2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Harris-or-Buttigieg-win?utm_campaign=trending


So, you already know that Bernie supporters were asked how they'd vote if Warren was nominee and 26% said they'd prefer Trump. Well a deeper dive into the poll is quite interesting. They were actually asked how they'd vote if the following were the Democratic nominee and the percentage that would prefer to vote Trump is:


Warren: 26%
Buttigieg: 21%
Beto:18%
Harris: 17%


So, Bernie supporters really hate Warren and Buttigieg and are somewhat warmer towards Beto and Harris. But what about the other way around? Supporters of the following candidates were asked how they'd vote if Sanders won the nomination and the following percentage would switch to voting for Trump:


Warren: 6%
Buttigieg: 0-1%
Harris: 2%
Beto: 9%

So, interesting. Bernie's fans are much, much more prone to switch to vote for Orange Hitler than the supporters of any of the other Democratic candidates.
 
Travis said:
So, interesting. Bernie's fans are much, much more prone to switch to vote for Orange Hitler than the supporters of any of the other Democratic candidates.
Click to expand...
Put another way, supporters of a left-wing populist say that they are much more likely to vote for a right-wing populist candidate than a more mainstream candidate. This seems logical.

Carlito's imaginary ranked-choice populism exercise with added historical perspective:

  1. My populist guy Sanders (see: Huey Long / Occupy Wall Street)
  2. The other populist guy Trump (see: Father Coughlin / Ross Perot / George Wallace)
  3. Someone else
 
carlitos said:
Put another way, supporters of a left-wing populist say that they are much more likely to vote for a right-wing populist candidate than a more mainstream candidate. This seems logical.

Carlito's imaginary ranked-choice populism exercise with added historical perspective:

  1. My populist guy Sanders (see: Huey Long / Occupy Wall Street)
  2. The other populist guy Trump (see: Father Coughlin / Ross Perot / George Wallace)
  3. Someone else
Click to expand...

That suggests to me that such voters are unhappy with the status quo, and therefore vote against the mainstream Republicans and the mainstream Democrats because they'd rather have either end of the spectrum in preference to the middle. This is the opposite of voters who have a preferred spot on the spectrum and vote as close to it as they can get.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think so. Especially these days. I think there is a difference between being pro gay rights and being concerned that nominating a gay man for President might cause a backlash among swing voters in middle America.
Click to expand...

Personally, as a gay person, I consider this to be an entirely fair concern, and I, at least, have no intention of holding it against you. Much like I consider it to be an entirely fair concern to be worried about the effect of the people who will simply refuse to vote for women and people of color.

Mumbles said:
Part of the penalty of being an "outsider", in the view of much of the US.

Would it be possible for Buttegeig (sp?) to change your mind on this - say if he were to crush his competition in an early state like Wisconsin or South Carolina?
Click to expand...

That would make for a pretty clear sign, really, and it would be great if it happened, in and of itself.

With that said, for me as a gay person, Buttigieg also being a gay person is nice, but serves more as an attention-getter rather than being reason to vote for him. Honestly, that attention-getting is very important in and of itself, though, especially in a field of candidates like this.

TragicMonkey said:
How about Warren for Pres, Buttergrog for her VP?
Click to expand...

A Warren/Buttigieg ticket is probably what I would prefer to see in office the most right now.

theprestige said:
Why not change who pays for higher ed? Because who pays for it isn't the problem. How much it costs is the problem.
Click to expand...

How effective and useful the education is are other major problems, of course, as well as the balance between investment and potential payoff.

theprestige said:
I'm not convinced that subsidizing arbitrary college degrees is a good use of taxpayer funds.

I have no idea how to reduce the cost of higher ed, other than to reduce funding. Transferring costs away from the school and away from the student, to the taxpayer, is the opposite of that.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that the current state of things is largely the result of one of the major weaknesses of trusting and applying free market capitalism too much where it's not optimal. With that said, as a reminder, if you want a cynical reason, it might be worth pointing out again that a better educated population will create and fill more high paying jobs, which, if done right, can end up as an investment that more than pays for itself through taxes in the long run.

I will agree that I'm not convinced that Warren's proposal, specifically, is necessarily great, but... I also haven't taken the time to try to run numbers on it, which limits the value of my opinion there significantly.

theprestige said:
If taxpayers must invest in college education, I'd prefer to do it on the following basis:
- underwrite vocational training and certification, for certain in-demand trades. Wherever skilled workers are needed, let's get some.
- underwrite college degrees in certain specific majors, on a rotating basis. Not all majors. Not always the same majors. But a short list of important majors - STEM, basically. And adjust the list periodically depending on demand and other factors. Demand by employers for such graduates. Not demand by incoming students for such degrees.
Click to expand...

Separately, I'm quite in favor of this. It would likely be worth pointedly including a general locality factor as well, though, given that a lot of people tend not to want to move away from the social networks that they have built up, which can easily render education moot.
 
Aridas said:
Separately, I'm quite in favor of this. It would likely be worth pointedly including a general locality factor as well, though, given that a lot of people tend not to want to move away from the social networks that they have built up, which can easily render education moot.
Click to expand...

One risk of subsidizing vocational training and specific degree programs in this way is that it would create an incentive for charlatans to divert some of those funds into their own pockets, with subpar and overpriced "education" services.
 
theprestige said:
One risk of subsidizing vocational training and specific degree programs in this way is that it would create an incentive for charlatans to divert some of those funds into their own pockets, with subpar and overpriced "education" services.
Click to expand...

One possible solution would be for everyone to chill about certifications and credentials and instead judge the workers by their work. I don't have a degree in English but me am better writer than many who are have. If I applied for a writing job surely samples of work would serve better than a transcript and diploma to indicate the general spectrum of my abilities?

I'll never understand why most fields don't have trial periods for potential new hires. Instead they have to gamble.
 
theprestige said:
One risk of subsidizing vocational training and specific degree programs in this way is that it would create an incentive for charlatans to divert some of those funds into their own pockets, with subpar and overpriced "education" services.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we have that anyway, just because the demand for getting a college degree is so high. I don't know that subsidizing degree programs would change that a lot.

I do agree that it should be targeted, and like Aridas's idea of it being localized...perhaps each state would set the vocational and collegiate degree courses that were necessary?

What I'd see as more of a problem would be lobbying to get certain programs on that list, whether they're really needed or not, as a way to increase revenues for certain colleges/institutions. You'd need some sort of defined process to set those...maybe related to unfilled job postings or something.
 
TragicMonkey said:
One possible solution would be for everyone to chill about certifications and credentials and instead judge the workers by their work. I don't have a degree in English but me am better writer than many who are have. If I applied for a writing job surely samples of work would serve better than a transcript and diploma to indicate the general spectrum of my abilities?

I'll never understand why most fields don't have trial periods for potential new hires. Instead they have to gamble.
Click to expand...

A lot of places are doing this, or similar things. At our company we have some testing done as part of the initial screening process in job-related skills; even after the interview they're typically brought in as contractors for the first 6 months. If they don't work out, their contract expires and we move on.
 
portlandatheist said:
I watched CNN's townhall last night and the highlight of the evening was when Mayor Pete Buttigieg was asked a question and he responded (I'm paraphrasing): "I'm not a master fisherman but I know bait when I see it and that is bait, I'm not answering the question" and the crowd loved it, it was a refreshing way to respond to a disingenuous question (I don't remember exactly what the question was)

ETA: I found the clip:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ke-pence-hate-hoax-bait-town-hall-sot-vpx.cnn
Click to expand...

I wasn't expecting that to have come from Anderson Cooper.
 
If Bernie wants to be taken seriously, adopting stupid vote-killers as part of his cunning plan isn't a smart plan.

Is there nobody close to Bern who can just say, "Mate, saying Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be allowed to vote is spectacularly stupid and against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate, so tone it down a touch."?

If not, there bloody well should be, although I imagine the DNC is happy for him to shoot himself in the foot. FoxTrump is already all over it.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Even if you believe it, you'd keep that under your hat and follow the mild lead of UK as a shot at first base on the subject.
 
^^ Agreed. Bernie supporting voting rights for terrorists and murderers is yet another sign of Bernie being a dimwitted ideologue. He's writing the attack ads. He may as well wear a sign around his neck reading "If nominated, I will spare no effort in my intention to lose the general."
 
varwoche said:
^^ Agreed. Bernie supporting voting rights for terrorists and murderers is yet another sign of Bernie being a dimwitted ideologue. He's writing the attack ads. He may as well wear a sign around his neck reading "If nominated, I will spare no effort in my intention to lose the general."
Click to expand...

While I think Bernie is being politically stupid I think revoking voting laws that restrict felons and prisoners is the morally right thing to do. We should encourage participation in our government not discourage it. These Jim Crow laws that restrict felon voting are all about politics not justice. Originally designed to keep blacks from voting they have found themselves useful in keeping the poor disenfranchised as well.
 
acbytesla said:
While I think Bernie is being politically stupid I think revoking voting laws that restrict felons and prisoners is the morally right thing to do. We should encourage participation in our government not discourage it. These Jim Crow laws that restrict felon voting are all about politics not justice. Originally designed to keep blacks from voting they have found themselves useful in keeping the poor disenfranchised as well.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, if you've served whatever sentence you were given as a result of your crimes, then you are a full citizen again, including the right to vote. Besides, these laws seem somewhat targeted against minorities.
 
Travis said:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Harris-or-Buttigieg-win?utm_campaign=trending


So, you already know that Bernie supporters were asked how they'd vote if Warren was nominee and 26% said they'd prefer Trump. Well a deeper dive into the poll is quite interesting. They were actually asked how they'd vote if the following were the Democratic nominee and the percentage that would prefer to vote Trump is:


Warren: 26%
Buttigieg: 21%
Beto:18%
Harris: 17%


So, Bernie supporters really hate Warren and Buttigieg and are somewhat warmer towards Beto and Harris. But what about the other way around? Supporters of the following candidates were asked how they'd vote if Sanders won the nomination and the following percentage would switch to voting for Trump:


Warren: 6%
Buttigieg: 0-1%
Harris: 2%
Beto: 9%

So, interesting. Bernie's fans are much, much more prone to switch to vote for Orange Hitler than the supporters of any of the other Democratic candidates.
Click to expand...

This is truly fascinating and their choices....I don't get it... Warren is one of the most progressive candidates in the field. I have my favorite candidates but I'll certainly vote Bernie if I don't get my way (like most every other democrat) and won't indulge in conspiracy theories about how the DNC "rigged" things against my top choice. There are a certain segment of Bernie supporters that vote are willing to vote the Orange Menace out nothing but bitterness and spite against their fellow liberals who are not as ideologically pure and enlightened as they are.
 
Belz... said:
As far as I'm concerned, if you've served whatever sentence you were given as a result of your crimes, then you are a full citizen again, including the right to vote. Besides, these laws seem somewhat targeted against minorities.
Click to expand...
Note that Sanders is also in favor of people currently serving their sentences be allowed to vote. I agree, BTW. There should be no incentive to lock people up to stop them from voting.
 
Maybe I'm out of touch but why shouldn't prisoners be allowed to vote? Are they not still citizens?
 
portlandatheist said:
This is truly fascinating and their choices....I don't get it... Warren is one of the most progressive candidates in the field. I have my favorite candidates but I'll certainly vote Bernie if I don't get my way (like most every other democrat) and won't indulge in conspiracy theories about how the DNC "rigged" things against my top choice. There are a certain segment of Bernie supporters that vote are willing to vote the Orange Menace out nothing but bitterness and spite against their fellow liberals who are not as ideologically pure and enlightened as they are.
Click to expand...

The political sphere has become twisted. What you hate has become more important than what you want. (general you)
 
Travis said:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Harris-or-Buttigieg-win?utm_campaign=trending


So, you already know that Bernie supporters were asked how they'd vote if Warren was nominee and 26% said they'd prefer Trump. Well a deeper dive into the poll is quite interesting. They were actually asked how they'd vote if the following were the Democratic nominee and the percentage that would prefer to vote Trump is:


Warren: 26%
Buttigieg: 21%
Beto:18%
Harris: 17%


So, Bernie supporters really hate Warren and Buttigieg and are somewhat warmer towards Beto and Harris. But what about the other way around? Supporters of the following candidates were asked how they'd vote if Sanders won the nomination and the following percentage would switch to voting for Trump:


Warren: 6%
Buttigieg: 0-1%
Harris: 2%
Beto: 9%

So, interesting. Bernie's fans are much, much more prone to switch to vote for Orange Hitler than the supporters of any of the other Democratic candidates.
Click to expand...

Now that's disturbing if accurate.

I'm not ashamed of being a Sanders supporter, but I'm embarrassed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom