2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it's 2 cents per taxpayer dollar, but I agree that Warren is good at framing issues. So is Buttigieg.

Even better. Two cents per tax dollar is more realistic, still has the right message.

Buttigieg is great but he has the same problem Obama did, too inexperienced. The GOP ran over Obama to a great degree. I don't want to see that again. Buttigieg should run for the Senate and come back in 8 years when he ripens up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nothing to be learned from 2018?

Not anything I've seen in the public discourse, just the two tribes writing victory narratives for themselves out of a mostly "maintain the status quo" election.

 

[Aridas]

Even better. Two cents per tax dollar is more realistic, still has the right message.

Buttigieg is great but he has the same problem Obama did, too inexperienced. The GOP ran over Obama to a great degree. I don't want to see that again. Buttigieg should run for the Senate and come back in 8 years when he ripens up.

We're in agreement there, much as I fully expect the GOP to twist it like they did Obamacare effects. "Your costs, in comparison to what's predicted, will go down." "Costs went up! Obama's a big, fat liar!"

 

[Trebuchet]

Bill DeBlasio was just on CNN proposing to save jobs by taxing automation. That's just incredibly dumb.

 

[kellyb]

The Warren tax mentioning 2 cents is the "ultra-millionaire tax", 2 cents on every dollar over $50 million.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1120851095515852800

"...ultra millionaire's tax. It's 2 cents on every dollar of the great fortunes above $50 million."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...7-other-american-billionaires-urge-2019-06-24

Taxing the richest of the rich will benefit all Americans, a group of the wealthiest Americans says in an open letter to the 2020 presidential candidates.

While not endorsing any candidate and addressing both Democrats and Republicans, the group singled out Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth-tax proposal, which would tax 2 cents on the dollar for assets over $50 million, and 1 cent on the dollar for assets above $1 billion for the 75,000 wealthiest families in the country, raising an estimated $3 trillion over 10 years.

“That a moderate tax on a minuscule number of Americans could raise so much revenue simply reflects historic levels of wealth among America’s richest,” they said. “The top 1/10 of 1% of households now have almost as much wealth as all Americans in the bottom 90%. Those of us signing this letter enjoy uncommon fortunes, but each of us wants to live in an America that solves the biggest challenges of our common future.”

 

[Craig4]

It would be interesting to know if a race in 2020 between Trump and Clinton (if she hadn't run in 2016) would have a different outcome. After 4 years of Trump insanity, I wonder if more Democrats would have gotten their asses to the voting booth and less would be willing to gamble on Trump. We'll never know of course.

I think the e-mail "scandal" and the Uranium One lies would have landed flat. With his own family members using private e-mails and him enriching himself off his presidency that's not a road he'd have gone down. Also, Trump would probably not want crowds talking about locking anyone up when he faces a real threat of indictment once he's out of office.

 

[Brainster]

The NY Times is reporting that Tom Steyer has qualified for the October debate, after barely missing September and that Tulsi Gabbard may also qualify, putting the field back at 12.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bill DeBlasio was just on CNN proposing to save jobs by taxing automation. That's just incredibly dumb.

Jobs are costs, not a benefit.

 

[kellyb]

If you look at the 538 national polls from this month, filtered by grade B and above, Biden's current lead averages 6.75 points.

Looking at individual states, he's massively winning SC, Sanders is narrowly winning in Nevada, Warren is narrowly winning in NH, and Biden is narrowly winning in Iowa and Mass.

 

[Aridas]

I think the e-mail "scandal" and the Uranium One lies would have landed flat. With his own family members using private e-mails and him enriching himself off his presidency that's not a road he'd have gone down. Also, Trump would probably not want crowds talking about locking anyone up when he faces a real threat of indictment once he's out of office.

Have you paid attention to the actual behavior of the people that you're talking about? Given the precedent in play, I'd say it looks like the behavior will be practically the opposite of what you think. For most of Trump's supporters, it was never about the e-mails. It was never about Uranium One. Those were just convenient excuses to use as a facade. That Trump and co have done worse on those fronts will be treated like Trump's lies. "Everyone lies, so what's bad about Trump lying?" levels of mendacity and bothsiderism. Speaking of bothsiderism, the MSM has shown no sign that I've seen of changing its both-siderism ways, which means that anything "bad" that a Democrat does will be hammered on hard (because it's big news), while for a similar offense, the GOP will get off pretty much scot-free (because it's standard practice for them and thus not big news). As for Trump probably not wanting people to talk about locking people up because of the threat to himself? The guy is probably MORE likely to make a big deal out of it in that case, because it's actually on his mind.

 

[SezMe]

If there's one thing I've learned from online discussion forums, it's that the guy who says the lurkers agree with him is always comically wrong.

I think all the lurkers would agree with you if they would just speak up.



'Jus yanking' your chain.

 

[SezMe]

Nonsense. If he ever was going to have a shot it would have been then. He was not sitting back in 2016 thinking "oh yeah, I will have a sooooo much better chance with 4 or 8 more years under my belt".
Not buying that.

No, I'm sure that was not his thinking. Rather, after being VEEP for 8 years and seeing HRC as the odds on favorite (and having a YUGE money lead) he saw his political career as, sadly, at an end. Then along comes Dump and he sees a new opening that didn't exist before. So he throws his hat in the ring.

 

[SezMe]

The way I see it, every election is a fluke. Public sentiment, political platforms, the economy, the culture war, the perception of the candidates, etc... The intersection of these factors is unique every time.

Exactly so.

 

[kellyb]

No, I'm sure that was not his thinking. Rather, after being VEEP for 8 years and seeing HRC as the odds on favorite (and having a YUGE money lead) he saw his political career as, sadly, at an end. Then along comes Dump and he sees a new opening that didn't exist before. So he throws his hat in the ring.

Plus, with Sanders and Warren being the other frontrunners, he probably felt and was told that he had a moral obligation to run.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//delete//

 

[dudalb]

Not going to bother with the upcoming debates. I can just watch the post debate shows and they will tell me all I need to know.
Sorry, but a ten person debate is just a 3 ring circus : might have some enterainment value for some people (not me) but you won't learn much from them.

 

[dudalb]

Bill DeBlasio was just on CNN proposing to save jobs by taxing automation. That's just incredibly dumb.

Yeah, Ludditism always works.....

 

[kellyb]

Not going to bother with the upcoming debates. I can just watch the post debate shows and they will tell me all I need to know.

Pundit recaps are a terrible way of trying to learn what candidates think/said. lol

Why not just watch a video of the debate later and fast-forward through the "no chance" candidates?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Oh! I agree that President Trump has proven to be very Quintessential Establishment (on everything besides trade, and to a lesser extent foreign policy, at least), but Candidate Trump (the act/lie) was anti-establishment.

I don't think Trump was merely using "establishment" as a filler for Democrat, though. His base really doesn't like Bush, etc so much any more. Hate radio started dissing the Republican establishment years ago. I remember Rush Limbaugh screaming about how "Newt Gingrich is a progressive!" around 2008. When the hate-radio listening base get bored with the same old talking points about democrats, they spice things up by accusing rightwingers of being closet leftwingers.

John Boehner was probably about the last of that, he wanted to keep his speakership, but eventually he had principles very different from his caucus.

McConnell is an exception because while he is absolutely establishment, he also doesn't have a spine, so he's managed to just allow himself to get swept up and enact (or block) what he's told.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

McConnell is an exception because while he is absolutely establishment, he also doesn't have a spine, so he's managed to just allow himself to get swept up and enact (or block) what he's told.

I think McConnell is entirely responsible for his actions. There's no one pushing him around, he WANTS to do the things he does. Especially now that there's a great big orange doofus around that loves causing distractions.