2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[dudalb]

Well, we can count Governor Northiem out as a potential presedential candidate.

 

[Belz...]

I honestly don't know whether they should go further to the left to energise the Democratic voters, or go towards the center to grab the moderates.

Go toward the center. Trump has done the job of energizing the Dems who stayed in home in 2016 for them.......

Go left
Compared to the GOP and Trump, everything is left. They will call you Communist even if you are right of Center, as long as you have a (D) behind your name.

Damn! I still don't know!

 

[varwoche]

Damn! I still don't know!

It's complicated. Suppose one is a progressive who is most in alignment with Warren.

Is Warren more likely to win the general than, say Biden? Unlikely.

Is the benefit of Warren over Biden worth the risk of losing the general? I say hell no, but that's just me.

I don't think the moderate/progressive spectrum is the best way to look at this to begin with, in terms of electability. Superficialities such as looks and a confident vibe are probably more important.

Ideally, I want a stealth progressive with looks/vibe.

 

[Brainster]

Ideally, I want a stealth progressive with looks/vibe.

Well, at least you're honest about wanting a dishonest nominee.

 

[kellyb]

Is Warren more likely to win the general than, say Biden? Unlikely.

I just want to remind everyone once again that Sanders did a lot better than Clinton in every hypothetical matchup against Trump during the primaries. They always showed her either losing to Trump, or in a dead tie with him, and Sanders beating him.

See:http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/10/Would-Democrats-Be-Better-Sanders-vs-Trump

Clinton loses to Trump, 43 percent to 39 percent, while Sanders wins a hypothetical matchup, 43 percent to 41 percent.

Clinton in a dead heat with Trump in Pennsylvania, leading him by just one point, 43 percent to 42 percent. Sanders, meanwhile, leads the billionaire 47 percent to 41 percent.

The snapshot comes the same day a NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll found that while Clinton beats Trump in the general election, 49 percent to 44 percent, Sanders wipes the floor with him, winning 53 percent to 40 percent.

I genuinely believe Warren would/will do better than Biden against Trump. Hell, Sanders might do better than either of them, still, to be completely honest. Anti-establishment independents really like him.

 

[acbytesla]

I just want to remind everyone once again that Sanders did a lot better than Clinton in every hypothetical matchup against Trump during the primaries. They always showed her either losing to Trump, or in a dead tie with him, and Sanders beating him.

See:http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/10/Would-Democrats-Be-Better-Sanders-vs-Trump

I genuinely believe Warren would/will do better than Biden against Trump. Hell, Sanders might do better than either of them, still, to be completely honest. Anti-establishment independents really like him.

Who's to say? Your guess is probably as good as any one's at this point. I think almost anyone will beat Trump in the next election. That is as long as they don't blow it.

 

[Travis]

I don't believe you.

Fine. And since you don't believe me for no reason I will choose to not believe you don't believe for no reason.

Um... yes you are. You just told us you are:



That's a bad habit, Travis. Stop it already.

That is not going searching for anything. That is just reading the comments that come up in my feed. Which is just due diligence because it behooves me to know what is being commonly thrown around.

This can get confusing, because what passes for "centrism" in the US is actually "right-wing" in the rest of the world. Since we're talking about the US, though, I'm going to use the term "centrism" and "centrist" as it pertains to US politics.

Are US voters looking for a centrist candidate?

Let's look at the positions that are considered "far left" in the US right now.

How about Medicare for all? That's supported by 70% of the population.

Okay, what about free college tuition? That's supported by 66% of the population.

Those are the big two, but let's get into some of the more far-out, crazy left-wing territory, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's plans to tax the rich. Surely, voters are not willing to embrace...(gasp)...socialism?

In fact, 54% of the voters do support this!

Oops, wait, sorry...I'm wrong.

Actually, that's supported by 54% of Republicans (!) according to a poll by Fox News (!!!) When you poll Independents, it goes up to 71%, and Democrats support it by 85%!

So, what's the evidence that a centrist candidate will appeal to the broadest range of voters? It looks to me like the broadest range of voters is looking for somebody "far left" like Bernie Sanders.

Yeah polls and social media enthusiasm would indicate a winning candidate will embrace universal health care, federally funded university, free day care, a green new deal and a giant increase in taxes on the IMAX yacht class.

Not only have I never passed out on a bench, I have never been featured in campaign propaganda for the sixth place finisher at the Iowa caucuses like this fellow.

You talking about the awesome woman currently leading the Iowa polls among all declared candidates?

 

[Delvo]

After years & years of losing & losing & losing & losing with the "chase the Lost Tribe Of The Middle" strategy, it's well past time for proponents of the known losing method to start coming up with some evidence somewhere for some reason to keep taking the known losing method seriously. The claim that supporting the most popular candidates with the known most popular positions would "scare voters away" just doesn't cut it.

 

[Travis]

In the end we'll end up with someone that I will consider pretty centrist who won't enact platforms I would like to see. Things like an earnings cap, declaring ICE a criminal organization, instituting a minimum wage that is tracked to housing costs in the area so that anyone who works 40 hours a week only has to spend at most 35% of their income for median rent. Mandating that all publicly traded companies have to have a labor representative on the board. Oh and mandating that all publicly traded companies have to unionize.

 

[Belz...]

Fine. And since you don't believe me for no reason I will choose to not believe you don't believe for no reason.

It's interesting that you use a premise as if it's a fact and then conclude from it, but you just made it up.

I have a reason. Zig touched on it, but you constantly bring up the worst things you see on the internet in order to fuel your outrage. You could, after several attempts by members here to help you on this, choose to not read these extreme opinions and events but you continuously do. This means you're seeking them out, one way or another, despite your denial.

That is not going searching for anything. That is just reading the comments that come up in my feed.

Unsubscribe to these accounts immediately. They bring you nothing but pain.

But you won't, because you _want_ to read them. You seek them out.

 

[kellyb]

In the end we'll end up with someone that I will consider pretty centrist who won't enact platforms I would like to see. Things like an earnings cap, declaring ICE a criminal organization, instituting a minimum wage that is tracked to housing costs in the area so that anyone who works 40 hours a week only has to spend at most 35% of their income for median rent. Mandating that all publicly traded companies have to have a labor representative on the board. Oh and mandating that all publicly traded companies have to unionize.

If I can take a second to market to you a re-thinking of that highlighted part:

I think it's better to tax property to just keep housing costs low.

Wall Street invests in bidding up the prices of real estate in the low tax and no tax areas. They'd love for minimum wage hikes that benefit them and them alone at the end of the day to fund that!

Not to say that minimum wage shouldn't be increased, but it shouldn't be done in away where it'll all just get hoovered up by the financial sector.

 

[SezMe]

That is not going searching for anything. That is just reading the comments that come up in my feed. Which is just due diligence because it behooves me to know what is being commonly thrown around.

Then turn off your damn feed. There are far, far better ways to stay informed than Twitter, which gives you a decidedly wrong view of "what being commonly thrown around."

ETA: Already brilliantly stated by Belz...

 

[Travis]

It's interesting that you use a premise as if it's a fact and then conclude from it, but you just made it up.

I have a reason. Zig touched on it, but you constantly bring up the worst things you see on the internet in order to fuel your outrage. You could, after several attempts by members here to help you on this, choose to not read these extreme opinions and events but you continuously do. This means you're seeking them out, one way or another, despite your denial.



Unsubscribe to these accounts immediately. They bring you nothing but pain.

But you won't, because you _want_ to read them. You seek them out.

You do realize people under 25 spend all their time on social media?


This is like someone in 1960 thinking it matters not what a politician looks like on TV because it is a fad for the young people. Radio interviews are what really matter.

 

[newyorkguy]

Wrong thread!

 

[xjx388]

You do realize people under 25 spend all their time on social media?


This is like someone in 1960 thinking it matters not what a politician looks like on TV because it is a fad for the young people. Radio interviews are what really matter.

And you know what? They were right. We should spend more time actually listening to the candidates and their platforms than worrying about minutiae like what they look like, what other people have to say about them, mudslinging, Russian bots, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Venom]

And you know what? They were right. We should spend more time actually listening to the candidates and their platforms than worrying about minutiae like what they look like, what other people have to say about them, mudslinging, Russian bots, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Travis' point is perception is reality. Many voters don't take the time to look at all of that, particularly the progressives who want Trump gone but are often bogged down by mischaracterizations of leading Democratic candidates in social media.

 

[kellyb]

I think Travis' point is perception is reality. Many voters don't take the time to look at all of that, particularly the progressives who want Trump gone but are often bogged down by mischaracterizations of leading Democratic candidates in social media.

Yeah.

Honestly, I'm fine with his periodic...debriefings on what the "youtube comments section" types are currently groupthinking. It might not matter much, but it might be worth knowing, and hey, he delves into that netherworld so we don't have to!

eta: tho really, Travis, I do wish you'd "level up" on your reporting, because the Bernie Bros really aren't saying Harris "kept slaves".
Some "Socialist Party" SJW types might be arguing that she fed the prison industrial complex, which does involve slavery in the most strict legal sense, for her own benefit, though.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is like someone in 1960 thinking it matters not what a politician looks like on TV because it is a fad for the young people. Radio interviews are what really matter.

Travis do you think what a politician looks like on TV actually matters?

In other worlds do you think that shift to a more looks focused politician climate was a good thing?

 

[Belz...]

You do realize people under 25 spend all their time on social media?

"Everybody else does it" is a terrible argument. No, not everyone under 25 does this, and neither you nor anyone needs to. There's really little to be gained by doing it, and in your case it's more harmful than anything else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again there's a fundamental difference between "Use a new form of media to be better informed" and "Use the collective reflexive anonymous Id of all humanity to always have an on call example ready to justify my rage."