2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
Bloomberg is the Republican's ideal version of a Democratic candidate. God bless whoever is pulling a paycheck from this vanity project, hope they extract as much wealth as possible from this idiot before he pulls out.

Trending today around the internet is this opinion piece about Buttigieg. It's largely a response to a 2011 video of Buttigieg claiming that the problem with inner city schools is that there aren't enough role models that value education in the community.

https://www.theroot.com/pete-buttigieg-is-a-lying-mf-1840038708?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=_twitter

This struck me a as fairly damning criticism of Buttigieg and his brand of upper-class liberalism that refuses to recognize that poverty is the problem.
Click to expand...

As a followup, the author wrote an article about Pete calling him.
 
acbytesla said:
People may be right that Mayor Pete can't win. But he continues his meteoric rise in the polls.

Now in second place behind Biden.

https://news.google.com/articles/CB...wbGFjZS1wb2xsP2FtcA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en
Click to expand...

I mean, maybe in that poll. But the polls are still varying really widely, and that is the only one with Buttigieg in the double digits, let alone in the upper double digits.

I would definitely say that nationally Warren has fallen back down near Sanders, and Biden remains about the same at the top.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
This article has a harsh analysis on the presidential candidates not planning for SCOTUS challenges:



Linky.

It runs through examples from all the major candidates.
Click to expand...

That article reminds me of the molehill/mountain saying. There's no "judicial crisis" facing the Dems. The author must have had a deadline to meet and no idea what to write about.
 
cullennz said:
Heard about this Bloomberg bloke this morning.

Probably the only one who has a chance against Trump.

He can just sit on the side line and watch the rest of the Dem candidates off themselves piece by piece, not having to worry about having to have a spotlight on himself, to get donations, and then advertise to death at the last minute.

Kind of sad in a way though, as it shows how shallow politics really is
Click to expand...

He's not running in Iowa or New Hampshire. After that, when the next few primaries are held, he'll be forgotten. He has absolutely no redeeming value as a candidate that a voter can't get with one of the existing candidates.
 
Venom said:
Bloomberg should stop.

We don't need his baggage in the Democratic field.
Click to expand...

Baggage like...

'Democratic' candidate Mike Bloomberg has spent millions keeping the Senate in Republican control

Because he's fundamentally a Republican. He got into the mayor's office in New York City with the endorsement of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani. And he has spent millions—millions—on Republican congressional campaigns, including hosting a fundraiser for Rep. Peter King in 2018 and donating to Rep. Dan Donovan, who was defeated. He also helped Republicans hold control of the New York state Senate. "The path to win the House ran through New York,” said Monica Klein, the Democratic challenger to King. "There were seven flippable seats in the state, and he supported Republicans in two of them. […] To come down and say he wants to be the head of the Democratic Party—the hubris is unbelievable.”

He endorsed and raised funds for former Sen. Scott Brown in his reelection bid against Elizabeth Warren in 2012. He gave $2,700 to Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and spent nearly $10 million on dark-money issue ads to keep him in office. In 2014, he gave $5,200 to Sen. Susan Collins in Maine. Protecting the status quo—and his low taxes—has been his priority, even at the same time that he's donated to Democrats. His bottom line seems to have been keeping the Senate, where his tax cuts are guaranteed, in Republican hands. Mike Mikus, former campaign manager for Toomey's 2016 Democratic opponent, Kathleen McGinty, pretty much nails it: "I'm certain his hand in giving Mitch McConnell a majority in the Senate will be remembered by a lot of Democratic voters."
Click to expand...

Yeah... I'm not a huge fan of the guy. I'd take Biden over him, I think. Biden didn't pointedly help as many Republicans in 2018, for example. Too many, but not as many.

To poke at Warren a bit...

Elizabeth Warren woos black farmers with 'Working Agenda for Black America'

Really short version - a number of black people pointed out notable omissions in her plan when it came to addressing the additional problems that black farmers have faced, so she worked to address those omissions.
 
Good evening. Bloomberg should announce that since the White House and the GOP have no problems with a candidate, or even the President, asking foreign governments to dig up dirt on their political opponents, that he will be asking all of of our allies to supply him with any information they have on Donald Trump. Things like recordings of his conversations with their leaders, evidence of shady business practices, money laundering, tax shelters, whatever they might have. It should be in our allies best interest to get Trump out of office. Also that he is willing to spend whatever it takes to investigate Trump and his cronies.
That would make for an interesting campaign.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Baggage like...

'Democratic' candidate Mike Bloomberg has spent millions keeping the Senate in Republican control



Yeah... I'm not a huge fan of the guy. I'd take Biden over him, I think. Biden didn't pointedly help as many Republicans in 2018, for example. Too many, but not as many.

To poke at Warren a bit...

Elizabeth Warren woos black farmers with 'Working Agenda for Black America'

Really short version - a number of black people pointed out notable omissions in her plan when it came to addressing the additional problems that black farmers have faced, so she worked to address those omissions.
Click to expand...

It's really amazing how pure the Democratic candidates have to be, and how utterly stained Republican candidates get to be.
 
JPK said:
Good evening. Bloomberg should announce that since the White House and the GOP have no problems with a candidate, or even the President, asking foreign governments to dig up dirt on their political opponents, that he will be asking all of of our allies to supply him with any information they have on Donald Trump. Things like recordings of his conversations with their leaders, evidence of shady business practices, money laundering, tax shelters, whatever they might have. It should be in our allies best interest to get Trump out of office. Also that he is willing to spend whatever it takes to investigate Trump and his cronies.
That would make for an interesting campaign.
Click to expand...

Sounds like fun!
 
Belz... said:
It's really amazing how pure the Democratic candidates have to be, and how utterly stained Republican candidates get to be.
Click to expand...

Hmm? Legitimate criticism = Must be pure! What?

Bloomberg is fairly certain to be much better than Trump. So what? Does that mean that I'm supposed to just ignore his baggage when I don't for any other candidate, including Warren who I pointedly prefer?

That Republicans keep choosing horrendous people to represent them is an indictment of Republicans. Personally, I'm quite happy with not sinking to that level.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Hmm? Are you claiming that you weren't invoking the complaint about how Democrats are held to nonsensically high standards of "purity?"
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm saying that your characterisation of my argument is inaccurate.

My comment was simple: Democratic candidates are held to an absurdly high standard while Republican ones are held to an absurdly low one. This does not mean that every criticism of a democrat is absurd, as I'm sure you realise, hence why your response to my post was met with this reaction:

You just made that up.
Click to expand...
 
Mayor Pete had to give money back from lawyers that represented Kavanaugh.

I feel like I recall democrats being the party saying that who you represent as a lawyer doesn't reflect on you. This came up in 2016 and I seem to recall other times.

The pressure on Mayor Pete demonstrates that it may have just been BS and depended on who the client was.
 
Bloomberg: Were he to run as an Independent or even as a Republican... would *that* help unseat the Criminal-in-Chief? In other words, might he be able to provide Republican voters horrified by Trumpism with a palatable option that would not skim votes away from the Democratic nominee?
 
Althouse has an interesting take on Mayor Pete, based on recent polling:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-happened-to-warren-look-at-this.html

In a nutshell: Biden's numbers are consistently the best, but Biden probably shouldn't be the nominee. Who should replace him? People were considering Warren, and her numbers went up. Then people decided it wasn't her, and her numbers went down again. Now Buttigieg's numbers are going up, which means it's probably his turn to get considered as the counter-Biden. Althouse predicts that he'll have the same rise and fall as Warren. People are gonna consider him, and then set him aside, and consider one of the other Biden alternatives. In the end, it will probably be Biden.
 
theprestige said:
Althouse has an interesting take on Mayor Pete, based on recent polling:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-happened-to-warren-look-at-this.html

In a nutshell: Biden's numbers are consistently the best, but Biden probably shouldn't be the nominee. Who should replace him? People were considering Warren, and her numbers went up. Then people decided it wasn't her, and her numbers went down again. Now Buttigieg's numbers are going up, which means it's probably his turn to get considered as the counter-Biden. Althouse predicts that he'll have the same rise and fall as Warren. People are gonna consider him, and then set him aside, and consider one of the other Biden alternatives. In the end, it will probably be Biden.
Click to expand...

Not an exciting outcome, to be sure.
 
Belz... said:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that your characterisation of my argument is inaccurate.



My comment was simple: Democratic candidates are held to an absurdly high standard while Republican ones are held to an absurdly low one. This does not mean that every criticism of a democrat is absurd, as I'm sure you realise, hence why your response to my post was met with this reaction:
Click to expand...
You quoted Aridas to make that statement, so perhaps there was an (unintended) implication you found one of their criticisms to be exceptional.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
You quoted Aridas to make that statement, so perhaps there was an (unintended) implication you found one of their criticisms to be exceptional.
Click to expand...

Aridas quoted someone else, though. It's the criticism of Warren's plan that triggered my response. I'm just noting the extreme contrast between the two parties and how they respond to their candidates' flaws or errors.
 
I'm surprized there is not a strong Democratic governor running. They don't have any baggage in national issues. Do they think Trump is too strong, so try next time?
 
theprestige said:
Althouse has an interesting take on Mayor Pete, based on recent polling:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-happened-to-warren-look-at-this.html

In a nutshell: Biden's numbers are consistently the best, but Biden probably shouldn't be the nominee. Who should replace him? People were considering Warren, and her numbers went up. Then people decided it wasn't her, and her numbers went down again. Now Buttigieg's numbers are going up, which means it's probably his turn to get considered as the counter-Biden. Althouse predicts that he'll have the same rise and fall as Warren. People are gonna consider him, and then set him aside, and consider one of the other Biden alternatives. In the end, it will probably be Biden.
Click to expand...

Ugh. Sounds like people studying a menu and considering the exciting and novel options available, then settling on a plain old club sandwich.
 
Belz... said:
Not an exciting outcome, to be sure.
Click to expand...

What's interesting to me about it is that it's a measurable prediction. We can watch Buttigieg's trend, and see how closely it matches the prediction.

We can also consider her hypothesis more generally - whether the Democratic primary is a process of considering each of the alternatives to Biden in turn - and what other evidence for and against we might look for.
 
Belz... said:
For a moment there I was considering eating a club sandwich soon. Thanks for putting that out of my mind.
Click to expand...

Good club sandwiches do exist; the problem is that anywhere capable of making a good club sandwich can also make much better things you should have instead. Club sandwiches are for when everything else on the menu contains cilantro, or for when you're taking Grandma to lunch and she needs something easy to go with her medications.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Good club sandwiches do exist; the problem is that anywhere capable of making a good club sandwich can also make much better things you should have instead. Club sandwiches are for when everything else on the menu contains cilantro, or for when you're taking Grandma to lunch and she needs something easy to go with her medications.
Click to expand...

Given that you're probably depending on their support and turnout to defeat Trump, you may want to consider a campaign strategy that doesn't involve insulting and dismissing people who are considering a Biden vote.
 
theprestige said:
Given that you're probably depending on their support and turnout to defeat Trump, you may want to consider a campaign strategy that doesn't involve insulting and dismissing people who are considering a Biden vote.
Click to expand...

I'm not depending on anybody's support for anything. I'm not a candidate running for the presidency, for either party. Therefore I'm perfectly free to call a doddering old jerk a doddering old jerk.
 
theprestige said:
Althouse has an interesting take on Mayor Pete, based on recent polling:

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-happened-to-warren-look-at-this.html

In a nutshell: Biden's numbers are consistently the best, but Biden probably shouldn't be the nominee. Who should replace him? People were considering Warren, and her numbers went up. Then people decided it wasn't her, and her numbers went down again. Now Buttigieg's numbers are going up, which means it's probably his turn to get considered as the counter-Biden. Althouse predicts that he'll have the same rise and fall as Warren. People are gonna consider him, and then set him aside, and consider one of the other Biden alternatives. In the end, it will probably be Biden.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something, or is this "interesting take" just a paragraph of speculation based on a single graph? I can't see any reason to take her explanation of the trends seriously, especially considering how simplistic and inane it is. Granted, I tend to be skeptical of speculation like that anyway, but this especially seems like something a random person pulled out of their ass.

If anything, I'd say Warren's recent decline is the result of the increased scrutiny that came with a more prominent public image. You know, the kind of thing that happens to most public figures when they become a real target and people start trying to take them down. What's especially bad for Warren is that she also has a number of proposals that scare the rich. At this stage, Pete is still relatively unknown and hasn't had to face a lot of intense public scrutiny. Granted, he's a lot more amenable to the ultra-rich and corporations, so I doubt there'll be as much of an overt attempt to take him down. But Warren's ability to maintain a high level of support in spite of a lot of serious attempts to malign her leaves me hopeful about her prospects for now. I mean, she' still polling higher than Pete, in spite of the likes of Mark Zuckerberg saying she'll destroy the country. Trying to pin it down to people "trying out" candidates doesn't seem like a useful way to talk about this IMO. Again, I tend to not respect speculation like this at all, but that framing just ignores the media climate around the race.

But, hey, I don't know what I'm talking about. As far I'm concerned, no one does, and political speculation is all guesswork based on whatever narrative someone wants to project onto a poll.
 
Belz... said:
For a moment there I was considering eating a club sandwich soon. Thanks for putting that out of my mind.
Click to expand...

It's not a good metaphor if you have to keep multiplying entities to make it work.

It's also not a good metaphor because it obfuscates how voters actually relate to candidate options, which is different from how they relate to food options. At some point, to understand the thing, you'll have to discuss the thing in its own terms.
 
Belz... said:
Hear that, TM? Jokes are disallowed. Evil, maybe, even.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he thinks I'm actually Elizabeth Warren? Some people identify closely with their preferred candidates, but I don't. Not to the extent I imagine I'm her, or running her campaign.
 
theprestige said:
It's not a good metaphor if you have to keep multiplying entities to make it work.

It's also not a good metaphor because it obfuscates how voters actually relate to candidate options, which is different from how they relate to food options. At some point, to understand the thing, you'll have to discuss the thing in its own terms.
Click to expand...

Dude, lighten up. It was just an illustration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom