It's time to have a 2020 Presidential Election thread

I don’t think the GOP debates really helped Trump. Of course for a normal candidate, his performance would have doomed him. So I don’t think they hurt him particular either. I’m not really convinced that most of his voters, even the die hard Trump fans watched more than one or two. Typically there were only 15 million viewers, top I believe was the Fox debate with Kelly, and Chris Wallace was 18 million.

It was the sound bites that were shown over and over that helped Trump, and the nicknames did help. But more of nicknames were generated during his stump speeches than during the debates.

The progressive base has already decided Biden is the worst of the worst, he’s not going to be able to play the economics card at all. I could see Biden getting a 30% base, but I see no path for him to get to 50%, and if it came to a brokered convention, the progressives would ally with almost anyone else to screw him.

At this point I’m resigned to Harris winning- as I see her as the only candidate who could get to 50%

Finally got to hear Pete Buttigeig speak last night. Now there’s an articulate guy, and he actually answers questions without pivoting to what sound like talking points from a can.

Yep, Buttigieg is very impressive. I don’t think he’ll be President in 2021, but he may be someday.

If nothing else, I hope Mayor Pete’s presidential campaign boosts his name recognition in his home state and makes him a legit challenger for the senate or governor’s mansion there.

This is pretty cool. Warren keeps on rolling out some pretty solid policy initiatives that are a little more granular than the rest of the field.

I wonder if voters in Iowa or New Hampshire will notice.

Klobuchar is handling herself pretty well on the CNN town hall.

Appreciated her answer on healthcare, that Medicare or Medicaid for all is a great goal, but a more immediate thing that is within sight and doable is a single payer option as a bridge.

It’s an interesting approach. She’s going to get barbecued by a very loud sector of social media, but as we often need to be reminded: social media isn’t the general voting public…at all.

Fuck it, if she’s gonna lose to the far left, so be it, if she does it by actually saying what she thinks. It’s silly to see a bunch of folks falling over themselves to pretend to be further left than they really are, to try and win over the edge of the party

And why there might be a lane for her approach this cycle:

I mean, I think I’m well to the left of her on the environment, and I personally would like to see us more aggressive on medicare for all and college tuition…but I admire her candor and if she were the nominee at this point I wouldn’t be unhappy.

On the other hand, austerity is something I haven’t the time for, and stuff like this would make me have to think about voting for her in a primary:

Also, not a big fan of her stance on lowering the corporate tax rate at all.

EDIT: I guess what I do like about Klobuchar is that she seems like a much realer candidate and person. Her recall of pertinent facts and data is very impressive. And there are times when it feels like Harris, Booker, and Gillibrand are just promising me ponies. So, though I disagree with a lot of her policy statements, it’s by tolerable degrees…mostly. And I like that she’s not just blowing smoke up my ass.

If we expect to get the Presidency and the Senate, then it would be great to have a Warren or other Progressive to get some very big things done. But that would still rely on nuking the filibuster, which I think is a bad idea.

If we don’t expect a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I think Klobuchar is the most likely to actually get something done on Healthcare. That’s the most important issue for me. I also appreciate her policy orientation and command of detail in general. She reminds me of Hillary’s better qualities.

Are we talking about the same GOP that didn’t lend a single vote to Obamacare? Even though it was a GOP plan to begin with.

Yep.

But I’d guess the hope in Oghier’s scenario is also a GOP that got slaughtered on healthcare in the 2018 midterms that sees more and more deep red states clamoring to take the Medicare expansion, and realizing that running against the ACA is probably no longer in their best political interest.

Maybe. ;)

But yeah, you’re likely right to be pretty cynical on that.

Is there room for any Democrat candidate in 2020 to be arguing for lower corporate tax rates (genuine question, not rhetorical)? Perhaps if she was arguing for some small reduction in the nominal corporate tax rate and introducing legislation to ensure that effective and nominal corporate tax rates roughly matched, it would be more palatable.

Even then,

What’s the rational, democratic argument for reducing the CTR?

Addressing climate change is pandering. There’s a hot take.

So let’s just pretend we don’t have to do anything to mitigate climate change and instead focus on lowering the corporate tax rate because really, that’s far more important and then our responsible Republican party partners will agree with us on bipartisan legislation. Wonderful agenda Ms. Klobuchar. And when anyone disagrees with you maybe you can just throw binders around the room in a demonstration of your effective temperament and leadership.

But hey corporate lickspittles will love her.

Edit:

If I was a magic genie and could give that to everyone and we could afford it, I would," Klobuchar said during a CNN town hall in New Hampshire. “I’m just trying to find a mix of incentives and make sure kids that are in need — that’s why I talked about expanding Pell Grants — can go to college and be able to afford it, and make sure that people that can afford it are able to pay.”

The increase to the defense budget cost $80 billion.
Klobuchar voted for it.
The cost for free four year college?
$80 billion.

There isn’t one.

Klobuchar tonight didn’t say she was in favor of a lower corporate tax rate than the current. She said she was in favor of a lower corporate tax rate from the existing (35%) before the Ryan tax boondoggle–but not one as low as the new 21% rate.

Which is still not going to play very well.

Yeah sorry I should have been clearer, I meant lower than the previous 35% (which effectively was barely more than half that anyway).

And yeah, even that isn’t going to play well with primary voters in the Democratic primaries. I don’t know where that constuency is, unless she can somehow tie it to job creation…and then that sets off all kinds of pander alarms.

I think that it is possible to be very much in favor of environmental issues and to think that it’s of dire existential importance…and to look at the GND as policy goals absent actual vote-able policy initiatives in congress and thus be skeptical that it represents anything but goalposts. The GND sounds great, but if you want to argue that we need rapid and direct legislation on concrete vote-able regulatory changes ASAP, I’m listening.

I’d like to see exactly what her environmental policy looks like, but to use hidebound allegiance to the GND as a litmus for “pro environment/anti-environment” is the kind of hot-taking you usually need to be on reddit to see. Klobuchar has a 95% lifetime score (and a 100% 2017 score) from the League of Conservation Voters scorecard. She’s at least earned the opportunity to offer up her own initiatives and policy in that regard.