liberal, but it is.
JJ will be better than KP when all is said and done [in 2020]. Mark it. — AIG, with Indy betting against

My [2019-20] prediction is better than mid 30s... mark it down! — Superbone

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 8287
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Indy » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:05 pm

In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:44 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:10 pm
I have a hard time narrowing it down to 3, and a ton of what you listed are important to me, too. If I had to pick my top 3 shorter term items, it would be:

1) Get (corporate) money out of politics
2) Healthcare
3) Debt/alternative energy sources

Longer term items for me:
1) Get all money out of politics (your net worth should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
2) Equal representation in congress (the state you reside in should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
I'm trying to figure out in my head how you fix that last one, or maybe what you mean by it.
It would require an amendment to the constitution, which is why I said "long term." ;)

The entire structure of having the "Upper chamber" of Congress be controlled by fewer people in the senate, and not based on population, leads to fewer people having more influence over our government. There is no good reason that the half a million people in Wyoming get an equal number of votes in the Senate as the 7 million people in AZ, and that is happening for every singe vote in the senate.

In a more extreme example, if we ever came to the situation where 3 (or more) viable candidates are running for president, and none of the them get the 270 EVs needed, the House decides who will be president. And they do that via a single vote for each state. So the half million people in Wyoming, represented by a single House member, get an equal number of votes as the 7 million in AZ, or the 40 million in California.
I can't imagine that this wasn't taken into account when they created the House and Senate. In contrast to the Senate, Wyoming only has 1 Representative vs. 53 for California. What I'm saying is, yes this is an extreme example, but it's a problem that doesn't need to be fixed. The architects of the Constitution and Government structure were far far smarter than myself.
They did think about it, and it was set up that way to allow states with lots of slaves more power than other states. That is where the money was, and that is who had the power.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 8287
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Indy » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:05 pm

Cap wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:40 pm
All I really demand out of our Federal government is acceptance of two basic facts: climate change is real, and trickle-down economics is not. This really shouldn’t be conservative-vs-liberal, but it is.
Yeah, I don't get how either of those are political arguments, except due to $$ in politics (yet again).

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 5112
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:36 pm

Indy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:05 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:44 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:10 pm
I have a hard time narrowing it down to 3, and a ton of what you listed are important to me, too. If I had to pick my top 3 shorter term items, it would be:

1) Get (corporate) money out of politics
2) Healthcare
3) Debt/alternative energy sources

Longer term items for me:
1) Get all money out of politics (your net worth should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
2) Equal representation in congress (the state you reside in should not be a factor in how many votes you get)
I'm trying to figure out in my head how you fix that last one, or maybe what you mean by it.
It would require an amendment to the constitution, which is why I said "long term." ;)

The entire structure of having the "Upper chamber" of Congress be controlled by fewer people in the senate, and not based on population, leads to fewer people having more influence over our government. There is no good reason that the half a million people in Wyoming get an equal number of votes in the Senate as the 7 million people in AZ, and that is happening for every singe vote in the senate.

In a more extreme example, if we ever came to the situation where 3 (or more) viable candidates are running for president, and none of the them get the 270 EVs needed, the House decides who will be president. And they do that via a single vote for each state. So the half million people in Wyoming, represented by a single House member, get an equal number of votes as the 7 million in AZ, or the 40 million in California.
I can't imagine that this wasn't taken into account when they created the House and Senate. In contrast to the Senate, Wyoming only has 1 Representative vs. 53 for California. What I'm saying is, yes this is an extreme example, but it's a problem that doesn't need to be fixed. The architects of the Constitution and Government structure were far far smarter than myself.
They did think about it, and it was set up that way to allow states with lots of slaves more power than other states. That is where the money was, and that is who had the power.
I can not confirm nor deny this, but I don't think this is true either. I think it's working just fine. You have to balance things out, or there will be no way for states in the midwest to have a say in anything. States without a large population are already at a disadvantage. Large states could just say, "F these small population states, let's just rape their natural resources for ourselves and they can go suck it.".
"Our Suns are DEAD!!!"

Possibilities at 32:
Isaiah Roby, Darius Bazely, Ty Jerome, Mfiondu Kabengele, Daniel Gafford, Dylan Windler, Chuma Okeke, Carson Edwards, Arturs Zagars

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 8287
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Indy » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:16 pm

In2ition wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:36 pm
Indy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:05 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:44 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:16 pm


I'm trying to figure out in my head how you fix that last one, or maybe what you mean by it.
It would require an amendment to the constitution, which is why I said "long term." ;)

The entire structure of having the "Upper chamber" of Congress be controlled by fewer people in the senate, and not based on population, leads to fewer people having more influence over our government. There is no good reason that the half a million people in Wyoming get an equal number of votes in the Senate as the 7 million people in AZ, and that is happening for every singe vote in the senate.

In a more extreme example, if we ever came to the situation where 3 (or more) viable candidates are running for president, and none of the them get the 270 EVs needed, the House decides who will be president. And they do that via a single vote for each state. So the half million people in Wyoming, represented by a single House member, get an equal number of votes as the 7 million in AZ, or the 40 million in California.
I can't imagine that this wasn't taken into account when they created the House and Senate. In contrast to the Senate, Wyoming only has 1 Representative vs. 53 for California. What I'm saying is, yes this is an extreme example, but it's a problem that doesn't need to be fixed. The architects of the Constitution and Government structure were far far smarter than myself.
They did think about it, and it was set up that way to allow states with lots of slaves more power than other states. That is where the money was, and that is who had the power.
I can not confirm nor deny this, but I don't think this is true either. I think it's working just fine. You have to balance things out, or there will be no way for states in the midwest to have a say in anything. States without a large population are already at a disadvantage. Large states could just say, "F these small population states, let's just rape their natural resources for ourselves and they can go suck it.".
That was the why we have the three-fifths compromise. And keep in mind back in the 1700s there was only a 7-1 disparity in largest to smallest state populations. Now it is over 50-1.

When you say "large states" you mean more populated, not bigger area, right? Because most of the country is controlled by very few senators. I think the number is like 17% of the US population is represented by over 50% of the senators. So it is really the other way around.

There has to be a better way to determine the power of the vote than on which side of a state line you happen to live.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 5112
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by In2ition » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:54 pm

Indy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:16 pm
In2ition wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:36 pm
Indy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:05 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:16 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:44 pm


It would require an amendment to the constitution, which is why I said "long term." ;)

The entire structure of having the "Upper chamber" of Congress be controlled by fewer people in the senate, and not based on population, leads to fewer people having more influence over our government. There is no good reason that the half a million people in Wyoming get an equal number of votes in the Senate as the 7 million people in AZ, and that is happening for every singe vote in the senate.

In a more extreme example, if we ever came to the situation where 3 (or more) viable candidates are running for president, and none of the them get the 270 EVs needed, the House decides who will be president. And they do that via a single vote for each state. So the half million people in Wyoming, represented by a single House member, get an equal number of votes as the 7 million in AZ, or the 40 million in California.
I can't imagine that this wasn't taken into account when they created the House and Senate. In contrast to the Senate, Wyoming only has 1 Representative vs. 53 for California. What I'm saying is, yes this is an extreme example, but it's a problem that doesn't need to be fixed. The architects of the Constitution and Government structure were far far smarter than myself.
They did think about it, and it was set up that way to allow states with lots of slaves more power than other states. That is where the money was, and that is who had the power.
I can not confirm nor deny this, but I don't think this is true either. I think it's working just fine. You have to balance things out, or there will be no way for states in the midwest to have a say in anything. States without a large population are already at a disadvantage. Large states could just say, "F these small population states, let's just rape their natural resources for ourselves and they can go suck it.".
That was the why we have the three-fifths compromise. And keep in mind back in the 1700s there was only a 7-1 disparity in largest to smallest state populations. Now it is over 50-1.

When you say "large states" you mean more populated, not bigger area, right? Because most of the country is controlled by very few senators. I think the number is like 17% of the US population is represented by over 50% of the senators. So it is really the other way around.

There has to be a better way to determine the power of the vote than on which side of a state line you happen to live.
Yes, that is correct, I do mean "large states" as in more populated and not bigger area.

"Large states felt that they should have more representation in Congress, while small states wanted equal representation with larger ones. ... This created a bicameral legislative branch, which gave equal representation to each state in the Senate, and representation based on population in the House of Representatives." - https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-constitutio ... Rpb24ncyJd

I still do not see why this needs to be changed. Larger states do have more representation in the House, which is 1/2 the legislative branch.
"Our Suns are DEAD!!!"

Possibilities at 32:
Isaiah Roby, Darius Bazely, Ty Jerome, Mfiondu Kabengele, Daniel Gafford, Dylan Windler, Chuma Okeke, Carson Edwards, Arturs Zagars

User avatar
Marty [Mori Chu]
Posts: 9447
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Marty [Mori Chu] » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:15 am

One of my main complaints about the government right now is that they don't even have to bring bills to the floor. Like, the House can pass a bill and send it to the Senate, and then Mitch McConnell can just kill it there by not calling for a vote on it. It'd be one thing if they took a vote and voted down the bill. But not even voting on it is cowardly and undemocratic. It's a way to avoid voting for things and avoid having Congressmen put their names on the record as being for/against that thing. This should be changed IMO.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 8287
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Indy » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:34 am

yeah the rules of the senate are crazy, and they get crazier every time the 'other' party takes control

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Democratic primary watch

Post by Nodack » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:29 am

Trump says he is proud to shut down the government. Democrats take control over the house and vote to open the government. The Republican Senate refuses to take it up and go right to blaming Democrats for the shutdown.

Post Reply