2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Skeptic Ginger]

Booker lost my support when in an interview he was excellent at describing the problems but he couldn't seem to answer a single question about how he would address them.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Booker lost my support when in an interview he was excellent at describing the problems but he couldn't seem to answer a single question about how he would address them.

I had that problem with Beto.

This is why I really like Warren. She has serious ideas on how we should address certain issues. Sometimes I think she is very wrong. But I have to give her credit for thinking about them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't buy your first line. I'm jot a big fan of Bloomberg or Steyer...I do like Steyer better than Bloomberg. I really wish that Buttigieg wasn't gay. Because if he wasn't, I feel he's the one Democrat who would crush Trump.

If I could select the one I would prefer the most to be POTUS, I'd choose Warren. Second, I'd pick Buttigieg or Klobuchar. But choosing the nominee is a different decision. I want the person who will win. And I definitely think Sanders would get crushed like a bug.

Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes is a good place to start.

Above board or not, Hunter has had a number of 'fortunate son' jobs.

The hair kissing is creepy, it doesn't matter whether it was benign or not.

It's not just the words and gaffes, his age is glaring: "My generation in '68.." CBS News Video with examples. It's 11 minutes, just listen to the first 5 if you don't have time for the whole 11.

Quote:

Former Vice President Joe Biden is accusing reporters of not understanding his words on the campaign trail, after he asked voters to imagine what would have happened if Barack Obama was assassinated during the 2008 campaign. CBSN political reporter Caitlin Huey-Burns and Vice News Tonight correspondent Evan McMorris-Santoro spoke to CBSN's "Red & Blue" about Biden's standing in the race.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm afraid that Sanders will alienate the moderates or conservative Dems. I would also prefer a candidate who will pull along conservative Congressional districts with them.

What good is a wild eyed liberal President with a Republican House and Senate?

According to the polls, which you say you don't trust much, Sanders is first place in Iowa, a rather conservative state from my limited experience there. I think there is a message there.

What run of the mill crazy lib do you think conservatives will be convinced by? For the most part conservative voters already distrust most of the Democratic Party.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

According to the polls, which you say you don't trust much, Sanders is first place in Iowa, a rather conservative state from my limited experience there. I think there is a message there.

What run of the mill crazy lib do you think conservatives will be convinced by? For the most part conservative voters already distrust most of the Democratic Party.

He's in first place "among Democrats" in a broad field. And Iowa is not a very good representative state.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

He's in first place "among Democrats" in a broad field. And Iowa is not a very good representative state.

It's worth noting Sanders also does better against Trump than Biden or any other Democrat in hypothetical general election match-ups.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

It's worth noting Sanders also does better against Trump than Biden or any other Democrat in hypothetical general election match-ups.

What they look like now to voters who don't really know them is going to look very differently after a billion dollars is spent to make them look bad.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Venom

Quote:

I'm afraid that Sanders will alienate the moderates or conservative Dems. I would also prefer a candidate who will pull along conservative Congressional districts with them.

What good is a wild eyed liberal President with a Republican House and Senate?

According to the polls, which you say you don't trust much, Sanders is first place in Iowa, a rather conservative state from my limited experience there. I think there is a message there.

Its a primary.... which means a few things:

- The list of candidates is very fragmented, and thus its easy for any candidate to be near the top of the polls (even more so if they have some name recognition), even if they don't exactly have wide support.

- Support can be very volatile. While Sanders may lead in one poll, another recent poll shows Biden in front. See: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-monmouth-poll

- Support in a primary does not necessarily translate to support in a national election.

Quote:

What run of the mill crazy lib do you think conservatives will be convinced by? For the most part conservative voters already distrust most of the Democratic Party.

True, the Democrats (all of them) seem to be largely demonized.

But election victories can hing on very small margins. (If Clinton had just a few thousand more votes in 3 states they she would be president). No democrat will convince the majority of Republicans to vote for them, but if they can influence a few thousand voters it may be a good thing.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Its a primary.... which means a few things:

- The list of candidates is very fragmented, and thus its easy for any candidate to be near the top of the polls (even more so if they have some name recognition), even if they don't exactly have wide support.

- Support can be very volatile. While Sanders may lead in one poll, another recent poll shows Biden in front. See: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-monmouth-poll

- Support in a primary does not necessarily translate to support in a national election.

True, the Democrats (all of them) seem to be largely demonized.

But election victories can hing on very small margins. (If Clinton had just a few thousand more votes in 3 states they she would be president). No democrat will convince the majority of Republicans to vote for them, but if they can influence a few thousand voters it may be a good thing.

Failing that, they can convince a few thousand Republicans, and right-leaning voters, to tacitly accept a Democratic President by casting a third-party vote or not voting for POTUS at all.
There are a fair number of conservative voters who despise Trump. If we can offer up someone who doesn't ring the "socialist" bell so loud, many of them may just stay on the sidelines of the general election.

[Venom]

In New Hampshire, Sanders has captured quite a decent bit of the conservative and moderate vote.

I imagine this can be replicated elsewhere.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The problem with ignoring the socialism label is it triggers a whole slew of voters to run in terror.

My brother who isn't particularly political told me years ago that "Obama is a socialist" and nothing I could say would make him change that view.

Ya, I hate to tell you, but "socialism" wasn't the problem there.

Quote:

And neither Warren nor Sanders have countered the threat the cost of Medicare for all is being cited as. They can be as right as rain but if the messaging fails then no one will know it.

So maybe, just maybe, instead of cowering from it, the DNC does something to control the messaging? Pretend they are a bunch of politically and media connected professionals with millions, if not billions, at their disposal?

Quote:

The (right-wing) Hill 2018: Poll: Majority of Americans say they would not vote for a 'socialist'


From StartPage Search, take your pick:

The attitude is changing, but not enough. It risks people holding their noses and voting for Trump.

But what happens when you ask about the specifics of policy? What does Medicare for All poll ? Student loan forgiveness? Tuition free public college? Marijuana decriminalization?

These are problems of branding and language. And, guess what, the same problems are going to follow what ever vanilla, inoffensive, corporate friendly Democrat gets the nod.

The problems isn't that the Democrats are socialists. The problem is they are gutless.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

In New Hampshire, Sanders has captured quite a decent bit of the conservative and moderate vote.

I imagine this can be replicated elsewhere.

What do you consider "quite a decent bit" in a lightly populated state like NH? 6 people?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Donal

So maybe, just maybe, instead of cowering from it, the DNC does something to control the messaging? Pretend they are a bunch of politically and media connected professionals with millions, if not billions, at their disposal?

Easy to say, maybe not so easy to do.

You're talking about getting through to millions of people who have extremely long-lasting beliefs. Not sure that even the most slick media campaign will change that overnight.

Quote:

Quote:

The (right-wing) Hill 2018: Poll: Majority of Americans say they would not vote for a 'socialist'

But what happens when you ask about the specifics of policy?

Yes, in many cases when you ask about policy specifics, people would be quite happy with a 'socialist' option (or, more appropriately, "social democrat"). Many voters just don't like calling it "socialist".

The question is, what do you do when the republicans scream "Socialist"... Do you say "yes I am"? Turn around and scream "fascist" back at them? Try to prevent a reasoned argument to the electorate (that is likely to fall on deaf ears)?

Quote:

What does Medicare for All poll ?

Rather complex to say... by "medicare for all" it depends on if people view it as a public option available to everyone, but allow people to keep private coverage (which is polling around 70%) or whether they view it as "everyone on medicare/no private insurance", i.e. the plan proposed by Sanders (which polls around 40%).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ong-democrats/

Quote:

Student loan forgiveness? Tuition free public college?

Well, in one poll around 58% say that they would approve of free public college.

The problem is, when you ask this question in isolation, you probably get a different answer than if they asked "do you approve of free college, if it means a tax increase".

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/46...g-student-debt

Quote:

Marijuana decriminalization?

Again, not a simple, straight forward question.

In one poll, 84% want it legalized, but only half of those want it legal for any and all uses, while the other half want it legalized but only for medical purposes. If the proposal is "totally remove all marijuana restrictions" you are definitely on the side of the minority.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...hould-be-legal

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Booker lost my support when in an interview he was excellent at describing the problems but he couldn't seem to answer a single question about how he would address them.

That's true of a LOT of candidates and politicians.

[JoeMorgue]

Sadly unless like... at least of the 2 of the 4 of the following wind up being true come November:

A) Ginsburg holds out until then
B) They make gains in the Senate
C) They hold the House
D) There's a shift in broad public consciousness

And we wind up with a Democratic President, one that can identify the problem but do nothing about it might as well be the one we vote for because that's all they are going to be able to do.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

With Trump being the most recent example.


This. They'll decry Bloomberg as a Socialist every bit as much as they will Sanders. And then there'll be that ((())) thing for both of them. That'll be much more subtle.

We are being absolutely bombarded with Bloomberg ads, BTW. He must think my state has some importance now that the primary has been moved up.

They will attack every Dem as a socialist;problem is it will be easier to make it stick on some candiates then others.
And I am still convicned a Sanders nomination will pretty much seal a Trump reelection.
Too many people here seem to live in a bubble where most people they talk politics with are progressives, and they really don't get most voters are not.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Venom

In New Hampshire, Sanders has captured quite a decent bit of the conservative and moderate vote.

I imagine this can be replicated elsewhere.

And your proof is?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Too many people here seem to live in a bubble where most people they talk politics with are progressives, and they really don't get most voters are not.

If I could like somehow convert facts into solid matter, the one I would forge into a nail and hammer it into people's heads is that... only about 45% of Democrats even identify as liberal, much less progressive.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Donal

Ya, I hate to tell you, but "socialism" wasn't the problem there.

You know Obama won that election, right?

Originally Posted by Donal

The problems isn't that the Democrats are socialists. The problem is they are gutless.

I didn't say the Democrats were socialists.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's true of a LOT of candidates and politicians.

And?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Too many people here seem to live in a bubble where most people they talk politics with are progressives, and they really don't get most voters are not.

And again, not everyone who votes for a progressive would identify as such otherwise.

I predict in the coming months we'll repeat these talking points at each other again and again.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

If I could like somehow convert facts into solid matter, the one I would forge into a nail and hammer it into people's heads is that... only about 45% of Democrats even identify as liberal, much less progressive.

On the other hand a lot of conservatives would need to be clued in to the fact that rural Americans are a much smaller minority than they think.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And?

And that was my entire point, really. Why single out one person if everybody checks the box? Perhaps there's something else?

[dudalb]

And I don't get the Warren/Sanders feud. If you look at the policies, there is not that much difference between them except Warren seems to think it will take longer to implement them then Sander does;Sanders want to do it all is a couple of years, Warren thinks it will take longer, and I side with Warren here. When you are making the kind of huge changes that are being talked about, going slow is not a bad idea.
But then, I think Sanders has become something of a personality cult with his supporters.
For the record I could see Warren winning in November because she does not come off quite as radical as Sanders does. Sanders just, I repeat, cannot or will not shake the impage of the 60's College radical. And I think however much that might appear to his base.it's a detriment to everybody else.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And I don't get the Warren/Sanders feud. If you look at the policies, there is not that much difference between them

That is precisely the reason for the feud. They're fighting for the same pool of supporters.

[Venom]

Sanders has refrained from attacking or even harshly criticizing his opponents until recently.

I don't know if is strategic or if it's because his most zealous supporters finally got into his head. I think the close numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada may be spurring his campaign to go on the attack.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

And that was my entire point, really. Why single out one person if everybody checks the box? Perhaps there's something else?

Umm, because Booker just dropped out and I was posting my reaction to why his campaign failed to take off.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The problem with ignoring the socialism label is it triggers a whole slew of voters to run in terror.

My brother who isn't particularly political told me years ago that "Obama is a socialist" and nothing I could say would make him change that view.

For obvious reasons, this does not support the position that the "socialist" label makes candidates unelectable.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

For obvious reasons, this does not support the position that the "socialist" label makes candidates unelectable.

People forget how progressive candidate Obama sounded.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And I don't get the Warren/Sanders feud. If you look at the policies, there is not that much difference between them except Warren seems to think it will take longer to implement them then Sander does;Sanders want to do it all is a couple of years, Warren thinks it will take longer, and I side with Warren here. When you are making the kind of huge changes that are being talked about, going slow is not a bad idea.
But then, I think Sanders has become something of a personality cult with his supporters.
For the record I could see Warren winning in November because she does not come off quite as radical as Sanders does. Sanders just, I repeat, cannot or will not shake the impage of the 60's College radical. And I think however much that might appear to his base.it's a detriment to everybody else.

Is there really a feud or is this a spun narrative?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The problem with ignoring the socialism label is it triggers a whole slew of voters to run in terror.

My brother who isn't particularly political told me years ago that "Obama is a socialist" and nothing I could say would make him change that view.

And neither Warren nor Sanders have countered the threat the cost of Medicare for all is being cited as. They can be as right as rain but if the messaging fails then no one will know it.

.

But this shows the limit to painting candidates as socialist, no? After all, the slime machine worked overtime to portray Obama as an atheist, socialist, Muslim Kenyan trying to foist unbelievably ruinous healthcare plans on the US and the voters (with exceptions such as your brother) said “yes, please! Enslave is all your Islamic Atheist Commie Highness!”

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And I don't get the Warren/Sanders feud. If you look at the policies, there is not that much difference between them...

"The only people we hate worse than the Romans are the ******* Judean People's Front."--The People's Front of Judea.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Is there really a feud or is this a spun narrative?

If Sanders so much as criticizes a fellow progressive, it's a "feud", even though he calls Biden a friend.

It's been okay to attack Bernie Sanders for years now though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

For obvious reasons, this does not support the position that the "socialist" label makes candidates unelectable.

Maybe because you think my single anecdote is all the evidence I have?

Same as the Clinton/Sanders primary, certain people who support Sanders get defensive when you bring up the issue that the US voters are not ready yet to support socialism and it's very easy to paint some candidates with that scary label.

I posted other links. Anyone found some articles on why this is NOT an issue?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

If Sanders so much as criticizes a fellow progressive, it's a "feud", even though he calls Biden a friend.

It's been okay to attack Bernie Sanders for years now though.

Just so you know. I don't buy the "feud" nonsense. That's just the media looking for a headline. I do get concerned about liberals who take the all or nothing approach.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

But this shows the limit to painting candidates as socialist, no? After all, the slime machine worked overtime to portray Obama as an atheist, socialist, Muslim Kenyan trying to foist unbelievably ruinous healthcare plans on the US and the voters (with exceptions such as your brother) said “yes, please! Enslave is all your Islamic Atheist Commie Highness!”

But he wasn't any of those things. He was less vulnerable to the accusation.

Warren and Sanders with Medicare for all, extending free education through college, and free daycare are much more susceptible to the label.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Umm, because Booker just dropped out and I was posting my reaction to why his campaign failed to take off.

Yeah but if that applies to everyone else as well, why would it be relevant?

[Brainster]

Warren met with Sanders in 2018 and told friends afterward that Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win.

Quote:

Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.

Sanders denies:

Quote:

"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."

Hard to believe that the people talking to CNN are doing so without Warren's approval.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Maybe because you think my single anecdote is all the evidence I have?

That's the thing, though---It's not even evidence. You do know that Obama was elected, don't you?

Twice, in fact.

So you found someone who said he wouldn't vote for Obama. Big Deal. I can find people who say they would never vote for Trump; he won, too. In fact, given any candidate I'm confident you can find people who would never vote for that candidate. It's not unusual and shouldn't convince you that a given candidate would be hard pressed to win an election.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Just so you know. I don't buy the "feud" nonsense. That's just the media looking for a headline. I do get concerned about liberals who take the all or nothing approach.

understood