The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You have to be living under a rock to think they haven't been painted as crazy and that that isn't a goal. Their policies would hurt people with a lot of $ at stake. As an example, the word "socialist" is used dismissively on them all the time, as if that word by itself is enough. And the conversation is about politicians taking $ from huge corporations. Any who do it, progressive or moderate or whoever, is fair game. Those who don't aren't. The post wasn't about general critiques, but a specific one. But another thing to keep in mind is the ones who are talking about new ideas aren't as deserving of the attacks because they aren't the ones whose ideas have failed in this country (at least not yet) - they haven't had a chance to fail yet. Not all new ideas have merit, though, so yes they should be critiqued too. But there is nothing critiquable for not doing drug companies' bidding.

 

I don't think I'd agree with you. I think that's definitely how it's perceived - as them being painted as crazy - but saying someone is too far left to be electable is not the same as saying they're crazy. I definitely hear that argument kicked around a lot.

 

I've defended socialist policies on here but that word certainly is potent when used on a specific chunk of the right-leaning electorate.

 

The graphic NM posted is very interesting. Shocking to see Biden superior in some ways on campaign finances to others.

 

I don't know about the bold  not all status quo policies are bad. Would you consider the ACA a failure? It's a common target of leftist ire for not going far enough. But it also passed into law and became the most significant healthcare overhaul since... Medicare?

 

What I worry about is progressives spending so much time and energy critiquing more moderate liberals where they disagree that they burn too many bridges and marginalize themselves, becoming the Tea Party of the left. At that point they could maintain as much ideological purity as they want but their ideas will always be DOA because they're not a majority of Democrats and they'll never get any GOP votes for their ideas.

 

 

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

I don't think I'd agree with you. I think that's definitely how it's perceived - as them being painted as crazy - but saying someone is too far left to be electable is not the same as saying they're crazy. I definitely hear that argument kicked around a lot.

 

I've defended socialist policies on here but that word certainly is potent when used on a specific chunk of the right-leaning electorate.

 

The graphic NM posted is very interesting. Shocking to see Biden superior in some ways on campaign finances to others.

 

I don't know about the bold  not all status quo policies are bad. Would you consider the ACA a failure? It's a common target of leftist ire for not going far enough. But it also passed into law and became the most significant healthcare overhaul since... Medicare?

 

What I worry about is progressives spending so much time and energy critiquing more moderate liberals where they disagree that they burn too many bridges and marginalize themselves, becoming the Tea Party of the left. At that point they could maintain as much ideological purity as they want but their ideas will always be DOA because they're not a majority of Democrats and they'll never get any GOP votes for their ideas.

 

 

K, we can just disagree then, even though it seems glaringly obvious to me.

 

 

To the bolded, I obviously don't think every bit of existing policy we have is a failure. My point was, things we've never tried are often attacked, often with funding from corporations that would be hurt by said policies, but we have no idea whether they'd be failures or not. So in my opinion they haven't earned those attacks like some existing policies have. E.g. people attack universal health care all the time. The idea of universal healthcare in the U.S. should not draw as much ire as it does. It's insane how people react to the idea. The way the system is now should draw a lot more because it sucks in action. It's what we have and we know it doesn't work well.

[knapplc]

ONE CAN ONLY HOPE

 

 

 

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

ONE CAN ONLY HOPE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People said the same sort of things in the 2016 campaign cycle. You yourself frequently referenced how you were convinced Trump didn't even want to win the election (I agreed with you then and still do). Even if this is true, it doesn't factor in the actual thing that got Trump elected in the first place; angry/scared white uneducated voters.

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting thread on Warren and her trade ideas.

 

 

[TGHusker]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

ONE CAN ONLY HOPE

 

 

 

Spot on article.

[knapplc]

Interesting premise. Of course I think Trump should have released his taxes and the fact that he didn't was an early disqualifier for me. I just never expected a state to take it this far.

 

If this happens in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, expect Trump to raise hell.

 

But the problem for him is, he'd have to fight court battles in each state to force his name onto the ballot, and that could take a long time.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

20 hours ago, knapplc said:

Interesting premise. Of course I think Trump should have released his taxes and the fact that he didn't was an early disqualifier for me. I just never expected a state to take it this far.

 

If this happens in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, expect Trump to raise hell.

 

But the problem for him is, he'd have to fight court battles in each state to force his name onto the ballot, and that could take a long time.

 

 

 

This is one of the most interesting developments.  I thought I remembered something about another state a while ago debating this.  Maybe Vermont or New Hampshire???

 

I wonder why they only made it for the primary and not for the general election.

[Nebfanatic]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

This is one of the most interesting developments.  I thought I remembered something about another state a while ago debating this.  Maybe Vermont or New Hampshire???

 

I wonder why they only made it for the primary and not for the general election.

Is that even possible? Leaving him off the primary ballot is one thing, but not having the GOP canidate on the general election ballot would probably cause more trouble than its worth. I mean, the dude needs to release his taxes, but the uproar from conservative America if you took one of 2 canidates essentially off the ballot would be massive.

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Is that even possible? Leaving him off the primary ballot is one thing, but not having the GOP canidate on the general election ballot would probably cause more trouble than its worth. I mean, the dude needs to release his taxes, but the uproar from conservative America if you took one of 2 canidates essentially off the ballot would be massive.

 

I don't know all the legal issues behind it.  

But, in my mind, the GOP candidate that received the most votes in the primaries that DID release his tax returns would be on the ballot.

 

So, the GOP would still have a candidate.

 

Of course, people can still write him in.

[commando]

7 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Is that even possible? Leaving him off the primary ballot is one thing, but not having the GOP canidate on the general election ballot would probably cause more trouble than its worth. I mean, the dude needs to release his taxes, but the uproar from conservative America if you took one of 2 canidates essentially off the ballot would be massive.

well....if he followed the law and released his taxes he would be on the ballot.  so in effect...the state is not taking his name off the ballot...he is by not releasing his taxes.

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, commando said:

well....if he followed the law and released his taxes he would be on the ballot.  so in effect...the state is not taking his name off the ballot...he is by not releasing his taxes.

 

There is no law requiring presidential candidates to release their taxes.

[commando]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

There is no law requiring presidential candidates to release their taxes.

isn't this about the new california law requiring this?

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

There is no law requiring presidential candidates to release their taxes.

 

That's what California is trying to fix.  

 

Which maybe brings up a point.  Are the primaries ran by the state and the general elections ran by the federal government?

Maybe that's why the California law couldn't do anything about the general election.

[QMany]

I don't know off the top of my head, but I would think California does have some legal control at the state-level, much like Maine and Nebraska decide how they want to allocate electoral votes.