2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
How times have changed: Bill De Blasio has to apologize for quoting Che Guevara:

De Blasio said he would stand by the workers "every step of the way." He also shouted "Hasta la Victoria, siempre!" —— or "Until victory, always" —— a phrase most associated with revolutionary leader Che Guevara. It also became a rallying cry for Castro.
Click to expand...

I remember back in the early 1970s National Lampoon had an "Is Nothing Sacred" issue. On the cover was the iconic Che poster getting a pie in the face.
 
So far I'm coming away with a raised respect for Harris. She's cut through the policy speak and data points to talk about values and perspectives.
 
Mumbles said:
Mayor Pete's doing better than I expected - although he's still too general. Biden and Sanders aren't fumbling too many answers, the best so far is Harris - she always will be as the career lawyer, much like Hillary was the best debater every time she was on the debating stage.
Click to expand...

I think Sanders has been way too general and relying on "revolution". I see a lot more Warren switches.

Biden, I just don't know what he's saying, even if he says it strongly. He's very "old man rambling" to me. But people like that about Trump. He absolutely botched running on his record with Mitch.

Harris has done very well. Pete wasn't as powerful, but he hit the right notes with the college and climate debates to include rural voters.

Everyone else annoyed me. Swalwell and crazy woman were cringy. Hickenlooper was running scared of "socialism". Gillibrand was a bit one note. Yang was super one note.
 
Stop me if this sounds familiar:

The Drudge Report political website posted a surprising instant poll showing that its visitors believed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was the overwhelming victor of the first Democratic presidential debate, polling at almost 35% with 12,314 votes.

Her closest competitor was Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who was polling at just under 13.5% and 4,791 votes. Julián Castro of Texas and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey were polling the lowest with less than 5% each.
Click to expand...

This sounds quite a bit like the whole Ron Paul Revolution back in 2008. Ron Paul won every online poll back then, by huge margins, even though his poll numbers by regular (telephone) polls were consistently in the also-ran category of 8-10%. But the Paulites insisted that times had changed, that somehow even though these online polls could be gamed by people with modest computer skills and lots of dedication, the internet polls were very significant.

And of course once the voting started, Ron Paul began getting the 8-10% (or less) that anybody with any sense would have predicted he'd get. Tulsi won't come near that, I suspect.

I also note there seems to be a lot of overlap between Paulites and Tulsians.
 
Last edited:
^ That's not a representative poll, it's a poll of Drudge Report readers. Only shows how easily Tulsi can reach "across the isle". Trump has his worst nightmares about having to run against her.
 
I think the winners were Harris and Buttigeig. Bidden and Sanders held their territory but didn't break any ground. Yang was practically a no show.
 
I think people will be focusing on the performance aspect, or about leaning too far to pivot for the general, but for me the biggest issue is Biden's history with McConnell, as Bennett pointed out. There's a decent chance Mitch will still be Senate Majority Leader, and Biden doesn't seem to even understand that he doesn't know how to handle him.
 
Childlike Empress said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/7QvsHtL.jpg[/qimg]

Excellent. Some neon-nazis claim that it was just for nudes but I don't believe that.
Click to expand...

neon_nazi_reloaded_by_front_a_little-d32igv8.jpg
 
Too much talking over each other, out of turn, in the second night.

I of course still favor Bernie Sanders, but too often he just kept reaching into his bag of platitudes and talking points rather than address the questions head on.

Kamala Harris may have killed Uncle Joe's campaign.
 
Delvo said:
The Dems need the centrist vote to win.
Click to expand...
Why don't the Republicans?
Click to expand...
Well, for one, the Republicans tend to get more support from people who are older and/or are evangelical christians, and they tend to be more reliable voters than the younger people and minorities that make up much of the democratic party base. (Thus, they can afford to give up a little more of the political center than the Democrats.)

I should say though, perhaps the word 'need' is slightly inaccurate. Rather than 'need', it might be more accurate to say 'is more likely to win with...'. Plus, the 'centrist' vote is not monolithic, and there may be a few that don't vote with the majority.
Re: Progressives as a democratic version of the Tea Party...

The Tea Party movement has been pretty successful.
Click to expand...
They have certainly managed to get some congress-critters elected. (In those cases, their extremist/anti-cooperation mindset can get significant support in small areas.) However, they have not had much luck getting one of their own candidates elected to the presidency, where the candidate has to appeal to a wider geographic area with different demographics.

You might count Trump as a 'tea partier' but I think he is a different animal all together.
 
dudalb said:
Watch Warren start to back pedal on this within a few days.
I think the danger that Warren and Berrnie face is in trying to go farther to the left then each other to win the progressive vote, they move so far to the left as to make themselves unelectable in November.
Click to expand...

Mmm... I don't know. Warren has backed/co-authored a variety of increased healthcare bills, at last check. I can't speak directly to what she said in the debate here, but I think she's made it pretty clear that the specifics aren't as important to her as the end goal of everyone ending up with affordable health care.

Venom said:
Kamala Harris may have killed Uncle Joe's campaign.
Click to expand...

Please yes. Joe is one of the candidates that I want the least. Not because he's supposedly "centrist," but because of, well, him and his decisions. I don't want Bernie much, either, though, but I think much better of him.
 
Aridas said:
Mmm... I don't know. Warren has backed/co-authored a variety of increased healthcare bills, at last check. I can't speak directly to what she said in the debate here, but I think she's made it pretty clear that the specifics aren't as important to her as the end goal of everyone ending up with affordable health care.



Please yes. Joe is one of the candidates that I want the least. Not because he's supposedly "centrist," but because of, well, him and his decisions. I don't want Bernie much, either, though, but I think much better of him.
Click to expand...
But she's a socialist!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...medicare-for-all-kamala-harris-bernie-sanders
 
I think there was a sharp dropoff in candidate quality after Gillibrand. Her, Castro, and Yang seem to me to be single-issue candidates. They have a strong position on one thing that divides the Democrats, and hammer that nail with every chance to speak, so I'd like to see them have a place in future debates. Maybe Inslee if he can figure out some kind of actual plan for climate change. Everyone else on the wings can get axed.


Biden and Sanders seemed old. Old old oooold.

"Do I want a ham or turkey sandwich? I'll tell ya what I don't want! Wall Street!"
"I'll have you know that when I was a junior senator I shook hands with Abraham Lincoln and bid him a good day."

Warren's pretty close to their age, but didn't come off nearly as crotchety.

Booker, Buttigieg and Harris had the best nights. Since exposure has been all three's problem, I'm expecting the race will tighten considerably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom