2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biden corruption update from Lindsey Graham:

"Where’s the outrage of people on the ground in Ukraine in 2014, ’15 and ’16 when they knew the vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, was being paid by the most corrupt company in Ukraine? Why didn’t some to call Washington and say this undercuts our message, it’s not bad government? So, I want an oversight of the Bidens. I’d like it to be outside of politics. But if it has to be done by the Congress, so be it. But I am not going to live in a country where the Trump family can be investigated for years, spend millions of dollars on legal fees, and the Democratic vice president’s son takes $3 million on the most corrupt gas company in the Ukraine, and nobody gives a damn. We’re not going to live in that country."

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/25/lindsey-graham-i-want-an-oversight-of-the-bidens/
 
TragicMonkey said:
There's a reason it's the paper given away free in lower middle class motels. That's how they can boast of having the widest circulation. For years it also boasted of having the most pictures, in color.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know. I was once out of the country for 3 weeks, the days before the internet. It was an outdoors vacation so I had seen no TV. I got to the aiport and had time to wait so I looked for Newsweek at the news stand. Had to settle for Time.
 
Brainster said:
Biden & Bloomberg: Moderate Liberal
Buttigieg: Liberal
Warren: Left
Sanders: Far Left

Trump has governed as Right (about as far away from the center but on the opposite side as Warren), and his rhetoric has been more Far Right--not quite in the Pat Buchanan class, but not too far off. I'm not sure how much of that is political calculation (tamping down his right flank) and how much of it is deeply held beliefs. He was certainly a liberal back around 2000.
Click to expand...

Being equitable and not pandering office to billionaires is “far left.” Lets all just calm down. Dont want to elect another extremist.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Biden corruption update from Lindsey Graham:

"Where’s the outrage of people on the ground in Ukraine in 2014, ’15 and ’16 when they knew the vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, was being paid by the most corrupt company in Ukraine? Why didn’t some to call Washington and say this undercuts our message, it’s not bad government? So, I want an oversight of the Bidens. I’d like it to be outside of politics. But if it has to be done by the Congress, so be it. But I am not going to live in a country where the Trump family can be investigated for years, spend millions of dollars on legal fees, and the Democratic vice president’s son takes $3 million on the most corrupt gas company in the Ukraine, and nobody gives a damn. We’re not going to live in that country."

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/25/lindsey-graham-i-want-an-oversight-of-the-bidens/
Click to expand...

I'd be more inclined to take this seriously if it weren't coming from 1) Lindsey Graham - seriously, at this point, why is anyone treating him as anything other than a terrible joke that just keeps getting more and more idiotic and out of date since Trump became President? - and 2) Breitbart, which really doesn't care about truth anyways, but rather trucks in extremist right-wing propaganda. If you need more? Where's the outrage about what the GOP did to Hillary as part of their political witch hunting? Hillary actually *has* repeatedly been exonerated. Trump, on the other hand, has been investigated with very firm basis, unlike both of the Clintons. Trump has not been exonerated. Rather, actual firm evidence of crime by Trump just keeps coming out, despite Trump's numerous moves to lie about such and obstruct justice, especially by withholding validly subpeonaed evidence (which he brags about doing, no less).
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
Rogan's a good guy. He's a no-nonsense sorta rough around the edges but not too much. I'm glad he endorsed Bernie but I don't know what to feel about Bernie playing it up.

Much of his audience still dwells on the few states who allow transsexual MMA fighters to compete with females. As if that's so much more important than anything else, right? As if compulsive xenophobia and AGW denial and a broken foreign policy are side issues.
Click to expand...

This one's already blown up in his face online.

Usual caveat: online isn't necessarily reflective of the overall electorate. And a second one: I've defended Rogan on this board to a mild degree - he's a decent interviewer overall who sometimes really manages to call BS on people. I think there are much better podcasts out there overall - but also far worse.

There are a *lot* of people outside of MMA and dudbro groups that view him as an entry to the Nazi wannabe internet culture, and those very close to it such as the Proud Boys. And in truth, they're likely not wrong - he's had painfully friendly interviews with the likes of Stefan Molyneaux, Alex Jones, Sargon of Akkad, and Milo Yourmomsasnitch. And these groups are a major part of the dem coalition, and are naturally uninterested in sitting next to, and working with, people who actively want them disenfranchised and/or killed by the government. Add to this Bernie's long-standing class reductionism (to translate: he has a bad habit of assuming that bigotry is caused by "economic anxiety", when we actually find that people will happily sacrifice economically if it means they can play out their bigotries), and his pre-existing issues with the "Bernie Bro" faction of his own base, and you end up with a good portion of the online base becoming extremely angry.

(I think the anger is somewhat overblown - for example, there's a video of him saying "the N-word", but many of the clips look like he's quoting some racist, which I think is reasonable as much as it makes me shudder...but I definitely would have advised against releasing any such ad, because this is exactly the sort of online explosion I would expect to happen in response)
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
There are a *lot* of people outside of MMA and dudbro groups that view him as an entry to the Nazi wannabe internet culture, and those very close to it such as the Proud Boys. And in truth, they're likely not wrong - he's had painfully friendly interviews with the likes of Stefan Molyneaux, Alex Jones, Sargon of Akkad, and Milo Yourmomsasnitch. And these groups are a major part of the dem coalition, and are naturally uninterested in sitting next to, and working with, people who actively want them disenfranchised and/or killed by the government. Add to this Bernie's long-standing class reductionism (to translate: he has a bad habit of assuming that bigotry is caused by "economic anxiety", when we actually find that people will happily sacrifice economically if it means they can play out their bigotries), and his pre-existing issues with the "Bernie Bro" faction of his own base, and you end up with a good portion of the online base becoming extremely angry.

(I think this anger is somewhat overblown...but I definitely would have advised against releasing any such ad, because this is exactly the sort of online explosion I would expect to happen in response)
Click to expand...

That's what frustrates me about Rogan. He's too nice and carefree a guy that sometimes he allows these scumbag grifters a platform on his show. Politics and even social issues just are not at the forefront for him.

Bernie's reduction of everything to economic anxiety does get on my nerves as well. It's perhaps easier to swallow for the Rust Belt voters, but he does mention the racism, the xenophobia and sexism, albeit portrayed as a backlash to economic hardship.

We could talk about how racism and sexism influenced the 2016 results in middle America and the Rust Belt, but everyone by now knows that won't be enough to win over voters. I wouldn't be surprised if it was carefully framed this way by Sanders. No academic exercise in examining the intricacies of racial bias can be asked of the electorate right now. I guess this is how it has to be for now.
 
Segnosaur said:
I think there is evidence to support that the 'socialist' label might be damaging:

From: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...ity-of-americans-say-the-would-not-vote-for-a
In a new Hill.TV/HarrisX American Barometer poll released Tuesday, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a “socialist” political candidate...

Now, keep in mind that doesn't necessarily mean that people will be opposed to individual government policies (like expanded medicare, etc.) Its just the "label" socialist that seems to be the issue.

And yes, I recognize that the GOP will probably try to tarnish any Democratic candidate with the 'socialist' label (even if they get the re-animated corpse of Reagan to run as a Democrat). I do think it will make a little bit of a difference if that label is applied externally (for example by the GOP) or whether it is a self-description (like Sanders' past statements.)
Click to expand...

It also doesn’t necessarily mean people won’t vote for Sanders. If you asked people whether they would vote for a guy who said “grab em by the pussay’ a vast majority of people would probably say no. But the reality is otherwise.
 
Segnosaur said:
I think there is evidence to support that the 'socialist' label might be damaging:

From: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...ity-of-americans-say-the-would-not-vote-for-a
In a new Hill.TV/HarrisX American Barometer poll released Tuesday, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a “socialist” political candidate...
Click to expand...


I don't think that supports the claim that simply the label of socialism is damaging. I think most people are aware there is a difference between being a socialist and being labeled a socialist. What the poll supports is relevant to the former, not the latter. Not to mention, the perception of who is/is not a socialist varies widely from person to person.

I can easily imagine someone thinking they would never vote for a socialist while simultaneously choosing to vote for Sanders, deciding that he is not really a socialist, despite what he or anyone else says. Indeed, I believe this contrast is supported by the fact that Sanders generally polls better than Trump.
 
Cabbage said:
I don't think that supports the claim that simply the label of socialism is damaging. I think most people are aware there is a difference between being a socialist and being labeled a socialist. What the poll supports is relevant to the former, not the latter. Not to mention, the perception of who is/is not a socialist varies widely from person to person.

I can easily imagine someone thinking they would never vote for a socialist while simultaneously choosing to vote for Sanders, deciding that he is not really a socialist, despite what he or anyone else says. Indeed, I believe this contrast is supported by the fact that Sanders generally polls better than Trump.
Click to expand...

People need to put aside the labels and listen to the policy messages Sanders has been clearly and repeatedly offering for decades.

Universal healthcare, student debt forgiveness, liveable minimum wages, taxing the uberwealthly and reining in the obscene wealth divide. If these are not mainstream Democratic policies then forget them.
 
My biggest issue with this hang wringing over how they will call Sanders a socialist:

What do you mean "will?" When haven't they been?!

They put lots of labels that regressive Americans respond to on Obama, too. Including socialist. Do recall, coming out of the primary, his positions and statements were what passes for how that word gets used in our political parlance.

Even when progs started getting "meh" on him in his Presidency, they still said it anyways. I think it was in Bill O'Reilly's contract.

"...the host shall precede the name of the President by using some combination of "Kenyan", "secret Muslim", "socialist", and/or "coward" in a foreboding tone and paired with either "community organizer" or "constitutional scholar" in an irreverent and sarcastic tone..."
 
Last edited:
Remember back when the left used to ridicule us conservatives for pointing out the immediate and potential problems with the symbiotic/incestuous relationships between public service unions and governments? Well, for the edification of all, here is a very timely article titled "How the Golden State Embraced Corporate Socialism", which explains how the huge income inequality gap was created in California, among other things. Good stuff.

"Gavin Newsom, the lily white, urbane, coiffed scion of San Francisco’s posh royalty, is California’s highest-ranking Democrat. He presides over a party that has taken progressive ideals beyond absurdity to the brink of tyranny, a socialist party that openly disparages whiteness and wealth. One would think that the party of Gavin Newsom is bent on destroying everything Gavin Newsom represents. So what’s going on?"

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/24/how-the-golden-state-embraced-corporate-socialism/
 
Don't look now, but Bernie Sanders is currently the favorite to win the nomination, according to London bookies.

RCP's average of bookie odds puts Sanders at 37.6% currently as compared to Biden's 34.1. If you look at the chart, this is the first time that Sanders has been on top. Bloomberg has solidified his 3rd place standing (12.9%) over Warren (11.1%). Mayor Pete has declined down to 7.1% after being in the low 20s in early December. He has been polling pretty well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he has not made a dent among African-American voters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom