2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
Sure, many Dems are thinking Biden right now because they are afraid another candidate may result in four more years with the Trumpster. However, I doubt most of them are overly concerned about the suspension of future elections or "concentration camps".
Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that Bush Jr. had FEMA make those camps, and Obama expanded them. They're just waiting for the right dictator!
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Because it's a crap excuse and people know it. Biden has electability problems: he's too touchy, and faced with an unscrupulous and openly hostile media conglomerate who will amplify anything they find to his detriment. Hell, the President has already started tweeting videos.

At any rate, I ended up answering my own question. Biden's popularity is in line with his name recognition. The only opinion people have of him that matters is "do I know this guy."


No, the Democratic party has forgotten what politics is, and Hillary apparently wasn't enough of a reminder. This is McGovern all over again.
Click to expand...

If a poll asks someone who they currently support and they are really only aware of a candidate or two they're going to pick them. So those candidates rank high in the polling, which results in more media coverage and claims about them being most likely to beat Trump, which in turn results in higher recognition. Then the cycle repeats.

I think we need to do more studies on the effects of media and polling on elections.
 
Brainster said:
Um, no, that was not what I was trying to do. Rather I was pointing out that the DNC apparently does not feel that the issue every Democratic candidate seems to agree is the existential crisis of our time is important enough for its own debate.

And there is plenty to debate without denying climate change. This actually is an area where we might see some separation betweem the candidates. Who's pro-nukes and who's anti? Who thinks we should get rid of air and auto travel in the next ten years? Who signs on to AOC's Green New Deal?
Click to expand...

Thanks much for the clarification, but you are still wrong.

With about 25 people running for Democrat presidential nomination, there is simply not enough time to fully debate the optimal approach to the climate change program in a 90 minute format (which is the usual length of such debates).

I can assure you that there will be plenty of debate between these candidates regarding what to do about climate change, however the debate will not be done in the way that this fellow Inslee wants the debate to be done.
 
Crossbow said:
Thanks much for the clarification, but you are still wrong.

With about 25 people running for Democrat presidential nomination, there is simply not enough time to fully debate the optimal approach to the climate change program in a 90 minute format (which is the usual length of such debates).

I can assure you that there will be plenty of debate between these candidates regarding what to do about climate change, however the debate will not be done in the way that this fellow Inslee wants the debate to be done.
Click to expand...

Is there any topic which could be fully debated by 25 candidates in 90 minutes? May as well just cancel them completely.
 
The_Animus said:
Is there any topic which could be fully debated by 25 candidates in 90 minutes? May as well just cancel them completely.
Click to expand...
It's the "if you organize or attend such a debate, you'll be punished" part that sticks in my craw.

I mean I'd understand if someone tried to organize debates on something that goes against the party platform, but constricting discussion down to a handful of "allowed topics" is a bit overboard in terms of message discipline.

I'll be the first to admit the Democratic Party needs to be a bit more unified in vision, but this is going too far the other way.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
It's the "if you organize or attend such a debate, you'll be punished" part that sticks in my craw.
Click to expand...
That's something I'm a little curious about...

The article I read basically made the claim second/3rd hand. I'm just wondering if there may have been some misinterpretation in there somewhere.
 
It's easy to overlook the fact Biden only has a bigger share than the other candidates. But if the votes for the top three were combined, Biden would be losing by a very wide margin. The problem is Biden has a ready-made base, but he does not have a ready-made majority. As the ranks thin, and Lordy I hope they do, I don't see many people shifting their votes to Biden.

Bernie will never give up, he's on his crusade. So his vote may remain split between Warren and himself.

Some of those candidates yesterday gave canned speeches that after Trump seem phonier than usual. Don't know if anyone else felt that way about them. Not that you can say much in a 5 minute speech.
 
My wild-ass guess is that the mixed reception of the GND by the American public has made the DNC a little gunshy. Some of the candidates surely want to push their climate change platform, but the DNC doesn't want the entire clown car to get into a slapfight over it during the early stages of the winnowing process. Safer to wait until the nominee is known, and let them craft something nuanced and tailored to counter the GOP position in the general election.

Right now, the DNC is looking at the reality that all their candidates basically agree that AGW is real and bad; but all their candidates have to say stuff that differentiates them from their competition and makes them stand out. Having them try to stand out on an issue they all agree on is an electability disaster waiting to happen.

I think it's a combination of being an extremely hyped topic, an extremely contentious topic, and a topic where the progressives have already staked out the "science is settled, debate is over" ground. Whichever candidate wins the nomination by having a more extreme policy towards AGW than the rest of the field, is going to have to ride that horse into the general election. Seems like the DNC is opting to close the barn door before the horse gets out, in this case.
 
The_Animus said:
Is there any topic which could be fully debated by 25 candidates in 90 minutes? May as well just cancel them completely.
Click to expand...

I know.

With such a wide and heavily populated field candidates and so little debating time between them, then it is going to be difficult to make much sense of anything.

So my guess is that each candidate will do his/her best to get in their respective sound bite before their allotted time expires and the electorate will just have try to get the data that the really need elsewhere.
 
I'd love to see if in the post-social media age any rises or falls in the polls that a candidate gets after a debate sticks long term.
 
Well.... considering how the whole discourse seems to keep falling back to Biden in every single discussion I enter, I'm gonna say he's most likely to be the Democratic nominee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom