2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Did you read the article?



That is a weird leap. This isn't some subjective piece of information the government deems false. Telling someone the election is on Wednesday is not a false statement up for debate. Saying you can vote online is not up for debate.


I have no idea how this would be ripe for abuse. I'm having trouble even coming up with semi-outlandish hypotheticals on how this can be abused?

Do you even have a hypothetical for that?
Click to expand...

Get well soon.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No me and dudalb just have separate files in our brains for "My favorite candidate" and "candidate with an actual chance of winning."

It's not our fault if other people don't.
Click to expand...


Interesting.

I too have different files.

In the first, I would say, the main names that pop up are: Sanders, Yang, and Warren.

In the second, who are the top names?

Are you really thinking Biden?

For me, we all know that Trump is going to hit any candidate with small belittling nickname:

Creepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, Pochahantas, Buttigieg? I am not sure, but some combination of his name being Butt, his speaking Norwegian, wine caves and his sexuality make the nicknaming almost too easy for him.

Is Biden going to look good on the campaign trail, Ol Creepy Uncle Joe with his No Malarkey and his son engaged in some kind of corruption that nobody really needs to understand for it to be an obvious indicator of what we already know about Biden?

What does he stand for? I dunno, let's ask him? Twenty minutes later, still have no idea but he did talk about record players....

Is Biden really electable?
 
Venom said:
Low Energy Biden

ETA: Crooked Biden
Click to expand...

To poke at other ones he's used...
1 Percent Joe
Crazy Joe Biden
Quid Pro Joe
Sleepy Joe
SleepyCreepy Joe
Very slow sleepy Joe

Cabbage said:
I'm concerned that running another routine establishment candidate like we did in 2016 will produce a similar result.
Click to expand...

And that is one of the reasons why I'm also rather concerned about Biden. Warren's my favorite, either way, by a fair margin, and Biden my least favorite of the main contenders, for reference, even including Bloomberg and what seems to be his new place in the main contenders.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
And that is one of the reasons why I'm also rather concerned about Biden. Warren's my favorite, either way, by a fair margin, and Biden my least favorite of the main contenders, for reference, even including Bloomberg and what seems to be his new place in the main contenders.
Click to expand...


I could certainly go for Warren, as well. In fact, it's such a coin toss for me between Sanders and Warren that for several months now I've figured I'd just give my primary vote to whoever has the most momentum between the two. Right now that definitely looks like Sanders, but I wouldn't complain if it shifted back to Warren. But I've liked Bernie since 2016; I voted for him in that primary, too.
 
Fun little article about moderate Democratic Iowans voting for anybody but Trump, including Sanders.

“I would vote for my dead cat over Trump,” said Sandy Stanley, 71, at a Biden campaign stop in Muscatine, Iowa. Stanley said she doesn’t like Sanders but wouldn’t hesitate to vote for him if he does become the nominee.
Click to expand...

“I have supported Joe Biden for decades. I’ve always been real comfortable with him,” said Carol Davis, 58, who plans to be a precinct captain for Biden in her caucus next week. “I will vote for any Democrat in the general election. I am not a Bernie fan, but yes, I’ll support him.”
Click to expand...

“I would vote for him” if Sanders becomes the nominee, said Dick Huber, 67, at the same event.

“Begrudgingly,” he added.
Click to expand...

“If Sanders would have bucked up, she would have been our president,” said Pam Miller, 69, at the University of Iowa in Iowa City on Monday evening.

This year, she said, she’ll “vote for any Democrat” who wins the nomination, because “[Trump] is a frightening president.”
Click to expand...

“Many Bernie Sanders supporters did not support Hillary, and I think that’s one of the reasons why she didn’t win,” said Michael Horland, 69, who’s canvassing for Biden and supported Clinton in 2016. He said he’d be willing to back Sanders against Trump.
Click to expand...

This one was interesting almost theprestigesque in its reasoning.

Craig Meltz, 66, said he’s concerned about a lot of Sanders’ progressive policies, but would also vote for him in a general election against Trump. “One saving grace is that anything he proposes still should go through the Congress and that would be a break on him,” he said, if Sanders does win the White House.
Click to expand...
 
It is pretty funny watching the woke left reach completely different conclusions on who should be the nominee from the group of people they are supposedly woke about.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Dems will want to read this article to get to know Comrade Bernie and his finances a little better. Schweitzer is the author of "Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite".

Peter Schweizer: ‘The Biggest Charity in Bernie’s Life Is Bernie’

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/01/29/peter-schweizer-bernie-is-his-biggest-charity/
Click to expand...

So the guy behind such "great" works as Clinton Cash is working to pull the same BS again?

BrooklynBaby said:
Candidate Biden update:

"On Tuesday fired Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin filed an official complaint against Joe Biden for interference in Ukraine’s legal proceedings."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...tor-shokin-files-complaint-against-joe-biden/
Click to expand...

The guy who was so corrupt that the US and most of Europe worked together to address his corruption and protection of corruption is floating a sham complaint? Your point?
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
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)
Click to expand...
And I believe you misread that quote. I know there's a lot of talk about the Socialist label sticking to Sanders better than other D candidates, but that was not the specific objection. I'll repeat it here:

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).
And now I'll ask again: Why would those closet skeletons be a concern for Sanders only?
Click to expand...
Actually I never claimed that the other Candidates didn't have potential closet skeletons or other issues that can cause them problems. (I used the phrase 'too many', which suggests not that the other candidates were squeaky clean, but that Sanders would just have more potential issues. Yes, Biden has the whole 'unwanted touching' issue. Warren has the 'native american' issue.

I think there are a couple of reasons why I think Sanders may be more problematic than other Democratic challengers:

- The length of time he has been in politics combined with his lack of power. Being in politics longer means more time to make mistakes. And although Biden and Warren have also been around a while, they have also held higher positions (with the vetting that comes with it, especially on the national level).

- His position on the political spectrum means that not only does he have to worry about the standard 'oops' type mistakes, but the ones where his politics becomes an issue.

Lets say Sanders becomes the nominee. What will the republicans drag up? How about the time he attended a rally in South America where there were "death to America" chants? See how well that plays in the suburbs. Or how about the fact that he had his honeymoon in Moscow? (See how well he can criticize Trump for his Russian ties when the republicans can say "At least we didn't associate with them when they were a bunch of commies".)

I also think there are other problems with the electability of Sanders:

- As mentioned before, his self-description of himself as a 'socialist'. (As I suggested before, even if people support government programs, they just don't like the 'label' socialist)

- I do not think his programs are as popular as some people think. In particular health care. Now, before people go ballistic and point out "people want universal care", I am not denying that they do. But, polls show people also want to keep private insurance as an option. Sanders says he'll end that (a position that is supported by only 13% in one poll).

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for

- Sanders seems to be dividing the Democrats, attempting to portray Warren as 'elitist'. Might work as an ok strategy in the primaries. However, in the general election, he will need those 'elitist' votes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...olunteer-support-democrat-party-a9281871.html

- Sanders fundraising strategy: "I will only take small donations" and "No Super-PACs" has been successful to a point. But elections are expensive. What happens when the Democrats are up against the Republican war machine and the wallets of the Kochs? Either Sanders sticks with his fundraising activities (in which case the Democrats get outspent) or he changes his mind, accepts money from large donors and SuperPACs working for him, and ends up looking like a hypocrite

Now does that mean that I think Sanders would automatically lose? No, I don't. I do think he has a good chance at winning if he becomes candidate. But I just think other candidates have a BETTER chance.

Something you might want to consider: The republicans are very effective at winning elections (more so than the Democrats). Even as their main voter base shrinks, they still manage to pull off election victories. Now, in 2016 the republicans were largely silent on Sanders during the primaries, saving most of their attacks for Clinton. (Yes, she was the frontrunner, but Sanders was still competitive). In the 2020 elections, again the republicans seem to be treating Sanders with kid gloves. (After all, it was Biden that Trump tried to smear via Ukraine.) Why do you think that is? Do you think the republicans are somehow being generous? Or, do you think its more likely that they too see Sanders as more vulnerable and are hoping he becomes the candidate?
 
Segnosaur said:
Something you might want to consider: The republicans are very effective at winning elections (more so than the Democrats). Even as their main voter base shrinks, they still manage to pull off election victories. Now, in 2016 the republicans were largely silent on Sanders during the primaries, saving most of their attacks for Clinton. (Yes, she was the frontrunner, but Sanders was still competitive). In the 2020 elections, again the republicans seem to be treating Sanders with kid gloves. (After all, it was Biden that Trump tried to smear via Ukraine.) Why do you think that is? Do you think the republicans are somehow being generous? Or, do you think its more likely that they too see Sanders as more vulnerable and are hoping he becomes the candidate?
Click to expand...


I don't find any of that particularly meaningful. I will just repeat what I said previously:

Cabbage said:
Just a few days ago this came out:

'The Only One I Didn't Want Her to Pick': In Secret Recording, Trump Admits Fear of Clinton Picking Sanders as VP in 2016


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...t-recording-trump-admits-fear-clinton-picking



Given game theory and bluffing, I think it's an absolute mistake to ever base your vote in the primary on who you think the opposition does or does not prefer (or to put much stock in that at all); I really don't think anything at all reliable can come from that perception.
Click to expand...
 
I think the whole "electability" conversation gives way too much credence to the predictions of these dip-**** pundits that so effectively demonstrated their worthlessness in 2016.

These pundits vastly overestimate the appeal of triangulated, centrist politicians. Republicans are tired of their established political elites and enthusiastically allowed Trump to take over the party. Democrats are also eager to ditch do-nothing neolibs.

These pundits can be wrong over and over and over again and nothing happens. The same idiots that advocated for the Iraq War are still treated as "foreign policy experts" by big news corporations. The idiots declaring a runaway for HRC in 2016 are still around making sage predictions. The pundit class is totally insulated from any intellectual accountability.

Bernie has something that none of the other candidates have. He has an authentic and sincere political ideology that is obvious to anyone who listens to him speak for more than 5 minutes. He's not your average candidate where everything they say is tediously triangulated and focus-group tested to meaninglessness.

He can attack Trump's support because his policies speak directly and forcefully to the grievances of the stagnating working classes. He doesn't have the stain of decades of failed neolib policies on his record. He is willing to directly attack the institutions that are making life miserable for ordinary people, because he doesn't take their money or court their lobbyists.

Bernie has no "Wall Street speaking fees" scandal. He has no "my kid has do-nothing jobs related to industries I regulate" scandals. He has no "my criminal family is monetizing public service" scandal. His stubbornness on matters of personal integrity is his strength.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think the whole "electability" conversation gives way too much credence to the predictions of these dip-**** pundits that so effectively demonstrated their worthlessness in 2016.

These pundits vastly overestimate the appeal of triangulated, centrist politicians. Republicans are tired of their established political elites and enthusiastically allowed Trump to take over the party. Democrats are also eager to ditch do-nothing neolibs.

Bernie has something that none of the other candidates have. He has an authentic and sincere political ideology that is obvious to anyone who listens to him speak for more than 5 minutes. He's not your average candidate where everything they say is tediously triangulated and focus-group tested to meaninglessness.

He can attack Trump's support because his policies speak directly and forcefully to the grievances of the stagnating working classes. He doesn't have the stain of decades of failed neolib policies on his record.
Click to expand...

Not accepting donations from billionaires and being beholden to their benefit over ordinary working people is a big deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom