2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Mumbles]

Leaving aside that you're making them speak from your own personal point of view, it's possible they also abstain because they find no choice excites them.

The people who think that Dolt 45 is actually a wonderful president aren't going to vote for Sanders, Harris, or any other democrat.

Thought that one would be obvious.

Also, we already know what arguments would be used against Harris to make people stay home, because they're *already* being deployed.

1: "Kamala's a cop! She wants to lock black men up, look at her laugh as she describes it!"

2: "Kamala's not really black, she's half Indian, and half Jamaican!" (a favorite among the insignificant ADOS crowd)

Sounds like Maher wasn't entirely wrong, then.

Didn't say he was. But why bother with what Harris asked to be called at an LGBT roundtable - particularly when she simply asked to be called what almost everyone would assume she preferred anyway? There's a major gap between that, and Gun Grabbing Beto.

(And I speak as a person who will freely state that assault rifles are a distraction, and that far more lives are lost to handguns - both through murder and suicide - and suggest that we start from there)

This is one issue that Mayor Pete actually got right - the GOP will claim that any democrat is a "radical lefty" no matter what. Everyone knows this. Groveling at their feet to attempt to stop them from doing so isn't "good politics", it's just pathetic.

It's not about swaying elections. It's about whether they should get a voice at all.

Yes, exactly, and the criminal president, who has far more of a voice than any single inmate, isn't going to have much room to talk here.

 

[Belz...]

The people who think that Dolt 45 is actually a wonderful president aren't going to vote for Sanders, Harris, or any other democrat.

Thought that one would be obvious.

Yes, but given that it has no bearing on what I said, what's your point here?

1: "Kamala's a cop! She wants to lock black men up, look at her laugh as she describes it!"

2: "Kamala's not really black, she's half Indian, and half Jamaican!" (a favorite among the insignificant ADOS crowd)

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

Didn't say he was. But why bother with what Harris asked to be called at an LGBT roundtable - particularly when she simply asked to be called what almost everyone would assume she preferred anyway? There's a major gap between that, and Gun Grabbing Beto.

They're all examples of things that might drive voters away. This isn't a complicated concept.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh look someone else is in the news saying the exact same thing.

"This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically 'woke' and all that stuff. You should get over that quickly. The world is messy, there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids. And share certain things with you."

Man I wonder what "Secretly a Trump supporter" said that?

Oh it was Barack Obama. Does he have a point or has the Democratic Party eaten so much of their young that the Democratic President from 3 years ago is no longer woke enough?

 

[Venom]

Oh look someone else is in the news saying the exact same thing.

Man I wonder what "Secretly a Trump supporter" said that?

Oh it was Barack Obama. Does he have a point or has the Democratic Party eaten so much of their young that the Democratic President from 3 years ago is no longer woke enough?

Obama was always like that. His Hope and Change of the 2008 campaign didn't quite pan out the way people expected. He ran a progressive campaign and then a largely moderate, at times Republican-pandering administration.
His views are pretty much in line with most of the centrist Democrats.

Now if Obama was a Supreme Court judge, which I hope he becomes one day, I think the progressive in him would come out stronger and he'd suppress his urge to appease conservatives a bit more.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh look someone else is in the news saying the exact same thing.



Man I wonder what "Secretly a Trump supporter" said that?

Oh it was Barack Obama. Does he have a point or has the Democratic Party eaten so much of their young that the Democratic President from 3 years ago is no longer woke enough?

Maybe my comprehension is way off, but he is talking about a completely different topic (people thinking attacking people on Twitter is activism).

 

[angrysoba]

Oh look someone else is in the news saying the exact same thing.



Man I wonder what "Secretly a Trump supporter" said that?

Oh it was Barack Obama. Does he have a point or has the Democratic Party eaten so much of their young that the Democratic President from 3 years ago is no longer woke enough?

Maybe my comprehension is way off, but he is talking about a completely different topic (people thinking attacking people on Twitter is activism).

No, you’re right.

Joe, I don’t know why you do this - putting quotes with no link. If you did it would probably be obvious that Obama was not ciriticizing primary candidates for being too woke but social media activists. Oh, maybe that is why you left the link off.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261

 

[Belz...]

No, you’re right.

Joe, I don’t know why you do this - putting quotes with no link. If you did it would probably be obvious that Obama was not ciriticizing primary candidates for being too woke but social media activists. Oh, maybe that is why you left the link off.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261

Why would Obama's words apply to one but not the other?

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, but given that it has no bearing on what I said, what's your point here?

No, the point is that these are two entirely separate categories of complaint. The only people whining about how Kamala Harris said "My preferred pronouns are she and her" at some roundtable, are the people who openly say that LGBT people are all child rapists who want to destroy marriage. And those guys aren't voting for dems in any case. If anything, it takes a good, long time to tell someone why they should even care in the slightest. It'll attract Dolt 45's bigot-assed base, and that's it.

Compare to "Beto O'Rourke wants to take something *you* bought legally and close *your* church!" This one requires nothing extra. "Here is how he will hurt you."

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

Maher's claim is that Harris is obsessed with pronouns. My observation is that neither she, nor her actual opponents in real life, are discussing this at all. It's only an issue because supposed progressive Bill Maher (and for some reason you won't say, you) think it's going to be weaponized.

They're all examples of things that might drive voters away. This isn't a complicated concept.

The problem is, by this reasoning, literally anything "might" drive voters away, thus they should never say anything at all. Beto's stances will almost certainly have a major impact. People are raging about it, and they'll do so every time it's brought up. Harris saying that she's a "she", won't to any significant degree. Even Russian trolls that specifically target black voters, and grifters like Diamond and Silk who give bigots cover, weren't mentioning it at any point - and we're to believe that it'll somehow be a game changer over a year from now?

 

[Mumbles]

Obama was always like that. His Hope and Change of the 2008 campaign didn't quite pan out the way people expected. He ran a progressive campaign and then a largely moderate, at times Republican-pandering administration.
His views are pretty much in line with most of the centrist Democrats.

Now if Obama was a Supreme Court judge, which I hope he becomes one day, I think the progressive in him would come out stronger and he'd suppress his urge to appease conservatives a bit more.

That's odd - I strongly recall that the wild left-wing dem was Dennis Kucinich, who never managed to get any significant support. The big fight was whether we should compromise in order to get center-left policies (this was Obama), or fight the GOP like hell for...center-left policies (this was Hillary Clinton).

 

[Belz...]

The only people whining about how Kamala Harris said "My preferred pronouns are she and her" at some roundtable, are the people who openly say that LGBT people are all child rapists who want to destroy marriage.

Was that hyperbole, or do you really believe that? In the latter case, you're wrong.

Maher's claim is that Harris is obsessed with pronouns.

Wait, did he claim this?

It's only an issue because supposed progressive Bill Maher (and for some reason you won't say, you) think it's going to be weaponized.

Ok what is Maher, according to you? A secret conservative?

The problem is, by this reasoning, literally anything "might" drive voters away, thus they should never say anything at all.

No, that's not the reasoning at all.

 

[Distracted1]

That's odd - I strongly recall that the wild left-wing dem was Dennis Kucinich, who never managed to get any significant support. The big fight was whether we should compromise in order to get center-left policies (this was Obama), or fight the GOP like hell for...center-left policies (this was Hillary Clinton).

The 2016 election was going to go the Republicans' way anyway. The Democrats were running Hillary Clinton, after all.
That is why so many Republicans entered the primary race- and also why most of them did not feel the need to temper their messages to have broader appeal. They nearly screwed up that advantage by nominating Trump. But The Republicans didn't feel like they had to move to the center to win the White House.

This year, we have a similar situation on the Dems side. Little needs to be done to fire up the base against Trump (as the Republicans needed to do little to fire their base against Clinton), so the further extremes of the Party feel they can be more vocal.
We run the risk with them of screwing up what should be a lock. As the Republicans nearly blew it with Trump.

 

[angrysoba]

Why would Obama's words apply to one but not the other?

Because he's talking about one group and not the other. I don't know how to explain that otherwise.

Maybe you could explain how it applies to the other...

 

[Belz...]

Because he's talking about one group and not the other. I don't know how to explain that otherwise.

Maybe you could explain how it applies to the other...

For the same reason that "Republicans shouldn't lie!" can be said to apply to everyone.

 

[angrysoba]

For the same reason that "Republicans shouldn't lie!" can be said to apply to everyone.

The point is Obama is talking about behaviour he sees on social media whereby people try to take others down for not being "woke".

Is there any evidence he sees talk about taxing churches, announcing pronouns, and saying felons should be able to vote is the same kind of behaviour?

If he is not saying that, then his comments aren't relevant, because that's not what he's talking about.

 

[Mumbles]

Was that hyperbole, or do you really believe that? In the latter case, you're wrong.

You continue to say this, with no evidence at all.

Again, if it's going to be such a massive turnoff for Harris, why is Bill Maher the only figure to bring it up?

Wait, did he claim this?

He certainly seems to be, if he's going to put it alongside actual policy proposals.

Ok what is Maher, according to you? A secret conservative?

He's a white moderate, in the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" sense. And yes, he's eager to tow the republican line on quite a few issues, such as "free speech" (he's obsessed with "PC Culture" on college campuses, despite the majority of banned speakers being progressives, particularly supporters of the BDS Israel movement) to quite a few civil rights issues (he gave a downright friendly interview to Milo years after it became obvious that the guy was a full-tilt apologist for white nationalism and child sexual assault, for another)

No, that's not the reasoning at all.

Then what is it?

 

[Mumbles]

The point is Obama is talking about behaviour he sees on social media whereby people try to take others down for not being "woke".

Is there any evidence he sees talk about taxing churches, announcing pronouns, and saying felons should be able to vote is the same kind of behaviour?

If he is not saying that, then his comments aren't relevant, because that's not what he's talking about.

I'm also going to somewhat disagree with Obama here - among other things, Twitter has been used to find and punish quite a few people, some very justified (the guys who attacked DeAndre Harris at the Unite the Right rally), and some...not (the girl that wore a vaguely Asian-styled dress to her high school prom).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nope. Nope. Not going to get drug into the weeds.

We're not talking "Let's hijack the discussion into an impossible task of defining exactly where X group (which we will then hijack into a discussion of who belongs to said group) crosses exact Y line."

"When you're running for office focusing on your broader, more popular ideas is a good strategy." That's it. That's only point.

 

[acbytesla]

The 2016 election was going to go the Republicans' way anyway. The Democrats were running Hillary Clinton, after all.
That is why so many Republicans entered the primary race- and also why most of them did not feel the need to temper their messages to have broader appeal. They nearly screwed up that advantage by nominating Trump. But The Republicans didn't feel like they had to move to the center to win the White House.

This year, we have a similar situation on the Dems side. Little needs to be done to fire up the base against Trump (as the Republicans needed to do little to fire their base against Clinton), so the further extremes of the Party feel they can be more vocal.
We run the risk with them of screwing up what should be a lock. As the Republicans nearly blew it with Trump.

Really? She captured 3 million more votes than Trump. 1/30th of that flipped in a few key states changes the outcome.

Your analysis is nonsense.

 

[Distracted1]

Really? She captured 3 million more votes than Trump. 1/30th of that flipped in a few key states changes the outcome.

Your analysis is nonsense.

Yes, they almost blew it with Trump.
There would have been no such disparity had they run Kasich. But they did not need the broader appeal he would have brought.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Really? She captured 3 million more votes than Trump. 1/30th of that flipped in a few key states changes the outcome.

Your analysis is nonsense.

No she lost. The electoral college is absolute unfair nonsense but it's not some new, out of nowhere thing that surprised us all last election. It's how we've always run the Presidential election. Hillary wasn't trying to win the popular vote, she's not stupid she knows it doesn't mater. She was trying win the Electoral College and failed.

What point are people trying to make by constantly reminding us that Hillary won the popular vote? And? So? I'm tired of hearing about how Hillary Clinton won in the hypothetical world where we run the elections on a popular vote.

"Hillary was popular with more people... in a way that literally didn't matter." doesn't strike me as anywhere near having a point.

Democrats are getting a little too good for my taste at winnings in ways that somehow don't actually translate to them winning.

And where are the rust belt / swing state / former blue wall votes in "Let's tax churches and provide sex changes to felons?"

This is politics. Being more popular is absolutely meaningless unless you're more popular with the right people.