2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew Yang ends his campaign.

NPR said:
"We have touched and improved millions of lives and moved this country we love so much in the right direction. And while there is great work left to be done, you know, I am the math guy, and it is clear tonight from the numbers that we are not going to win this race," he told supporters on Tuesday night.

"I am not someone who wants to accept donations and support in a race that we will not win. And so tonight I am announcing I am suspending my campaign for president."
Click to expand...
 
Distracted1 said:
He and (to a small extent , Warren) represent the wing of the party that is considered a bit mor "radical". He pretty much dominates that spot.
The "moderate" vote is larger- but distributed amongst more candidates.

That is why Sanders is the front runner right now.

If it were down to Sanders/Klobuchar right now, he would be pulling about 30% of the Dem vote to her %70
Click to expand...

I don't buy that one bit.
 
Warren seems to be sinking; she's at 10.0% and that number has been falling steadily.
 
NYTimes seems to be expecting the gap to keep narrowing between Pete and Sanders. But their numbers are a little behind.
 
theprestige said:
What are you counting? Seconds? Fortnights? If the tweet doesn't come in the allotted time, can we question your assessment of Trump?
Click to expand...


I know one thing: If it does happen, then the next time someone jokes about anticipating Trump taunting someone, you'll be back to questioning their assessment of Trump, like you always do....as if all the previous instances when Trump taunted someone simply never happened or can be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
Why do people think Bernie is the answer here? We've got a president whom 54 percent of voters think is a complete dick stain. Just run a Medicare if you need it, cheaper college (not free) and change the tax cut to benefit consumers Democrat and you win. Neither Bernie nor Warren have laid the ground work for their ideas. This is no time to be going in with revolutionary proposals. Warren is an idiot of she thinks this is the time for big ideas. Neither she nor Bernie have bothered to set the conditions for a debate between a socialist and a dictator. This is the election for someone who is sane, not planning to blow anything up and an idiot authoritarian nut job. Let's make it an easy choice.
Click to expand...

Bernie's campaigning on the same energy that elected Trump.

Warren is campaigning on the idea that Trump doesn't count, and the national conversation is ready to pick up where Obama left off.

Of the two, I'd say Bernie is closer to reality, and has a better chance.
 
Last edited:
Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar can play hard right now. Biden, Warren and Steyer* are probably going to amass what they can to play for cabinet posts. I doubt even Sanders + Warren, assuming she is even inclined to do so, will clinch the first round vote. ETA: and, of course, god knows what Bloomberg's angle is.

My prediction right now is that we won't know how the math adds up (who has released their pledged delegates to who) until very, very, extremely, absurdly late in the process.

*Steyer might be able to pick up some handfuls of delegates, but I doubt he can play for more than a few promises in terms of party planks or transition team and eventual "special advisor on such-and-such" gig come convention time. He'll play till Super Tuesday and then wait for the bids to start.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
NYTimes seems to be expecting the gap to keep narrowing between Pete and Sanders. But their numbers are a little behind.
Click to expand...

It looks like that's happening. The Times undoubtedly has a better idea of which districts have voted and which haven't and the likely demographic makeup of the latter.

Looks to me like Sanders won't get a killer boost coming out of New Hampshire; he largely performed to expectations. That still leaves him as the most likely candidate to get the nomination.

Buttigieg may end with the same number of NH delegates as Sanders tonight, which would actually give him the overall lead.

Klobuchar gets her second straight, "exceeded expectations" medal. To now she's not been getting the hard scrutiny that the front-runners have. Expect that to change. Did you know she's a former prosecutor?

Warren may limp on, but she's going to have to withstand a lot of negative press and extremely reduced fundraising ability.

Biden's a dead man walking.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yes, now that it's been ruled unconstitutional and he's not mayor, he no longer defends it. Not exactly stunning moral leadership that inspires confidence.

The policy was blatantly racist and an gross abuse of police power since day 1. The only thing that has changed is that it is no longer politically expedient for Bloomberg to support it, so he doesn't. This isn't the kind of thing that should just go away with a half-assed apology.
Click to expand...

It was a kind of damned if you did, damned if you didn't situation. At the time they brought it in, they (NYC) were having over 600 young black men being murdered by other young black men. 95% of shootings in NYC were young black men shooting other young black men. How do you craft a policy to fix this issue without specifically targeting young black men? Now I'm not saying that stop and frisk was the right answer, but if you base whether a policy is racist or not by who it targets, but you need to target the policy at the problem area, and that area is clearly one subset of the population, then whatever policy you implement is going to be potentially called racist, especially if the solution to the murder problem is to take a lot of young black men off the street to prevent them committing the crime.
 
Brainster said:
It looks like that's happening. The Times undoubtedly has a better idea of which districts have voted and which haven't and the likely demographic makeup of the latter.

Looks to me like Sanders won't get a killer boost coming out of New Hampshire; he largely performed to expectations. That still leaves him as the most likely candidate to get the nomination.

Buttigieg may end with the same number of NH delegates as Sanders tonight, which would actually give him the overall lead.

Klobuchar gets her second straight, "exceeded expectations" medal. To now she's not been getting the hard scrutiny that the front-runners have. Expect that to change. Did you know she's a former prosecutor?

Warren may limp on, but she's going to have to withstand a lot of negative press and extremely reduced fundraising ability.

Biden's a dead man walking.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with you about Sanders. Being from Vermont pretty much makes him a favourite son. And now moderates are dropping out of the race and their support is not likely to go to Sanders. And if Warren continues to falter, it seems as if Klobuchar will be the likely beneficiary.

Warren and Biden have 3 weeks to right the ship or they're toast.
 
Distracted1 said:
He and (to a small extent , Warren) represent the wing of the party that is considered a bit mor "radical". He pretty much dominates that spot.
The "moderate" vote is larger- but distributed amongst more candidates.

That is why Sanders is the front runner right now.

If it were down to Sanders/Klobuchar right now, he would be pulling about 30% of the Dem vote to her %70
Click to expand...

No. It would be much closer. In addition Sanders polls better in a head to head matchup vs Trump and with independents. If the goal is to beat a Trump, then the dems picking her would be shooting themselves in the foot. At least according to current polling.
 
Craig4 said:
He's the front runner in New Hampshire and took second in delegates in Iowa. Who cares? He can't get elected with just his progressive base. In the general election he needs to appeal to swing/independent voters. He has not shown the ability to do that.
Click to expand...

Cool. Another poster here who ignores what head to head polling vs Trump and what polling of independents actually shows.
 
The_Animus said:
Cool. Another poster here who ignores what head to head polling vs Trump and what polling of independents actually shows.
Click to expand...

I don't trust head to head polling after what happened 4 years ago. In almost every head to head poll, Clinton beat Trump.

Also, you have to be able to win in the electoral college, so polls in swing states are probably more relevant information that national polls. But even saying that, it's still too far from the election and the attacks won't really begin in earnest until it's clear who the Democratic nominee will be.

(I'm not saying this as an anti-Sanders argument, btw, because I'm actually warming to him, but just to point out that the polls can't be trusted. Heck, the early polls showing Biden with a comfortable lead in the national polls may have been true at the time, but that support seems to be vanishing quickly.)

I do think that Sanders could win, but not because of any national head to head polls. Those failed to predict last time.
 
Trebuchet said:
A little while ago I said to my wife, "We've never had a gay president."
Her response: "That we know of."

We've also never had a Jewish president or a female president. Or a gropey, feely, uncle president. That takes care of the top five.
Click to expand...

Apparently James Buchanan was gay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom