2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Stacyhs]

At least we know the candidate can lie on a frequent and consistent basis, engage in childish name-calling and bullying, grab women by the kitty, and commit crimes and still get elected. Oh, wait...we're not talking about a Republican candidate...

 

[Brainster]

At least we know the candidate can lie on a frequent and consistent basis, engage in childish name-calling and bullying, grab women by the kitty, and commit crimes and still get elected. Oh, wait...we're not talking about a Republican candidate...

Yes, you are clearly talking about Bill Clinton.

 

[Stacyhs]

At least we know the candidate can lie on a frequent and consistent basis, engage in childish name-calling and bullying, grab women by the kitty, and commit crimes and still get elected. Oh, wait...we're not talking about a Republican candidate...

Yes, you are clearly talking about Bill Clinton.

Oh, whataboutism at its finest. That sure excuses Donnie's behavior, doesn't it?

Next time, try using it against someone who hasn't been out of office for 2 decades.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Looks wise, Ms. Gabbard has a real President Lynda Carter thing going.

 

[kellyb]

Then why were you comparing her to Clinton? Her views were far more anti-gay than the mainstream Democrats at the time. It's not accurate to downplay them.

I'm not seeing where you get your certainty from. By her statements, she didn't change her mind on abortion or homosexuality, but changed her view on them as public policy because she didn't want to end up like Islam. That's a fair weather ally at best (well, to some if we ignore the alt-right level Islam rhetoric), and a political opportunist at worst.

Judging by the rest of her history, I'm going with opportunist.

I was only comparing her to Clinton there in the sense of how Clinton came on board with gay marriage even later than Gabbard.

It's hard to say if her views were more anti-gay than average for a democrat or not, because so many politicians are, like you mention, primarily just opportunists who will claim to think wherever the most popular current position is. Did Clinton ever really oppose gay marriage when she claimed to, for another comparison? Hard to say. I think most politicians didn't really care either way by 2006 or so.

Regarding whether or not she's a "fair weather ally" - people can separate their personal views of personal morality from their deeply held convictions about what the government role should be. For example, I'll vote for Christians, even when they think atheists like me are going to hell, as long as I'm confident that they also believe in separation of church and state.

I really don't think Gabbard is an opportunist, because of her wildly unpopular positions on Syria. Political opportunists don't generally take positions that are demonized by the establishments of both major parties.

That's just my opinion, though.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Gabbard is Gillibrand spelled out in seashells. Opportunists, both. Gillebrand's back story is a little more digestible.

 

[kellyb]

Gabbard is Gillebrand spelled out in seashells. Opportunists, both. Gillebrand's back story is a little more digestible.

I can almost understand why someone would think she's "kooky", but I'm really not seeing "opportunist". "Opportunists" shy away from positions that can be painted as "kooky".

Why do you think she's an opportunist?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I can almost understand why someone would think she's "kooky", but I'm really not seeing "opportunist". "Opportunists" shy away from positions that can be painted as "kooky".

Why do you think she's an opportunist?

Upstate moderate-to-conservative Democrat. Was in the Blue Dog caucus when in the House. Either that was opportunistic(she was from a purple district in mid-upper NY state) or her edging to the left is opportunistic. Her for it/against it waffling on the Anti-Boycott(Israel) bill that she sponsored is also noteworthy.

I just don't find her come to Jesus interview that convincing. She's in a more progressive Democratic Party and from a state that votes progressive/liberal. Finding her own earlier opinions embarrassing might work if she was a student at that time. She was a Congresswoman and over forty.

I feel she'll continue the Democratic sell-out to big business and Wall Street. Just my personal feelings - nothing more to go on than the above. Will I accept her as the candidate? Sure. I'll be more accepting if her post 2011 conversion continues.

 

[kellyb]

Upstate moderate-to-conservative Democrat. Was in the Blue Dog caucus when in the House. Either that was opportunistic(she was from a purple district in mid-upper NY state) or her edging to the left is opportunistic. Her for it/against it waffling on the Anti-Boycott(Israel) bill that she sponsored is also noteworthy.

I just don't find her come to Jesus interview that convincing. She's in a more progressive Democratic Party and from a state that votes progressive/liberal. Finding her own earlier opinions embarrassing might work if she was a student at that time. She was a Congresswoman and over forty.

I feel she'll continue the Democratic sell-out to big business and Wall Street. Just my personal feelings - nothing more to go on than the above. Will I accept her as the candidate? Sure. I'll be more accepting if her post 2011 conversion continues.

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't exactly trust her completely, which I really do Warren.

I still lean to thinking Gabbard is more eccentric than opportunist because of her Syria stance, though. And the idea that she had a "come to Jesus" experience about the folly of all things neoconservatism as a result of her Iraq tour has the ring of truth to it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was only comparing her to Clinton there in the sense of how Clinton came on board with gay marriage even later than Gabbard.

It's hard to say if her views were more anti-gay than average for a democrat or not, because so many politicians are, like you mention, primarily just opportunists who will claim to think wherever the most popular current position is. Did Clinton ever really oppose gay marriage when she claimed to, for another comparison? Hard to say. I think most politicians didn't really care either way by 2006 or so.

I don't think you are addressing my point about why this comparison is inaccurate. Gabbard was against civil unions, not just gay marriage. And anti-gay bullying for schools. And she called people "homosexual extremists" on multiple occasions. That's all more anti-gay than the average Democrat of the day, including Clinton. Even Bush supported civil unions.

 

[kellyb]

I don't think you are addressing my point about why this comparison is inaccurate. Gabbard was against civil unions, not just gay marriage. And anti-gay bullying for schools. And she called people "homosexual extremists" on multiple occasions. That's all more anti-gay than the average Democrat of the day, including Clinton. Even Bush supported civil unions.

I know she was against civil unions 15 years ago. I'm just noting that she changed her mind and became thoroughly pro-gay marriage before Clinton & other major Democrats became pro-gay marriage.

Maybe in her heart of hearts she's still a tad twitchy about gayness, but since she wouldn't try to executive action ban gay marriage or anything like that, it doesn't really matter. She might think I'm going to Naraka after death, too, but since I don't think hell is real and I believe she supports the separation of church and state, I don't really care all that much about that, either.

 

[varwoche]

Pretty much all that matters is defeating Trump. Everything else is way down the priority list.

An under qualified progressive candidate who has controversial opinions, a background that concerns progressives, and who is Hindu, would not be an optimal choice. To put it mildly.

 

[kellyb]

Pretty much all that matters is defeating Trump. Everything else is way down the priority list.

An under qualified progressive candidate who has controversial opinions, a background that concerns progressives, and who is Hindu, would not be an optimal choice. To put it mildly.

Probably not, but it's hard to say for absolutely sure this early in.

Personally, I'm unlikely to vote for her unless polling close to the primary shows her as more likely to beat Trump in a hypothetical matchup compared to the other progressives running.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Best to get it out BEFORE you pick a nominee. Figure on the Republicans being able to dig.

If picking the nominee was less of a public spectacle, I'd agree with you.

But it's going to be public. With debates and attack ads and muck slinging all out in the open.

 

[Belz...]

Gabbard is an example of a common phenomenon -- one that's politically incorrect to point out.

Ex-military are extra welcome to the Democratic party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Gabbard.

People of color and woman are extra welcome to the Republican party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin.

You're probably right.

 

[Craig4]

Warren needs to show she can put Trump in his place. She played right into his hands when she took the DNA test. Trump owned the decision cycle on the whole Pocahontas thing. She needs to show she can make Trump respond her, on her terms.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Gabbard is an example of a common phenomenon -- one that's politically incorrect to point out.

Ex-military are extra welcome to the Democratic party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Gabbard.

People of color and woman are extra welcome to the Republican party for obvious reasons, and they undeservedly rise through the ranks because of that. Evidence: Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin.

Political parties are always going to seek out spokespeople from demographics they either A) feel they are weak/unpopular with or B) their political opponents have painted them as being weak/unpopular with or C) actually are weak/unpopular with.

That's hardly a sinister thing to just... acknowledge as something that happens.

Hell that's literally a working definition of how large scale politics works. Find a demographic you feel you aren't "connecting" with and try to connect with them.

 

[kellyb]

Warren needs to show she can put Trump in his place. She played right into his hands when she took the DNA test. Trump owned the decision cycle on the whole Pocahontas thing. She needs to show she can make Trump respond her, on her terms.

Trump's base will love him and vote for him the same no matter what he does, as long whatever he does is sufficiently awful for their tastes.

It's voter enthusiasm based on policies people want and need that the Democratic candidates need to be going for to defeat Trump, IMO. If we can get voter turnout back to Obama 2008 levels, it'll be easy.

 

[Craig4]

Trump's base will love him and vote for him the same no matter what he does, as long whatever he does is sufficiently awful for their tastes.

It's voter enthusiasm based on policies people want and need that the Democratic candidates need to be going for to defeat Trump, IMO. If we can get voter turnout back to Obama 2008 levels, it'll be easy.

The only thing that's going to be easy is the acceptance speech. Getting the turnout back to 2008 levels is going to take a lot of work and a lot of fire in the belly.

 

[KDLarsen]

Warren needs to show she can put Trump in his place. She played right into his hands when she took the DNA test. Trump owned the decision cycle on the whole Pocahontas thing. She needs to show she can make Trump respond her, on her terms.

Given that Trump has already revived the Pocahontas-thing, I'll dare say she'll have plenty of opportunities to try and turn the conversation.