2020 Presidential Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He also plans to "live-tweet" the Democrats debates.

As for a Perot-like figure, someone genuinely like Perot would help the Democratic candidate, just as Perot himself helped Bill Clinton get elected. It's hard to say what affect Shultz would have he really did run as an Independent (which I doubt will happen). He didn't seem to be getting much traction from anyone when he was making noises about running, and I haven't heard anything about him possibly running in some time.

[Cerin]

I don't think Trump supporters would defect to a third party candidate, but never-Trumpers who can't stomach voting for the Dem. nominee might do so, making Trump's ceiling of around 40% the winning plurality. (But it's just idle speculation.)

[Frelga]

Y'all are assuming that we will have nice and accurate elections. Meanwhile reports are coming in that several counties had their election databases accessed by (probably Russian) hackers and Mitch McConnell is blocking every attempt to beef up election security.

[Cerin]

It's kind of funny (not) that no one paid attention to the hackability of our electronic voting machines until it was the evil Russians suspected of doing the hacking. Well, better late than never. Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate that I know of calling for exclusively paper ballots.

[Frelga]

Lots of people were calling attention to the vulnerable voting machines since the day they were introduced.

Here's an NPR article from 2008

20 Calif. Counties Scrap Electronic Vote Machines

A study led by UC Berkeley computer scientist David Wagner revealed that e-voting is not as secure and reliable as it should be. As a result, electronic voting machines were decertified across California.

"We found the voting systems — all three of them we looked at — were susceptible to computer viruses," Wagner says.

[Cerin]

I honestly had the impression that anyone suggesting there had been hacking of electronic voting machines in this country before 2016 was regarded as a wacko conspiracy theorist.

What I should have said was, it's funny (not) that the mainstream media didn't start paying attention to the hackability of electronic voting machines until it was the evil Russians (in collusion with Putin puppet Trump) who were suspected of doing the hacking.

[yovargas]

What I would say is that people took the possibility that it would happen a lot more seriously when we found out somebody had actually tried to make it happen. This is pretty typical of how people behave. Like how people get much more serious about protecting themselves from being robbed once they have experienced attempted robbery. Pretty normal if you ask me.

[Frelga]

Again, I don't think that's quite accurate. We always knew that election machines are a point of vulnerability. There hasn't been a major news story because, well, there hasn't been a major story. "Door locks are easy to pick" is not a story in the way that "town hit by a series of home robberies" is.

That said, the machines themselves are not the only point of vulnerability. It's even easier to get into the voter rolls (which we know happened in 2016) and make it difficult for just enough people to cast a vote. Or to disrupt the voting process with downtime, again making it difficult for voters in a crucial location to vote.

[Cerin]

Democrats have yet to come up with effective counter-measures to the Republican voter suppression tactics. They get away with it election after election. And I think some of the more egregious voter roll purges have been upheld in court.


On another subject, my recollection of the Obama years is that Pres. Obama believed he would be able to charm the Republicans into co-governing, and continued in that belief for years in spite of their persistent obstruction. At the Poor People's Forum the other day, several of the Dem. candidates spoke and it sounds as though Biden is under the same delusion. He seems to have gotten a bit testy with the question, saying (paraphrase) it's either cooperation or outright revolution, and that he'd be able to get McConnell to play ball. The only other reply I saw referenced was Warren's, who said they couldn't allow that type of obstruction again and she would be willing to get rid of the filibuster to prevent it.

I think the two grumpy old men in the group are going to have to make an effort not to come off as too grumpy, and to avoid beginning their statements with, 'Look, . . .,' which tends to signal their impatience with the question/er.

[Cerin]

Would anyone like to weigh in on the kerfuffle surrounding Biden's comments on working with segregationists?

I'm not sure if the complaint is that he worked with segregationists, or that he talked about working with segregationists.

I think it's obvious that he would have had to work with segregationists if he was in the Senate at a time when segregationists were Senators, and it's absurd to ask him to apologize for that. I'm less sure about asking him to apologize for referencing a time when segregationists were Senators. Would he be apologizing for insensitivity?

I think what he was trying to do was offer that as an example of how you can work with people even if you disagree vehemently with their point of view. I'm wondering if the criticism is sincere or opportunistic.

[yovargas]

*googles story*

Oh yeah.... that's why following campaigns is awful and exhausting.

What a stupid "controversy".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The part of the incident that bothered me was Biden's observation that the racist senators that he is so proud of being able to work with "never called him 'boy'." What the f*ck! Of course they never called him 'boy'; he is a white man like they are. That comment showed a lack of sensitivity to African-Americans that I found quite disturbing, and the fact that he doesn't seem to get why it was bothersome is even more disturbing. Obviously, I will still support him if he wins the nomination, but it is another example of how out of touch and tone deaf he can be.

[River]

I think what he was trying to do was offer that as an example of how you can work with people even if you disagree vehemently with their point of view. I'm wondering if the criticism is sincere or opportunistic.

It's primary season with a crowded and talented field. I'd go with opportunistic until I see concrete proof otherwise. Especially since, for a democracy to function, the elected representatives and leaders have to figure out how to work with or around each other.

[Cerin]

The part of the incident that bothered me was Biden's observation that the racist senators that he is so proud of being able to work with "never called him 'boy'." What the f*ck! Of course they never called him 'boy'; he is a white man like they are. That comment showed a lack of sensitivity to African-Americans that I found quite disturbing, and the fact that he doesn't seem to get why it was bothersome is even more disturbing. Obviously, I will still support him if he wins the nomination, but it is another example of how out of touch and tone deaf he can be.

That is quite bizarre. I suppose he might have been referring to the fact of how young he was then (around 30), but still, how could he be so clueless as to mention not being called 'boy' in that context? Unless he really doesn't understand that was a humiliation reserved for African-Americans, but that's inconceivable to me.

One thing that irritates me is that the reporting around incidents like this is so imprecise and confusing that all hope is quickly lost of people understanding what the real issue is. Scanning the headlines pertaining to this incident, one sees that Biden may be refusing to apologize for working with segregationists while what's being asked for is an acknowledgement of the inappropriateness of the 'boy' comment.

I've been thinking about the debates. The only candidates I'm familiar with are Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Harris, O'Rourke, Gabbard and Biden. I haven't seen any reporting on the others and haven't looked for info. I think Sanders will come off as grumpy and belligerent and Biden will seem like an anachronism. It seems likely to me that Buttigieg, who seems to be very deft, will walk away with his debate night and Warren with hers, and perhaps they will become the co-leaders for the nomination (unless one of the others manages to distinguish him/herself). It's a pity they never allow actual debate in the debates.

[Cerin]

I thought the debate worked quite well in establishing the candidates' political identities, and that everyone came across pretty well except O'Rourke, and I admit to cringing the two times the Wash. Gov. said, 'Look-it.' Warren was given more than her share of time in the first session, and that must be why she was virtually ignored in the second half.

[yovargas]

Hearing the coverage of last night's debate reinforced my feelings about Biden - that he is only the current front-runner because of his name recognition, not because there's anything particularly noteworthy, special, or interesting about him, or even because he's a particularly good politician. I suspect he will go the route of Jeb Bush last election, the "obvious" early front-runner with lots of funding and name recognition who faded away quickly once voters found that other candidates had much more resonant messages. "Biden - I know Obama" is not a campaign slogan that's going to keep working for long.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I didn't watch, but from what I hear, Kamala Harris was the clear winner, not just last night but of the whole two day spectacle.

[yovargas]

Her "I don't think you're racist" exchange with Biden is almost certainly going to be the most discussed part of either debate. His ineffective responses further confirm for me that he really isn't very good at this.

[Alatar]

I'm just worried he'll get beaten by somebody unelectable by the center. Democrats are notoriously bad at this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As I have said before, when Democrats have gone with the safe, centrist choice, they have lost. When they have gone with the inspiring, non-establishment choice, they have won.