2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[SezMe]

Yes, and that.

Makes me feel better a bunch of rich donors wasted their money on this. Wonder what Biden is going to do with the war chest. He's not going to need it after he drops out.

Hopefully he'll use it against Trump.

 

[SezMe]

Either that or his strategy of campaigning as Grandpa Simpson.

I don't even think anyone cares about his son and Ukraine (I could be wrong). I just think that he generates no enthusiasm, his debate performances have been rambling, he looks terrible, he talks like someone who was old fashioned in the 1950s, and maybe also there being other, fresher, choices for voters (such as Buttigieg or even Klobuchar).

Good analysis.

 

[acbytesla]

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

Thanks for this. I place most of the blame on the government not regulating the Credit Default Swaps.

 

[Meadmaker]

No. I think it is childish and beneath the dignity of an adult let alone a President or Presidential candidate.

That doesn't mean it isn't brilliant.

I hate the fact that it worked, but it did. At least it appears to have done so.

 

[SezMe]

....Klobuchar is now a thing, for some reason....

Yes, and I wish I could figure out what her supporters see that makes her presidential material. I find her to be ... ummm....ordinary. She doesn't hold any position strongly that she can claim as her battle cry such as climate change or criminal reform. I'm unaware of her taking a leading role in any senate actions.

So, any Klobuchar enthusiasts out there? What gives?

 

[SezMe]

...(depending on what you mean by made up)....

In this contrext you don't know what "made up" means??? Surely you made that up.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, and I wish I could figure out what her supporters see that makes her presidential material. I find her to be ... ummm....ordinary. She doesn't hold any position strongly that she can claim as her battle cry such as climate change or criminal reform. I'm unaware of her taking a leading role in any senate actions.

So, any Klobuchar enthusiasts out there? What gives?

Sounds like the perfect moderate.

 

[SezMe]

The root of the problem is that Warren is the smart person's candidate, and smart people are a tiny minority.

Especially so in this era of anti-elites and anti-expertise and anti-science. She's my first, second and last choice but I'm not ignorant of the stigma being "smart" carries with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

The root of the problem is that Warren is the smart person's candidate, and smart people are a tiny minority.

Then why does she come up with stupid positions like paying off everybody's student loans? And why was she unprepared to deal with the inevitable backlash this created?

 

[angrysoba]

The root of the problem is that Warren is the smart person's candidate, and smart people are a tiny minority.

Then why does she come up with stupid positions like paying off everybody's student loans? And why was she unprepared to deal with the inevitable backlash this created?

I would also add that it isn’t too smart to prepare for the wrong competition.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, and I wish I could figure out what her supporters see that makes her presidential material. I find her to be ... ummm....ordinary. She doesn't hold any position strongly that she can claim as her battle cry such as climate change or criminal reform. I'm unaware of her taking a leading role in any senate actions.

So, any Klobuchar enthusiasts out there? What gives?

See the hilited.

Ordinary is good, when surrounded by negatives.

As I noted in an earlier post, in my opinion all of the candidates except Klobuchar and Buttigieg have severe negatives.

However, Amy and Pete have big electoral question marks. Neither one is very well known, and one of them is a gay guy whose highest office is mayor of South Bend.

Of all the possible people I could see being good presidential material, Amy Klobuchar wouldn't be top on my list. However, of the seven people who can be taken seriously as presidential candidates today (I'm being nice and including Biden) she's my leading candidate, with Buttigieg as another possibility.

 

[acbytesla]

That doesn't mean it isn't brilliant.

I hate the fact that it worked, but it did. At least it appears to have done so.

Yeah it does. Calling opponents childish nicknames is not brilliant. It is merely childish. And I don't think has worked. If Warren fails in her bid for the Presidency, it won't be because Trump's childish nickname.

 

[Segnosaur]

....Klobuchar is now a thing, for some reason....

Yes, and I wish I could figure out what her supporters see that makes her presidential material. I find her to be ... ummm....ordinary. She doesn't hold any position strongly that she can claim as her battle cry such as climate change or criminal reform.

In my opinion, I'm much more interested in a leader who has a decent set of policies that I might agree with mostly, than someone who focuses on a single issue (and where the other policies are not thought out, or that I might disagree with).

I'm unaware of her taking a leading role in any senate actions.

Well, if it means anything, according to her wikipedia page, she "passed more legislation (sponsored or co-sponsored bills) than any other senator by the end of the 114th Congress in late 2016".

So, any Klobuchar enthusiasts out there? What gives?

I'm not a "Klobuchar enthusiast". (I'm not even American, so this is just my outside opinion). But, assuming you agree with her policies (which people like the BernieBros might not), lets consider her positives:

- Younger than Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Bloomberg. That means there will be less chance of health concerns, and more chance of her being a 2 term president.
- Less gaff prone than Biden
- Actually has experience in congress (unlike, Buttigieg and Stayer)
- She supposedly did fairly well in the debates. Admittedly she wasn't a target like some of the front runners, but she also seemed to perform well during various senate proceedings. This means that during the election, she would probably do well against Trump. And if she wins the presidency, she would probably do a good job at representing the U.S. as president in public appearances, in dealing with world leaders
- The fact that she sponsored so much legislation means that she might be OK at navigating the political environment in Washington. (Granted the position of president is different than that of being a congress critter, but the president does still have to deal with congress.)

The main drawback is that she seems to have very little support within the african-american community. This could be due to her past history as a prosecutor (where she would have had to prosecute black people in court.) However, given the fact that Michael "stop and Frisk" Bloomberg is picking up african American support, they might in theory switch to her if she becomes a front runner.

So, if you like her policies, it looks like she might be pretty good, both in the chance that she might beat Trump, and in the fact that she could be a good president.

 

[Aridas]

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.

Man... you really like your over the top hyperbole criticisms of Warren and her supporters.

Here, then, a simple litmus test. When it comes to filling a position of power, I tend to favor the smartest, most competent candidate with the best chance of doing the most good. The most "elite" choice, some might say. Am I an "elitist," like the Sanders campaign has called me (and you sure look like you want to here), given that I support Warren? Going further, if that qualifies as "elitism," is such a form of "elitism" actually bad?

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.

Not quite. To poke at what I think is being discussed -

"Congress got involved, local officials as well."
They "said, 'Oh that's not fair, these people should be able to get credit.' And once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn't as good as you would like,"

By that, it was the people who successfully argued against racially discriminatory practices being allowed who were in the wrong. The mostly brown people are simply the people who shouldn't have been allowed to get loans in the first place and the banks had no real say in the matter.

Looks like Warren and Castro have called Bloomberg out directly for that, now. I suppose that that might count as a snipe? Also, Warren has a nice short video that gives a quick primer on what redlining actually is, from a slightly longer video that Warren make a while ago that addressed one of her bills.

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

Mmm. There is plenty of blame to go around in that the US has a lot of very unpleasant history. Quite a lot of redlining was directly motivated by racism specifically to disadvantage people of color, along with the numerous other methods that were used to disadvantage people of color. It's understandable that anything thats even a suggestion of justification for why it might have been better not to end it meets with criticism.

Going further, though, the bigger issue here is about whether Bloomberg is trustworthy when it comes to serving black people at least as well as he'll serve white people. For those who want to see his (decent) counterargument to the suggestion that he won't, here's a link to the relevant plan of his.

The Greenwood Initiative: Economic Justice for Black America

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.

Honestly, I think that all of the candidates will have a bit of a hard time with the Trump Administration's deregulation - and the attempts to negate as much enforcement of the rest as they can. Warren's actually got a plan for that and I think that she's the one who will likely get the most done... but frankly, I wouldn't hold it against her (or the rest) if things fell through the cracks of their Administration, given the enormity of the damage that's been done so far.

I sincerely appreciate the assumption. I will try harder to make my sarcasm more blatant, but damn if it isn't tough these days.

I favor the magenta text method to keep such clear. Like this, but with sarcasm included.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Correction: He does well with some non-white voters. (From what I understand, he has made a particular effort to appeal to the latino community.) However, last I saw, he is polling 3rd among African american, behind Biden (understandable, given his association with Obama), and Bloomberg (which is surprising, given Bloomberg's association with "stop and frisk").

Maybe you have more recent polling informatin. I haven't seen anything to suggest the situation has changed.

Now, its possible that should Sanders win the nomination, most of the black community would support him (not like I could see them going to Trump, and I don't think he has any skeletons in his closet that would cause him to actively lose their support). But polling 3rd in the black demographic (when he's #1 everywhere else, and even losing to Bloomberg) shows a distinct lack of enthusiasm.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Quid Pro Joe Biden told a group of black leaders that black parents can't read or write:

"Joe Biden reportedly shocked a group of black leaders last year when he said that parents in black communities can’t read or write. The comment, reported by The New York Times, is said to have been uttered by the former vice president during a private meeting with black mayors in Georgia."


https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden...ders-that-black-parents-cant-read-says-report

 

[Trebuchet]

Yes, and I wish I could figure out what her supporters see that makes her presidential material. I find her to be ... ummm....ordinary. She doesn't hold any position strongly that she can claim as her battle cry such as climate change or criminal reform. I'm unaware of her taking a leading role in any senate actions.

So, any Klobuchar enthusiasts out there? What gives?

Well, she's not in her late 70's for a starter.

 

[Brainster]

A lot of people have been hoping that the Democrats can coalesce behind one of the moderates and knock off Bernie. A new poll casts cold water on that notion:

In a series of hypothetical head-to-head matchups, Sanders ran ahead of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg by 15 points (53 percent to 38 percent); ahead of former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg by 17 points (54 percent to 37 percent); and ahead of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar by 21 points (54 percent to 33 percent). Sanders’s closest competitors were former Vice President Joe Biden, who trailed him by 4 points (48 percent to 44 percent) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who trailed him by 2 (44 percent to 42 percent).

The only two people who can go toe-to-toe with Bernie are on the verge of being kayoed.

Bernie has the lead in Nevada, according to a new poll:

Sanders led the pack with 25 percent of respondents expressing support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden (18 percent) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (13 percent). Businessman Tom Steyer (11 percent), former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (10 percent) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (10 percent) were clustered close behind.

 

[Venom]

When they see Sanders' momentum, the voters get behind him.

I was confident in Sanders' chances even after the heart attack. Voters don't seem too enthusiastic about gaffe-prone Biden or bland Buttigieg. Even Warren doesn't quite energize her base like Sanders does.

 

[Trebuchet]

I asked my very liberal cousin in Minnesota what she thought of Klobuchar. Not a fan.