Democratic primary watch

[Mori Chu]

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!

[Mori Chu]

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/

[ShelC]

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.

[Nodack]

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.

[In2ition]

What are the issues that are important to you?

[Nodack]

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.

[Indy]

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)

[In2ition]

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.

[In2ition]

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.

[Indy]

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.

[In2ition]

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.

[Cap]

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.

[Indy]

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.

[Indy]

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).

[In2ition]

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.".

[Indy]

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.

[In2ition]

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.

[Mori Chu]

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.

[Indy]

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

[Nodack]

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.