2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Sideroxylon]

An example of another thing people may not like about Bernie Bros....

All Democrats would likely act to address the disparity between rich and poor. All would reverse elements of the Republican tax cuts to the wealthy. All of them would probably improve the social safety net and improve access to health care.

But to many Bernie Bros, only Sanders is interested in these things, ignoring the possibility that other politicians may address the same problems but in different ways.

No, Biden is not going to break into poor people's houses and steal their stuff. Mayor Pete is not going to ship poor people to Alaska. But the way you described it anyone who isn't willing to adopt Sanders policies might as well be a republican.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Sanders is promising much more, hence why he is being called a socialist, Marxist and extremist and the others are not. The other candidates are funded by billionaire backers with vested interests. Sanders is funded by his ordinary American grassroots.

In 2009, Obama inspired many and promised so much but failed to capitalise while Democrats had control of both House and Senate. The desire for change is still there and now a lot of cynicism towards the Democratic center.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's not true. Every single Democrat has proposed ideas regarding wealth inequality.
Still, his ideas go nowhere even if he's elected and can't sway the Blue Dogs. And it is doubly certain that it goes nowhere unless Bernie can win in the General.

Any Democrat will need a Senate rid of bloody-minded obstructionists like McConnell and his band of cronies.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What's going to matter over the next month going towards Super Tuesday is cash on hand.

Single-digit candidates are going to have to pack up shop soon. The ones in the low teens have to start making sacrifices in advance teams and ground game buildup as the pace of states gets faster. For some, it is a matter of picking up handfuls of delegates to trade for a cabinet post later, but the gas almost always runs out as contributions dry up. Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, and perhaps Klobuchar will all have some chips to cash in.

With the financial situation as it is right now, Sanders vs. Bloomberg looks quite realistic going down the stretch. Neither will have an outright majority of pledged delegates. With the rules as they are, it will be a brokered convention on the first ballot or the super delegates pick on the second round.

 

[Segnosaur]

An example of another thing people may not like about Bernie Bros....

All Democrats would likely act to address the disparity between rich and poor. All would reverse elements of the Republican tax cuts to the wealthy. All of them would probably improve the social safety net and improve access to health care.

Sanders is promising much more...

The fact that he "wants more" doesn't mean that the others in the Democratic race aren't interested in addressing lack of health care, wealth disparity, etc.

The other candidates are funded by billionaire backers with vested interests. Sanders is funded by his ordinary American grassroots.

The fact that other candidates have wealthy backers is largely irrelevant.

Some wealthy people support the democrats because they actually have sympathetic attitudes towards the poor. Others may not like all the democratic policies but still feel that their party is the best one financially for the U.S. because things like addressing climate change and improved infrastructure (things the democrats tend to support) is good for the U.S. economically.

To dismiss candidates just because "Oh gee, they had donors that were rich" is idiotic. Judge them by their policies and past history.

In 2009, Obama inspired many and promised so much but failed to capitalise while Democrats had control of both House and Senate.

Obama came to power in the middle of a severe recession. With the economy in freefall, putting the economy on a stable footing should have been a priority.

Yet despite the economic problems, the Obama administration (and the democrats at the time):
- Implemented a health care plan that was a benefit to millions of people
- Expanded aid to lower income college students
- Brought in financial reforms (in the form of the Dodd-Frank act) that re-established various banking regulations that had been repealed by previous administrations
- Increased capital gains taxes (something that affects the wealth)
- Increased the federal minimum wage
Sounds like he was certainly going in the right direction.

And what do you know? Obama and the democrats did all that despite the fact that they received millions of dollars from some wealthy donors.

But hey, keep telling us how Sanders is the only one who actually will work to improve things for the lower/middle class! And how receiving money from wealthy donors automatically means you can't be trusted to try improving things for the poor.

 

[acbytesla]

Sanders is promising much more, hence why he is being called a socialist, Marxist and extremist and the others are not. The other candidates are funded by billionaire backers with vested interests. Sanders is funded by his ordinary American grassroots.

In 2009, Obama inspired many and promised so much but failed to capitalise while Democrats had control of both House and Senate. The desire for change is still there and now a lot of cynicism towards the Democratic center.

So? Sanders has called himself a socialist for most of his life.

And I don't care where they get their money. I don't cut off my nose to spite my face. It's going to take a hell of a lot of money to beat Trump. I'm not interested in waging this battle with one hand tied behind my back.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

But of those three moderates, only Buttigieg claims his plan will guarantee that every person in America has insurance while still preserving people's "choice" of a private plan or the public option. How does PeteCare pull this off? By automatically enrolling anyone without insurance in the government plan and then back-billing them, potentially via tax filings, for a year's worth of coverage, which could be thousands of dollars.

The Washington Post noted this "retroactive enrollment" provision in a story published on Christmas Eve (it's mentioned on page 4 of the campaign's white paper). The Post compared it to the penalty for not having insurance under the Affordable Care Act, which was $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever was higher, paid when people file their taxes. Under Buttigieg's plan, people who are retroactively enrolled would owe up to 8.5 percent of their income, because that's the upper limit for monthly premiums under Pete's plan.

Let me repeat that: People who don't get insurance from work or choose not to proactively buy the government plan wouldn't merely be paying a fine, they'd be paying an entire year's worth of premiums for coverage they may not even know they had. As in, you could go all year without using any health insurance, because you thought you didn’t have it, and then owe thousands of dollars at the end of the year. Buttigieg has repeatedly characterized his plan as a "glide path" to achieving full Medicare for All, but retroactive billing could very well be a large pothole in the runway.

Linky.

Alas, Pete Buttigieg appears hell-bent on undermining our herd immunity to deficit hysteria. As NBC News reports:

Pete Buttigieg called on Democrats to get more serious about lowering the national debt, portraying himself as the biggest fiscal hawk in the presidential field and taking a shot at chief New Hampshire rival Bernie Sanders for being too spendthrift.

Linky.

Obama flashbacks intensify. Pete's preemptively committing to some of his biggest mistakes.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So? Sanders has called himself a socialist for most of his life.

And I don't care where they get their money. I don't cut off my nose to spite my face. It's going to take a hell of a lot of money to beat Trump. I'm not interested in waging this battle with one hand tied behind my back.

I even included the obvious reason why where campaign money comes for is important. At this stage America and its voters should be looking for the best candidate for ordinary Americans and the best vision for the future.

 

[Segnosaur]

So? Sanders has called himself a socialist for most of his life.

And I don't care where they get their money. I don't cut off my nose to spite my face. It's going to take a hell of a lot of money to beat Trump. I'm not interested in waging this battle with one hand tied behind my back.

Which is one of the reasons why I am hesitant to have Sanders as the candidate.

Claiming "I only take small donations" may sound good (and his fundraising has been successful so far). But in a general election, he would be up against republicans and their huge financial backers... good luck funding a general election on the money you find in the couch cushions.

So either Sanders sticks to his "small donations" strategy (and gets outspent by the republicans) or he starts accepting things like SuperPACs (and looks like a hypocrite).

 

[Segnosaur]

I even included the obvious reason why where campaign money comes for is important.

Your reason was just plain dumb.

Wealthy people do sometimes show empathy for people in other social classes, and 'liberal' governments throughout the world do enact social programs despite getting funding by wealthy individuals.

At this stage America and its voters should be looking for the best candidate for ordinary Americans and the best vision for the future.

Define 'ordinary Americans'.

Would sanders benefit the lower class? Yes, probably. Would he be beneficial to the Middle class? It would be a mixed bag... some social programs that benefit them, but also some added taxes and a loss of personal control.

 

[acbytesla]

I even included the obvious reason why where campaign money comes for is important. At this stage America and its voters should be looking for the best candidate for ordinary Americans and the best vision for the future.

And I don't buy the argument. I know some very wealthy Democrats who KNOW that the level of wealth inequality is screwed up. There are many who believe that the best thing for the economy is that we find a way to reduce it. Not every person who is wealthy is just out for themselves.

 

[SezMe]

The hyperbole and strawmanning never stops.

He is the only candidate in ages who is all about prioritising fixing the obscene wealth divide, lifting up the poorest and improving the lot of ordinary workers.

Talk about "hyperbole and strawmanning". Your second paragraph is simply wrong and that's why Bernie supperters are viewed with suspicion. Warren has stated her desire to achieve those same ends but she also has specific plans to make it happen. Bernie doesn't.

So rake the "hyperbole and strawmanning" advice for yourself.

The other candidates are funded by billionaire backers with vested interests. Sanders is funded by his ordinary American grassroots.

See, there ya go again with the false statements trying to make Bernie out to be something he is not.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I even included the obvious reason why where campaign money comes for is important. At this stage America and its voters should be looking for the best candidate for ordinary Americans and the best vision for the future.

Rich democratic donors are to the left of the average democrat. It isnt them pulling the party right.

 

[Segnosaur]

Some good polling news for the Democrats: Pretty much every candidate is currently beating Trump.

From: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655
- Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent;
- Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 percent;
- Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 percent;
- Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 percent;
- Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 percent;
- Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 percent.

The poll also shows:
- Sanders leads among all voters who lean Democratic, followed by Biden and Bloomberg
- Trump's approval rating sits at 42%

Just some personal observations:
- This poll was taken after Trump's acquittal, so its both a good sign and a bad sign... good sign that Trump appears to be losing to all the potential Democratic candidates, but a bad sign in that his approval rating is actually higher than the previous poll by the same company
- I'm surprised Klobachur is beating Warren in the polls, given that Warren is a higher profile candidate
- Of course, things a still pretty early in the election cycle; plenty of chance for things to change.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Some good polling news for the Democrats: Pretty much every candidate is currently beating Trump.

From: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655
- Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent;
- Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 percent;
- Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 percent;
- Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 percent;
- Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 percent;
- Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 percent.

The poll also shows:
- Sanders leads among all voters who lean Democratic, followed by Biden and Bloomberg
- Trump's approval rating sits at 42%

Just some personal observations:
- This poll was taken after Trump's acquittal, so its both a good sign and a bad sign... good sign that Trump appears to be losing to all the potential Democratic candidates, but a bad sign in that his approval rating is actually higher than the previous poll by the same company
- I'm surprised Klobachur is beating Warren in the polls, given that Warren is a higher profile candidate
- Of course, things a still pretty early in the election cycle; plenty of chance for things to change.

Do we have evidence that these polls at this point have predictive power?

I know some of my questions are crazier than others, but this is a pretty straight forward one, right?

 

[Brainster]

Problem I have with the Bernie Bros is I don't think a candidate ever lived who is as perfect in every way as they claim Bernie is.

Holy crap you must not remember the way Obama's fans described him in 2008.

 

[angrysoba]

Holy crap you must not remember the way Obama's fans described him in 2008.

Yep. It’s funny how the enthusiasm for Bernie is seem as a negative. Five thirty eight mentioned they went to Biden’s campaign HQ in New Hampshire and found hardly anyone there. Anecdotal, yes, as they themselves mentioned, but he doesn’t inspire people. He’s insipid, like John Kerry and Al Gore, the type of fantasy belief about an “electable” guy who falls between stools and excites nobody.

 

[Segnosaur]

Some good polling news for the Democrats: Pretty much every candidate is currently beating Trump.

Do we have evidence that these polls at this point have predictive power?

I know some of my questions are crazier than others, but this is a pretty straight forward one, right?

Not sure what you mean by 'predictive power'.

Do you mean how well it will match what happens on election day? Then at this point no, election day is too far out.

Or do you mean how many states/electoral college votes will be won? Again, I'd have to say probably not. I don't think they've broken down the results on a state-by-state basis.

 

[Brainster]

Some good polling news for the Democrats: Pretty much every candidate is currently beating Trump.

From: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655
- Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent;
- Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 percent;
- Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 percent;
- Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 percent;
- Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 percent;
- Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 percent.

The poll also shows:
- Sanders leads among all voters who lean Democratic, followed by Biden and Bloomberg
- Trump's approval rating sits at 42%

Just some personal observations:
- This poll was taken after Trump's acquittal, so its both a good sign and a bad sign... good sign that Trump appears to be losing to all the potential Democratic candidates, but a bad sign in that his approval rating is actually higher than the previous poll by the same company
- I'm surprised Klobachur is beating Warren in the polls, given that Warren is a higher profile candidate
- Of course, things a still pretty early in the election cycle; plenty of chance for things to change.

And the poll is of registered voters, not likely voters as the pollsters will use later in the year. Polls of registered voters tend to overestimate the Democrats (for the simple reason that Republicans are more likely to vote in general).

As for Warren v Klobuchar, Warren is doing better 10%-4% on the currently supporting part of the poll. But neither of them is going far at this point. Warren had a third in Iowa and is looking at a third or a fourth in New Hampshire. If Klobuchar can sneak into third she might have a chance to continue, but that same poll shows her currently with 0% support among blacks. Even Buttigieg has 4% among that demo, and he's largely considered a non-starter for that exact reason.

So cross off Warren, Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Biden looks to be headed for the retirement home. Which realistically leaves Sanders and the two billionaires.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Talk about "hyperbole and strawmanning". Your second paragraph is simply wrong and that's why Bernie supperters are viewed with suspicion. Warren has stated her desire to achieve those same ends but she also has specific plans to make it happen. Bernie doesn't.

So rake the "hyperbole and strawmanning" advice for yourself.



See, there ya go again with the false statements trying to make Bernie out to be something he is not.

Its fascinating how anything I say is extrapolated to Bernie supporters.
Bernie has no plans to make it happen? That’s ******** asserted as fact.

 

[Aridas]

Minoosh, why must you wish political advertising on us earlier than already? LoL. I hate the political ad season and we don't see as much of it up here.

Unfortunately... the GOP has been engaging in such anyways. Given that, unpleasant as it might be, it's not a bad thing for Bloomberg (or a Democrat superpac) to be countering their lies.

Sanders is promising much more, hence why he is being called a socialist, Marxist and extremist and the others are not. The other candidates are funded by billionaire backers with vested interests. Sanders is funded by his ordinary American grassroots.

Warren is being funded by billionaire backers? Interesting claim.

Its fascinating how anything I say is extrapolated to Bernie supporters.
Bernie has no plans to make it happen? That’s ******** asserted as fact.

It's worth noting that "specific plans" was what was asserted. Bernie's got plans (way more than Biden), but one of the notable criticisms of them that I keep hearing is that they tend to be vague. Good for overall direction, not so much for specifics, unlike Warren.

Of course, I rather suspect that Warren would end up rather influential in a Sanders administration if Bernie wins, so maybe you could consider some of Warren's specifics to apply.