2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
Speaking of people not being real Democrats.

Mike Bloomberg spent two terms in as the Republican mayor of NYC. He hosted the RNC conference in the city and spoke in favor of Bush and the disastrous war.

In 2016 Bloomberg gave nearly 12 million to incumbent Republican Senator Pat Toomey, one of the largest contributions to a senate race in history. Toomey won a narrow victory over the Democratic challenger and likely owes his success to Bloomberg.

Recall that McConnell holds a majority in the senate by 3 seats, one of which can practically be directly credited to Bloomberg. Toomey voted to confirm Kavanaugh, tilting the SCOTUS to the right for a generation. Toomey also voted no to calling more witnesses in the impeachment trial.

The DNC is bending over backwards to allow Bloomberg to participate in the debates.
Click to expand...
It's ironic, isn't it, Bloomberg the Republican against Trump the Democrat.
 
Dread Pirate Roberts said:
National polls are irrelevant - All that matters, as it always does, are those 15 or so swing states. I don't see a lot of data available for them, but this poll from November shows Sanders and Trump within the margin of error. Of course, this was 2 long months ago and a lot has happened since then!

Trump won 10 of those 15 states in 2016. And it's there that we will find out how much support there is for Sanders (or whoever the nominee is) and what we're calling the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

The major theme Rick Wilson harped on in his book on how to defeat Trump was make it a referendum on Trump, and not policy, while focusing almost entirely on the swing state voters. I don't know if that will work for Sanders, as Medicare for All might dominate in his campaign.

FYI, I'm voting for any Democrat regardless of the candidate.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would seem that "medicare for all" will be a cudgel for both sides.

I am afraid a more divisive issue will come to the fore in the general. One which will, I suspect, kill us in the swing States. Reparations.
 
Hey this works for the Republican side as well.

2016. Donald Trump. Never been in the primaries. Wins.
2012. Mitt Romney. Had lost the primary to McCain in 2008. Lost the general election.
2008. John McCain. Had lost a Primary to George W. Bush in 2000. Lost the general election.
2000, 2004. George W. Bush. Never been in the primaries before. Wins.
1996. Bob Dole. Lost a primary to George Bush 1988. Lost the general election.

Running a candidate who had previously lost a primary seems to give you a disadvantage.
 
Distracted1 said:
I am afraid a more divisive issue will come to the fore in the general. One which will, I suspect, kill us in the swing States. Reparations.
Click to expand...

I live in a Swing County in Florida that went for Trump by less then 2% last election.

I am not looking forward to the next year.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Stepping back from the current race and looking at the broader picture I'm legit surprised the DNC didn't really push to run Hillary again, really leaning into "But she really won the first time" narrative.
Click to expand...

A lot of people would have seen it as a do-over now that we see that Trump never did become 'Presidential'. But others can't stop blaming her for Trump getting elected.

It would not have been a good idea.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I have reread this like 10 times and can't figure out what you mean here. Care to rephrase it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I reworded that, my bad. The threat is Steyer. Corporations are already out to make him look bad, he is direct, straightforward threat to them.

For example, he renounced his hedge fund past over a decade ago to battle against corporate control of the government and they are already bringing up everything he supported with his hedge fund business as if that is still relevant.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Even allowing for that, he still never said or implied what you claimed. You're drawing an inference that one leads to the other, but your accusation has not been substantiated. If you had said that dudalb's argument is effectively equivalent to this, I would not have challenged. But you said that he has said this, when he has not.
Click to expand...

Put all of the quotes together and yes, he has.



No feelings hurt. I just don't understand why you seem to view every question as some sort of challenge to a duel.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why, when the subject is x and you bring up y, you think me pointing out that y is irrelevant qualifies as a "challenge to a duel".
 
Last edited:
Dread Pirate Roberts said:
National polls are irrelevant - All that matters, as it always does, are those 15 or so swing states. I don't see a lot of data available for them, but this poll from November shows Sanders and Trump within the margin of error. Of course, this was 2 long months ago and a lot has happened since then!

Trump won 10 of those 15 states in 2016. And it's there that we will find out how much support there is for Sanders (or whoever the nominee is) and what we're calling the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

The major theme Rick Wilson harped on in his book on how to defeat Trump was make it a referendum on Trump, and not policy, while focusing almost entirely on the swing state voters. I don't know if that will work for Sanders, as Medicare for All might dominate in his campaign.

FYI, I'm voting for any Democrat regardless of the candidate.
Click to expand...


National polls don't tell the whole picture, but I don't think they're totally "irrelevant". Historically, there is a strong correlation between winning the popular vote and winning the electoral college.

Yes, I am aware that we are in a time ripe to be another exception. With that in mind, here's PA, MI, WI:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_sanders-6768.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_sanders-6850.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_sanders-6862.html


Sanders over Trump is more common in all of them, so this merely serves to strengthen my point: Sanders can compete and win against Trump.
 
SF Chronicle: Billionaire Tom Steyer pushes anti-corporate message in San Francisco talk
He continued Monday to portray himself as a political outsider, even though he has spent more than $200 million of his own money on national campaign organizations and state ballot measures over the past decade. He said that a decade of taking on corporations from outside the system shows that “I have 10 years of proving it. Ten years of beating corporations at the ballot box.”

He said his No. 1 issue is removing the corrupting influence of money in politics. “Corporations don’t have hearts. Or souls. Or futures,” Steyer said in his campaign launch video.
Click to expand...

His primary rivals try to lump him in with the corporate bad guys. It's a catch 22. If he uses his own money that's bad, but if he doesn't, then he would be influenced by big corporate donors.

The ideas behind the bank Steyer started with his wife: Billionaire Kat Taylor’s Radical Call to Take On Big Banks
From treating beef farming as a part of a climate change solution to arguing against private land ownership and FDIC insurance for the biggest banks, Beneficial State Bank CEO Kat Taylor has radical views on how to change the world....

Taylor, though less explicitly involved in politics, runs her bank, the ranch and her nonprofits in line with her political ideals. While both Taylor and Steyer are unabashed capitalists, there’s a political argument in the ways they run their businesses and nonprofits: Capitalism is broken, and has to change....

Around 2004 when John Kerry was not elected president, Tom and I just got this sense of dire need, like— we’ve got to drop everything and work on this full time. We ended up making significant investments in research stations, the ranch and the bank where we could take a systems approach to food and finance and try to get insights into what was wrong in those industries. We’ve also realized that we cannot remain conventionally invested. Nobody in society should be conventionally invested. We can’t give that prerogative to fossil fuels and private prisons and payday lending. Our first principle is do no harm and then do some good.
Click to expand...

Politico: Steyer's views

You can look at his specific views and check on other candidates as well.


People can agree or disagree. They can express doubt. Whatever.

But don't be one of the low information voters we all complain about.
 
Both the leader contenders might be badly flawed.
Trust the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It wasn't.

Sanders has already lost a primary to Hillary.

Hillary lost a primary to Obama.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had never been in primaries before the primaries they won and they both won their elections. Two terms.

I'm eyeballing the last 10 or so primaries and their candidates so maybe I missed one and I'll scrub the data to make 100% sure but it looks like if you lose a primary and they try to run you again... you don't generally win.

Voters don't get hard ons for a party's second choice. Bernie's lost a primary to the person who lost a primary and then just lost.

... nobody ever seems to win on their second or third.
Click to expand...

That’s bad news for Biden....

From Wikipedia:
Biden's 2020 presidential campaign is his third attempt to seek election for president of the United States.[14] His first campaign was made in the 1988 Democratic Party primaries where he was initially considered one of the potentially strongest candidates. However, newspapers revealed plagiarism by Biden in law school records and in speeches, a scandal which led to his withdrawal from the race in September 1987.[15]

He made the second attempt during the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, where he focused on his plan to achieve political success in the Iraq War through a system of federalization. Like his first presidential bid, Biden failed to garner endorsements and support. He withdrew from the race after his poor performance in the Iowa caucus in January 3, 2008. He was eventually chosen by Barack Obama as his running mate and won the general election as vice president of the United States, being sworn in on January 20, 2009.
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
No.

Prove to me that Sanders will do better then Biden in the general election to the exact same standards using equally valid datasource as you expect me to prove the alternative.

There is no default here that gets to make the "Burden of Proof" argument and rest on its laurels.
Click to expand...

Why would I prove something which I didn't claim and which I don't believe. The evidence I posted shows Biden has better numbers vs Trump and I specifically said that currently based on general election polling Biden has the best chance of beating Trump.

JoeMorgue said:
"Sanders is more popular with Democrats" is not proof of anything.

And Sanders just inched ahead of Biden in the last week or so. He's been second or even third since they started polling. Funny how the polls don't matter until the brief moment when your guy is in the lead.
Click to expand...

Again, my claim was that the establishment democrats freaking out about Sanders prospects of winning the nomination and needing to stop him are unfounded and that general election matchup polling consistently shows him beating Trump.

The polling I gave consists of 7 general election polls for both Biden vs Trump and Sanders vs Trump as well as those matchups on a state basis for numerous states including those which won Trump the election in 2016, those being Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. It also includes the average of all of those polls.

I'm still waiting for any evidence whatsoever from you.

JoeMorgue said:
Again Sanders have been second or third (often distantly) until like a week or so ago.

You ignored the polls until your boy got in the lead and now want to treat them as Holy Writ.

You're picking and choosing data.

Or let me put it this way. If Sanders drops back below Biden next week are you gonna change your mind or will the polls magically not count anymore?
Click to expand...

No one is cherry picking anything. Yes Sanders has risen in the primary polling vs Biden. But we're talking about his electability outside of just democrats in the primary and about the general election. Those polls have consistently shown him beating Trump.

If you feel you have better evidence then provide it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom