2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delphic Oracle said:
But I'm in an R+10 state, so I get to be principled, secure in the knowledge I will make not one bit of difference at all. So there's that.
Click to expand...

Of you can get 90% of democratic voters out, then that 10 point advantage might vanish. If all the democrat voters go "my vote won't matter," then it won't.
 
Brainster said:
Or that Hillary might become homicidal.
Click to expand...

"Become"? She's been Vince Fostering people up and down the Beltway for decades. Hillary Clinton just loves murder. It's like crack to her. Her eyes light up and she starts breathing funny, it really adds a new layer of stress when you host a fancy dinner party and she's a guest. The pantsuits were never about image, they are about ease of movement when stalking terrorstricken victims through a foggy forest in the dead of the night.
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Become"? She's been Vince Fostering people up and down the Beltway for decades. Hillary Clinton just loves murder. It's like crack to her. Her eyes light up and she starts breathing funny, it really adds a new layer of stress when you host a fancy dinner party and she's a guest. The pantsuits were never about image, they are about ease of movement when stalking terrorstricken victims through a foggy forest in the dead of the night.
Click to expand...

And whatever you do, don't go down in the basement! She's bound to be waiting for you with her machete.
 
Klobuchar tries to row back some of her past votes:

Campaigning in Las Vegas, the three-term Minnesota senator said Friday that she has changed her stance since voting for an English-language amendment in 2007 and has “taken a strong position against” it.
Click to expand...

And:

The senator also faced questions about comments she made about border security during a 2006 campaign debate, and her 2007 vote for an immigration bill that would have beefed up fencing and enforcement among the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a recently resurfaced video of the debate, Klobuchar says the U.S. needs more resources at the border. “We need to get order at the border,” including a fence, and she says she would stop giving amnesty to companies that hire immigrants in the country illegally. She also backed giving people in the U.S. illegally the chance to earn citizenship if they are willing to pay taxes, learn English and pay a fine.

After taking office in 2007, she voted in favor of a bill that called for 370 miles (595 kilometers) of “triple-layered (border) fencing” and 500 miles (800 kilometers) of vehicle barriers. It also sought to roughly double the number of Border Patrol agents from about 12,000 at the time, adding 11,600 agents over five years. Obama and then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton also voted for the bill. Sanders voted no. He said in 2015 that he opposed the 2007 bill because it included a guest worker program that would allow too many low-wage workers into the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
Giz said:
‘Risky’ in that he might suddenly become suicidal?
Click to expand...

Brainster said:
Or that Hillary might become homicidal.
Click to expand...

I think that was the joke.

Or maybe there will be a headline like this...

"Hillary Clinton was sworn in as 47th president today on Air Force One, after President Bloomberg accidentally brutally stabbed himself to death while shaving in preparation for his inauguration speech."
 
Brainster said:
I would also point out that the betting markets foresee the same matchup with Sanders currently at 39.0% to win and Bloomberg at 34.6%.
Click to expand...

I don't like that Bloomberg is in that position just because he's rich. I'm sure there are hundreds (thousands??) of people who would make great candidates and presidents but remain unknown just because they aren't billionaires.

This aspect of our political system sucks big time.
 
SezMe said:
I don't like that Bloomberg is in that position just because he's rich. I'm sure there are hundreds (thousands??) of people who would make great candidates and presidents but remain unknown just because they aren't billionaires.

This aspect of our political system sucks big time.
Click to expand...

Would you rather that billionaires such as Bloomberg got into that sort of position by convincing all of those people supporting him, most who likely earn less in 2-3 years than he does in a day, to bankroll him while he doesn't spend a penny?

Why are politicians that are only willing to put their supporter's money where their mouth's are so much better than ones who are actually willing to put their own money where their mouth is?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Would you rather that billionaires such as Bloomberg got into that sort of position by convincing all of those people supporting him, most who likely earn less in 2-3 years than he does in a day, to bankroll him while he doesn't spend a penny?

Why are politicians that are only willing to put their supporter's money where their mouth's are so much better than ones who are actually willing to put their own money where their mouth is?
Click to expand...
It's cute how you've turned someone spending their way to political power into a positive like that.
 
Did some poking around on Bloomberg. He's definitely got some things that should make the other Democrats pounce when they get him on the debate stage.

For instance:

He endorsed George W. Bush and spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

His gun control PAC ran $10 million in TV ads supporting Republican Senator Pat Toomey for re-election in 2016. Mike got it done; Toomey won by about 1.7 percentage points. Those of you railing about the Republican Senate have a good target for your ire.

His sexism and sexual harassment. When he found out an employee was pregnant, he reportedly told her to "kill it."
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Between stop-and-frisk, the airspace-closing, journalist-arresting, smash-and-grab operation that ended OWS, and having rules changed to allow himself more terms in office.
Sorry, he's the candidate I am actually 100% ok with skipping on in the general.
He's already done most of the **** we worry Trump might do any day now.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, that's completely the wrong attitude to take.

I can understand him not being your first choice to be the democratic nominee. I can understand you preferring that he not be anywhere near the white house. And while he did apologize for stop-and-frisk, I can understand if you don't think his apology is genuine.

But if it comes town to Trump vs. Bloomberg in a general election?

Bloomberg is pro-choice. He's unlikely to put any more hard-right social conservatives on the supreme court. He recognizes that global warming is an issue that needs attention. He's willing to raise taxes on the wealthy. Even if you assume Bloomberg is "just as bad" as Trump when it comes to things like stop-and-frisk, he is still far far better than him in other areas.

Deciding to 'sit out' the election just because he is your least favorite Democratic alternative means that you would be willing to deny thousands of women proper access to health care, all while the planet burns up, all the while you sit and sulk in the corner.
But I'm in an R+10 state, so I get to be principled, secure in the knowledge I will make not one bit of difference at all. So there's that.
Click to expand...
1) There is no guarantee that you're vote won't make a practical difference. After all, longshots do sometimes work out

2) Even if your vote doesn't change the outcome of the election, I think there is still value to voting for Trump's opponent. i.e. "You are so disliked that we will vote for this jerk over you".
 
Segnosaur said:
Not to mention just 2 years ago, when he suggested Chicago adopt the practice of stop-and-frisk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-stop-and-frisk-stem-gun-violence/1570409002/

So, double-hypocrisy.

If the Democrats are smart, they will find some audio of Trump making that suggestion and put out campaign ads with it.
Click to expand...

Assuming it makes a difference.

Trump supporters don’t care about:

a) his double standards
b) his racism

In fact, worse than that, you are advertising what they see as virtues.
 
While that's true, angrysoba, (what are you angry about? :) ) Trumps die-hard fans are not the target of such tactics. They're aimed at squishy Trump voters. At people who voted Trump in 2016 in the context, "Well, he's different. Maybe things will change." At those who only marginally follow politics and such an ad might just catch them at the right time.

And so on......
 
PhantomWolf said:
Would you rather that billionaires such as Bloomberg got into that sort of position by convincing all of those people supporting him, most who likely earn less in 2-3 years than he does in a day, to bankroll him while he doesn't spend a penny?
Click to expand...

False choice. I prefer that money in politics be minimized to the extent possible. There are a myriad of possible ways to do this, some good, some probably pretty bad. But I support the intent.

To be honest, in my ideal world, there would be no billionaires. What can you do with $150 billion that you can't do with $150 million? So, in that world, there would be no pols buying an office or fat cats buying a judgeship.

Of course, that's not where we live. But I support policies that move us in that direction. Bloomberg buying a place on the debate stage moves us in the wrong direction.
 
SezMe said:
To be honest, in my ideal world, there would be no billionaires. What can you do with $150 billion that you can't do with $150 million? So, in that world, there would be no pols buying an office....

Of course, that's not where we live. But I support policies that move us in that direction. Bloomberg buying a place on the debate stage moves us in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...
Maybe. On the other hand, while it may be bad from a symbolic point of view to have a Billionaire 'buy' his way into an election, if he truly is the best candidate to defeat Trump, he would likely appoint left-of-center judges to the supreme court (compared to the right-wing ones Trump would appoint). Those center-left judges would be the ones best in position to address campaign finance issues (as well as voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Maybe. On the other hand, while it may be bad from a symbolic point of view to have a Billionaire 'buy' his way into an election, if he truly is the best candidate to defeat Trump, he would likely appoint left-of-center judges to the supreme court (compared to the right-wing ones Trump would appoint). Those center-left judges would be the ones best in position to address campaign finance issues (as well as voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.)
Click to expand...

Just symbolic, huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom