2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's unfortunate Harris failed to distinguish between the issues blacks have receiving health care that is equal to that of whites and 'health care workers'. She stepped in it there but she actually had an issue worth addressing.

Maternal mortality in the US has taken a sharp rise and the increase in mortality of black women leads the pack.

NPR 2017: Black Mothers Keep Dying After Giving Birth. Shalon Irving's Story Explains Why
On a melancholy Saturday this past February, Shalon Irving's "village" — the friends and family she had assembled to support her as a single mother — gathered at a funeral home in a prosperous black neighborhood in southwest Atlanta to say goodbye. ...

At 36, Shalon had been part of their elite ranks — an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the pre-eminent public health institution in the U.S. There she had focused on trying to understand how structural inequality, trauma and violence made people sick. "She wanted to expose how people's limited health options were leading to poor health outcomes," said Rashid Njai, her mentor at the agency. "To kind of uncover and undo the victim-blaming that sometimes happens where it's like, 'Poor people don't care about their health.' " Her Twitter bio declared: "I see inequity wherever it exists, call it by name, and work to eliminate it."...

Then the unthinkable happened. Three weeks after giving birth, Shalon collapsed and died from complications of high blood pressure.

The researcher working to eradicate disparities in health access and outcomes had become a symbol of one of the most troublesome health disparities facing black women in the U.S. today: disproportionately high rates of maternal mortality. The main federal agency seeking to understand why so many American women — especially black women — die, or nearly die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth had lost one of its own.
Click to expand...

Like Clinton's basket of deplorables, Harris did not express her issue very well.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Fringers like Trump's supporters. The POTUS just launched a website to make it easier for his conservative droogies to report FB and Twitter if they've been shut out unreasonably.

Ya gotta figure a bit of "It's Travis" into your calculations. Did you really expect to see a peer-reviewed scientific article? Your original post seemed to insinuate that it was made-up. There's a genuine faction out there who hate Tulsi Gabbard. Fringe? Certainly. But any pro-or con group pertaining to any of the minor candidates right now is going to be fringe. But "fringe" reactions can be interesting. I read it as Travis confessing that he's trying to irk her campaign supporters enough to "make the list". (Heck, I'm impressed that Travis is up over 80,000 followers on Twitter and still bothering with us mere mortals.) I see no reason to doubt that Tulsi's campaign of rank amateurs would have someone who thinks it's wise to distribute a list of names to watch out for. If someone from her group has actually said that it's a Target List or Enemy List? I'm not so sure. But that may be a sotto voce kind of thing like Trump's callout to Russia to find those enemy emails. "Here's the people who hate Tulsi and where you can find them on social media. Now, we don't condone anything in the way of harassment, but you should be aware of who they are, anyway."
Click to expand...


Oh, I wish I had 80k. That is someone else that I follow. My real account is rather new and is @MyStupidTown. I have roughly 79920 fewer followers. :D
 
The Dems have decided to go to a lottery to determine who gets on the debate stage which night:

"The final list of debate participants (after any tie-breaking procedure is executed, if necessary) will be divided into two groups: candidates with a polling average of 2% or above, and those with a polling average below 2%," the rule reads. "Both groups will be randomly divided between Wednesday night and Thursday night, thus ensuring that both groups are represented fairly on each night."

Eight candidates have a polling average at or above 2 percent right now: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. With the newly announced rule, four would be guaranteed to appear on the first night, and four would be guaranteed to appear on the second night.
Click to expand...

Easy prediction: if Joe Biden gets a Wednesday (first night) slot and Bernie is relegated to Thursday, the Bernie Bros will holler fix.
 
Brainster said:
The Dems have decided to go to a lottery to determine who gets on the debate stage which night:



Easy prediction: if Joe Biden gets a Wednesday (first night) slot and Bernie is relegated to Thursday, the Bernie Bros will holler fix.
Click to expand...

And if Bernie gets Wednesday and Joe Thursday, they'll claim a fix because Biden could now see how Bernie answered and steal his brilliance.

And if they're both on the same night, they'll claim a fix because Joe got two better camera angles and seven seconds more coverage.

And if the stage is cleared of everyone except Joe and Bernie, they'll claim a fix.

If the sun comes up in the East, they'll claim a fix.


And while they're doing that, they'll be fighting to get back to caucuses where they can assure a not-democratic result by papering the house.
 
Has anyone mentioned that Obama could seal the nomination for a candidate if he endorses one?
 
The Atheist said:
Has anyone mentioned that Obama could seal the nomination for a candidate if he endorses one?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced of that at all. It would certainly help a candidate, of course, but that's the kind of thing that people like me nearly completely ignore. Well, that it's him, at least. I'll consider any arguments as fairly as I can, of course.
 
theprestige said:
Could he, though?
Click to expand...

Aridas said:
I'm not convinced of that at all.
Click to expand...

I'm using my psychic skills.

The field will play out and losers will drop out, those votes then going to one of the remainers. Similar to last election's Republican field.

Bernie won't give up, and Biden will be the front-runner. Two others may slog it most of the way - my picks would be O'Rourke and Harris. Big [total] money, attractive & charismatic.

By that stage, I'd see the vote split as being Biden on 40 and the other three hovering around 20.

Obama endorses either O'Rourke or Harris and the other drops out, combining their vote. If those people weren't already in Sanders' or Biden's camp, I'd expect the last other standing to scoop most of the votes.

That makes it very close, and Obama's endorsement would likely be the difference.

I will probably be miles out, but that's how I see it from this distance.

If he endorses Biden, already leading by a good margin, it's game over.

Is it notable that he didn't immediately leap to endorse the guy he hand-picked as his successor if he died?
 
An Obama endorsement will only have any effect at all if he endorses somebody who isn't Biden. The implied built-in Obama endorsement is part of what Biden's ridin' already.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not disputing the reality of the claim. I think this is one of those things that went over well with her friends and supporters in private, giving her the false impression that it would go over well with the public at large. Whatever valid point she may have been trying to make, that ship has sailed, caught on fire, and sunk into the swamp.
Click to expand...

I don't follow, thepresiige. What evidence other than some irrelevant Twitter thread is there that her message has failed? What do you think was her point.

Just to be fair by expressing my own view, I agree with Tragic Monkey that racial bias in medical care does exist (after all, they're human just like the rest of us) and that if there is medical legislation that would effectively address that problem, then good on her for introducing it. What's the downside?
 
TragicMonkey said:
It does affect the public and therefore is a public policy concern; however Twitter is not an appropriate medium for meaningful conversation much less meaningful analysis of complex issues. I cannot understand why people insist on using such a limited platform for communication. Twitter is the digital equivalent of hastily scrawled graffiti on a building viewable only by traffic rushing by. It is a medium for the careless to bray poorly-considered bullet points to the impatient.

People worry that Facebook is damaging society but I think Twitter is worse.
Click to expand...

If I was President I would not allow anyone having a Twitter account from working in my administration. It's nothing but pablum for those whose attention span doesn't reach 10 seconds.
 
SezMe said:
I don't follow, thepresiige. What evidence other than some irrelevant Twitter thread is there that her message has failed? What do you think was her point.



Just to be fair by expressing my own view, I agree with Tragic Monkey that racial bias in medical care does exist (after all, they're human just like the rest of us) and that if there is medical legislation that would effectively address that problem, then good on her for introducing it. What's the downside?
Click to expand...

Much like medical care itself, if the problem is misdiagnosed, the proposed solution may range from ineffective to detrimental.

If the factors leading to these unequal outcomes are systemic social problems, then legislation punishing front line health care workers isn't really helping.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Much like medical care itself, if the problem is misdiagnosed, the proposed solution may range from ineffective to detrimental.

If the factors leading to these unequal outcomes are systemic social problems, then legislation punishing front line health care workers isn't really helping.
Click to expand...

The systematic issue might be that racism is so prevalent that the front line is racist and doesn't know it.
 
The Atheist said:
I'm using my psychic skills.

The field will play out and losers will drop out, those votes then going to one of the remainers. Similar to last election's Republican field.

Bernie won't give up, and Biden will be the front-runner. Two others may slog it most of the way - my picks would be O'Rourke and Harris. Big [total] money, attractive & charismatic.

By that stage, I'd see the vote split as being Biden on 40 and the other three hovering around 20.

Obama endorses either O'Rourke or Harris and the other drops out, combining their vote. If those people weren't already in Sanders' or Biden's camp, I'd expect the last other standing to scoop most of the votes.

That makes it very close, and Obama's endorsement would likely be the difference.

I will probably be miles out, but that's how I see it from this distance.

If he endorses Biden, already leading by a good margin, it's game over.

Is it notable that he didn't immediately leap to endorse the guy he hand-picked as his successor if he died?
Click to expand...

I expect Obama would endorse Biden or no one. Biden was his Vice President, so effectively he has already endorsed him as the best person to be president. It would cause waves if he then jumped to another candidate and would appear to be an “unseemly” intervention for someone who has is usually seen as a unifier rather than a **** stirrer.
 
Belz... said:
At this point it would be shorter to name who's NOT on the Democratic ticket.
Click to expand...

In the Conservative Party leadership election across the pond, the unlikely philanderer, David Mellor remarked...

"I know enough to know that if 17 horses are in a race, and each of their trainers thinks they’ve got a chance, it means there isn’t a decent nag in the thing,"
Click to expand...
Read more at https://talkradio.co.uk/news/david-...ty-whatsoever-19052431114#SwtG6YFH1HRp1BO7.99
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom