2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
Except those two polls only included 2 counties.
Click to expand...

I think you are misreading this from the Emerson poll:

In the first congressional district, 35% of voters support Sanders, followed by Buttigieg with 20%, Klobuchar with 13% and Biden and Warren 9%. In the second district, 27% of voters support Buttigieg, 25% support Sanders, 15% support Klobuchar, 12% support Warren, and 11% support Biden.
Click to expand...

Two congressional districts (which is all New Hampshire has), not two counties.
 
acbytesla said:
You seem to be looking at the "average" they gave over 5 or 6 polls.

I think the other poster was looking at just the latest of that group (such as the Emmerson poll) which does show her in 3rd.
Click to expand...
Except those two polls only included 2 counties.
Click to expand...
The actual Emmerson poll makes it clear that the 3rd place finish for Klobuchar is based on state-wide surveys.

Now you could argue that their sample consists of only 500 respondents (which is relatively small for a survey), so there is a large margin of error. Perhaps future surveys will show her with less support.

https://emersonpolling.reportablene...ry-with-lead-buttigieg-within-margin-of-error
 
Belz... said:
What in the blue **** does this have to do with any of my posts?
Click to expand...

You were talking like I was taking it personally, or more personally than supporters of other candidates would be.

The frustration comes from the stream of straw men thrown at progressives from self-righteous moderates who want to convince everyone that we're crazy for defending Sanders.
 
Venom said:
You were talking like I was taking it personally, or more personally than supporters of other candidates would be.

The frustration comes from the stream of straw men thrown at progressives from self-righteous moderates who want to convince everyone that we're crazy for defending Sanders.
Click to expand...

Develop a thicker skin.
 
Venom said:
You were talking like I was taking it personally, or more personally than supporters of other candidates would be.

The frustration comes from the stream of straw men thrown at progressives from self-righteous moderates who want to convince everyone that we're crazy for defending Sanders.
Click to expand...

And why do I get the brunt of it? As I told you I made no mention of socialist revolutions, or of Sanders' strategy. You simply misinterpreted what I posted. You can stop attacking me now, since I didn't attack you or anything you hold dear.
 
Trump has revealed his new budget proposal which includes cuts to social safety net programs like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Seems like a gift to all of the Democratic candidates running.
 
Venom said:
Oh stop it.

If you've seen the nonsense thrown at the Bernie supporters here a few pages back there's nothing to warrant all that straw.

It's died down anyway since the polls came out.
Click to expand...

No. You stop it. Quit whining. Develop a thicker skin. People are entitled to their positions and if you're the frontrunner, people are going to be put you on the spot. Get use to it.
 
Belz... said:
And why do I get the brunt of it? As I told you I made no mention of socialist revolutions, or of Sanders' strategy. You simply misinterpreted what I posted. You can stop attacking me now, since I didn't attack you or anything you hold dear.
Click to expand...

You replied approvingly to JoeMorgue's rant. So I multiquoted you. It's normal.

Maybe you just felt attacked.
 
acbytesla said:
No. You stop it. Quit whining. Develop a thicker skin. People are entitled to their positions and if you're the frontrunner, people are going to be put you on the spot. Get use to it.
Click to expand...

You feel the need to tell me to develop thicker skin for the most mundane back and forths. Just amusing as **** isn't it?

If you put the frontrunner on the spot people are entitled to rebut you. How is that news?
 
The WSJ has come out with a piece attacking Buttigieg's war service.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buttigiegs-war-and-the-shortest-way-home-11578355312

The gist of the article is that veterans of the service have low opinions of the type of service Buttigieg performed. He direct commissioned into an officer role in the reserves and did a few months of office and staffer work overseas, then returned and retired from the reserves.

The article points out that direct commissioning is often seen as a back door to military service for the well connected. Direct commissions do not have to attend ROTC or OTC training like a normal officer candidate. They don't even have to attend basic training and be evaluated based on all the normal things a soldier or officer would be evaluated for, such as physical fitness, combat proficiency, and leadership ability. Instead, they receive a direct commission and enter immediately into military service.

The article points out Hunter Biden also received such a direct commission, which he then lost when he pissed hot for cocaine.

The article points out the dramatic way in which Buttigieg describes the risks he faced. He largely performed office work and occasionally had to drive a car outside the base as his role as a support staffer.

A cynical person might suspect that this was a calculated, low effort way for an aspiring politician to beef up their resume without actually putting in the hard work and commitment of being a soldier.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
You feel the need to tell me to develop thicker skin for the most mundane back and forths. Just amusing as **** isn't it?

If you put the frontrunner on the spot people are entitled to rebut you. How is that news?
Click to expand...

It is amusing. You're whining. Stop. If you want to tell us something about your candidate, by all means, go for it. But we're not really interested in "why is everybody picking on me".
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The WSJ has come out with a piece attacking Buttigieg's war service.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buttigiegs-war-and-the-shortest-way-home-11578355312

The gist of the article is that veterans of the service have low opinions of the type of service Buttigieg performed. He direct commissioned into an officer role in the reserves and did a few months of office and staffer work overseas, then returned and retired from the reserves.

The article points out that direct commissioning is often seen as a back door to military service for the well connected. Direct commissions do not have to attend ROTC or OTC training like a normal officer candidate. They don't even have to attend basic training and be evaluated based on all the normal things a soldier or officer would be evaluated for, such as physical fitness, combat proficiency, and leadership ability. Instead, they receive a direct commission and enter immediately into military service.

The article points out Hunter Biden also received such a direct commission, which he then lost when he pissed hot for cocaine.

The article points out the dramatic way in which Buttigieg describes the risks he faced. He largely performed office work and occasionally had to drive a car outside the base as his role as a support staffer.

A cynical person might suspect that this was a calculated, low effort way for an aspiring politician to beef up their resume without actually putting in the hard work and commitment of being a soldier.
Click to expand...

And yet he didn't have to join the service. But he did. As opposed to venereal diseases being his Vietnam.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
A cynical person might suspect that this was a calculated, low effort way for an aspiring politician to beef up their resume without actually putting in the hard work and commitment of being a soldier.
Click to expand...

I've never understood people complaining about a POTUS or a POTUS candidate not having military experience. There's nothing to say it's required for the job, and there have been a few that have no experience (or half assed experience). He did more than the current occupant, he did more than the previous occupant.

I'm not a Pete fan, but this is just partisan pettiness from the WSJ.
 
Oh noes now we have to compare his safe military service to the... let me check my notes here... zero military service of all the other major candidates.

It's like women complaining Trump cheated his way out of a draft they didn't even have to register for.
 
acbytesla said:
And yet he didn't have to join the service. But he did. As opposed to venereal diseases being his Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's hard to imagine Trump being effective with such an attack, being a notorious rich-boy draft dodger.

Many of the Pete ads I've seen really harp on his military service. Photos on him kitted out and holding an M4.

The average person probably won't care, but ordinary military vets might notice. Using photos holding a rifle he never had to fire in training, perhaps never fired at all, might smack a bit of tokenism. Seems likely that Pete never had weapons training, never had to do extensive PT, never had to subjected to any significant military training at all.
 
plague311 said:
I've never understood people complaining about a POTUS or a POTUS candidate not having military experience. There's nothing to say it's required for the job, and there have been a few that have no experience (or half assed experience). He did more than the current occupant, he did more than the previous occupant.
Click to expand...
I think the argument is that as commander-in-chief, the president may have to put troops in harm's way. Because of that, you may want someone who is more familiar with armed conflict and the long-term effects on its participants.

I think Trump is a perfect example about why it might be a good idea.... he's a guy who has suggested people with potential brain injuries from explosions in combat "just have headaches"... he's a guy who wants to have military parades on the 4th of July. Perhaps if Trump actually had served in the military, he would be more respectful of people with war injuries and/or why its a bad idea to force soldiers to participate in military parades.

Another argument might be that being in the military requires a certain amount of self-discipline, a trait that would be useful to a president. Now, it doesn't mean you DON'T have that type of self-discipline if you never served, but it does hint that you do have it if you did serve.
 
Latest Quinnipiac national poll shows Sanders 25%, Biden 17%, Bloomberg 15%, Warren 14%, Buttigieg 10% and Klobuchar 4%. Buttigieg still can't get any traction among blacks (4%), but Bloomberg (22%!) is nipping at Biden's (27%) heels in that demographic and Bernie's not far behind (19%), while Warren (8%) and Klobuchar (0%) are not doing better than Mayor Pete.

My take: Shockingly high numbers for Bloomberg. Granted, it's probably because he's airing commercials in states where nobody else is on the air, and I suspect he'll start taking some fire from African American supporters of the other candidates for the "stop and frisk" policy and any racial incidents that happened during his mayoralty.

Buttigieg might end up winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and flaming out if he cannot get more black support. It's looking increasingly likely that the race will boil down to Bernie and Bloomberg by mid-March.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom