2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trumpworld is apparently rooting for Warren:

President Trump's allies still fear a general election matchup against a banged-up Joe Biden more than a run against an invigorated Elizabeth Warren, people close to the president tell Axios.
Click to expand...

I suspect President-to-be Hillary Clinton was hoping that she'd end up with Donald Trump as her opponent in 2016.
 
Brainster said:
Trumpworld is apparently rooting for Warren:



I suspect President-to-be Hillary Clinton was hoping that she'd end up with Donald Trump as her opponent in 2016.
Click to expand...
It says:
To date, the attack strategy Trump's team has tested most successfully with voters who backed him in 2016 is painting Dem candidates as socialists, and it's a lot easier to stick a socialism tag on Warren than on Biden.
Click to expand...

Appealing to Trump's base isn't going to be the democrat's strategy for the general - it'll be all about upping enthusiasm and turnout on the democratic side.
 
kellyb said:
It says:


Appealing to Trump's base isn't going to be the democrat's strategy for the general - it'll be all about upping enthusiasm and turnout on the democratic side.
Click to expand...

Yes, getting that lost tribe of liberals to come out and vote for Warren! We can already see them massing in Vermont and Massachusetts and New York and California.
 
In various independent progressive media, a good chunk of commenters have decided Warren isn't "good enough", some implying they won't vote if it ain't Bernie.

How much of the Democratic electorate do they make up I don't know but it's concerning to me.
 
Brainster said:
Yes, getting that lost tribe of liberals to come out and vote for Warren! We can already see them massing in Vermont and Massachusetts and New York and California.
Click to expand...
She appeals to a lot of moderates and self-identifying centrists, too. And, you know, Democrats, being NotTrump and all. :)
 
Venom said:
In various independent progressive media, a good chunk of commenters have decided Warren isn't "good enough", some implying they won't vote if it ain't Bernie.

How much of the Democratic electorate do they make up I don't know but it's concerning to me.
Click to expand...

If Bernie is only getting 14% of the democratic vote right now, I think you'd have to be talking about 5%, tops.
Whatever % it is, it's a whole lot less than those who would not vote for Clinton.
Liz will probably be able to get a lot of these folks back, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
 
kellyb said:
If Bernie is only getting 14% of the democratic vote right now, I think you'd have to be talking about 5%, tops.
Whatever % it is, it's a whole lot less than those who would not vote for Clinton.
Liz will probably be able to get a lot of these folks back, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
Click to expand...

Also probably notably less than would choose not to vote for Bernie or Biden. It's probably well worth remembering that Warren is the most liked candidate overall on those favorability scales (though Biden does have higher totals when it comes to decided for or against)... and that her unfavorability ratings have consistently decreased after each debate, unlike... just about every other candidate, even if most of the less known candidates got notable overall boosts because of people actually seeing them in action in the first place.

Going further, when it comes to questions like whether the Democrats would be excited for a candidate -

Warren is generating the most excitement among Democratic and Democratic leaning voters, who said 70 - 18 percent that they would be excited if she became the 2020 Democratic nominee. Biden and Sanders would also excite a majority of these voters, who say 56 - 35 percent that they would be excited about Biden and 55 - 38 percent that they would be excited about Sanders.
Click to expand...

That's a rather remarkable gap there, quite frankly, and should easily put to rest those particular worries about her.
 
Last edited:
Beto comes up with a new idea. Do away with the tax-exempt status for any church that doesn't support gay marriage.

O’Rourke offered an unequivocal “yes” on Thursday when CNN asked during a town hall on LGBTQ issues if opposition to same-sex marriage should imperil religious institutions’ tax exemption, a longstanding fixture of U.S. tax law. His campaign manager sought to clarify that position on Sunday, stating that O’Rourke would not threaten the tax status of churches that decline to perform same-sex marriages.

A religious entity that “discriminates based on sexual orientation or gender identity when delivering public services” should not be tax exempt, but O’Rourke would not try to revoke the tax status of “a church that declines to marry a same sex couple,” campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon tweeted.
Click to expand...

So failing to perform same-sex marriages will not imperil their tax status, but they do have to announce they don't actually oppose same-sex marriage? That seems like a bit of hair-splitting that is likely to satisfy nobody.
 
Brainster said:
Beto comes up with a new idea. Do away with the tax-exempt status for any church that doesn't support gay marriage.



So failing to perform same-sex marriages will not imperil their tax status, but they do have to announce they don't actually oppose same-sex marriage? That seems like a bit of hair-splitting that is likely to satisfy nobody.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Beto's stand making the exemption contingent on their positions on LGBTQ issues.

Still, I don't see how churches have a tax exemption to begin with. This seems to me as a clear violation of church and state.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Beto comes up with a new idea. Do away with the tax-exempt status for any church that doesn't support gay marriage.







So failing to perform same-sex marriages will not imperil their tax status, but they do have to announce they don't actually oppose same-sex marriage? That seems like a bit of hair-splitting that is likely to satisfy nobody.
Click to expand...
And is blatantly interfering with freedom of religion. The state should not be in the business of dictating religious doctrine, nor of picking beneficiaries of state privileges based on religious doctrine.

After all the anguish over the separation between church and state, Beto is literally proposing a de facto state religion.
 
theprestige said:
And is blatantly interfering with freedom of religion. The state should not be in the business of dictating religious doctrine, nor of picking beneficiaries of state privileges based on religious doctrine.

After all the anguish over the separation between church and state, Beto is literally proposing a de facto state religion.
Click to expand...

I agree. But that also means that churches of any doctrine shouldn't be getting an exemption.

The separation of Church and State not only means the State can't make laws dictating to churches, it means the State cannot pass laws that favor churches either.

You can't have it both ways Prestige.
 
acbytesla said:
I agree. But that also means that churches of any doctrine shouldn't be getting an exemption.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But there are a lot of things in US law that are okay if everybody in a class gets them without discrimination, but that become unconstitutional or illegal if the government picks favorites within the class.

Every religion getting the same benefit, as long as they practice in a certain way, is very different from some religions getting special benefits for believing in certain government-approved doctrines.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Giving religion - without regard to doctrine or creed - similar benefits as charities (due to perceived similar community benefits) has you wringing your hands about having a state religion against the constitution.

But I think that what Beto Roberto is proposing goes a lot further than that, and actually gets us pretty close to exactly the establishment of religion that the constitution prohibits.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom