CA Dems Please Chime In: 2020; Kamala Harris, Issues (highway, extremist, politician)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I listened to a podcast today on the local NPR radio station about the whole medicare for all idea and the different proposals by different candidates, and how different proposals would play out in the real world. It's a really good podcast and not partisan in any way. This is the link to it:

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/12/78739...itical-service

What I love about Elizabeth Warren is that she does meticulously figure out how to pay for anything she proposes. Bernie Sanders does not. There is also a lot of talk about how Senator Harris' viewpoint has changed over time.

But, this is my problem with Bernie. It's easy to say let's give everybody free everything. Those of use who have been around for awhile let these types of promises go in one ear and then out the other. Politicians are forever promising people what they want to hear, then don't fulfill them once they're in office.

Now, we also know that a promise by a presidential candidate is only as good as what they can do with their executive power vs. what they need the house and senate to vote on, too.

At least, though, Warren has a definite plan on how to pay for what she's promising. Bernie does not. And he's had forever to figure that out.

I have to admit that I love the fact that Bloomberg isn't even being discussed.

[Tulemutt]

Warren, like all other candidates, can present plans ... and then various experts can dissect and eviscerate them.

Such as:

Warren’s wealth tax would raise $1 trillion less than she estimates, Wharton study shows

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/12/stud...estimates.html

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Is that ever the truth. Not sure what's behind his extreme vitriol for California.

There’s a term for it as applies to social media: “trolling”.

[semispherical]

At this point I'm starting to look seriously at Bloomberg & Steyer on the theory that the best way to fight fire (obscene wealth) is with fire (other obscene wealth). Then it's up to Congress to pass some campaign finance reform laws with teeth so we don't keep getting the plutocracy Groundhog Day over & over again.

IMO not just Dems, but every decent human being with a brain and a conscience, need to wrest this country back from the McConnell/Trump/Putin brink.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

I agree. My European friends still do not understand how he lost the election. Prior to the election, they said "McCain's a decorated war hero, ex-POW, with a beautiful blond wife with big boobs who owns a beer distributorship," they said, "He can't possibly lose."

They underestimated how many people-of-color voted for Obama only because he was a person-of-color. Or, as comedian Chris Rock put it,

"I'm not a racist. I didn't vote for Obama because he's Black.
I voted for Obama BECAUSE I'M BLACK."

The following is the share of the African-American vote that went to the Democratic candidate in each U.S. Presidential election since 2000:

2000 (Gore): 90%
2004 (Kerry): 88%
2008 (Obama): 95%
2012 (Obama): 93%
2016 (Clinton): 89%

Data from the Roper Center
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/data...w-groups-voted

That is pretty consistent support for the Democratic candidate even if Obama got slightly higher numbers.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by semispherical

At this point I'm starting to look seriously at Bloomberg & Steyer on the theory that the best way to fight fire (obscene wealth) is with fire (other obscene wealth). Then it's up to Congress to pass some campaign finance reform laws with teeth so we don't keep getting the plutocracy Groundhog Day over & over again.

IMO not just Dems, but every decent human being with a brain and a conscience, need to wrest this country back from the McConnell/Trump/Putin brink.

My problem with this plan of action is that it puts another Trump-like person in power. Someone with zero experience who is only on the ballot because they can buy their way onto it.

This just erodes our standards.

What we need to do is erase the ability for money to influence who can run for office. This is part of why Kamala had to quit. I think we need to change the laws to say that each candidate can only spend so much money to campaign, and all of the campaign funds must come from taxpayer dollars, and no candidate can spend more than what is allocated to them through the taxpayer campaign funds. In any way shape or form, including buses to travel around in or air trips - no using private jets, etc., etc.

Let's really level the playing field and then see who emerges who is inspiring.

But no way am I going to vote for Bloomberg and I can't even remember who Steyer is. Not voting for anyone simply based on the notion that I should vote for them because some polls say they're our best shot at beating Trump.

If we go down that road, we will have eroded our expectations of what a president should be. I'm not going to help that happen.

To me, worst case scenario, people like me don't vote for any weak candidate the DNC gives us. Trump gets 4 more years. DNC recalculates it's notion of who should be their next candidate based on what we really want.

The DNC expects us to just follow their recommendations like a bunch of castrated bulls with rings in our noses.

I'm not going to do it anymore.

I think the beginning of this kind of slide into party leaders (republican and democrat) trying to serve the media over real Americans started with the GOP shoving Sarah Palin down John McCain's throat. Americans weren't stupid enough to fall for that (meaning independent-thinking swing voters), and I don't think the swing voters will vote for a candidate like Bloomberg, either. Heck, I normally vote the dem ticket, but I won't vote for Bloomberg, no matter what.

The polls don't get it right anymore, either. They still base the polls on people who answer their phones and who will answer inane survey questions with ridiculous options. Have any of you finished one of these phone call surveys? Even when I have the time, I always end the call because the answer options are ridiculous to their questions.

They're equal to asking: "Do you love Trump, or do you just adore him?" Even if they're democrat-biased questions, they're ridiculous.

So, they may get a few voters to actually finish these survey calls, but they won't be representative of real life. So, god help us if they really base any decisions on these idiotic polls. They deserve what they get if they do.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

My problem with this plan of action is that it puts another Trump-like person in power. Someone with zero experience who is only on the ballot because they can buy their way onto it.

This just erodes our standards.

One major difference: Bloomberg actually has a conscience.

Can you imagine Trump making a speech like this? I can't.

Bloomberg extols ‘moral leadership’ at Business School: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...rds-class-day/

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

My problem with this plan of action is that it puts another Trump-like person in power. Someone with zero experience who is only on the ballot because they can buy their way onto it.

This just erodes our standards.

What we need to do is erase the ability for money to influence who can run for office. This is part of why Kamala had to quit. I think we need to change the laws to say that each candidate can only spend so much money to campaign, and all of the campaign funds must come from taxpayer dollars, and no candidate can spend more than what is allocated to them through the taxpayer campaign funds. In any way shape or form, including buses to travel around in or air trips - no using private jets, etc., etc.

Let's really level the playing field and then see who emerges who is inspiring.

But no way am I going to vote for Bloomberg and I can't even remember who Steyer is. Not voting for anyone simply based on the notion that I should vote for them because some polls say they're our best shot at beating Trump.

FDR and JFK came from wealthy families. I think it is a mistake to disqualify anyone based on their bank account. What sort of policies do they support and what is their experience? That is what counts in my book.

Trump earned his fortune the old fashioned way, he inherited it! Bloomberg is a self-made man. He was also Mayor of New York City for 12 years. NYC's GDP is just slightly less than Canada's. It is a complex administrative entity to manage. That said, Mayors in the USA don't have a good track record of winning the Presidency in the USA.

Of course, Bloomberg is very unlikely to get the nomination. But his ego is not so big that he'd run as a 3rd party candidate. He has pretty clearly stated his goal/ideal is for Trump to be a one term President. That said, I'd vote for him in a New York minute over Trump.

[semispherical]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

My problem with this plan of action is that it puts another Trump-like person in power. Someone with zero experience who is only on the ballot because they can buy their way onto it.

This just erodes our standards.

The national "standards" were so eroded the minute Donald Trump was "elected" that almost anyone who is not a serial killer would improve them.

What we need to do is erase the ability for money to influence who can run for office.

Let's really level the playing field and then see who emerges who is inspiring.

I could not agree with you more, but it ain't gonna happen by Nov 2020, and we absolutely have to prevent four more years of a Trump/McConnell/Putin regime. He is already packing the courts, and if he is reelected he will see it as a mandate to enact even worse sanctions against women, minorities, poor people, and refugees. These Republican policies are ruining already desperate people's lives.

But no way am I going to vote for Bloomberg and I can't even remember who Steyer is. Not voting for anyone simply based on the notion that I should vote for them because some polls say they're our best shot at beating Trump.

I wish the Dem Party would get its act together and figure out a coherent message that doesn't depend on extreme, unworkable, and unpopular proposals (like completely eliminating private health insurers -- something that is aspirational, but not at one fell swoop, Bernie). But whoever they nominate is our ONLY shot at beating Trump, and even if it is Tulsi Gabbard (ugh) I will vote for that person.

To me, worst case scenario, people like me don't vote for any weak candidate the DNC gives us. Trump gets 4 more years.

See above about ruining people's lives. I'm not going to increase any innocent person's misery just because I want ideological purity.

They still base the polls on people who answer their phones and who will answer inane survey questions with ridiculous options. Have any of you finished one of these phone call surveys? Even when I have the time, I always end the call because the answer options are ridiculous to their questions.

Yeah, I always wonder who they are asking. If it's phone surveys it can only be the most gullible. I got a call last week from someone claiming to be an "opinion survey organization." They asked for me by name but when I said "what organization is this?" I got a garbled response that made me strongly suspect it was a bot and I hung up.

Originally Posted by CA4Now

One major difference: Bloomberg actually has a conscience.

Yes, he seems to be a decent human being. Perhaps that is the best we can expect in a candidate.

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

FDR and JFK came from wealthy families. I think it is a mistake to disqualify anyone based on their bank account. What sort of policies do they support and what is their experience? That is what counts in my book.

Of course, Bloomberg is very unlikely to get the nomination. But his ego is not so big that he'd run as a 3rd party candidate. He has pretty clearly stated his goal/ideal is for Trump to be a one term President. That said, I'd vote for him in a New York minute over Trump.

Well said. There is no reason someone should be disqualified just on the basis of wealth, though it means I would tend to look at how the wealth was acquired very closely. Bloomberg also has considerable political experience, which puts him miles ahead of Trump even after the latter's four years "serving" as president.

[V8 Vega]

Steyer is flooding TV and radio here with ad's. I hope he spends a fortune for nothing.