2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Brainster]

My take is that we are down to 3 candidates. Harris and Buttigieg are now out; they were 4 and 5 respectively, It's really Bernie, Biden or Warren, and my money's on Warren. Harris is out because she can't break Biden's lock on black voters; I read (can't find link) there was a Quinnipiac poll out there with her getting 1% of black voters nationally. Wow.

The Biden-Warren-Bernie match sets up an interesting dynamic. We have heard endlessly about the gender gap; that women tend to vote for the Democrats more than men. This logically implies that there are more female Democrats than male--does this give Warren an advantage? OTOH, you could argue that Biden represents the establishment Dems while Warren and Bernie split the radical wing. Warren would have one big advantage--she would be the youngest among the three, even if she isn't by much.

 

[Cabbage]

No, not buying that. Sanders and Warren are campaigning on free ponies. No one else is that blatant.

I think you're overestimating the "integrity" of the GOP. It doesn't matter whether Biden, Harris, et al are campaigning on free ponies or not: The GOP have already decided to claim that they are.

“I think the choice that we face in the country today is a choice between freedom and socialism, increasingly. President Trump has been advocating an agenda that’s built on the principles of freedom in the marketplaces, lower taxes, less regulation, more access to energy, better, fair trade deals,” Pence told CNBC on Friday.

“But increasingly, whether it be Joe Biden, whether it be Bernie Sanders, whether it be Elizabeth Warren and others in their party, they’re advocating a socialist agenda of more government, higher taxes and the same tired policies that created the malaise of the last administration where you saw less than 2 percent economic growth,” Pence said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/442071-pence-biden-is-advocating-a-socialist-agenda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My take is that we are down to 3 candidates. Harris and Buttigieg are now out; they were 4 and 5 respectively, It's really Bernie, Biden or Warren, and my money's on Warren. Harris is out because she can't break Biden's lock on black voters; I read (can't find link) there was a Quinnipiac poll out there with her getting 1% of black voters nationally. Wow.

The Biden-Warren-Bernie match sets up an interesting dynamic. We have heard endlessly about the gender gap; that women tend to vote for the Democrats more than men. This logically implies that there are more female Democrats than male--does this give Warren an advantage? OTOH, you could argue that Biden represents the establishment Dems while Warren and Bernie split the radical wing. Warren would have one big advantage--she would be the youngest among the three, even if she isn't by much.

Well isn't that special.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you're overestimating the "integrity" of the GOP. It doesn't matter whether Biden, Harris, et al are campaigning on free ponies or not: The GOP have already decided to claim that they are.



https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/442071-pence-biden-is-advocating-a-socialist-agenda

No, of course the GOP is going to scream socialism no matter who the candidate is.

IMO, the independents are going to hear, yeah sure, you say that about everyone when it comes to the no-free-ponies candidates. But with Warren and Sanders, the accusation is going to ring true.

 

[The Atheist]

My take is that we are down to 3 candidates.

I concur almost exactly with your premise on this, and Warren is the only with forward momentum, so I'm hopeful that's where the nomination goes.

 

[Cabbage]

No, of course the GOP is going to scream socialism no matter who the candidate is.

IMO, the independents are going to hear, yeah sure, you say that about everyone when it comes to the no-free-ponies candidates. But with Warren and Sanders, the accusation is going to ring true.

Well then what free ponies, specifically, are you referring to? Looking around I'm seeing that a majority of Americans (even Republicans in some cases) support such free ponies as Medicare for all, taxing the wealthy, and student loan forgiveness.

For examples:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...f-americans-support-elizabeth-warrens-college

https://fortune.com/2019/02/04/support-for-tax-increase-on-wealthy-americans-poll/

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...blicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Free ponies: free college for everyone.
Universal Child Care and Early Learning for all.
Warren wants to ban private health insurance along with Medicare for all.
Rent subsidies for large numbers of the population.
Guarantee government jobs for everyone.

That's part of the list.

Some of these things are rooted in good ideas. But already the candidates are being smeared because of the proposals.



And on the 'Biden is going to blow it' note:

Biden Misdates 2018 Parkland Shooting in His Latest Blunder

He didn't just misdate it, he claimed he was VP when it happened, but it was well after he was no longer VP.

 

[Cabbage]

Free ponies: free college for everyone.
Universal Child Care and Early Learning for all.
Warren wants to ban private health insurance along with Medicare for all.
Rent subsidies for large numbers of the population.
Guarantee government jobs for everyone.

That's part of the list.

Some of these things are rooted in good ideas. But already the candidates are being smeared because of the proposals.


And on the 'Biden is going to blow it' note:

Biden Misdates 2018 Parkland Shooting in His Latest Blunder

He didn't just misdate it, he claimed he was VP when it happened, but it was well after he was no longer VP.

Like I said previously, they're going to be smeared by the GOP regardless of what they propose. And I think you overestimate the influence that the GOP's lies have on independents--there is significant support for many of the free ponies you mention, as well. After decades of having government placate corporations and the wealthy I think many independents will be ready for at least a push in the direction that Warren proposes (and I say "at least a push" because I think that's what it will amount to at best; assuming she even wins the presidency I strongly doubt Congress will OK a lot of what she proposes....I do think, however, that a significant number of Americans really want that push to happen).

 

[Distracted1]

Free ponies: free college for everyone.
Universal Child Care and Early Learning for all.
Warren wants to ban private health insurance along with Medicare for all.
Rent subsidies for large numbers of the population.
Guarantee government jobs for everyone.

That's part of the list.

Some of these things are rooted in good ideas. But already the candidates are being smeared because of the proposals.



And on the 'Biden is going to blow it' note:

Biden Misdates 2018 Parkland Shooting in His Latest Blunder

He didn't just misdate it, he claimed he was VP when it happened, but it was well after he was no longer VP.

Its a shame that Bidens' years seem to be catching up with him faster than he can get to the general election.
I don't see any of the other front runners as being likely to unseat Trump.

 

[Belz...]

Harris and Buttigieg are now out

...what?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Harris is out because she can't break Biden's lock on black voters; I read (can't find link) there was a Quinnipiac poll out there with her getting 1% of black voters nationally. Wow.

That was after Tulsi "destroyed" her. She sank from 27% of black Democrat voters in the same poll a month earlier to 1% shortly after the debate.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Its a shame that Bidens' years seem to be catching up with him faster than he can get to the general election.
I don't see any of the other front runners as being likely to unseat Trump.

At this point, I really don't see any way for Trump to win regardless of who we run, so I think we should just focus on picking the one who will do the best job. Trump was already in serious trouble with independents -- 52% will "definitely not" be voting for him -- yet he's stuck in the mode of pitching the same demagoguery and alternate reality crap to the same adoring base. Conventional wisdom said he had some chance if the economy was still good next year, but his idiotic trade war has shot that chance all to hell. The election will be Trump's unshakable base versus an anti-Trump blowout.

 

[Distracted1]

At this point, I really don't see any way for Trump to win regardless of who we run, so I think we should just focus on picking the one who will do the best job. Trump was already in serious trouble with independents -- 52% will "definitely not" be voting for him -- yet he's stuck in the mode of pitching the same demagoguery and alternate reality crap to the same adoring base. Conventional wisdom said he had some chance if the economy was still good next year, but his idiotic trade war has shot that chance all to hell. The election will be Trump's unshakable base versus an anti-Trump blowout.

I doubt that premise.
The trade war with China- (even with deleterious effects on the general economy)-will play very well in the "rust belt".
Remember that it became the "rust" belt largely due to the competition from Asia beginning in the 70s and 80s.
The tariffs are exactly the type of policy the people of those regions feel are needed, unfortunately they are about 40 years too late.

 

[Belz...]

At this point, I really don't see any way for Trump to win regardless of who we run

That's what we thought four years ago.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That's what we thought four years ago.

If he can get Hillary to run again, that might work.

 

[Delvo]

That's what we thought four years ago.

It's what some people thought four years ago. Pretending nobody saw reality for what it was is just feeding into the pro-Trump narrative.

 

[Belz...]

If he can get Hillary to run again, that might work.

The point is that you shouldn't assume you're going to win. You have to go with a candidate that will get votes, first, and do the job, second.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I doubt that premise.
The trade war with China- (even with deleterious effects on the general economy)-will play very well in the "rust belt".
Remember that it became the "rust" belt largely due to the competition from Asia beginning in the 70s and 80s.
The tariffs are exactly the type of policy the people of those regions feel are needed, unfortunately they are about 40 years too late.

The problem with a trade war is that it hurts many more people than it helps. Trump saved some jobs in the steel industry with a tariff but at a cost of even more jobs in industries that are now paying more for steel. Farmers are now catching on to the fact that Trump is a clueless, ego-driven idiot.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The point is that you shouldn't assume you're going to win. You have to go with a candidate that will get votes, first, and do the job, second.

Oh, I don't think many Dems are assuming he will lose. There's going to be a GOTV effort like we've never seen.

 

[Distracted1]

The problem with a trade war is that it hurts many more people than it helps. Trump saved some jobs in the steel industry with a tariff but at a cost of even more jobs in industries that are now paying more for steel. Farmers are now catching on to the fact that Trump is a clueless, ego-driven idiot.

The way the elections work, however, means that it is not necessarily about how many people a particular policy hurts (compared to how many it helps). Moreover it is about where those people happen to vote.