The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Serious 2020 Democratic Primaries (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=419960)

VisionofMilotic April 10th, 2019 11:07 AM

2020 Democratic Primaries
 
There is an enormous field of candidates out there, and several I like, gotta say!

I wanted to share a comprehensive list with PC of everyone who has thus far announced their candidacy for 2020. There are so many dems out there that you practically need a map to find them all :)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1536793/your-guide-to-the-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates/amp/

Are you supporting or considering any of these candidates? Please share with us why. Also is there somebody you would like to see run who is not currently running or announced?

Even if you are not eligible to vote, don't leave! You are still welcome to answer, just say who you would support if you could.

If you are interested in following the race then check back and view the guide in the link sometimes. It gets updates for new candidates when they enter. I will note that former Alaskan senator Mike Gravel's name is absent from the list, and he recently has announced a campaign so they should include him. His goal is to be in the debates, but he is a candidate neverthelessess.

colours April 10th, 2019 11:29 AM

Not settled on anyone yet, but I'm warming up to Pete Buttigieg. I was wondering what his stance on the Isreal-Palestine conflict was, and he gave a satisfactory/the expected diplomatic response to it.

What's likely going to happen is that it's all going to come down to Biden vs Bernie, though. But that's just a big ol' assumption based on poll numbers. We'll see what the debates have to weed out.

Nah April 10th, 2019 12:05 PM

I haven't really given much thought yet as to which one I'll give my vote to yet, but the start of the primaries are nearly a year away.

Though by the time the primaries get to NJ I might not have much in the way of choices anyway

EnglishALT April 10th, 2019 5:37 PM

So far I like Pete Buttigieg, my only problem with him seems to be his one sided feud with Vice President Pence reeks of attention seeking but overall he seems like a well rounded moderate.

juliorain April 10th, 2019 6:43 PM

I’m still in the Bernie mindset of 2016.

That being said, I’m also happy to see so many hopefuls. I actually haven’t contributed yet to Bernie’s campaign only because I want to see the election cycle progress a little more before fully committing.

professor plum April 11th, 2019 2:06 PM

There are too many right now for me to have a serious opinion on any of the candidates thus far. I can say 100% I don't want Bernie or Biden tho.

VisionofMilotic April 11th, 2019 5:02 PM

The DNC requires that democratic candidates meet 1 of 2 criteria in order to qualify for the first debate in June.

*You must poll at least 1% in 3 seperate polls between January 1 and mid-May.

Or

*Receive campaign contributions from at least 65,000 individual donors in order to qualify for the first debate in June.

If you are interested in someone who is in the race, but does not yet qualify for the debate stage then you may want to consider tossing them a buck. If you don't already have name recognition then there is no way for your campaign to grow without the debate to give you wider exposure. Keep that in mind in case one of the newer kids on the block catches your eye.

I spoiler tagged a list of candidates who currently qualify


I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary. I was thinking about him for 2020 among other candidates. He may have just pulled ahead in my book by leading the Yemen war powers resolution.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=806eoo1k5jE

I am anti-imperialist in my foreign policy. Bernie is not actually as far left as I would go, but he's better than the average democrat. I don't forsee anyone else appearing from the progressive wing in 2020 who is equipped to serve as president that would be any more anti-interventionalist, and also offer Bernie's comprehensive economic reform and environmental platform. The later is especially important to me because of the recent IPCC report from the UN. I want someone who is ready to put in over time to reverse the anti-environmental policies of the Trump administration.

professor plum April 15th, 2019 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sansa Stark (Post 10005020)
There are too many right now for me to have a serious opinion on any of the candidates thus far. I can say 100% I don't want Bernie or Biden tho.

It might be a bit early, but after watching his official campaign announcement (thanks for the link, Angie!!), I like Buttigieg quite a bit. I'll back whatever Democratic candidate secures the nomination, but right now he's probably got my vote if he makes it to the primaries. I'm keeping an eye out on the others, though.

VisionofMilotic April 15th, 2019 4:54 PM

Some hopeful news if you are a Bernie Sanders supporter. This Emerson poll placed him ahead of all of the possible contenders for the democratic primary this April.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/438888-poll-sanders-leads-biden-for-dem-nomination-by-5-points-buttigieg-in

The findings of this poll are noteworthy because it shows Bernie not just ahead of the democrats currently in the race as we have seen in previous polls, but also leading by 5 pts even in the hypothetical matchup against Joe Biden.

The last few weeks have overall been kind to Bernie. He raised over 18 million dollars in his first quarter coming from small donors, with a donation size averaging 20 dollars. He also is the most popular candidate for Latino voters at present, so all very positive news.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-fundraising.amp

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/06/bernie-sanders-latino-hispanic-voters/

Noblejanobii April 23rd, 2019 6:27 AM

I haven't decided which primary I want to vote in yet (since in my state you don't have to register to a party), but given there hasn't been a ton of movement on the Republican side of things in terms of other nominees (which is not a-typical for the party that has the incumbency) except for Bill Weld (who is a great guy but he's not a strong enough contender to beat Trump for the nomination), I'll probably vote in the Democratic primary. I need to look over the candidates more, so I appreciate the resource as a good starting point.

Just looking over the list and based on my experiences alone, having met Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker in DC, I'd say they'd be someone I'd consider putting my support behind. Cory Booker especially since he was very popular in one of the offices I worked in during my time in DC, and that office was Republican. He was charismatic enough to draw their support so I think he'd be a good candidate. But this is without knowing any of his policies. I'd need to look further before I said for sure.

VisionofMilotic April 24th, 2019 7:44 AM

Cool that you got to meet both Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. I'd be interested to know what it was like to meet Warren. I also am glad to hear that you witnessed Booker having a broad appeal on folks.

What I would say about Booker is that as you have probably noticed he has a colorful personality, great speaking voice, and brings the voice of civility to the conversation.

There are aspects also of his policy that might be interesting to crossover voters like supporting charter schools. This more often in the dialogue with republicans I think than democrats I would say. Yet there are still some policies in his platform that can appeal to the progressive end of the spectrum like the baby bonds I think.

tigertron April 24th, 2019 10:06 AM

I'm not a US citizen nor do I know much about US politics, but I think Bernie is probably one of the best US politicians out there. So he'd have my vote simply for standing on a socialist platform even if it's not as far left as I would like.

The only problem with Bernie that I can see is that many Democrats wouldn't support him and I doubt any Republican would either. So as a president he would probably be pretty restricted in what he could achieve.

Noblejanobii April 24th, 2019 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10010194)
Cool that you got to meet both Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. I'd be interested to know what it was like to meet Warren. I also am glad to hear that you witnessed Booker having a broad appeal on folks.

What I would say about Booker is that as you have probably noticed he has a colorful personality, great speaking voice, and brings the voice of civility to the conversation.

There are aspects also of his policy that might be interesting to crossover voters like supporting charter schools. This more often in the dialogue with republicans I think than democrats I would say. Yet there are still some policies in his platform that can appeal to the progressive end of the spectrum like the baby bonds I think.

Warren was a very brief encounter, I regret not being able to talk with her more. I met her during the ICE protests they were having in the Senate buildings back in July. She came out of her office to show her support to the protestors and I ran into her then. She was very courteous and said she was glad people my age were taking an interest in politics and hoped we'd support her in future endeavors, which looking back was probably a subtle way to ask for our support in a presidential candidacy run. So as far as first impressions go, she's a good one.

I also saw Kirsten Gillibrand at the same event but I didn't get to speak with her. She hugged one of the protestors if I remember correctly. From what I've heard she's very nice, but that's just stuff through the grapevine and not my own opinion since I never got to actually meet her.

Yeah I think Booker would have a good chance of appealing to some Republicans since he seemed to be friends with several Republican senators and appealed to the staff in these offices very well. Never heard a bad word about him. Some dissent for his policies, but as my boss put it "I may disagree with his politics, but his charisma will win anyone over to his side."

As for Bernie, I personally find him far to extreme for me. While I respect that he's one of the only politicians in DC that actually pay their interns, since I tend to be a bit more fiscally conservative, he's just too extreme for me to be able to support. I'd like free college as much as the next student, but the economics behind that in the US' current economic system would make that very difficult and could cause some major back end and front end problems if they're not careful

All in all it'll really be interesting to watch. Looking at the Republican side of things, so far there's only two candidates, Trump (eth) and Bill Weld. And while Bill Weld is a very good guy (he was the VP candidate on Gary Johnson's ticket back in 2016), he hasn't been involved in politics recently enough to have a strong chance at the nomination. If anything we can only hope his entry will cause a party split.

colours April 24th, 2019 3:47 PM

Some interesting tidbits on whether prisoners should be able to vote based on a Poll via YouGov:



To honest, I'm not 100% sure where I lean. I can see the argument that all prisoners are a part of society regardless, and there's the perspective that our justice system is fairly racist so you're talking about nonviolent offenders in prison being stripped unfairly of their right to vote.

But on the other hand I don't know what to make heads or tails of the whole "well pedophiles and murderers get a right to vote too and i dont like that" argument as well.

I will say though, as much as I like Buttigieg's general charisma, I feel like at some point he's going to plataeu because he may struggle with gaining the trust and vote of non-white voters.

VisionofMilotic April 25th, 2019 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noblejanobii (Post 10010277)
Warren was a very brief encounter, I regret not being able to talk with her more. I met her during the ICE protests they were having in the Senate buildings back in July. She came out of her office to show her support to the protestors and I ran into her then. She was very courteous and said she was glad people my age were taking an interest in politics and hoped we'd support her in future endeavors, which looking back was probably a subtle way to ask for our support in a presidential candidacy run. So as far as first impressions go, she's a good one.

I also saw Kirsten Gillibrand at the same event but I didn't get to speak with her. She hugged one of the protestors if I remember correctly. From what I've heard she's very nice, but that's just stuff through the grapevine and not my own opinion since I never got to actually meet her.

Yeah I think Booker would have a good chance of appealing to some Republicans since he seemed to be friends with several Republican senators and appealed to the staff in these offices very well. Never heard a bad word about him. Some dissent for his policies, but as my boss put it "I may disagree with his politics, but his charisma will win anyone over to his side."

As for Bernie, I personally find him far to extreme for me. While I respect that he's one of the only politicians in DC that actually pay their interns, since I tend to be a bit more fiscally conservative, he's just too extreme for me to be able to support. I'd like free college as much as the next student, but the economics behind that in the US' current economic system would make that very difficult and could cause some major back end and front end problems if they're not careful

All in all it'll really be interesting to watch. Looking at the Republican side of things, so far there's only two candidates, Trump (eth) and Bill Weld. And while Bill Weld is a very good guy (he was the VP candidate on Gary Johnson's ticket back in 2016), he hasn't been involved in politics recently enough to have a strong chance at the nomination. If anything we can only hope his entry will cause a party split.


Sounds like it was a very memorable, exciting and uplifting experience. I'd have liked to have been there. I definitely think we can do better on paving a path to citizenship in this country.

Now, because of Gillibrand's record as a corporate lawyer defending the tobacco industry, she would not be my first choice for 2020. I lost both of my grandparents to cancer caused by smoking, so I am not without some prejudice here.

Nevertheless, I am glad to hear that every candidate was approachable and engaging in person because that helps encourage people to participate in the process.

While I tend to look for democrats from the progressive wing of the party, I can respect and understand your concerns as a fiscal-conservative and I'll definitely keep in mind that you are looking for a candidate who is not too extreme left or right.

I was wondering if you were familiar with Hawaiian democrat congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and if so, what you thought of her?

Some of the things about her that strike me most is that she grew up in a conservative household, and is a veteran.

Her foreign policy I would describe as the most "libertarian" of the democrats. I thought I would point that out since we were discussing Bill Weld and Gary Johnson. I know that Ron Paul is very impressed by her positions as a candidate for ending the wars we are in, decreasing military spending and stopping the sale of arms overseas and intervention. In this sense she is a step back to basics.

Tulsi is ultimately a democrat with liberal economic positions like raising the mininum wage, medicare, creating jobs and infrastructure. So she is not what I would call a fiscal conservative. However, when compared with other candidates in the 2020 democratic primary her message is not so exclusive to economic issues that she couldn't perhaps pick up a fiscally-conservative voter nevertheless, at least as I see her.

Most of the 2020 democrats are known for one signature economic reform or another, Andrew Yang advocates UBI, Kamala Harris has the Lift Act, Elizabeth Warren's got the Housing and Economic Mobility Act, Cory Booker's calling card is the Baby Bonds, for Julian's Castro its Reparations, Wayne Messam is for student debt cancellation, Bernie has Tution-Free College. However, what Tulsi has chosen to emphasize as her campaign message is the promotion of peace, which is a less controversial issue I think to American voters in today's climate, and an area even where conservatives and progressive sometimes join forces.

Also when Gabbard proposes something progressive, I think she is very clear and meticulous in explaining the policy and how it might be achieved. For instance she had concerns about the Green New Deal and declded not to co-sponsor it with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, arguing that it was too vague. Yet rather than use this as a disingenuous arguement to justify not pursing environmental protection policies, as say a Joe Manchin would, Tulsi offers her own alternative legislation for clean, renewable energy in the OFF act. So I think she is someone who can be a responsible voice, without actually selling out her values.

colours April 25th, 2019 10:53 AM

Personally, the more I hear about Gabbard, the less enthusiastic I feel about her.

Case in point, this article here goes into detail about how Gabbard went from shining star of the Democratic Party to pretty much irrelevant due to some deeply controversial decisions on her part.

She also breaks with the rest of the Democratic candidates calling for Trump's own impeachment. Regardless of how one personally feels about whether or not Trump should be impeached based on what's found in the Mueller report, this kind of move is certainly going to isolate her further from the progressive base who have been dying to oust Trump from office since day one.

Honestly, I'm not really entirely sure who Gabbard appeals to, or who her constituency even consists of. She seems like the type of candidate that tries to have a progressive platform, but shoots herself in the foot with the progressive base. I personally don't see... anything about her that appeals to the centre-left pretty much whatsoever, since that pool of Democrats is split between Biden/Beto/Buttigieg.

If she's trying to cozy up with Bernie's voters, she has a long way to go.

Noblejanobii April 26th, 2019 1:21 AM

Hm... Gabbard I don't know a ton about but I've heard things through the grapevine that weren't very flattering. I think the biggest strike against her is the fact that she met with the Dictator Bashar al-Assad. Now she claims it wasn't her intention to meet with him, she just seized the opportunity as it presented itself, which I can respect because I can't say I wouldn't do the same in similar circumstances. The problem here is she didn't inform the Democrat party that she was going to do this and claims all the Syrians like Assad when it was his regime that orchestrated the tour. It reminds me a lot of the "Under the Sun" documentary from North Korea. The events are likely scripted or set up to make people believe that Assad actually is popular in Syria when in reality, the sheer amount of refugees fleeing the country should be a solid indication otherwise. Now she may have retracted her comments, I haven't seen anything but this happened so long ago it could just be buried. But it concerns me that something like this could occur.

That being said I can always get behind a message for peace, and if what she brings to table outweighs what I've heard about her, then I'm willing to back her. But it really just depends on if I believe I can trust them and right now Gabbard does not seem very trustworthy.

VisionofMilotic April 27th, 2019 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noblejanobii (Post 10010886)
.

Indeed the mainstream press is brutal, yet you bring up a very good point about the meeting with Assad. I would like talk more about that. I'd love to also share more about her foreign policy record as I do think she has a solid history here if you are pro-peace. I am really torn between Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard at the moment, each for different reasons, but I think just on the subject of peace alone Gabbard is the most consistent in the race.

Any candidate can offer platitudes, so your skepticism is understandable. For me the litmus test is does a politician's record match the things they are talking about? For instance Obama promised he would close Gauntanamo Bay as president, but he didn't. Trump said he was against the war in Iraq when he was running for president, then the Howard Stern audio surfaced showing that he did think we should go into Iraq. Hillary Clinton said she regretted going to War in Iraq, and wouldn't gave gone had she known the intelligence was false. However, her private emails revealed that she in fact was aware of the darker purposes of the war, and saw it as a business opportunity for oil corporations, and that was why she voted as she did.

In the case of Tulsi Gabbard I have not uncovered these sorts of inconsistencies between her words and the legislation she supported in regards to peaceful intentions in the 15 years she's been in congress. If you do happen to see a flip-flop like that on foreign policy let me know, because I need to know that.

One of the good things I think she did was shine attention on the fact that the United States government has funded and armed various groups in Qatar, Saudia Arabia and Turkey to overthrow the Syrian Government. This policy of our government is troubling not just because of the desire to not have military confrontation, but because the opposition groups may or may not have ties to terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Isis or Hamas.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58cafc26e4b00705db4da8aa/amp

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/trump-warms-qatar-lawmakers-still-see-terrorist-ties

https://www.counterextremism.com/countries/turkey

Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorist bill to the House barring us from potentially selling weapons to groups like Isis. It should be a common sense position, and yet she stood virtually alone in this fight, and this is one of many indicators to me that she is serious about not taking us into more needlesss conflict. Here she explains what this bill would have done on NPR.

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/10/505079126/hawaii-congresswoman-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-bill-to-halt-u-s-arms-supplies-to

Gabbard has co-sponsored nearly 350 pieces of legislation to congress, and a great deal of these measures are anti-war. Here is a log of the bills.
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/G000571/bills-cosponsored/115

She supported the War Powers resolution which would restrict a president's nearly unbridled authority to engage the country in armed conflict without the approval of congress, and returned power to back to the congress as it was in in 1973. This also would have stopped the U.S from funding Saudi Arabia from comitting genocide against Yemen in the current war.

https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/09/26/rep-tulsi-gabbard-lawmakers-introduce-bipartisan-resolution-to-stop-us-military-support-for-saudi-arabias-genocidal-war-in-yemen/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-04-04/house-votes-to-withdraw-support-for-saudi-led-war-in-yemen%3fcontext=amp

Now with regards to Syria I would like to clarify that Gabbard's trip was not organized by the Assad regime. Adam Kinzinger, who is against withdrawing in Syria and is very aggressive in this area of foreign policy, is framing a somewhat false narrative by characterizing this as an Assad-led tour, which indeed would reveal nothing about the plight of people in Syria.

AACCESS is not affiliated with Assad. It is a US-based organization in Ohio, its website says its offers translation services, shelter for refuges, counsels immigrants on their legal rights, and.

There is a board member of the Arab American Community Center, a medical adviser, named Bassam Khawam that helped the delegation of lawmakers get there, who has been reported in news outlets as a member of a radical political party called SSNP. He says he has never been a member of this party at all.

Whether he is or not however, what is important to bear in mind still is that this is ultimately a citizen, he does not hold a position in the Syrian government. Neither Assad's government or the political party SSNP orchestrated Gabbard's trip or meetings with civilians and refugees.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/514763/

Something else that is reported less frequently is that Gabbard's spent time in various cities in the middle east from Aleppo to Beirut during her travels, and met with multiple diplomats and important people including the President of Lebanon, our own US Ambassador Elizabeth Richards, humanitarian workers, archbishops. I think Gabbard's visit in full context sounds much more reasonable than the headline grabber of a meeting with Assad. It is also worth noting that even meeting with Assad is something that the speaker of the house Pelosi did. Many lawmakers have met with leaders of hostile countries in the hope of learning more about the situation, and even avoiding confrontation.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/logan-act-and-its-limits

What constitutes a violation of the Logan Act is somewhat vague. It simply reads that it cannot be without the authority of the United States. That she needed the approval of her political party is not encoded the law, it just can't be "without the authority of the United States."

She could have privately sought approval from the pentagon for instance and that alone can be interpreted as sufficient. Below is the dry legal language.

Spoiler:


Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.



The last thing I would also like to make clear is that Kinzinger is using more hyperbole when he said that Gabbard declared everyone she met to be happy under Assad's government. Gabbard is not suggesting this.

This was the full op-ed that Tulsi Gabbard wrote in her local newspaper about her experience in Syria, in which she indeed acknowledges hearing opposition to Assad from the people of Syria, the very opposite of what was claimed she said.

https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace-e308f1777a34

Now what she has indeed said is that the Syrian people are in afraid of the rebel groups that we fund as well as Assad, which is why she calls for the United States not to arm rebels that might end up also hurting the people, and advocates for a de-escalation. Saying this alone is enought to be conflated with supporting Assad.

It is possible to disagree with a government, but not necessarily be in favor of military intervention in the country. I think she has a nuanced foreign policy that often gets lost in translation.

This RealClearPolitics link uses longer statements by Gabbard she made when she visited the show The View, and I think she does a good job clarifying what her views are. Give a listen if you'd like to know more. Also feel free to pm too if you want to talk more!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/20/meghan_mccain_to_tulsi_gabbard_when_i_hear_your_name_i_think_assad_apologist

Noblejanobii April 28th, 2019 4:59 AM

Hm yes her peace points do seem to be very strong, especially since, as I said before, I can't condemn her for meeting with Assad since given the opportunity I'd likely do the same, but I'll need to look at all her policies before I make my decision. Due to this being the heat of finals season at my school, I simply haven't had the time to do that yet. I assure you, I usually do very thorough research prior to casting final judgement on a candidate. I appreciate the help though, but just her policy on peace isn't going to be enough to sell me on her. I'll be doing my own research on all the candidates over the course of the summer, while also keeping an eye on the Republican side of things to see if a strong candidate does rise to oppose Trump there.

The main make or break point I think for me when it comes to these candidates will be their economics. I know I can trust them to keep in mind human rights, since that's in the very nature of most democrats, but ultimately I just need to do my own research when I actually have the time to and I'm not in the middle of finals.

colours April 30th, 2019 6:07 PM

So, taking a look at this 538 article, we can see a few things:
  • Sanders isn't really that strong of a spot; in fact he's lost ground in the polls while Biden gained.
  • Warren and Buttigieg kind of gained ground, but Buttigieg mostly stayed the same or lost a point.
To be honest, regardless of one's personal feelings towards Sanders, I feel like going from the numbers alone, he doesn't seem like that strong of a candidate. I don't know specifically the causes of this or what people find in Biden that they don't really see in Sanders. Maybe most democrats are more moderates than progressives and prefer Biden as a first choice and Sanders mostly as a second, who knows.

In fact, Qunnipiac University actually has Sanders behind Warren. This is a pretty big deal because this is strongly implying that Sanders' appeal is going to plateau at some point and with his name recognition, I'm not sure if he has room to gain, anymore.

At any rate, it's worth keeping an eye on whether Biden's "bounce" will fade as more and more people find out about him (he also has really high name recognition, which limits his ceiling here), and whether his campaign will continue to be slammed by scandals and the like.

Warren's gain is actually semi-surprising for me. I honestly wish she wouldn't have gotten into the whole DNA bullshit because if it wasn't for that I think she would've been in a clear third place position right now instead of Buttigieg. Perhaps people's lukewarm feelings towards her will fade over time as she dishes out policy idea after policy idea, but it's very clear that Warren has quite the mountain to climb.

These are still very early days, but even early primary polls can be pretty telling of who will win early on. For now, it seems like the one thing that will move the needle in any sort of direction barring some scandal cropping out of nowhere or a gaff is the debate stage.

EnglishALT April 30th, 2019 6:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 10012726)
So, taking a look at this 538 article, we can see a few things:
  • Sanders isn't really that strong of a spot; in fact he's lost ground in the polls while Biden gained.
  • Warren and Buttigieg kind of gained ground, but Buttigieg mostly stayed the same or lost a point.
To be honest, regardless of one's personal feelings towards Sanders, I feel like going from the numbers alone, he doesn't seem like that strong of a candidate. I don't know specifically the causes of this or what people find in Biden that they don't really see in Sanders. Maybe most democrats are more moderates than progressives and prefer Biden as a first choice and Sanders mostly as a second, who knows.

In fact, Qunnipiac University actually has Sanders behind Warren. This is a pretty big deal because this is strongly implying that Sanders' appeal is going to plateau at some point and with his name recognition, I'm not sure if he has room to gain, anymore.

At any rate, it's worth keeping an eye on whether Biden's "bounce" will fade as more and more people find out about him (he also has really high name recognition, which limits his ceiling here), and whether his campaign will continue to be slammed by scandals and the like.

Warren's gain is actually semi-surprising for me. I honestly wish she wouldn't have gotten into the whole DNA bullmuk because if it wasn't for that I think she would've been in a clear third place position right now instead of Buttigieg. Perhaps people's lukewarm feelings towards her will fade over time as she dishes out policy idea after policy idea, but it's very clear that Warren has quite the mountain to climb.

These are still very early days, but even early primary polls can be pretty telling of who will win early on. For now, it seems like the one thing that will move the needle in any sort of direction barring some scandal cropping out of nowhere or a gaff is the debate stage.

Its important to look at the problems Sanders faced last weekend at the She The People event, he does not really pander to the one specific race or sex, and instead prefers to go for class warfare. That just does not work well in today's Democratic party and will probably be his undoing.

VisionofMilotic June 18th, 2019 1:04 PM

I meant to post about this way back in May, but I have been awfully tied up. There is still time though to share. I have some very important news for potential democratic voters who want to learn more about the various 2020 candidates running. The primary debates are about to commence. This is a great way to compare and contrast the dems if you are undecided, let them stand on the stage together and persuade you who is the best. Even if you have fully committed to a democratic candidate, the debates still can offer you an opprtunity to see more of your preferred candidate and create lively discussion.

As the field of candidates is huge there will be two different debate nights back-to-back on June 26th and 27th in Miami, Florida to help divide up the lot.

I mentioned previously the maximum number of candidates the DNC will accept into the debates is 20. The DNC requires candidates running as democrats to meet a polling threshold of 1% or more to qualify for the first debate, and/or a donation threshold of 75,000 individual donors from 20 different states to qualify for their first debates, with preference to candidates who meet both qualifications.

Below is a list from NPR of candidates who will officially be in the debates. I was a little surprised that the spiritual guru and writer Marianne Williamson qualified, but welcome aboard Marianne. She seems like a kind person. I am likewise a little saddened that Florida mayor Wayne Messam won't be joining us on the debate stage. He is young, articulate, takes no corporate money, and has a great record on green energy and gun control, and presented one of my favorite college plans. Alas, he didn't meet the requirements.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/13/730432210/who-made-the-cut-dnc-announces-primary-debate-contenders

We know who is for sure in the debates now. The next question is what will the matchup be? Since the candidates are going to be split into two groups then who debates with whom? According to NBC the names of each candidate were drawn in lots and each candidate had the opportunity to send a representative to oversee the picking of names. That sounds fair, and dramatic too.

*slowly pulls back curtain* Hit the New York Times link to find out who is versing who.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/democratic-debates-2020.html

I think the second night is going to have the higher viewership, that is where most of the big names seem to be. I will probably watch both nights though because there are 2 or 3 candidates that I am thinking about voting for in the primary on night one.

professor plum June 19th, 2019 9:07 AM

I'm just really hoping Joe doesn't get the nomination. He's such a creep, but he's definitely got the basic liberals convinced.

I might've previously said Buttigieg looks ok, but I'm actually team Elizabeth Warren right now. I've listened to a few of her speeches lately, and she's definitely changed my mind.

I'll definitely be watching both nights either way.

@VoM who are you rooting for?

colours June 19th, 2019 9:15 AM

I'm Warren/Buttigieg currently. This meaning that if Warren doesnt't get the nomination, Buttigieg would be my second choice.

As long as it isn't Biden that wins. ._.

Nah June 19th, 2019 11:17 AM

I too would not like to see Biden get the nomination, as he's both not what this country needs right now and would not make for a particularly strong opponent for Trump (I don't think that the Dems get that fielding anyone who is roughly similar to the candidate that lost the 2016 election is a bad idea), but unfortunately I think the most likely outcome at the moment is Biden will get it.

While there's been a growing split in the political left in America over the past few years, the majority of the non-right wing part of the active voterbase is still very moderate and so not likely to vote for anyone more than slightly left of center. Of the more moderate candidates, Biden is THE candidate for this majority, as he's well-known and has the benefit of being Obama's VP, evoking nostalgia from the DNC's most recent "good ol' days".

Even if Biden somehow doesn't get it, the person who does in place of him will most likely be one of the other very moderate candidates, i.e. someone probably not very exciting.

professor plum June 19th, 2019 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10034577)
I too would not like to see Biden get the nomination, as he's both not what this country needs right now and would not make for a particularly strong opponent for Trump (I don't think that the Dems get that fielding anyone who is roughly similar to the candidate that lost the 2016 election is a bad idea), but unfortunately I think the most likely outcome at the moment is Biden will get it.

While there's been a growing split in the political left in America over the past few years, the majority of the non-right wing part of the active voterbase is still very moderate and so not likely to vote for anyone more than slightly left of center. Of the more moderate candidates, Biden is THE candidate for this majority, as he's well-known and has the benefit of being Obama's VP, evoking nostalgia from the DNC's most recent "good ol' days".

Even if Biden somehow doesn't get it, the person who does in place of him will most likely be one of the other very moderate candidates, i.e. someone probably not very exciting.

Are there any candidates you're partial to?

Nah June 19th, 2019 11:28 AM

Not anyone specific no

kind of, um, still haven't bothered to look at everyone too much

professor plum June 19th, 2019 11:34 AM

I mean, I get that. There are literally so many right now.

Ghost Owl June 19th, 2019 6:57 PM

Elizabeth Warren 95%.

5% hesitation based on her position on breaking up big tech.

95% enthusiasm based on basically everything else.

Her June 19th, 2019 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Owl (Post 10034694)
Elizabeth Warren 95%.

5% hesitation based on her position on breaking up big tech.

95% enthusiasm based on basically everything else.

Genuine curiosity: what's your hesitation there? Her desire to eliminate consolidation within the industry and curtail the increasingly anti-democratic ambitions of those that run it is one of the positions that makes her notable compared to others in the race, as most other candidates have yet to speak much further than 'stop fake news' buzzwords.

gimmepie June 19th, 2019 7:47 PM

Personally, I think that Warren and Sanders have the best platforms and I agree that electing another moderate like Biden (even ignoring other issues with him) wouldn't really end up solving any of the problems currently facing the US. Assuming he could get elected, which is certainly a possibility if he wins the nomination but it's far from a certainty given how divided the left is currently. That being said, I can't see the majority of the left really risking a second Trump term just to avoid Biden, who is most likely to get the nomination since he seems to be developing something of a cult of personality of his own.

colours June 19th, 2019 8:03 PM

Just gonna drop this tweet here and one can make their own inferences from it.

VisionofMilotic June 22nd, 2019 1:31 PM

Warren has been unveiling innovative policies all season. She has good plans for education, housing, childcare, worker representation on boards and more. I would say she is running on more of a liberal domestic platform rather than the hardcore progressive one, but still an interesting and appealing platform nevertheless.

Warren also has a history of working to curtail excesses from the banking and credit industry which leads me to believe that she is sincere about the economic justice policies she has put forward, rather than just parroting populist policies.

I just wish she would fight the establishment, particularly on foreign policy. With the possibility of war with Iran becoming a more real and frightening possibility after this week's events, I am hungry for a candidate that can govern well at home but also be a peacemaker abroad.

Of the people who qualify for the debates Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders have voting records that hold together better on moving away from military spending and intervention, but my mind is open to several different candidates and I am watching debates to learn more, before officially committing to Warren, Sanders or anyone yet. The gold standard of progressivism I think is Mike Gravel, but he doesn't want to be president and his campaign is a political statement to influence the third debate if he gets in.

Again, I am not ready to endorse Warren this early in the primary, but what I ultimately do appreciate about Warren and wanted to come to this thread to give her credit for is that she is really offering a policy-based discussion at least and trying to woo voters with her positions, unlike Biden who is simply piggyback riding on Obama's name.

I had not planned to discuss Biden, but his face has triggered me now. Biden's entire campaign is built around himself in relation to other people, i.e Vote for me because of your fear of Trump. He stands for nothing on policy, nothing that is good. Some of the establishment candidates in the race are willing to throw the left a bone out of political strategy at least, but Biden's attitude is just, let them eat cake. He doesn't have the respect to include any of our issues as a focal point of his campaign.

I think it would be a pyrrhic victory if Biden won the nomination. Even If I were to ignore the disturbung harassment allegations, which I am not able to, I'd still be voting for all of the conservative policies I don't want enacted and defeat much of the purpose of why I am voting for a democrat anyway. I can't think of one issue that Biden will not get into bed with republicans on, immigration, war, trade, women's reproductive rights, criminal justice, the death penalty.

As a person who does not consider herself of the conservative wing of the party I find voting for Biden selling out so many core values of the left so that Trump is gone in name only.

Sometimes you have to cut your losses, but a loss is still a loss. If the primary is over and Biden was the only thing left standing between Trump then I'll be more inclined to talk about throwing myself off a cliff to escape being devoured by a scary monster, which is what choosing Biden to evade Trump is. But I am still dead in that scenario, and I would rather be alive than dead. There are dozens of other people in the race, some of them look pretty good, and I'm going to fight to be alive and attempt any route of escape with a good candidate before I resolve to die with a bad one just so I can die in a nicer way than I might otherwise. Destroying myself is the last option. Right now it's Hell no to Uncle Joe.

colours June 22nd, 2019 2:12 PM

Quote:

I just wish she would fight the establishment
I ask this genuinely and not throwing shade or being snarky: what does "establishment" even mean?

I feel like the rise of Bernie Sanders had some unfortunate consequences and with that is the "split" of the Democratic Party. There was such a toxic atmosphere in the 2016 election because you had #BernieorBust voters that would rather set the country on fire than accept their losses, and this attitude will always continue to mystify me. Don't get me wrong, when you look at Bernie compared to Hillary, there's a lot of appeal to see there compared to Hillary who seemed massively status quo by comparison. Her favourables were not great (in fact they were pretty bad) so it's easy to see Bernie in a great light. Therefore, the term "establishment" was made into a buzzword to mean the elite donor class of the Democratic Party. In short, it was a shady insult meaning out-of-touch, party-line Democrats like Clinton who don't want to upend the system. That's how it was.

But Hillary isn't running, so does the word even mean anything, anymore? Bernie, as we now know, is a millionaire and has been in politics for three or so decades. Does that mean he's establishment, too? What I'm getting at here is that it's so easy to stretch the word "establishment" to pretty much isolate or insult anyone who doesn't agree with your views as a party line "hack" (to use another unhealthy word) or "sellout" when that's not always the case. I suppose Bernie has been attempting to shift the democratic climate (for a lack of a better word to use) so far left that it seems like by comparison anyone who is not specifically Bernie is seen as a centrist when in reality they're pretty liberal, just not far left.

I'm not sure what weight the term has in current-day politics, anymore. "Fuck the Democratic Party" isn't an attitude that's so widespread like it used to be, and it can be seen in Bernie's poll numbers where sometimes he's even trailing behind Warren when taking into account name recognition. When you put Bernie in a field of many other candidates who are unknowns just like Bernie was an unknown, it gives the public time to shop around and warm up to whoever candidate puts their best foot forward. That gives them a lot more options than just a guy who screams about class warfare.

Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie as an idealistic individual. I think he has the right goals in that the poor are continuing to get poorer while the rich get richer and that's unacceptable. I just don't think waging a war against the Democratic Party and framing the party itself as the Elite Class and therefore the "establishment" is the right way to go about with it, which is why I haven't been so fond of him lately.

VisionofMilotic June 22nd, 2019 8:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 10035604)
I ask this genuinely and not throwing shade or being snarky: what does "establishment" even mean?

Angie, I am really glad you asked me for clarification actually, because I had an entirely different meaning than It seems came across. So thank you for sharing why this is a divisive word to you. I can take this opportunity to be more detailed hopefully.

When I said the establishment I was literally talking about our political establishment, more specifically I was talking about the prevailing foreign policy of the American government of the last several decades. You could say that Bernie Sanders stood up to the same establishment by voting against the Iraq War when doing so could result in political consequences. In this context it would be the Bush era that I would be referring to as opposed to the 2016 election.

My concern was simply if Warren is also candidate who can really push back against the establishment she works within to fight the tide for the position that is right, even if it is unpopular in today's climate such as not sanctioning Venezuela or Iran, decreasing military spending, an even-sided approach to Israel-Palestine or talks with North Korea just as a series of examples. Does this perhaps make more sense?

Harmonie June 23rd, 2019 6:17 AM

I dislike Biden more and more every time I see him. He's better than Trump in many key ways, so, of course, I'd still vote for him in 2020 over Trump (although my vote, being in an unambiguously red state, is completely worthless), but I really don't care for him. He's far too conservative, and the way he was treated women is super creepy. I completely chastised (and continue to) Trump over this. Of course, as far as we know, Trump is worse, but it doesn't matter. We shouldn't have to pick between one man who is a creeper and another man who proudly boasted about sexual assaulting because he knew he was in a position he could get away with it.

We're in a very sad place right now. But this topic isn't about that. I wish someone like Elizabeth Warren could get the nomination and become president. She's so much better. But gosh darn it, we just need Trump out of office no matter what. If the Republican party steals anymore Supreme Court seats it'll be far worse than not having the Democratic candidate I want.

gimmepie June 24th, 2019 2:24 AM

Honestly, this is why populism on either side is really scary. Biden's platform basically amounts to having no actual policies, not being Trump and riding on Obama's coattails. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being a centrist, but there is with having no real principals or policy of your own. Even if you can ignore that he's a bit of a creep, which oddly enough a lot of Democrat voters can't, the problem with Biden is that he's weak and his campaign is devoid of substance. It's very much the Democrat equivalent of Trump 2016. It's not as aggressive or divisive sure, but it's a flimsy campaign that is succeeding through populism and a cult of personalty. He won't improve anything. He won't be as divisive, but he'll be a wishy-washy President who doesn't stand for anything beyond being President.

He's even said it himself, if he is elected, nothing will fundamentally change. What he was saying at the time, was basically that nobody had to fear him coming for their money (because heaven forbid the rich give up excess wealth they'll never use). But this is a much deeper truth than that. Think about it, he was saying that if he is elected over Trump, it will still be the same America. That's great if the status quo is working for you but for a lot of people it isn't. He's saying that he will do very little to reverse the social and political damage done by Trump. What's worrying is that a lot of people are only hearing the nice words and are totally missing the ramifications of what he's saying.

This is why Warren is such a good candidate. Arguably a better candidate than Sanders, even though I prefer his policy. Because she has very strong views that she has been expressing for years and those views are fundamentally the opposite of just about everything to ever leave Trump's mouth. But unlike Bernie, her views are not nearly as far left and therefore aren't nearly as divisive or scary for more centre-left or right-wing voters. Sanders might have the most pleasing policy, but ultimately I think Warren might be a stronger candidate since she has a wider appeal and has a better chance of snagging Republicans/undecided voters who also don't like Trump.

Her June 24th, 2019 3:35 AM

Can Biden really be called a centrist, though? Even considering the Overton window and American politics, I wouldn’t really consider the guy a centrist by any definition - he’s the most Republican-lite out of the Republican-lite Dems that the public will have to consider, and his previous political stances pretty clearly show that he doesn’t like... fundamentally disagree with a significant amount of what the GOP offers, he just doesn’t care for the Trump cult.

gimmepie June 25th, 2019 5:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Her (Post 10036192)
Can Biden really be called a centrist, though? Even considering the Overton window and American politics, I wouldn’t really consider the guy a centrist by any definition - he’s the most Republican-lite out of the Republican-lite Dems that the public will have to consider, and his previous political stances pretty clearly show that he’s doesn’t like... fundamentally disagree with a significant amount of what the GOP offers, he just doesn’t care for the Trump cult.

I mean, his views aren't overall that different from Obama who I'd consider just left of centre. During his time in politics he's been against tax cuts for the wealth, for student loan forgiveness and reducing the cost of education, he's mostly been fairly green and pro-gun control. His main issue, other than being a creep, is that he's too happy to toe the line so as not to offend Republican sensibilities even if historically his positions have been left leaning for the most part. So yeah, I'd say he's fairly centrist.

gimmepie June 27th, 2019 7:46 AM

So, I watched the first part of the first debate. Keeping it short, I liked Warren, Gabbard and Castro. Most of the others either didn't stand out to me or annoyed me. In particular I didn't like de Blasio, O'Rourke or Booker. Booker in particular was my least favourite, even if O'Rourke was arguably pandering more. I do want to say that Klobuchar represented herself and her policies very well but personally I prefer the more left candidates. Delaney spoke well but he was irritating with his constant attempts to interject.

colours June 27th, 2019 7:53 AM

All I'm going to say that I probably agree with Nate Silver's implication in that this debate probably hasn't changed anyone's minds that weren't already made up to begin with. It was certainly entertaining, though! Especially the spanish-speaking parts!

To be honest though, Castro put on quite the impressive showing. I wonder if his poll numbers would reflect that.

gimmepie June 27th, 2019 9:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 10037510)
To be honest though, Castro put on quite the impressive showing. I wonder if his poll numbers would reflect that.

Not sure how his polling is right now as far as popularity but depending on which source you look at he either came out third in the debate or second-to-last. Given how good the showing was though and that iirc there was a jump in the people searching him up, I'm leaning more towards more people being happy with him or not. What is interesting is that both of those polls have Tulsi Gabbard #1 by a wide margin and Elizabeth Warren at second. I didn't expect her to be so popular really given that she hasn't exactly been considered much of a contender nor did she get as much talking time as many of the other participants.

Granted, this comes off of reading a single article very quickly after a quick search. When I look deeper into it what I find might be very different.

colours June 27th, 2019 10:03 AM

I do want to point out that one should be very careful in regards to either reader polls or focus group polling. Seems like certain polls that cater to a particular demographic can be very misleading.

I'm going to hold off on the "who won" stuff and see if any of the more reputable pollsters come forth with any data.

Nah June 27th, 2019 11:39 AM

That's always a danger to keep in mind with statistics in general really. Especially so with political polls, since people are liable to not always be particularly honest or objective about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10037506)
Booker in particular was my least favourite,

why's that?

gimmepie June 27th, 2019 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10037607)
That's always a danger to keep in mind with statistics in general really. Especially so with political polls, since people are liable to not always be particularly honest or objective about it.


why's that?

There was no substance. He was pretty fluff and a lot of "hey guys, I'm black, vote for me." He also made several attempts to associate himself with Castro, I assume because Castro was actually doing well and he wanted to snag his voters if he dropped out.

User Anon 1848 June 27th, 2019 12:55 PM

If I were an American democrat supporter I'd probably vote for Tulsi. I have no clue how good her chances would be against Trump but I respect her firm anti-war stance. She seems pretty moderate and I'm not all that liberal to be honest. My one knock would be that out of everyone she sounded the most like someone who was reading off a script.

VisionofMilotic June 27th, 2019 4:55 PM

Concur with Adri. Biden's a republican's democrat.
He is not for student loan forgiveness and taxing those who have the most. Biden actually made it harder for people who were drowning in debt, and is unlikely to have voted for laws that Obama signed like the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act that shielded consumers from predatory lenders. Biden's true purpose on the ticket was to siphon votes from McCain. He did not align with Obama on a series of important issues like criminal justice reform, women's right to choose, the war in Iraq, the environment. There are enough policy-based reasons to reject him even without the disturbing allegations. Let's see if the candidates he's running against can bring that out in the next debate.
https://truthout.org/articles/millennials-are-the-most-indebted-generation-they-can-thank-joe-biden/

Speaking of debates, I watched the first debate last night. It was a good debate. I am getting ready for the next one in a few minutes. My thoughts on last night's show are that due in part to the large field of candidates the pacing meandered at times. I will be glad when the field gets cleared out more and things speed up. The questions were also very soft ball and allowed for too many heartwarming stories to be accepted as answers. Seldom did the moderators force candidates to answer questions, and they rarely brought up controversy like Cory Booker voting against Amy Klobuchar's bill to import drugs from Canada cheaper or accusations that Julian Castro did not properly investigate discrimination accusations under HUD.

There were still some interesting to watch moments here nonetheless, and I was able to pick up some valuable information.

It was helpful for me to hear Elizabeth Warren take an unequivocal stance on Medicare For All. There was some ambiguity as to where she stood on this position and if she was for the same approach as Bernie Sanders. Glad to hear that they do in fact have the very same position. She is all for it and specifically seeks to end private insurance as he does. Anyway I think she hit all the right notes tonight and made herself seem very progressive.

When Warren is not point blank asked a question she will not seize an opening, and as her questions were directed largely at the beginning and end she sat on the sidelines in the middle and didn't stand out to ne as much, but she started strong and closed strong. She sometimes seems a little tightly-wired, but hey, that is Warren. She is bringing great values to the debate nonetheless, and is not running away from the bold policies like breaking up big tech companies. She was alrightie, and still in the running for my vote.

Who I was pleasantly surprised by was Julian Castro. I had not previously considered him, and was watching for Warren, Gabbard and Inslee but I got to hand it to Castro for stealing the show in the middle. He brought a youthful vigor and was very fiery, while still looking presidential. He didn't run away from any questions nor was he afraid to call out his opponents on their differences. He was very on point. I think he was great on speaking about women's issues and lgbt rights. I initially had some concerns about how he did on housing as mayor, but I am willing to give him another look now that I know more about him.

Where Castro just shined above the rest was on the immigration topic. I was impressed by his willingness to talk about specific laws like repealing Section 1325-- that needs to go to bring us a more humane immigration system, let it be a civil offense. I was able to fully appreciate the contrast between Castro on this and O'Rourke. He just stomped O'Rourke.

The only thing that gives me some pause with Castro was when he said he wanted a marshall plan for Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. I am all for giving asylum to those who seek it. I am not opposed to sending economic relief per say even, but what it sounds like he could be for is nation-building abroad, and I don't want to actually run another country's government. I am not Daenerys Targaryen. That may not be what he meant, but I am just curious for him to speak more about this. For now though I think he did a great job performing on the stage, and I think he was the winner of the debate personally. The media says it is Warren. I like Warren more overall but I think it was Castro actually who made the best showing.

O'Rourke was terrible. He looked frightened, scattered and was talking for a long time without saying anything. I would be alright if he was not for some of these things, i.e being against the Eisenhower year tax rates is not a deal breaker for me, you can say no. But he would just repeatedly not give answers in order to play both sides, and it wasn't subtle, after awhile nobody wants to hear any more rambling. I learned the least about his policies out of everyone in the debate, and do not care to know any more. I have heard enough.

Klobuchar by contrast I think is dry, but she looks competent at least unlike O'Rourke. I am not with her on the incrementalist policies, but I think she handled herself ok in the debate in terms or performance, she was assertive and pointed out that she and all of the women on the stage had similar backgrounds fighting for women's reproductive rights.

Booker does get a little platitude-driven, and can try too hard to be homey, but he gave some policy still, he talked about abolishing ICE and legislation he currently has in the senate on criminal justice reform. Where he lost me policy-wise was when he expressed reluctance to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal, and was talking about renegotiating it. That is too much of a politician's answer that could mean you would kill the deal like Trump is renegotiating it. This concerns me in conjunction with knowing that Booker voted for Trump's giant military budget, though it was not brought in this debate.

Just looking at his performance objectively I think he did good in that he was articulate and aggressive, he was not afraid to elbow his way in when a question was for someone else, and use it as opprtunity to share his views, like saying not enough, he would go even further on civil rights after Gabbard spoke, and laid it out. He's doing what he needs to do to try to come out near the top.

Delaney. I think was possibly the worst in the debate. He was not for almost any progressive policies. It isn't just that he is searching for the middle ground or bipartisan support. He just didn't have enough of his own ideas. I do not know why he is running. He looked weak, and when he was asked specifically for his views on impeachment of Trump, he just said he didn't know and he was sure Nancy Pelosi did, and he would trust her. He looked unqualified.

Tulsi I think started off average but got very good as the night went on. She looked calm and beautiful. She was given the least questions, and thus has to learn to push her way into the conversation when she is being ignored like the fellas in the room do. It was an awkward first attempt because she used the question about women's income and instead made a pitch for her campaign on ending the wars. I love her foreign policy but she missed the opportunity to broaden her demographics as this is yet another area where she is good on. She is a co-sponsor of the paycheck fairness act.

However, she found her footing when Ryan started saber rattling. I think real passion spontaneously came to the surface with Gabbard, she spoke out of turn and just took him down brutally the way Castro took down O'Rourke. She came across as someone strong who knew what she was talking about, and for him it was the opposite. I think she gave a good closing statement. I would say she gave a solid performance, not the winner, but came out showing potential I think.

On Ryan I think whatever platitudes he had about the working man got overshadowed by his foreign policy mistakes. He not only sounded like the most hawkish person there, but also seemed not knowledgeable, a dangerous combination. One of my least favorites.

De Blasio I responded to similarly to Castro. I had my reservations due to all of the problems with election integrity in the New York 2016 primary, and hearing him now talk about Russia as the biggest geopolitical threat makes him not seem credible to be as the person to fix our election system. But yes, he did a great job on the debate stage in all fairness. I have to be honest.

He was really a forceful presence that shook up the stage, had a commanding voice. He talked very progressively on every domestic policy from criminal justice to a medicare for all package that ends the private insurance industry. He was good at making it passionate without feeling like he was veering away from the substantive policy into anecdotes, while also making the case for being able to achieve his goals. He talked about what he had realized already in his city like the fight for 15.

Jay Inslee. I was always interested to know more about him because he is the climate change candidate in the race and the only person to get a perfect score from greenpeace, and was not taking corporate pac money. I'd vote for him. He looked dedicated and spoke well. Though climate change is the most central part of his campaign it was nice to hear where he falls on more issues like the way he was ready to accept the refugees and was not intimidated by Trump. He needed to do more of that though, as he isn't the only candidate with a good environmental record, so my advice would be to have more of a diversity of issues. But I kinda like him even if he wasn't the winner. It was a fair performance. Like de Blasio he talked about what he had accomplished, if not to the same extent as de Blasio. It way ay alright.

Anyway, the next debate is starting shortly and I can't wait. I better sign off and get to watching. I don't want to miss a word.

Her June 27th, 2019 7:00 PM

We're all team Marianne Williamson, yeah?

User Anon 1848 June 27th, 2019 7:11 PM

Watching creepy Joe get btfo'd repeatedly was very satisfying. Yang completely shit the bed. I've never seen someone roll over and accept defeat so quickly. Not that I had high hopes for him in the first place but he had the power of memes on his side. Safe to say that Kamala Harris won that debate. Still pulling for Tulsi out of all of them so far.

colours June 27th, 2019 7:36 PM

Kamala Harris - I think a lot of people would agree that she came out the strongest in this night's debate. Unfortunately I was having connection issues watching the stream the moment she roasted Biden, but honestly? I'm glad it finally happened. I don't consider myself a Harris supporter by any means but I welcome any chance to attack Biden. In short, she made Biden look weak and certainly out-of-touch and unappealing. Whether one likes Harris or not, she positioned herself as a candidate not to be messed with because she will and can drag.

The question being: will any candidate have the gall to drag Harris on her history as a prosecutor for denying trans-inmates surgery? That's essentially the biggest target on her back so far (and she's far too prison-friendly). Harris is certainly not without weakness despite how she comes across, so I'm wondering if there will be a moment where someone will call her out on that.

Sanders - I think he did okay. I don't think Sanders came off strong, but I don't think he came off weak, either. I think Sanders could've certainly done better; oftentimes he went off on tangents instead of directly answering the question given to him in particular. I think his closing argument however, was certainly pretty strong and gave voters a more or less convincing argument to vote for him. Essentially, he did about average when he could've had the spotlight shine on him, bit I wonder if that's because this field is too crowded and he's saving his much more memorable talking points for when the candidate field thins out.

Biden - Did terribly. And it was deserved in pretty much every way. I'm sure most people thought Biden was a risky candidate from the get-go, but this debate really showed it. There's just too much ammunition to hit Biden with that I'm not confident in the slightest that he'll last against Trump should he be picked for the nomination.

Buttigieg - He did fine. Unless I've missed something, he avoided getting into any scuffles or throwing any potshots entirely, which honestly might've been the best judgment call since he's still trying to build up his name recognition out there. Unfortunately for Pete, playing it constantly safe makes him seem rather boring and milquetoast as a result. He's definitely good at delivering articulate responses to questions given to him so it's obvious he's a polished interviewee, but at some point he's going to have to tussle with some of the bigger names out there, and I'm wondering how he'll respond.

Williamson - I had no idea who she was before today, but it's safe to say that she was the meme for the night for sure! I stan someone who embraces love to defeat Trump.

Andrew Yang - Can someone remind me what is so special about Yang? He didn't stand out in this debate at all, nor offered anything new or interesting. I understand that he wants to give everyone essentially free money which is a dream come true, but I was instantly on the doubt train once he was pressed more on how to accomplish that. In short, I don't think he's going very far if at all. Maybe I'm just not generally understanding his appeal?

Everyone else I pretty much forgot about as soon as the debate was over.

User Anon 1848 June 27th, 2019 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 10037756)
Andrew Yang - Can someone remind me what is so special about Yang? He didn't stand out in this debate at all, nor offered anything new or interesting. I understand that he wants to give everyone essentially free money which is a dream come true, but I was instantly on the doubt train once he was pressed more on how to accomplish that. In short, I don't think he's going very far if at all. Maybe I'm just not generally understanding his appeal?

Nothing. He got a bit of buzz because of meme culture but he didn't have the charisma to keep up the momentum. His showing was pretty pathetic.

gimmepie June 28th, 2019 12:00 PM

My thoughts on the debate are probably pretty well lined up with everyone else's.

Kamala Harris: Absolutely dominated the debate. There is no question at all that she won the debate even without her tactical nuke to Biden, but I enjoyed that very much and I think it boosted her even further ahead. She gave clear and concise answers to questions, didn't take shit from anyone and wasn't afraid to actually debate, carried herself very well and had an answer for everything. I'm not her number one fan because she's too friendly with Israel, but I think she actually stands the best chance of coming out in front against Trump because of her fire, oration and ability to control a debate.

Bernie Sanders: I really like Bernie. His policy and his drive resonate really strongly with me and if you guys don't want him I'd love for him to suddenly develop a desire to move to Australia lmao. That being said, a recurring problem with Bernie is that he isn't strong in a debate. As passionate as he is, he often goes off on tangents that don't answer the questions as well as they should and he isn't an amazingly skilled orator. He handled himself reasonably well in the debate and certainly didn't lose any ground, but it wasn't a strong and commanding showing like Harris had either.

Joe Biden: He's a centrist that could just as easily be in the Republican party as the Democrats and his "left" ideas and his campaign are motivated a lot more by a desire to be President than they are a desire to do well for the US or the world. So I found it very satisfying to see him floundering. He struggled to answer some of the questions, didn't put on a strong showing and wasn't even able to handle the, frankly, petty attack from Swalwell early on well let alone hold any ground when Kamala Harris got to him.

Eric Swalwell: He was utterly terrible for the entirety of the first half. His interruptions were irritating and everything he said lacked substance. His attack against Biden has me torn because on the one hand it was a solid point against Biden but it also came off impertinent and petty and served as the entirety of his platform for the early part of the debate. He did however improve dramatically during the segment against gun control and he remained fairly strong after that. I don't think he's got a chance but he wasn't as terrible as initially he appeared.

Pete Buttigieg: He had a solid showing I thought. He answered questions well and mostly displayed solid plans. I don't agree with everything he said, but as a general rule I don't dislike his overall policy. I think overall he did a really solid job of connecting with his audience and I think that while it's unlikely he'll come out the nominee, he'll be in the race for the long hall with the likes of Warren, Sanders, Harris and Biden.

Andrew Yang: Now, I think he got stiffed a bit. He definitely got asked far fewer questions than the other candidates. He has some interesting policy ideas too, although he didn't explain them well enough for me to get a good grip of exactly what he's planning. Which was a recurring theme with him. He wasn't getting the same attention as the others so he needed to be on-the-ball when he did get a chance to speak but instead he was either unclear or just flat out flubbed every answer he gave. There's a lot of social media hype around him but I don't think he actually has a hope in hell and he was definitely one of the worst during the debate.

Michael Bennet: Second worst of the night. While his policy wasn't bad it wasn't the best either... I think. It's hard to say because he came across an absolute moron. He wasn't attentive, he spoke painfully slowly and yet still managed to stumble over every answer he gave. I didn't come out of that debate with anything resembling a positive opinion of him.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Gillibrand was solid, albeit a bit one-note and braggy. Her policy ideas do seem pretty good and she represented herself alright. That being said, she essentially gave the appearance of being Kamala Harris Lite. She said a lot of similar things but not nearly as well or with the same level of detail. She talked a lot about how she had the best plan but never actually elaborated on what that plan was. She doesn't have a chance.

John Hickenlooper: Similarly to Gillibrand, he said a lot of "I am the only one/I have the best" shit without ever actually saying anything that set him apart from the others. His policy is okay, but isn't as good as any of the (good) big players or dark horses like Castro from the previous debate. He was overall really forgettable apart from looking like a discount Mr. Rogers. No hope in hell.

Marianne Williamson: Get the fuck out.


Harris was by far the winner of the debate while Buttegieg and Sanders were solid. The rest were either middling, forgettable or terrible.

Overall, I think the ones who actually have a shot at getting the nomination are Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg and Corey Booker and maybe Tulsi Gabbard have a darkhorse shot but I wouldn't consider any of them likely winners. Of that group I think Kamala Harris is the only one I am absolutely certain of winning over Trump while Biden is the only one I'm certain of losing. My personal favourites are Bernie and Warren but I also quite like Harris and Castro and I think Buttigieg and Gabbard are alright. Can't stand Biden or Booker but fuck it, I'd take them over Trump.

Nah June 28th, 2019 12:12 PM

Something I have to wonder about the debates is how sincere all of the candidates are about everything they said. I remember, at least in the first debate, there was a lot of "yeah fuck the corporations and the 1%, power to the people!!1!!1!" statements being made, but I have a hard time buying that everyone who said something like that really means it. Some of them, sure, but everyone? Nah. American politicians on both sides of aisle have never exactly been not friendly with corporations and the super wealthy so I'm skeptical of everyone or mostly everyone suddenly apparently being like this.

I don't think that it was only issue that garnered more similar responses than I thought it would, but my memory's not always the best and I wasn't exactly sober for either debate night.

on a side note, Marianne Williamson is a gem, but in a "you're a fun meme" way and not a "you'd make for a good president" way

VisionofMilotic June 30th, 2019 8:40 AM

Whoa, debate night 2 blew the first one out of the water to me. Been busy these last few days and had to put off giving my take, but it was just a fantastic debate I thought. It looked more spontaneous with folks talking over each other, it was confrontational in tone and watching the sheer circus of it was my guilty pleasure. My thoughts on everyone in no particular order.

Bernie Sanders-- I think he did a good job and was one of the people who came off looking strong. He has been in the game a long time and will speak plainly and forcefully, not allowing other candidates to talk over him, nor let his positions be twisted or moderators to derail his messsge. He was loud and clear about what he was for, single payer healthcare, and explained why radical change was necessary with sucessful examples. He not only has an ambitious platform, he is a straight shooter about it i.e yes, taxes would increase, stil without education or healthcare expenses you ultimately have more money in the bank.

He also seized a good opportunity to highlight having a sane voting record on foreign policy and opposing the Iraq when Biden was for it. I think Bernie came off looking the most responsible with the military out of all the people on that debate stage. He had a good comeback in response to his electability, reminding them he had a 10 pt lead on Trump.

Kamala Harris-- Now even though I think Bernie was a highlight, who I think had the most standout debate performance was to my surprise Kamala. As with Julian Castro this candidate was not one I had placed that high on my list because of some issues I had with her record as attorney general such as the truancy laws. That being said, I gotta give the devil it's due. She hit Biden with a hyperbeam. That was one of the most powerful and compelling arguments I have seen, and I hope she steals voters from him.

The mods were clearly trying to be as gentle with Biden as they could. They questioned Mayor Pete about his commitment to racial justice, and not Joe Biden? Kamala held Biden accountable for his friendship with senators who promoted segregation in the south, and more specifically his legislation to block the department of education from bussing black students into white schools in the 70s.

Kamala continued to hammer Biden on issues in a way that nobody dared, she was even better than Castro when the topic shifted to immigration and bringing out what she had done to stop the deportations in her state.

She was running knees touching elbows towards progressives with major policies in her messenger bag like ending private insurance. Now is she really for all these ambitious things that Warren and Sanders are for? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Right after the debate she backed away from the healthcare position she adopted.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1024756
But whether it was all razzle dazzle or not, a debate is a performance, and think she won that debate by miles through sheer boldness.

Marianne Williamson-- Marianne was a dark horse for me. I always thought she looked like a lovely human being, but I was concerned that she may not have known enough about the issues. She has an eccentric way of communicating that I had to get used to, but I honestly thought she was a breath of air and I liked what she had to say as the night went on. What she said about the history of our country's involvement in Latin America and how it has contributed to the immigration crises was actually profound. She had humane answers on healthcare and immigration, and I think she has a unique platform and voice to offer that other candidates don't. I don't think anyone else on the stage is for reparations checks for American descents of slaves, which is radical. Not even Kamala Harris goes this far if you look at her plan in detail.

I think Miss Marianne was witty, she looked beautiful and was really good at elbowing her way into the conversation even when she was not called on, and took a jab at Eric Swalwell, noting that young bodies can still have old ideas. I see this colorful character as the Ross Perot of 2020.

Andrew Yang-- Yang I thought was very disappointing actually. He was someone I knew of prior to this night who I think has a lot of wonderful ideas that are outside of the box, banking services through the post office, UBI, treating Puerto Rico like a real state, universal Pre-K, criminal cases against pharmaceutical executives who use false marketing and fudge testing, medical technology investments, autism intervention. It is a fascinating platform. I really wanted to get to know him even better Thursday night. I did not accomplish that. He looked visibly bored and annoyed that he was not getting questions, and seems to have somewhere along the line given up trying to become part of the conversation.

He says that his microphone was turned off until he was specifically called on. I initially questioned if Yang could really be that passive to let them do that to him, but Marianne Williamson also said they did the same thing to her. Its is very troubling now that two different candidates have said they experienced this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/news/2019/06/marianne-williamson-mic-muted-yang-debate/amp/

In the case of Yang I think saying so little really took away from his performance, and if he was trying to speak but being blocked then that is unacceptable.

I like what he is for UBI/ The Freedom Dividend, and we got a brief introduction to that policy which might make some people curious if they did not know him. But he was not shown off to his full potential sadly. Do not let them silence you.

Joe Biden-- I thought the debates would be the biggest challenge Biden faced, and my prophecy I think is coming true. Joe Biden flubs his lines regularly, has old ideas, drifts off topic, struggles with simple questions, stops abruptly, makes contradictory statements and will just not have the facts. He does not take assaults well from aggressive opponents and was annihilated by Kamala Harris. He is going to have to watchout for Booker, De Blasio, Castro and other candidates with forceful personalities. God have mercy if more than one of them are on stage with him at the same time.

When he was asked what he would work to accomplish if he could get only one thing done in office he had no answer for us, he just went into the rehearsed line that he would defeat Trump, even when it nothing to do with the question. Other candidates said gun control, healthcare. Biden couldn't do this I think because he doesn't stand for anything. Are you really running to help people Joe or are you just a party big wig there to sit in the middle of the road and block progressives from leading the party? It doesn't look like you have thought much about what you are going to do *if* you get in office.

Pete Buttigieg-- Mayor Pete I think did well. I recognize that he would not govern in the same way that I would, but he is open about his policies, which I always appreciate, and he provides details of what he would do as an alternative. I.e I would not implement medicare for all because I am concerned about the effects of a radical change like this on the economy, I instead support creating a public option where you can buy-in to medicare to better control costs. He speaks intelligently, looks presidential and is able to answer questions in a calm, cool assuring way that is thorough. I think his answer to tough questions about imperfections of the criminal justice system he faced as mayor came across as honest, humble even. So I think he showed the ability to weather attacks.

Eric Swalwell-- I think he was more memorable than Hickenlooper or Bennet. He had at least 1 major policy he was clear and consistent about, banning assault weapons, confiscating guns if need be. He showed willingness to go after his opponents, whether it was his gun control record vs Bernie Sanders, firing questions at Mayor Pete about his response to police shootings in his city, telling Biden essentially that he was the embodiment of what is old and out of touch. I know a lot of folks didn't like him, but I thought his performance wasn't that bad tbh. He just isn't the best storyteller, with the goofy analogy of politics being like changing diapers, the overly dramatic line about remember what your kids are wearing as they go off to school because you may need to identify their bodies later, and the joke about breaking up with Russia and getting back with NATO. It is his speech writer who needs to be fired, other than that I think he's alright.

Gillibrand-- I liked her a little more than I expected too, I felt her debate performance was comparable to Mayor Pete's. She went into detail about things she had done and what she was for, paid family leave, co-sponsporing medicare for all legislation, voting against all of Trump's cabinet appointments. I think her personality gets overshadowed at times by some of the giants she was around, but she looked like she had knowledge of the subjects, and fought her way into the conversation. She was really putting in the effort. I thought she came across strong when she was talking about her record and vision on women's and lgbtq rights. She made a passionate plea. It was pretty good honestly. She has some good positions like abolishing ICE.

Hickenlooper-- I don't like campaigns that are too general. He is running against an idea. He doesn't stand for anything, just against socialism as Biden is against Trump. There's not enough to distunguish Hickenlooper from any other conservative democrat, other than looking like a prosecutor for the House of Un-American Activities Committees in the 1940s with the constant trying to scare people with labels.

Bennett-- I think his policies are a little vague, but because he has an interesting and sad family history as a descendent of holocaust survivors he stuck out to me l more than Ryan, Delaney or Hickenlooper, though they all feel like similar candidates. I think he is also a little better at debating perhaps since he called Biden out for securing the Bush tax breaks and made clear to the viewers that what he was doing behind the scenes was not something to brag about.

Hands July 3rd, 2019 5:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10037964)
Something I have to wonder about the debates is how sincere all of the candidates are about everything they said. I remember, at least in the first debate, there was a lot of "yeah fuck the corporations and the 1%, power to the people!!1!!1!" statements being made, but I have a hard time buying that everyone who said something like that really means it. Some of them, sure, but everyone? Nah. American politicians on both sides of aisle have never exactly been not friendly with corporations and the super wealthy so I'm skeptical of everyone or mostly everyone suddenly apparently being like this.

I don't think that it was only issue that garnered more similar responses than I thought it would, but my memory's not always the best and I wasn't exactly sober for either debate night.

on a side note, Marianne Williamson is a gem, but in a "you're a fun meme" way and not a "you'd make for a good president" way

I think the most important thing to note is how many of the candidate were against things like medicare for all before Bernie's 2016 run and how many of them now back it and other policies lifted straight from his hymn sheet. Outside of Bernie I think the only three candidates with any level of integrity behind their words are Gabbard, the Crystal meme queen and possibly Warren. Bobby, Mayor Pete, Dirty Joe and Booker might as well be the same low energy, no plan candidates and Harris is literally ridiculous to pull the bussing thing when, as DA, she put in policy that tore economically poor black families apart for non crimes. Harris is and always will be a cop at heart and as your ol' uncle Hands says, "ACAB"

Her July 18th, 2019 7:26 PM

Latest debates have been announced - immediate takeaways are that Gravel was subjected to the usual gatekeeping trickery, Kamala vs. Biden II: Electoral Boogaloo will happen, CNN hopes Bernie & Warren will eat each other alive and finally, Pallas Athena Marianne Williamson is back for one more round.

Nah July 19th, 2019 3:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Her (Post 10045573)
Latest debates have been announced - immediate takeaways are that Gravel was subjected to the usual gatekeeping trickery,

what did they do to keep him out? I had heard that he met the requirements for entering the DNC debates

gimmepie July 19th, 2019 3:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Her (Post 10045573)
Pallas Athena Marianne Williamson is back for one more round.

Jesus Christ why?

Also curious about the Gravel thing because I had also heard he met the requirements. I only recently heard of him but I like him.

EnglishALT July 19th, 2019 3:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10045692)
Jesus Christ why?

Also curious about the Gravel thing because I had also heard he met the requirements. I only recently heard of him but I like him.

Buzzfeed says that it is because he did not meet the polling requirement, however he has also been left off by some polls, so his group is contesting it.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/2020-democratic-debate-night-two-lineup-cnn

gimmepie July 19th, 2019 3:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10045693)
Buzzfeed says that it is because he did not meet the polling requirement, however he has also been left off by some polls, so his group is contesting it.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/2020-democratic-debate-night-two-lineup-cnn

Interesting. I'll give that a read, thanks.

VisionofMilotic July 19th, 2019 9:53 PM

I was infuriated by Gravel not being included in the debates as well. I wasn't planning on posting on this, but I am happy that folks here know of his reputation, so I am cheered up enough to add my two cents. Gravel is absolutely brilliant with rock solid credentials and proven history as a progressive, most ambitious platform out there on foreign, social or economic policy. He is an honest man too. This is the legendary senator who fillabustered the draft for the Vietnam war again and again to stop the war, and made the Pentagon papers public record. He takes no prisoners. I loved his recent commercial exposing Joe Biden for the empty suit that he is. I put it down below for your entertainment and delight.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFNgzF32Ug

What's troubling about Gravel not being included in the debates is that you are not required to meet both the polling threshold and the individual donor threshold to qualify for the debate. A number of candidates currently participating in the second debate do not meet both criteria. Bill de Blasio, Delaney, Tim Ryan, Michael Benney, Hickenlooper only meet 1 qualification as well, yet they got seats in the debate.

The maximum amount of people allowed in the debate is 20, and the current field of candidates well exceeds that number. It is a historically-large primary. Now I don't blame the DNC just for not allowing more than 20 people, it is already confusing and the debate stage is honestly overcrowded at just the 20. So I don't object to their making cuts, but the other candidates cut from the first and second debate did not meet any of the qualifications, Wayne Messam, Tom Steyer, Seth Multan, Joe Sestak. This was not the case with Mike Gravel. He is the only exception to this. He had over 65,000 individual donors, so ousting him is more controversial.

What makes the situation appear biased is that now that Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race there was an empty space, and it was given to another nobody, Steve Bullock who was not in the first debate. Steve Bullock definitely did not meet the donation threshold. Even his meeting of the polling threshold I would question because initially the DNC rejected a poll he submitted showing him above 0 as not an acceptable source. If he really did get 1% in the polls though, he still does not have the donation threshold. It is a legitimate source of debate-- which criteria is better? The polls or the donations? You could make the argument that having the individual donors as Gravel has is a better representation of who supports you since Bullock is not polling outside of a margin of error. If the polling is more important to you however then every candidate should have the equal opportunity to be accounted for in a poll. If you are not represented as an option in the polls for people to vote on then of course you will not meet that qualification, so you face a catch 22. Also bear in mind that you can't just go get anyone to do a poll for you. The DNC has specific polls they will review, and there is no deviation from it. There have been polls that did actually show Gravel meeting the threshold like Emerson, but they weren't polls the DNC slated for consideration. It is a system that is unfair.

Frankly I think the party would rather give the slot to another corporate candidate, enter Bullock, than they would a firebrand like Gravel.

User Anon 1848 July 25th, 2019 5:01 PM

Tulsi is suing Google for suspending her ads after the first debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html

There's an archived version on reddit if the paywall blocks you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/tulsi/comments/chro2k/tulsi_sues_google_for_suspending_her_ads_right/

Her July 25th, 2019 9:35 PM

On a side note - Marianne Williamson is absolutely a meme contender, but at the same time, who else gets the impression that she is decidedly more sincere than nearly every other candidate on stage?

gimmepie July 26th, 2019 3:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Her (Post 10048364)
On a side note - Marianne Williamson is absolutely a meme contender, but at the same time, who else gets the impression that she is decidedly more sincere than nearly every other candidate on stage?

I honestly can't tell if she's sincere and fucking insane or pulling a publicity stunt and fucking insane.

VisionofMilotic July 26th, 2019 5:29 AM

Marianne Williamson is sincere I am sure. She has shown interest in politics since the 90s, and has donated to many democratic candidates and causes. She supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. She also ran for congress herself in 2014 as an independent. Her work helping others through her charitable foudations is even older.

Now the recent bid for the nomination by hedgefund manager turned philanthropist Tom Steyer gives me more pause. Not saying that his message won't be worth hearing, we'll see. He at least says he is for a living wage. I am just pointing out that his interest in activism is newer than Marianne's by comparison. He's most associated with lobbying to impeach Trump.

Marianne at least proved to me that she has all the magnamity of a meme queen this month. When she heard that Mike Gravel was trying to raise money to get to 60,000 individual donors she rallied her supporters to his aid in a rescue mission, requesting they make a donation to the Gravelanche's campaign. She was fighting for an equal playing field, and explained the importance of having Mike's alternative voice in the conversation. There is a snippet from the letter she wrote down below.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451916-marianne-williamson-campaign-uses-fundraising-email-to-help-rival-2020

She gave him a boost of over 10,000 people fast. So on the basis of integrity I think she checks out. I personally like having Luna Lovegood in the race. Loony but good. I'd take her right now over 10 of the Wormtails on our debate stage.

Miss Wendighost July 26th, 2019 8:11 AM

I haven't been catching up with politics as of recent, but I do think that Sanders has a pretty good chance of defeating Trump.

AlolanRattata July 26th, 2019 1:35 PM

I think that all of these candidates bring something to the table and the primary should be very engaging and telling. I hope to see Rep. Swalwell throw his hat back into the ring, I do not think we saw enough of him to really see how the voters would respond to his potential candidacy. I wonder what the reaction is to Mayor Bloomberg categorically rejecting a bid to campaign as well.

DigitalMewtwo July 30th, 2019 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10004445)
There is an enormous field of candidates out there, and several I like, gotta say!

I wanted to share a comprehensive list with PC of everyone who has thus far announced their candidacy for 2020. There are so many dems out there that you practically need a map to find them all :)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1536793/your-guide-to-the-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates/amp/

Are you supporting or considering any of these candidates? Please share with us why. Also is there somebody you would like to see run who is not currently running or announced?

Even if you are not eligible to vote, don't leave! You are still welcome to answer, just say who you would support if you could.

If you are interested in following the race then check back and view the guide in the link sometimes. It gets updates for new candidates when they enter. I will note that former Alaskan senator Mike Gravel's name is absent from the list, and he recently has announced a campaign so they should include him. His goal is to be in the debates, but he is a candidate neverthelessess.

Mainly just Bernie and Warren. No one else has stood out so far, candidate wise.

Her July 30th, 2019 2:11 PM

Round two begins today! What are your expectations?

EnglishALT July 30th, 2019 10:30 PM

Some numbers for the night, Warren led everyone in speaking time with 18 minutes and 33 seconds, followed by Sanders, Buttigieg, and Bullock.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/30/us/elections/debate-speaking-time.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Marianne Williamson, seems to have made a large impression, as she got the most twitter followers of the night despite having far less speaking time.

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1156395768217051136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Overall from twitter impressions it seems that Marianne Williamson has set herself up as the latest flavor of the month now that Kamala Harris has fallen behind, and Buttigeg has practically disappeared.

gimmepie August 1st, 2019 8:10 PM

Finally managed to see round 1 of the second debate. Some quick thoughts.

Overall, it seems pretty clear that most of the candidates went into this with the mentality of targeting Sanders and Warren both because they are front runners and because they are much more progressive. I think both Sanders and Warren did a good job of defending their stances and I think in particular Bernie stepped up his debate game after the feedback from the first debate. Warren I think was a little bit too obstinate when it came to the moderators and a little too keen to interject herself into every discussion - but overall this didn't hurt my impression of her too much and I can see how it would improve her standing in the eyes of others.

Buttegieg handles himself very well also. I don't agree with everything he said, but overall he has a good demeanour and a solid plan for how he wants to run the country. He comes off as genuine and he's prepared to stand up for his policies and provide a back up argument. He's certainly not my favourite candidate but I'm happy with him.

Delaney was good in the debate... but that's not necessarily a good thing. He, much like Biden, is an embodiment of the typical, centrist DNC. The way he talks about middle ground routes and making feasible promises sounds good but it's lip service to the impossible because it ignores how extremely divided US politics is. The middle road is a dead end where things don't necessarily get worse but they don't improve either. Unlike the other moderate candidates, however, he did handle himself extremely well in the debate and he spoke well so he gets credit for that.

Marianne Williamson... I have no idea. She's a meme. I can't tell if all this is just a Trump-inspired publicity stunt or of she's simply misguided enough to actually think she should be the President. I will give her credit that she did sound better this time around, might have done some more research or something. That being said, she still has no qualifications and she still isn't actually presenting a plan to do any of the things she talked about. What she did do though was act as though she re-enacting every cheesy presidential speech from every bad over-patriotic movie ever. Every time she speaks she makes it clearer she doesn't belong on that stage but that she might make a good activist if she focused her energy there.

The rest all blended together. Let them hence forth be known as the DNC conglomerate because they were all spewing the same pointless, centrist, republican-pandering content as Delaney but with a fraction of his eloquence and political savvy. Not much more to say on them.

So from round 1 I liked Sanders, Warren and Buttegieg and the rest can bugger off.

AlolanRattata August 4th, 2019 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 10004458)
What's likely going to happen is that it's all going to come down to Biden vs Bernie, though. But that's just a big ol' assumption based on poll numbers. We'll see what the debates have to weed out.

Well now politics can be unpredictable. I remember similarly in the lead up to 2016, everyone was sure it was going to be Jeb Bush for the Republicans, and we see how that turned out. The voters can decide to flip on a dime if they so choose.

Her August 4th, 2019 5:50 PM

I don’t recall anyone thinking Jeb Bush had a chance in hell - one reason why Trump managed to succeed was due to the weaknesses of/the strong dislike of the other candidates, there were no heir apparent candidates on the Republican side unlike with the Dems.

colours August 4th, 2019 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10052372)
Well now politics can be unpredictable. I remember similarly in the lead up to 2016, everyone was sure it was going to be Jeb Bush for the Republicans, and we see how that turned out. The voters can decide to flip on a dime if they so choose.

Good on you for quoting a months old post, way before the debates started happening. =P

There's a reason why I said it was a massive assumption based on poll numbers, and also that the debates can change things. In the first debate, it was clear that Warren/Kamala/Castro were the headline makers, while I haven't done a whole lot of looking into who exactly "won" the second debate or turned heads this time around aside from maybe Tulsi for dunking on Kamala. I've also heard Warren did really well, as did Sanders.

What these two debates have in common is that both were pretty poor showings for Biden. Whether that really matters is something we'll end up seeing, or whether his demographic will keep holding onto him and make him the hill they die on.

That said as things seem to be currently, it's pretty much down to only like four or five people that really matter. The rest are there for TV screen time or to get their name out there so they can run for local/federal office later on.

AlolanRattata August 8th, 2019 10:55 AM

Good on you for being immediately defensive without even trying to be rational. Truly well done.

I said the voters can flip on a dime. Anything can change things, not just debates. Whether the voters care about how other people think Biden did in the debates does remain to be seen, yes. Everyone has their supporters, it's not over until it's over.

User Anon 1848 August 9th, 2019 12:05 AM

https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1159655720796786688

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." Nice save at the end there Joe. :laugh-squinted:

EnglishALT August 9th, 2019 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black (Post 10054680)
https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1159655720796786688

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." Nice save at the end there Joe. :laugh-squinted:

Ouch, kind of reminds me of his “praise” of Barack Obama being the first clean, articulate, African American to run for President.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

Ivysaur August 9th, 2019 2:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10054419)
I said the voters can flip on a dime. Anything can change things, not just debates. Whether the voters care about how other people think Biden did in the debates does remain to be seen, yes. Everyone has their supporters, it's not over until it's over.

Actually not. Most voters have a clear idea of what they want by now, especially with two of the frontrunners (Bernie and Biden) having 100% name recognition, and everybody else becoming increasingly better known after the debates. At this point, the only remarkable development is Warren's slow but steady improvement in the polls, but in a way that is not that surprising after all- she was always one of the top choices, and she seems to have captured the liberal/college-educated whites side of the primary.

By now, all the 0-1% also-rans may as well give up, if they haven't broken through already I don't know what can possibly push them into the top tiers. And, to be honest, I don't know why anybody other than Biden, Warren, Bernie, Harris and Buttigieg (in this order) are still running, though I guess it'll take an Iowa for most of the rest to finally give up.

And I'm not just being defensive or whatever- we are at the point in which the person leading the polls tends to have a 50% or higher chance of winning the whole thing eventually. By now, it's still possible that, say, Warren does surprisingly well in a couple of the early states (her massive campaign infrastructure in Nevada has been described as "a monster" by other candidates), becomes "electable" and edges out Biden. Or Harris does a massive comeback by carrying California and its hundreds of delegates, or what-have-you. But I can't really see how Booker comes back, let alone the pack of random white dudes or the 0% guys nobody remembers.

Bonus: Sanders's numbers in the polls are really awful for someone who won 40-odd percent of the vote three years ago and has a positive approval and 100% name recognition. Turns out that he can do well when he's the only alternative to Clinton, but he's struggling mightily to hold on to his more reluctant 2016 voters against Warren.

gimmepie August 9th, 2019 3:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black (Post 10054680)
https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1159655720796786688

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." Nice save at the end there Joe. :laugh-squinted:

I don't know what bothers me more that people are now linking leftism to racism or that this will make little difference to the chances of a republican who can't string two words together winning the primary.

Honestly, my opinion of Biden degenerates every time I hear about him.

VisionofMilotic August 9th, 2019 2:03 PM

While nobody plummeted or soared in the polls after the second debate, I do think it is intriguing that Kamala took more of a hit in the polls than anyone else, and is back at single digit for now, even after the momentum she gained from the first series of debates. Pretty sure this is related to the discussion of her unethical criminal justice record, just as the support Kamala siphoned from Biden was due to his anti-bussing legislation and segregationist ties.

Biden also tipped downward after the last debate. To any comrades of mine on the progressive wing we still need to knock Biden off his high horse and close that comfy lead he holds, but he's not picking up anything from these debates. Even when Kamala Harris was directly attacked for her criticism of Biden, it didn't result in Biden trending upward.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-since-the-second-debate-show-kamala-harris-slipping/
While I don't think debates benefit Biden at all based on his previous attempts to run in primaries in addition to this election cycle, who I think can benefit from debate is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I don't say this just because I would rather have Bernie or Liz as the nominee than Uncle Joe, though that is certainly true-- I'd look forward to either Sanders or Warren's domestic policies as president. What I also see is that this pair trended upward the most last debate, and that ability to keep growing is some good news.

User Anon 1848 August 9th, 2019 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10054744)
I don't know what bothers me more that people are now linking leftism to racism or that this will make little difference to the chances of a republican who can't string two words together winning the primary.

Honestly, my opinion of Biden degenerates every time I hear about him.

Personally only a couple of the establishment dems have struck me as racist but Biden was asking for it here. Over the last year or so I've noticed right-wingers adapt the "no u" strategy. It's amusing to see but I don't think it will be effective.

VisionofMilotic August 10th, 2019 9:29 AM

I am sad that Gravel has officially ebded his campaign. I wanted him at least in 1 debate. The man is an American hero, so let me toss him his bouquet for trying at least. I believe that he had the potential to influence the conversation about foreign policy in this country without winning as Bernie Sanders did with domestic policy in 2016. The party is the worser not to have Gravel's input.

I love foreign policy discussions, and we desperately need more anti-war voices like his on the debate stage. His platform was the best, ending the use of military drones,denuclearization, no more arm sales overseas, closing Guantanamo Bay and paying restitution for survivors, bringing home every troop deployed.

Now that Trump has put Venezuela under an embargo this week I want to see some more democrats in the this primary channel a drop of the Gravel's courage.

On the issue of Venezuela as far as I am aware no democrat running directly endorses military intervention in this country, which is good. The issue of sanctions is another matter though, only a handful of candidates have specifically said "no" to this, the majority support them or haven't addressed this aspect one way or the other.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang were among the voices who came out against the sanctions on Venezuela on their website and social media. Tulsi Gabbard has also clarified that her anti-intervention stance includes no sanctions on the country.

Gravel has always been the loudest voice against sanctions as a form of economic warfare however. Nobody says it quite like him and a quote he made earlier this year in an interview with Intercept was just music to my ears.

"It is absolutely ridiculous to think that there’s a threat to us. There is, for terror. Now, that’s a whole other problem. And we bring that terror onto ourselves by the way we conduct ourselves around the world. Here, just look at the issue of sanctions. Who the hell are we to sanction anybody? Sanctions — like what we’re doing right now in Venezuela — those sanctions are going to cost tens of thousands of deaths primarily children, I might say. And so we do this wantonly and with a level of arrogance. My God, where’s the sense of morality in our leadership today and in the past?"

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/everywhere-is-war-the-american-threat-to-iran-venezuela-and-women/

It is always refreshing to hear someone put it that bluntly.

Ivysaur August 10th, 2019 9:43 AM

I am extremely torn in the case of Venezuela because Maduro is an incompetent dictator that survives in power through blatant election-rigging, the state-endorsed kidnapping of opposition MPs (after abolishing Parliament when he lost the legislative elections) and paramilitary squads of hitmen that murder civilians (according to a UN report written by the former left-wing President of Chile). And by the time the sanctions kicked in, Maduro (and Chávez, his predecessor) had already managed to destroy most of the country's industry and cause hyperinflation and massive recessions and poverty, and was in debt default. And half of the sanctions imposed by Trump involve freezing the millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains Maduro and his henchmen had ammassed at the cost of millions of citzens over the past decades.

When the only people coming out to demonstrate against the sanctions are state employees threatened with dismissal by Maduro and party echelons, well, I don't know whether the real anger in the country is against Trump or the kleptocracy starving them (something that was happening before Trump was even elected). But it's true that, like in Cuba, making things harder for the population will do nothing to help them. It's a tough thing to solve, but the US needs to do something while at least 70% of the Venezuelan population is begging to be freed of their dictator.

AlolanRattata August 10th, 2019 6:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 10054734)
Actually not. Most voters have a clear idea of what they want by now

This does not have anything to do with what we're talking about. This says nothing about which candidate they are likely to support.

Ivysaur August 10th, 2019 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10055721)
This does not have anything to do with what we're talking about. This says nothing about which candidate they are likely to support.

The fact is that polls at this stage in a primary *are* indicative. At this point (week -40), slightly over half of the time they pointed out in the right direction.

https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2019/03/articles/body/20190316_WOC944.png

And if Biden isn't going to win, chances are one of the other frontrunners will. There is no reason why anyone under Buttigieg in the polls will rise out of nowhere if they haven't yet. There's a difference between many voters being "persuadable" or floating between different options and them being capable of "turning on a dime". People do not wake up and decide they're going to dump, say, Warren and instead support Steve Bullock out of nowhere.

AlolanRattata August 12th, 2019 1:51 PM

If that were the case people would be dropping out right now. The candidates continue to be in the news day in and day out and there is always the chance for the news to report something that changes minds. The news and other talking heads continue to try to tear down Biden using any public appearance he makes, it definitely is not a foregone conclusion.

gimmepie August 12th, 2019 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10057194)
If that were the case people would be dropping out right now. The candidates continue to be in the news day in and day out and there is always the chance for the news to report something that changes minds. The news and other talking heads continue to try to tear down Biden using any public appearance he makes, it definitely is not a foregone conclusion.

Most of those people know they have no hope. They're running to put themselves on the map or to apply pressure.

Her August 14th, 2019 8:13 PM

i.e Inslee and his highly respectable and singular focus on ensuring that climate change is a top issue in the debates, which I have a feeling will be shuffled off the debate cards the moment he drops out :/

AlolanRattata August 14th, 2019 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10057245)
Most of those people know they have no hope. They're running to put themselves on the map or to apply pressure.

By apply pressure I assume you mean take votes away from other candidates.

Even if their hope is preposterously slim, and statistically that is the case for most of them, especially with a field this large, it's difficult to say anything is unlikely.

gimmepie August 14th, 2019 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10058266)
By apply pressure I assume you mean take votes away from other candidates.

Even if their hope is preposterously slim, and statistically that is the case for most of them, especially with a field this large, it's difficult to say anything is unlikely.

Sort of? It's less about taking votes away and more about narrowing margins, making a political statement with any votes they do get and using the platform of the election to their political stances heard where they otherwise wouldn't be.

It's pretty easy to say it's unlikely really. Like you said, statistically speaking, most of these candidates have preposterously slim chances of success. That is the very definition of unlikely and they know this. At this point any of that crowd who haven't dropped out are either in denial or have other reasons for continuing to run.

Ivysaur August 15th, 2019 12:04 AM

Relevant to the current discussion: Hickenlooper is quitting the race today. Hopefully he'll run for Senate. Like Bullock should have. And Beto/Castro.

Neil Peart August 18th, 2019 11:48 AM

You guys are getting Trump again in 2020 if Biden is the candidate. Period. Young voters continue to get screwed with moderate fossils like Hillary and Biden; not to mention, fake progressives like Harris, Buttigieg, and Beto. They'll sit on their hands if Biden is the nominee, and I really won't blame them. Bernie Sanders is about as real as real gets in American politics, but people are too dim to realize that what he calls for isn't "radical" by any means.

VisionofMilotic August 18th, 2019 11:58 AM

There's a petition at Change.org for the DNC to expand the list of polls they review. One of the controversies of the second debate was that Mike Gravel was barred from the stage because he didn't meet the polling threshold of enough qualifying DNC polls. Note, it doesn't mean he wasn't polling at 1% or more, it just wasn't in polls that the DNC had selected. Understand also the DNC rejecting a poll does not mean the poll was faulty or unscientific, it is just at their discretion which polls they want to use.

Many polls the DNC did review didn't have Gravel as an option to vote for, therefore he couldn't meet the threshold, and the place on the debate stage was given instead to another candidate Steve Bullock, who was in the DNC-approved polls, but actually had far fewer individual supporters that donated his campaign than Gravel.

The polling threshold has doubled since the July debate to 2% and has the number of individual donors required to participate in the third debate from 65,000 to 130,000.

Julian Castro hit and exceeded the magic number of over 130,000 individual donors way back in July, Tulsi Gabbard also has exceeded 130,000 donors. Both of these guys still can be thrown out of the next debate unfortunately like Gravel was. While these candidates have provided different polls that show them meeting and sometimes exceeding the minimum of 2%, the DNC has rejected some of their polls. The DNC-approved polls have them too low to qualify for participation.

Among the polls that voters are demanding the DNC review include Emerson, Suffolk and The Economist. These are scientific polls, but they are not on the DNC's short list right now. The DNC has only accepted 3 of Julian Castro's polls and only 1 of Tulsi Gabbard's. They must have at least 4 polls the DNC has approved of by August 28th, or else they will probably not be let on the stage come September.

I know that Amy Klobuchar has been granted a spot on the debate stage already for September, though Gabbard has offered twice the number of polls showing her hitting 2-3% threshold as Klobuchar. But Amy Klobuchar's were approved by the DNC's list, but not Gabbard's. This doesn't sit well with me.

Neither Julian Castro or Tulsi Gabbard are my #1 choice, but I think their performances have both been strong and articulate in in debate, better in my opinion than the some of the people who have been garunteed a spot in the next debates. They have made some good points on several topics like immigration, the criminal justice system and ending war that I would like to hear expandeded on in the discussion. Honestly though, it is the principle that gets me most. I don't like the idea of candidates being thrown out on perhaps a trick of procedure, so I'm gonna sign onto this petition here. It's about to meet the goal of 10,000 signatures.

https://www.change.org/p/democratic-national-committee-include-economist-emerson-suffolk-polls-for-dnc-debates?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_17263088_en-US%3Av1&recruiter=648368141&recruited_by_id=2dbad660-bc00-11e6-b6f5-6db04aeab32e&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_message&utm_term=share_petition&share_bandit_exp=message-17263088-en-US&share_bandit_var=v3


Who will definitely be in the September debate is of course Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang.

Neil Peart August 18th, 2019 1:12 PM

Technically, I'm still a US citizen, so I could vote if I wanted to. I voted for Hillary in 2016 because I thought she would be a better choice for president than a fascist. However, if it's not Bernie in 2020, count my absentee ballot out. I don't care who they put on that stage for those debates -- the fact is, Bernie has been consistent with his "radical" views for decades, and he has more civil rights street cred than any fake progressive or moderate shill you'll see behind a podium. The DNC is just as inimical to progress in the US as the RNC; the only difference is the ideology. So, I hope that for the sake of the working class, America gets its shit together and gets behind Bernie, whether the shills at the DNC want him or not.

Ivysaur August 20th, 2019 2:47 PM

Can I just say that the more I listen to Warren, the better I think of her?

colours August 20th, 2019 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 10060575)
Can I just say that the more I listen to Warren, the better I think of her?

There's a reason I massively prefer her to Sanders. =P

AlolanRattata August 21st, 2019 1:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10058267)
It's pretty easy to say it's unlikely really. Like you said, statistically speaking, most of these candidates have preposterously slim chances of success. That is the very definition of unlikely and they know this. At this point any of that crowd who haven't dropped out are either in denial or have other reasons for continuing to run.

Um actually, statistics and politics don't really go together in this sort of linear fashion that you're going by. Statistically, President Trump should have lost in 2016, a win for him there was "unlikely". Yet he won.

My point here is this, the human element in politics is what keeps people in the race.

gimmepie August 21st, 2019 2:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10060935)
Um actually, statistics and politics don't really go together in this sort of linear fashion that you're going by. Statistically, President Trump should have lost in 2016, a win for him there was "unlikely". Yet he won.

My point here is this, the human element in politics is what keeps people in the race.

The whole thing with statistics is that anything short of 100% is no guarantee of success. This doesn't change that fact that it is all but certainly not going to be even close for the vast majority of these candidates. You can't just decide everyone has a fair chance because of an upset in 2016, that's not how math works. It is still very unlikely that anyone aside from the front runners will win the primary.

colours August 21st, 2019 2:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10060935)
Um actually, statistics and politics don't really go together in this sort of linear fashion that you're going by. Statistically, President Trump should have lost in 2016, a win for him there was "unlikely". Yet he won.

My point here is this, the human element in politics is what keeps people in the race.

I'm not sure what it is with people forming the narrative that "anything goes" simply because Trump won. Trump was an unlikely candidate to win, sure. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible though, and there are several factors that played into his win. Looking at things more critically, everything that could've gone well for Trump pretty much did—Clinton not only severely underestimated him and not taken him seriously, the rest of the media didn't either, not to mention he was controlling the media narrative anyway—in addition to pretty much everything going wrong for Clinton pretty much happening. Comey slamming Clinton for the use of a personal email server certainly dinged her for a while, but it was not irrecoverable by any means and she had regained ground, but by the time the election was about to happen, the Comey letter (whether you admit it's a direct factor or not, it was certainly on people's minds) was released. Because of this, anyone who was essentially on the fence about Clinton waffled over to Trump because she appeared too much of an establishment elite while Trump was playing the more moderate flute in comparison.

Thing is though, Trump can't stick to the "centrist" playbook, because he's not a centrist. He can't use that tactic again on anyone who isn't a diehard Trump supporter, anyway. People are going to reflect on children bring in cages, the fact that he, whether one admits it or not, enables white supremacy and racism and relishes in it. People are going to reflect on the constant mass shootings in this country and how nothing is constantly being done about it. People are going to reflect on their healthcare and ask themselves whether they get to keep their own insurance or be forced to drop it (Obamacare is most certainly still the #1 target for the GOP, after all). While Trump being re-elected is a possibility and certainly not impossible, it would take a sequence of events much like what happened with Clinton to make that happen. In other words, everything has to go right for one side in order to win against another despite (un)popularity numbers.

As it stands currently, no Democratic frontrunner that's named Biden or Kamala has anything to worry about as far as skeletons in their closet go. Even Warren's worst gaffes are peanuts in the grand scheme of things and people are willing to forgive her over it if it means she can move on and won't do it again.

So really, no, things really aren't as coin-flippy as you think they are.

Ivysaur August 21st, 2019 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlolanRattata (Post 10060935)
My point here is this, the human element in politics is what keeps people in the race.

And, speaking in the Democratic race only, there's a difference between a general election with Trump having roughly a 33% chance of winning (looking at 538 on election day) because he has a hard floor of 40% of the electorate who are hard-core republicans and will vote for a green dog if it has an R next to its name (same goes for the other side) and a primary in which someone like Bill de Blasio has literally nothing going for him.

I can accept that this started as a wide open race in which anybody could win. But this isn't the first week, we are nearing the moment in which historically the frontrunners are clearly emerging. Of course, we don't know whether Biden will hold on to his narrow lead, whether Warren or Sanders will run away with the progressive vote or fade against the other, or whether Harris or Buttigieg will have a second youth, outperform in Iowa and become the top dogs. But what we do know is that Inslee and Ryan and (insert a dozen people here), who are stuck in 0-1% after months of campaign, have a massively steep mountain to climb and have so far not shown any evidence of being able to do it. Anyone who doesn't qualify for the second debate by next week -and so far only 10 people have- are essentially done for.

And this is all a circle. No support in the polls, no debate invites, no media coverage, people don't know who you are, and round and round it goes. Underdog candidates had a chance to make a first impression. Everybody has had their chance by now, and polls stubbornly show only a handful of candidates breaking 5%. Having a second chance to make a first impression is rare and unlikely, and it's even harder if there are no cameras looking at you ebcause you've become a running joke more than an actual candidate. And that's where half of the field find themselves in.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.