• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
It's sure as hell mine.
In fact, it's my only priority.
And I remain unconvinced that nominating somebody pretty far to the left by US Standards (only ones that matter in this context) is the best way of doing this. I don't believe there is some vast hidden reservoir of "progressives" voter out there waiting for the right candidate to bring them to life.
Click to expand...

And nor do I believe that there's some vast set of "moderates" that would refuse to vote for Warren or vote Trump over Warren that wouldn't vote Trump over any Democrat. Bernie, at least, I could see the argument for, given that he's on par with Biden in a bunch of relevant ways. As for priorities, getting Trump out, at best, puts a band-aid on a nastily bleeding wound. That's a heck of a lot better than not putting a band-aid on, but it's not doing much to help with the wound itself. Action needs to be taken to actually take care of that wound if we don't want things to keep getting worse, so getting Trump out is only one of my priorities.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
It's sure as hell mine.
In fact, it's my only priority.
And I remain unconvinced that nominating somebody pretty far to the left by US Standards (only ones that matter in this context) is the best way of doing this. I don't believe there is some vast hidden reservoir of "progressives" voter out there waiting for the right candidate to bring them to life.
Click to expand...

And I maintain you don't need a vast hidden reservoir of progressive voters. When Obama won in 2008, his platform for the better part of a year was pretty progressive. There were plenty of progressive left-wingers, first-time voters among my friends who voted for Obama, thinking he was for universal healthcare and scaling back the wars.

Those "apolitical", opportunistic voters who swing between elections could just as easily give a progressive the win over Trump.
 
Aridas said:
And nor do I believe that there's some vast set of "moderates" that would refuse to vote for Warren or vote Trump over Warren that wouldn't vote Trump over any Democrat. Bernie, at least, I could see the argument for, given that he's on par with Biden in a bunch of relevant ways. As for priorities, getting Trump out, at best, puts a band-aid on a nastily bleeding wound. That's a heck of a lot better than not putting a band-aid on, but it's not doing much to help with the wound itself. Action needs to be taken to actually take care of that wound if we don't want things to keep getting worse, so getting Trump out is only one of my priorities.
Click to expand...

There's a significant pool of Biden voters who would vote for Sanders in the general too, and about the same number the other way around, if you can believe that.
 
I don't think we are seeing the effect Biden's son's job in Ukraine yet. There's no way it won't have some effect.
 
Venom said:
There's a significant pool of Biden voters who would vote for Sanders in the general too, and about the same number the other way around, if you can believe that.
Click to expand...

Quite easily, really, given that the whole "moderate" vs "progressive" split is greatly, greatly overrated, in fair part because of right-wingers and profit-seekers in the media working hard to pick and frame what conversations are actually going on at a national level. There's a myriad of reasons that people vote one way or another, probably most of which don't really fall into that split at all.

ETA: Perhaps I should add that a number of the far too few owners of the MSM are not a huge fan of progressives or the middle left - because those are the people most likely to actually impact their bottom line, in a couple different ways.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
The real problem with most of the "wealth" taxes is that they are actually asset taxes. Warren's plan is entirely asset-based. This is not a problem for the Gates and the Buffets and the Bezoses of the world, because their wealth is in stock, where the assets are matched off with liabilities before it comes to them. But individuals who own commercial real estate may run into problems because there the whole idea is to buy with leverage (debt). So say you own a large commercial property worth $100 million in total, with $75 million in debt? You only have $25 million in equity and yet Lizzie Warren takes her axe and says you owe $2 million.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Wealth consists of assets minus liabilities. The developer has $25 million in wealth. The rest of the $75 million is a liability - accounts payable. It's an asset for the lenders - accounts receivable. This is such basic bookkeeping that I wonder whether you're serious.

If I buy a $100,000 house with a $10,000 down payment, I'm worth $10,000 - no matter how much I expect the house to be worth in the future. The bank has assets of of $90,000. Same thing. And stocks are most certainly "equities." You own a piece of a company - you have equity in it. You can borrow against it. Wealth is another way of saying "net worth."

If you can provide citations, I'll read them with an open mind.

ETA: In fairness, I admit I can't shake the feeling that this could be something Trump or his minions have made up. It sounds like something he'd do. Use one balance sheet when trying to inflate his wealth for a bank loan, and another one when trying to get out of paying property taxes. If that is the case, I hate to see people fall for it.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Quite easily, really, given that the whole "moderate" vs "progressive" split is greatly, greatly overrated, in fair part because of right-wingers and profit-seekers in the media working hard to pick and frame what conversations are actually going on at a national level. There's a myriad of reasons that people vote one way or another, probably most of which don't really fall into that split at all.
Click to expand...
I think it's healthy to recognize the differences in opinion, but not make too much of them. IMO one of the things that helped Trump was that there were some "Never Hillary" voters among Bernie supporters who would not turn out for her even if Sanders begged them to.

I have suggested some early, unified strategy for Democrats at this stage. Others have said that without a nominee, it's too early to form any strategy. It's a fine line. I don't want to suppress healthy arguments, but do want to avoid a circular firing squad. For example, I believe they all want some form of universal health care. It's a popular issue with voters. I happen to believe the ACA could be improved substantially, perhaps while phasing in a public option. Vowing to radically remake the system overnight may not be the best strategy right now. Although foreign policy is a snooze for many voters, Democrats could probably all agree that supporting traditional allies is better for U.S. security than embracing authoritarian regimes. Can they get those messages out? I do think that emphasizing what they have in common could serve a broader purpose. Focus on the common values that they share with a broad range of voters.

They don't all have to join hands and sing "Kumbayah." That would be phony, and voters would know it. Convince me that you're the *best* candidate for implementing such shared values. But put those values out front and center to win over broader support for the party's ideals.
 
I rather enjoy that Warren has corporate egg on her face today. Maybe she'll get off the high horse.

I don't hold this against her. It was a long time ago. I do wish she'd get off the high horse though, and focus on defeating Trump.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
And nor do I believe that there's some vast set of "moderates" that would refuse to vote for Warren or vote Trump over Warren that wouldn't vote Trump over any Democrat. Bernie, at least, I could see the argument for, given that he's on par with Biden in a bunch of relevant ways. As for priorities, getting Trump out, at best, puts a band-aid on a nastily bleeding wound. That's a heck of a lot better than not putting a band-aid on, but it's not doing much to help with the wound itself. Action needs to be taken to actually take care of that wound if we don't want things to keep getting worse, so getting Trump out is only one of my priorities.
Click to expand...
In the States that are likely in play next year, PA, OH, MI, et..al.., I disagee with you.

There were enough right leaning voters in these States last election that either voted third-party, or refrained from voting for POTUS at all, because of their disdain for both candidates. Many of these potential votes could have been secured by the Democratic nominee had she been a bit more palatable to them.
These voters still do not wish to vote for Trump, but will if they once again find the Democratic nominee too disdainful. They would pull the lever for Biden- but not Bernie.

What the same potential voters would do in CA or TX or any other State that really is not in play, unfortunately, doesn't matter much.
 
Distracted1 said:
In the States that are likely in play next year, PA, OH, MI, et..al.., I disagee with you.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with discussing American politics.

"There are X number of swing, undecided, moderate, marginal, etc" voters doesn't really matter.

The only thing right now that actually matters is a very, very small number of potentially swingables voters in a handful of counties in about... 5 or 6 states. 10 tops and that's probably being waaaaay optimistic.

That's it. Everybody is politically powerless because they've either made up their mind or are surrounded by people who already have.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
In the States that are likely in play next year, PA, OH, MI, et..al.., I disagee with you...
Click to expand...
We need to get out of the mindset that there's such a thing as national election. The POTUS will be voted in by MI, PA and WI. Odin help us with this freak show known as the electoral college.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
In the States that are likely in play next year, PA, OH, MI, et..al. [...]

There were enough right leaning voters in these States last election that either voted third-party, or refrained from voting for POTUS at all, because of their disdain for both candidates.
Click to expand...

This problem was foreseeable well before the election:
https://twitter.com/SkepticInk/status/759513809375653888

All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom