2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[TurkeysGhost]

To be honest, I find the complaints about Pete or Warren's career work pretty uncompelling. Pete worked as a wonky managerial consultant, which is pretty consistent with his brand. Warren worked as a wonky corporate law consultant, which is even more consistent with her brand. Sure, some of their clients were unsavory, but meh.

The Warren criticism falls especially flat. She has a long political career since the mid 90's that shows a pretty consistent record on regulating big capital. The CPFB (before it was gutted by Trump) was a tremendous success and she deserves a lot of credit for that. I have problems with Warren on other issues, but her record of being a foil to big business is pretty solid.

Who the hell knows what Pete stands for, other than personal ambition. He's a guy that speaks well and looks good in a suit that rich people are throwing money at. He's young enough that his terrible centrist stances haven't had the time to age like milk, which makes him more appealing than Biden. As far as being a technocratic centrist liberal, I suppose he's better than HRC.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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

Talking about his appeal to hypothetical swing voters seems like smokescreen for the fact that he is absolutely floundering in the primary. It's putting the cart before the horse.

It might make sense to talk about swing voter appeal among the leading candidates. At least for them it's not a leap of faith to presume they could actually clinch the nomination.

 

[angrysoba]

Talking about his appeal to hypothetical swing voters seems like smokescreen for the fact that he is absolutely floundering in the primary. It's putting the cart before the horse.

Is he going to win? No, he has no chance. That said, I don't think the swing voters are hypothetical. There are real voters who might be persuaded to vote for the Democrats if they have the right candidate.

It might make sense to talk about swing voter appeal among the leading candidates. At least for them it's not a leap of faith to presume they could actually clinch the nomination.

Yes, it makes sense indeed. Are any of the leading candidates looking as though they have much swing voter appeal? If not, then maybe they should look at what seems to be different about Yang.

 

[Tero]

This Pete and Warren thing is not helping either, just forget that after Iowa. Hillary was similarly charged with "she defended a rapist." Er, a rapist is entitled to a lawyer. It was Hillary.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

Then start with candidates who have demonstrated winning over swing voters by winning elections where they won them.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Pete Buttigieg's Campaign Said He Had Nothing To Do With A Canadian Bread Price-Fixing Scandal

Now there's a headline you don't see every day. I have no comment other than this is funny as hell.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey-canadian-bread-price-fixing

 

[Dr. Keith]

Sarcasm font?

No. I expect the next Democrat to take office to serve two terms. Even if it is Sanders, Warren or Biden. If they aren't committed to fulfilling the contract then why should I consider them for the job?

I was recently hired for a contract that will last at least six months, probably 12. I would not have been hired if I told them I could only really be committed to the deal for six months. Even if I offered to help them find my replacement.

 

[varwoche]

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?

It's as if these comments are bleeding over from a different thread, you're so off point.

I'm going to be really lazy here and not directly address that specific WaPo article.

Translation: You knee-jerked to a conclusion that you're not able to support.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No. I expect the next Democrat to take office to serve two terms. Even if it is Sanders, Warren or Biden. If they aren't committed to fulfilling the contract then why should I consider them for the job?

I was recently hired for a contract that will last at least six months, probably 12. I would not have been hired if I told them I could only really be committed to the deal for six months. Even if I offered to help them find my replacement.

I see no benefit in signaling such a thing. I mean, Republicans gonna be Republicans no matter what, but signaling that they can just wait you out for 4 years will only make them more obstructionist.

I can't see any reasoning for not planning to run for re-election that isn't also a reason not to run now.

 

[Distracted1]

I see no benefit in signaling such a thing. I mean, Republicans gonna be Republicans no matter what, but signaling that they can just wait you out for 4 years will only make them more obstructionist.

I can't see any reasoning for not planning to run for re-election that isn't also a reason not to run now.

He is already at the limits his age will allow. Obviously he knows this, and feels like acknowledging that by publicly recognizing that he only has a couple "good" years left will help his campaign.
Also, it will allow him to select a much more active (and leftist) running mate with winking acknowledgment that she will actually be the one running the show.

Really, I think the only reason he is running is because he can defeat Trump in the "battleground" states. His VP will likely be the most active one in recent history.

 

[Dr. Keith]

He is already at the limits his age will allow. Obviously he knows this, and feels like acknowledging that by publicly recognizing that he only has a couple "good" years left will help his campaign.
Also, it will allow him to select a much more active (and leftist) running mate with winking acknowledgment that she will actually be the one running the show.

Really, I think the only reason he is running is because he can defeat Trump in the "battleground" states. His VP will likely be the most active one in recent history.

So, the Biden/WARREN ticket will mirror the OBAMA/Biden ticket, or something like that?

Those who would vote for Biden but not Warren will not vote for Biden/WARREN.

Feel free to substitute Warren in this post any other progressive you may want to consider.

 

[Distracted1]

So, the Biden/WARREN ticket will mirror the OBAMA/Biden ticket, or something like that?

Those who would vote for Biden but not Warren will not vote for Biden/WARREN.

Feel free to substitute Warren in this post any other progressive you may want to consider.

You think?
I think Pence allowed many of the Religious to allow themselves to vote for Trump.

The margins in the States that will decide this election are very slim. Biden/Warren might be the way to scoop up the most votes available while not simultaneously serving to motivate right-leaning voters to vote against the Democrats.

Assuming that Warren can sit back and let Biden carry the election without undermining his moderate message too much.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, the Biden/WARREN ticket will mirror the OBAMA/Biden ticket, or something like that?

Those who would vote for Biden but not Warren will not vote for Biden/WARREN.

Feel free to substitute Warren in this post any other progressive you may want to consider.

And those who want Warren for president won't vote for Biden even if Warren were his VP. Warren's fans like her because she's against the things Biden is for: if they team up Biden won't win the love of Warren's fans, rather she will lose their love for selling out.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

He is already at the limits his age will allow. Obviously he knows this, and feels like acknowledging that by publicly recognizing that he only has a couple "good" years left will help his campaign.
Also, it will allow him to select a much more active (and leftist) running mate with winking acknowledgment that she will actually be the one running the show.

Really, I think the only reason he is running is because he can defeat Trump in the "battleground" states. His VP will likely be the most active one in recent history.

That's quite the speculation. Is there anything that Biden has said that would suggest he is going to allow his VP to subsume his power as POTUS?

I wouldn't think this is going to affect anyone's primary voting decision unless he selected a VP candidate soon and made such an arrangement more explicit.

And those who want Warren for president won't vote for Biden even if Warren were his VP. Warren's fans like her because she's against the things Biden is for: if they team up Biden won't win the love of Warren's fans, rather she will lose their love for selling out.

Agreed to an extent. I don't think many D voters are going to sit this one out, even if they are salty. The anti-Trump drive is strong. But a Warren VP seems like a waste of her talents. If Warren isn't the nominee, the best thing would be for her to remain in the Senate. She's done good work there and wouldn't be easy to replace.

 

[Distracted1]

And those who want Warren for president won't vote for Biden even if Warren were his VP. Warren's fans like her because she's against the things Biden is for: if they team up Biden won't win the love of Warren's fans, rather she will lose their love for selling out.

Nonsense.
The number of Warren fans (like me) who would not vote for Biden over Trump is vanishingly small.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You think?
I think Pence allowed many of the Religious to allow themselves to vote for Trump.

The margins in the States that will decide this election are very slim. Biden/Warren might be the way to scoop up the most votes available while not simultaneously serving to motivate right-leaning voters to vote against the Democrats.

Assuming that Warren can sit back and let Biden carry the election without undermining his moderate message too much.

If Warren sits back then she is not the person I want to take over when Biden bails.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Nonsense.
The number of Warren fans (like me) who would not vote for Biden over Trump is vanishingly small.

I was thinking of the primaries. If Warren teams up with Biden before them I think her fans will defect to Sanders, rather than following her to Biden.

 

[Distracted1]

That's quite the speculation. Is there anything that Biden has said that would suggest he is going to allow his VP to subsume his power as POTUS?

I wouldn't think this is going to affect anyone's primary voting decision unless he selected a VP candidate soon and made such an arrangement more explicit.



Agreed to an extent. I don't think many D voters are going to sit this one out, even if they are salty. The anti-Trump drive is strong. But a Warren VP seems like a waste of her talents. If Warren isn't the nominee, the best thing would be for her to remain in the Senate. She's done good work there and wouldn't be easy to replace.

As to what he has said to indicate such, the "one term" admission is a pretty clear hint.

To be more explicit with it is to diminish the effectiveness of such a strategy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As to what he has said to indicate such, the "one term" admission is a pretty clear hint.

To be more explicit with it is to diminish the effectiveness of such a strategy.

There's no indication that his one term would be anything but a Biden directed administration pursuing Biden policy goals. The VP has no independent power.

If Biden were healthy and popular enough to have a chance to remain in office at the end of his first term, I very much doubt he would willingly step down and not seek re-election.

 

[Distracted1]

If Warren sits back then she is not the person I want to take over when Biden bails.

Thats worrisome. Whatever will we Democrats do if we can't carry Texas next year?

ETA. Sorry, that came off harsher than I intended. Mean to say that the election will decided (I think) by relatively few voters in relatively few States. My prejudice is that I am somewhat familiar with the voters moods in these States. I do not wish to imply denigration of Texas, or of your opinions.