2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Cabbage]

[insert merry-go-round emoji]

This is why Sanders cannot win:

Bernie Sanders's Long History of Pushing Government Takeovers of Private Markets

Politico: Power to the people: Bernie calls for federal takeover of electricity production

What's so annoying about you regarding this is that you don't even seem to realize you're expressing what is merely an opinion.

But thanks for sharing anyway.

 

[Cabbage]

[insert merry-go-round emoji]

Maybe it wouldn't be a merry-go-round if you wouldn't simply dismiss my position.

And I take it you are walking back your claim that I am cherry picking polls to suit my narrative? I noticed you didn't try to support that position this time, at least.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yeah, it will be really bad for the party, and maybe Biden, if they run neck and neck and it goes to the convention and superdelegates. Biden nominated. Bernie Brothers will retreat and not show up to vote at all.

Or Bernie nominated and all the centrists decide they may have been Republicans all along.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Elizabeth Warren, 2/9/19



Today: Persist PAC placed $9 million in ad buys to support Warren in Super Tuesday states. Warren may have the largest Super PAC of the race.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-super-pac.html

This is the conceit of the very statement about not taking money from corporations or PACs. A campaign can't accept such contributions, they are illegal.

So then PACs spending money "on behalf of" a campaign becomes the norm. So either they are coordinating together, which would again be illegal, or the PAC is doing so of their own volition, which can't be blamed on Warren.

There's no middle ground "doing something shady" when it comes to this issue.

Either she can't do anything about it (maybe denounce/repudiate it?) or she's committed a violation of campaign finance laws.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Two way street, Klobuchar has had some moments where her inexperience was evident.

She's 59 goddamn years old. She's 6 years away from collecting Social Security. She's been in high level elected office for almost two decades.

Just because most of the other candidates have statistically already died and first took office before the light-bulb doesn't mean she just fell off of the turnip truck.

 

[theprestige]

She's 59 goddamn years old. She's 6 years away from collecting Social Security. She's been in high level elected office for almost two decades.

Just because most of the other candidates have statistically already died and first took office before the light-bulb doesn't mean she just fell off of the turnip truck.

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to become an experienced politician."

- Batman probably

"The problem is that by the time you have Joe Biden's political experience, you have Joe Biden's mush for brains."

- Joe Biden, probably

 

[Brainster]

Warren's probably going to lose her home state on Tuesday:

The poll shows Sanders is the choice of 25% of likely Democratic primary voters, while Warren is in second place with 17%. The former mayors, Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg, are in a virtual tie for third at 14% and 13%, respectively. Former Vice President Joe Biden rounds out the top five at 9%.

As usual, his support is concentrated among younger voters; he's the choice of 44% of those under 45, and only 11% of those 60+.

 

[Aridas]

Elizabeth Warren, 2/9/19



Today: Persist PAC placed $9 million in ad buys to support Warren in Super Tuesday states. Warren may have the largest Super PAC of the race.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-super-pac.html

Err... Warren didn't take a dime of PAC money there and, by a first glance, neither she nor her campaign are affiliated with the Persist PAC. With that said, this being the second time I've seen this today being pushed by a Bernie supporter means that I'm just going to take it as another somewhat inane attack route on Warren from the Sanders camp.

This is the conceit of the very statement about not taking money from corporations or PACs. A campaign can't accept such contributions, they are illegal.

So then PACs spending money "on behalf of" a campaign becomes the norm. So either they are coordinating together, which would again be illegal, or the PAC is doing so of their own volition, which can't be blamed on Warren.

There's no middle ground "doing something shady" when it comes to this issue.

Either she can't do anything about it (maybe denounce/repudiate it?) or she's committed a violation of campaign finance laws.

And yes, exactly. Going further, of course, what Warren seems to be moreso pushing on that front is that she wants to change the underlying rules so that SuperPACs no longer have such an ability to effectively dump unlimited amounts of dark money into political contests. It might be interesting to see how she reacts to this, yes, but both saying "Thank you for your support" and saying "Thank you for your support, but I would prefer other forms of support that don't require a SuperPAC" are likely not going to matter as much.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And why is that a better measure than national, state, and independent head to head polling?

Why does Bernie and his supporters not get it that any poll numbers now are before Sanders is really attacked for his views. And no, it hasn't happened yet, not the way it will if he's the nominee.

Same is true for Biden, BTW.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's so annoying about you regarding this is that you don't even seem to realize you're expressing what is merely an opinion.

But thanks for sharing anyway.

Well duh! So are you.

I happen to think there's more evidence behind my opinion and that you don't want to look.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe it wouldn't be a merry-go-round if you wouldn't simply dismiss my position.

I didn't dismiss anything. A merry-go-round is because we've been over this.

And I take it you are walking back your claim that I am cherry picking polls to suit my narrative? I noticed you didn't try to support that position this time, at least.

I believe I said that when you posted a single poll. The poll results are all over the place.

Why would I walk my POV back? I have consistently held this POV since the 2016 primary and I still do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She's 59 goddamn years old. She's 6 years away from collecting Social Security. She's been in high level elected office for almost two decades.

Just because most of the other candidates have statistically already died and first took office before the light-bulb doesn't mean she just fell off of the turnip truck.

Not going by any of that.

I'm going by her inexperienced disastrous interview with Telemundo where she said the only thing she knew about Mexico was that the president was newly elected.

And she said the governor of Kansas was her good friend then couldn't name her.

These incidents make me think she is inexperienced.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Klobuchar has a lot of experience.

But I'm not sure it's the kind of experience useful to the position of Commander in Chief.

 

[Cabbage]

Well duh! So are you.

I happen to think there's more evidence behind my opinion and that you don't want to look.

The difference is I recognize my view as an opinion and am not nearly so dogmatic with mine as you are yours.

 

[Brainster]

Bernie is apparently going to be campaigning in Massachusetts this weekend, which the Boston Globe seems to feel is terribly ungentlemanly.

Let's call Bernie Sanders latest campaign move exactly what it is: Shabby, Bernie, shabby.

It's also very good politics.

 

[Cabbage]

I didn't dismiss anything. A merry-go-round is because we've been over this.

You absolutely did dismiss something, you said so yourself:

I know enough to dismiss your assertion those polls mean anything.

I believe I said that when you posted a single poll. The poll results are all over the place.

The poll results are not all over the place; they consistently show Sanders leading Trump. Here, have dozens of polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

Why would I walk my POV back? I have consistently held this POV since the 2016 primary and I still do.

It's absolutely clear I was referring to you walking back your claim that I was cherry picking polls. How you can claim you've held that POV since 2016 is anachronistic and a mystery to me.

 

[Venom]

Bernie is apparently going to be campaigning in Massachusetts this weekend, which the Boston Globe seems to feel is terribly ungentlemanly.


It's also very good politics.

Fair game.

 

[The_Animus]

Why does Bernie and his supporters not get it that any poll numbers now are before Sanders is really attacked for his views. And no, it hasn't happened yet, not the way it will if he's the nominee.

Same is true for Biden, BTW.

That argument is true of every candidate.

If the purpose is to beat Trump then polls are literally the best measure we have. They are not perfect but are more accurate measure than the links you provided. You could also show links of approval for M4A and $15 minimum wage and say that shows Sanders is electable. But all those are not as good a measure as actual polls.

 

[Aridas]

For a moment of levity...

Ted Cruz, being the... person that he is, decided to take a clip from the Jimmy Kimmel Show a fair while ago and arbitrarily declared, without even a hint of rationality or evidence, that the people in it were Bernie supporters. Kimmel saw this, so, well...

Jimmy Kimmel brutally exposes Republican voters' deep ignorance and Ted Cruz's devious duplicity

He did it again, specifically with Ted Cruz supporters.

 

[Aridas]

Fair game.

It is.

If Bernie does get the nomination, though, it really will be too bad. After all... When it comes to making change, Bernie's a talker, Warren's a doer.

From that, incidentally, is an example of Warren getting things done despite McConnell.

But there's other examples. At a CNN town hall Wednesday night, Warren was asked if she "truly believed" she could bring the parties together to solve problems if elected, "particularly with a Republican-led Senate?"

"Not only do I believe I can do it, I have done it," Warren responded. Since Trump has been elected, she said, she's gotten about a dozen bills passed. Then she focused in on one bill she championed that will make it possible to buy over-the-counter hearings aids at an extremely reduced rate. According to Warren, hearing loss affects about 40 million Americans but only about one in six of those affected can afford to buy hearing aids, which typically cost about $5,000 out of pocket per pair. Why, she remembered wondering, were hearing aids so expensive when an iPhone offers much more functionality but costs considerably less?

After researching the issue, she realized lobbyists for the hearing aid industry had managed to keep supply down and prices sky high. So she created a bill and, one by one, called up Republican senators to pitch them on legislation to reduce the costs of hearing aids and make them available for purchase over the counter. Her first three calls, in fact, were to Republican lawmakers, all of whom liked the idea and signed on. Sure, they wanted some tweaks here and there, which was just fine by her.

"The point is, I built it and did it under the radar screen because that was the right way to do that one," she explained. "No fanfare, not try to make it fancy, don't need any headlines."

Getting credit wasn't the issue for Warren. Improving people's lives was. "Let's just get it done," she said. And she did. That bill has already been signed into law by Donald Trump, and next year people who experience hearing loss will have more affordable options that will help them live fuller, more engaged lives.