2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delphic Oracle said:
I think the center makes a lot of America warm and fuzzy, but doesn't get them to the polls. With trust in leadership at abysmal lows, a candidate marginally aligned with your views, but solid in holding those views is a better bet than a candidate who is for-sure everything you like, you bet, promise, cross-my-heart and pinky-swear...to everybody.

If a small crowd at a town hall event or a brief twitter storm shake their principles, why would you expect they could stand up to K Street in D.C.?
Click to expand...

I've always been of the opinion that it is as much or more how people feel about the candidates than policy positions. It's the intangibles.

This is why nominating a gay person or a woman or another minority concerns me. That said, a dynamic personality like an Obama can transcend that. People just get over those things if the find a way to connect and trust them.
 
acbytesla said:
I've always been of the opinion that it is as much or more how people feel about the candidates than policy positions. It's the intangibles.

This is why nominating a gay person or a woman or another minority concerns me. That said, a dynamic personality like an Obama can transcend that. People just get over those things if the find a way to connect and trust them.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm saying that the mood right now is that certitude is a big factor in trust.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
How do you know those Warren bashers aren't planted trolls or even just plain trolls?
Click to expand...

To be fair, the usual signs (mangled english or AAVE, stock photos for avatars, recent join dates, etc.) aren't there for any of the people quoted. Not that this changes the basic fact that most Sanders primary voters would vote for whoever isn't Dolt 45 regardless, and the few that wouldn't vote for Warren are the Bernie stans still angry over 2016, but those few aren't likely trollers. I agree with kellyb, basically - although a couple don't even like Sanders, so who knows what they're about.

Also, is everyone here clear on the fact that Bernie ran in 2016 to push issues, rather than to actually become president? If you don't bother even trying to persuade nonwhite voters in the dem primary, then you aren't actually trying to win.
 
acbytesla said:
I've always been of the opinion that it is as much or more how people feel about the candidates than policy positions. It's the intangibles.

This is why nominating a gay person or a woman or another minority concerns me. That said, a dynamic personality like an Obama can transcend that. People just get over those things if the find a way to connect and trust them.
Click to expand...

It is generally seen as bad in the gay community for someone to say, "I was going to hire the homosexual, I'm pro gay, but my customers are not, so I refused to hire him because of his sexual orientation. It is just a high profile position and I have to think of my customers and employees."

If there is a downside to being the side that thinks sexual orientation should not be a factor in choosing someone for a role, it is probably that you can't consider it when choosing someone for a role.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I guess I'm saying that the mood right now is that certitude is a big factor in trust.
Click to expand...

I've been a political junkie since JFK. My college degree is in political science. I've worked on a dozen campaigns and I think its fair to say that a certain percentage of voters vote with their guts and not their brains. And these are the people who often decide who wins.

This is the only reason that someone who is a Bernie supporter vote for Trump if that is real and I have serious doubts that those people actually exist.

I listen to politicians tell obvious lies and some voters still swallow those lies hook line and sinker. Reagan was a master at this. He said, he was going to cut taxes, increase military spending significantly and balance the budget. Any one with a brain knew that was bull. But people bought it. He did cut taxes (On the wealthy. Reagan actually raised taxes on the middle class) He did increase military spending. But he blew a hole in the budget so big, you could drive a truck through it. But Reagan the happy warrior was charming. He had that x factor.

Carter was the antithesis of Nixon. He was a boy scout. Ridiculously honest, unassuming, everyday but smart guy. He might not have won at a different time, but he was the perfect candidate following Nixon. I never though either Bush had the x factor, but neither did the Democrats they faced. Clinton definitely had it and so did Obama.

Trump has a bit of that X factor, but he's also corrupt and incoherent. I've never heard a Presidential candidate speak and make less sense and come off more of a moron than Trump. And yet some people buy into it. But if you ask them why they make as much sense as he does which is not much.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is generally seen as bad in the gay community for someone to say, "I was going to hire the homosexual, I'm pro gay, but my customers are not, so I refused to hire him because of his sexual orientation. It is just a high profile position and I have to think of my customers and employees."

If there is a downside to being the side that thinks sexual orientation should not be a factor in choosing someone for a role, it is probably that you can't consider it when choosing someone for a role.
Click to expand...

Who said life was fair?

The more I learn about Mayor Pete, the more I like him and want to support him. He's brilliant, he cares, he's a real intellectual. Rhodes Scholar and Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard and Oxford. Speaks 7 languages and Military veteran served in Afghanistan.

But we cannot afford 4 more years of the orange lump of fecal matter So above almost everything is nominating a candidate who can send Trump packing.
 
acbytesla said:
Who said life was fair?
Click to expand...

Who said it was fair? The unfairness is that you face the dilemma of supporting a group that says gay people should nor be excluded from things because they are gay, as you proceed to try and exclude gay people from something because they are gay. You may have coalition problems.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Who said it was fair? The unfairness is that you face the dilemma of supporting a group that says gay people should nor be excluded from things because they are gay, as you proceed to try and exclude gay people from something because they are gay. You may have coalition problems.
Click to expand...

I get it. If Pete wins the nomination, I'm voting for him. I'm not hesitating. He'll be my guy. But I might not vote for him in the primary if I think him being gay is too big of obstacle to him being elected. I haven't made up my mind on this at this point.

You see, I don't really give a damn who's President. He/she/it could be a rainbow colored transexual alien from another planet for all I care. AIl I really care only about are the effects of their presidency on every day Americans.
 
acbytesla said:
I get it. If Pete wins the nomination, I'm voting for him. I'm not hesitating. He'll be my guy. But I might not vote for him in the primary if I think him being gay is too big of obstacle to him being elected. I haven't made up my mind on this at this point.

You see, I don't really give a damn who's President. He/she/it could be a rainbow colored transexual alien from another planet for all I care. AIl I really care only about are the effects of their presidency on every day Americans.
Click to expand...

The problem is if people like you get your way, it might be hard to get the gay community onboard wtih the eventual candidate.

ETA: because when he doesn't get nominated for reasonable reasons, I'm going to have posts like these saved to spread around the gay community until November 2020.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The problem is if people like you get your way, it might be hard to get the gay community onboard wtih the eventual candidate.

ETA: because when he doesn't get nominated for reasonable reasons, I'm going to have posts like these saved to spread around the gay community until November 2020.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe these people aren't practical. That they don't already know that getting acceptance is a challenge. That they don't know the effects that Trump and the Republicans are having on the country.

Is it better to break new ground like Hillary did in being the first female nominee of a major party and LOSING resulting in Trump for 4 more years or nominating someone who wins? I think it's a fair question.
 
acbytesla said:
You seem to believe these people aren't practical. That they don't already know that getting acceptance is a challenge. That they don't know the effects that Trump and the Republicans are having on the country.

Is it better to break new ground like Hillary did in being the first female nominee of a major party and LOSING resulting in Trump for 4 more years or nominating someone who wins? I think it's a fair question.
Click to expand...

Go to the community, tell them your strategy, and ask them if they are practical.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't need to. Do you really think these people are going to vote Republican because some Democrats prioritize winning in this election?
Click to expand...

No.im saying some are going to stay home because democrats would be embracing a position that democrats allegedly reject.

At some point it ceases being that democratic party because of choices like that. Lyndon Johnson knows something about that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No.im saying some are going to stay home because democrats would be embracing a position that democrats allegedly reject.

At some point it ceases being that democratic party because of choices like that. Lyndon Johnson knows something about that.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you you.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You disagree that Johnson would know something about taking a position that changes the party base?
Click to expand...

No, not that. Just you're idea that th it s would cause many of these individuals to start voting Republican. Take a look who is VP and his positions on gay rights. Trump is rolling back rights for gays and transgenders. Is there a single Democratic candidate who wouldn't change that? I dont think so.
 
My current power poll based totally on my non rational basis operation (see above) but basically how I feel right now.


1) Harris
2) Buttigieg
3) Biden
4) Warren
5) Bernie


And then the field. This is just based on who I think is electable and tolerable. And only right now, long time until the primaries.
 
acbytesla said:
No, not that. Just you're idea that th it s would cause many of these individuals to start voting Republican. Take a look who is VP and his positions on gay rights. Trump is rolling back rights for gays and transgenders. Is there a single Democratic candidate who wouldn't change that? I dont think so.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Never said they would vote republican
What good are democrats if they are pro discrimination based on sexual orientation?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom