2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[JoeMorgue]

Also is the simple suggestion that a lot of modern life saving and life improving drugs got invented precisely because some pharmaceutical company smelled a massive payday... like that crazy of an idea?

I mean we I suppose we could just hope that the same number of drugs are going to be invented under a "Oh just do what's good for mankind and don't worry about the money."

Alls I'm saying is if you take two groups of 100 pharmaceutical scientists and tell one group "Okay if you cure cancer... you're gonna make an obscene crapton of money" and the other group "Okay if you cure cancer.... you're gonna get to feel really good about what you've done for mankind".... the first group is probably gonna cure cancer first. Call me cynical.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Also is the simple suggestion that a lot of modern life saving and life improving drugs got invented precisely because some pharmaceutical company smelled a massive payday... like that crazy of an idea?

I mean we I suppose we could just hope that the same number of drugs are going to be invented under a "Oh just do what's good for mankind and don't worry about the money."

Alls I'm saying is if you take two groups of 100 pharmaceutical scientists and tell one group "Okay if you cure cancer... you're gonna make an obscene crapton of money" and the other group "Okay if you cure cancer.... you're gonna get to feel really good about what you've done for mankind".... the first group is probably gonna cure cancer first. Call me cynical.

You left out the actual situation: "if you cure cancer the shareholders of the company that employs you will make an obscene crapton of money". The actual scientists get their salaries, an NDA, and a noncompete clause.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Also is the simple suggestion that a lot of modern life saving and life improving drugs got invented precisely because some pharmaceutical company smelled a massive payday... like that crazy of an idea?

I mean we I suppose we could just hope that the same number of drugs are going to be invented under a "Oh just do what's good for mankind and don't worry about the money."

Alls I'm saying is if you take two groups of 100 pharmaceutical scientists and tell one group "Okay if you cure cancer... you're gonna make an obscene crapton of money" and the other group "Okay if you cure cancer.... you're gonna get to feel really good about what you've done for mankind".... the first group is probably gonna cure cancer first. Call me cynical.

These drug companies are not operating on slim margins. They aren't going to give up research because they can only make a couple billion instead of a hundred billion.

 

[Segnosaur]

OK, all you people nervous about a female candidate, keep in mind Clinton, with all her baggage, won by 3 million votes. Her campaign strategy decisions and Russian interference are some of the reasons Trump is in the White House. She didn't lose because voters wouldn't accept a female POTUS.

Trump's margin of victory was extremely narrow, and came down to a few thousand votes in 3 states.

There were a lot of things going on in the election, and Hillary did have several factors going against her. Sadly, one of those may have been the fact that she was a woman. (Something like 6% of the population said they would not want a woman president. And those are the ones who openly admit it... I figure other people will say "I'm OK with a woman", but still dismiss any female candidate because... reasons.)

Now, the fact that she was a woman may not have caused her to lose the campaign by itself, but it may have been the "straw that broke the camel's back.... when the loss was so slim, its possible that a male candidate in the same circumstances might have been able to eek out a victory.

(Not that I'm saying I'm against the idea of a woman president... I just recognize that, at this point in history, women are still at an unfair political disadvantage.)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-dont-want-a-president-who-is-over-70-really/

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've said this before but if you had put me on the spot in... 2000 or so and asked me which was gonna happen first; a female President or an African American one, I would have said female without much hesitation. I can't put my finger on why.

 

[Segnosaur]

I've said this before but if you had put me on the spot in... 2000 or so and asked me which was gonna happen first; a female President or an African American one, I would have said female without much hesitation. I can't put my finger on why.

Well, if nothing else, half the population of the U.S. is female, and less than 13% is African American. So, it would be a good guess for no other reason than "there are more women around/more potential candidates".

That the U.S. had an African-American president first probably has to do with just a case of right-time/right-place. Elections only happen every 4 years, so they don't happen that frequently to begin with. Obama was a decent politician with little political baggage who happened to come along at the time when the republicans were coming off 2 terms with a very unpopular president.

(I think he did a good job, but sadly that doesn't always matter when dealing with politics.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, if nothing else, half the population of the U.S. is female, and less than 13% is African American. So, it would be a good guess for no other reason than "there are more women around/more potential candidates".

Yeah but...

Okay 95% of African Americans voted for Obama as opposed to McCain in 2008. In 2012 that was 93% voting for Obama over Romney.

But in 2018 Hillary only got 54% of the female vote, Trump got 41. I mean that's still lopsided but it's not the "Obama/McCain with African Americans" divide or even close.

Obama did better with women then Hillary did. Obama took 55% of the female vote.

"Women" speaking of them as a voting demographic only are... weird. They don't seem to particularly like female candidates all that much more then the general populace.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, if nothing else, half the population of the U.S. is female, and less than 13% is African American. So, it would be a good guess for no other reason than "there are more women around/more potential candidates".

Yeah but...

Okay 95% of African Americans voted for Obama as opposed to McCain in 2008. In 2012 that was 93% voting for Obama over Romney.
But in 2018 Hillary only got 54% of the female vote, Trump got 41. I mean that's still lopsided but it's not the "Obama/McCain with African Americans" divide or even close.
...
"Women" speaking of them as a voting demographic only are... weird. They don't seem to particularly like female candidates all that much more then the general populace.

I'm not denying that that's true.

But the issue I was a addressing wasn't a comparison between voting patterns... I was only addressing the issue about why a guess that a woman would be a president before an african American might seem logical a few decades ago.... more potential women candidates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump's margin of victory was extremely narrow, and came down to a few thousand votes in 3 states.

There were a lot of things going on in the election, and Hillary did have several factors going against her. Sadly, one of those may have been the fact that she was a woman. (Something like 6% of the population said they would not want a woman president. And those are the ones who openly admit it... I figure other people will say "I'm OK with a woman", but still dismiss any female candidate because... reasons.)

Now, the fact that she was a woman may not have caused her to lose the campaign by itself, but it may have been the "straw that broke the camel's back.... when the loss was so slim, its possible that a male candidate in the same circumstances might have been able to eek out a victory.

(Not that I'm saying I'm against the idea of a woman president... I just recognize that, at this point in history, women are still at an unfair political disadvantage.)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-dont-want-a-president-who-is-over-70-really/

Of course. Some won't vote for a black or Hispanic either. Or a homosexual. Or an atheist.

So only white males under age 70 should get the nom?

If the person is dynamic and rises to the top of this pack, that is who we should vote for. There is no more reason to worry about people who won't vote for a woman than there is to worry about people that won't vote for a black.

Given women are mobilized, a female candidate may very well have an advantage not a disadvantage this go round.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've said this before but if you had put me on the spot in... 2000 or so and asked me which was gonna happen first; a female President or an African American one, I would have said female without much hesitation. I can't put my finger on why.

My guess on why is that you were not considering the influence the individuals contribute to the equation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So only white males under age 70 should get the nom?

Depends on what is more important to you at the particular moment; a political victory or a moral/social one.

Please note I'm not saying either one of those are better. Neither am I saying a female/young/colored/gay/atheist/puts the toilet paper under handed candidate has no chance, just simply that factoring in it as to the political viability of a candidate is not always evil.

Do we want to win or do we want to send a message? Both of those are good, noble things that we have to do at least some of the time.

 

[Segnosaur]

There were a lot of things going on in the election, and Hillary did have several factors going against her. Sadly, one of those may have been the fact that she was a woman. (Something like 6% of the population said they would not want a woman president.

Of course. Some won't vote for a black or Hispanic either. Or a homosexual. Or an atheist.

Which is all true. But given the fact that Clinton was none of those things, then its irrelevant.

She WAS a woman however (as are several of the current Democratic candidates).

So only white males under age 70 should get the nom?

I never said that. But I think its a bit silly to ignore the possibility that a candidate may be at a disadvantage for reasons unrelated to their abilities.

As I pointed out, 6% of the population does not want a woman president. Trump's margin of victory in the 3 swing states that the Democrats lost was far less than 6%. Were it not for sexism, you may have had a democrat sitting in the white house rather than Stubby McBonespurs.

If the person is dynamic and rises to the top of this pack, that is who we should vote for.

That's who the population SHOULD vote for. But sadly things don't always work out the way they should.

Given women are mobilized, a female candidate may very well have an advantage not a disadvantage this go round.

I certainly hope that that is the case. And I certainly prefer any of the candidates (women, minorities, and straight white males) over what the Republicans have to offer.)

 

[Aridas]

I thought it was interesting the article calls Need To Impeach a "progressive movement", whatever that means.

One of the major pillars of Progressivism was and fairly certainly still is anti-corruption, so perhaps that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Depends on what is more important to you at the particular moment; a political victory or a moral/social one.

Please note I'm not saying either one of those are better. Neither am I saying a female/young/colored/gay/atheist/puts the toilet paper under handed candidate has no chance, just simply that factoring in it as to the political viability of a candidate is not always evil.

Do we want to win or do we want to send a message? Both of those are good, noble things that we have to do at least some of the time.

This after you said you got it wrong before?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which is all true. But given the fact that Clinton was none of those things, then its irrelevant.

She WAS a woman however (as are several of the current Democratic candidates).

I never said that. But I think its a bit silly to ignore the possibility that a candidate may be at a disadvantage for reasons unrelated to their abilities.

As I pointed out, 6% of the population does not want a woman president. Trump's margin of victory in the 3 swing states that the Democrats lost was far less than 6%. Were it not for sexism, you may have had a democrat sitting in the white house rather than Stubby McBonespurs.


That's who the population SHOULD vote for. But sadly things don't always work out the way they should.

I certainly hope that that is the case. And I certainly prefer any of the candidates (women, minorities, and straight white males) over what the Republicans have to offer.)

It's a small disadvantage. The other candidates have their own disadvantages. Why are you elevating this disadvantage over the others?

Being a woman didn't stop a significant number of people voting for Clinton.

It's an old fashioned concept that people won't vote for a female POTUS.

Being a woman will likely be an advantage. Consider the women who marched all over the world the day after Trump was inaugurated.

 

[Segnosaur]

I never said that. But I think its a bit silly to ignore the possibility that a candidate may be at a disadvantage for reasons unrelated to their abilities.

As I pointed out, 6% of the population does not want a woman president. Trump's margin of victory in the 3 swing states that the Democrats lost was far less than 6%. Were it not for sexism, you may have had a democrat sitting in the white house rather than Stubby McBonespurs.

It's a small disadvantage. The other candidates have their own disadvantages. Why are you elevating this disadvantage over the others?

I'm not.

I'm pointing out sexism as an problem because the subject of Hillary Clinton came up. If someone was discussing Buttigieg or Sanders, I might be discussing how homophobia or anti-jewish attitudes would similarly put a candidate at a disadvantage.

There are over 20 candidates in the current Democratic primaries, involving a wide combination of genders, ages, races, religions, and sexual orientations. Every candidate will have disadvantages, some unique to the individual (e.g. Biden's background), some that are based on bigotry (sexism, racism, homophobia). If you want to compare the risks of selecting particular candidates, you'd need to give 2 different ones so an appropriate side-by-side comparison can be made.

Being a woman didn't stop a significant number of people voting for Clinton.

You're right, it didn't stop many people from voting for her. She even won the popular vote. Yet she failed to win the presidency, and her loss was due to a smaller percentage of people who said "I won't vote for a woman president" in a few key states.

Which is more important to you, an actual political win, or a "moral" victory (which might see a republican win, even if you can pat yourself on the back and say "we picked the best person... even though they lost".)

It's an old fashioned concept that people won't vote for a female POTUS.

The United States currently has a president who has expressed obvious signs of racism and sexism, yet still commands >40% popular support (and managed to win the election in 2016, even though those tendencies were already well known.)

Remember, its not jut a case of getting 'millions of votes' from supporters... the candidate may have to fight for the votes of people who may not normally be inclined to vote Democrat.

Being a woman will likely be an advantage. Consider the women who marched all over the world the day after Trump was inaugurated.

Maybe it will be this time. Maybe Trump's victory might have cut back on some of the complatency that some voters may have had. But there is no guarantee of that.

 

[The Atheist]

It's Liz Warren's time.

She's striking a perfect balance between all the factions and must be the candidate.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eliz...uarter-fundraising_n_5d234b5fe4b01b83473a454e

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not.

.... Yet she failed to win the presidency, and her loss was due to a smaller percentage of people who said "I won't vote for a woman president" in a few key states....

Where do you get this crap from?

Clinton: made some campaign mistakes
Comey: delivered an unethical Nov surprise
Cambridge Analytica: micro-targeted those key states, discouraging black voters coming to the polls

Do you have any evidence Cambridge Analytica even amplified the 'women can't be POTUS' theme?

Any evidence it was particularly problematic in those key states?

I think you are claiming something you personally believe is intuitive actually was the 2016 issue. Where's your evidence gender was a key deciding issue?

The United States currently has a president who has expressed obvious signs of racism and sexism, yet still commands >40% popular support (and managed to win the election in 2016, even though those tendencies were already well known.)

That doesn't mean they voted for him because he was sexist. They didn't vote against him because of it.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm not.

.... Yet she failed to win the presidency, and her loss was due to a smaller percentage of people who said "I won't vote for a woman president" in a few key states....

Where do you get this crap from?

I posted a reference to an opinion poll earlier that showed ~6% of people stating they would not vote for a woman. That's where I get this from.

You on the other hand just use a lot of hand-waving "Oh, I'm sure women will rise up and take over".

Clinton: made some campaign mistakes
Comey: delivered an unethical Nov surprise
Cambridge Analytica: micro-targeted those key states, discouraging black voters coming to the polls

I think you are claiming something you personally believe is intuitive actually was the 2016 issue. Where's your evidence gender was a key deciding issue?

Here's a suggestion... why don't you go back and read what I posted earlier?

I specifically pointed out that there were a lot of problems/issues in the 2016 election for Clinton and the democrats. Had there been any difference (no russian interference, no FBI October surprise), she might have one. But the fact that there was sexism may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I.e. just that one little issue that was enough to tip the scales from victory to defeat. It by itself might not have caused her loss, but it was

Do you not understand what the phrase "straw that broke the camel's back" actually means?

Do you have any evidence Cambridge Analytica even amplified the 'women can't be POTUS' theme?

No, but I never claimed that they did.

The whole sexist "I won't vote for a woman" thing is not something that was created by Trump, the republicans, or the Russian-financed electoral interference. Its just a long-running bigotry in society. Pick any woman and a portion of the electorate will automatically say "Nope, don't want no women being president."

Now, I believe that type of sexism is gradually disappearing from society (as is similar "I will not vote for a gay/muslim/etc." candidate). But it still exists.

Any evidence it was particularly problematic in those key states?

No, but that was never my claim that it was particularly problematic in those key states.

I'm sure there were people in all 50 states who thought "I don't want no woman president". Those key states are significant because: 1) Clinton lost them, and 2) the margin of loss was very small (less than the number of people who said "No women president".) In other words, it illustrated the problem of sexism in the electorate fairly clearly.

She also lost Texas by 9%. If the anti-woman bias didn't exist, she still would have lost Texas, but by a smaller margin. But it wouldn't have made a difference in the final election, so there's not much point talking about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I posted a reference to an opinion poll earlier that showed ~6% of people stating they would not vote for a woman. That's where I get this from.

IOW you don't get what I said, at all.

You on the other hand just use a lot of hand-waving "Oh, I'm sure women will rise up and take over".

Not what I said, but I'm sure straw is easier to argue with.

Here's a suggestion... why don't you go back and read what I posted earlier?

I did read it. How about you try again:

What evidence do you have that people not voting for a female POTUS was the deal breaker? You have no such evidence.

None of what you are saying is relevant because it drifted off the point.

If you are going to discount the women in the running because a small percentage of voters still believe women can't be a POTUS, that's absurd