2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[JoeMorgue]

Given how much of a science polling and market research have turned into I find it hard to believe, unless it's just another thing we've abandoned to our post truth new reality, that it's impossible for the biggest political party in America to not be able to get some data on whether it would be more beneficial to lean hard left or toward the center in this election.

 

[dudalb]

Some Bernibots trying to make an issue of Biden's age.
Oh, the irony.

 

[dudalb]

SOmeone said the US Congress has been unpopular the last 5 or 6 years.
The US Congress has NEVER won any popularity contests.
It has always,no matter who in control, been a scapegoat and a popular target of jokes.
In the 1870's Mark Twain made the statement "No man's life or property are safe in times of War, Revolution, or when the US Congress is in session".

 

[JoeMorgue]

SOmeone said the US Congress has been unpopular the last 5 or 6 years.
The US Congress has NEVER won any popularity contests.
It has always,no matter who in control, been a scapegoat and a popular target of jokes.
In the 1870's Mark Twain made the statement "No man's life or property are safe in times of War, Revolution, or when the US Congress is in session".

It's the beauty of distributed responsibility. Since Congress doesn't have a single face you can hate "Congress" while never changing the handful of Congressmen you directly elect.

It's how we get the level of insanity that a leading legislative body with a 11 percent approval rating and a 96 percent reelection rate requires.

 

[dudalb]

I give Cory Booker credit for being the only guy last night who spoke "truth to power" about Nuclear Energy:no way you can realistically get away from fossil fuels without it.
IMHO too many progressives have their heads screwed on backwards when it comes to this;it's almost like they have a 'Well, the left opposed nuclear enerty in the 60's and 70's therefore we have to oppose it".
SOmeone said the problem with the GOP is they want to live in the 1950's and the Dems want to live in the 1960's. I think that is fairly accurate.

 

[dudalb]

It's the beauty of distributed responsibility. Since Congress doesn't have a single face you can hate "Congress" while never changing the handful of Congressmen you directly elect.

It's how we get the level of insanity that a leading legislative body with a 11 percent approval rating and a 96 percent reelection rate requires.

That is the irony; lots of people consider every congress critter to be thief and a idiot except for his rep or senator; he of she is a great person.

Which is another reason I am becoming a fanantic on the subject of term limits:if democracy is to survive, we need a much greater rate of turnover in congress then we have now.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That is the irony; lots of people consider every congress critter to be thief and a idiot except for his rep or senator; he of she is a great person.

Which is another reason I am becoming a fanantic on the subject of term limits:if democracy is to survive, we need a much greater rate of turnover in congress then we have now.

The cynic in me at times sees that as saving us from ourselves, something I'm always uncomfortable with. If (g)we keep elected the nimrods we deserve whatever we get.

That being said my realism always wins out over my idealism. This level of stagnation is simply not healthy for our government.

I mean all of this could be solved with no new laws, no new amendments, no new processes with a simple engaged and active voter base but I think I'm well done past waiting for that miracle.

 

[kellyb]

SOmeone said the US Congress has been unpopular the last 5 or 6 years.
The US Congress has NEVER won any popularity contests.

I provided a link to it's popularity over the last 50 years. It's been at a historic all-time (since the start of such data collection) low over the past 5-7.

It was at 60% approval in the late 90's, topped out at 84% on 9/11, and was down to 9% in 2014.

It averaged about 40% until 2006.

 

[kellyb]

It's the beauty of distributed responsibility. Since Congress doesn't have a single face you can hate "Congress" while never changing the handful of Congressmen you directly elect.

It's how we get the level of insanity that a leading legislative body with a 11 percent approval rating and a 96 percent reelection rate requires.

And most people just not voting.

And many or most people are in a situation where the people they'd actually like to be in office won't win. Both parties promote the people who get all the donations, and what the donor class wants is not in line with what normal people want.

 

[dudalb]

I provided a link to it's popularity over the last 50 years. It's been at a historic all-time (since the start of such data collection) low over the past 5-7.

I am not disputing that;what I am saying is congress has never been a really popular institution.

 

[kellyb]

Some Bernibots trying to make an issue of Biden's age.
Oh, the irony.

Huh?

 

[Cabbage]

SOmeone said the US Congress has been unpopular the last 5 or 6 years.
The US Congress has NEVER won any popularity contests.
It has always,no matter who in control, been a scapegoat and a popular target of jokes.
In the 1870's Mark Twain made the statement "No man's life or property are safe in times of War, Revolution, or when the US Congress is in session".

But that ignores just how unpopular it is today. It's not a constant level of disapproval. It really is at a ~50 year (probably more) low in recent years.

Of course, I'm sure this evidence will be dismissed by Belz... et al, just like the other evidence.

 

[Brainster]

I give Cory Booker credit for being the only guy last night who spoke "truth to power" about Nuclear Energy:no way you can realistically get away from fossil fuels without it.
IMHO too many progressives have their heads screwed on backwards when it comes to this;it's almost like they have a 'Well, the left opposed nuclear enerty in the 60's and 70's therefore we have to oppose it".

I agree about Booker, but I can't imagine in 7 hours that nobody else talked about nuclear energy.

BTW, the anti-nuke movement in the US mostly focused on weapons, not power plants until the mid-1970s. I suspect that with the Vietnam War ending, a lot of people were casting about for another cause to march and sing songs about. But it was still pretty fringe left until two things happened nearly simultaneously in 1979. The movie the China Syndrome was released and a couple weeks later Three Mile Island happened.

SOmeone said the problem with the GOP is they want to live in the 1950's and the Dems want to live in the 1960's. I think that is fairly accurate.

Heh, that's pretty good. Personally I am happy to live in the era that I do. Most people would hate it if they could really go back in time to those days. They forget how shoddily things were made back then; the assumption was that everybody was an amateur auto mechanic. And three TV stations unless you lived in a big city, in which case you might have five or six, with spotty reception that meant you adjusted the rabbit ears (antenna). I can remember a lot of times when you'd get it perfect and you'd let go and it would immediately go bad again. No internet, no video games.

 

[The Atheist]

They forget how shoddily things were made back then; the assumption was that everybody was an amateur auto mechanic.

You mean how one washing machine lasted decades, without needing intervention? Or how simple appliances like electric kettles lasted for 15 years, then needed an element replaced to be good for another 15?

Cars might have been less technologically advanced, but they were also easy to fix, because they were so low-tech. I'm a total dummy when it comes to fixing cars, but I managed to replace a head gasket without any trouble.

I'd say the idea that life was "worse" 40-50 years ago because we have better tech is bunkum.

Things were made to last, not wear out in 3-4 years.

And there was virtually nothing made out of plastic. Drinks came in glass, groceries in paper and toys were made of metal.

And three TV stations unless you lived in a big city, in which case you might have five or six, with spotty reception that meant you adjusted the rabbit ears (antenna). I can remember a lot of times when you'd get it perfect and you'd let go and it would immediately go bad again. No internet, no video games.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I happen to think the exact opposite and even have a thread somewhere that the internet is the worst thing ever.

The trouble is, with the population having doubled since 1969, we cannot turn that clock back and return to sensible, sustainable living.

 

[angrysoba]

You mean how one washing machine lasted decades, without needing intervention? Or how simple appliances like electric kettles lasted for 15 years, then needed an element replaced to be good for another 15?

Cars might have been less technologically advanced, but they were also easy to fix, because they were so low-tech. I'm a total dummy when it comes to fixing cars, but I managed to replace a head gasket without any trouble.

I'd say the idea that life was "worse" 40-50 years ago because we have better tech is bunkum.

Things were made to last, not wear out in 3-4 years.

And there was virtually nothing made out of plastic. Drinks came in glass, groceries in paper and toys were made of metal.



You say that like it's a bad thing.

I happen to think the exact opposite and even have a thread somewhere that the internet is the worst thing ever.

The trouble is, with the population having doubled since 1969, we cannot turn that clock back and return to sensible, sustainable living.

Why did you put my name in when you are replying to Brainster?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's a suspicion based on the possibility/probability that "most people are skeptical about things being marketed by politicians as "affordable" now."

That's not what I asked. Please read what you are replying to. I don't want to end up in another time-wasting back and forth.

The point was about your claim people prefer free to affordable. I get it 'affordable' has it's own problems. But a large number of people get very angry when they think people are getting stuff for free from their taxes.

Why do you think the frame is troublesome?

For the same reason calling it "free" sends voters fleeing to the right side of the aisle.

There is a third way education can be framed but I will have to address that later. It requires energy I don't have right now.

Americans. Voters.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/col...mericans-support-free-college-tuition-n620856

Yeah I saw that. I want to know who they polled, how did they ask the questions and is it an outlier or not.

Another link on it here:
https://www.bankrate.com/finance/consumer-index/money-pulse-0816.aspx

That is about people thinking it's worthwhile to attend college, not is it valuable for the community to invest in educating college students. Notice further down the people surveyed were against forgiving student debt.

“People who have already paid off their student loans tend to be opposed to loan forgiveness for current students,” says Mark Kantrowitz, publisher and vice president of strategy for the financial aid website Cappex.​

"Can't get something for free if I didn't," is a typical human sentiment.

This discussion isn't going to go anywhere until I have time to invest in the debate. I'll defer it at the moment.

 

[Brainster]

You mean how one washing machine lasted decades, without needing intervention? Or how simple appliances like electric kettles lasted for 15 years, then needed an element replaced to be good for another 15?

Cars might have been less technologically advanced, but they were also easy to fix, because they were so low-tech. I'm a total dummy when it comes to fixing cars, but I managed to replace a head gasket without any trouble.

I'd say the idea that life was "worse" 40-50 years ago because we have better tech is bunkum.

Things were made to last, not wear out in 3-4 years.

Planned obsolescence is not a term that was invented recently. But I also take issue with the idea that things were higher quality or lasted longer back then. As a kid, I never outgrew my sneakers; they were always trashed after a few months. Even as an adult mine seldom lasted more than half a year.

Then I bought a pair of Nikes and they lasted two years.

And there was virtually nothing made out of plastic. Drinks came in glass, groceries in paper and toys were made of metal.

Lots of toys kids used back in the 1960s were made out of plastic. Miniature army men. Water pistols. Frisbees. Hula hoops. Colorforms. Legos.

I happen to think the exact opposite and even have a thread somewhere that the internet is the worst thing ever.

The trouble is, with the population having doubled since 1969, we cannot turn that clock back and return to sensible, sustainable living.

Rose-colored glasses don't give you 20-20 eyesight.

 

[Trebuchet]

That is the irony; lots of people consider every congress critter to be thief and a idiot except for his rep or senator; he of she is a great person.

Which is another reason I am becoming a fanantic on the subject of term limits:if democracy is to survive, we need a much greater rate of turnover in congress then we have now.

You know who else was a fan of term limits? George Nethercutt, who defeated a sitting speaker of the house pretty much solely on that issue. Until it came time to limit HIS term, of course.

Not saying you're wrong, because you aren't, just an example of why it won't be happening.

 

[angrysoba]

You know who else was a fan of term limits? George Nethercutt, who defeated a sitting speaker of the house pretty much solely on that issue. Until it came time to limit HIS term, of course.

Not saying you're wrong, because you aren't, just an example of why it won't be happening.

The best way to get that kind of legislation through is to exempt sitting members of Congress. The ones who are there now can be grandfathered in, and only once they are gone will the term limits apply.

 

[Brainster]

You know who else was a fan of term limits? George Nethercutt, who defeated a sitting speaker of the house pretty much solely on that issue. Until it came time to limit HIS term, of course.

And also pretty much anybody running for president wants to reign in the power of the executive branch. Until they get in.