Archive for the ‘Democrat’ Category

Opinion: Here’s What To Do If You Hate The Democratic Nominee – BuzzFeed News

After the 2016 election, you promised yourself youd do everything you can to beat Trump in 2020. You marched and protested, knocked doors in the midterms, wrote postcards to voters, donated to anyone whose video caught your eye, and maybe even got caught up in some ridiculous social media squabbles.

Now the time has finally come. The 2020 election is here, and the Democratic primary is very slowly narrowing, with only a handful of candidates remaining. Youve been preparing for this for three years, and yet: When you look at the possibilities, youre deflated. Or maybe you feel it more viscerally: You cannot stomach the idea of casting a ballot for ______, let alone knocking a door for them or giving them money. You know you have a moral responsibility to act, but there is simply no way you can do it on behalf of ________.

Dont worry. There is another, equally important, way to make a difference this November that wont require you to fake it through a canvassing shift: Go local.

With your time, money, attention, and most importantly, your vote, you can help beat Trump and also build sustainable power for Democrats without ever saying the Democratic nominees name.

First, heres what to do with your time:

Within an hours drive of nearly every zipcode in America, there is an election where a Democrat one whos not running for president needs your help. If you live in or near a state like Alabama, Georgia, Maine, Montana, Texas, North Carolina, or Iowa, that election might be huge, like a senate race. Maybe its a high-stakes governors race, like in Missouri, North Carolina, West Virginia, or New Hampshire.

More critically, in all 50 states, there are elections down-ballot, ranging from must-win state house and senate elections to district attorneys, school board, county clerks, tax collector, judges, justices of the peace, and library boards (to name just a few of the many other positions that might be on your ballot.) And too often, folks who do show up at the polls fail to cast their votes for positions outside the top two or three, in part because they feel they dont know enough to make a choice.

Go knock doors for those state and local candidates. Your energy will yield dividends, because the voter contact you do will make a difference for the entire ticket: young people and communities of color especially, who often feel dismissed or ignored by national candidates, can be more directly energized by local issues and candidates. And at the end of the day, it doesnt really matter which Democratic campaign gets someone to the polls as long as they get there.

Even if the candidate you support loses, the campaign itself strengthens party infrastructure for the next cycle. If the candidate wins, even better: A Democrat is now in office who can govern, deliver on their promises, and help prevent the GOP from causing further harm.

Second, heres what to do with your money:

Its possible that the Democratic nominee will be someone to whom you flat-out refuse to make a donation. Its also possible that the Democratic nominee is someone who doesnt want your money in the first place. Either way, forget about them.

No matter who the nominee is, there will be literally billions of dollars spent on their behalf, probably focused in a handful of battleground states. Meanwhile, city council and state house candidates nationwide are going to be struggling to pay for basic things they desperately need as they knock thousands of doors and personally talk to voters.

Take whatever money youd budgeted for beating Trump, and split it in down the middle. Give half of it to local candidates who catch your eye. Give the other half to an organization (or a few) that will exist past Election Day 2020. Focus on groups that work with local candidates we humbly suggest our own group, Run for Something, of course, but any will do or groups that engage young people and/or communities of color. Give to organizations that do deep relationship-building in states that a presidential campaign is never going to organize in because the Electoral College doesnt incentivize it. If you can afford to, make your donation recurring and plan to let it run into 2021.

Third, heres what to do with your attention if you hate the eventual nominee:

Commit to amplifying local candidates on every social media network youre active on. You can mute the presidential nominees name on Twitter if you want, or unfollow them on Instagram and Facebook; replace them with a local news source (if there still is one in your community) and with every candidate who will be on your ballot in November, and any ballot referendums, too. Then go wild with the RT and share buttons. You might be the only one in your circle of friends who cares about these elections -- be the trendsetter who gets others fired up.

And finally, heres what to do with your vote:

Whether or not you vote is public, but who you vote for is private. Its your right to cast your ballot for whomever you prefer. But especially if youre a person with any kind of privilege, you have a responsibility to think beyond your own self-interest. This election is about the most vulnerable among us, who need you to be an ally.

While it might be tempting to take a principled stand and not vote, the facts are what they are: The general election will be between Trump and the eventual Democratic nominee. You dont get to go off-menu. The people who will be most harmed by your failure to vote against Trump are people who are already seriously hurting that is a responsibility to take seriously, especially if you live in one of the battleground states where the margin could be dangerously close.

That being said: Whatever you decide to do in the presidential election, make sure you vote for the rest of the ballot. It is all too common for folks to show up at the polls, check the boxes for the first race or two and then just turn it in unfinished, often because they feel like they dont know enough to make an informed decision. Thats why the doors you knock, articles you share, and money you donate all matter.

By directing your efforts to state and local elections, youll help beat Trump, build sustainable power for Democrats, and perhaps most importantly, youll start to feel good about politics again. Your rage for the Democratic nominee might dissipate, or it might not. (And if you love the eventual Democratic nominee, great! By helping local candidates, youll ensure that our Democratic president will have governing partners, so all the policies weve spent the last year debating can actually become reality.) Either way, youll know you did everything you could no matter the results, you can wake up the day after Election Day 2020 without regrets.

Amanda Litman and Ross Morales Rocketto are the co-founders of Run for Something. Since launching in 2017, they have recruited more than 47,000 young people to run for office, endorsed 950+, and elected 305 across 45 states.

Read more here:
Opinion: Here's What To Do If You Hate The Democratic Nominee - BuzzFeed News

Trump administration officials are accusing liberals of politicizing the coronavirus – Vox.com

The novel coronavirus and Covid-19, the disease it causes, have become a global health issue. But increasingly for President Donald Trump, a member of his family, and his administration officials, the virus is being seen as a weapon the presidents enemies hope to use against him as much as it is a public health concern.

The presidents son, Donald Trump, Jr., offered the most pointed encapsulation of this view on Friday, when he told Fox News that Democrats seemingly hope that it comes here, and kills millions of people so that they could end Donald Trumps streak of winning.

No elected official, Democratic or otherwise, have said any such thing. Some Democrats and some Republicans have, however, been critical of the Trump administrations response to the coronavirus. Republican Sen. Richard Shelby and Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have both called on the administration to spend more to combat the virus, for example.

Despite this, on Sunday, Vice President Mike Pence who is in charge of the White Houses efforts to deal with the outbreak defended the presidents sons remarks as understandable.

This is no time for politics. And frankly, I think that was Don Jr.s point: that there has been some very strong rhetoric directed at the president by some members of Congress, Pence told CNNs Jake Tapper. But responding to the kind of things that have been hurled is understandable.

Pences defense of the presidents son is just one of several examples of how he and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar argued on the Sunday morning that Democrats and liberal commentators not the Trump administration or the right were to blame for the politicization of the coronavirus.

When NBCs Chuck Todd questioned Pence on Meet the Press over politicizing rhetoric on the right, such as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaughs claim that Democrats have weaponized the coronavirus as well as Trump Jr.s inflammatory remarks, Pence declined to condemn them. Instead he drew attention to liberals.

Pence said Trump Jr. was pushing back at Trump critics, and that its time for the other side to turn down the volume.

Pence cited Gail Collinss New York Times column entitled, Lets call it Trumpvirus as an example of how there have been irresponsible voices on the left criticizing the president. Beyond pressure from Democrats for the administration to speed and better fund its response efforts, it is not clear what volume Pence was referring to.

Trump himself has claimed that criticism of his handling of coronavirus in the US is part of a Democratic Party hoax.

One of my people came up to me and said, Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didnt work out too well. They couldnt do it, the president said at a rally in South Carolina Friday. They tried the impeachment hoax. And this is their new hoax.

At a Saturday press conference, the president made it clear he used the word hoax in connection to the coronavirus which has killed at least 2,990 people globally and infected at least 22 people in the US because he felt his administrations work was being attacked.

When questioned over the use of the term hoax on Saturday, Trump said that it referred to the action that [Democrats] take to try to pin this on somebody because weve done such a good job.

He added, I dont like it when they are criticizing [government officials], and thats the hoax.

When ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Azar about Trumps use of the term hoax, Sunday Azar deflected.

Hes talking about the partisan sniping that were seeing, its unnecessary, we dont need to have this made a political issue, Azar said. Were in a public health crisis here, we need to all be banding together.

The partisan sniping seems to be one-sided but the coronavirus does inarguably call for banding together. There is still much that isnt known about it, and new cases within the US are being reported daily. It is true that the US has far fewer Covid-19 cases than other countries, but that does not make the president and his allies use of the virus to to attack political rivals any less worrying or any less of a distraction from life-or-death work that needs to be done.

See the original post here:
Trump administration officials are accusing liberals of politicizing the coronavirus - Vox.com

The Price of a Sanders Nomination – The Atlantic

Democrats won South Carolinas First, which stretches from the posh coastal towns of Hilton Head and Beaufort to the Charleston suburbs. The district was formerly held by the very conservative Mark Sanford. Trump won it by 13 points in 2016; freshman Representative Joe Cunningham nabbed it by only one point in 2018.

Democrats won New Yorks Twenty-Second, which extends from the university city of Binghamton to postindustrial Utica. Trump won there by a staggering 15 points in 2016; Anthony Brindisi defeated by two points a Republican incumbent prone to incendiary comments likein a radio interview shortly after the Parkland school shootingIt's interesting that so many of [the] people that commit the mass murders end up being Democrats.

Altogether, 31 of the congressional districts won by Trump in 2016 are now held by Democrats, 21 of them freshman. Only three Hillary-won House districts are represented by Republicans.

Democrats succeeded in Trump country because the Democratic Party attracted a broad coalition of moderates and liberals. The Sanders campaign aims first and foremost to reinvent the Democratic coalition as a narrower ideological movement, in much the same way that the once-broad Republican coalition has been transformed. But the difference between the two is that many fewer Americans identify as progressive than as conservative. Worse for Democrats: Not only does Sanders propose to break the cookie in such a way as to leave his party with the smaller piece, but he also does so in a political context that already disfavors them.

Democrats hold virtually every one of the urban and academic districts that will rally to progressive politics. But thanks to enterprising candidates who keep in touch with their districts, they also hold Minnesotas Seventh, a 90 percent white district running north-south adjacent to the two Dakotas. Its represented in Congress by Collin Peterson, a pro-life Democrat who chairs the House Agriculture Committee. In 2018, a Democrat won the countrys richest congressional district, the Virginia Tenth, which has a median household income of more than $127,000. Democrats now represent all of the countrys 10 richest districts.

Peter Beinart: Regular Democrats just arent worried about Bernie

Sanders supporters take as an article of faith that Sanders will win votes from working-class voters who swung to Trump in 2016. This idea is based on a single data-point: Some 10 to 12 percent of those who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary then voted for Trump in the general election. If Sanders could have held all those primary voters in a general election, and also if he had won everybody who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, then he would have defeated Trump. But once you state the two ifs, you see the problem.

The political scientist Brian Schaffner, who closely studied these Sanders-Trump switchers, finds that they were older white voters with conservative racial views. As compared with other Sanders voters, the Sanders-Trump switchers were much more likely to deny that white people enjoy special advantages in American society. They were also much less positive about President Obama than were Sanders voters who did not switch to Trump.

No Democrat, including Sanders, is likely to outbid Trump for these voters in a general election.

Read this article:
The Price of a Sanders Nomination - The Atlantic

Warren has revived her 2020 campaign and could be the nominee who unites the Democrats – USA TODAY

Robert Alexander and Lauren Copeland, Opinion contributors Published 3:15 a.m. ET Feb. 27, 2020 | Updated 9:15 a.m. ET Feb. 27, 2020

A previous version of this video displayed an incorrect date in a graphic. It was 1988 when 14 Southern and border states held their primaries.\ USA TODAY

Warren makes a strong case that Bloomberg and Sanders can't 'get it done' but she can. The double-barreled attack may help resurrect her candidacy.

In early February, we opined that Mike Bloomberg could be the Democrat with the best chance to take on Donald Trump this November. We based this on results from a poll of registered voters in the important battleground states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvaniaand Wisconsin. Bloomberg'sconstant media presence, moderate policy positionsand enormous wealth seemed to be having an effect on voters in these key states.

We suggested that it was possible he would make the debate stage in mid-February, just in time for him to make a strong Super Tuesday pitch to voters. Unfortunately for the former New York mayor, he made the stage in Nevada and delivered one of the poorest debate performances in history. From the outset, Bloomberg was the target of nearly every Democrat on the stage.But it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts who landed some of the most stinging blows and breathed new life into her campaign.Warren came out swinging not just in that debate but also in the one this week in Charleston, South Carolina.

Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist polls like redlining and stop and frisk, she said in Las Vegas. In Charleston, she added financial support for Republican Senate candidates to that list. Bloombergcant earn the trust of the core of the Democratic Party, she said, and money or not, that means he is the riskiest candidate standing on this stage.

Warrens takedowns of the New York billionaire gave America a preview of how she might perform on a debate stage against another New York billionaire, President Trump.

The rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders as the front-runner has changed the dynamics of the Democrats race in considerable ways. Beating Trump has consistently emerged as the most important feature Democrats are looking for in their nominee, and questions persist as to whether Sanders is the best nominee to do so.

Beyond that, Sanders electability remains a key concern among Democrats. For instance, a new NBC News-Wall Street Journalpoll of registered voters finds 67%have reservations about a socialist, and that includes 42% of Democrats. This is an alarming number thatcould drive some Democratic voters to stay home and increase turnout for Trump. Thesame poll shows very little uneaseabout a woman (14% of voters and only 4% of Democrats).

Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders at the Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, on Feb. 25, 2020.(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Sanders front-runner status made him the main target in the South Carolina debate. Warren said shed be a better president than him because she digs into the details and makes things happen. She criticized Sanders for not providing enough detail about how he plans to pay for his health care proposals while she dug in, did the work and was then trashed for it by the Sanders campaign. She concluded her salvo by saying: Progressives have got one shot, and we need to spend it with a leader who will get something done.

Conservative punditAnn Coulter might have made thebest case for Warren after hearing that. Sen. Warren has convinced me that Bernie isn't that worrisome. He'll never get anything done," Coulter tweeted a half hour into the Charleston debate. "SHE'S the freak who will show up with 17 idiotic plans every day and keep everyone up until it gets done.

Democratic debate: It's late. Can Biden make a comeback?

Coulters tweet was reminiscent of Majority Leader Mitch McConnells proclamation about Warren on the Senate floor in 2017: She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted. The phrasequickly went viral.

Warren's poll numbers had been in declinesince she briefly led all Democrats last fall. However, her kerfuffle with Bloomberg couldbe paying dividends.In a national poll after the Las Vegas debate, she emerged in second place ahead of Bloomberg and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Additional pollingsuggests Warren could be a consensus choice among the crowded field of Democrats.She trails Sanders and Bidenbut has created some distance from Bloomberg, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigiegand Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

Perhaps more important, she fares well among Democrats who say they are still considering voting for her and they would be least disappointed if Warren were to win the nomination.This suggests both an audience for Warren and the potential to attract voters looking for an alternative to Sanders or Biden.

After the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Warren argued that shecould unite the Democratic Party, but her case was largely ignored. After her debate performances, theres reason to pay attention.With her support for "Medicare For All," college student loan forgiveness, free college tuitionand universal pre-K, Warren has the progressive bona fides to satisfy Sanders voters.

Warren could also resonate with moderates, particularly women.She does not identify as a socialist looking to tear down the capitalist system. Instead, Warren focuseson fighting corruption and makingthe system work for those beyond the top 1%.Women could also be drawn to her compassionate message surrounding kitchen-table issues like health care, gun control and education.

Keep him center stage:In four top 2020 battlegrounds, its not the economy, stupid. It's Donald Trump.

Just2.5% of pledged delegates have been awarded. Although Sanders has done surprisingly well, the crowded field and the Democrats use of proportional representation rules to award delegates meanit will be much more difficult for him to win a majority of delegates before the Democratic National Convention.

This fact is not lost upon closer observers of American politics, or the candidates themselves.Only Sanders saysthe candidate holding a plurality of delegates should be awarded the nomination.All the other Democrats suggested that they would follow party rules requiring a majority rules that were changed largely in response to critiques Sanders leveled after the 2016 election.

Warrens attacks on Bloomberg providea final opportunity to resurrect her campaign. And it only took standing next to a New York billionaire to do it. Surely shed like to recreate that scene this fall.

Robert Alexander,director of the Institute for Civics and Public Policy at Ohio Northern University, isauthor of "Representation and the Electoral College."Lauren Copeland is an assistant professor and associate director of the Community Research Institute at Baldwin Wallace University. Follow themon Twitter:@onuprofand@laurencopeland0

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/27/elizabeth-warren-rebounds-after-2020-democratic-debates-column/4882416002/

Continued here:
Warren has revived her 2020 campaign and could be the nominee who unites the Democrats - USA TODAY

A Democratic president could have a big impact on the tech industry here’s where the candidates stand on important tech issues – CNBC

Democratic presidential candidates (L-R) former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) arrive on stage for the Democratic presidential primary debate at Paris Las Vegas on February 19, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Ethan Miller | Getty Image

Voters from the 14 states and one U.S. territory hosting primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday have plenty of issues to consider in choosing a presidential nominee. Besides top issues like healthcare and gun policy, some voters may be weighing the Democratic candidates' stances on technology.

Americans have grown increasingly concerned about the power Big Tech companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft wield over their personal information and future job prospects. A Pew Research Center survey found that attitudes toward tech companies soured in the last half of the decade. Between 2015 and 2019, the percentage of adult U.S. respondents who said tech companies have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country declined from 71% to 50%,.

Among the Democratic candidates, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made the biggest and earliest splash with her views on the tech industry, releasing her plan to "break up Big Tech" in March. But Warren is not the only candidate to have weighed in on tech issues, which extend well beyond antitrust.

Here's what voters should know about the stances of the top-polling Democratic presidential candidates on the key tech issues:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said at a Washington Post event last year that he would "absolutely" try to break up Facebook, Google and Amazon. Sanders is perhaps only second to Warren in his readiness to declare support for a breakup.

Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg said that as a candidate for office, he doesn't feel it's appropriate to dictate what companies should be broken up, according to his interview with the New York Times Editorial Board. But he would empower the Federal Trade Commission to better assess and handle anticompetitive behavior by tech firms, he said at a CNN town hall in April.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said we should "be worrying about the concentration of power" in an interview with The New York Times Editorial Board. The tech industry experienced relatively positive treatment under the Obama administration, but Biden told the editorial board, "There are places where [Former President Barack Obama] and I have disagreed."

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the first out of the gate with her proposal to break up Big Tech. Since then, she's maintained a persistent drumbeat on the topic. Warren has pledged to turn down large donations from Big Tech executives to shirk any questions of influence, though it's not entirely clear what her campaign counts as its threshold.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, said "this consolidation issue is the most underrated discussed issue of our time," in her interview with the Times Editorial Board. Klobuchar said strong antitrust enforcement involves looking back at past mergers like that of Facebook and Instagram. Last year, Klobuchar introduced legislation to update antitrust enforcement, including by shifting the burden onto companies to prove that very large mergers won't hurt competition.

Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a billionaire tech and media mogul himself, told the The Mercury News in January that Warren and Sanders don't "know what they're talking about" when it comes to breaking up the big tech companies. He said he is open to more narrow forms of enforcement.

Sanders told Vox, "Americans have the right to their own data and that there should be strict penalties for companies who are negligent in protecting that data." He added that there should be oversight of the collection and sale of consumer data, particularly by Big Tech companies like Facebook.

Buttigieg said in a podcast interview that he believes Americans should have a "right to be forgotten," similar to that granted to citizens of the European Union. Buttigeg told journalist Kara Swisher on the Recode Decode podcast, "we need to have some level of relationship to the value that is created in our name." A U.S. version of the "right to be forgotten" would likely raise serious First Amendment issues, but Buttigieg argued tech companies are already making decisions around speech "because the policy world didn't figure it out."

Biden told the Times Editorial Board, "we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy," while speaking about a variety of tech issues. The EU's flagship privacy policy, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gave citizens more control over their data, including the right to find out why a company is storing their data and choose to transfer it to another provider.

Warren has proposed legislation that would allow executives of companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to be held criminally liable in cases where they are found to have acted negligently and violated civil law impacting the personal data of 1% of a state or American population.

Klobuchar has signed on a key Democratic privacy bill in the Senate that would allow for states to continue to issue and enforce their own privacy laws and give individuals the right to bring their own lawsuits against companies they feel violated their rights.

Bloomberg has indicated a preference for consistency in federal digital privacy legislation, seeming to align with conservatives who want a federal law that preempts state law, according to an interview with The Mercury News.

Sanders told Vox he opposes "the Trump administration's efforts to compel firms to create so-called 'backdoors' to encrypted technologies an attack on the First and Fourth Amendments that would ultimately leave everyone less secure." He also said, "Technology cannot shield people from the justice system, especially when it comes to white-collar and other financial crimes."

Buttigieg told Vox, "End-to-end encryption should be the norm," but that "we also need to ensure that law enforcement has access to the tools it needs to keep us all safe." He advocated for "heightened legal standards" for government officials trying to gain access to data with new tools, such as a court order and proof all other options have been exhausted.

Biden hasn't commented much on encryption this election cycle, but he did introduce a counter-terrorism bill in 1991 that would have allowed government officials to obtain data and communications from electronic service providers "when appropriately authorized by law." While the bill did not become law and technology has rapidly evolved in the intervening years, the legislation is reminiscent of Attorney General William Barr's calls for tech companies to build in a way for law enforcement to access encrypted devices and messages with a warrant.

Warren has said, "The government can enforce the law and protect our security without trampling on Americans' privacy. Individuals have a Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches and seizures, and that should not change in the digital era," according to her response to Vox's question.

Klobuchar, a former prosecutor, expressed an understanding of law enforcement's challenges during the 2016 standoff between Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which requested help unlocking an iPhone used by a shooter in an attack in San Bernadino, Calif. Klobuchar said in a statement to the MinnPost at the time that "very real risks have been presented as criminals and terrorists are constantly trying to utilize the latest technologies to evade capture and conviction," adding that "any proposal that would limit data security available to the public could impede efforts to protect American businesses and consumers from cyber-attacks by criminals and foreign governments."

Bloomberg dug into the tech industry for resisting calls to build a backdoor into encryption for government officials in a 2016 Wall Street Journal op-ed following the public fight between Apple and the FBI over unlocking the San Bernadino shooter's phone. Bloomberg acknowledged encryption's benefits for people living under repressive regimes, but said, "We can work to undermine repressive regimes in ways that do not compromise our own safety, and we should expect tech leaders to help lead the way."

Sanders told Vox that Section 230, the law that shields online platforms from legal liability for their users' posts, was drafted "well before the current era of online communities, expression and technological development." Sanders said he "will work with experts and advocates to ensure that these large, profitable corporations are held responsible when dangerous activity occurs on their watch, while protecting the fundamental right of free speech in this country and making sure right-wing groups don't abuse regulation to advance their agenda."

Buttigieg hasn't made clear his stance on Section 230 but has suggested tech companies should take more responsibility for their role in spreading hate online and should be required to root out misinformation in political ads. Buttigieg told Vox he would "identify online platforms and other companies that refuse to take steps to curb use by hate groups."

Biden has taken the most extreme view of the Democratic candidates when it comes to Section 230, telling the Times editorial board that it "should be revoked ... For [Facebook CEO Mark] Zuckerberg and other platforms." Other candidates have not taken such a strong approach on Section 230 likely because it also allows for online platforms to engage in "good faith" content moderation to remove the most insidious content from their sites without fearing legal repercussions.

Warren said in a campaign plan that she would "push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote," referring to false information about voting in U.S. elections. She called on tech platforms to take responsibility for spreading disinformation, asking them to share resources and even open up information about their algorithms and allow users to opt out so they don't need to be subject to amplified material.

Klobuchar said Section 230 "is something else that we should definitely look at as we look at how we can create more accountability," in an interview at South By Southwest recorded for the Recode Decode podcast. But she said, it's not the goal to "destroy" tech companies.

Bloomberg has said social media companies should be held to similar legal standards as media outlets. In an interview with The Mercury News, Bloomberg said, "Society shouldn't give up the protections that we have from the press's responsibility just because it helps them make more money." He stopped short of saying Section 230 should be repealed and said he didn't know which part of the law should be altered.

Sanders has been long been a vocal supporter of net neutrality, the concept that broadband providers should not be allowed to block or slow access to websites or require payments to deliver faster speeds. When Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai ordered net neutrality to be repealed in 2017, Sanders said the decision was "an egregious attack on our democracy." He advocates for reinstating net neutrality in his campaign plan.

Buttigieg said on Twitter last year he would "make net neutrality the law of the land." Buttigieg was one of 100 mayors to sign the Cities Open Internet Pledge while in office, which required internet providers doing business with those part of the pledge to follow principles of net neutrality.

Biden has not said much on net neutrality recently, but he has previously positioned himself as a skeptic. In 2006, while serving as a Delaware senator on the Judiciary Committee, Biden said it didn't seem necessary to introduce a preemptive law because if discrimination feared by net neutrality advocates did occur, there would be such a dramatic public response that "the chairman will be required to hold this meeting in this largest room in the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the way down to the White House." The Obama administration in which he served, however, was a champion of net neutrality.

Warren has advocated in the Senate to restore net neutrality rules, saying in 2018 that their repeal "has corporate greed and corruption written all over it." In her plan for "Investing in Rural America," Warren said she would appoint FCC commissioners who would restore net neutrality.

Klobuchar has publicly supported net neutrality in the Senate, calling the rules "important protections" and saying the FCC's vote to eliminate them "will harm consumers, particularly in rural areas. It will limit competition. And it will hurt small business entrepreneurship and innovation." In her "Plan for the Future of Work and a Changing Economy," Klobuchar promises to "work to codify strong net neutrality principles and make immediate progress in her first 100 days [as president] by using federal contracting requirements to encourage broadband providers to honor net neutrality principles and promote a free and open internet."

Bloomberg hasn't said much either way about net neutrality at this point in the campaign.

Sanders has said, "We do need new trade policies that are fair to the working people of this country, not just to the CEOs, but as usual, I think Trump gets it wrong in terms of implementation," according to Vox. Sanders said on CNN last year he would "of course" use tariffs to reach a deal with China, but only "used in a rational way within the context of a broad, sensible trade policy."

Buttigieg said on CNN last year that it's "a fool's errand to think you will be able to get China to change the fundamentals of their economic model by poking them in the eye with some tariffs." In the June Democratic debate, Buttigieg shared his concerns with China's advancement in technology, saying, "China is investing so they could soon be able to run circles around us in artificial intelligence and this president is fixated on the relationship as if all that mattered was the balance on dishwashers... The biggest thing we have to do is invest in our own domestic competitiveness."

Biden said in a speech last summer that if the U.S. fails to act to counter China, it will "keep moving and robbing U.S. firms" of technology and intellectual property. He advocated creating "a united front" of economic partners who can hold China accountable. Biden said at the time, "there's no going back to business as usual on trade with me."

Warren said in 2018 that U.S. policy toward China had been "misdirected" for years and "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology," according to Reuters. In a campaign blog post, Warren said, "tariffs are an important tool, [but] they are not by themselves a long-term solution to our failed trade agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this Administration clearly lacks."

Klobuchar has said it can make sense to use tariffs, but that there needs to be a level of consistency to both the promises and threats made in the process. She criticized Trump's tariffs as being too broad and hurting allies in the process during the September Democratic debate.

Bloomberg said at the most recent Democratic debate that "we have to deal with China, if we're ever going to solve the climate crisis." Addressing his past statements that Chinese President Xi Jinping is not a dictator, Bloomberg said "he does serve at the behest of the Politburo" but that "You can negotiate with him. That's exactly what we have to do, make it seem that it's in his interest and in his people's interest to do what we want to do, follow the rules, particularly no stealing of intellectual property; follow the rules in terms of the trade agreements that we have are reciprocal and go equally in both directions."

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Here is the original post:
A Democratic president could have a big impact on the tech industry here's where the candidates stand on important tech issues - CNBC