2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[The_Animus]

Sanders has in the past pretty much called himself a socialist, at least a democratic socialist, which is splitting hairs at that point

They are different but the terms have been mangled, often intentionally, for so long and so often that yeah it's probably splitting hairs at this point.

But I think this is pretty well known about him and I don't see the socialist attack line being very effective in deterring voters. Those who have an issue with it already attribute it to him and weren't voting for him anyway. Those who do support him know and don't care or consider it bad.

 

[Segnosaur]

Bernie clearly intends to woo normal Democrats, swing voters, and perhaps some conservative voters to win this thing.

Really? And just what do you think will be his most effective tactic to 'woo' those swing and conservative voters?

His plan to push 'medicare for all'? After all, even if voters do want improved health care, getting rid of private insurance is something that even many democrats are opposed to.

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

Or how about the way his campaign has started to label Warren supporters as 'elites'?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594

 

[Segnosaur]

As has been pointed out... we are concerned that, even though Sanders is polling OK both nationally and in many states, he has not been subject to any sort of sustained attack as (for example) Biden has.. Both the republicans and the other democrats are treating him with kid gloves to a certain extent.

(And yes, Trump has said a couple of bad things about Sanders, like calling him 'communist', but so far his attacks have been limited.)

I guess I look at it a little differently. Sanders has now been in two presidential campaigns where he has been attacked from both the left and the right.

I guess we have different definitions of 'attacked'.

Please, point to me when either the republicans or democrats have pointed out how Sanders went to a "death to America" rally.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Really? And just what do you think will be his most effective tactic to 'woo' those swing and conservative voters?

His plan to push 'medicare for all'? After all, even if voters do want improved health care, getting rid of private insurance is something that even many democrats are opposed to.

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

Or how about the way his campaign has started to label Warren supporters as 'elites'?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594

that graph you posted is interesting. No single solution enjoys majority support. However, the three options that guarantee universal coverage amount to 71% of the population. Only 29% want to keep it as is or turn it over entirely to the private sector. I read that as broad popular support for universal coverage.

If the option is between Bernie's universal medicare proposal or Trump's undermining of the ACA, I think Bernie comes out ahead, even if his solution isn't perfect.

Bernie polls well in swing states. Perhaps the polling is flawed, perhaps public perception will change. But it's a fact that he polls well vs Trump. That's not just his tiny base, that's a large coalition of voters.

 

[Venom]

Sure, except that no one said this was Sanders' strategy.

People in this subforum are thinking that's what we're banking on.

Surely isn't me I've made my position clear but you, dudalb and others seem to persist in attacking some weird socialist revolution scenario.

 

[Segnosaur]

Really? And just what do you think will be his most effective tactic to 'woo' those swing and conservative voters?

His plan to push 'medicare for all'? After all, even if voters do want improved health care, getting rid of private insurance is something that even many democrats are opposed to.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for

that graph you posted is interesting. No single solution enjoys majority support. However, the three options that guarantee universal coverage amount to 71% of the population. Only 29% want to keep it as is or turn it over entirely to the private sector. I read that as broad popular support for universal coverage.

I never denied that there was broad support for 'universal coverage'. I even pointed out that people want improvements in my previous points.

The problem is, there is more than one way to implement 'universal coverage', and Sanders has picked a method that does not have majority support.

If the option is between Bernie's universal medicare proposal or Trump's undermining of the ACA, I think Bernie comes out ahead, even if his solution isn't perfect.

What YOU think is best for America is not as important as what the average voter and/or swing voters think.

Sander's 'medicare for all (no private coverage)' plan is only supported by 13% of voters. More than twice as many (32%) may want universal coverage, but they also want private options. There is no guarantee that any of these 'want both public and private options' will go for Sanders if they are given a choice.

And remember, in another poll, over 2/3rds of people rated the coverage and quality of their own personal health care coverage as 'good' or 'excellent'. If you go to those 32% of people who want universal coverage but with private options and say: We want to take away something that you currently see as "good or excellent", how many of those people will be on board?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx

Many voters may not like what Trump is doing to the ACA, but if they are given a personal choice that they may think will harm them personally, they may end up rejecting Sanders and his plan.

Now, you MIGHT try to claim "It'll be cheaper", or "Other countries do it" (which would lead to a full debate on its own), but unless Sanders has some sort of magic wand that will make people automatically dismiss any personal opinions or preferences they have "for the greater good" then whatever supposed benefits his plan have are moot.

Bernie polls well in swing states. Perhaps the polling is flawed, perhaps public perception will change. But it's a fact that he polls well vs Trump. That's not just his tiny base, that's a large coalition of voters.

Sigh.... yes, he polls well. The candidate who went to a 'death to America' rally (which hasn't been brought up yet in any campaign ads) is polling well. And hey, maybe the republicans will be nice and not bring up his 'death to America' rally. After all, the Republicans don't believe in playing dirty, do they?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I never denied that there was broad support for 'universal coverage'. I even pointed out that people want improvements in my previous points.

The problem is, there is more than one way to implement 'universal coverage', and Sanders has picked a method that does not have majority support.

What YOU think is best for America is not as important as what the average voter and/or swing voters think.

Sander's 'medicare for all (no private coverage)' plan is only supported by 13% of voters. More than twice as many (32%) may want universal coverage, but they also want private options. There is no guarantee that any of these 'want both public and private options' will go for Sanders if they are given a choice.

And remember, in another poll, over 2/3rds of people rated the coverage and quality of their own personal health care coverage as 'good' or 'excellent'. If you go to those 32% of people who want universal coverage but with private options and say: We want to take away something that you currently see as "good or excellent", how many of those people will be on board?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx

Many voters may not like what Trump is doing to the ACA, but if they are given a personal choice that they may think will harm them personally, they may end up rejecting Sanders and his plan.

Now, you MIGHT try to claim "It'll be cheaper", or "Other countries do it" (which would lead to a full debate on its own), but unless Sanders has some sort of magic wand that will make people automatically dismiss any personal opinions or preferences they have "for the greater good" then whatever supposed benefits his plan have are moot.

Sigh.... yes, he polls well. The candidate who went to a 'death to America' rally (which hasn't been brought up yet in any campaign ads) is polling well. And hey, maybe the republicans will be nice and not bring up his 'death to America' rally. After all, the Republicans don't believe in playing dirty, do they?

Bernie isn't a sure thing. Republicans will do everything they can to smear the candidate, whoever it is. Each candidates have their weaknesses. Bernie, so far, has proven to be incredibly resilient to negative attacks. I think his stubborn refusal to be distracted by personal attacks is a large part of his popularity. He speaks directly and forcefully to the issues that affect the majority of people in this country in a way that other candidates cannot compete.

Polling isn't much, but it's the best we have. Bernie polls better than every other candidate but Biden. After a certain point, you just have to roll the dice.

 

[Belz...]

People in this subforum are thinking that's what we're banking on.

Surely isn't me I've made my position clear but you, dudalb and others seem to persist in attacking some weird socialist revolution scenario.

"I've made my position clear [to me]". Besides, why would you continue Turkey's strawman? I've never said or implied anything about a socialist revolution.

It seems to me like you are just reacting to some perceived slight as if it were personal.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It seems to me like you are just reacting to some perceived slight as if it were personal.

And that's the difference. I "like" to varying degrees all of the Democratic candidates currently on the table and any likely to (now that Williamson is out of the race, the only one who I actually disliked because she was such a Woo Slinger)

But I don't have like a personal, vested, emotional interest in any of them. I'm not... fan, I'm just a supporter of some varying degree.

I don't have to defend any candidate's honor here.

 

[Segnosaur]

Sigh.... yes, he polls well. The candidate who went to a 'death to America' rally (which hasn't been brought up yet in any campaign ads) is polling well. And hey, maybe the republicans will be nice and not bring up his 'death to America' rally. After all, the Republicans don't believe in playing dirty, do they?

Bernie isn't a sure thing. Republicans will do everything they can to smear the candidate, whoever it is. Each candidates have their weaknesses. Bernie, so far, has proven to be incredibly resilient to negative attacks.

Sigh...

Seriously, how many times do I have to ask this...

If you think that "Bernie has been resilient to negative attacks", please point out ONE ad from the GOP which pointed out that he went to a "death to America" rally. Or ONE ad from the GOP which pointed out how he criticized the U.S. on his trip to Russia.

You think he's really been 'attacked', then by all means, you should be able to find plenty of evidence of such attacks.

But, I'm sure you will totally ignore that, and some time later you will repeat the myth about how "bernie has survived attacks".

I think his stubborn refusal to be distracted by personal attacks is a large part of his popularity.

Whether HE gets distracted by personal attacks (which of course haven't really happened to any major degree) is irrelevant. Its how voters respond.

He speaks directly and forcefully to the issues that affect the majority of people in this country in a way that other candidates cannot compete.

Ah yes, the massive "don't worry about any possible problems, he's such a charismatic force of nature that he will sweep away all that stand before him" argument.

 

[Distracted1]

I never denied that there was broad support for 'universal coverage'. I even pointed out that people want improvements in my previous points.

The problem is, there is more than one way to implement 'universal coverage', and Sanders has picked a method that does not have majority support.

What YOU think is best for America is not as important as what the average voter and/or swing voters think.

Sander's 'medicare for all (no private coverage)' plan is only supported by 13% of voters. More than twice as many (32%) may want universal coverage, but they also want private options. There is no guarantee that any of these 'want both public and private options' will go for Sanders if they are given a choice.

And remember, in another poll, over 2/3rds of people rated the coverage and quality of their own personal health care coverage as 'good' or 'excellent'. If you go to those 32% of people who want universal coverage but with private options and say: We want to take away something that you currently see as "good or excellent", how many of those people will be on board?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx

Many voters may not like what Trump is doing to the ACA, but if they are given a personal choice that they may think will harm them personally, they may end up rejecting Sanders and his plan.

Now, you MIGHT try to claim "It'll be cheaper", or "Other countries do it" (which would lead to a full debate on its own), but unless Sanders has some sort of magic wand that will make people automatically dismiss any personal opinions or preferences they have "for the greater good" then whatever supposed benefits his plan have are moot.

Sigh.... yes, he polls well. The candidate who went to a 'death to America' rally (which hasn't been brought up yet in any campaign ads) is polling well. And hey, maybe the republicans will be nice and not bring up his 'death to America' rally. After all, the Republicans don't believe in playing dirty, do they?

You forget, the Republicans will be tarring any Democrat with the "death to America" brush, so it doesn't matter who we run WRT that particular smear.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sigh...

Seriously, how many times do I have to ask this...

If you think that "Bernie has been resilient to negative attacks", please point out ONE ad from the GOP which pointed out that he went to a "death to America" rally. Or ONE ad from the GOP which pointed out how he criticized the U.S. on his trip to Russia.

You think he's really been 'attacked', then by all means, you should be able to find plenty of evidence of such attacks.

But, I'm sure you will totally ignore that, and some time later you will repeat the myth about how "bernie has survived attacks".

Whether HE gets distracted by personal attacks (which of course haven't really happened to any major degree) is irrelevant. Its how voters respond.


Ah yes, the massive "don't worry about any possible problems, he's such a charismatic force of nature that he will sweep away all that stand before him" argument.

No one has attacked him with that particular one yet. How do you know it will be effective?

The Dems absolutely have attacked him and he has prevailed. He's been attacked as being a "not real Democrat". He's been attacked as a 2016 spoiler that gave us Trump. He's been attacked as a Socialist dreamer with no sense of reality. He's been attacked as being a closet misogynist. And yet his support grows.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Bernie's the best nominee because they're gonna attack and smear everyone so it doesn't matter" isn't wowing me as an argument.

 

[Belz...]

Sigh...

Seriously, how many times do I have to ask this...

If you think that "Bernie has been resilient to negative attacks", please point out ONE ad from the GOP which pointed out that he went to a "death to America" rally. Or ONE ad from the GOP which pointed out how he criticized the U.S. on his trip to Russia.

You think he's really been 'attacked', then by all means, you should be able to find plenty of evidence of such attacks.

That some in the GOP seem to want Sanders to be the candidate should say something about at least how well they think they can handle him.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"Bernie's the best nominee because they're gonna attack and smear everyone so it doesn't matter" isn't wowing me as an argument.

Do you have any way of knowing how effective any such attack will be? This is all speculation.

Yes, Trump will attempt to paint Bernie as unpatriotic and a commie. Will it stick? I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you have any way of knowing how effective any such attack will be? This is all speculation.

Everything is speculation and you're argument seems to be "Since nothing is certain we should do it my way."

Stop acting like you're arguing from some mountain of concrete certainty the rest of us aren't.

 

[Distracted1]

That some in the GOP seem to want Sanders to be the candidate should say something about at least how well they think they can handle him.

And they might be just as wrong as some of us may be.

I remember being thrilled when the R's went with the Trumpster. I considered him to be the only one of the final few potential candidates that could lose to HRC.

Boy, did that bite us on the ass.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Everything is speculation and you're argument seems to be "Since nothing is certain we should do it my way."

Stop acting like you're arguing from some mountain of concrete certainty the rest of us aren't.

Any candidate will face negative ads.

I am of the opinion that Bernie will not be uniquely damaged by such ads. There is no evidence for this belief, and such a thing is probably unknowable in advance.

This all comes back to this idea that Bernie is unvetted and untested. That he will collapse under attack. I see no reason to believe this is especially true for Bernie as compared to other candidates.

In fact, the person I see most vulnerable to negative attacks is Biden. He has been unapologetic about the obvious nepotism involving his son, and Trump seems determined to exaggerate ordinary nepotism into some grand corruption conspiracy theory.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Any candidate will face negative ads.

I am of the opinion that Bernie will not be uniquely damaged by such ads. There is no evidence for this belief, and such a thing is probably unknowable in advance.

This all comes back to this idea that Bernie is unvetted and untested. That he will collapse under attack. I see no reason to believe this is especially true for Bernie as compared to other candidates.

And you just did it again. "Bernie will be treated the same as all the other candidates, so we should go with him."

THAT'S EQUALLY TRUE FOR ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES AS WELL!

 

[Donal]

That some in the GOP seem to want Sanders to be the candidate should say something about at least how well they think they can handle him.

Yes, because taking Republican talking points at face value is a good idea. They certainly can't just being trying to sow more chaos in the Democratic primary.