The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign

Biden will be 78 by the time he would be sworn in as President.Sanders 79.What to say.Biden should answer for his opposition to busing and school district policy which enabled poorer minority kids to attend schools with more wealthy white kids.Now, Sanders.This "Sanders issue" has always troubled me.Frankly, Sanders seems really out of date on immigration. He is still screaming a lot of crap against "open borders". He is still full of crap on trade (I say this as a big Sanders supporter from the past, despite my concerns about many of his policies).I prefer somebody like Booker myself.Sanders is good when it comes to speaking out against troubles people face, but he contradicts himself when he starts talking about immigrant rights. He still acts like there are prominent conservatives who speak out in favor of "open borders", though this is mostly a thing of the past (the CATO Institute aside). Also, his (anti)trade views have been discredited.I hope Sanders crashes early, so give Biden his big lead.Then find a good progressive opponent, and crush him (crush Biden).Edited by Admin, : Change title from "Biden is at 39%.Sanders down to 14%. CNN poll." to "The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nominee Campaign"Edited by Admin, : Change title to "The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign"

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Unfortunately, I fear that Biden jumping into the race will scare the progressive left into coalescing around Sanders, and I fear the nomination will end up between Biden and Sanders.Me, I still prefer Warren.

I don't. she is too vulnerable to smears due to her whole Indian heritage , and that can be spun as 'liar' too much. I don't think she's electable.

I'll disagree.If a pathological liar like Trump can get elected so can Pocahontas after a minor faux pas about her heritage. It's not like she lied, the DNA really is there, just not as prominent as some were led to assume and being "Native" is more than just DNA.As a flaming liberal who wants the whole world to link arms and sing Kumbaya I find a lot to like about Liz's philosophy and history.But the race just started and there is a lot of politics yet to be heard to be so resolute on one minor tittle.I'll look and listen to see how Beto, Kamala and the others react to the fight.

If that is the case, then she should beat Trump without even trying. I can think of 10 horrible things Donald Trump has said or lied about for every 1 that you can name for Warren. The real challenge for Warren is to soften her image a bit, and the tough task of creating a good campaign office.

It might be me, but this is the mental image I get when I picture Biden and Sanders:

Right now I am in the Warren camp. My second choice is Kamala Harris. I will support them until or if their candidacy is nonviable. I will support the Dem nominee with money and hours.

quote:

---

It's not like she lied, the DNA really is there, just not as prominent as some were led to assume and being "Native" is more than just DNA.

---

I seem to recall the DNA analysis had the possibility of a great great great grandparent being native.(that makes her at least 98% white, and every grandparent at least 90% white)She used a family rumor ("lore" she called it) as a basis for using a racial designation - "native American" - on job applications (and some feel that it helps one get hired for certain jobs). I don't know the details.I don't know most of the details, and never cared too much about looking at the details. I do not know how often she made comments about her supposed native heritage.Is there a page showing all of her comments on the issue (and the context)?

Probably, somewhere. It really isn't important.She was proud of having the ancestry. Maybe a bit too proud owing to political concerns, but she acknowledged the heritage is way back, and more telling, she not only accepted the native nation's statement that being "native" was considerably more than a few strands of chemistry, she repeated that statement to the press in acknowledgement.To me it's a nit. I'm sure there will be those who will wave it around like some kind of major personality flaw but that is politics as usual. It does nothing to detract from her philosophy on governance and human dignity which should be where the political dialogue should focus. Otherwise I don't care.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Paul Krugman's take.

quote:

---

She was proud of having the ancestry. Maybe a bit too proud owing to political concerns, but she acknowledged the heritage is way back, and more telling, she not only accepted the native nation's statement that being "native" was considerably more than a few strands of chemistry, she repeated that statement to the press in acknowledgement.

---

I was only bothered by the "one drop rule" smell to her commentary (just after, or just as, she released the test results). It seemed like a case of massive ignorance (I assumed "one drop" type of stuff - for identification and labels - was a thing of the past for EVERYBODY), and I know she wasn't saying anything bad about natives. The issue is no longer about (long outdated) white supremacy at all. It is just an issue of amazing ignorance.Not much (or any?) media criticism seems to get it, imo.(The native leaders have to deal with the difficult issue of tribal membership, which is complicated by so many people who have partial native ancestry, but their problem isn't my problem)To have a certain amount of DNA that makes it possible for a single "pure" Native American ancestor 6 generations back (that means it is at the "great great great great" stage where there are 64 Great Great Great Great Grandparents) means that 63 of your 64 Great Great Great Great Grandparents were white (I am not sure the other 63 were all "white" exactly, and I have not looked at the test, but I would not be shocked if it was that extreme).I found her tone and comments just stupid.

I like Bernies ideas, but he's just too old, and too much of a one issue candidate. Biden just does not enthuse me either. I would like to see someone who hasn't reached their 70th birthday by the time they get sworn in.'

2013 was something of a fluke, but the most progressive candidate in world history somehow won.The eventual winner (The Mayor) was hardly a blip until late in the race. He was at around 5% for most of the Democratic campaign.Anthony Weiner, Christy Quinn, and Bill Thompson (the African-American Democratic nominee who almost beat Bloomberg in the 2009 general election) were the front runners for the Democratic primary nomination. Weiner melted down due to sexual scandals. Quinn (whom the incumbent Mayor Bloomberg basically hand-picked as his hopeful successor) was then the heavy favorite, but Thompson had a real shot.But Quinn supported "Stop and Frisk", and a judge decided it violated the state constitution late in the campaign. Bill de Blasio surged as a vocal opponent of a policy that some large minority groups hated (he also happened to have a black wife and a teenage son from the wife). He needed a lot of momentum to beat Bill Thompson (with his strong support in the African American community) and even a win in the first round Democratic primary would still require him to win an uphill 1 on 1 runoff.De Blasio needed to avoid a runnoff.What enabled de Blasio to win was the relatively low-bar 40% of the first round Democratic primary vote requirement.He just did cross 40.0%, while Thompson got around 27%. It took a while for the votes to be counted.It was amazing that he came from nowhere (despite early support from progressives, he seemed to be nowhere) at just the right time.He was sworn into office in early 2014.The economy improved and crime dropped, while subway/bus fares were cut in half (for people below a certain income level) if a monthly or weekly pass was purchased. (I am assuming the $31 weekly pass is now $15.50?) He raised income taxes on those making over $500,000 (or $1 million) about 0.5% to make that historic change. He raised city spending on the homeless to more than every other place in the country combined. Now it is like $2 billion a year.De Blasio is similar to Bernie Sanders when it comes to the middle class, but de Blasio is much better when it comes to helping the poor and the homeless. De Blasio is clearly more pro-immigration.

How about less old, more than one issue, and uniquely, exactly, how to fund such reforms?Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.