The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign

I was struck by that generally. There were good reasons for what was thought good, and emotionalism behind what was thought bad.--Percy

Trump called Joe Biden sleepy, but I just caught 30 seconds of Biden speaking in Iowa during the monologue on last night’s Stephen Colbert show and he didn’t look sleepy but tired and unanimated and boring and unfocused. Unless it was just a bad 30 seconds, no way is Biden going to be our next president.”Percy

USA Today has ranked all the states from best to worst economically. To this I've added how the state voted in the 2016 presidential election. Blue states tend toward the top, red states toward the bottom. Also, in general red states receive more in federal handouts than they pay in taxes. --PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix Maine, they split their delegates.

But it's Kevin Drum's (writing for Mother Jones) way of summarizing Elizabeth Warren's plan. It's not the Democrats' plan. The Democratic candidates have a number of different positions on immigration, so it doesn't really make sense to ask for the Democrats' immigration plan.I liked Drum's point by point summary of Warren's plan, but he seems to have been looking at something else when he wrote the summary paragraph that follows. He's right that there's nothing about improving law enforcement or a wall or E-Verify (don't know what that is) or smarter enforcement, but he's critiquing his own summary of Warren's plan, and we don't know how accurate that is yet. I wouldn't normally begin questioning a journalist's accuracy so early in an article, but I went to Warren's website to see what her immigration plan is (Warren's Plan for Immigration Reform). She says, "We need real reform that provides cost-effective security at our borders," and usually "cost-effective" is another way of saying "technology."So I'm already not getting any accuracy vibes from Drum, and then I see he also says, "No one will ever be deportedexcept, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly." It's true that Drum's summary of Warren's plan doesn't mention deportation, but why do I have a feeling that Warren does have something to say about deportation? In fact she mentions deportation in a couple places:

quote:

---

President Trump has weaponized deportation in ways that are costly, ineffective, and designed to maximize pain. It’s time to end this cruelty and refocus on true threats to public safety and national security instead.
...
Eliminate expedited removal and provide due process. Due process ensures basic fairness for individuals attempting to navigate complex laws and prevents law enforcement and presidents from abusing authority. But most immigrants facing deportation do not have attorneys and in the Trump administration, that even includes toddlers. In fact, one-third of deported immigrants never even see a judge: instead, the immigration officer serves as both prosecutor and jury. I’ll eliminate the use of expedited removal proceedings and guarantee hearings. I’ll call for creating a national-scale immigration public defender corps, and a Warren administration will provide access to counsel in immigration court.

---

Drum also says, "But I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders. As near as I can tell, CBP will be retasked away from patrolling the border looking for illegal crossings;" He says this because he's misinterpreted this from Warren's plan:

quote:

---

Remake CBP and ICE in a way that reflects our values. Our immigration agencies should protect Americans and uphold the rule of law, not pursue punitive anti-immigrant policies that target communities of color. I’ll hold immigration enforcement to the same due process standards as other law enforcement agencies no more warrantless arrests or stops deep in the interior of our country. I’ll reshape CBP and ICE from top to bottom, focusing their efforts on homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.

---

Drum somehow missed the context. Warren is saying that she wants to make border security separate from law enforcement. She wants to repurpose the effort CBP and ICE are currently putting into law enforcement into things like "screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking." They'll still be patrolling the border.Next Drum goes on to recite some Republican talking points, which makes no sense if he's left of center (which he is), so maybe he was just having a bad day, or maybe somebody on the Warren campaign just really pissed him off, but anyway he recites these Republican talking points: "If border officers happen to apprehend someone, they’ll be released almost immediately; if they bother to show up for their court date, they’ll have a lawyer appointed for them; and employers will have no particular reason to fear giving them a job."I see no reason to give much credence to Drum's article. Anyone who wants to know Warren's immigration plan should go to the source: Warren's Plan for Immigration ReformAnd just to be very clear: no Democrat running for president is in favor of open borders.I am not endorsing any particular immigration plan, I'm not even very familiar with any of them (including Bill Weld's, the other Republican candidate for president) but I am definitely opposed to Trumpian border cruelty and to breaking our DACA promise.--Percy

I don't think you read the source you cited (actual title: Elizabeth Warren’s immigration proposal goes much further than a pathway to citizenship). About Warren's immigration plan it says:

quote:

---

Migrants who enter the US without papers would still be committing a crime, and they could still be deported.

---

But Warren's plan, like that of all the other Democratic candidates, is much more humane than Trump's. It's major actions are:

• Make illegal entry a civil offense, thereby ending family separation.
• Provide legal representation for immigrants in court.
• Restore and expand DACA.
• Greatly increase the cap limit on refugees.
• Ease restrictions on those seeking asylum.

No Democratic candidate wants open borders. No one debating here wants open borders. We need secure but welcoming borders with laws that make immigration straightforward and unfettered. Maybe someday North America will even achieve something like the EU's country borders, though that day doesn't seem imminent.Trump's crisis on the border is a fiction. We are not being overrun by robbers and rapists and drug dealers. Trump is exaggerating such threats to justify the inhumane treatment of people who are just like you and me, and who have committed no crime, but are merely fleeing danger and/or economic hardship in their own country. They are merely seeking a better life, like millions of immigrants to America before them.--Percy

Mayor Pete Buttigieg had these words in a Boston Globe interview that were aired on Meet the Press today:

quote:

---

"The impeachment process is based on a constitutional standard and needs to run its course accordingly. I will say that there would be a lot of benefit to Trump and Trumpism getting a resounding, thumping defeat at the ballot box because I think that is what will be required for congressional Republicans to be reunited with their conscience."

---

And hopefully not just their conscience, though that is most important, but logic and common sense, too.Pete seems to be closing the gap with front runner Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, but nationally he is polling a distant fourth.--Percy

You are perhaps thinking of Beto O'Rourke? You are perhaps thinking of Donald Trump? Your conscience called. It's lonely.--Percy

I'm in a real bind here. I plan to vote in next week's New Hampshire primary, and I don't know what to do. Since I'm registered as an independent my choices are:

• Vote in the Republican primary.
  ​
  I would cast my vote for Bill Weld. This would be a protest vote to indicate that not all Republicans support Trump. Current polls put support for Trump among Republicans at 90%, so I think my protest vote would be both symbolic but almost meaningless.
  ​
• Vote in the Democratic primary.
  ​
  I'm leaning much more in this direction, but there's no clear choice. The candidates I'd consider:
  ​
  • Joe Biden, because he's the most electable against Trump.
  • Elizabeth Warren, because she's most prepared to do the job.
  • Pete Buttigieg, because he has the most potential to grow into the job.
  • Bernie Sanders, because his sentiments are on the mark, and the reality of a Congress at least half controlled by Republicans will rein him in and allow only practical solutions to be implemented.
  • Amy Klobuchar, because I know nothing about her.
  ​
  I'm hindered in learning about these candidates because other than their statements of positions I will accept no information that they or their campaigns provide about themselves (e.g., their inflated biographies), and especially not what they say about the other candidates.

Any suggestions, information and opinions welcomed, especially when supported by facts.--Percy

I don't think so. Buttigieg positions:

• Taking action on climate change
• Health care for all who want it
• Make public colleges free for 80% of Americans
• Actively addressing economic, legal and health disparities in black communities
• Address wage stagnation by increasing the minimum wage, encouraging unions to improve employee bargaining power, etc.
• Encourage immigration
• Stronger gun regulations

I don't know his position on tax reform - I wish he'd be more clear about it. Why do you think that is? Is it fixable? That Buttigieg is gay is a significant problem.--Percy

They'd all have to grow into the job, even though the others all have substantially more government experience. I just think Buttigieg's potential for growth in office is substantially greater than the other candidates. There's an intellect there that I don't sense in the other candidates, except Warren. His ability to articulate the issues and the principles behind his positions on them is why I'd consider voting for him. His major drawbacks are lack of experience, youth, lack of black support, and being gay. That's a lot of drawbacks.But all the candidates have drawbacks. Biden's age seems to be showing in his energy, his articulation, his coherency. I can't list specific drawbacks for Warren other than that she's a woman (that's not a drawback for me - it's other people I'm worried about), I'm just generally uncertain about her effectiveness as a campaigner. Sanders embraces the socialist label, which is deadly for him. Klobuchar just can't seem to gain any leverage. I've seen Steyer's commercials and he talks like a billionaire indulging himself. Bloomberg's a complete unknown to me.I wish Stacy Abrams would get in the race, but that's not happening.--Percy

I watched the Friday Democratic debate and the Sunday morning analysis programs and had these impressions:

• Bernie Sanders: For going toe-to-toe verbally with Trump on a debate stage, it's Bernie. His ability to deflect criticism and then return to his message is very strong. He had a very strong debate performance. But he embraces the socialist label. He insists on calling it "democratic socialism," but if you look it up it's not much different from plain old socialism. I consider him unelectable. He'll win the primary easily because he's so well known here because he was once governor of the adjacent state of Vermont.
  ​
• Amy Klobuchar: She's a strong second for going toe-to-toe with Trump. She also had a very strong debate performance. But she wasn't invited on any Sunday morning programs that I saw - I haven't watched Jake Tapper's or Chris Wallace's shows yet. I looked at her stands on the issues at her website and she has all the right positions on healthcare, gun control, immigration, taxes, trade, foreign relations, student debt, climate change and abortion rights.
  ​
• Buttigieg's clarity of message seems to be diminishing under the pressure of being a contender. No pundits noted this, it seems to only be me, but he generally got low marks for his debate performance. His appearances on the Sunday morning programs (three by my count) didn't cause me to reconsider. He's lost a step in articulating his message is my opinion. I think Trump would eat him alive on a debate stage.
  ​
• Elizabeth Warren: She didn't say much at the debate, but she was on the Sunday programs. I can't figure her out, or maybe it's just that I can't figure out how I feel about her. I like her, I like her intellect, I think she has knowledge and mastery of the issues, but gaffes seem to follow her around, like her supposed Indian ancestry and her Medicare-for-all plan. There's a "shrill" element to her delivery. She doesn't feel electable to me. She has no chance of winning the primary, even though she's from another adjacent state, Massachusetts.
  ​
• Joe Biden: He was a non-entity in the debate. He did get the opportunity to speak quite often, but nothing he said felt effective. I think he would get eaten alive on the Trump stage.
  ​
• Tom Steyer: He performs much better on the debate stage than he does on his commercials, but I don't think he's electable. Honestly, I'm not familiar with his stands on issues.
  ​
• Andrew Yang: Thank you for coming.

I have decided to vote in the Democratic primary. I don't know how I will vote tomorrow, but right now (and this could change) it's between Klobuchar and Buttigieg.--Percy

At last night's fantasy show in Manchester Trump encouraged his supporters to vote for the weakest candidate in the Democratic primary. This won't be possible for Trump supporters who are registered Republicans, which is probably most of them, since the New Hampshire primaries are semi-closed. This means that only Democrats and Independents can vote in the Democratic primary, and only Republicans and Independents can vote in the Republican primary. Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic primary and vice versa.I'll be voting in the Democratic primary today. I've looked at the ballot and there is a long list of choices, most of whom I've never heard of:

• Mark Stewart Greenstein, Connecticut
• Pete Buttigieg, Indiana
• Thomas James Torgesen, New York
• Henry Hewes, New York
• Bernie Sanders, Vermont
• David John Thistle, Massachusetts
• Marianne Williamson, California
• John Delaney, Maryland
• Michael A. Ellinger, California
• Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
• Tom Koos, California
• Kamala Harris, California
• Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
• Michael Bennet, Colorado
• Andrew Yang, New York
• Joe Biden, Delaware
• Steve Burke, New York
• Steve Bullock, Montana
• Julian Castro, Texas
• Tom Steyer, California
• Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III, California
• Robby Wells, Georgia
• Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
• Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania
• Lorenz Kraus, New York
• Raymond Michael Moroz, New York
• Ben Gleib, California
• Deval Patrick, Massachusetts
• Sam Sloan, New York
• Cory Booker, New Jersey
• Rita Krichevsky, New Jersey
• Mosie Boyd, Arkansas
• Jason Evritte Dunlap, Maryland

Bernie is well known and well liked in New Hampshire. Many people here remember his time as Vermont's at-large congressional representative. We heard all the noisy Vermont controversies, but through it all Bernie's concern for the common people always shone through. If he'd just drop the socialist label I'd consider him. For me it's still between Klobuchar and Buttigieg.Decisions, decisions...--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix Bernie's resume.

Here are the results of yesterday's New Hampshire Democratic primary (Trump squeaked by on the Republican side 86% to 9% for Weld): 91.3% of precincts have reported so far, but the percentages and the delegates will probably hold up pretty well.Many pundits are saying that the nomination is now Bernie's to lose. Sure, he's wildly even recklessly liberal, but if elected he's not going to get his way with Congress and so many of the items on his pet agenda would get moderated and watered down. The debates would be great entertainment because I'm betting that Sanders would have no qualms about calling Trump a pathological liar to his face. He's incapable of speaking without passion and deep belief. He's a politician because that's his nature, not because he learned the ropes.One pundit referred to Buttigieg's approach as bafflegab. I think I know what she means (https://www.washingtonpost.com/...here-has-she-been-all-year). In the last few weeks Buttigieg's pointed clarity has become more vague and diffuse, more aspirational but less detailed.Many are saying that even after Klobuchar's surprising success and rapid climb from the single digits spurred by last Friday's debate performance that she still has a very tough uphill road. She has neither the funding nor the organization. In my view she has to throw caution to wind and spend beyond her campaign's means to get what needs doing done.Warren gave a stirring speech shortly after the polls closed. If only she campaigned and interviewed as well as she speeched. That she's the second most liberal candidate in the race doesn't help either. She rejects SuperPac money, and I think PAC money, too, but whatever the details, she's determined to rely upon small donations, which is hurting her fundraising.Biden left for South Carolina in the middle of the voting. Can his campaign recover?Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet have dropped out.Deval Patrick received less than 1% of the vote and said he would think things over and have an announcement today.--Percy

This isn't really a reply. I'm mostly just riffing off a couple things you said. About the stock options, ESPP plans allow employees to have money deducted (up to 15% I think) from their salary each pay period to purchase company stock at a discount once or twice a year. A common discount is 85% of the lowest price over the past couple years.The stock price only affects how many shares are purchased, not the paper profit. If you had $5000 deducted and a strike stock price of $58.80/share then 85% of that is $50/share and you purchase 100 shares of stock. If the current stock price is $80/share then the value of your ESPP shares is $8000 and you've just made $3000 on paper.If the stock price were instead $5880/share then you'd purchase 1 share at $5000 and the paper value is still $8000 and still a paper profit of $3000. The stock price has no influence over how much money is made on ESPP shares.If you're instead given stock options, which had already become rare when I retired about six years ago, then they're at a specific price per share, and they typically vest (become available to you to exercise) over a period of 4 or 5 years. It used to be considered an effective employee retention strategy, since the options become void when one leaves the company. A problem with stock options is that they can go underwater (the company's stock price drops below the option price). This was a big problem during the 2008 financial collapse and after and led many hi-tech companies to abandon them.In their place came stock grants. You're effectively given the shares, they usually vest over 4-5 years, and the purchase price is $0. Because of the low purchase price the number of shares involved in stock grants is typically lower than with stock options, probably around 20% as many shares.The current stock prices of Facebook and Google are $214 and $1519 respectively. I agree. Their workplaces are clean, modern and stimulating. This is from the Google Cambridge office: But whether this style of workspace is conducive depends upon the type of work you do, and even what aspect of your job you're doing at any particular time. Much communication is done through companies' Intranets these days, but this kind of environment is horrible if anyone is on their phone. When you first move into one of these open environments everyone takes care to take their conversations into a private space, but it doesn't take long for everyone to become sloppy, and you can hear everything.It's also not the kind of workspace I want when I'm churning out 10,000 lines of code per month (all coders know I'm lying - 10,000 lines of code a month is extremely difficult unless it's boilerplate). Nor when I'm writing a proposal or a technical paper or a design plan or an implementation plan. When I'm doing that stuff I want a nice private, quiet space away from interruptions. It is very common to hear people at hi-tech companies say that they get their best work done at home. An open collaborative workspace sounds appealing at first, but for many people collaboration is only a small part of what they do.--Percy

My opinion about how the word socialism isn't acceptable to a large segment of the voting public was reinforced on NPR today when someone described the word "socialism" as toxic. That about sums it up for me. It doesn't matter what modifier you put in front of it (democratic socialism, entrepreneurial socialism, utopian socialism), the term is toxic.In most people's minds socialism leads to totalitarianism. Right or wrong, when most people hear "socialism" they think Marxism, and when they hear Marxism they think communism, and when they hear communism they think of the USSR, the evil empire, the one that Putin is trying to rebuild now. Only a minority of people in the US think positive thoughts when they hear the word socialism.Bernie is being brutally but in my opinion naively honest when he describes himself as a democratic socialist. Anyone who looks up the term will find that the ultimate goal is a socialist economy. But what does democratic socialism mean when Bernie uses the term? Does he really mean he ultimately wants a socialist economy?The most recent reference I could find of Bernie giving his definition of democratic socialism was in a speech he made a year ago at Georgetown University (Here's How Bernie Sanders Explained Democratic Socialism | Time) where he said:

quote:

---

"I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.

​

"When I use the world socialist—and I know some people aren’t comfortable about itI’m saying that it is imperative [that we] create a government that works for all and not just the few."

---

That's the only time I can find Bernie denying that he does not accept the ultimate democratic socialist goal of government ownership (social ownership is the term they use, but it's a smokescreen) of business and industry. But in that case he's not really a democratic socialist, so why does he feel it so important to keep saying that he is, especially because it's killing him among the general electorate. Sure, he does well in primaries, but primaries are dominated by the more passionate (i.e., more left) Democrats. Your average Democrat or potential Bernie voter doesn't want to vote for a self-described socialist.--Percy