2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[JoeMorgue]

"Oh well that's just nothing but a Republican talking point" is an excuse.

It's politics. Everything wrong; real, exaggerated, and imagined, that one of the parties does is going to be mentioned by the other party.

Just because it's a "Republican talking point" doesn't make a non-valid complaint and suggesting otherwise is essentially saying the the Democrats don't have flaws.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well, Trump did ... from Mexico.

It seems the less familiar people are with the border, the more they believe a wall will help.

IF Trump could get a committed from Mexico to pay, say, $30 billon over five years as their share for the Wall, the money would still need approval by Congress to be spend on the Wall.

 

[SezMe]

Of course, the problem is that the liberals vote in the primaries more than the moderates do. Mrs. Shemp was involved in a couple of Democratic presidential campaigns and never fails to remind me of this. So the primary campaign tends to be liberal, then swing back toward the center after the nomination is secured.

Works in exactly the same way for the GOP.

 

[SezMe]

I think this time, making oneself appear the least extreme (and therefore, the most electable) is the key to winning the primaries.

That's meaningless. First, nobody can say what "most electable" even means. Second, most people think *their* candidate is, of course, the "most electable". It's like arguing that the 7th inning stretch is good. No ****

 

[SezMe]

Republicans want to spend billions on a wall even though it won't help much with illegal immigration. They never said where the money was coming from before demanding that the wall be built.

Huh? You've never heard of the country just south of us?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Huh? You've never heard of the country just south of us?

Mexico isn't authorized to fund projects in the US.
Or should we consider the Wall as a many-billon Emolument to Trump, personally?

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, I specifically recall Maher himself complaining that Democrats are afraid of the polls and Republicans successfully stick to their guns.

Yeah, I have been trying to find some videos of Maher. I did find some in which he said Democrats should be heading to FOX News and elsewhere. As far as I know the only Democrats who really are trying to reach out are people like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. And guess what, the more orthodox among the Democrats really have a big problem with them.

And here in this video is Maher giving a plea for taxation of churches. It seems ridiculous that he is now against candidates arguing for that.

 

[varwoche]

... And here in this video is Maher giving a plea for taxation of churches. It seems ridiculous that he is now against candidates arguing for that.

I also would like to see churches taxed. Yet as a pragmatist who thinks the #1 priority (by far) is to defeat Trump, I wish candidates wouldn't say so. It would flat out doom their candidacy and also hurts whoever winds up being the candidate. Furthermore, it's so vastly unrealistic to ever be enacted that there's no point anyway. One may as well advocate that every household receive a pony.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As Maher himself put it the difference is he's not running for President. This is not a complicated concept.

 

[Delvo]

Has anybody here seen an actual survey on church taxation?

 

[shemp]

A survey of priests, ministers, rabbis and imams was 100% against it.

 

[varwoche]

Speaking of vastly unrealistic ... Medicare for all. My rough as sandpaper take on the odds, assuming Warren (or Sanders) wins the nomination:

Warren/Sanders defeats Trump: 50%
Senate barely swings to Dems: 10%
Senate gets rid of filibuster rule: 33%
Senators Tester and Manchin vote for the measure: 10%​

Equals .16%

 

[acbytesla]

Speaking of vastly unrealistic ... Medicare for all. My rough as sandpaper take on the odds, assuming Warren (or Sanders) wins the nomination:

Warren/Sanders defeats Trump: 50%
Senate barely swings to Dems: 10%
Senate gets rid of filibuster rule: 33%
Senators Tester and Manchin vote for the measure: 10%​

Equals .16%

Numbers don't work that way.

 

[varwoche]

Numbers don't work that way.

They more or less do. Each event is essentially dependent on the previous event. I suppose events #1 and #2 would best be rolled together and expressed as:

Odds of blue wave so large that Dems win POTUS and Senate: 5%
​

After that, each event is entirely dependent on the prior event.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Moved to the Trump thread.

 

[Aridas]

They more or less do. Each event is essentially dependent on the previous event. I suppose events #1 and #2 would best be rolled together and expressed as:

Odds of blue wave so large that Dems win POTUS and Senate: 5%
​

After that, each event is entirely dependent on the prior event.

I'd raise that number significantly. This cycle has potential Republican Senators overwhelmingly on the defense, rather than overwhelmingly on offense like in 2018, and with the negative partisanship that Trump's stirred up, there's a very real chance of significant change in the Senate. More could be added to that, but... I think that's enough points to start with.

 

[varwoche]

I'd raise that number significantly. This cycle has potential Republican Senators overwhelmingly on the defense, rather than overwhelmingly on offense like in 2018, and with the negative partisanship that Trump's stirred up, there's a very real chance of significant change in the Senate. More could be added to that, but... I think that's enough points to start with.

I hope you're right. It's not like I've actually studied the senate races. I'm relying on talking heads who seem to think it's a near impossible lift.

 

[Aridas]

I hope you're right. It's not like I've actually studied the senate races. I'm relying on talking heads who seem to think it's a near impossible lift.

Mmm. It'll be a nigh impossible lift to get a supermajority, and thus be able to accomplish much of anything while retaining the filibuster in its present, somewhat nonsensical form. Getting a bare majority is a real possibility, though, much as it's obviously not even remotely a certain thing. Arizona, Colorado, and Maine are in real danger of flipping, by the look of it, with a couple more being threatened. There's been news that the Republicans are treating Texas as if it's in play and that they're quite afraid that it'll flip, for that matter. Doug Jones' seat is obviously in danger of being lost, on the other hand, of course.

 

[Aridas]

"Oh well that's just nothing but a Republican talking point" is an excuse.

It's politics. Everything wrong; real, exaggerated, and imagined, that one of the parties does is going to be mentioned by the other party.

Just because it's a "Republican talking point" doesn't make a non-valid complaint and suggesting otherwise is essentially saying the the Democrats don't have flaws.

While that may be superficially true... when Republican talking points are currently based waaaaay too much on outright lies and deceitful methods to trick people into believing falsehoods, it's entirely correct to be clear about the fact that "Republican talking point" means that it's probably not worth trusting without serious fact-checking.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

"Oh well that's just nothing but a Republican talking point" is an excuse.

It's politics. Everything wrong; real, exaggerated, and imagined, that one of the parties does is going to be mentioned by the other party.

Just because it's a "Republican talking point" doesn't make a non-valid complaint and suggesting otherwise is essentially saying the the Democrats don't have flaws.

I don't think that is, generally, what people are saying with that phrase. I think in general it means "let's not unilaterally disarm ourselves and allow the Republicans to set the framing on these policy issues".