2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Pete's second chance at the experience question after being attacked by Klobuchar and Tulsi was much better than his attempts earlier.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'd say the non-main tier (Booker, Yang, Harris, Klobuchar) shined more in this debate. They didn't spend an hour rehashing moderate vs. liberal and Medicare for All. A few people shied away from attacking Pete when the mods set them up to, which could be because they don't see him as one of the front runners, regardless of the Iowa poll.

 

[Aridas]

Mmm. The joys of Tulsi Gabbard.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: I think that it's unfortunate that we have someone on this stage who is attempting to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, who during the Obama administration spent four years full-time on Fox News criticizing president Obama. Who has been full-time criticizing people on this stage as affiliated with the Democratic Party. When Donald Trump was elected, not even sworn in, buddied up to Steve Bannon to get a meeting with Donald Trump in the Trump Tower. Fails to call a war criminal but what he is as a war criminal, and then spends full-time during the course of this campaign, again, criticizing the Democratic Party.

Ouch.

 

[Brainster]

Just thought I'd point to this fascinating page on the RCP "Betting Average". It's an analysis of the betting odds at various bookmaking operations, converting those odds into percentage chances of winning the nomination. It also includes a graph showing the changes in each candidate's chances over the last six months. We can see that Warren, who looked looked like the odds-on favorite only a month or so ago, is still the favorite but the race has tightened quite a bit, with Biden and Buttigieg very much nipping at her heels. Kamala Harris actually led in the betting odds for most of July; not hard to guess that was following the first debate, where she gave Joe a couple of pokes in the ribs. Buttigieg seems to be having his moment right now, but people forget he had a similar moment back in June that quickly faded.

BTW, She Who Must Not Be Named has pretty consistently been rated about 7% by the bookies.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Mmm. The joys of Tulsi Gabbard.



Ouch.

An interesting slip was when she said "Democrat" instead of "Democratic". I know some people don't think it is a big deal, but it is conservative-speak 101.

 

[kellyb]

An interesting slip was when she said "Democrat" instead of "Democratic". I know some people don't think it is a big deal, but it is conservative-speak 101.

Yes. You were sooooo right about how she's an opportunist.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yes. You were sooooo right about how she's an opportunist.

Where do you think she is going when she fails to win a single primary?

After going on Fox to repeat the conservative talking points about the impeachment, and facing a primary opponent who actually reflects her Democratic district, she declared she would not seek reelection.

Coincidentally, Trump's campaign tweeted out part of her debate performance.

 

[Matthew Best]

https://twitter.com/AdyBarkan/status/1197138187140792322

Holy crap, that was hard core.

 

[kellyb]

Where do you think she is going when she fails to win a single primary?

After going on Fox to repeat the conservative talking points about the impeachment, and facing a primary opponent who actually reflects her Democratic district, she declared she would not seek reelection.

Coincidentally, Trump's campaign tweeted out part of her debate performance.

Hilary might have been right, and the Republicans might be trying to lure her into playing spoiler as an independent. The Greens wouldn't take her, I don't think.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Just for fun, I went looking into details for recent national polling:

For registered voters for the Democratic primary, on which is more important, a nominee who agrees with you on most issues, or who can win general election, Liberals (68%) and Moderates (64%) focus on winning the general election, while Conservatives focus on agreeing on issues (67%). (PDF p.102)

p. 98 has a "disappointed if nominee" ranking:

Tulsi Gabbard 37%
Marianne Williamson 35%
Bernie Sanders 26%
Joe Biden 23%
John Delaney 22%
Wayne Messam 21%
Joe Sestak 20%
Tom Steyer 20%
Deval Patrick 19%
Michael Bennet 18%
Kamala Harris 18%
Steve Bullock 18%
Elizabeth Warren 16%
Andrew Yang 15%
Amy Klobuchar 15%
Julian Castro 13%
Pete Buttigieg 12%
Cory Booker 12%
I would not be
disappointed if any of
the candidates became
the nominee 30%

It is interesting both Biden and Bernie are so high. Between them younger voters are more disappointed with Biden, while older voters are for Bernie. Interestingly, Independents would be most disappointed with Biden (42%). Black people are fairly consistent across the board, and over 50% would not be disappointed with any.

p. 93 Warren's and Pete's support rises with income, while Bernie's falls. Biden's is flat.

 

[Belz...]

HRC, I don't know where that L came from

Japanese pronunciation?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hilary might have been right, and the Republicans might be trying to lure her into playing spoiler as an independent. The Greens wouldn't take her, I don't think.

"We're crazy, but not that crazy" -- the Green Party

 

[The_Animus]

An interesting slip was when she said "Democrat" instead of "Democratic". I know some people don't think it is a big deal, but it is conservative-speak 101.

Not really. Most people don't care and many liberals including some on this forum have used them interchangeably.

 

[dudalb]

Who's Oprah? She's an insane idiot multimillionaire with crazy beliefs and a past history of complete tone deafness to the lives of ordinary people. Which means she'd poll better than two thirds of the current candidates if she ever decided to run.

I see she has stopped...at least for now..her urging Bob Iger, head of Disney , to run for the White House....

 

[dudalb]

Where do you think she is going when she fails to win a single primary?

After going on Fox to repeat the conservative talking points about the impeachment, and facing a primary opponent who actually reflects her Democratic district, she declared she would not seek reelection.

Coincidentally, Trump's campaign tweeted out part of her debate performance.

I dislike Gabbard because she displays one of Trump's worst traits;buddying up to dictators. I think the motives are different...with Gabbard it's sort of a woozy pacifism..but equally harmful.
And if anybody is secretly backing her running as an independent, I think he lives in Moscow......

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not really. Most people don't care and many liberals including some on this forum have used them interchangeably.

President Trump would prefer his supporters refer to the opposition party that way. During a rambling, two-hour speech Saturday, Trump referred to one of his critics as “the new star of the Democrat Party,” and to “the new Democrat platform” and “Democrat lawmakers.”

“Not Democratic,” declared Trump. “It’s Democrat. We have to do that. . . . I [like] to say in the speech, the ‘Democrat Party,’ because it doesn’t sound good. But that’s all the more reason I use it, because it doesn’t.”

Linky.

It's been a deliberate strategy for trolling the libs for decades. People who use it care.

I did a cursory forum search and all the instances I saw were noun-as-noun use (again, very cursory, but if they are interchangeable I would expect more even odds).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Post-debate polls from 531 are up.

 

[Brainster]

I'd say the non-main tier (Booker, Yang, Harris, Klobuchar) shined more in this debate. They didn't spend an hour rehashing moderate vs. liberal and Medicare for All. A few people shied away from attacking Pete when the mods set them up to, which could be because they don't see him as one of the front runners, regardless of the Iowa poll.

I suspect this is correct; until Buttigieg can move the needle among African Americans, he's going to be considered a longshot, and the question of why he is not getting that support will continue to dog his candidacy.

 

[acbytesla]

I suspect this is correct; until Buttigieg can move the needle among African Americans, he's going to be considered a longshot, and the question of why he is not getting that support will continue to dog his candidacy.

Longshot to win the nomination or the whole damn thing? I would hardly say he's a long shot. He only seems to get better and better IMV. And if you look back at my posts when he burst upon the scene I dismissed him entirely. Not any more. He can win. But I do agree he has to find a way to break through with African Americans.

 

[Brainster]

Longshot to win the nomination or the whole damn thing? I would hardly say he's a long shot. He only seems to get better and better IMV. And if you look back at my posts when he burst upon the scene I dismissed him entirely. Not any more. He can win. But I do agree he has to find a way to break through with African Americans.

He would be a longshot to win the nomination if he doesn't get significant support from African-Americans, right? And an even longer shot to win the presidency without that support, right?