2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
It will be interesting to see his response to this.

Sadly, Obama had the same attitude, bailing out the banks and not the borrowers, saying the banks' failing was too dangerous for society.
Click to expand...

Bailing out the banks was controversial, but advocating for redlining is positively radioactive.

A case could be made that bailing out the banks was the right move, even if the failure was the banks fault.

Bloomberg's speech is big bank apologism. I don't know how to interpret this as other than saying irresponsible, poor, and mostly brown people caused the crises with their bad decision making.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
If Obama did it, it can’t be too bad electorally speaking.
Click to expand...
Obama hid it until after he was elected.

Don't get me wrong, Obama had a lot of very good qualities. And Clinton may have done something similar but she would have gotten a whole lot more flak for it.

We'll see if Bloomberg can overcome a lot of these past policies, all on video. I suspect he can. He has a team of marketers.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Bailing out the banks was controversial, but advocating for redlining is positively radioactive.

A case could be made that bailing out the banks was the right move, even if the failure was the banks fault.

Bloomberg's speech is big bank apologism. I don't know how to interpret this as other than saying irresponsible, poor, and mostly brown people caused the crises with their bad decision making.
Click to expand...
I don't hear "advocating for redlining" standing out in that video. I hear advocating for the government not interfering in bank decisions.

But, that Republican end-all-regulations belief stands out clear as a bell. Bloomberg may not roll back all the damage Trump has done with deregulation.

And that's very bad.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't hear "advocating for redlining" standing out in that video. I hear advocating for the government not interfering in bank decisions.

But, that Republican end-all-regulations belief stands out clear as a bell. Bloomberg may not roll back all the damage Trump has done with deregulation.

And that's very bad.
Click to expand...


Seems pretty clear to me.

Couldn't find a transcript, here's a brief version I typed up from a couple listens.

Interview: How did we get here, what are the root causes?

Bloomberg: It all started back when there was a lot of pressure to make loans to everyone. Redlining was the term...etc etc.
Click to expand...

Nobody but a Republican ghoul thinks the mortgage crisis was caused by the banks not being able to engage in discriminatory lending.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
ETA: I was assuming your posting was an honest statement. If it was meant as sarcasm, then ignore what I just said.
Click to expand...

I sincerely appreciate the assumption. I will try harder to make my sarcasm more blatant, but damn if it isn't tough these days.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems pretty clear to me.



Nobody but a Republican ghoul thinks the mortgage crisis was caused by the banks not being able to engage in discriminatory lending.
Click to expand...

The solution to every problem is figuring out which poor people to blame and then finding out how to blame them. This is why problem solving is such hard work.
 
Dr. Keith said:
The solution to every problem is figuring out which poor people to blame and then finding out how to blame them. This is why problem solving is such hard work.
Click to expand...

Problem solving would be so much easier if all those single mothers on Medicaid weren't using up resources.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Re: Rush Lymphnode anti-gay rhetoric and Trump's responsibility...
ETA: I was assuming your posting was an honest statement. If it was meant as sarcasm, then ignore what I just said.
Click to expand...
I sincerely appreciate the assumption. I will try harder to make my sarcasm more blatant, but damn if it isn't tough these days.
Click to expand...
Well, for the record, I never thought you were a Trumper.

But, I did not know whether you knew about Trump's awarding of the Medal of Freedom.

And I don't think its fair to judge a leader by the bad acts of a follower, if the leader has done noting to condone those bad acts.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems pretty clear to me.

Nobody but a Republican ghoul thinks the mortgage crisis was caused by the banks not being able to engage in discriminatory lending.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the word 'redlining' wasn't there. I'm saying it was government regulations Bloomberg was on about, not discrimination. And it was poor credit risks he had an issue with.

As for getting the cause of the 2008 recession wrong, that he did. And lack of regulations was the problem, not the underlying cause.
 
Last edited:
[IMGw=600]https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/sandersberne_021120getty.jpg[/IMGw]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elec...national-lead-poll/ar-BBZY5Qz?ocid=spartanntp

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has opened up a double-digit lead over his next closest rivals in a new national survey.

The latest Morning Consult poll finds Sanders at 29 percent support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19 percent and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 18 percent. Sanders gained 3 points in the poll after winning the New Hampshire primary this week, while Biden lost 3 points after a disastrous fifth-place showing.
Click to expand...
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Polling for Sanders shows him way in the lead in Nevada. Despite all the BS about white Bernie Bros, Sanders does quite well with nonwhite voters. The lily white state of Iowa and NH have been massive boons to Pete and Klob, both who have very poor support in nonwhite communities. Both of these campaigns are about to get a hard reality check in the less white states of NV and SC.

538 has Sanders polling 10 points up from second place Biden who is nosediving. 15+ up from warren, and more so for the rest.

SC still has Biden in the lead, but his polling is nosediving. Bernie is in second with a healthy lead over the rest. Bernie is 6 points behind Biden and 10 points ahead of the rest of the pack.

I could easily see these next two contests the moment when Sanders pulls into the sole frontrunner status away from Pete and Klob.


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/south-carolina/
Click to expand...

Those charts are misleading. The trends are based on national polling. If you look at the polls below you will see there haven't been recent ones, and Biden was still leading.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Nobody but a Republican ghoul thinks the mortgage crisis was caused by the banks not being able to engage in discriminatory lending.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what he said. He was asked how the crisis started, and this was in 2008 before most of the investigations came out, and he said that the Government pushed banks to stop redlining, which is true, they did. He also noted that lending on houses where those that are getting the loan might not be able to repay it wasn't so bad, for the banks, as long as the housing market continued up because if the lender defaulted then the house could be sold for more than the loan, again this was true.

He didn't say that Redlining was a good idea, nor that should be done. He wasn't defending it, he was pointing out that with the ending of it and the creating of more subprime mortgages, that it setup the stage for the collapse because subprime mortgages only work when the housing market is increasing. And this was true, the lack of regulation and the boom in subprime mortgages which followed the demands to make sure everyone had access to cheap loans regardless of their ability to repay, lead to a bubble that burst, and when it did, the security wasn't worth the loan and people started defaulting leaving the banks with huge debts that they had built up by taking on too much risk.

The 2007-8 Collapse wasn't one group's fault. It wasn't entirely the banks, though they have a large part due to their willingness to take on the huge amounts of risk without regards to what might have happened in the future. It wasn't entirely the Government's, though they deserve some of the blame due to their lack of oversight, their deregulation of the banks, and their pushing banks to make lending available to everyone via the CRA, being willing to underwrite loans that clearly were suspect to the loaner's ability to repay through Freddie and Fanny. Finally those that were loaning the money themselves deserve some blame because they took out decades long mortgages without consideration of how they would be able to repay should interest rates increase, or house prices fall. They also were the ones that abandoned their debt when things went wrong for them when the housing market collapsed.

There is enough blame to go around, and a lot of people who wanted to play CYA by blaming everyone else. I don't see how someone pointing this out in 2008, before most of the reports were out, counts as defending Redlinning
 
Aridas said:
Mmm. She's been pitching that for a while, and so have many of her supporters. She has a point, I think, that overall, she's the best candidate on the field to reach out to every part of, unite, and generate enthusiasm in the Democratic Party, even if she may not be everyone's first choice. If it were ranked choice voting, she'd probably win handily, in other words.
Click to expand...

Yup. The idea is that she can capture the Bernie voters afraid to lose to Trump if the moderates don't get on board with Bernie, and capture the literally everyone else voters afraid to lose to Trump if the Bernie people don't get their first choice.

She's by far who I support, but not for those reasons. If she can convince the Bernie people she's similar enough to him, and the others that she's more 'reasonable' (different enough) from him, she has a shot. Having well thought out reasonable plans, showing she'd still be pragmatic and flexible, and proven the ability to get things done (getting an entire new department made before even being in government is damn impressive). Hypothetically she should be more welcome to the banks and markets than Bernie because while she wants to regulate the hell out of them, she at least knows how they work as to not accidentally destroy them. Of course the banks don't want a fair, level playing field where the people who deliver the best gain market share, so they fear her more than anyone else.



I don't recall your previously stated view, but, if it's like mine, "lanes" are greatly overemphasized in the media because they make for an easy narrative to spout, not because they're particularly accurate.
Click to expand...

Almost exactly my view. There of course are people who do stick more closely to their ideological 'lane', but the evidence just doesn't support it being a main driver for most, or even a large minority, of American voters.


Mmm... I don't count what Warren's done as sniping. If anything, she's been on the receiving end of a bunch of sniping and she's pointedly refrained from engaging in sniping, as a general rule. The closest thing to sniping that she's actually done, by the look of it, is calling Buttigieg on his refusal to allow media into some of his fundraisers - and that was part of a more general and seemingly principled push for as much transparency as possible.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant 'sniping' as in 'picking off' and not 'taking cheap shots'.

But she also called Pete on his answers to his history with minorities being vague and non-substantive. That wasn't exactly a snipe, but snipe adjacent.


She's my first choice, by a large margin. 3rd in Iowa and 4th in NH in a crowded field also makes it pretty clear that "nobody's first pick" is quite inaccurate. Going beyond that, are you really calling TragicMonkey a nobody? :boxedin:
Click to expand...


Listen, I think TragicMonkey would be the first to point out that while posting here, everyone is a nobody.

EDIT: Right, read the rest of the thread before making any new posts. Does the post-confirmation prediction get the million?
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I like Warren. She's my senator and has done good work.

I'm just pointing out that a Harvard professor going around with a policy of "I'm smart, listen to me dumb-dumbs, I know what's best" is not a winning strategy.

There aren't enough highly educated, affluent professionals in this country to propel her to victory. The country isn't Boston. She's going to have to figure out how to relate to the unwashed masses or she's not viable.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
I've worked in IT all my life. Highly educated, affluent professionals are ******* idiots.
Click to expand...


One, Warren started out lower-middle class and went to a state university and taught special needs students before going to law school and passing the bar. Yes, she's extremely intelligent and has had a strong career in academia but she has also waited tables after the family car was repossessed. Communicating that might be a different matter, but actually relating isn't that out of plausibility.

Two, sample sets that have inbuilt mechanisms to over-represent people who can't figure their IT out are not the best sample set. And yes, I've also done IT work, and am an internal compliance auditor. I consistently have to remind people that the specialized knowledge they possess isn't common knowledge (and thus they need to document it and update their damn MI/EI and process maps!) and other people lacking that specialized knowledge isn't an indication they are stupid. A lot of people become hyper focused and lack a broad base of knowledge, and having spent a LOT of time dealing with consumer electronics, cell phones, and other IT (being a vacation location for rich business people), business people and the general public are ******* idiots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom