mcintyre1
Footballguy
Starting up the crowd size and yard sign portion of the campaign, Bernie had a very good showing for his first two official rallies (despite freezing temperatures). Brooklyn and Chicago.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
prefontaine
Footballguy
The thing that stands out to me from those odds is that odds of winning the Dem Primary and the Presidency are skewed. Not enough action I'm sure but there is some significant arbitrage.
If you want to bet on Harris, Biden, or Sanders, bet on them to win the Dem Nomination. For Warren, Brown, Booker, or AK, bet on them to win Presidency. Beto can go either way. It depends on what you think of Trump's chances but if 32% is accurate, you should bet on Beto in the Presidential race. It calcs to Trump ~40%.
Last edited by a moderator:
That’s not necessarily an inefficiency. It could be saying that Trump has a relatively better chance in the general against Harris, Biden, or Sanders than he would against the others.
prefontaine
Footballguy
True. It's pretty skewed and it may just be my own bias here that I don't think there is a significant difference by Dem nominee. I'm pretty comfortable with my bias though as this calcs to Bernie 70ish and Klobachar 40ish.
And in how you know your candidacy isn't getting traction news, I just noticed they have The Rock with better odds than Julian Castro. Ouch man.
He (Bernie) is at 16% - if anything, I think that is underrated relative to his actual chances.
The smartest presidential candidate you’ve never heard of
(John Delaney)
Last July, I started asking prominent Democrats their views on substantive policy questions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who actually initiated the exercise with her sua sponte answers, and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti both have participated. So has Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
This time I asked former Maryland congressman John Delaney, the first Democrat to declare for president, about some top domestic policy issues. Delaney is a moderate and a successful entrepreneur, and he has a big staff in Iowa. It’s critical for him to make the debates (requiring 1 percent in three polls or 65,000 donors, which he claims to have). He’ll get a chance to introduce himself to the country in a March 10 town hall. In the meantime, here are his answers to our questions, followed by a few observations.
What’s the right balance of taxes, spending and debt?
The right balance of taxes and spending would produce deficits of about 2 percent across the long term. Under my economic policies, I believe the economy can consistently grow at least 2.5 percent per year, and if we can manage long-term annual deficits to be less than the level of annual economic growth, then the debt as a percentage of our economy will go down, which is what matters. The key metric is debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, and I would like to start slowly lowering that ratio to be more in line with historical averages. To achieve this, we need to increase revenue, which I would do by: (1) implementing a form of the “Buffet rule,” which involves synchronizing capital gains tax rates with ordinary income tax rates. We do not need a lower capital gains rate; that is an outdated incentive and contributes meaningfully to the structural unfairness in the tax code as investors pay lower taxes than workers, (2) by rolling back the tax cuts on high earners from the GOP tax reform, and (3) by raising corporate tax rates — not to where they were — but to about 27 percent. On the spending side, we have to lower long-term spending growth, which should be focused on fixing health care. Health care is the main long-term driver of our spending problems, and I have proposed a fully paid-for universal health-care plan that can do this (after we fix the Affordable Care Act!). We also have to address Social Security. [Republican Rep.] Tom Cole and I have introduced a commission bill (similar to the Greenspan Commission) to address the long-term solvency of Social Security.
If the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade deals have economic and geopolitical benefits, what do you say to workers who are displaced?
I tell workers that we have let them down by failing to respond to globalization and technology, which have been enormously positive for society and the world but not for many of them. As my dad the union electrician used to say, “a good job is everything.” I want to keep positioning the United States to compete globally with deals like TPP, but I will not forget about workers that are hurt by globalization. My approach is to think globally and invest locally. I would pair trade deals with domestic economic programs like infrastructure and with an agenda for turning around distressed communities. I was a leader on the “Opportunity Zone” legislation in the House, which created a federal tax incentive for investors to invest in Opportunity Zones. I would pair that with an incentive for government contractors to locate in Opportunity Zones, building more infrastructure in them and increasing the earned-income tax credit (which should be the center of our tax policy). We also need an agenda to address changes in work driven by artificial intelligence and automation. This involves changes in public education, creating ongoing training capabilities and developing creative compensation structures for jobs that are currently being done in society (like caregivers) that add meaningful societal value but are not currently compensated. Working together, these polices would cause investment capital and jobs to flow to communities left behind and help workers prepare for change.
Facebook and other tech companies have become the equivalent of utilities, yet they are essentially unregulated. How should we regulate them to address problems such as privacy and foreign interference in elections?
We should pass federal privacy legislation similar to what California passed. We should require full disclosure of who buys campaign ads on digital platforms. As part of a national AI strategy, we should address tech addiction and programming bias. We should harness the best in innovation but also protect our citizens. My wife [April] is the Washington director of Common Sense Media and is a leader in these areas.
Big companies engage in bidding wars to open or expand facilities in exchange for tax and other incentives. What problems do you have with this, and does it perpetuate inequality?
This practice does not help net U.S. job growth, it is a race to the bottom and it is effectively a form of corporate subsidies, many of which (but not all) have proved to have very low returns on investment relative to other investments. For example, I found the Amazon process unseemly, but at the same time I believe New York City made a mistake rejecting them. It is my sense that the package NYC offered was justified based on the assurances Amazon provided. The dynamic exists for these “auctions” because so many areas are hungry for economic development. Last year 80 percent of venture capital funding went to 50 counties in the United States. This has created massive inequality of opportunity and is turning the country into a nation of birthright instead of a country of opportunity. We need real polices that foster broader economic development so that fewer locations show up with bids the next time a corporation wants to run a national auction. [Amazon founder and chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Post.]
What’s your solution to skyrocketing college tuition costs and student debt?
Post-high school graduation, every American should be able to attend community college or obtain career and technical training at no cost. The eligible programs should meet quality and graduation metrics in order to qualify. We should also have more creative loan repayment programs tied to income and work to lower the payments on student loans. Working together, this would allow a student to obtain two years of college at no cost and then finish the last two years at a lower cost. I have also called for a national service program that gives all high school graduates the opportunity (but not the obligation) to serve their country, either in the military, by doing community service, or through a new “infrastructure” program to rebuild parks and federal assets. In addition to all the unifying benefits and skill building associated with this, we could provide discounted student loans to students who serve, which would create another avenue for lower college costs.
My responses:
As a preliminary matter, Delaney should get credit for direct, substantive answers, especially on the debt. He’s the first Democrat who’s answered these questions to specify how much debt we can carry and to address reform of Social Security.
On trade, Delaney seems to have hit upon an economically and politically viable solution: open up foreign markets and use domestic legislation, not tariffs, to address the adverse effect on American workers. He and other Democrats should also be forthright about the availability of the World Trade Organization to address foreign unfair competition. If that body needs reform, we should push forward so countries have viable remedies and need not resort to unwinnable trade wars.
Delaney makes a smart point about the concentration of venture capital in relatively few places. We’d like to hear him expound more on the trail about what to do about this. It’s the chicken-or-egg problem: Without investment and the promise of good jobs, it’s hard to set up a world-class university or make huge expenditures in infrastructure, which are needed to attract investment. We’d like to see candidates address an unpopular but perhaps necessary solution, namely moving people from distressed areas to where the high-tech jobs are instead of moving the high-tech jobs to distressed areas.
On education, Delaney and other candidates rightly stress alternatives to four-year schools. However, four-year college tuition even at public schools has skyrocketed, to the dismay of middle-class families. It would be interesting to see if college presidents were treated like oil company executives — hauled before Congress to explain the price gouging and whether there is any price fixing going on. Moreover, should uber-expensive universities with billions in endowment money get to keep their nonprofit status, especially if they continue charging students ungodly amounts for a diploma? No there’s a way to raise revenue — or pressure universities to start lowering their prices.
(John Delaney)
Last July, I started asking prominent Democrats their views on substantive policy questions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who actually initiated the exercise with her sua sponte answers, and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti both have participated. So has Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
This time I asked former Maryland congressman John Delaney, the first Democrat to declare for president, about some top domestic policy issues. Delaney is a moderate and a successful entrepreneur, and he has a big staff in Iowa. It’s critical for him to make the debates (requiring 1 percent in three polls or 65,000 donors, which he claims to have). He’ll get a chance to introduce himself to the country in a March 10 town hall. In the meantime, here are his answers to our questions, followed by a few observations.
What’s the right balance of taxes, spending and debt?
The right balance of taxes and spending would produce deficits of about 2 percent across the long term. Under my economic policies, I believe the economy can consistently grow at least 2.5 percent per year, and if we can manage long-term annual deficits to be less than the level of annual economic growth, then the debt as a percentage of our economy will go down, which is what matters. The key metric is debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, and I would like to start slowly lowering that ratio to be more in line with historical averages. To achieve this, we need to increase revenue, which I would do by: (1) implementing a form of the “Buffet rule,” which involves synchronizing capital gains tax rates with ordinary income tax rates. We do not need a lower capital gains rate; that is an outdated incentive and contributes meaningfully to the structural unfairness in the tax code as investors pay lower taxes than workers, (2) by rolling back the tax cuts on high earners from the GOP tax reform, and (3) by raising corporate tax rates — not to where they were — but to about 27 percent. On the spending side, we have to lower long-term spending growth, which should be focused on fixing health care. Health care is the main long-term driver of our spending problems, and I have proposed a fully paid-for universal health-care plan that can do this (after we fix the Affordable Care Act!). We also have to address Social Security. [Republican Rep.] Tom Cole and I have introduced a commission bill (similar to the Greenspan Commission) to address the long-term solvency of Social Security.
If the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade deals have economic and geopolitical benefits, what do you say to workers who are displaced?
I tell workers that we have let them down by failing to respond to globalization and technology, which have been enormously positive for society and the world but not for many of them. As my dad the union electrician used to say, “a good job is everything.” I want to keep positioning the United States to compete globally with deals like TPP, but I will not forget about workers that are hurt by globalization. My approach is to think globally and invest locally. I would pair trade deals with domestic economic programs like infrastructure and with an agenda for turning around distressed communities. I was a leader on the “Opportunity Zone” legislation in the House, which created a federal tax incentive for investors to invest in Opportunity Zones. I would pair that with an incentive for government contractors to locate in Opportunity Zones, building more infrastructure in them and increasing the earned-income tax credit (which should be the center of our tax policy). We also need an agenda to address changes in work driven by artificial intelligence and automation. This involves changes in public education, creating ongoing training capabilities and developing creative compensation structures for jobs that are currently being done in society (like caregivers) that add meaningful societal value but are not currently compensated. Working together, these polices would cause investment capital and jobs to flow to communities left behind and help workers prepare for change.
Facebook and other tech companies have become the equivalent of utilities, yet they are essentially unregulated. How should we regulate them to address problems such as privacy and foreign interference in elections?
We should pass federal privacy legislation similar to what California passed. We should require full disclosure of who buys campaign ads on digital platforms. As part of a national AI strategy, we should address tech addiction and programming bias. We should harness the best in innovation but also protect our citizens. My wife [April] is the Washington director of Common Sense Media and is a leader in these areas.
Big companies engage in bidding wars to open or expand facilities in exchange for tax and other incentives. What problems do you have with this, and does it perpetuate inequality?
This practice does not help net U.S. job growth, it is a race to the bottom and it is effectively a form of corporate subsidies, many of which (but not all) have proved to have very low returns on investment relative to other investments. For example, I found the Amazon process unseemly, but at the same time I believe New York City made a mistake rejecting them. It is my sense that the package NYC offered was justified based on the assurances Amazon provided. The dynamic exists for these “auctions” because so many areas are hungry for economic development. Last year 80 percent of venture capital funding went to 50 counties in the United States. This has created massive inequality of opportunity and is turning the country into a nation of birthright instead of a country of opportunity. We need real polices that foster broader economic development so that fewer locations show up with bids the next time a corporation wants to run a national auction. [Amazon founder and chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Post.]
What’s your solution to skyrocketing college tuition costs and student debt?
Post-high school graduation, every American should be able to attend community college or obtain career and technical training at no cost. The eligible programs should meet quality and graduation metrics in order to qualify. We should also have more creative loan repayment programs tied to income and work to lower the payments on student loans. Working together, this would allow a student to obtain two years of college at no cost and then finish the last two years at a lower cost. I have also called for a national service program that gives all high school graduates the opportunity (but not the obligation) to serve their country, either in the military, by doing community service, or through a new “infrastructure” program to rebuild parks and federal assets. In addition to all the unifying benefits and skill building associated with this, we could provide discounted student loans to students who serve, which would create another avenue for lower college costs.
My responses:
As a preliminary matter, Delaney should get credit for direct, substantive answers, especially on the debt. He’s the first Democrat who’s answered these questions to specify how much debt we can carry and to address reform of Social Security.
On trade, Delaney seems to have hit upon an economically and politically viable solution: open up foreign markets and use domestic legislation, not tariffs, to address the adverse effect on American workers. He and other Democrats should also be forthright about the availability of the World Trade Organization to address foreign unfair competition. If that body needs reform, we should push forward so countries have viable remedies and need not resort to unwinnable trade wars.
Delaney makes a smart point about the concentration of venture capital in relatively few places. We’d like to hear him expound more on the trail about what to do about this. It’s the chicken-or-egg problem: Without investment and the promise of good jobs, it’s hard to set up a world-class university or make huge expenditures in infrastructure, which are needed to attract investment. We’d like to see candidates address an unpopular but perhaps necessary solution, namely moving people from distressed areas to where the high-tech jobs are instead of moving the high-tech jobs to distressed areas.
On education, Delaney and other candidates rightly stress alternatives to four-year schools. However, four-year college tuition even at public schools has skyrocketed, to the dismay of middle-class families. It would be interesting to see if college presidents were treated like oil company executives — hauled before Congress to explain the price gouging and whether there is any price fixing going on. Moreover, should uber-expensive universities with billions in endowment money get to keep their nonprofit status, especially if they continue charging students ungodly amounts for a diploma? No there’s a way to raise revenue — or pressure universities to start lowering their prices.
Democrats are making this way too easy for Trump. The majority may have opposed building more wall but no way do they want to tear down existing wall (Beto) and no Ms Harris we don't want to legalize prostitution. AOC the green new deal is just what Klobuchar is calling it...an aspiration. You fool Democrats are giving 2020 to Trump!
Top Democratic donors wait for Terry McAuliffe to decide on 2020 bid
Curious decision to wait on announcing - I can't say he is wrong. There could be value in letting Trump and the GOP bash the early Dems, and then step in as an alternative candidate. Its a viable strategy if you have money waiting - which McAuiliffe apparently does.
But, big money donors, and ties to the Clintons make for an uphill battle this cycle, imo.
Curious decision to wait on announcing - I can't say he is wrong. There could be value in letting Trump and the GOP bash the early Dems, and then step in as an alternative candidate. Its a viable strategy if you have money waiting - which McAuiliffe apparently does.
But, big money donors, and ties to the Clintons make for an uphill battle this cycle, imo.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yes, if there's one lesson we learned in 2016 it's that unconventional policy proposals and extremist members of Congress from your political party spell certain doom for presidential candidates.
4 years ago the narrative was: "GOP are making this too easy for Clinton. Keep promoting Trump, and Clinton will win this in a landslide!"
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Another specific claim that makes zero sense historically is that people like Omar, Tlaib and AOC are going to harm the Dem nominee's chances somehow. Nobody ever made this argument about Steve King or Louie Gohmert and they're not making it now about Matt Gaetz even though all three of those politicians are far more extreme, confrontational and outspoken than Omar, Tlaib and AOC. Wonder what the difference isI mean, thecrowd assumed that Trump was a Clinton plant in the GOP primaries - just to increase her own chances...
One of the things I like about Delaney's approach is synchronizing the capital gains tax with ordinary income - that is long overdue in terms of tax reform.
I would support that approach even more than a higher marginal tax rate on high income earners.
Ok If Klobuchar (or Biden) is the candidate vs Trump, you get the never Trump Republicans i.e. George Will, Bill Kristol, Michael Steele etc @ me as well as all you Democrats. If Sanders, Harris or another progressive is the candidate vs Trump they get your votes but the never Trumpers write in a candidate or stay home.
4 years ago the narrative was: "GOP are making this too easy for Clinton. Keep promoting Trump, and Clinton will win this in a landslide!"
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The never Trumpers had a chance to hold their nose and vote for a moderate, competent Democrat in 2016. They either didn't do it or there weren't enough of them to matter. Not sure why they deserve a second chance, particularly if it has to come at the expense of the party's activist grassroots base that was instrumental to Obama's victory in 2008.
joffer
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It's a good question. I really don't know the answer.
The one thing I know, however, is that "Never Trumper" Republicans don't show up. I can tell because of who is in the White House.
With Hillary as my choice I voted McMullin, other never Trumpers voted for Kasich. GH Bush voted for Hillary so I disagree that the never Trumpers stay home. I cant wait to vote for another candidate besides Trump in 2020
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Sorry, I should have been clearer. By all means vote third party if the choice is between that and staying home. Third party voters are engaged citizens, and that's great.
But in the narrow discussion about how to stop Trump, a third party vote is obviously irrelevant and the equivalent of staying home (they have the same impact on the final result). Never Trumpers had a chance to hold their noses and vote for a moderate Dem in 2016. They didn't do it. So I'm skeptical when they say they'll do it in 2020. I know Clinton was uniquely despised, but the bottom line is she was a fairly moderate Dem whose politics closely resemble Biden's and Klobuchar's. And the hatred of her was largely fueled by GOP politicians and right wing media who can't wait to do the same to whoever emerges as the frontrunner for the Dems in 2020.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
None of the Dem horde are going to be without fault as candidates. But all share one single, simple and undeniable trait -- they're not Donald Trump. Defeating him is the number one priority.
I hope you third party voters will encourage Democratic efforts to reform the electoral process in this country, a reformation that will make it easier for third party voices to be heard.
I hope you third party voters will encourage Democratic efforts to reform the electoral process in this country, a reformation that will make it easier for third party voices to be heard.
How Democratic 2020 candidates describe their own policy priorities - from WaPo
2020 - in 10 words
I reached out to a dozen campaigns for their thoughts on broadly identified policy areas — in 10 words or less. It was an arbitrary figure, certainly, but it seemed like one that would both force concision and make campaigns focus on the areas they considered priorities. To offset that brevity, I encouraged campaigns to provide links to information that would flesh out their thoughts.
The campaigns raised two valid concerns in response. The first: It is awfully early in the campaign for candidates to have robustly detailed policy positions. The second: The word limit might result in a focus on sloganeering. I think that this was mostly avoided below, but you be the judge.
Here are the responses we’ve received. (Some campaigns indicated that they intended to reply but hadn’t done so by deadline.)
Responses in Spolier
Health care
Booker: To put patients ahead of profits, provide Medicare for All.
Delaney: Universal healthcare, private options, lower costs, tech addiction, mental health.
Gillibrand: Medicare For All since 2006. Lower drug prices. Protect kids.
Harris: We need Medicare for All. Every American deserves health care.
Klobuchar: We need universal, affordable, quality healthcare coverage for all Americans.
Sanders: Guarantee health care to every American through Medicare for All.
Criminal justice
Booker: Justice demands police accountability, marijuana legalization, end to mass incarceration.
Delaney: End systemic racial injustice. End for-profit prisons. Restitution.
Gillibrand: Combat institutional racism; decriminalize marijuana, end cash bail.
Harris: End mass incarceration and systemic discrimination. Be smart on crime.
Klobuchar: We must reform long prison sentences for non-violent offenders.
Sanders: Eliminate cash bail and private prisons, decriminalize marijuana.
Income inequality
Booker: Economic justice means a fair shot at success for everyone.
Delaney: Expand EITC, increase minimum wage, Buffett Rule, address AI disruption.
Gillibrand: End corporate greed. Raise minimum wage. Postal Banking. Equal pay.
Harris: Raise wages. Give working Americans up to $500 a month.
Klobuchar: Republican tax bill is regressive — the wealthiest should pay more.
Sanders: Raise wages, make wealthy and corporations pay their fair share.
Climate change
Booker: Green New Deal means sustainable jobs, a sustainable future.
Delaney: Carbon tax, return revenues to people, increase green energy research.
Gillibrand: Green New Deal: Tax carbon. Green infrastructure jobs. Clean water.
Harris: We need a Green New Deal to confront the crisis.
Klobuchar: Rejoin Paris Climate agreement, reinstate Obama rules, pass legislation.
Sanders: Transition to renewable energy, create jobs through Green New Deal.
Gun control
Booker: Fight gun lobby. Pass background checks and common-sense laws.
Delaney: Universal background checks, assault weapons ban, high-capacity magazine limits.
Gillibrand: Stop gun trafficking. Universal background checks. Ban assault rifles.
Harris: No more senseless deaths. Universal background checks. Assault weapons ban.
Klobuchar: My priority: Pass gun-safety measures like universal background checks.
Sanders: Take on the NRA and enact common-sense gun legislation.
Social safety net
Booker: Protect our most vulnerable and help lift them up.
Delaney: Expand and stabilize Social Security, universal healthcare, end hunger.
Gillibrand: Protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, WIC. Expand FMLA.
Harris: Medicare and Social Security need strengthening, not cuts by Republicans.
Klobuchar: Americans should have healthcare, retirement security, and increased minimum wage.
Sanders: Expand Social Security so everyone can retire with dignity.
Foreign aid
Booker: America is safest, strongest when it leads, invests in allies.
Delaney: Increase foreign aid to improve diplomacy and national security.
Gillibrand: Education and economic opportunities limit risk of war and terrorism.
Harris: Global standing is diminished. Reject unilateralism and restore American leadership.
Klobuchar: I support a smart and strong foreign aid budget.
Sanders: A foreign policy focused on democracy, human rights and diplomacy.
Military deployments
Booker: Military force is last resort to ensure our national security.
Delaney: New AUMF establishing clear scope and objectives. Restore alliances.
Gillibrand: New AUMF. Strong, smart alliances, strategies, technologies; not endless war.
Harris: My most solemn responsibility will be whether to deploy troops.
Klobuchar: I’ll work with allies for responsible deployment of U.S. troops.
Sanders: Oppose the all-too-frequent rush to war.
Federal spending
Booker: Reverse trump tax law — invest in education, infrastructure, healthcare, R&D.
Delaney: Reduce deficits, raise revenues, make smart investments for the future.
Gillibrand: Priorities are health care, education, Social Security, infrastructure, job training.
Harris: $1 trillion giveaway to 1% and corporations is a waste.
Klobuchar: A responsible budget reflects our values.
Sanders: Stop giving tax breaks to wealthy while cutting vital programs.
Child care and education
Booker: Raise teacher pay, universal pre-K, demand school excellence.
Delaney: Universal PreK-14, paid leave, 0-3 funding, reduce student debt, innovation.
Gillibrand: Paid family leave leader. Universal pre-k, debt-free college, public schools.
Harris: We need universal childcare and investments in schools and teachers.
Klobuchar: I’ll expand affordable childcare and educational opportunities for today’s workforce.
Sanders: Make public colleges tuition free, lower student debt, universal childcare.
International trade
Booker: Support fair trade that lifts workers, protects environment, creates opportunity.
Delaney: Reenter TPP, end trade wars, hold China accountable, AI Strategy.
Gillibrand: Protect American workers and international environment. End Chinese IP stealing.
Harris: Trade war by tweet is hurting Americans. Need fair trade.
Klobuchar: We need fair trade with strong labor and environmental standards.
Sanders: Rewrite our failed trade policies to benefit workers, not corporations.
U.S.-Mexico border
Booker: Reject Trump’s wall. Reunite separated families. Treat asylum-seekers humanely.
Delaney: Border security as part of comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform.
Gillibrand: Wall is ineffective. Smart border security. Protect asylum seekers, children.
Harris: Don’t need a wall. We need smart border security.
Klobuchar: We need comprehensive immigration reform.
Sanders: Comprehensive immigration reform, protect Dreamers, end family separation policies.
Presidential power
Booker: No one is above the law, especially the President.
Delaney: Restore honesty and competence, uphold the Constitution, unify the country.
Gillibrand: President not above law, nor dictator. Should lead, not divide.
Harris: No president is above the law. Put service over self.
Klobuchar: I believe in the rule of law.
Sanders: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over war making.
2020 - in 10 words
I reached out to a dozen campaigns for their thoughts on broadly identified policy areas — in 10 words or less. It was an arbitrary figure, certainly, but it seemed like one that would both force concision and make campaigns focus on the areas they considered priorities. To offset that brevity, I encouraged campaigns to provide links to information that would flesh out their thoughts.
The campaigns raised two valid concerns in response. The first: It is awfully early in the campaign for candidates to have robustly detailed policy positions. The second: The word limit might result in a focus on sloganeering. I think that this was mostly avoided below, but you be the judge.
Here are the responses we’ve received. (Some campaigns indicated that they intended to reply but hadn’t done so by deadline.)
Responses in Spolier
Health care
Booker: To put patients ahead of profits, provide Medicare for All.
Delaney: Universal healthcare, private options, lower costs, tech addiction, mental health.
Gillibrand: Medicare For All since 2006. Lower drug prices. Protect kids.
Harris: We need Medicare for All. Every American deserves health care.
Klobuchar: We need universal, affordable, quality healthcare coverage for all Americans.
Sanders: Guarantee health care to every American through Medicare for All.
Criminal justice
Booker: Justice demands police accountability, marijuana legalization, end to mass incarceration.
Delaney: End systemic racial injustice. End for-profit prisons. Restitution.
Gillibrand: Combat institutional racism; decriminalize marijuana, end cash bail.
Harris: End mass incarceration and systemic discrimination. Be smart on crime.
Klobuchar: We must reform long prison sentences for non-violent offenders.
Sanders: Eliminate cash bail and private prisons, decriminalize marijuana.
Income inequality
Booker: Economic justice means a fair shot at success for everyone.
Delaney: Expand EITC, increase minimum wage, Buffett Rule, address AI disruption.
Gillibrand: End corporate greed. Raise minimum wage. Postal Banking. Equal pay.
Harris: Raise wages. Give working Americans up to $500 a month.
Klobuchar: Republican tax bill is regressive — the wealthiest should pay more.
Sanders: Raise wages, make wealthy and corporations pay their fair share.
Climate change
Booker: Green New Deal means sustainable jobs, a sustainable future.
Delaney: Carbon tax, return revenues to people, increase green energy research.
Gillibrand: Green New Deal: Tax carbon. Green infrastructure jobs. Clean water.
Harris: We need a Green New Deal to confront the crisis.
Klobuchar: Rejoin Paris Climate agreement, reinstate Obama rules, pass legislation.
Sanders: Transition to renewable energy, create jobs through Green New Deal.
Gun control
Booker: Fight gun lobby. Pass background checks and common-sense laws.
Delaney: Universal background checks, assault weapons ban, high-capacity magazine limits.
Gillibrand: Stop gun trafficking. Universal background checks. Ban assault rifles.
Harris: No more senseless deaths. Universal background checks. Assault weapons ban.
Klobuchar: My priority: Pass gun-safety measures like universal background checks.
Sanders: Take on the NRA and enact common-sense gun legislation.
Social safety net
Booker: Protect our most vulnerable and help lift them up.
Delaney: Expand and stabilize Social Security, universal healthcare, end hunger.
Gillibrand: Protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, WIC. Expand FMLA.
Harris: Medicare and Social Security need strengthening, not cuts by Republicans.
Klobuchar: Americans should have healthcare, retirement security, and increased minimum wage.
Sanders: Expand Social Security so everyone can retire with dignity.
Foreign aid
Booker: America is safest, strongest when it leads, invests in allies.
Delaney: Increase foreign aid to improve diplomacy and national security.
Gillibrand: Education and economic opportunities limit risk of war and terrorism.
Harris: Global standing is diminished. Reject unilateralism and restore American leadership.
Klobuchar: I support a smart and strong foreign aid budget.
Sanders: A foreign policy focused on democracy, human rights and diplomacy.
Military deployments
Booker: Military force is last resort to ensure our national security.
Delaney: New AUMF establishing clear scope and objectives. Restore alliances.
Gillibrand: New AUMF. Strong, smart alliances, strategies, technologies; not endless war.
Harris: My most solemn responsibility will be whether to deploy troops.
Klobuchar: I’ll work with allies for responsible deployment of U.S. troops.
Sanders: Oppose the all-too-frequent rush to war.
Federal spending
Booker: Reverse trump tax law — invest in education, infrastructure, healthcare, R&D.
Delaney: Reduce deficits, raise revenues, make smart investments for the future.
Gillibrand: Priorities are health care, education, Social Security, infrastructure, job training.
Harris: $1 trillion giveaway to 1% and corporations is a waste.
Klobuchar: A responsible budget reflects our values.
Sanders: Stop giving tax breaks to wealthy while cutting vital programs.
Child care and education
Booker: Raise teacher pay, universal pre-K, demand school excellence.
Delaney: Universal PreK-14, paid leave, 0-3 funding, reduce student debt, innovation.
Gillibrand: Paid family leave leader. Universal pre-k, debt-free college, public schools.
Harris: We need universal childcare and investments in schools and teachers.
Klobuchar: I’ll expand affordable childcare and educational opportunities for today’s workforce.
Sanders: Make public colleges tuition free, lower student debt, universal childcare.
International trade
Booker: Support fair trade that lifts workers, protects environment, creates opportunity.
Delaney: Reenter TPP, end trade wars, hold China accountable, AI Strategy.
Gillibrand: Protect American workers and international environment. End Chinese IP stealing.
Harris: Trade war by tweet is hurting Americans. Need fair trade.
Klobuchar: We need fair trade with strong labor and environmental standards.
Sanders: Rewrite our failed trade policies to benefit workers, not corporations.
U.S.-Mexico border
Booker: Reject Trump’s wall. Reunite separated families. Treat asylum-seekers humanely.
Delaney: Border security as part of comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform.
Gillibrand: Wall is ineffective. Smart border security. Protect asylum seekers, children.
Harris: Don’t need a wall. We need smart border security.
Klobuchar: We need comprehensive immigration reform.
Sanders: Comprehensive immigration reform, protect Dreamers, end family separation policies.
Presidential power
Booker: No one is above the law, especially the President.
Delaney: Restore honesty and competence, uphold the Constitution, unify the country.
Gillibrand: President not above law, nor dictator. Should lead, not divide.
Harris: No president is above the law. Put service over self.
Klobuchar: I believe in the rule of law.
Sanders: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over war making.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Eh, I agree with a lot of what you are saying but let's not ignore that Hillary is just not a very likable person and lacked charisma, and those things go beyond demonizing opposition.
I have to say - I wrote off Delaney a long time ago - as in when he first declared (and he was first).
But, looking at those responses - the two who sounded most sincere were Delaney and Sanders. Its just a small snippet on each position - but both of their responses resonated with me as things both candidates would do (as opposed to things candidates just say on the campaign trail).
But, looking at those responses - the two who sounded most sincere were Delaney and Sanders. Its just a small snippet on each position - but both of their responses resonated with me as things both candidates would do (as opposed to things candidates just say on the campaign trail).
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Agree. Sanders was also the most clear/specific about what he'd do.
Harris was the most vague.
Like 2016, the Dems only need to gain 75,000 votes combined in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in order to win the election. They definitely have to nominate someone who will show well in those states. Or, at the very east. one whop picks a running mate that will.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I know next to nothing about this Delaney person, including his first name and state of origin, but his little slogans were actually pretty good on several items. Obviously I disagree with his politics in quite a few areas, but he was less slogan-y than many of the others.
John Delaney - Maryland.
He is very much an outsider in this race - but I agree with your assessment.
That's fair but things were a little different in 2016. Klobuchar or Biden are more personable than Hillary and the Supreme Court pick was in play but that same argument may be made again in 2020. But I gotta say I didn't think Trump would be this quite this awful.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yeah @prefontaine made the same point above, and I think that's valid. Is that difference is enough to compensate for losing the grassroots organizing and passion you'd get from someone like Harris or Sanders? I honestly don't know. If the election was a popular vote I think it would be an easy call to go for Harris in particular as having the best chance to win, but the electoral college and the popularity of Biden and presumably Klobuchar in the states lost to Trump in 2016 is worth considering.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It's a complicated question also because coattails are so important in this election. If Candidate A has a slightly better chance of beating Trump than Candidate B in the electoral college, but Candidate B is more likely to run up the popular vote margin, thereby helping Dems to win Senate seats and state legislatures, which one is better? It's so hard to say.
I will say that the "electability" calculus is how we ended up with John Kerry as the Democratic nominee in 2004 and that didn't work out so well. Sometimes the candidate we think is the most electable actually isn't the most electable.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Good point. "Electability" is a massively overrated quality in most nomination processes. Truly good candidates are never branded with it. It's generally used to describe an otherwise uninspiring candidate.
prefontaine
Footballguy
randall146
Footballguy
I like Yang a lot. I've been advocating for years that capitalism as it currently works is unsustainable. At a certain point the economy simply doesn't need every able-bodied person's labor. It's also refreshing to see a new dynamic rather than "left" and "right." Yang seems to have support from both right and left
Mister CIA
Footballguy
What about electability in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin? My arm-chair analysis is shallow, but if Klobuchar can win these states in the general, and say Harris cannot, who do you want on the 2020 ballot?
It's perplexing, and there are a million ways to game the system, which really, really sucks.
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops
Footballguy
I also agree. He actually has fleshed out ideas which are drastically different in substance compared to nearly every other candidate. Guess his deciding to run in July of 2017 has given him a lot more time than most to think through these things
prefontaine
Footballguy
I don't think it's a bad quality per se. It's true: AK may be able to push over the line in swing states. But if that's the reason you are voting for her in a primary, you are likely missing the boat.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
I don't think so. If you can't deliver swing states in the General, you're a bad candidate. Now what?!
The political choices we are presented with are ####ing weird
prefontaine
Footballguy
I guess I keep not really posting my point. I type it out and think it's overkill
A candidate that is currently viewed as being "electable" is likely no more electable than the candidate who would win if we voted for our top choice. This may not seem obvious, but it has to do with the fact that Presidential elections are often about turning out people that aren't guaranteed to vote.
In the PSF it seems the assumption is the electorate is highly educated, thoughtful, and consistent. But in 2016, freaking 13% of the electorate decided in the last week. It seems unpossible that someone could not have had an opinion til then. And they broke hard for Trump for a few reasons (negative press, unlikable candidate, Donald has what plants crave, etc).
During the Primaries, something held against Trump was he was "unelectable.' But Presidential campaigns win by inspiring people or riling them up to vote against someone. They rarely win by being the least bad option. That 13% stays home.
So IMO you should vote for the person you think would be the best President. When it comes time to vote, others will be more likely to agree and if they do, they will vote for her (or him).
Mister CIA
Footballguy
I like your post, a lot.I guess I keep not really posting my point. I type it out and think it's overkill
A candidate that is currently viewed as being "electable" is likely no more electable than the candidate who would win if we voted for our top choice. This may not seem obvious, but it has to do with the fact that Presidential elections are often about turning out people that aren't guaranteed to vote.
In the PSF it seems the assumption is the electorate is highly educated, thoughtful, and consistent. But in 2016, freaking 13% of the electorate decided in the last week. It seems unpossible that someone could not have had an opinion til then. And they broke hard for Trump for a few reasons (negative press, unlikable candidate, Donald has what plants crave, etc).
During the Primaries, something held against Trump was he was "unelectable.' But Presidential campaigns win by inspiring people or riling them up to vote against someone. They rarely win by being the least bad option. That 13% stays home.
So IMO you should vote for the person you think would be the best President. When it comes time to vote, others will be more likely to agree and if they do, they will vote for her (or him).
This is not the right conclusion. The Never-Trumpers definitely mattered. They’re the reason Hillary won the popular vote and almost won important states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
The people who didn’t vote enough to matter were the Bernie Bros and the rest of the progressive left. You can tell they didn’t matter because Trump won. There’s a knock-down mathematical proof for you! The progressive left doesn’t deserve a second chance; the Dems should nominate someone a bit to the right of Clinton this time around.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Oof, are we really that much of a right-wing country? Hilldog was practically a Republican.
D_House
Footballguy
Interesting NY Times op-ed titled “The Oppression of the Supermajority”
Tim Wu (@superwuster) is a law professor at Columbia, a contributing opinion writer and the author, most recently, of “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”
Suggests some targeted policies that are very popular with the populace as a whole and would be a good place for Presidentisl hopefuls to focus. Also discusses barriers to action.
Tim Wu (@superwuster) is a law professor at Columbia, a contributing opinion writer and the author, most recently, of “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”
Suggests some targeted policies that are very popular with the populace as a whole and would be a good place for Presidentisl hopefuls to focus. Also discusses barriers to action.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Hey an FBG-timely piece from fivethirtyeight on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, taking a realistic look at its long term prospects of passage. Tl;dr -- Nate's reporters say that a state's likelihood of capturing both houses in the state legislature plus the governorship is the best predictor of future states signing on. They see about another 38 votes out there distinctly possible to get, bringing the total to 219.
Nobody has come right out and said it yet so I may be barking up an unoccupied tree, but I think the members of the compact are really hoping just to get Republicans to the bargaining table to discuss other election reform issues (like the elimination of first past the post and superdistricts/proportional representation). Right now Pubbies are giving election reform the (silent) single payer treatment -- they won't even say the name out loud in case somebody who doesn't know anything gets curious.
Nobody has come right out and said it yet so I may be barking up an unoccupied tree, but I think the members of the compact are really hoping just to get Republicans to the bargaining table to discuss other election reform issues (like the elimination of first past the post and superdistricts/proportional representation). Right now Pubbies are giving election reform the (silent) single payer treatment -- they won't even say the name out loud in case somebody who doesn't know anything gets curious.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
From my perspective the only chance it has of passing and getting upheld by the Supreme Court is if there’s an election where the Republican wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Well, that's attributing a little more political motivation to the SC than I might normally do but, win or lose, it would still be an important tool to (1) raise public awareness of the importance of election reform and (3) make Republicans defend something else that is unpopular with the electorate.
prefontaine
Footballguy
I know this thread is geared primarily to the Democratic nomination contest but I found this to be an interesting Politico article on Florida, especially in context of the latino vote.
And I also found this nugget pretty interesting (and unsurprising as Texas is very much the same).
The guy has spent half his Presidency in the state and somehow he's lagging national polls there. I'm really not sure what else he can do but this could be more about Florida specific politics.
And I also found this nugget pretty interesting (and unsurprising as Texas is very much the same).
Florida likely won't just be a swing state in the General but likely the Dem primary because it's fairly diverse with very different kinds of Democrats. And FL is 2 weeks after Super Tuesday when the field may be thinned significantly so polls are going to be hard to judge.
Similar threads
