2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Venom]

Trump beat Clinton by 22,000 votes in Wisconsin.

I'm confident that Sanders could easily close that gap.

 

[Cabbage]

Ironic that the Bernie Bros here seem to confirm every negative opinion people have about them.
And I love the way they hand wave away any discussion of Bernie's electability by cherry picking some poles.
Nomnating Bernie will hand the White House to Trump for another 4 years, I have yet to see any convincing argument to the contrary;I don't consider playing games and cherry picking poll numbers to be convincing.

How does looking at the poll trend constitute "cherry picking". Take a look at this list and just try to seriously tell me I'm "cherry picking" when I say Sanders polls better than Trump.

Just try.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

 

[Venom]

that....that doesn't count.

The "responsible moderates" of the subforum are hyper-focused on the intangibles, like the Trump camp calling him a socialist.

 

[Segnosaur]

that....that doesn't count.

The "responsible moderates" of the subforum are hyper-focused on the intangibles, like the Trump camp calling him a socialist.

Minor nitpick...

We aren't so much concerned with Trump calling him a socialist (since the republicans will attempt to use that label on anyone the Dems pick as their candidate.)

We are concerned that Sanders described HIMSELF as a socialist. Which would make any sort of smear campaign against him a little more effective.

 

[Cabbage]

that....that doesn't count.

The "responsible moderates" of the subforum are hyper-focused on the intangibles, like the Trump camp calling him a socialist.

Honestly, I don't care if anyone wants to ignore the polls or not. I posted it specifically to demonstrate that "Cherry picking some poles" was a lie.

If you really think Sanders can't beat Trump, try backing it up with facts. Not lies.

(I'm not addressing that to you, Venom)

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Who are these voters that are somehow unaware of Sanders' self-proclaimed socialist views who might vote for him, but then not do so when his opponents call him a socialist?

It's kind of a confusing argument to follow.

ETA:We already did this dance.

Before last election: "The decades of attacks on Clinton are already accounted for, Sanders will sink once they hammer him!"

After election: "the decades of attacks is why she lost!"

 

[Distracted1]

that....that doesn't count.

The "responsible moderates" of the subforum are hyper-focused on the intangibles, like the Trump camp calling him a socialist.

Funny thing is, some of us aren't even moderates.

Free post-secondary education, healthcare for all, strong unions, UBI,..etc. ,Bring them on!!

But first, how about we try to secure a foothold on the levers of power by actually...you know....winning?

Further, as Segnosaur pointed out, the concern with the "socialist" scare is not how it will be used, but how effective it will be.

 

[Segnosaur]

How does looking at the poll trend constitute "cherry picking". Take a look at this list and just try to seriously tell me I'm "cherry picking" when I say Sanders polls better than Trump.

Just try.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

Just what 'poll trend' are we supposed to be noticing here?

The recent polls show Sanders beating Trump by 3% on average. But individual polls taken in that time frame have bounced around from Sanders winning by 8, then losing by 5, then winning by 1, 7, and 6 before dropping again. There doesn't really seem to be a 'trend'. Now, if you go back a few months, Sanders was regularly beating Trump by 8 or 9 points, so in some ways it looks like his numbers are trending downwards.

It should also be noted that Biden, Warren and Harris also poll higher than Trump (and in Biden's and Harris's case, are doing even better than Sanders.)

It should also be noted that this is currently the primary season. The type of attacks that a candidate will have to deal with now are different than what they will see in the general election. Some of us are concerned that there are a few too many skeletons in Sander's closet that the republicans could use (that they've been holding back).

 

[Cabbage]

Just what 'poll trend' are we supposed to be noticing here?

The trend that well over 90% of the polls listed have Sanders over Trump.

The recent polls show Sanders beating Trump by 3% on average. But individual polls taken in that time frame have bounced around from Sanders winning by 8, then losing by 5, then winning by 1, 7, and 6 before dropping again. There doesn't really seem to be a 'trend'. Now, if you go back a few months, Sanders was regularly beating Trump by 8 or 9 points, so in some ways it looks like his numbers are trending downwards.

The same is true for Biden. Just have a look:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

It should also be noted that Biden, Warren and Harris also poll higher than Trump (and in Biden's and Harris's case, are doing even better than Sanders.)

Fantastic! You seem to misunderstand me. I would vote for any one of those over Trump. You evidently forgot: I was challenging the dismissal of Sanders only.

Yes, it's true that at the moment Sanders is my preferred candidate. Yes, I would prefer a candidate that can beat Trump. There are quite a few D's that are currently polling better than Trump. Within that range I can't think of any reason to not simply support the candidate of your choice, whether it's Sanders, Biden, Warren, or whoever. With all of the variables involved, I honestly think anyone who says with confidence that any one of the leading D candidates is better suited to beat Trump than the others is talking out of their ass.

Yes, it's true that Sanders may be more susceptible to a "He's a Socialist!" attack. There are many other dynamics in play: In my opinion, there's a strong desire (on both left and right) for non-establishment candidates. I think that bonus for Sanders at the very least compensates for the "Socialist" scare-mongering. (I've always thought that anti-establishment streak would have made Sanders much more likely to win the general election than Clinton in 2016. No, of course I can't prove it. No, you can't disprove it, either).

It should also be noted that this is currently the primary season. The type of attacks that a candidate will have to deal with now are different than what they will see in the general election. Some of us are concerned that there are a few too many skeletons in Sander's closet that the republicans could use (that they've been holding back).

Why is that concern limited to Sanders?

Some of us recognize that Republicans will simply manufacture scandals against whomever they please.

 

[Aridas]

Marxism isn't the exact opposite of totalitarianism.

True! It's not the exact opposite. I pointedly didn't say that it was the exact opposite, though.

That's the whole point: it always ends up as just another variant of totalitarianism.

Err, no. The single biggest problem with Marxism currently is that it fairly certainly can't be viably implemented yet in the first place at a country level. That totalitarianism has used it for the sake of a nice sounding justification to seize power doesn't change that and nor does it mean that totalitarianism shouldn't get the blame for the sins of totalitarianism directly.

And why would I be excusing totalitarianism when my fundamental objection to Marxism is that it's a version of totalitarianism? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.

You're redirecting the blame from totalitarianism directly onto something that isn't even remotely totalitarianism. Again, the main dispute being forwarded here is that Marxism has a nearly completely different set of problems than totalitarianism and that conflating the two is therefore quite dishonest. You've yet to so much as acknowledge this.

If every country that called itself a democracy was like North Korea, you might have a point. But that's not the case.

No, the attempt at a point would still be absurd. That we have counter-examples just highlights the absurdity of it, but isn't what makes it absurd.



Anyways... Warren plan time! One that Skeptic Ginger likely wanted to see quite a bit!

Fighting Digital Disinformation

From your article:

87 percent of former vice president Joe Biden's supporters said yes to voting for whoever wins the nomination, 9 percent it depends on the winning candidate, and 5 percent said no to anyone that is not Biden. And 90 percent of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren's supporters said they would vote for whoever is the nominee, while the remaining 10 percent said it depended on who won the nomination.

Speaks well of Warren supporters especially, I'd say. Still, that doesn't make for as compelling an argument when it comes to whether to actually choose Warren.

It should also be noted that this is currently the primary season. The type of attacks that a candidate will have to deal with now are different than what they will see in the general election. Some of us are concerned that there are a few too many skeletons in Sander's closet that the republicans could use (that they've been holding back).

This is my biggest concern with a Sanders nomination, really, right here. As in, by the look of it, the GOP *wants* the nomination to be Sanders. They clearly fear Biden, given how much effort they're putting into trashing him and their attacks on Warren have largely been a pack of nothingburgers that are easily dismissed once they've actually been actually looked at.

Why is that concern limited to Sanders?

Some of us recognize that Republicans will simply manufacture scandals against whomever they please.

It's not limited to Sanders. It's just that that it's more of a concern when it comes to Sanders than the other main contenders and that they'll have firmer basis when it comes to him.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I've said it several times over the previous months and now is the time it should happen: Bernie should tell his base that he is unfit to serve for the sole reason that he is a 78 year old with a hunch and can't come close to the also old Trump when it comes to vitality. It just isn't feasible.

So, he should resign as presidential candidate and form a team - with him as vice president - with Tulsi Gabbard, who is still running and stands for all the goodies Bernie stands for, minus socialist baggage, plus being a soldier, woman, native, hot, bla bla bla. Time it shortly before the circus begins in Iowa, but not too shortly to give the voters time to think.

TULSI - BERNIE - 2020 ​

IMHO the only way to beat Trump.

 

[tyr_13]

*sigh* Discussions of the problems with Bernie supporters and Bernie Bros are perfectly valid and aren't even necessarily criticisms of Bernie. After all, they fundamentally disagree with Bernie on this. His entire slogan is, "Not me, us." His point is that a movement is needed to enact the changes he wants, and while he thinks he is the best to head that movement, he clearly prioritizes the effectiveness of the movement far head of him leading it. He'd be the first to tell you the movement is more powerful than him leading it.

There will have to be a reckoning with the fact a non-negligible and vocal contingent of Bernie supporters who are employing bad reasoning, sexism, racism, and/or falling into personality cult like thinking. These things are a problem and they're exactly the kinds of problems that make Trump so dangerous. Obviously because Bernie isn't this faction of his supports means that's not actually a problem to him being the president, but as a party this kind of culture cannot be allowed to grow.

Their behavior is unacceptable and being so defense about it makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't get so used to talking with Trump GOP who are so consistently arguing in bad faith you can count on it that you start taking all criticisms in bad faith.

 

[Brainster]

Klobuchar seems to be moving up a bit; in the last two Iowa polls she's registered in double digits for the first time. This could have the effect of increasing the chance that she will be viable at some caucus sites. Any candidate who does not get the support of 15% of the attendees at each caucus site is deemed not viable and their supporters either have to leave or switch to another candidate. Biden's camp has reportedly suggested that Klobuchar make a deal to try to push their supporters to each other if either is not viable in a particular precinct.

Meanwhile Yang is speculating that his Iowa Gang will go Bernie if Jerry is not viable (as seems likely).

There is one demographic that wants to vote for a Democrat but seems unlikely to support Bernie if he is the nominee, and that's the Never Trumpers.

“It’s asking a lot from people on the center-right or in the old Reagan wing of GOP to go full Sanders in November,” said Jerry Taylor, who runs the Niskanen Center, a Washington think tank that has become a hub for the Never Trump community. Taylor does plan to support Sanders in the general election if the senator wins the Democratic nod but described himself, and others like him, as the exception to the rule.

 

[Venom]

I've said it several times over the previous months and now is the time it should happen: Bernie should tell his base that he is unfit to serve for the sole reason that he is a 78 year old with a hunch and can't come close to the also old Trump when it comes to vitality. It just isn't feasible.

So, he should resign as presidential candidate and form a team - with him as vice president - with Tulsi Gabbard, who is still running and stands for all the goodies Bernie stands for, minus socialist baggage, plus being a soldier, woman, native, hot, bla bla bla. Time it shortly before the circus begins in Iowa, but not too shortly to give the voters time to think.

TULSI - BERNIE - 2020 ​

IMHO the only way to beat Trump.

There's a reason people flock to the 78 year old, jewish, white, unkempt socialist and not the attractive, fresher, ostensibly more energetic soldier woman.

Tulsi is weak. She just can't get the voters out like Bernie can.

She struggles to pull more than DNC darling Kamala Harris. Her numbers are nowhere near that of Bernie's debut, when he presented a strong challenge against Hillary Clinton.

Sanders takes a backseat to nobody.

 

[Sideroxylon]

*sigh* Discussions of the problems with Bernie supporters and Bernie Bros are perfectly valid and aren't even necessarily criticisms of Bernie. After all, they fundamentally disagree with Bernie on this. His entire slogan is, "Not me, us." His point is that a movement is needed to enact the changes he wants, and while he thinks he is the best to head that movement, he clearly prioritizes the effectiveness of the movement far head of him leading it. He'd be the first to tell you the movement is more powerful than him leading it.

There will have to be a reckoning with the fact a non-negligible and vocal contingent of Bernie supporters who are employing bad reasoning, sexism, racism, and/or falling into personality cult like thinking. These things are a problem and they're exactly the kinds of problems that make Trump so dangerous. Obviously because Bernie isn't this faction of his supports means that's not actually a problem to him being the president, but as a party this kind of culture cannot be allowed to grow.

Their behavior is unacceptable and being so defense about it makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't get so used to talking with Trump GOP who are so consistently arguing in bad faith you can count on it that you start taking all criticisms in bad faith.

That this kind of culture is pervasive in the Sanders camp is an unexamined assertion. Warren did have a crack at framing Sanders as sexist but that fell flat and perhaps even worked against her didn’t it. The idea of tarring someone with the ****** attitudes of supporters with ideas incongruent with the person in question is cheap politicking. In contrast to Sanders, some of Trumps base are racist and sexist but so is he.

 

[tyr_13]

That this kind of culture is pervasive in the Sanders camp is an unexamined assertion. Warren did have a crack at framing Sanders as sexist but that fell flat and perhaps even worked against her didn’t it. The idea of tarring someone with the ****** attitudes of supporters with ideas incongruent with the person in question is cheap politicking. In contrast to Sanders, some of Trumps base are racist and sexist but so is he.

Yeah, no. Warren didn't try to 'frame' anyone. That culture is non-negligible and I won't get into the semantics of if that means the same as 'pervasive'.

Is your argument that Bernie agrees with those **** attitudes? It isn't politicking and I've not tried to hold this at all against Bernie.

You're hurting your own argument.

 

[Childlike Empress]

There's a reason people flock to the 78 year old, jewish, white, unkempt socialist and not the attractive, fresher, ostensibly more energetic soldier woman.

The reason is that the average, non-pundit voter has never heard about her because the propaganda machine can easily keep her out of sight. See the polls posted here regularly where she is always omitted. If she is mentioned, it is always a "see she met Assad that woman is evil" framing.

They can't do that to Bernie, and Bernie can give her the spotlight.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I've said it several times over the previous months and now is the time it should happen: Bernie should tell his base that he is unfit to serve for the sole reason that he is a 78 year old with a hunch and can't come close to the also old Trump when it comes to vitality. It just isn't feasible.

So, he should resign as presidential candidate and form a team - with him as vice president - with Tulsi Gabbard, who is still running and stands for all the goodies Bernie stands for, minus socialist baggage, plus being a soldier, woman, native, hot, bla bla bla. Time it shortly before the circus begins in Iowa, but not too shortly to give the voters time to think.

TULSI - BERNIE - 2020 ​

IMHO the only way to beat Trump.

Clinton’s “Russian asset.”

 

[Childlike Empress]

Clinton’s “Russian asset.”

That's another plus. The libel lawsuit just has started.

 

[Venom]