2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Minoosh]

Who would be saying we shouldn't frame these ideas as moderate?

The free college is one of those issues that IMO is being poorly framed. It needs to be framed as "affordable college" and I agree adding trade school tuition assistance is important.

While I didn't watch the 7 hours behind a paywall debate on climate change, reports this morning (Democracy Now) were that Warren emphasized retraining people who lose jobs to clean energy. That is critical messaging that Clinton missed on the coal issue.

Because some people think the Democrats should be about advocating for a more leftward agenda, which isn't wrong, exactly, but I'm not sure they're making the point that even Bernie is not far left at all. Mayor Pete said something like that - we're going to be branded socialists no matter what, so we might as well embrace so-called "socialism." He's not wrong about the social agenda, but I think it's a miscue to allow the GOP to brand that agenda as "socialist." Most of those things are totally middle-of-the-road positions. Not free college, but affordable college, for example (or trade school, just as valid as a B.A. for a start in life, IMO). I think starting now, leaving candidate's personalities aside, the DNC, or some PAC, should be introducing the idea that many of our most cherished traditions rely on collective funding. Nobody says you should have to blade your own road to get around; why would we tell sick people they have to blaze their own trail in the "free market"?

At this point, don't try to jump in with policy details about UHC - just start pressing the idea that people in this country deserve and can afford a better (cheaper and more rational) system, and that sharing costs is what government is for. But it has to be carefully tuned to specific issues - those where there is a big disconnect between what Democrats actually want to do vs. how the Republicans are framing what Democrats want to do. They are on the right side on health care - it's clear the GOP never had any plan on health care at all, other than repealing the ACA.

I think pitching these scenarios to younger voters - portable health care benefits, affordable education and/or job training - might get more of them to vote. (A sustainable planet is not far left, either). There's no need to identify any candidate, or even to make any promises - just let them know that one party gives a damn about the world they will live in, and it's not the GOP as currently constituted.

 

[kellyb]

That's not what I asked. Please read what you are replying to. I don't want to end up in another time-wasting back and forth.

The point was about your claim people prefer free to affordable. I get it 'affordable' has it's own problems. But a large number of people get very angry when they think people are getting stuff for free from their taxes.

I said I suspect, and said I'd like to see focus group testing on the various forms of framing.

Read my words again:

I'd be interested to see a focus group result comparing the two.

As long as it can be demonstrated to not do something awful to the economy, I suspect most people prefer "free".

I made no "claims".

That is about people thinking it's worthwhile to attend college, not is it valuable for the community to invest in educating college students.

It's was a multi-question survey.
It also asked:

On another survey question, 62% of all Americans support making tuition to public colleges and universities free to anyone who wants to attend, with millennials most in favor, at a hefty 77%.

They broke it down by party affiliation, too:

You might be able to guess how a person feels about free tuition if you know their political persuasion. Democrats (81%) and independents (67%) support the concept much more than those who identify themselves Republicans (33%).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry kellyb, I'm not going down this road. You have more than enough company already.

Maybe on another day.

 

[The Atheist]

Why did you put my name in when you are replying to Brainster?

Sorry mate, I have no idea how that happened and it wasn't intentional. Fail by me somewhere, mea culpa.

 

[angrysoba]

Sorry mate, I have no idea how that happened and it wasn't intentional. Fail by me somewhere, mea culpa.

No problem!

 

[Aridas]

Team Trump fretting over Warren's rise after his best shot at her fell flat

Trump's campaign operatives have reportedly placed negative stories about other top Democratic candidates and kicked back to soak in the results, reports the Daily Beast. In fact, following Warren's missteps with DNA testing regarding her Native American heritage, Team Trump delighted in what they figured was her early demise. But instead of crumbling, Warren's campaign has been on a steady rise ever since she regained her footing from the flap.

“We all push out the bad Warren stories but they don’t go very far,” one Republican strategist told the Beast. That person and others close to Trump said they have mounted continued efforts to land blows to Warren's candidacy that have almost all fallen flat. Worse yet, Trump himself may have already squandered what they view as his best shot at Warren and failed. Even Trump remarked wistfully about his missed opportunity at a rally last month.

<snip>

“Sure the Republican base will ultimately loathe Warren, but she doesn’t inspire the same kind of historic vitriol that Hillary Clinton did,” another GOP strategist observed. “That, combined with fact that SCOTUS isn’t on the line as it was in ’16, and remembering that Trump needed the perfect inside straight to barely win last time, and any Democrat is going to be tough to beat, Warren included.”

 

[Delvo]

Team Trump fretting over Warren's rise after his best shot at her fell flat

Those quotes remind me of how silly it is for people who just can't let go of 2016 to keep claiming Hillary only lost because the Republicans were mean to her. Republicans are mean to everybody. The difference between their opponents is how well it works.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

how silly it is for people who just can't let go of 2016 to keep claiming Hillary only lost because the Republicans were mean to her. Republicans are mean to everybody. The difference between their opponents is how well it works.

If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a decade. She was tainted goods. Her character was already assassinated long before going into the race; Dems shouldn't have expected that propping it up and waving an arm around like Weekend at Bernie's would unfool the fooled. When she talked about revamping the stricken economy of coal-producing counties, all they heard was benghazi benghazi benghazi.

Which is why I'm glad to see this whole Pocahontas thing fading back. Even now Warren is still the leader when it comes to proposing actual policies, not just "I'mma gonna fix it." I think she should pick Buttegieg as her veep: youthful and charismatic but on the moderate wing of the party.

While I'm kibitzing, I STILL haven't heard of anyone - anyone at all - who wants Biden as president on his own merits. It's always boiled down to "we have to pick Biden, because if we don't some other demographic is going to vote against us." I think this would be a good time for Biden to start adopting a big tent "vote blue no matter who" platform, and end up being the unifier of the party for whomever ends up with the torch.

 

[Tero]

I want that socialism to start soon. My wife still needs Obamacare. It sets limits on my spending. I'd like to buy a car (Capitalism!) after she gets socialism (health insurance). Otherwise we have to wait till she is on Medicare to buy that car.

Help me Warren! Or even Biden!

 

[Distracted1]

If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a decade. She was tainted goods. Her character was already assassinated long before going into the race; Dems shouldn't have expected that propping it up and waving an arm around like Weekend at Bernie's would unfool the fooled. When she talked about revamping the stricken economy of coal-producing counties, all they heard was benghazi benghazi benghazi.

Which is why I'm glad to see this whole Pocahontas thing fading back. Even now Warren is still the leader when it comes to proposing actual policies, not just "I'mma gonna fix it." I think she should pick Buttegieg as her veep: youthful and charismatic but on the moderate wing of the party.

While I'm kibitzing, I STILL haven't heard of anyone - anyone at all - who wants Biden as president on his own merits. It's always boiled down to "we have to pick Biden, because if we don't some other demographic is going to vote against us." I think this would be a good time for Biden to start adopting a big tent "vote blue no matter who" platform, and end up being the unifier of the party for whomever ends up with the torch.

WRT Clinton, I agree. She had been a target of right-wing smears for decades.

We keep discussing "electability" in this thread without recognizing what happened the last time Dems ran a candidate with low "electability"- she lost!

I remember being thrilled with the Republican nomination of Trump (I could probably dig up the posts) because I mistakenly believed that they had selected the only candidate from their field that could possibly lose to Clinton.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

WRT Clinton, I agree. She had been a target of right-wing smears for decades.

We keep discussing "electability" in this thread without recognizing what happened the last time Dems ran a candidate with low "electability"- she lost!

I remember being thrilled with the Republican nomination of Trump (I could probably dig up the posts) because I mistakenly believed that they had selected the only candidate from their field that could possibly lose to Clinton.

You're only assigning her "low electability" in hindsight, which is why the term is meaningless. Everyone but 538 gave her, what, a 98% chance of winning at the time? That's not low.

I see Biden having the same problem she did. When it came right down to it, not enough people actually wanted her as president, so they stayed home because they assumed all those other people who did want her would turn up. Just like you don't want Biden, but you're afraid people will vote against whoever else otherwise.

Don't worry about what candidate other people will want. Support the person you'd most like to see in office, and trust others to do the same.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well the problem is "My credibility has been destroyed but it's unfair and not my fault" even if 100% true is still like a factor we can't just make go away.

 

[Aridas]

Indeed, Trump got a massive plurality over the other candidates: He had 14 million total votes in the primary. Next highest total? Ted Cruz, with 7.8 million. Trump's total was 80% more than the second place contender, despite being a moronic lunatic.

Tangent - That Ted Cruz was 2nd is actually a bit significant, too, though. Ted Cruz is also a moronic lunatic. A pretty friggin' horrible one, at that, even if he's outclassed by Trump in that regard. And Ted Cruz still got second even after Fox was ordered to not say a good word about him, apparently.

If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a decade.

It was actually a heck of a lot longer than that. They were being really mean to her long before Bill Clinton was President, for that matter.

You're only assigning her "low electability" in hindsight, which is why the term is meaningless. Everyone but 538 gave her, what, a 98% chance of winning at the time? That's not low.

There was a rather dramatically long list of effectively unpredictable and unprecedented major interferences. Without any one of those many major interferences, Hillary would fairly certainly have won, albeit only a squeaker victory in the EC with only one. Take out the Russian hacking and dissemination of hacked material and the way that the media jumped onto it like bloodthirsty sharks, with pretty much nary a mention of the Russians or their reasons for doing so, and the ensuing dramatic reopening of an investigation by Comey (while people were early voting)... and Hillary's win would have been pretty solid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those quotes remind me of how silly it is for people who just can't let go of 2016 to keep claiming Hillary only lost because the Republicans were mean to her. Republicans are mean to everybody. The difference between their opponents is how well it works.

Have you been asleep for the last 40 years? Are you in your 20s?

First off, that's a straw man. Who made that claim? Unless by "mean to her" you are referring to 40 years of demonizing Clinton, you missed the point.

Second, she didn't lose the actual vote.

Third, I'm pretty sure most if not all of us think she lost for a cascade of reasons.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a [four] decades. ....

ftfy

 

[Dr. Keith]

While I'm kibitzing, I STILL haven't heard of anyone - anyone at all - who wants Biden as president on his own merits. It's always boiled down to "we have to pick Biden, because if we don't some other demographic is going to vote against us." I think this would be a good time for Biden to start adopting a big tent "vote blue no matter who" platform, and end up being the unifier of the party for whomever ends up with the torch.

I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.

That is such ********. A ******* grocery store rotisserie chicken could beat Trump.

 

[Distracted1]

I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.

That is such ********. A ******* grocery store rotisserie chicken could beat Trump.

Yet Hillary Clinton could not.

What policies that she favored was she able to enact after her loss?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yet Hillary Clinton could not.

What policies that she favored was she able to enact after her loss?

The same ones Biden will after his.

 

[Distracted1]

The same ones Biden will after his.

You don't think Biden would defeat Trump?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yet Hillary Clinton could not.

What policies that she favored was she able to enact after her loss?

That circles around nicely to the discussion in the Elizabeth Warren Ancestry thread: which candidate has no weaknesses?

Certainly not Sleepy Joe. ****, his whole career is is pretty much unimpressive up until he worked for what's his name, uh, "my boss". He's a ******* gaffe factory compared to anyone else in the field. And he has some pretty non-progressive baggage from that long career that will turn off a lot of voters.

Any single other Democratic candidate currently in the field would be better than Biden. Seriously, even that Bullock guy from Montana.

It is not about finding the bullet proof candidate, it is about finding the candidate who Trump has the weakest bullets for. Maybe Warren, maybe someone else, but sure as hell it isn't Sleepy Joe.