2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Aridas]

Riding on coattails is not the same as wearing the coat.

Of course. That doesn't change the fact that I think that Pence would try to take what he considers to be the good things that Trump did and act as if they were his own achievements in a heartbeat, if he thought he could get away with it.

 

[kellyb]

And that no one else had actually done anything big (or meaningful).

What was really annoying about that was how he was mixing that message in with one about not trying for anything ambitious.

Set your sites low, and victory is guaranteed, I guess.

"I aim for little and always get it!"

 

[Tero]

If Biden was the Democrat running, and say Romney was the Republican, I'd be asking myself: what difference does it make? Only with Trump is the situation "anybody but Trump."
Not a fan of Biden. Reminds me of the department heads and CEOs I had to deal with at work.

 

[Delvo]

Holy wow, the host(s) actually asked them to name some Republican friends‽ The standard by which they're supposed to justify themselves & measure their own worth is by how much approval they can get out of the opposition‽ If a group of Republican candidates were asked the equivalent, they'd just laugh... but they wouldn't have been asked.

That move officially finally shifts the host(s) over from merely asking questions in the Republican way & thus trying to get them all to accept Republican premises, to just flat-out telling them they're supposed to be bowing & scraping to the Republicans at all times.

 

[Belz...]

I would not expect such a supporter of the Electoral College system to consider "undemocratic" to be a bug.

Wait a second. How is getting elected, despite or in part due to name recognition "undemocratic"?

 

[theprestige]

Has she taken more or less contributions over that time than other modern Senators from Massachusetts?



Is she over or under the average for a Presidential candidate?



I'll even be fair and allow for weighting. Are billionaire donors over-represented compared to the average and/or are contributions from billionaires a higher or lower proportion of her total war chest than average?



I'm genuinely interested in what the answer is, but as it is not my premise, I don't feel compelled to do the legwork.

Eh. It's not that interesting to me. Nor even that problematic. Mostly I was just interested in the difference between "only thirty billionaires over her entire career, not a big deal" and "only thirty billionaires in the first seven years". Which kinda looks different. Maybe that's a problem for you, maybe it isn't. Either way, though, I think it's a difference worth knowing about.

Yesterday I thought about comparing Warren to Franken, and this morning I got so far as discovering that his political career was exactly seven years. And then I realized that was about as far as my interest went. I guess he'd make a good point of comparison, though, if you're looking for answers to your questions.

 

[theprestige]

I have no idea. Do you have any data?

Horse before cart. Is it even an important consideration for you?

ETA: The only real data I have is what's been reported in this thread, and Delphic Oracle's attempt to downplay the donation attack as "over the course of her entire career". This makes it seem a lot more spread out than it actually is. Mildly interesting sidebar, but not really a problem that needs solving. Unless you think it is.

 

[Distracted1]

Wait a second. How is getting elected, despite or in part due to name recognition "undemocratic"?

Your question indicates that there is some context missing in your take on the conversation that was ongoing. Or that I was less than clear in my text.

But to answer it. It is not undemocratic to be elected- no matter what the perception of the voting population is based upon. It is undemocratic to weight the votes of some people more than those of others.


It was the assertion of another poster that placing legal barriers to public service upon family members of other public servants is a "profoundly undemocratic" act. That poster frequently expresses a preference for the EC system of election to a "one-man-one vote" system of election. My statement that you have quoted was an observation that that poster does not seem to hold that "profoundly undemocratic" is necessarily a flaw. It was not intended to convey that getting elected due to name recognition is undemocratic. And after rereading it in its' context, I must confess to being unable to see how it could be taken that way.

 

[varwoche]

My #1 priority -- far above everything else -- is defeating Trump. I barely care about policy particulars other than how they might impact the general election horse race. Accordingly, some random thoughts...

At the end of the debate I'm left depressed. The front-runners were highly unimpressive and the candidates I like best have no chance. I like Steyer. I like Yang, even though I'm not a fan of his signature proposal. They impress me as smart and as non bull ********. Bernie out-performed the two front-runners.

I rule out Gabbard because of how her religion would play out in the general. Never mind that I think she's nutty -- that's low priority right now. Take away her religion and I think she'd win the general.

Unfortunately I rule out Mayor Pete, even though I like him a lot, due to how his sexual identity would play out in the general.

Unfortunately I rule out Beto, who I once had high hopes for, because he's staking out positions (that I agree with) that call his electability into question.

That leaves six candidates who I'd prefer over the three geezers, none of whom have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

 

[Belz...]

It is undemocratic to weight the votes of some people more than those of others.

No it's not. It might not be the type of democracy you want to see, but it's not undemocratic.

It was the assertion of another poster that placing legal barriers to public service upon family members of other public servants is a "profoundly undemocratic" act.

Do you agree with him on that?

That poster frequently expresses a preference for the EC system of election to a "one-man-one vote" system of election.

The two aren't mutually-exclusive.

My statement that you have quoted was an observation that that poster does not seem to hold that "profoundly undemocratic" is necessarily a flaw.

That's only because you've defined it as undemocratic. You can't hold another poster to your definitions, only his own.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Apparently Buttgiggle recently reassured insurance companies that they'll still be able to make huge profits even if Medicare for All happens. Does he think that increases his appeal to voters? Or is he angling to catch Biden's eye as a VP candidate?

 

[Brainster]

Apparently Buttgiggle recently reassured insurance companies that they'll still be able to make huge profits even if Medicare for All happens. Does he think that increases his appeal to voters? Or is he angling to catch Biden's eye as a VP candidate?

That's how Bernie Sanders' supporters are spinning this ad:



I think it helps if you stand on your head while watching it; then the spin might actually make some sense.

 

[dudalb]

Pretty predictable: Warren is now perceived as the front runner;everybody else gangs ups on her. Happens that way in both parties.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Pretty predictable: Warren is now perceived as the front runner;everybody else gangs ups on her. Happens that way in both parties.

As it should be. Any beating they take now will be nothing compared to the dirty politics that will come in the general. Any candidate that can't survive some tender needling from within the party primary has no business running against Trump.

The biggest complaint about candidate Hillary Clinton is that, if not for Bernie's moonshot campaign, she would have run largely unopposed by serious candidates. The Clinton coronation lead to a uniquely weak candidate.

 

[Craig4]

What was with Harris's thing about getting Trump off Twitter? If a central Democratic campaign theme is Trump isn't smart enough or mentally stable enough to be president, why would they want him to stop tripping balls on Twitter?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

538 pre/post debate poll:

In terms of raw debate grades — respondents graded candidates on a four-point scale (higher scores are better) — Warren and Sanders did best, closely followed by Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar. Julián Castro, Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard received the worst marks, on average.

...

Buttigieg got the biggest increase — 4.5 points — in the share of likely Democratic primary voters who are considering supporting him. Klobuchar and Warren also got meaningful bumps, gaining 3.6 points and 2.6 points, respectively. Interestingly, Sanders was the only candidate to lose potential supporters, but it was a tiny drop (less than a percentage point).

Linky.

For perceived odds against Trump, everybody lost except Klobuchar, but then she stayed in the 30s.

 

[kellyb]

538 pre/post debate poll:



Linky.

For perceived odds against Trump, everybody lost except Klobuchar, but then she stayed in the 30s.

I'd guess if you were to break down Pete's scores, he did well with a subset of Joe, Kamala, and Amy voters, and was seen as doing poorly by the rest.

So, he might gain the polls at Biden's expense.

 

[Craig4]

I'd guess if you were to break down Pete's scores, he did well with a subset of Joe, Kamala, and Amy voters, and was seen as doing poorly by the rest.

So, he might gain the polls at Biden's expense.

That might put Mayor Pete in a good position to be king maker. He could swing his support to Warren or Biden in exchange for the VP or secretary of something position.

 

[dudalb]

Marraine Williamson, who has been cut from the debates for not having enough support in the polls to make her a viable candidate, just did an self pitying ,high school drama queen level WAPO op ed piece in which she pretty much declared the Democratic party a corrupt, evil organization because she did not have a place in the debates.
She declared the Evil Democratic bosses were shutting down the process too early.
Uh, how many people did we have in the debate last night?
Go back to peddling new age crap, Marriane. You could not get enough supporters to get a place in the debate and are now embarrassing yourself with whining about it.
The herd needed culling, and people who had a lot more chance then you ever had have gracefully dropped out.

 

[Brainster]

That might put Mayor Pete in a good position to be king maker. He could swing his support to Warren or Biden in exchange for the VP or secretary of something position.

Given the mortality tables, being Biden's Veep might very much be worth it. Biden will turn 78 shortly after election day in 2020. His odds of surviving 4 years are around 80%, of surviving 8 years about 56%. Of course, those are averages and we'll assume that the President gets quite a bit better than average healthcare.