2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Except those two polls only included 2 counties.

I think you are misreading this from the Emerson poll:

Quote:

In the first congressional district, 35% of voters support Sanders, followed by Buttigieg with 20%, Klobuchar with 13% and Biden and Warren 9%. In the second district, 27% of voters support Buttigieg, 25% support Sanders, 15% support Klobuchar, 12% support Warren, and 11% support Biden.

Two congressional districts (which is all New Hampshire has), not two counties.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Quote:

You seem to be looking at the "average" they gave over 5 or 6 polls.

I think the other poster was looking at just the latest of that group (such as the Emmerson poll) which does show her in 3rd.

Except those two polls only included 2 counties.

The actual Emmerson poll makes it clear that the 3rd place finish for Klobuchar is based on state-wide surveys.

Now you could argue that their sample consists of only 500 respondents (which is relatively small for a survey), so there is a large margin of error. Perhaps future surveys will show her with less support.

https://emersonpolling.reportablenew...argin-of-error

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I think you are misreading this from the Emerson poll:



Two congressional districts (which is all New Hampshire has), not two counties.

I was definitely misreading it. Thanks.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What in the blue **** does this have to do with any of my posts?

You were talking like I was taking it personally, or more personally than supporters of other candidates would be.

The frustration comes from the stream of straw men thrown at progressives from self-righteous moderates who want to convince everyone that we're crazy for defending Sanders.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

You were talking like I was taking it personally, or more personally than supporters of other candidates would be.

The frustration comes from the stream of straw men thrown at progressives from self-righteous moderates who want to convince everyone that we're crazy for defending Sanders.

Develop a thicker skin.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Develop a thicker skin.

Oh stop it.

If you've seen the nonsense thrown at the Bernie supporters here a few pages back there's nothing to warrant all that straw.

It's died down anyway since the polls came out.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Venom

You were talking like I was taking it personally, or more personally than supporters of other candidates would be.

The frustration comes from the stream of straw men thrown at progressives from self-righteous moderates who want to convince everyone that we're crazy for defending Sanders.

And why do I get the brunt of it? As I told you I made no mention of socialist revolutions, or of Sanders' strategy. You simply misinterpreted what I posted. You can stop attacking me now, since I didn't attack you or anything you hold dear.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Trump has revealed his new budget proposal which includes cuts to social safety net programs like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Seems like a gift to all of the Democratic candidates running.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

Oh stop it.

If you've seen the nonsense thrown at the Bernie supporters here a few pages back there's nothing to warrant all that straw.

It's died down anyway since the polls came out.

No. You stop it. Quit whining. Develop a thicker skin. People are entitled to their positions and if you're the frontrunner, people are going to be put you on the spot. Get use to it.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Belz...

And why do I get the brunt of it? As I told you I made no mention of socialist revolutions, or of Sanders' strategy. You simply misinterpreted what I posted. You can stop attacking me now, since I didn't attack you or anything you hold dear.

You replied approvingly to JoeMorgue's rant. So I multiquoted you. It's normal.

Maybe you just felt attacked.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No. You stop it. Quit whining. Develop a thicker skin. People are entitled to their positions and if you're the frontrunner, people are going to be put you on the spot. Get use to it.

You feel the need to tell me to develop thicker skin for the most mundane back and forths. Just amusing as **** isn't it?

If you put the frontrunner on the spot people are entitled to rebut you. How is that news?

[SuburbanTurkey]

The WSJ has come out with a piece attacking Buttigieg's war service.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buttigi...me-11578355312

The gist of the article is that veterans of the service have low opinions of the type of service Buttigieg performed. He direct commissioned into an officer role in the reserves and did a few months of office and staffer work overseas, then returned and retired from the reserves.

The article points out that direct commissioning is often seen as a back door to military service for the well connected. Direct commissions do not have to attend ROTC or OTC training like a normal officer candidate. They don't even have to attend basic training and be evaluated based on all the normal things a soldier or officer would be evaluated for, such as physical fitness, combat proficiency, and leadership ability. Instead, they receive a direct commission and enter immediately into military service.

The article points out Hunter Biden also received such a direct commission, which he then lost when he pissed hot for cocaine.

The article points out the dramatic way in which Buttigieg describes the risks he faced. He largely performed office work and occasionally had to drive a car outside the base as his role as a support staffer.

A cynical person might suspect that this was a calculated, low effort way for an aspiring politician to beef up their resume without actually putting in the hard work and commitment of being a soldier.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

You feel the need to tell me to develop thicker skin for the most mundane back and forths. Just amusing as **** isn't it?

If you put the frontrunner on the spot people are entitled to rebut you. How is that news?

It is amusing. You're whining. Stop. If you want to tell us something about your candidate, by all means, go for it. But we're not really interested in "why is everybody picking on me".

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The WSJ has come out with a piece attacking Buttigieg's war service.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buttigi...me-11578355312

The gist of the article is that veterans of the service have low opinions of the type of service Buttigieg performed. He direct commissioned into an officer role in the reserves and did a few months of office and staffer work overseas, then returned and retired from the reserves.

The article points out that direct commissioning is often seen as a back door to military service for the well connected. Direct commissions do not have to attend ROTC or OTC training like a normal officer candidate. They don't even have to attend basic training and be evaluated based on all the normal things a soldier or officer would be evaluated for, such as physical fitness, combat proficiency, and leadership ability. Instead, they receive a direct commission and enter immediately into military service.

The article points out Hunter Biden also received such a direct commission, which he then lost when he pissed hot for cocaine.

The article points out the dramatic way in which Buttigieg describes the risks he faced. He largely performed office work and occasionally had to drive a car outside the base as his role as a support staffer.

A cynical person might suspect that this was a calculated, low effort way for an aspiring politician to beef up their resume without actually putting in the hard work and commitment of being a soldier.

And yet he didn't have to join the service. But he did. As opposed to venereal diseases being his Vietnam.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

A cynical person might suspect that this was a calculated, low effort way for an aspiring politician to beef up their resume without actually putting in the hard work and commitment of being a soldier.

I've never understood people complaining about a POTUS or a POTUS candidate not having military experience. There's nothing to say it's required for the job, and there have been a few that have no experience (or half assed experience). He did more than the current occupant, he did more than the previous occupant.

I'm not a Pete fan, but this is just partisan pettiness from the WSJ.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The WSJ has come out with a piece attacking Buttigieg's war service.

It still beats sitting out the draft with bone spurs. I'm not sure this is going to get much traction.

[JoeMorgue]

Oh noes now we have to compare his safe military service to the... let me check my notes here... zero military service of all the other major candidates.

It's like women complaining Trump cheated his way out of a draft they didn't even have to register for.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

And yet he didn't have to join the service. But he did. As opposed to venereal diseases being his Vietnam.

Sure, it's hard to imagine Trump being effective with such an attack, being a notorious rich-boy draft dodger.

Many of the Pete ads I've seen really harp on his military service. Photos on him kitted out and holding an M4.

The average person probably won't care, but ordinary military vets might notice. Using photos holding a rifle he never had to fire in training, perhaps never fired at all, might smack a bit of tokenism. Seems likely that Pete never had weapons training, never had to do extensive PT, never had to subjected to any significant military training at all.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by plague311

I've never understood people complaining about a POTUS or a POTUS candidate not having military experience. There's nothing to say it's required for the job, and there have been a few that have no experience (or half assed experience). He did more than the current occupant, he did more than the previous occupant.

I think the argument is that as commander-in-chief, the president may have to put troops in harm's way. Because of that, you may want someone who is more familiar with armed conflict and the long-term effects on its participants.

I think Trump is a perfect example about why it might be a good idea.... he's a guy who has suggested people with potential brain injuries from explosions in combat "just have headaches"... he's a guy who wants to have military parades on the 4th of July. Perhaps if Trump actually had served in the military, he would be more respectful of people with war injuries and/or why its a bad idea to force soldiers to participate in military parades.

Another argument might be that being in the military requires a certain amount of self-discipline, a trait that would be useful to a president. Now, it doesn't mean you DON'T have that type of self-discipline if you never served, but it does hint that you do have it if you did serve.

[Brainster]

Latest Quinnipiac national poll shows Sanders 25%, Biden 17%, Bloomberg 15%, Warren 14%, Buttigieg 10% and Klobuchar 4%. Buttigieg still can't get any traction among blacks (4%), but Bloomberg (22%!) is nipping at Biden's (27%) heels in that demographic and Bernie's not far behind (19%), while Warren (8%) and Klobuchar (0%) are not doing better than Mayor Pete.

My take: Shockingly high numbers for Bloomberg. Granted, it's probably because he's airing commercials in states where nobody else is on the air, and I suspect he'll start taking some fire from African American supporters of the other candidates for the "stop and frisk" policy and any racial incidents that happened during his mayoralty.

Buttigieg might end up winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and flaming out if he cannot get more black support. It's looking increasingly likely that the race will boil down to Bernie and Bloomberg by mid-March.

[SuburbanTurkey]

An interesting point about Bloomberg's ad buying spree.

Normally, the various candidates are spending close enough that it really doesn't matter much from the perspective of the news channels collecting that revenue.

Bloomberg is vastly outspending the others, and his buying spree is accounting for huge amounts of revenue for news stations. There could honestly be a conflict of interest. These stations are mainlining Bloomberg cash, and they might be a bit reticent to be critical.

I find it very discouraging that Bloomberg has been so successful straight-up buying his way into the race. I hope that as we get closer to the election, name recognition and spamming the airwaves isn't all it takes to gain political power in this country.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I think the argument is that as commander-in-chief, the president may have to put troops in harm's way. Because of that, you may want someone who is more familiar with armed conflict and the long-term effects on its participants.

*snipped for brevity*

I am not saying you're wrong, I'm just not convinced by the argument. We don't hold them to the same standard on anything else. We don't require them to have legal knowledge, or to be financiers, etc. I just don't get why this one aspect of the overall job of POTUS is such a priority.

I agree Trump is clueless about the military, and flippant with his comments about them, but he's that way with pretty much everything. No reason the military should be different. I thought Obama was an amazing POTUS and had zero military experience as well, which showed up in the drone strikes imo.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by plague311

I've never understood people complaining about a POTUS or a POTUS candidate not having military experience. There's nothing to say it's required for the job, and there have been a few that have no experience (or half assed experience). He did more than the current occupant, he did more than the previous occupant.

I'm not a Pete fan, but this is just partisan pettiness from the WSJ.

Yep. Don't forget that the WSJ is now owned by Murdoch

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

An interesting point about Bloomberg's ad buying spree.

Normally, the various candidates are spending close enough that it really doesn't matter much from the perspective of the news channels collecting that revenue.

Bloomberg is vastly outspending the others, and his buying spree is accounting for huge amounts of revenue for news stations. There could honestly be a conflict of interest. These stations are mainlining Bloomberg cash, and they might be a bit reticent to be critical.

I find it very discouraging that Bloomberg has been so successful straight-up buying his way into the race. I hope that as we get closer to the election, name recognition and spamming the airwaves isn't all it takes to gain political power in this country.

Do you feel Bloomberg isn't qualified to hold the position?

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's no wonder Bloomberg looks like a viable choice, the others are not gaining majority support.

I find it annoying though that the complaint against Bloomberg is he's rich and spending lots of money.

It would be nice if people discussed his policies or whatever else they have against him. Sanders and Warren sound like the sour-grapes kids.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

Do you feel Bloomberg isn't qualified to hold the position?

No. I just think he's pretty much wrong on many policies and his campaign is largely successful by taking advantage of very unflattering aspects of our electorate.

I'm not confident his approach of "spending way too much money" is a strategy that will translate to the general when the opposition will also have a large war chest.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Sure, it's hard to imagine Trump being effective with such an attack, being a notorious rich-boy draft dodger.

Many of the Pete ads I've seen really harp on his military service. Photos on him kitted out and holding an M4.

The average person probably won't care, but ordinary military vets might notice. Using photos holding a rifle he never had to fire in training, perhaps never fired at all, might smack a bit of tokenism. Seems likely that Pete never had weapons training, never had to do extensive PT, never had to subjected to any significant military training at all.

That of course is what some people will try and say. But I'll take all the images of him kitted out over the moronic critiques.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

No. I just think he's pretty much wrong on many policies and his campaign is largely successful by taking advantage of very unflattering aspects of our electorate.

I'm not confident his approach of "spending way too much money" is a strategy that will translate to the general when the opposition will also have a large war chest.

That makes sense. I honestly do not know anything about him really. Outside of him being incredibly wealthy and, as you said, is looking to buy the office of POTUS.

Part of the normalizing of Trump is the side effect that almost anyone looks good in comparison. I'd rather have an indicted ham sandwich than Trump at this point.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by plague311

Quote:

I think the argument is that as commander-in-chief, the president may have to put troops in harm's way. Because of that, you may want someone who is more familiar with armed conflict and the long-term effects on its participants.

I am not saying you're wrong, I'm just not convinced by the argument. We don't hold them to the same standard on anything else. We don't require them to have legal knowledge, or to be financiers, etc.

You're right... we don't have as much emphasis on knowledge of the law, or finance, as we on the military.

I think the difference is that the president has a certain amount of control over the lives of the soldiers (being able to put them in harms way) that he does not over lawyers/bankers/etc. He can't order all people who passed the bar to go to the middle east, or demand everyone with an MBA to go after ISIS. But he can order soldiers to fight in battles where they may not return.

Quote:

I just don't get why this one aspect of the overall job of POTUS is such a priority.

I think it WAS a priority a few decades ago. But in the past few decades we have the following presidents elected:
2 draft dodgers
1 who join the national guard to avoid actual combat
1 who was too young to join the military (and never did on his own)

And of the people that were beat, 3 of them had distinguished military careers that far exceeded the people that eventually won.

So its certainly not a priority anymore.

Quote:

I agree Trump is clueless about the military, and flippant with his comments about them, but he's that way with pretty much everything. No reason the military should be different. I thought Obama was an amazing POTUS and had zero military experience as well, which showed up in the drone strikes imo.

Yes, Obama was a good president.

A lack of military experience doesn't necessarily mean a president will be clueless about military experience. It just means that they were a little less likely to be.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I think the difference is that the president has a certain amount of control over the lives of the soldiers (being able to put them in harms way) that he does not over lawyers/bankers/etc. He can't order all people who passed the bar to go to the middle east, or demand everyone with an MBA to go after ISIS. But he can order soldiers to fight in battles where they may not return.

I agree with everything else except this because while Trump can't send them to war, he can make changes to their work that effects them.

One of the few things I will give Trump credit for is that he has been able to stay out of war. I think his callousness and stupidity don't get enough credit for that. People know the US has the largest military ever. They know Trump is a completely unhinged neanderthal that makes decisions on a whim without any previous knowledge or consideration to facts. While it's easy to mock him on twitter or in the news, war with him and the full force of the US military would be a suicide mission for almost anyone.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

No. I just think he's pretty much wrong on many policies and his campaign is largely successful by taking advantage of very unflattering aspects of our electorate.

I'm not confident his approach of "spending way too much money" is a strategy that will translate to the general when the opposition will also have a large war chest.

Depends on how far he's willing to go with the spending.

The amount of spending in support of a candidate can easily be in the ~$1 billion dollar range. (Hillary Clinton's campaign cost $768 million, Trump's cost $450 million. And the total spent in 2016 was actually less than what had been spent in 2012.) But Bloomberg is worth >$61 billion. He could easily double the amount spent by the republican side and still have enough money left over to buy Greenland. (That's IF he wanted to do so.)

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No. You stop it. Quit whining. Develop a thicker skin. People are entitled to their positions and if you're the frontrunner, people are going to be put you on the spot. Get use to it.

THIS.
If you are the frontrunners, all the other canidates will you gang up on you. Happened to Biden, will happen to anybody who is considered to be a frontrunner.
I admit, the whole personality cult around Bernie is very troubleing to me.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I think Ron Paul is a lying POS. I've had ZERO respect for him for decades. And his son has proven himself to be just as bad. Romney can be a phoney at times, but he has more character and principles in his toenail clippings then Ron Paul has ever had.

Tulsi Gabbard is an awful candidate and has almost no support. She is DOA. Absolutely no chance.

Yeah, people don't like that Gabbard has praised some pretty rotten dictators, and has echoed the Putin line on several occasions. whatta surprise.
That several right wing websites are pushing Gabbard should tell you something.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by plague311

Quote:

I think the difference is that the president has a certain amount of control over the lives of the soldiers (being able to put them in harms way) that he does not over lawyers/bankers/etc. He can't order all people who passed the bar to go to the middle east, or demand everyone with an MBA to go after ISIS. But he can order soldiers to fight in battles where they may not return.

I agree with everything else except this because while Trump can't send them to war, he can make changes to their work that effects them.

Yes Trump could (in theory) make changes that might affect a lawyer or banker's work. But something that affects a person's job is (in my opinion) a far less of a significant issue than something that could affect their life.

So Trump's actions put some lawyers out of work. Or they increase taxes on a banker.... its still a far smaller impact than being killed or significantly injured (as soldiers might be).

Quote:

One of the few things I will give Trump credit for is that he has been able to stay out of war. I think his callousness and stupidity don't get enough credit for that. People know the US has the largest military ever. They know Trump is a completely unhinged neanderthal that makes decisions on a whim without any previous knowledge or consideration to facts. While it's easy to mock him on twitter or in the news, war with him and the full force of the US military would be a suicide mission for almost anyone.

Well, Clinton also kept the U.S. out of major shooting wars. And while the U.S. got involved in Libya and and against ISIS when Obama was president, I think it can be argued that in those cases the U.S. was not the one who initiated the conflict.

So not going around to other countries to wreck the place isn't exactly a very high bar to set.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Bloomberg is vastly outspending the others, and his buying spree is accounting for huge amounts of revenue for news stations. There could honestly be a conflict of interest. These stations are mainlining Bloomberg cash, and they might be a bit reticent to be critical.

Dubious. He'll spend the money no matter what they say about him. His focus right now is countering Trump messaging. He's softening the ground for all the Democrats. Something I wish some Dem super-PAC was already doing. He's functioning kind of like a one-man PAC.

[dudalb]

The current state of the Democratic party shows the Will Rogers joke made in the 1920's is more relevelent then ever:

'I don't belong to an organized political party. I am a Democrat".

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dudalb

THIS.
If you are the frontrunners, all the other canidates will you gang up on you. Happened to Biden, will happen to anybody who is considered to be a frontrunner.
I admit, the whole personality cult around Bernie is very troubleing to me.

Me too. I like Bernie. A lot. I do disagree with him on certain issues like free tuition. But I lived through McGovern. I will absolutely support and work on his behalf if he wins the Democratic nominee for POTUS. But it's not Bernie or bust. Nor is my guy or the hell with it on any of the candidates.

This is the primaries. Learn how to deflect the punches or quit now. I want a winner.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Yeah, people don't like that Gabbard has praised some pretty rotten dictators, and has echoed the Putin line on several occasions. whatta surprise.
That several right wing websites are pushing Gabbard should tell you something.

I find it interesting that our forum Puttin apologist posts this. Did she really think people couldn't see right through her ruse?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Dubious. He'll spend the money no matter what they say about him. His focus right now is countering Trump messaging. He's softening the ground for all the Democrats. Something I wish some Dem super-PAC was already doing. He's functioning kind of like a one-man PAC.

I don't think I'd want Bloomberg to be the eventual Democratic nominee, but I'm glad he's doing what he's doing... annoying Trump and attacking him in ways the other candidates are not.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I find it interesting that our forum Puttin apologist posts this. Did she really think people couldn't see right through her ruse?

Given the individual in question does crap like this all the time, I would say yes, he/she just does not get that almost nobody in this forum takes her seriously.
And yeah, Gabbard's being pals with Assad in Syria is another reason to distrust her.