2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

A very odd question. Let's see: If you are serious, you are bordering on insanity. If not, you aren't funny. Doesn't look good anyway.

Don't play coy, Ivan.

[Beelzebuddy]

For those who've missed it, Tulsi Gabbard is the chosen Democratic candidate for Russian disinformation. Hence our resident Pravda mouthpiece linking to a gamed poll as if it were legit.

Damned if I know why though. I'm curious about it. Why her? Is it the Assad thing you mentioned? Is she best buds with Bashar?

[Childlike Empress]

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It is simultaneously the single greatest strength and the single greatest weakness of the Left that they refuse to learn the lessons of the past. Part of it is that learning is essentially a conservative undertaking. It is accepting that the people of the past (who originally did the hard work of figuring stuff out) actually have some information that may be useful.

With Donald Trump the epitome of generations of wisdom?

[Venom]

Tulsi Gabbard wasn't quick to condemn Assad's regime for the 2017 incident because of uncertainty around a similar event in another Syrian city in 2013.

I don't hold it against Tulsi that much.

Her lawsuit against Google though is just weird but not unexpected.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

For those who've missed it, Tulsi Gabbard is the chosen Democratic candidate for Russian disinformation. Hence our resident Pravda mouthpiece linking to a gamed poll as if it were legit.

Damned if I know why though. I'm curious about it. Why her? Is it the Assad thing you mentioned? Is she best buds with Bashar?

Maybe she had Russian prostitutes pee all over a bed that Obama supposedly slept in...and they filmed it.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Venom

Tulsi Gabbard wasn't quick to condemn Assad's regime for the 2017 incident because of uncertainty around a similar event in another Syrian city in 2013.

I don't hold it against Tulsi that much.

Her lawsuit against Google though is just weird but not unexpected.

I have a strong feeling that if Gabbard had endorsed and campaigned for Clinton and not Sanders in 2016, none of her supposed failings would be considered a big deal now.

[Brainster]

Kamala seemed at times like she was running against Obama. That strikes me as a high-risk strategy.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Kamala seemed at times like she was running against Obama. That strikes me as a high-risk strategy.

Thanks for reminding me!

On my way through the caf today, I saw a TV screen showing what looked like a press conference, with a caption saying something about Harris having nothing but respect for Obama. Harris was on screen, and had a pretty serious expression on her face. I meant to come here and see if anyone knew what that was about.

So.

What was that about?

Is Harris having to backpedal from a Kinsley gaffe?

[applecorped]

DNC trys to block Yang from future debates on a newly created technicality

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/dnc...echnicalities/

[Childlike Empress]

The Best Guide for the Perplexed Progressive in 2020 is 2016

Originally Posted by John V. Walsh

[...] In 2016 Bernie Sanders was the only politician who was willing to take on the Establishment. Although not technically a Democrat, he caucused with them and worked with them. And he was a lifelong, reliable and ardent advocate for Medicare for All and a consistent opponent of the endless wars. For these things he was prepared to do battle against overwhelming odds on the chance that he might prevail and because from his grass roots contacts he sensed that a rebellion was brewing.

In 2016 only one among the current crop of candidates followed Bernie, supported him and joined him on the campaign trail – Tulsi Gabbard. At the time she was a two term Congresswoman and Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), a career building position, from which she would have to resign in order to support one of the candidates. Moreover, reports said she bridled at the internal bias of the DNC in favor of Hillary. To express her displeasure with the DNC and to support Bernie, she had to defy the Clinton Establishment, which might even have terminated her political career. But she was a foe of the endless wars, partly based on her own experience as a National Guard member who had been deployed to Iraq in a medical unit and saw the ravages of war first hand. So she joined Bernie, introducing him at many of his rallies and strengthening his antiwar message.

Bernie and Tulsi proved themselves in the defining battle of 2016. They let us know unequivocally where they stand. And Bernie might well have won the nomination were he not cheated out of it by the Establishment which continues to control the levers of power in the Democratic Party to this day. [...]

And when it was revealed how he was cheated instead of making a stink about it, Bernie turned around and endorsed Killary. He has proven that he has not the cojones it takes to become POTUS, and in addition in 2019/2020 he is just too old. What he must do now is drop out of the race A$AP and ask his supporters to carry Tulsi to the victory she has everything tto accomplish, contrary to the rest of the gang who are just automatons Trump will make mice meat of except Yang who has no chance for different reasons.

BERNIE FOR TULSI 2020!!!

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

The Best Guide for the Perplexed Progressive in 2020 is 2016

And when it was revealed how he was cheated instead of making a stink about it, Bernie turned around and endorsed Killary. He has proven that he has not the cojones it takes to become POTUS, and in addition in 2019/2020 he is just too old. What he must do now is drop out of the race A$AP and ask his supporters to carry Tulsi to the victory she has everything tto accomplish, contrary to the rest of the gang who are just automatons Trump will make mice meat of except Yang who has no chance for different reasons.

BERNIE FOR TULSI 2020!!!

Cute, but no cigar.

Tulsi is clinging onto single digits. Bernie Sanders has gotten so far already and is far more versatile.

BERNIE SANDERS 2020!

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Venom

Tulsi is clinging onto single digits. Bernie Sanders has gotten so far already and is far more versatile.

Because the machine does everything to keep her as unknown as possible. And as soon as she gets some exposure, people are eager to find out more about her. Which Google and now Twitter find so threatening that they suspend her ad campaign or manipulate the trending charts. Should Bernie endorse her, the whole game changes.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I caught the second debate. It was sad to see CNN and moderates embrace Republican framing on health care. Harris under-performed for me. Biden fought back enough to stay on top. It seemed everyone was trying to replicate Harris's slam from last debate.

[Craig4]

Biden would have been better off telling everyone, "listen you bunch of lightweights, governing is hard. You don't get to choose you who you do it with and you don't get to decide how they'll vote. So, you make choices, hard decisions, compromises. You deal with people repugnant to you. We did the ADA because that's what we could do. We did the 1994 crime bill because that was the best option on the table." That sort of response is really what will keep the more progressive candidates down.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Biden would have been better off telling everyone, "listen you bunch of lightweights, governing is hard. You don't get to choose you who you do it with and you don't get to decide how they'll vote. So, you make choices, hard decisions, compromises. You deal with people repugnant to you. We did the ADA because that's what we could do. We did the 1994 crime bill because that was the best option on the table." That sort of response is really what will keep the more progressive candidates down.

Yeah, taking paternalistic jabs at progressives will really win them over.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Yeah, taking paternalistic jabs at progressives will really win them over.

Who cares? It's 88,000 people in three states he has to worry about. Well, actually, those 88,000 skewed older; so thankfully some of them have died in the interim.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Who cares? It's 88,000 people in three states he has to worry about. Well, actually, those 88,000 skewed older; so thankfully some of them have died in the interim.

Electoral targets are moving targets. 4 years was already getting to be a long time, I think this cycle will come close to being like putting a new operating system on old hardware. It will have a few underlying familiar hints of how things used to operate, but we'll have to learn this whole new way of interpreting data.

ETA: and then we get to do redistricting...oh the fun that will be.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thanks for reminding me!

On my way through the caf today, I saw a TV screen showing what looked like a press conference, with a caption saying something about Harris having nothing but respect for Obama. Harris was on screen, and had a pretty serious expression on her face. I meant to come here and see if anyone knew what that was about.

So.

What was that about?

Is Harris having to backpedal from a Kinsley gaffe?

IIRC she was critical of the ACA, possibly also over the deportations under Obama. It's not something you are likely to applaud her for; it was an attack from the left. Discussion here.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Because the machine does everything to keep her as unknown as possible. And as soon as she gets some exposure, people are eager to find out more about her. Which Google and now Twitter find so threatening that they suspend her ad campaign or manipulate the trending charts...

....or because of a broken ad review system. She and her zealots forget that Gabbard's campaign isn't the first to encounter problems like this.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Jesus Christ, no.

Can you imagine? These people trying to do a serious policy debate and crack jokes at the same time. What a crapshow that would be.

... So actually, yeah. I hope they *do* go to Comedy Central for the next one. Let Jon Stewart mod it and everything.

And you think bad moderators trying to get the candidates to snip at each other wasn't a crappy show?

Jon Stewart would make an excellent debate moderator.

[Tero]

Where is this headed? Last time by caucus time in my state we knly had to vote on Hillary and Sanders. Can 3 survive?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Tero

Where is this headed? Last time by caucus time in my state we knly had to vote on Hillary and Sanders. Can 3 survive?

There's still 186 days before the first thing with any serious statutory significance happens.

ETA: 214 until Super Tuesday when we see who can really operate a broad geographic ground game.

[Venom]

Let Jon Stewart moderate the next democratic debate. Too many candidates get to hide in the crowd!

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you think bad moderators trying to get the candidates to snip at each other wasn't a crappy show?

Jon Stewart would make an excellent debate moderator.

It's sad, but... a debate with those Comedy Central hosts doing their thing would likely end up being both more fun to watch and more enlightening to the public overall.

[WilliamSeger]

Lawrence O'Donnell made the point tonight that debating is not really a skill that a president needs, except to win the election. After that, their job is to deliberate with policy experts and make decisions, so he proposed that candidates should have a team of advisers at the debate.

I think they should do an online debate using some decent forum software instead of that severely limited and disorganized piece of **** Twitter. Post some topics, and let them go at it like we do here.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I caught the second debate. It was sad to see CNN and moderates embrace Republican framing on health care. Harris under-performed for me. Biden fought back enough to stay on top. It seemed everyone was trying to replicate Harris's slam from last debate.

The reason for not supporting a full Medicare plan has to do with
1 lobbyists
2 polling voters. The voters have been persuaded since Reagan to believe that the government is bad at doing things
3 the government seemingly being bad at it, such as the VA. The real reason is that Republicans cut funding to the agencies. "It doesn't work!" Of course it does not. You made sure of it.

[Venom]

How the **** is Biden still leading in support among Democrats?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Venom

How the **** is Biden still leading in support among Democrats?

The next tier has a split vote.


Having read Cyber Wars by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, I totally agree with Brooks tonight (Brooks and Shields) on PBS. The Democrats are going to lose again, big time, because they are trying to campaign on issues and Trump is steamrolling through again based on knee-jerk emotionalism.

In excruciating detail the book explains how the Russian bots, trolls and the Trump campaign completely snookered the public demonizing Clinton and making Trump out to be the savior.

I've posted about this book before and probably will repeat myself a dozen more times before the 2020 election. If you read it you'll understand why it's such an important examination of the 2016 election.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The Democrats are going to lose again, big time, because they are trying to campaign on issues and Trump is steamrolling through again based on knee-jerk emotionalism.

See, I think pure turnout is key for a democratic win. Trying to beat Trump at the knee-jerk emotionalism game would be a losing strategy. His base cannot be won over by anyone who's not a xenophobic madman. They want a mini-Hitler.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Venom

How the **** is Biden still leading in support among Democrats?

Name recognition, Obama nostalgia, and many people not even really paying attention yet.
The Biden campaign strategy so far seem to primarily be keeping him away from voters and the press (for obvious reasons), and it's working for now.
That will probably only work for so long, though.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The next tier has a split vote.


Having read Cyber Wars by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, I totally agree with Brooks tonight (Brooks and Shields) on PBS. The Democrats are going to lose again, big time, because they are trying to campaign on issues and Trump is steamrolling through again based on knee-jerk emotionalism.

In excruciating detail the book explains how the Russian bots, trolls and the Trump campaign completely snookered the public demonizing Clinton and making Trump out to be the savior.

I've posted about this book before and probably will repeat myself a dozen more times before the 2020 election. If you read it you'll understand why it's such an important examination of the 2016 election.

If you're going to push Cyber Wars, I may as well recommend Democracy in Chains by Nancy McLean. That one goes into quite a lot of historical detail about one of the major aspects of what's going on in the background on the right-wing, how such has developed, their actual goals, and a bit on their strategies - frequently invoking the words of the people themselves. Understanding the underlying issues is likely just as important, if not moreso, than understanding any particular one of the tools that are being employed to get to it.

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Who cares? It's 88,000 people in three states he has to worry about.
Well, actually, those 88,000 skewed older; so thankfully some of them
have died in the interim.

I constantly worry that this election will turn polar, like it did in 2004.

Based upon that scenario the Democratic Party gets 11 million to 13 million
new voters, the Republican Party gets 17 million to 19 million new voters,
and the third party votes vanishes.

Of course it's early, things can change.


P. S. Nicely my prediction of Biden in the lead came true. He reminds me
of Phil Bredesen in the 2018 election. This year I'm predicting a Biden and
Warren 2020 ticket.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Venom

How the **** is Biden still leading in support among Democrats?

The myth that has driven Democrat election losses for over a decade, that a mislabeled Republican is the only "Democrat" who can win a general election, is unexplainably powerful. We have a few people still touting it even here, after having repeatedly ignored not only all presentations of the facts/logic that counter it but also all requests for some facts/logic to support it.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The Democrats are going to lose again, big time, because they are trying to campaign on issues and Trump is steamrolling through again based on knee-jerk emotionalism.

That could hardly miss any wider. The last Presidential loss was with somebody who persistently avoided ever mentioning issues and tried an entirely emotion-based campaign. The fact that that failed is one of the reasons why the ones who are focusing on issues are doing so. (That, and because the issues are what they actually believe in and are motivated by in the first place.)

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I think a Bernie VP to Warren's Pres would work better than the other way around.

Others may look at the idea of a potential team-up between those two as having one of them run as the other's VP, but what I had in mind was actually one of them dropping out entirely and then just strictly campaigning for the other, while someone less age-discrimination-prone takes the VP spot.

If one of them hasn't quit by the time the real caucuses roll around (and Biden hasn't bidenized yet by then), I'll get pretty angry at both.

[Tero]

SG: somewhat agree. The Dems need to put in a full time person to tweet for them if they do not have the time.

Meanwhile: Maher has gone all Biden
https://twitter.com/johndelanyy/stat...64201159680001
https://twitter.com/billmaher/status...23945546846208

[Tero]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

There's still 186 days before the first thing with any serious statutory significance happens.

ETA: 214 until Super Tuesday when we see who can really operate a broad geographic ground game.

So the Iowa caucus does not count?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_I...ratic_caucuses
They could have up to four with over 15%, but likely 3.

Quote:

Precinct caucuses will be held on the evening of Monday, February 3, 2020, in order to allocate delegates for county conventions. In the closed caucuses, candidates must meet a viability threshold of 15 percent within an individual precinct in order to be considered viable, with supporters of non-viable candidates then allowed to support one of the remaining viable candidates.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Delvo

That could hardly miss any wider. The last Presidential loss was with somebody who persistently avoided ever mentioning issues and tried an entirely emotion-based campaign. The fact that that failed is one of the reasons why the ones who are focusing on issues are doing so. (That, and because the issues are what they actually believe in and are motivated by in the first place.)

I agree with you, but to be fair, she DID have actual policies. She just never talked about them. All you'd get from her is that carefully-worded brand of political doublespeak that runs on yet says nothing, and you'd have to go to her website to see what the plan actually was.

[angrysoba]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[ArchSas]

Originally Posted by Tero

Meanwhile: Maher has gone all Biden
https://twitter.com/johndelanyy/stat...64201159680001
https://twitter.com/billmaher/status...23945546846208

Is that surprising to anyone? Bill Maher is out of touch, pretends to be a progressive but has always been very conservative-minded (he loves upholding the status quo and acting like it's the "sane" choice) and is prone to saying dumb things. Joe Biden is exactly the kind of person he would support, because they're almost the same person (although I guess Maher is more of a troll). Since when has Maher been relevant anyway? I didn't think anyone still took him seriously, especially after that Milo Yianopolous fiasco.

As far as why he's in the lead, other people have already given the reasons as I understand them (split votes, name recognition, people not paying attention, etc.). It's really not good that his team's strategy is keeping him out of the public eye; I thought he was embarrassingly bad in the debates, and his donors seem to agree. The more public appearances he makes, I'm guessing the worse he'll do. And I agree that increasing voter turnout is the key. The major reason democrats lost the last presidency was because of incredibly low turnout, votes being split by third party candidates, and how those factors influenced the electoral college. Biden, with his establishment leanings, bad history, and lack of focus beyond "I'm not Trump" is an even worse candidate than Hilary and won't be able to mobilized voters. If the nominee is a candidate that people actually like and can get excited about (unlike Biden, who polls keep showing that no one is actually enthusiastic about), they'll win. My money is still on Warren or Sanders.

[Childlike Empress]

Tulsi has just passed the 130K single donations she needs to continue to annoy the establishment clowns with her presence in the third round of debates. Aloha!