2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[ponderingturtle]

It doesn't count, she was a Republican then.

Which should discount her as a democrat ever, remember there is nothing worse than learning when one receives new information.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

Linky.

What a horrible idea.

 

[Belz...]

This is largely based on his unapologetic refusal to be transparent about his campaign funding.

Sounds like an argument from ignorance.

What has he _got_ to make this accusation? I'm not interested in what he doesn't have.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sounds like an argument from ignorance.

What has he _got_ to make this accusation? I'm not interested in what he doesn't have.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Until a couple days ago, Pete refused to allow press to attend his private fundraisers and did not disclose the names of his biggest supporters. He has only reversed himself after being attacked by Warren about this issue.

Prior to to now, he has been extremely dismissive to these concerns and hostile to those inquiring:

https://twitter.com/GregChung7/status/1203549991853346818

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/stat...erses-course-will-open-doors-press-big-dollar

 

[Dr. Keith]

Linky.

What a horrible idea.

Agreed. If he isn't willing to serve two terms I don't see any reason to support him. I hope this shows people that he really isn't that into this.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Agreed. If he isn't willing to serve two terms I don't see any reason to support him.

Why?

 

[Distracted1]

Agreed. If he isn't willing to serve two terms I don't see any reason to support him. I hope this shows people that he really isn't that into this.

I don't think he has ever been that "into this". I think he knows he is too old, and would rather be expending his energies elsewhere.
I believe he is running because he sees that he has the best chance of unseating Trump.
If elected, his presidency will be a rubber stamp for whatever the Party can get through Congress.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think he has ever been that "into this". I think he knows he is too old, and would rather be expending his energies elsewhere.
I believe he is running because he sees that he has the best chance of unseating Trump.
If elected, his presidency will be a rubber stamp for whatever the Party can get through Congress.

I think he's running because being elected president's been on his bucket list for forty years now, and he's got a whole leg in the grave already.

 

[The_Animus]

Linky.

What a horrible idea.

Most of Biden's are.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Until a couple days ago, Pete refused to allow press to attend his private fundraisers and did not disclose the names of his biggest supporters. He has only reversed himself after being attacked by Warren about this issue.

Prior to to now, he has been extremely dismissive to these concerns and hostile to those inquiring:

https://twitter.com/GregChung7/status/1203549991853346818

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/stat...erses-course-will-open-doors-press-big-dollar

Ok, and?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ok, and?

There is a belief among many progressives that such large donations, especially when given in secret, are inherently corrupting.

 

[SezMe]

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.

Huh? I didn't see any of that in the article. I'd like an example of, for instance, the cherry picking you seem to have found.

 

[d4m10n]

Agreed. If he isn't willing to serve two terms I don't see any reason to support him. I hope this shows people that he really isn't that into this.

Sarcasm font?

 

[Brainster]

Words have meaning. Neoconservative is primarily defined by an interventionist foreign policy.

Seriously, that is not what a neoconservative is. Many neocons supported the war in Iraq, which may be where this meme started, but I see people claiming that Bush and Cheney were neocons, which is hilariously off-base.

The prefix "neo" means new. Therefore neocons are new conservatives. Considering that Cheney was a Republican congressman back in the 1970s, he hardly qualifies as "new".

The neocons were originally liberal, but came to be suspicious that many liberal programs designed to help the poor were actually having significant negative effects on the people they were supposed to be helping. Many of the early neocons were Jewish intellectuals (like Irving Kristol), which is why the term neocon was also often used as a slur for Jewish Republicans. However, many gentiles (including me) became conservatives via the neocon bridge.

The central tenet of neoconservatism is that the unintended effects of government action are often opposite from and equal to or greater than the intended effects. This should have made the neocons suspicious of regime change in Iraq.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Seriously, that is not what a neoconservative is. Many neocons supported the war in Iraq, which may be where this meme started, but I see people claiming that Bush and Cheney were neocons, which is hilariously off-base.

The prefix "neo" means new. Therefore neocons are new conservatives. Considering that Cheney was a Republican congressman back in the 1970s, he hardly qualifies as "new".

The neocons were originally liberal, but came to be suspicious that many liberal programs designed to help the poor were actually having significant negative effects on the people they were supposed to be helping. Many of the early neocons were Jewish intellectuals (like Irving Kristol), which is why the term neocon was also often used as a slur for Jewish Republicans. However, many gentiles (including me) became conservatives via the neocon bridge.

The central tenet of neoconservatism is that the unintended effects of government action are often opposite from and equal to or greater than the intended effects. This should have made the neocons suspicious of regime change in Iraq.

Wikipedia might disagree

Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests.

Usage and general views Edit
During the early 1970s, Socialist Michael Harrington was one of the first to use "neoconservative" in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" – who had become more conservative.[9] These people tended to remain endorsers of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration with respect to foreign policy, especially by their endorsement of the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union.

 

[Aridas]

It highlights her holier than thou schtick. No, I don't think it has legs per se, other than reinforcing a growing perception.

Holier than thou schtick? What holier than thou schtick? The stuff like John Kelly calling her an "impolite arrogant woman" when called out on one of the wrongs of the Trump Administration? That she's got the temerity to project confidence in the first place, regardless of being a smart, successful woman, and that therefore she's unlikeable kind of holier than thou? Maybe you're referring to WaPo calling her holier than thou based on... maybe things like that she's not exactly thrilled at the calls to just keep hoping that the people who have been consistently and brazenly not acting in good faith will suddenly start acting in good faith again like magic? Feel free to clarify if it's not one of those, of course.

It doesn't count, she was a Republican then.

Thanks for putting the words into my mouth.

Huh? I didn't see any of that in the article. I'd like an example of, for instance, the cherry picking you seem to have found.

I'm going to be really lazy here and not directly address that specific WaPo article. Rather, I'm going to point out that WaPo has a history when it comes to attacks on Warren like this. Both of those links address a directly related to the article varwoche linked attack on Warren in the WaPo, and the former addresses some previous bad behavior, as well.

This isn't the first time that the WaPo has had it out for Warren to the point of compromising journalistic integrity, in short, and when I looked at the article that varwoche linked, it looked quite a lot like they were trying to continue the trend. If I really had to, I could probably poke more at the article directly, but frankly, I'm not too enthused about using up the free article limit any more over this.

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.

Mmm. I'm not a fan of purity tests, either, and compromise is a good thing, provided that both sides are acting in good faith. When one side makes it perfectly clear that they're usually not acting in good faith, I tend to get much more leery at the prospect of "compromising" with them, though.

 

[Aridas]

Hmm. Here's an interesting assessment.

Short version - it pokes at a fair bit of data to suggest that Yang might be the most electable candidate on the field - at least as far as the focus on winning over swing voters is concerned.

 

[angrysoba]

Hmm. Here's an interesting assessment.

Short version - it pokes at a fair bit of data to suggest that Yang might be the most electable candidate on the field - at least as far as the focus on winning over swing voters is concerned.

I’m not that surprised. Anecdotally it seems Yang has been one of the most likely candidates to win votes from Trump. There are people who voted Trump woho would vote Yang. It’s difficult to see some other candidates such as Biden or Warren taking their votes. There has sometimes been an idea here that if you voted Trump, you’re an irredeemable scumbag and we don’t want your vote thank you very much. Actually, Dems almost certainly do want some of Trump’s voters.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Hmm. Here's an interesting assessment.

Short version - it pokes at a fair bit of data to suggest that Yang might be the most electable candidate on the field - at least as far as the focus on winning over swing voters is concerned.

Yang can't win swing voters until he wins the primary, and since his major accomplishment to date is just barely clearing the 4% poll requirement for debate inclusion, I'm not holding my breath.

I think his campaign of 1000 NEET bucks for every american has a hard ceiling for support.

 

[angrysoba]

Yang can't win swing voters until he wins the primary, and since his major accomplishment to date is just barely clearing the 4% poll requirement for debate inclusion, I'm not holding my breath.

Well, yes. And that's true of all the candidates.