2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
ArchSas said:
If you want to make the claim that gerrymandering, voter suppression, fake news, and the EC have made the American election process messy and somewhat undemocratic, I'm not going to disagree with that. The GOP does all they can to rig the system in their favor, and a lot of the time, it works (sometimes with outside help).

But that's not what you originally asked. You asked if "far-left" views were more popular than moderate ones, and that's what I was replying to. Evidence shows they actually are. Whether or not that's reflected in elections is a different matter, sadly.
Click to expand...

You're right. I'll rephrase then: do you think that far-left candidates are more electable than moderates?
 
Well, we just lost our climate change president; Jay Inslee has dropped out, without (for now) endorsing one of his opponents.

Here's an article on the Andrew Yang boomlet. Apparently Yang drew 3% in a recent Fox News poll, and while that's not much, it put him in fifth position, as the only people ahead of him were Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris. The article contains an absolutely hilarious (and actually endearing) bit:

Now, here in the Suburban, as we crossed the Broad River, I brought up “Rex and Lex.” That’s what Yang named his pecs, “Rex” for the right, “Lex” for the left, when he was lifting all those weights. I knew about this because he wrote about in his other, earlier book, Smart People Should Build Things. He “could jostle them on command,” he had written, “to make them ‘talk.’” Obviously, I wanted to hear more.

Yang obliged. Having shed his blue sport coat, he looked down at his chest, and he … channeled “Rex.”

“He’s, like, almost mute,” he said, “but he’s still like”—and here the candidate for president made his dad-bod-dormant pectoralis undulate under his checked, collared shirt and assumed a diminutive, sing-song cadence—“‘Andrew, I still have a little bit of voice left. You haven’t fed me in a long time. You used to looooove meeeeeee.’”
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders has released his own Green New Deal:

Dubbing the plan as his version of the Green New Deal, Sanders wants America’s electrical and transportation systems to be powered exclusively by renewable energy by 2030, and for America to be totally decarbonized by 2050. The plan calls for a $16.3 trillion public investment to make this happen, which Sanders says will pay for itself in only 15 years, partially through tax revenue generated from the 20 million new jobs the plan would create. To help kick the plan into gear, Sanders would take executive action to declare the climate crisis a national emergency.
Click to expand...

But, no surprise, no nukes:

The thing is, Sanders won’t make this easy. The plan explicitly says it will not rely on nuclear power, a move that will resonate with activists but could also wreak havoc on the electrical grid. Nuclear provides a baseline type of energy because it can, if needed, always be on.

“Does that mean that all existing nuclear plants that are still running in 2030 would be shut down?” Costa Samaras, the director of Carnegie Mellon’s Center for Engineering and Resilience for Climate Adaptation, told Earther. “That seems like an unnecessary fight and expense at a time where every bit of carbon reduction counts.”
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
You're right. I'll rephrase then: do you think that far-left candidates are more electable than moderates?
Click to expand...

Considering the kind of support Sanders has been building up, yes. I'm of the opinion that a candidate people are excited about and will be motivated to vote for (because most people support their policies) is a better choice strategy-wise than appealing to some "common sense" notion of the center. Trump was able to build up that excitement when the Democrats couldn't, and it's part of what got him elected, even despite losing the popular vote and with low turnout overall. It's strange to me (although understandable, considering the influence of big money) that in mainstream politics supporting policies most people actually want is seen as bad strategy.

But hey, again, that's just my opinion. I just have a hard time seeing how a old conservative that no one is excited about (not even his own wife), and with a lot of baggage, is a good idea to run for president. Especially considering that a lot of criticism I saw among people I knew of Hillary last time was contempt at the idea that people should vote for her because it was "her turn." I think good ideas are far more attractive to most people than playing it safe.

ETA: Thanks for the link, kellyb.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
You're right. I'll rephrase then: do you think that far-left candidates are more electable than moderates?
Click to expand...

Seems like they're about even overall, when you look at the polling.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

Sanders and Warren are "more electable" than any of the moderates besides Biden, and it would stand to reason that whichever democrat wins the nomination will become "more electable" than they are right now.
 
Bernie told MSNBC that to combat "climate change" it would be necessary to nationalize all energy production. So, only socialism or communism can save us from the climate change hoax.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Bernie told MSNBC that to combat "climate change" it would be necessary to nationalize all energy production. So, only socialism or communism can save us from the climate change hoax.
Click to expand...

Sounds like BS.
Got a link?
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Bernie told MSNBC that to combat "climate change" it would be necessary to nationalize all energy production. So, only socialism or communism can save us from the climate change hoax.
Click to expand...
"Climate change" is for "sheeple". Or something like that.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
BS? You could see this coming from Bernie and AOC all along. This is what "climate change" has always been about.


https://www.breitbart.com/clips/201...ergy-production-cant-nibble-around-the-edges/
Click to expand...

Can you quote the part where he says "nationalize all energy production"?

The closest I'm seeing is:
Look, the TVA has done a lot of good work. It produces electricity from hydropower and other sources.
What we need to do is have an aggressive federal government saying that we are going to produce a massive amount of electricity from solar and from wind and from other sustainable energies and we will sell it out. And by the way, we’re going to make money doing that.

But you can’t nibble around the edges anymore. We need to transform our energy system. That means a massive increase in sustainable energy.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Hoover Dam is communism?
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Can you quote the part where he says "nationalize all energy production"?

The closest I'm seeing is:


Do you think the Hoover Dam is communism?
Click to expand...


I found an article on CNN talking about how he called for the complete nationalization of energy production, banks, and most industry ... nearly 50 years ago. People never change, after all.
 
Brainster said:
Well, we just lost our climate change president; Jay Inslee has dropped out, without (for now) endorsing one of his opponents.
Click to expand...

Just as well, going nowhere. And the last time he got a yen for higher office he quite Congress (as my rep) to run for gov, forcing the state to hold a special election for his unexpired term. At least I got a trivia quiz question out of it.
 
Armitage72 said:
I found an article on CNN talking about how he called for the complete nationalization of energy production, banks, and most industry ... nearly 50 years ago. People never change, after all.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

By that measure Trump is a pro-choice Democrat.
 
Last edited:
BrooklynBaby said:
Bernie told MSNBC that to combat "climate change" it would be necessary to nationalize all energy production. So, only socialism or communism can save us from the climate change hoax.
Click to expand...

If climate change were a hoax, you might have a point. Since it is not, Bernie may be on to something.
 
Jungle Jim said:
If climate change were a hoax, you might have a point. Since it is not, Bernie may be on to something.
Click to expand...

That's if Bernie actually said that. Right Wing media is notoriously inaccurate when it comes to claims like that, though. Right Wing "news" consumers also have a much, much stronger issue with confirmation bias and blindly accepting fake news than centrist and left-wing media consumers. It's also worth noting that there's very little in the way of actual left-wing media, though, compared to right wing and centrist.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Can you quote the part where he says "nationalize all energy production"?

The closest I'm seeing is:


Do you think the Hoover Dam is communism?
Click to expand...

I've read a few articles on this nationalize thing, and it's somewhat tendentious, but it does seem to be a logical endpoint, if you buy Bernie's fantasy of 100% renewable by 2030.

What we need to do is have an aggressive federal government saying that we are going to produce a massive amount of energy from solar and from wind and from other sustainable energies," Sanders said.

In his climate plan, Sanders praised the TVA but indicated that it and other federal, administrative bodies didn't cover enough of the United States.

"Currently, four federal Power Marketing Administrations [PMAs] and the Tennessee Valley Authority generate and transmit power to distribution utilities in 33 states," the plan read. "We will create one more PMA to cover the remaining states and territories and expand the existing PMAs to build more than enough wind, solar, energy storage and geothermal power plants."
Click to expand...

The concept seems pretty obvious. Build more than enough power to replace all the old plants and the utility companies will be left in the position of selling the power to end users but not in generating their own (unless, one presumes, they have a lot of renewable energy of their own). Ergo the government takes a monopoly position on energy generation, effectively nationalizing that part of the industry.
 
Brainster said:
I've read a few articles on this nationalize thing, and it's somewhat tendentious, but it does seem to be a logical endpoint, if you buy Bernie's fantasy of 100% renewable by 2030.



The concept seems pretty obvious. Build more than enough power to replace all the old plants and the utility companies will be left in the position of selling the power to end users but not in generating their own (unless, one presumes, they have a lot of renewable energy of their own). Ergo the government takes a monopoly position on energy generation, effectively nationalizing that part of the industry.
Click to expand...

Regarding the highlighted, there's nothing keeping them from doing that.

I'm pretty sure Germany's Energiewende, for example, has lots and lots of private sector ownership and involvement.
 
kellyb said:
Regarding the highlighted, there's nothing keeping them from doing that.

I'm pretty sure Germany's Energiewende, for example, has lots and lots of private sector ownership and involvement.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that there are a bunch of sustainable energy focused private power production companies, already, anyways. It's literally the fastest growing sector in power production, very much including in red states, despite the Trump Administration's hostility. Altering the subsidy balance alone would be enough to help speed the ongoing transition even more, before getting to the prospect of more active investment in sustainable energy.
 
kellyb said:
Regarding the highlighted, there's nothing keeping them from doing that.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the reason I conceded that the point is tendentious. Another is that Bernie proposes selling off the local power units created to "co-ops."

I was hoping that he would endorse selling them to the ratepayers; then he could enter the rooms that he packs to the music of "Power to the People!"
 
The Atheist said:
I just had a look at betting odds for Dem nomination and was surprised to see Liz favourite to take it.

Clearly, what money there is, is going on her right now.

https://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=usa
Click to expand...

Wouldn't let me look at it, but this article has fairly recent odds (last three days) that show Warren as the current favorite as well.

She appears to have finally shaken off the whole Pocahontas thing. I had her as the chalk long ago, and then was surprised when she made that stupid DNA move.

If she can get the race down to her and Biden, she'll win the nomination. If Bernie hangs on again to the bitter end (and this time the end is very obvious) then I could see Biden squeaking out a victory.

Of course, all this is pending the arrival of the greatest political army the world has never seen in support of Tom Steyer.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Looks like there's some interesting polling that happened in fair part because of that jab at AOC and the Squad that claimed extremely low polling numbers for her.

For the key findings...
On net, among voters in battleground districts, Ocasio-Cortez polls at least as well as other major Democratic figures. Although all political figures had negative net favorability, Ocasio-Cortez is viewed roughly as favorably on net as Joe Biden, and more favorably on net than President Donald Trump and Democratic leadership.
-“Clean-energy companies” and “climate activists” both poll more favorably than “fossil fuel companies.”
-Senator Elizabeth Warren had the highest net favorable ratings among the presidential candidates we tested.
-Each member of “the Squad”—Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib—has a higher net favorability than President Donald Trump, Senator Mitch McConnell, and the Republican Party in battleground districts. While Trump’s net favorability is lower, we note that his raw favorability is higher than each member of “the Squad.”
Click to expand...

Warren was at -2 net. AOC at -6. Biden was at -10. Pelosi was at -17, for comparison.

Also of note -

Harris and Warren are strongly correlated, contrary to the general view that either candidate represents particularly divergent “lanes” of the Democratic party. While Warren and Sanders are usually clustered together in popular discourse, the results here show that Sanders is not very strongly associated with any other Democratic figure—the lighter shading across his horizontal and vertical lines convey this finding. Biden, usually associated with Harris, appears in another section of the graph altogether, clustering with establishment organizations and figures like the Democratic Party, Pelosi, and Senator Chuck Schumer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Wouldn't let me look at it, but this article has fairly recent odds (last three days) that show Warren as the current favorite as well.

She appears to have finally shaken off the whole Pocahontas thing. I had her as the chalk long ago, and then was surprised when she made that stupid DNA move.

If she can get the race down to her and Biden, she'll win the nomination. If Bernie hangs on again to the bitter end (and this time the end is very obvious) then I could see Biden squeaking out a victory.

Of course, all this is pending the arrival of the greatest political army the world has never seen in support of Tom Steyer.
Click to expand...

I think the only thing stupid about the DNA move was that she didn't do it many years earlier and put it to bed.
 
Trebuchet said:
I think the only thing stupid about the DNA move was that she didn't do it many years earlier and put it to bed.
Click to expand...

It couldn't have been done much before (ETA: because of the technology required). And the results were entirely consistent with her family history. Despite the smoke and mirrors tried by various Trump supporters.

I am bleakly amused at Trump supporters attacking anyone else on anything other than policy, as their preferred candidate is so deeply unattractive as a person, but at least it is possible, albeit with a lot of effort and as an intellectual exercise, to come up with worse policies than Trump at the moment.
 
jimbob said:
It couldn't have been done much before (ETA: because of the technology required). And the results were entirely consistent with her family history. Despite the smoke and mirrors tried by various Trump supporters.

I am bleakly amused at Trump supporters attacking anyone else on anything other than policy, as their preferred candidate is so deeply unattractive as a person, but at least it is possible, albeit with a lot of effort and as an intellectual exercise, to come up with worse policies than Trump at the moment.
Click to expand...
I disagree that if is consistent. It requires a few incredulous convenient outcomes to be consistent.
 
Aridas said:
Hmm. Looks like there's some interesting polling that happened in fair part because of that jab at AOC and the Squad that claimed extremely low polling numbers for her.

For the key findings...


Warren was at -2 net. AOC at -6. Biden was at -10. Pelosi was at -17, for comparison.

Also of note -
Click to expand...
I assumed they were debunking the "Unsourced polling leaked to Axios suggested that white, likely voters without college degrees view Ocasio-Cortez overwhelmingly unfavorably—". It was tl;dr.

Honestly, "unsourced polling"? Talk about fake news. With all the legit polling out there, why would anyone want to hear about unsourced polls?
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
The concept seems pretty obvious. Build more than enough power to replace all the old plants and the utility companies will be left in the position of selling the power to end users but not in generating their own (unless, one presumes, they have a lot of renewable energy of their own). Ergo the government takes a monopoly position on energy generation, effectively nationalizing that part of the industry.
Click to expand...

Aren't most current renewable projects privately held?

I think all wind power in Texas is privately owned, even if subsidized.

What makes you think that Bernie would change that?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Aren't most current renewable projects privately held?

I think all wind power in Texas is privately owned, even if subsidized.

What makes you think that Bernie would change that?
Click to expand...

Here's Gizmodo's summary of the plan:

Among the outlays, Sanders would commit $2.37 trillion to renewable energy and storage, which the plan says would be enough of an investment to meet the country’s energy needs. Any renewable energy the government generates would be publicly owned, and a Sanders administration would prioritize selling it to publicly owned utilities and cooperatives at current rates to keep costs down.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Here's Gizmodo's summary of the plan:
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the link. It still doesn't stop the fact that all current growth in the industry is private and he is not planning on outlawing that. So private renewables will still be possible.

Frankly, I think he could get more bang for our buck by encouraging investment in renewable energy, but it seems like he is trying to do something bigger.

I hope he isn't the eventual candidate, but if he is, I'll vote for him.
 
There are ten candidates who have qualified for the Democratic debates. If it stays that way, there will be one debate night on Sept 12 and if any more qualify, there will be two nights, with Sept 13 included. They have to get at least four polls (and a certain number of donors) by Wednesday apparently which leaves things a bit tight.

As things stand, it looks like Gabbard, Gillibrand and Williamson will be out. Steyer may squeak in.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-for-the-third-debate-and-whos-on-the-bubble/
 
Delvo said:
Monmouth now has a poll with Biden 1 point behind both Bernie and Betty.
Click to expand...
The Economist and YouGov have one now that's pretty close to the same, with Biden still on top but only 2-or-3-point gaps between them with a 2.6 margin of error. And Politico has one that contradicts them, still looking about the same as before (Biden over 30, B&B under 20 apiece).
 
Looks like Steyer has failed to make the debates.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/tom-steyer-september-debates/index.html

I offered two possibilities for his poor polling performances up to now which are:

a) lack of name recognition
b) not offering a vision that was attractive to voters

Of course, it could also be:

c) people don’t want the Democratic candidate to be a billionaire

All those suggestions were poo-pooed before, so I would be interested to know what the real reason could have been.
 
My guess is that Booker, Beto, Klobuchar and even Harris will have to see the forthcoming debate as their last chance to make an impression. I expect they will come out swinging.

Yang has held in there longer than many predicted. I think he will stick around because he has an original message and I think he will pick up votes from others who will either drop out or become to be seen as no-hopers such as Gabbard and maybe even Williamson. Eventually Yang’s supporters will probably end up in the Sanders/ Warren bloc.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
 
angrysoba said:
Looks like Steyer has failed to make the debates.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/tom-steyer-september-debates/index.html

I offered two possibilities for his poor polling performances up to now which are:

a) lack of name recognition
b) not offering a vision that was attractive to voters

Of course, it could also be:

c) people don’t want the Democratic candidate to be a billionaire

All those suggestions were poo-pooed before, so I would be interested to know what the real reason could have been.
Click to expand...

"A" is fairly certainly the biggest single factor... with the addendum that people like, say, me, have heard exactly nothing about the platform he's running on, likely in fair part because of how late he's started. Going past that, he doesn't exactly have a record in politics to work with that I know of, let alone one that's remotely comparable to any of the front-runners. Going even further, I've noted before that being a billionaire is a negative, but is a relatively minor factor for me. In a field that's been as crowded as this one, negatives like that matter, though. Of course, there's pretty much no doubt whatsoever that he's dramatically better than the whiner-in-chief.

Also, looks like Gillibrand's the next one to bow out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom