Way too early democrat primary thread

NJlonghorn

NJlonghorn

2,500+ Posts
I'm not ready to pronounce the Democrat primary process done before it starts. In fact, I'd go in the other direction -- I don't know who the Dems will nominate, but it won't be Hillary. Somebody better will throw his (or her) hat into the ring.

Here's an intriguing possibility: Michael Bloomberg.
 
I'd love to see someone other than Hillary as the next Dem President. I think the political machine- not to mention the fear of the possibility of actually electing one of the people on the other thread - will ensure her nomination.
 
I think more will jump in. Bloomberg promoting his nanny nation ideas would be scary. Not sure he would get any votes in Midwest or South telling everyone what to eat and drink, but who knows..

I would like to see some more centrist democrats like Manchin get in the race.
 
HRC has some baggage, but she also has money, organization and underappreciated political experience. I'm looking for an alternative to get excited about. Centerists are about as welcome among Democratic activists as they are at a Tea Party gathering, so the fact that I like somebody is pretty much a political primary kiss of death.

Anybody remotely excited about Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee?

There is something appaling to me about a race between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. At least we could then choose between clearly articulated extreme positions instead of trying to sort through what policians "really" mean when they promise stuff that sounds good to everybody.
 
I don't know much about Manchin, but my gut reaction is favorable on fiscal issues and education, which I consider to be two of the three most important areas. He isn't really on the record very much about my third key issue, foreign policy.

One concern is that his health-care position seems to be left of Obamacare. At least in the past, he has supported government-run healthcare. I'd have to know more to know how concerned to be about this.

More importantly, though, Manchin has zero chance of getting the democratic nomination because:
  • he's pro-life
  • he opposes gay marriage and gay rights
  • he rates "A" with the NRA
  • he supports stricter enforcement of drug laws
  • he opposes EPA regulation of coal burning and greenhouse-gas emissions
 
NJlonghorn said:
I don't know much about Manchin, but my gut reaction is favorable on fiscal issues and education, which I consider to be two of the three most important areas. He isn't really on the record very much about my third key issue, foreign policy.

One concern is that his health-care position seems to be left of Obamacare. At least in the past, he has supported government-run healthcare. I'd have to know more to know how concerned to be about this.

More importantly, though, Manchin has zero chance of getting the democratic nomination because:
  • he's pro-life
  • he opposes gay marriage and gay rights
  • he rates "A" with the NRA
  • he supports stricter enforcement of drug laws
  • he opposes EPA regulation of coal burning and greenhouse-gas emissions
Click to expand...
Wait, Manchin is more Republican than every Republican running?
 
theiioftx said:
Wait, Manchin is more Republican than every Republican running?
Click to expand...

He's the most conservative Democrat in national office. However, he's not to the Right of anyone running for the GOP nomination, even if he's pro life, pro gun, and not cool with the gays.
 
That was a joke, but whether or not he is more Right than all of those candidates is debatable. He seems more about representing his constituents than being popular with his party and I like that. A quick look at some of his positions:

- for repeal and reform of most of Obamacare
- opposes requiring individuals to buy insurance
- increases on tax credits for small businesses
- cuts on corporate income taxes
- Pro life, Pro NRA, anti-EPA
- for a balanced budget amendment
- early parole for non-violent offenders but really strong on war on drugs
- against federal earmarks
- opposed suing Arizona over enforcement of immigration laws
- against gays in military

Without a name attached, most would say he is Republican.
 
Based on those talking points I say he's a jerk, no matter what party he associates himself with.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Just did some reading on Chafee. I'm favorably impressed.
Click to expand...

Chafee is a guy whose decision to join the GOP was right in the short term but wrong in the long term. When he first got into politics, his dad was a big name in Rhode Island, and he undoubtedly benefited from his dad's Republican connections and contacts in ways he couldn't have if he had chosen to be a Democrat.

However, though his dad was far from a Jesse Helms conservative, he was a classic Northeastern Rockefeller Republican - socially liberal but fiscally moderate and mostly pro-business. (In other words, he was conservative by Rhode Island standards.) That meant he could support at least a significant part of the GOPs agenda despite some significant differences with other parts. He wasn't totally lost. Furthermore, the Senate Republican leadership was run by Bob Dole, who was just happy to have a Republican from Rhode Island in his caucus. If John Chafee voted with him 20 percent of the time (and probably dragged a moderate Democrat or two with him), he probably considered him to be a big asset.

By contrast, Lincoln was a fairly reliable liberal vote across the board with just a few exceptions, and by the early 2000s, the GOP was mostly southern and growing less and less tolerant of Northeastern moderates much less liberals who actively fought them on high-profile legislation like the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War. (And yes, they were ruining their brand in the North.) GOP hardliners showed their hostility by launching a very, very stupid primary challenge to Chafee in 2006 that undoubtedly weakened him in the general election and probably cost him his seat.

He probably should have switched after the 2004 election. He would have left the majority party, but he wasn't welcome there and liberal enough to survive a Democratic primary. He'd probably still be in the Senate, rather than out of work and trying to explain to liberal Democratic primary voters why he stayed in the GOP during the Bush years.
 
Hey Theo I can't imagine anyone standing by those positions, not out loud and not for long. But I'd be in favor.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Just did some reading on Chafee. I'm favorably impressed.
Click to expand...

I assume this isn't what you're most impressed with. Don't get me wrong. I live the metric system every day, and it's a better system all the way around. I even drive an EU spec car and have EU heating and appliances in the house, so I see km and Celsius in my day to day life, not miles and Fahrenheit. However, two things about it.

First, the US will never truly adopt the metric system no matter what the laws say. People are far too set in their ways to make the change. Hell, the UK supposedly adopted the metric system, and they still use imperial units a lot. It's just not going to happen.

Second, is this really a serious issue of such national concern that it will motivate people to go to the polls? I just don't see it, and I'm surprised that he's even discussing it at such an early stage in his campaign. Who cares that much?
 
Mr. Deez said:
By contrast, Lincoln was a fairly reliable liberal vote across the board with just a few exceptions
Click to expand...

I agree that Chafee is more Democrat than Republican, and on some issues (environment, abortion, gay rights) he is quite liberal. But he is far from a "fairly reliable liberal." For example:
  • The US Chamber of Commerce gave him a 57% rating, indicating slight conservative leanings on business issues
  • The ACLU gave him a 60% rating, indicating liberal leanings but not a commitment to the liberal agenda
  • He was an early supporter of school choice and vouchers
  • He was rated 55% by the NEA and 31% by the AFL-CIO, so he is not particularly pro-union
  • He was rated 46% by the National Tax Union, so he is middle-of-the-road on tax issues
  • He supports allowing religious institutions to play a role in providing welfare services, a position that makes perfect sense to me but makes most liberals queasy.
Overall, On the Issues rates Chafee as 60% liberal on both fiscal and social issues. He is easily the most centrist candidate in the race so far.

That said, many of these ratings are dated, so it remains to be seen whether he will change his tune to lure Democrat voters. I'm sure we'll hear more over the coming months.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I agree that Chafee is more Democrat than Republican, and on some issues (environment, abortion, gay rights) he is quite liberal. But he is far from a "fairly reliable liberal." For example:
  • The US Chamber of Commerce gave him a 57% rating, indicating slight conservative leanings on business issues
  • The ACLU gave him a 60% rating, indicating liberal leanings but not a commitment to the liberal agenda
  • He was an early supporter of school choice and vouchers
  • He was rated 55% by the NEA and 31% by the AFL-CIO, so he is not particularly pro-union
  • He was rated 46% by the National Tax Union, so he is middle-of-the-road on tax issues
  • He supports allowing religious institutions to play a role in providing welfare services, a position that makes perfect sense to me but makes most liberals queasy.
Overall, On the Issues rates Chafee as 60% liberal on both fiscal and social issues. He is easily the most centrist candidate in the race so far.

That said, many of these ratings are dated, so it remains to be seen whether he will change his tune to lure Democrat voters. I'm sure we'll hear more over the coming months.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't remember him that, but I sit corrected. I thought he was a lot more liberal than that.
 
The Daily Show had some fun with Chafee, seeking to be the first professional farrier (expert in horse shoes and hoof care) to seek the White House. The guy actually made a good living in a skilled trade. Not a bad example for a country, that at least to my eyes has a college-obsessed educational system.
 
If you invest in or work for a private prison, the War on Drugs is an enormous success. Organized crime, here and abroad, also benefits enormously. As Ross Perot said so well, "Follow the Money."
 
I made no argument for any of his positions. I would support the war on drugs if the strategy changed. Although I see the benefits of taxing marijuana and see no need to put someone in jail over it, I do not support the legalization. I have seen too many friends and family allow it to lead to more and more problems.

The war on drugs would be much better if efforts to educate and rehabilitate were more of the tactics than just throwing people in jail.
 
Crockett said:
The Daily Show had some fun with Chafee, seeking to be the first professional farrier (expert in horse shoes and hoof care) to seek the White House. The guy actually made a good living in a skilled trade. Not a bad example for a country, that at least to my eyes has a college-obsessed educational system.
Click to expand...

True, but I'm pretty sure he did graduate from college.
 
HRC on tv right now with her first major rally. Not much she could say that would make me vote for her but she seems to be doing well. It will be interesting to see if she can build enough momentum to keep down dem competitors enough to where she can avoid taking positions on tough issues and just roll through the primaries.
 
Larry T Spider said:
HRC on tv right now with her first major rally. Not much she could say that would make me vote for her but she seems to be doing well. It will be interesting to see if she can build enough momentum to keep down dem competitors enough to where she can avoid taking positions on tough issues and just roll through the primaries.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm surprised at how much traction Bernie Sanders is getting. He's still an extreme long shot, but I thought his candidacy would fall apart before it even got off the ground. That's not really happening.
 
I think it speaks to a portion of the dem base trying so desperately to not support Hillary that they will turn to any other dem. If somebody more viable than sanders gets some traction, I really think hrc could be in trouble.
 
Larry T Spider said:
I think it speaks to a portion of the dem base trying so desperately to not support Hillary that they will turn to any other dem. If somebody more viable than sanders gets some traction, I really think hrc could be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Obama got the benefit of the "anybody but Hillary" vote in the primaries. You have to think O'Malley and Chafee are banking on doing the same. The longer Sanders stays in the race the stronger he becomes though in picking up the liberal extremes in an election the middle is apathetic. HRC and O'Malley need to force him out as he can only do harm to their campaigns by making them take a stance.

Is it true that Hillary has had significant Super-PAC funding issues? I initially thought that nobody on the left would be able to compete with her and Bill's fundraising but if the liberal money is sitting on the sidelines waiting for a frontrunner to emerge she doesn't have the benefit that Jeb Bush has to simply spend the field into oblivion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top