2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Distracted1]

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.

Biden is not healthy now.

That is the biggest drawback to having him as a candidate IMO. I am dubious as to wether or not he can make it all the way to next November.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think the strategy of "a vote for Biden is actually a vote for someone else" is one with any merit. I don't think there is any effective way to explain this to the voting public that instills any confidence at all and will probably only succeed in pissing off everyone.

The people that like Biden don't want to hear that some progressive is really going to be running the show. People that like progressives aren't going to like their leaders supporting a Biden policy agenda, which is what it means to be his VP.

I don't think Biden is signaling this at all anyway. That's reading a lot into his "single term" rumors.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

No apology necessary!

And hey, Beto got out the vote last election pretty well for some Dem candidates. I don't think Texas will go to the Democrats this cycle, but I bet it will be much closer than the last presidential election.

 

[Distracted1]

I don't think the strategy of "a vote for Biden is actually a vote for someone else" is one with any merit. I don't think there is any effective way to explain this to the voting public that instills any confidence at all and will probably only succeed in pissing off everyone.

The people that like Biden don't want to hear that some progressive is really going to be running the show. People that like progressives aren't going to like their leaders supporting a Biden policy agenda, which is what it means to be his VP.

I don't think Biden is signaling this at all anyway. That's reading a lot into his "single term" rumors.

I expect the Democrats (of which I am one) to turn out in great numbers to unseat Trump even if our candidate is a stale ham sandwich.
Worrying about how progressives feel about a particular candidate is hardly worth considering this time around.

Worrying about what will turn out the small group of undecideds, and about what will keep turnout for Trump depressed, in the midwest and Atlantic States is the only concern we can afford right now. if we have to "sneak" in a President , so be it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Worrying about what will turn out the small group of undecideds, and about what will keep turnout for Trump depressed

I have been told on good authority that it's a very bad thing to depress voter turnout. Has that changed?

 

[Distracted1]

I have been told on good authority that it's a very bad thing to depress voter turnout. Has that changed?

I see your misunderstanding.
It appears you are confusing suppressing turnout through offering up a candidate that does little to motivate a voter to vote against them with suppressing turnout through making the act of voting itself a more onerous experience.
I am dubious that anyone has expressed to you that suppressing turnout through the former method is a "very bad thing".

 

[Brainster]

David Gergen suggests the only candidate who can unite the Democrats and oust Trump is...

Wait for it...

Nancy Pelosi.

If she were in the market for the job, it is now clear which Democrat would have the best chance of beating Donald Trump in 2020: Nancy Pelosi.

 

[SezMe]

Biden is not healthy now.

Huh? What are his health concerns beyond just age itself?

 

[Aridas]

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

As I said, feel free to clarify what you mean, exactly. You didn't, so I guess you're too lazy to continue the discussion. Whatever.

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

Except for the part where I did support my conclusion right after that. If you don't want to accept that the WaPo has put out a number of hit pieces on Warren with compromised journalistic integrity, including at least another one on this same information release of Warren's, and that this quite looks like more of the same, that's one thing. Trying to deny that and the rest of what I said entirely in the way that you just did, on the other hand, is dishonest. Moving on, though, since you've said nothing substantive.

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

I don't have the numbers readily available right now, but a couple months ago, when I saw the numbers for percentage of voters who were for a specific candidate and only for that candidate (likely spurred on by concerns about Bernie Bros), the number for Warren was one of the lowest, I think. Separately, as an anecdote, I don't think that I've heard any Warren supporter say that they wouldn't support whoever the eventual nominee is.

While still on the topic of Warren, though, looks like Warren's released a Blue New Deal plan, now, after concern was raised about such a few months ago.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Huh? What are his health concerns beyond just age itself?

Ocean madness. Also his eyeballs seem to pop out of his skull and go roaming, probably seeking out a new host.

 

[Belz...]

I see your misunderstanding.

I don't believe he misunderstood for one second.

 

[Aridas]

David Gergen suggests the only candidate who can unite the Democrats and oust Trump is...

Wait for it...

Nancy Pelosi.

If she were in the market for the job, it is now clear which Democrat would have the best chance of beating Donald Trump in 2020: Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi for President 2019! That would be an excellent Chrismas gift!

 

[varwoche]

As I said, feel free to clarify what you mean, exactly. You didn't, so I guess you're too lazy to continue the discussion. Whatever.

I enjoy playing whack-a-mole more than most -- at the arcade. Here not so much.

You slammed a particular article without being specific, oh industrious one. When asked to explain, you moved the goalposts.

Examining if WAPO is unfair to Warren is a complicated proposition involving fuzzy content that would require extensive research that you haven't scratched the surface of. Among other things, you would need to compare to how they cover other candidates. And you would need to factor in the phenomenon that candidates who rise to the top always face greater scrutiny.

 

[Brainster]

Are there any lessons to be learned from the British election?

 

[Puppycow]

So apparently Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks is running for congress in Katie Hill's former seat. I learned about this from the following story on the Daily Beast:

Bernie Rescinds Endorsement After Women’s Groups Blast ‘Misogynist’ Cenk Uygur

 

[Puppycow]

Are there any lessons to be learned from the British election?

Probably. I'm worried about what will happen if democrats nominate someone too far to the left.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was going to mention the UK election, but it really doesn't fit that well, other than reinforcing lessons from 2016. Labour had a uniquely unpopular leader, and a Brexit wedge issue that lost support which allowed the opposition to swing voters such that 43% of voters lead to a 56% seat majority.

Would Sanders be similar? Maybe? He had better fav/unfavs and better support among "working class whites" than Clinton. That might have changed by the time of the general election, so it is hard to say.

I've heard people worry about primaries being driven by the activists and Twitterverse, but I'm not seeing it in the data. From Warren's rise and fall, and Biden's continued success, it seems the primaries are functioning to test people's electability when they rise to a certain plausibility threshold.

 

[Puppycow]

Personally I would prefer a moderate candidate other than Biden.

Someone who can be trusted to nominate good judges and push sensible programs to help the poor and working class. Not a Jeremy Corbyn type.

 

[Brainster]

So apparently Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks is running for congress in Katie Hill's former seat. I learned about this from the following story on the Daily Beast:

Bernie Rescinds Endorsement After Women’s Groups Blast ‘Misogynist’ Cenk Uygur

Heh, Cenk was one of my favorite bloggers at the old Huffington Post, because he could always be counted on to say something stupid. Here's one of my faves, where he defends a female teacher who had sex with a 16-year-old student of hers:

Did you know that there was another hot 37-year-old woman in Tennessee (she was a former model) who had sex with a 16-year old-boy? That’s awesome. Of course, they gave her jail time for that, which is unconscionable. That’s almost as bad as when Bush accidentally invaded Iraq.

It’s a crime these days to make a young boy’s dreams come true but not a crime to ignore federal laws against warrantless eavesdropping. Go figure. I’m just happy that the kid got laid before they locked the lady up.

 

[Aridas]

I enjoy playing whack-a-mole more than most -- at the arcade. Here not so much.

You slammed a particular article without being specific, oh industrious one. When asked to explain, you moved the goalposts.

I did indeed slam it without being specific. Quite frankly, though, I didn't move the goalposts. Rather, because I didn't feel like using my free article limit any more on that and also didn't feel like going back and going into an in depth analysis of the goods and bads of the article itself, I chose to be relatively lazy and refer to relevant related material, while being completely clear about what I was doing there and why. That's not even remotely moving the goalposts.

Examining if WAPO is unfair to Warren is a complicated proposition involving fuzzy content that would require extensive research that you haven't scratched the surface of. Among other things, you would need to compare to how they cover other candidates. And you would need to factor in the phenomenon that candidates who rise to the top always face greater scrutiny.

*raises an eyebrow*

You seem to be addressing something related, but notably different than what I actually said and provided evidence for - and attaching multiple completely irrelevant factors. I'm not impressed.