Democratic party 2020 candidate speculation / discussion thread.

[keenobserver]

The vast majority of College degrees are worthless anyways. There are only a few that have merit, i.e. Professions that has to have an exam to get into, CPAs, Attorneys, Medicine, Engineering, Teaching, etc. The rest is waste.

I would disagree with that. Completing a college degree has great value in the process and education itself. True, a philosophy major may not find a direct career path, but the value of his education is he is a more rounded human being with greater empathy for mankind. He may never work as a philosopher, but the education will inform his life and by extension others. I've seen way to many people with degrees that seem to have a limited career path take amazing and rewarding journey's in life. A high school best friend majored in Medieval Music. He got a master's in it for God's sake - owns one of the largest insurance companies in America specializing in places of worship. A man older than me by a few years, who never finished high school talked his way into one o the Ivy league colleges in the 70's. He built on that by getting a degree in Medieval English Literature from Johns-Hopkins. What did he do with that, made millions in computers and tech because he invented a way to use technology to clean up ancient preserved texts and writings that changed the interpretation of a lot of what we thought we knew in the field.

These are extreme cases but I see it everyday - my friend has a daughter who was an English major in college, with no plans to teach - she just like to read. She works for Congress drafting bills that become laws. She did not plan it, no one says, "Oh I want to grow up to draft legislation! as a child. Yet here she is.

Education at the college level is not a trade school. If you want a trade, go to trade school. College education is the process of broadening your mind beyond what it has already seen and taking the information and the means to learn that information to places you did not imagine.

Teaching and engineering only exist because people aspired for more. The space program did more than put a man on the moon - it caused whole new fields of knowledge to be developed that affect everyone on the planet today and going forward. Computers exist today the way they do because of NASA and the needs in created. And let's not forget, Tang, either. The impact of medicine and surgery has very much been driven by knowledge that no one thought they would ever need.

Education uplifts, inspires and enriches us all - even when we don't realize it.

A person may waste his time in college but time in college is never wasted.

 

[pp_ryder]

Who is "WE?"

Most everybody. Almost everyone who went to college, especially those who "didn't know what they wanted to do," they just knew that didn't want to "work"; the people who own companies who treat their employees like crap; the "country club set" (ever been to one?) You don't have to look far. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and they are us."

 

[IntactMale]

Most everybody. Almost everyone who went to college, especially those who "didn't know what they wanted to do," they just knew that didn't want to "work"; the people who own companies who treat their employees like crap; the "country club set" (ever been to one?) You don't have to look far. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and they are us."

You do understand that people go to college so that they can get a job, usually in a specific field, and so that they can work in that job, right? People go to college because they want to be more employable, so that they can work.

It sounds like you look down on people who choose to work in a field different than whatever you define as a trade, since you describe it as not being work.

You might have a point about wealthy people looking down on tradespeople, but they look down on everyone who has less than them. But in the meantime you are making an assumption about "almost everyone" that is untrue.

 

[Industrialsize]

Most everybody. Almost everyone who went to college, especially those who "didn't know what they wanted to do," they just knew that didn't want to "work"; the people who own companies who treat their employees like crap; the "country club set" (ever been to one?) You don't have to look far. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and they are us."

I went to college twice, I don't look down on people who do trades work.

 

[pp_ryder]

I did as well, and I was in the trades for many years before I went back. You may not but there are plenty of people who do. And the difference between the way I was treated before I had my degree and after was almost night and day. I'm glad you don't feel that way. You shouldn't and no one else should either but it's just a matter of fact. I especially feel for waitresses who really hustle and are forced to take crap from some a-holes - but that's another story.

 

[pp_ryder]

You do understand that people go to college so that they can get a job, usually in a specific field, and so that they can work in that job, right? People go to college because they want to be more employable, so that they can work.

It sounds like you look down on people who choose to work in a field different than whatever you define as a trade, since you describe it as not being work.

You might have a point about wealthy people looking down on tradespeople, but they look down on everyone who has less than them. But in the meantime you are making an assumption about "almost everyone" that is untrue.

I don't define it as not being work. I define it as the ones who go to college without knowing what they want to go into just because they were told by their parents that they need to in order to "get ahead."

 

[keenobserver]

I don't define it as not being work. I define it as the ones who go to college without knowing what they want to go into just because they were told by their parents that they need to in order to "get ahead."

Not to belabor a point - but going to college when one does not know what he wants to do is the point. It really is. College can expose people to career possibilities they did not know existed. Two kids from my hometown - twins - were undersized football players who broke all kind of records as scholastic players, but because of their size no football powers looked at them. All they knew was football and preparing to play football. A highly respected private college in NY state offered them a partial scholarship - to both of them. Neither had clue about what they wanted to do after football. One is a marine biologist, one is in forestry. Neither knew what these fields were before the went to college - to play football just a little longer. This is what education is supposed to do.

 

[pp_ryder]

I agree. That is what it's supposed to do. As someone from the slums, I can only tell you there are barriers to entrance about which the middle class knows very little and the "upper class" knows not a thing. There's a reason I've been Independent for most of the last 40 years. I only register with one party or the other just to vote in primaries.

(I can only tell you from my own experience.)

 

[Industrialsize]

Seth Boltin'

 

[wallyj84]

What do you guys think of the Tulsi Gabbard situation? She won't be in the next debate and a lot of her supporters are saying it's a conspiracy and another sign of the DNC's corruption. I don't agree but think this is a bad sign for the DNC and Dems in general. I wonder if the left will be able to unite around someone this time.

 

[gr8gatsby]

What do you guys think of the Tulsi Gabbard situation? She won't be in the next debate and a lot of her supporters are saying it's a conspiracy and another sign of the DNC's corruption. I don't agree but think this is a bad sign for the DNC and Dems in general. I wonder if the left will be able to unite around someone this time.

I'm all for narrowing the field.

 

[wallyj84]

I'm all for narrowing the field.

I am not against it, although the last two debates weren't a good way to showcase any of the candidates.

Honestly, voting hasn't even started yet. We should be learning about the candidates, not narrowing the field.

 

[gr8gatsby]

I am not against it, although the last two debates weren't a good way to showcase any of the candidates.

Honestly, voting hasn't even started yet. We should be learning about the candidates, not narrowing the field.

Half of the candidates were inconsequential in a presidential race.

 

[keenobserver]

What do you guys think of the Tulsi Gabbard situation? She won't be in the next debate and a lot of her supporters are saying it's a conspiracy and another sign of the DNC's corruption. I don't agree but think this is a bad sign for the DNC and Dems in general. I wonder if the left will be able to unite around someone this time.

It is a marketplace of ideas and her shelf life has been limited. The field needs to be thinned quickly. If she wants to stay in, she can - but her support is all mouth and no money. If the left does not rally strongly around the final nominee then they are pretty much ending their own influence in the Democratic party. The Bernie Bros burning the party with its constant bitching in the face of reality and refusing to vote for Hillary was a factor in getting to this point.

 

[keenobserver]

I am not against it, although the last two debates weren't a good way to showcase any of the candidates.

Honestly, voting hasn't even started yet. We should be learning about the candidates, not narrowing the field.

What is stopping anyone from learning the candidates? Any douche too lazy to google a candidate or do some home reading and research is not going to watch the debates. The party has to unite on a platform and a candidate and start selling it hard. The need for massive change is hard for many Americans to grasp. All the attention to the also rans and never will be candidates takes time away from focusing on the way forward and making the case for hard, top to bottom change.

 

[gr8gatsby]

What is stopping anyone from learning the candidates? Any douche too lazy to google a candidate or do some home reading and research is not going to watch the debates. The party has to unite on a platform and a candidate and start selling it hard. The need for massive change is hard for many Americans to grasp. All the attention to the also rans and never will be candidates takes time away from focusing on the way forward and making the case for hard, top to bottom change.

I've learned more than I need to about some, like Marianne Williamson for example. It's time for focused attention on those that might actually win.

 

[wallyj84]

Half of the candidates were inconsequential in a presidential race.

About half of them couldn't even make the 2% cutoff, so I can't really disagree with you.

It is a marketplace of ideas and her shelf life has been limited. The field needs to be thinned quickly. If she wants to stay in, she can - but her support is all mouth and no money. If the left does not rally strongly around the final nominee then they are pretty much ending their own influence in the Democratic party. The Bernie Bros burning the party with its constant bitching in the face of reality and refusing to vote for Hillary was a factor in getting to this point.

No candidate is entitled to your vote. If Bernie Bros didn't vote for Hillary it was because she didn't make enough of an effort to get their vote. That is on her.

What is stopping anyone from learning the candidates? Any douche too lazy to google a candidate or do some home reading and research is not going to watch the debates. The party has to unite on a platform and a candidate and start selling it hard. The need for massive change is hard for many Americans to grasp. All the attention to the also rans and never will be candidates takes time away from focusing on the way forward and making the case for hard, top to bottom change.

It is too early in the process to decide on a specific platform. All of the candidates need to be given a chance to speak on a national stage and present themselves to the country. That really should have been the purpose of the first round of debates.

The DNC and Washington establishment seem to think that Trump is just so bad, that sheer hatred will energize Democratic voters, but that didn't work against Bush or Obama. Put Kerry 2.0, I mean Biden in there against Trump and see what happens.

 

[keenobserver]

About half of them couldn't even make the 2% cutoff, so I can't really disagree with you.



No candidate is entitled to your vote. If Bernie Bros didn't vote for Hillary it was because she didn't make enough of an effort to get their vote. That is on her.




It is too early in the process to decide on a specific platform. All of the candidates need to be given a chance to speak on a national stage and present themselves to the country. That really should have been the purpose of the first round of debates.

The DNC and Washington establishment seem to think that Trump is just so bad, that sheer hatred will energize Democratic voters, but that didn't work against Bush or Obama. Put Kerry 2.0, I mean Biden in there against Trump and see what happens.

If the Bernie Bros were too fucking stupid not to see the damage that Trump could bring - that is on them, not Hillary. Bernie started the whole "I'm not a Democrat and the Party is screwing me" spiel as he failed to gain the traction he needed. Given that the party platform is going to be about significant change in healthcare and taxes as well as debt issues the education process needs to start now because the down ballot candidates need to be on the same page. Every candidate has had many opportunities to get themselves interviewed by media all over the place and cheaply saturate social media as well. Sadly a debate forum should be as you say, an opportunity to get some depth on candidates but they never EVER have been, since Kennedy-Nixon. The debates are about appearances and sound bites. It was noted here that Tulsi was the most googled candidate ever after the debates - yet she got no real gains from that. Google her and there is everything one needs to know about her and her positions. In that sense the debate worked - but not for her, for voters. She was weighed, measured and put back on the shelf.

I have real fears about Biden. He's old and it is showing. This is another reason to thin the herd to unite against him with a stronger candidate. Right now I think that is Warren, but I will vote for any nominee the party puts up in the end. The hate of Trump is not irrational merely because it is unrelenting. It is a motivator, but we do need more and if a candidate is not gaining now, they need to reconsider what to do next. Several of these folks would do better to try for the Senate or a House seat, or even a Governor.

 

[b.c.]

I agree, @keenobserver , that we are just about mid September, the 2020 election is closing upon us faster than we think, and it's high time to begin narrowing the field, preferably via the vote, but, in the absence of that, via SOME fair and impartial method.

Furthermore, I find myself wondering about the motives of those who are still in the race when it's clearly OBVIOUS they're running last and second to it.

I also wonder about the motives of those who keep trying to push candidates who have zero chance of winning and spreading rumors of corruption and conspiracy on the part of the DNC to "silence them"...

reminiscent of certain alleged Bernie or Busters, and certain alleged "progressives" (I say alleged because I believe some were saboteurs, plants, and propagandists whose JOB was to sow discord among the left), and those who ran about trashing Hillary and the DNC because Bernie didn't clinch the primaries.

Unfortunately, at present, neither of the candidates have shown themselves to be the kind of candidate I THINK we need. (As in, just my opinion, folks. Feel free to disagree.)

Trump's constituency, his followers, are zealots, fueled by hate and demagoguery. And the proper response to THAT sort of thing is for US to become zealots as WELL.

Biden, to my disappointment, said on Colbert's show, that he shouldn't have made the "take Trump out back" comment. When has Trump apologized for saying "he'd like to punch a protestor in the face" or calling neo-Nazi demonstrators "very fine people" or bragging how he could "shoot someone on 5th Avenue"??

We don't need an apologist, backtracking candidate. We need a BRAWLER.

One who'll call Trump and his deplorables out for who and what they are. We need someone capable of fueling OUR hate for HATE ITSELF. One who'd turn US into zealots for a nobler, more humane idea, ... zealots motivated by the urgent call to a higher cause, in order to save democracy ITSELF...

one who'd rouse us from our slumber like the slap of an ice cold bucket of water.

 

[TexanStar]

Furthermore, I find myself wondering about the motives of those who are still in the race when it's clearly OBVIOUS they're running last and second to it.

This is where things get tricky. The primaries aren't a nationwide popular vote. They're based on delegate counts in similar fashion to how the general election will be based on electoral college votes.

Based on delegates, I would peg the following candidates as being "in the race".: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, (Top 3) Beto O'Rourke, and Kamala Harris (Top 5).

The following candidates are dead in the water with no chance at all: Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard (these 5 candidates will be in the third debate, but their camaigns are walking dead).

And the reason I score it like that is those first 5 names are the only ones who are poised to win any significant number of delegates at the state level. Pete Buttigieg and Cory Booker are above someone like Beto O'Rourke in national level polling, but they're not positioned to win anything. Cory's going to suffer a definitive loss in his home state of New Jersey. Pete Buttigieg is 2nd in Indiana, but still pretty far behind Joe Biden and even if he wins, Indiana just doesn't count for enough delegates to do anything for his national numbers.

Beto bounces around between 1st and 2nd in Texas polls and Texas has 262 delegates. Kamala Harris bounces around between 1st and 2nd in California polls and California has 475 delegates. Both states sit early in the primary calendar on "Super Tuesday" and if either candidate wins their home state (CA for Harris, TX for O'Rourke) then they not only will be sitting on a huge delegate pickup, but it positions them better to compete in the down-calendar primaries. If either of them loses their home state then their campaign for president will be over.