2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delvo said:
Polls usually predict votes pretty well, but the problem is that people talking about someone's ability to win fail to distinguish between primaries and general elections... or, worse yet, they get the difference exactly backward. Primaries tend to be much more difficult for progressive candidates than general elections would be, but Democrats have often fallen for the opposite claim. So they talk about needing to go left for the primaries and backstep toward republicanism for the general election, which has a long history of leading to general election losses. And right here in this thread we have someone who keeps bringing up Sanders's primary loss last time and current second-place polling as signs that he can't win the general election. And the Biden situation seems like the myth of future "electability" as back-leaked into primaries so they end up getting treated as one and the same anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've tried before on here to point out that the demographic of democratic primary voters and the demographic of general election voters is not the same. It's why in 2016 you can have Clinton winning the primary but Sanders polled better among independents and in general vs Trump.

The party base is still majority centrist, but not by much, and centrists don't get out the vote for the young and the independent to the extent that a progressive does
 
The_Animus said:
I agree. I've tried before on here to point out that the demographic of democratic primary voters and the demographic of general election voters is not the same. It's why in 2016 you can have Clinton winning the primary but Sanders polled better among independents and in general vs Trump.

The party base is still majority centrist, but not by much, and centrists don't get out the vote for the young and the independent to the extent that a progressive does
Click to expand...
Are you really sure progressives will "get out the vote"?

Usually the stats I see are that older people (those more likely to be centrist) are more likely to vote than younger people (more likely to be progressive.)

That has improved slightly over the past few elections, but there is still a gap.
 
Segnosaur said:
74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
Click to expand...

An initiative for mandatory paid sick leave (accrued at like 1 hour per 40 worked), not paternal or long term medical leave... just sick leave, failed here a couple of years ago. And this is a blue state! Of course that was after a months long smear campaign that businesses were gonna pack up and leave and it'd be a disaster.
 
Segnosaur said:
I agree that the republicans will be of no help in crafting a solution to American's health care issues. (They've shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy and, well, complete scumbags.)

Not sure why you think that going single payer (true single payer) is the only feasible option though... pushing for a UK style mixed public/private system, or a Swiss private (subsidized) insurance system don't seem to be any less politically feasible, and might give better results in the long run.
Click to expand...

Just expanding Medicare to "all" requires less votes then putting together a group to design a whole system.
 
The DNC says no climate change debate:

Inslee announced Wednesday that his campaign had received a call from a DNC official saying it will not host a climate debate. Further, the DNC warned if Inslee participates in any other group’s climate debate “we will not be invited to future debates,” according to the Inslee campaign statement.

“This is deeply disappointing. The DNC is silencing the voices of Democratic activists, many of our progressive partner organizations, and nearly half of the Democratic presidential field, who want to debate the existential crisis of our time,” Inslee said in the statement.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
The DNC says no climate change debate:
Click to expand...

Just in case it escaped your keen eye fro detail, there is no climate change debate.

After all, just about every serious scientific study and researcher on this subject has concluded that man-made climate change is quite real and that man-made climate change is happening right now.

Therefore, there is no need to hold a debate in order to determine if man-made climate change is real or not.
 
Crossbow said:
Just in case it escaped your keen eye fro detail, there is no climate change debate.

After all, just about every serious scientific study and researcher on this subject has concluded that man-made climate change is quite real and that man-made climate change is happening right now.

Therefore, there is no need to hold a debate in order to determine if man-made climate change is real or not.
Click to expand...

bUT THEN WHY DOES iT gET COLD IN THE WINTER? EXPLAIN THAT SCIENCE MAN!
 
Segnosaur said:
Are you really sure progressives will "get out the vote"?

Usually the stats I see are that older people (those more likely to be centrist) are more likely to vote than younger people (more likely to be progressive.)

That has improved slightly over the past few elections, but there is still a gap.
Click to expand...

I'm saying I think the older democratic base are more likely to go vote Democrat regardless of who wins the democratic nomination. Someone who has voted D for the last 20 years just doesn't seem likely to stay home or vote independent even if Sanders or Warren is the nominee

I'm less convinced of that from independents and younger liberals if they feel Biden is 2020's equivalent of Hillary
 
Crossbow said:
Just in case it escaped your keen eye fro detail, there is no climate change debate.

After all, just about every serious scientific study and researcher on this subject has concluded that man-made climate change is quite real and that man-made climate change is happening right now.

Therefore, there is no need to hold a debate in order to determine if man-made climate change is real or not.
Click to expand...
There may not be a question about whether global warming is happening (at least from the science perspective). But, there are different ways that the issue can be addressed... cap&trade vs. carbon tax vs. hard emission limits, investments in renewables vs. nuclear, government subsidies vs. free market approaches.

Some voters may be interested to hear about how global warming may be dealt with. (Even if they don't spend a whole debate on it, addressing it as a topic in one of the general debates seems like a good idea.)
 
Crossbow said:
Therefore, there is no need to hold a debate in order to determine if man-made climate change is real or not.
Click to expand...

Good plan - ignore it, the science is settled.

There's also the chance that a formal debate would allow participants to discuss what needs to be done, the time frame for action, what they're personally intending to do, the costs involved, and how to get an electorate which is mostly stupider than gravel to buy into something that will cost them money.

At least it's a debate of minimal importance, so no great loss.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I agree that the republicans will be of no help in crafting a solution to American's health care issues. (They've shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy and, well, complete scumbags.)

Not sure why you think that going single payer (true single payer) is the only feasible option though... pushing for a UK style mixed public/private system, or a Swiss private (subsidized) insurance system don't seem to be any less politically feasible, and might give better results in the long run.
Click to expand...
Just expanding Medicare to "all" requires less votes then putting together a group to design a whole system.
Click to expand...
What's your definition of 'single payer' then?

To nitpick, "single payer" means that there is no private insurance option or co-pays, anywhere. (At least for covered services.) Simply expanding medicare doesn't make it "single payer" if you can still buy private insurance if you want faster or more specialized treatment. In that scenario, pushing through single payer will also require legislation to ban private insurers (probably a politically unpopular decision.)

Are you equating "single payer" with "universal"? if so, that's wrong.
 
Segnosaur said:
There may not be a question about whether global warming is happening (at least from the science perspective). But, there are different ways that the issue can be addressed... cap&trade vs. carbon tax vs. hard emission limits, investments in renewables vs. nuclear, government subsidies vs. free market approaches.

Some voters may be interested to hear about how global warming may be dealt with. (Even if they don't spend a whole debate on it, addressing it as a topic in one of the general debates seems like a good idea.)
Click to expand...

Quite true.

However, the debate that was mentioned by 'Brainster' was about a very different subject.
 
Crossbow said:
bUT THEN WHY DOES iT gET COLD IN THE WINTER? EXPLAIN THAT SCIENCE MAN!
Click to expand...
Winter is the will of God, therefore winter is exempt from those pesky science things.
;)
Click to expand...
Winter goes in, Winter goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why winter goes in.

(Personally I think its due to the white walkers.... we need to immediately launch a military strike against them.)
 
The Atheist said:
Good plan - ignore it, the science is settled.

There's also the chance that a formal debate would allow participants to discuss what needs to be done, the time frame for action, what they're personally intending to do, the costs involved, and how to get an electorate which is mostly stupider than gravel to buy into something that will cost them money.

At least it's a debate of minimal importance, so no great loss.
Click to expand...

I hope that you are aware that the debate which 'Brainster' mentioned did not have anything to do with what needs to be done, time frames, action plans, costs, or anything like that in regards to climate change.
 
Crossbow said:
There may not be a question about whether global warming is happening (at least from the science perspective). But, there are different ways that the issue can be addressed... cap&trade vs. carbon tax vs. hard emission limits, investments in renewables vs. nuclear, government subsidies vs. free market approaches.
Click to expand...
Quite true.

However, the debate that was mentioned by 'Brainster' was about a very different subject.
Click to expand...
I certainly didn't get that impression.

Nothing in the article suggested the debate was going to be about the validity of the science behind global warming. (And indeed it had a quote from the candidate pushing for the debate as involving "plans" for dealing with the issue.)

From the article: “We’ve kicked the can down the road for too long. The climate crisis merits a full discussion of our plans, not a short exchange of talking points,” he said.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, the debate was to be about what Segnosaur said. A debate about what to do. Not a single denier expected.
Click to expand...
If the debate was about the science of global warming, it would be probably the dullest debate ever.

Moderator: Is global warming happening?
Candidate 1: Yup
Candidate 2: Yes
Candidate 3: Sure is
Candidate 4: Of course.
Candidate 5: Yes I believe so
Candidate 6: Sure thing
...
Candidate 256: You bet it is
Moderator: And that concludes tonight's debate.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, the debate was to be about what Segnosaur said. A debate about what to do. Not a single denier expected.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I still fail to see your consternation.

I believe that every Democrat running for president has made what to do about climate change to be a major component of his/her candidacy. None of them are discussing if climate change is real or not, but instead what to do about the problems of climate change.

Also, I was just reviewing the national Democrat platform, and there is a large section about how climate change needs to be addressed.
 
Crossbow said:
No, the debate was to be about what Segnosaur said. A debate about what to do. Not a single denier expected.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I still fail to see your consternation.

I believe that every Democrat running for president has made what to do about climate change to be a major component of his/her candidacy. None of them are discussing if climate change is real or not, but instead what to do about the problems of climate change.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand what your argument here is.

Early on I pointed out that there were reasons to include candidate's plans to address global warming in a debate.
You said "That's not what the proposed debate was about".
I pointed out that the article specifically mentioned plans.
And now you're discussing how every candidate is discussing their plans to address global warming.

What did you think the debate (the one that won't go ahead) was actually supposed to be about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom