Democratic 2020 Candidates And What I Think About Them
TAINTUS has been campaigning for 2020 since before he took office in 2017, filing with the FEC on the day of his 2017 inauguration, running ads since early 2017, and holding regular rallies — not to mention getting daily free press from every news outlet in the world. The Democratic candidates truly have some catching up to do, and they are finally beginning their races.
Here are the known DNC candidates for 2020 (as of 2019.03.19, in alphabetical order):
(I used multiple sources for the above list, too many to list separately here.)
Already dropped out:
It’s fair to make it clear up front: no matter who I vote for in the Texas primaries (March 3, 2020), in November I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate is on the ballot. I consider Troland Dump’s presidency to be the worst stain on the United States in my lifetime, and the best way to end it is to elect a Democrat in 2020. The chances that the DNC will nominate someone worst than C.O.W. (Current Occupant of the Whitehouse) are slim-to-none.
I won’t waste time or space on independent or third-party candidates; none of them will make major headway in 2020 and we all know it. The obvious best strategy to resist Thump is to vote for the DNC candidate. However, I will say my opinion of Howard Shultz is very close to that expressed in this Vox piece.
Historical, Firsts
This is the first presidential campaign in which viable major party candidates are younger than me. Buttigieg and Gabbard are only 37, while Castro and Yang are each 44. Booker is only slightly older than me — he will turn 50 soon. This happens to everyone once in her life, and it’s my turn.
It is also, to my knowledge, the first time so many viable candidates are women, including Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, and Warren. (When Clinton won the nomination in 2016, she was the only woman in a field of five candidates; when she lost the nomination in 2008, she was again the only woman candidate.)
Policy Lineup
Policy-wise, I’m seeing a huge shift to the left since 2016. I see this as a good thing, not only because it means most of the candidates have positions similar to mine, but because if we don’t start left, then there’s nowhere to move when it comes time to compromise.
Where do the candidates stand on issues that are important to me? Following are some of those platform planks and which candidates match up the best with them.
• CLIMATE CHANGE / ENVIRONMENT: Inslee
Climate change is the most important issue for me (though I will never be a single-issue voter). Inslee seems to be the best on this one; he’s consistently advocated for environmental protections and green energy during his years in government. He also understands that every other issue will be impacted by climate change if we don’t do something about it. Other candidates have casually supported the “Green New Deal” or at least the concepts behind it, including Booker, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Harris, Sanders, and Warren. None of them have made climate change a priority, however.
• INEQUALITY (Wealth & Income): Warren, Sanders
Either Warren or Sanders looks the best to me on fighting the obscene wealth and income inequalities in the U.S. For example, Warren spearheaded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and both she and Sanders support increasing taxes for the very wealthy. Harris comes in a close third with her LIFT Act proposal.
• PRO-CHOICE: All
According to reactionary and stupifyingly medieval Christian websites with the word “Life” in the title, “all” the 2020 Democratic candidates are “supportive of abortion on-demand”. (I had a hard time finding any kind of neutral or pro-choice site when searching for the candidates’ views on abortion.) On much more reasonable site NARAL Pro-Choice America, there are endorsements still listed from previous campaigns, and they include Gillibrand, Klobuchar, and Warren — but the advocacy group still hasn’t settled on a 2020 candidate apparently. Planned Parenthood Action Fund gives 100% marks to Booker, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren — all senators — but has nothing on the other candidates. So it looks like we’re in good hands on this topic.
• FEMINISM: Harris
Feminism — working toward equality for women on all fronts — is very important to me, and seems to be for most of the 2020 DNC candidates. Though it wouldn’t technically change anything tangible for women, it would certainly be an intangible boost for women to actually be represented by a woman president. (One in 46 isn’t a great ratio, but it’s a far sight better than zero of 46.) So Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, and Williamson get a bump to the front on this topic. As far as actual policies go, finally passing the Equal Rights Amendment would be a good start. Harris has pledged to make that a priority. Other candidates have expressed explicit support for the ERA as well, including Buttigieg (source), Booker (source), Delaney (source), Gabbard (source), Gillibrand (source), Inslee (source), Klobuchar (source), Sanders (source), Warren (source), and Williamson (source).
• ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Buttigieg
I’ve been against the Electoral College since I first heard of it, and the more I hear of it the less I like the idea. Of the current candidates, I have only seen Buttigieg express a clear dislike for it.
• LGBTQ+ RIGHTS: Buttigieg?
Buttigieg is, as far as I know, the only out gay person running for president, though it looks like most of the DNC candidates are fully in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. (At least the virulently anti-LGBTQ Christian sites say they are.) Gabbard is the one I doubt the most on this issue; as recently as 2012, she was actively working against the right to gay marriage before suddenly switching positions.
• SECULARISM: Sanders?
In the 2016 campaign, Sanders made a point of keeping his religious views private, evading even direct media queries into his private beliefs. So far, it looks like most of the 2020 DNC field similarly isn’t making a big deal of religion. Perhaps the exception is Warren, who has occasionally mentioned she was raised Methodist and sometimes quotes scripture in speeches — but doesn’t seem to be using it as a campaign strategy. Harris attended both Baptist and Hindu services as a child but I couldn’t find anything listing her current religious beliefs or her views on how religion should relate to governance. Booker attends a Baptist church but doesn’t mention it often. Religious beliefs of the others were even harder to uncover. All of this is a good sign to me.
• HEALTHCARE:
• GUN CONTROL:
• IMMIGRATION:
• MARIJUANA:
• NET NEUTRALITY:
• CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM:
• EDUCATION:
• RIGHT TO DIE:
Ability To Defeat TAINTUS
Most of us probably agree that a crucial factor is each candidate’s ability to defeat Cadet Bone Spurs in November 2020. (It’s also statistically possible that our current president’s lifetime of eating poorly and opposing exercise will finally catch up to him as a medical emergency, in which case we’re looking for the person to defeat Mike Pence or whatever other last-minute candidate the GOP puts forth.)
Several on the above list are easily bright and resilient enough to best C.O.W. at just about anything, especially given that a majority of U.S. voters want Bump gone. Several seem tough enough to stand up to his cowardly bullying tactics. Most seem “clean” enough to avoid being undone by scandals — though often the worst scandals don’t show up until the thick of the campaign, and for the past few years it looks like scandals only hurt Democrats while somehow helping Republicans. (Exhibit A: Plump was the most scandal-infested candidate of all time, but managed to take the nation’s highest office. On the other hand, an actual physician has said TAINTUS “might live to be 200 years old”, so I could be way off.)
During the 2016 campaign, Sanders regularly polled as the candidate most likely to defeat TAINTUS in a general election, but DNC voters selected Clinton instead so we didn’t get to test the theory. The Washington Post has posted a graphic showing Klobuchar should do well — but it’s based on older election stats that might not apply as Lump continues to descend into madness.
Big Plans, No Policies
A few of the candidates have produced big plans as centerpieces of their campaigns — like Harris’s $2 trillion LIFT Act. Others have stuck with banal generalities like Castro’s “people not corporations” and “the promise of opportunity” while failing to mention a single specific policy position. I tend to prefer my politicians somewhere between these two extremes. While I think we do need a few “moon shot” type programs, both for climate change and for wealth/income inequality, what seems to work better in the U.S. is meticulously incremental, yet specific, progress. I hope to see more of these types of suggestions from the candidates in the next year or so (prior to the earliest primaries).
I realize the reason politicians typically avoid specificity when possible is that it bogs you down in tangents and rabbit holes when you could instead be giving inspirational speeches and shaking hands in coffee shops saying meaningless phrases like “I’ll fight for you” and “I’m listening”. But for my money, I want a candidate to (1) very clearly describe a problem that needs solving, and (2) just as clearly say how they think we can solve it. I know this doesn’t easily fit into sound bites on cable TV news, which is one of so many reasons no one should watch cable TV news.
The Influence Of The Media
Speaking of the news, I’m curious as to which candidate(s) major media will latch onto. I well remember the 2016 DNC campaign when TV news media focused solely on Clinton and Sanders and the other three candidates got no press. On the GOP, even more astonishingly, CNN ran entire Troland Dump rallies live, without commercial breaks, while almost never doing this for other candidates. Even Fox, which clearly did not prefer Lump at the time, couldn’t help but talk about him repeatedly. In their self-destructive pursuit of ratings and clicks, these news organizations had a big hand in selecting the candidates, even the ones they didn’t want.
So now, as 2020 approaches, I watch the headlines, noticing that Harris and Booker are claiming more of them than Warren already. As far as TV goes, Harris and Booker are certainly more telegenic than other candidates, which might explain why they’re on more than others (but doesn’t explain why His Royal Obesity got so much TV time in 2016).
Further note: Grump is on the front page of every news site I read. All of them. Right now. That’s the incumbent bump — you’re the sitting president, so you get covered regardless. Your name is out there.
Ideally, I’d like to see news outlets giving even coverage to DNC candidates — balanced between them until voters begin to decide who we want, rather than having the news media choose our candidates for us. For example, why hasn’t a major news outlet interviewed Yang yet?
More Women
With historic numbers of women running for president in 2020 (which will be the 100th anniversary of women gaining the vote in the U.S.), old conversations are rising again, like this one: “Is America ready for a woman president?” Scientific American pontificated on the “double bind” women face: If they sound authoritative, western audiences will dismiss them for not being feminine enough, but if they sound feminine, then western audiences will dismiss them for not seeming like leadership material. (Because we unconsciously identify leadership with masculinity.) But a USA Today/Suffolk survey showed that almost all U.S. voters claim to have no preference, and among those who do have a preference, they would prefer a female candidate. The survey was about Congress, not the presidency, but still represents a sea-change in U.S. voter preferences — even assuming unconscious bias exists.
Personally, I would prefer a female candidate, everything else being equal. If Candidate A and Candidate B each support the same policies, have similar histories, are equally matched in leadership experience, etc., and I can’t find any significant difference between them, then I will choose the woman (if one of them is a woman). The only “why” I can offer on this is: we haven’t tried it yet. Also, I’m fairly certain that I care less than the average voter about whether someone sounds “shrill” or “looks like a leader”. And I’m tired of the unfairness of a rigged system that’s produced 45 consecutive male presidencies. (Or is it 44? Why do we count Grover twice?)
Each Candidate
Here, I eventually will list each candidate and what sticks out to me about them. I have read quite a bit about each, but only have so much time available to update this page.
JOSEPH BIDEN: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Biden is not only a former two-term Vice President Of The United States, but is a former president candidate in multiple campaigns. He and Sanders are the only two announced candidates older than the current president.
Concerns: Like several other candidates, Biden’s website lists no platform or positions; only a vague and allegedly inspiring letter about “big dreams and American possibilities”. Maybe much of the electorate will vote for someone based on name recognition alone, but I won’t. It’s almost an insult to see his lackluster website knowing he’s been, for months, considering running for president. Another concern is how long he’s been in politics. Yes, experience is something we look for in a president (or at least we did, until President Toilet Bowl), but the longer someone’s been in the game, the more material there is for the opposition to tout.
CORY BOOKER: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Concerns: His official campaign website lists no issues, policy positions, or platform.
PETE BUTTIGIEG: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Concerns: His official campaign website lists no issues, policy positions, or platform.
JULIAN CASTRO: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Concerns: His official campaign website lists no issues, policy positions, or platform.
JOHN DELANEY: (platform)
TULSI GABBARD: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Concerns: Gabbard was strongly anti-LGBTQ until 2012, and has held a variety of odd and/or quickly-changing positions. Further, I couldn’t find any list of issues, policy positions, or platform on her official campaign website.
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND: (platform)
Gillibrand’s campaign website was updated in March 2019 to include an “issues” page. As of 2019.03.20, the page is limited in scope and contains vague sentiments like “keeping America safe” and “restoring our values”. Clicking through, there is more specificity. I found nothing immediately objectionable.
Concerns: I don’t have any current concerns about her.
KAMALA HARRIS: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Harris has already been the subject of several glowing articles like this one in Glamour. Not only was she California’s first African-American to serve as attorney general, she was the first woman too. She was only the second African-American woman to serve in the U.S. Senate. The aforementioned LIFT Act is her plan to give relief to the middle-class. She proposes to pay for it via fees on some financial institutions and repealing the most egregious parts of Slump’s giveaway to the rich. She is known to support women’s rights, including the right to not be pregnant against one’s will. She looks good on climate change (my pet issue). She supports some form of “Medicare For All”, which is outstanding. She wants to raise the federal minimum wage and close the gender pay gap. She seems reasonable on immigration.
Concerns: It’s Harris’s history as a prosecutor that weakens her progressive credentials — she was WAY too “law-and-order” for me, locking up people willy-nilly for dubious crimes like “I wasn’t able to send my kid to school every single day.” She has repeatedly resisted criminal justice reform. Also, her official campaign website does not list her platform, issues, or policies.
John Hickenlooper: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Concerns: His official campaign website lists no issues, policy positions, or platform.
JAY INSLEE: (platform)
Inslee is the only candidate in this race who has made climate change the primary plank of his platform. He’s been in politics (beginning as a state rep in Washington) since I was in high school, and has been heralding the cause of environmental protection just as long. His record in this is more solid than any of the other candidates. He’s against the death penalty, for marijuana legalization (including pardons for previous convictions), for a raised minimum wage, for paid family leave, and holds other progressive positions as well. He was also instrumental in Democrats winning back several governorships in recent years.
Concerns: I don’t yet know of any major downsides to Inslee, except the same one I mention for Warren and Sanders: voters could see his age (68) as a reason to shy away. I’m not aware of any scandals to his name.
AMY KLOBUCHAR: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Klobuchar was Minnesota’s first elected female U.S. Senator, and has been reelected twice. She’s been more active than I realized, having passed the most laws of any fellow Senator (as of 2016). Most of the news coverage I’ve seen on her lately has been negative (“worst boss”, for example), though she does seem like a reasonable person when it comes to most of her policy positions. I admit I don’t know much about her.
Concerns: Perhaps my biggest concern about Klobuchar is her middle-of-the-road approach. It’s one thing to swerve toward center after you’ve picked up the nomination; the only people left to win over at that point are moderates, independents, and undecideds. But it’s weird to head for the middle during a leftward-pulling primary. She has already dismissed several of the Big Plans advanced by other Democrats, including free college, the Green New Deal, and Medicare For All. While most of us understand these plans are utopian dreams at best, many of us actually want to head in that direction, while Klobuchar seems content to skip the excitement. She confesses to small ideas, like “find ways to make college more affordable”, “reinstate some of Obama’s climate policies”, and “work on the high cost of healthcare”. When you start in the center, where are you going to swerve once you get past the primaries? Also, her campaign website doesn’t have (that I could find) a list of policies, issues, or platform.
ROBERT O’ROURKE: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
O’Rourke is inspiring to hear in person — I went to a small event in Killeen in 2017, when he was a little less polished but still earnest and comfortable with a crowd.
Concerns: He doesn’t list any policy positions on his official campaign website, though he’s been running for Senate since 2017 and considering a presidential bid for months. Despite his earnestness and eagerness to please, or perhaps because of it, he does not strike me as “presidential” (I voted for him during his losing Senate campaign). He is exactly my age, but comes across as someone much younger and inexperienced.
BERNIE SANDERS: (no platform list as of 2019.03.20)
Sanders, like many of the others, has policy positions that line up well with my own, though he doesn’t list any of them on his official campaign website. I like that his positions have been fairly consistent over the years. (He didn’t recently “come around” to agree with progressive ideas.) He advocates bold action on global warming, a fairer economic system, a “Medicare for all” healthcare system, LGBTQ rights (for at least four decades), criminal justice reform, ending the death penalty, and Black Lives Matter.
Disclaimer: I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, supporting him over Clinton. Of course, I voted for Clinton once she was selected as the nominee.
Concerns: (1) Like Warren, Sanders’ age could be a factor — in both the primaries and the general (regardless of my personal opinion on the matter). He is (so far) the only DNC candidate older than Chump. (2) Though Sanders’ ideas seem to be more in vogue now than they were in 2016, I imagine that he carries some baggage from that previous campaign. Many Democrats, for example, resent him for challenging Clinton and resent his supporters for various reasons. (3) His campaign website is woefully inadequate.
ELIZABETH WARREN: (platform)
I first became aware of Warren when she was pushing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — and eventually succeeded. Throughout that fight, it became crystal clear with every word that she had the consumer’s interests at heart; almost no one stood by her as she championed this cause. In recent years, she has often led the charge against TAINTUS. She became the face of the Nevertheless, She Persisted meme wars of 2017, when she attempted to read a letter from Coretta Scott King on the topic of Jefferson “Confederate” Sessions but Kentucky circus manager Mitch McConnell rudely silenced her. One thing that automatically puts me in her corner is how often President Dumpster Fire refers to her via put-downs and racially-insensitive remarks. But she also aligns fairly closely with my own policy positions, including increased taxes on the obscenely wealthy, the environment, climate change, stricter regulations on Wall Street and banking, women’s rights, and so on.
Concerns: (1) How much credence will voters give to the faux outrage over her alleged ancestry? (2) Her age — regardless of one’s personal feelings about the relevance of age in politics, voters might see it as a weakness. (However, she is younger than President Dumpster Fire, so it shouldn’t work against her in the general election.)
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON (platform):
Williamson’s website has a nice “issues” page — second only to Yang’s (below). On climate change, Williamson is strong — appears to actually understand the issue. She supports the Equality Act and otherwise favors LGBTQ+ rights. She is fully feminist, supports veterans, advocates for universal healthcare, and is reasonable on gun control, among other issues.
Concerns: (1) She is one of the least-known candidates and therefore stands very little chance, either in the primary or the general election. (2) She holds a handful of unreasonable and unscientific views, including an irrational fear of “GMOs”, which she says cause “corruption in our food”.
ANDREW YANG (platform):
Sadly, I don’t think Yang stands a chance in this race. Of all the candidates, his list of policy positions on his website is (by far) the most comprehensive of all the candidates. He seems to take reasonable positions on each issue, even if I don’t necessarily agree with him on each issue.
Note: I will feel free to update this entry as more candidates declare or as I learn more about them.
| Newer Entry: | The Estate Tax Isn’t What Conservatives Told Me It Is |
|---|---|
| Older Entry: | What ‘Cancel Culture’ Is Doing In My Brain |