• 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.
acbytesla said:
I disagree. But that is what makes a horse race. A difference of opinion.

Go back and look at Trump's margins in those rust belt states. Note how razor thin they were. For Trump to win again in those states, he cannot lose a single point. Now hard core Trump supporters didn't and are unlikely to abandon Trump but if you think Trump has kept all those votes he got in 2016 you are IMV overly optimistic.

Look at the recent 2018 mid terms and the Blue Tsunami that resulted in 40 house seats being overturned. Were Democrats complacent? No, turnout was huge. And more importantly pretty much all those races were about Trump. Trump's ego wouldn't stand for it being anything but being about him.

That 40 seats flipped is because Trump inspires passion and it isn't the good kind of passion. Trump is the most hated President in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

IMV there is nothing optimistic about a Trump victory. It is a very pessimistic view. Don't confuse predictions of what I think will happen, with what I want to happen. That's something that I find difficult to understand about American politics. It is almost impossible to find anyone discerning the difference, except perhaps FiveThirtyEight which is why I enjoy listening to them (and who were derided as Trump supporters for having a model that didn't predict a 99.9% chance of Hillary Clinton winning!).

Anyway, I agree that the majorities in the rust-belt states are the key to victory, but it is important to make sure that you don't mess up something so simple as convincing a small number of voters by bringing out a compromised candidate.
 
I like Tulsi Gabbard.

I'm not a fan of her fans though. Most of em are the "ZOMG America is teh biggest terrorist state evar!" and "RT > corporate media" and less commonly "9/11 was an inside job!"

If Bernie Sanders somehow doesn't get the lead, I may have her for 2020.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
I like Tulsi Gabbard.

I'm not a fan of her fans though. Most of em are the "ZOMG America is teh biggest terrorist state evar!" and "RT > corporate media" and less commonly "9/11 was an inside job!"

If Bernie Sanders somehow doesn't get the lead, I may have her for 2020.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, when you go on Joe Rogan (as Gabbard and Yang have done), you're bound to pick up a number of crazies. Rogan's always been a bit woo-friendly (less so now than he used to be), and a lot of his guests are from all over the political spectrum and all over the sanity spectrum - he casts a big net, and some of what he drags in isn't pretty to look at.
 
Venom said:
I like Tulsi Gabbard.

I'm not a fan of her fans though. Most of em are the "ZOMG America is teh biggest terrorist state evar!" and "RT > corporate media" and less commonly "9/11 was an inside job!"

If Bernie Sanders somehow doesn't get the lead, I may have her for 2020.
Click to expand...

That's because her fans are actually Russkies.
 
angrysoba said:
IMV there is nothing optimistic about a Trump victory. It is a very pessimistic view. Don't confuse predictions of what I think will happen, with what I want to happen. That's something that I find difficult to understand about American politics. It is almost impossible to find anyone discerning the difference, except perhaps FiveThirtyEight which is why I enjoy listening to them (and who were derided as Trump supporters for having a model that didn't predict a 99.9% chance of Hillary Clinton winning!).

Anyway, I agree that the majorities in the rust-belt states are the key to victory, but it is important to make sure that you don't mess up something so simple as convincing a small number of voters by bringing out a compromised candidate.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Regardless of who the Democrats nominate the GOP will launch a battery of attacks tailored to paint that candidate as unsuitable. They'll be "God forbid, socialist" or too establishment, etc etc etc.

I look back at the so called "dirt" the GOP had on Hillary and chuckle. It was God Damn non-existent . Hillary "deleted" emails turned into something which should have been ho-hum and mundane into something super-nefarious. The GOP's entire mud-slinging campaign was not about actual corruption ...but the possibility of corruption. How amazing is that? Hillary was as clean as my mother's kitchen floor. But she was clueless in battling their attacks. I absolutely believe Hillary would have made a great President. But I also ABSOLUTELY believe she was a terrible candidate. And I use to think Dukakis was bad.

I want the best candidate who will make the best President in 2020. Unfortunately, they are not always the same person.

I feel optimistic in winning in 2020 because it is Donald Trump. If it was another incumbent Republican President, I would be at best hopeful of beating them. Now this doesn't mean it should be taken for granted which I believe was by many in 2016. But those people won't make that mistake again.

I too, hope the Democratic party chooses wisely.
 
theprestige said:
Cliche'd. Also, enables That Guy.

acbytesla has the right idea. Don't be afraid of religious overtones. For one thing, not all religions are theistic, so it won't endanger your atheist credentials.

For another thing, sometimes you want religious overtones. Sometimes you want to convey that combination of formality and conviction. "So say we all" came about because the writers of BSG wanted to get that sense of religious commitment, without using Earthling religious jargon in their !Earth setting.

If "amen" is what works here, then use "amen". Perfectly cromulent expression that well captures the spirit of the moment.
Click to expand...

I actually agree, was just running with the gag. Phrases like "Oh my God" and "Amen" have become so common they're mostly secularized now.

Heck, how many people (besides us pedants here) think of religious overtones when someone says "Damn!"?
 
Delvo said:
I've heard her talk anti-war multiple times. I've seen people criticize her for being anti-war multiple times, including accusing her of being an Asad supporter instead of just against taking sides & thus making Syria worse. I've seen her respond to those criticisms by having to explain to those critics the idea that war is bad.

Not once have I heard her say anything positive about drone attacks. Not once have I even seen her critics accuse her of being pro-drone-attacks. I not only don't believe this fits her real positions, but also don't believe that there are even really people out there claiming it does.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the source that Stacko linked. Do you doubt this quote...?
Gabbard said:
the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Here is another time she supported drone attacks, although I'm not familiar with this source either.
Gabbard said:
I think it’s also important to look at how the use of drones in certain scenarios has saved lives and how, when strategically placed and properly used, [drones] are an asset to national security. I think there is a place for the use of this technology
Click to expand...
 
Here she's talking about measured use of drone strikes as one component of a responsible foreign policy.

varwoche said:
I'm not familiar with the source that Stacko linked. Do you doubt this quote...?
​

Here is another time she supported drone attacks, although I'm not familiar with this source either.
​
Click to expand...

This is a reasonable, though still hotly debatable postion. But somehow, Stacko converts Gabbard's nuanced position into this:

Stacko said:
White nationalists have a clear ranking of non-white races and Asians tend to top it so they get axed last and it's a plus if they help you get there. They also love Tulsi Gabbard due to her bomb the middle east until its glass foreign policy,
Click to expand...

And so now, instead of actually debating the merits of Gabbard's actual policy, y'all have to fight to drag the conversation back to a reasonable starting point. This kind of friction is just a drag on real discussion.

Stacko, what was your plan?
 
Not thrilled with Cory Booker's call for some kind of Net censorship of racist opinions in wake of NZ Shootings because

A.I am a absolutists when it comes to free speech on the Who Will Watch The Watchers principal
B. Probably technically impossible anyway
 
dudalb said:
Not thrilled with Cory Booker's call for some kind of Net censorship of racist opinions in wake of NZ Shootings because

A.I am a absolutists when it comes to free speech on the Who Will Watch The Watchers principal
B. Probably technically impossible anyway
Click to expand...

There's an even simpler answer, that I have advocated for since the 1990s - identification.

If your account at any organisation on the internet isn't linked to your real name and address, you don't get to go on.

As I recall, we used to have things called "telephone directories" that listed almost every person alive and their phone number and street address, but I don't seem to remember it causing too much trouble.

If people know their actual name will attach to their stupid, bigoted or violent comments, they'd be a lot less likely to make them.
 
The Atheist said:
And it might be your guilty conscience telling you to defend yourself against a remark clearly not aimed at you.

Your call.
Click to expand...

Well done, TA. Prior to your post I thought that I could respond to any post if I felt moved to do so. Now I know better. Edumacation - it can't be beat.
 
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