• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Confession. I'd put money on the table right now that fewer people who were eligible to vote in 2016 and didn't voting in 2020 then people who switch parties from D to R or vice versa between 2016 and 2020.

"Non-voter" is almost like it's own party at this point with the same level of heel dug in tribalism.

A huge wave of new voters is about as likely as a bunch of people from the other side coming to yours at this point.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that is a safe bet, especially considering that the US just had the biggest turnout for a Midterm in 50 years. That means that a lot of the "Don't vote in Midterms" turned out and voted this time. With people seeing a lot of close and upset races, then I suspect that there will be more people from the "My vote doesn't count" brigade reconsidering their options. I would not at all be surprised to see 2020 break election box records for voters.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm saying if I'm the Dems I put the odds of pulling in "non-voters" at about the same as pulling in Republicans, not a lot. The idea that energy spent trying to pull in non-voters is any more or less wasted then energy pulling in Republicans doesn't ring true to me.

"But everyone I know is so passionate about politics now, that just has to translate to higher turnout" has been the narrative for the last 2 or 3 elections.

2020 is going to be a battle of the margins, just like every other election.
Click to expand...

I thought a prevailing theory of the 2016 loss was the "Bernie Bros" stayed home?
 
PhantomWolf said:
I'm not so sure that is a safe bet, especially considering that the US just had the biggest turnout for a Midterm in 50 years. That means that a lot of the "Don't vote in Midterms" turned out and voted this time. With people seeing a lot of close and upset races, then I suspect that there will be more people from the "My vote doesn't count" brigade reconsidering their options. I would not at all be surprised to see 2020 break election box records for voters.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Martin O'Malley is not running again to the disappointment of his legions of admirers. Curiously, he segues into an endorsement of Beto 2020.

The challenges we face will not solve themselves. Building an economy that works for all of us, reversing climate change, passing immigration reform — they all require leadership. O’Rourke has the wisdom to listen, the courage to lead, and a rock-solid faith in the powerful goodness of our nation. Because he is of a new generation, O’Rourke understands that a new way of governing — with openness, transparency, and performance — is called for to tackle our problems in the Information Age. And because he is from a border state, O’Rourke understands the enduring symbol of our country is not the barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty.
Click to expand...

I say curiously, because Beto is not officially running yet. O'Malley's endorsement may not mean a lot but presumably he obtained some assurance from O'Rourke's people before announcing his support.
 
The first Democratic Primary debate is only 6 months away. They'll start attacking each other soon.

I was thinking Beto had the best chance so far, but I'm thinking we'll get a dark horse candidate instead. It is far too early.

Warren seemed like a strong candidate to me until I saw her "I think I'll have a beer" video. I think she suffered from the same phenomenon as Hillary and Mitt Romney - they just can't make themselves look like they're not putting on an act. (And, after all, they are putting on an act)

Also, Oprah takes it if she decides to run.
 
Stephen Dubner had Andrew Yang on his Podcast, who is running as D in 2020.

Might be the best for the country to have him in the White House, as P or VP.
Doesn't have a shot though, especially if he doesn't get into the debates.
 
varwoche said:
Don't worry. All sorts people will run who don't have an ice cube's chance in hell, and will quickly drop out once things get underway. As for the big picture, worrying is in order.
Click to expand...

I think the fear is that Assad's congresswoman will run as independent or Green after she flames out of the Dem primary and play the Jill Stein role.
 
What's the most unforgivable thing Gabbard has said about Assad?
 
Stacko said:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard 'skeptical' that Assad regime behind gas attack
Click to expand...
That skepticism has been warranted, repeatedly.
UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use
Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said.
Click to expand...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...es-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

You have to be really cautious about assigning blame in for attacks like these when a country has been targeted for regime change.
 
Stacko said:
And if you're still "skeptical" after all the evidence in is pointing to Assad having done it, you're just being his Sarah Sanders.
Click to expand...

Your reply makes no sense.

You just don't believe the UN report that it was the rebels and not Assad in that case?
 
Couple more:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-sarin-gas-investigator-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
GENEVA (Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
Click to expand...

https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/1...rmation-more-cases-chemical-weapons-use-syria
“The United Nations Mission collected credible information that corroborates the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Khan Al Asal on 19 March 2013 against soldiers and civilians,” according to the final report, which team leader Dr. Åke Sellström handed over to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at UN Headquarters in New York.
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
Your reply makes no sense.

You just don't believe the UN report that it was the rebels and not Assad in that case?
Click to expand...

No, I just understand that 2013 and 2017 were different years that had different events occur within them.
 
Stacko said:
No, I just understand that 2013 and 2017 were different years that had different events occur within them.
Click to expand...

2013 was the first one, and was...not just initially blamed on Assad, but done so in a way which was used to support imminent invasion/regime change which was only barely averted. It took quite a while for the reality of what went down to be proven. (I has Syrian friends on twitter at the time, anti-Assadist protesters, who were screaming that it was non-Syrian rebels who did it. "Foreign rebels" was another aspect that took time to prove.)

Anyway, the Syrian civil war is really complex, and things are rarely as they seem over there.

That would be the case even without "Western interference", but the "proxy war" and regime change aspects makes it especially so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom