• 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.
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.

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.
Click to expand...

MSNBC in particular is always careful to not rock the boat too much on fiscal issues. It's been frustrating to see.
 
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Buttigieg starting to slip a little and still getting next to no support from African-Americans. Biden has a stranglehold on those voters, getting 51%, versus 13% for Sanders, 12% for Warren and only 2% for Buttigieg. Overall Biden is at 29%, Sanders at 17%, Warren at 15% and Buttigieg at 9%. After that, Bloomberg has 5%, Yang 4% and Klobuchar 3%. Deval Patrick drew no support, and Steyer got 1%.

Bloomberg's 5% looks pretty good considering how briefly he has been in the race, but there are warning signs that he has a pretty low ceiling. In terms of favorable/unfavorable he is under water at 21%/40%.
 
Brainster said:
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Buttigieg starting to slip a little and still getting next to no support from African-Americans. Biden has a stranglehold on those voters, getting 51%, versus 13% for Sanders, 12% for Warren and only 2% for Buttigieg. Overall Biden is at 29%, Sanders at 17%, Warren at 15% and Buttigieg at 9%. After that, Bloomberg has 5%, Yang 4% and Klobuchar 3%. Deval Patrick drew no support, and Steyer got 1%.

Bloomberg's 5% looks pretty good considering how briefly he has been in the race, but there are warning signs that he has a pretty low ceiling. In terms of favorable/unfavorable he is under water at 21%/40%.
Click to expand...

ETA: Yang's 4% gets him on the debate stage for December. Seriously.
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mmm. The thing is... it's not actually egg on her face. That's egg on the WaPo's face, again. It's a half arsed hit piece that works heavily to mislead with cherry picking, lack of context, and suggestive language to lead people to decidedly inaccurate conclusions. As an attack, in general, it's pretty ridiculous.

Just like most of rest of the attacks on Warren that I can think of, really. Still, if you really think that this has any legs, what parts, specifically, do you think warrant particular attention?
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
ETA: Yang's 4% gets him on the debate stage for December. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Good for him. While I really don't see him winning, the fact that he's playing a significant and likely overdue role in bringing the effects of mechanization into the public spotlight has plenty of merit in and of itself.
 
Jordan Uhl on TV talking about our boy Pete:

"Buttigieg is one of the most bloodsucking politicians. He’s a total corporate leech & the most self-serving 2020 candidate.
Money in politics is now a national bi-partisan issue & he’s working to undo all of that progress for his own self-aggrandizing crusade.”

- @JordanUhl
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport/status/1204581743661064192

Pete (and Bloomberg) are running in the wrong primary. They're NeoCons
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Words have meaning. Neoconservative is primarily defined by an interventionist foreign policy.
Click to expand...

The meanings of words are not static. NeoCon is generally understood to include certain domestic and economic policy positions as well as an appetite for foreign military intervention.


I very much doubt that people like Buttigieg and Bloomberg are opposed to military adventurism abroad anyway, so the label fits.

I'm not really interested in further discussion of what NeoCon means in this thread, as that would be a derail, so I will not reply to further replies along these lines.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Mmm. The thing is... it's not actually egg on her face. That's egg on the WaPo's face, again. It's a half arsed hit piece that works heavily to mislead with cherry picking, lack of context, and suggestive language to lead people to decidedly inaccurate conclusions. As an attack, in general, it's pretty ridiculous.

Just like most of rest of the attacks on Warren that I can think of, really. Still, if you really think that this has any legs, what parts, specifically, do you think warrant particular attention?
Click to expand...
It highlights her holier than thou schtick. No, I don't think it has legs per se, other than reinforcing a growing perception.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The meanings of words are not static. NeoCon is generally understood to include certain domestic and economic policy positions as well as an appetite for foreign military intervention.


I very much doubt that people like Buttigieg and Bloomberg are opposed to military adventurism abroad anyway, so the label fits.

I'm not really interested in further discussion of what NeoCon means in this thread, as that would be a derail, so I will not reply to further replies along these lines.
Click to expand...

I see. You get to use a word incorrectly because fixing you is a derail. How convenient.
 
Belz... said:
Who's this guy, and why should I listen to him?
Click to expand...

He's a left wing internet activist. He's best known for leading a campaign to get companies to stop advertising on Tucker Carlson's Fox show in response to his anti-immigrant segments, which had significant success, at least for a time. It certainly made it more expensive for Fox to host Carlson when it is becoming increasingly clear his show serves to launder and mainstream white nationalist ideology.

Why should you listen? For the same reason you might (or not) listen to any pundit. He's expressing a political opinion, one that I happen to agree with.

I find his characterization of Pete to be a succinct summary of why he's unfit to be the nominee.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Jordan Uhl on TV talking about our boy Pete:



https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport/status/1204581743661064192

Pete (and Bloomberg) are running in the wrong primary. They're NeoCons
Click to expand...

And I could care less. One of things that drives me crazy about the far right and the far left are the purity tests. I consider myself a moderate, a conservative and a liberal. It all depends on the specific issue. I also understand that compromise is not a dirty word. Some far left commentators saying over the top moronic things about a moderate Democrat doesn't affect me a bit.
 
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