2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Because that's been such a rousing success?

I can't imagine anybody other than Tom Steyer thinking that this is a good idea. As I pointed out earlier, the candidate this most hurts is Warren who seems to be gaining momentum, and it probably helps Joe Biden by further fracturing the progressive vote.

Does it worry you he's thrown his hat in? Are you trying to influence me to lose respect for him? It's a given he won't be your candidate.

Thread is a continuation from here. You may quote or reply to any of the posts from that part here.

Posted By:zooterkin

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Does it worry you he's thrown his hat in? Are you trying to influence me to lose respect for him? It's a given he won't be your candidate.

I'm not going to play the game of trying to influence you one way or the other. For one thing, we just saw in 2016 that the candidate some may feel is the weakest on the other side could have surprising strength. Probably my preferred Democrat is Joe Biden; he seems to have the least downside risk to me. The negative (from my standpoint) is that he seems more likely to get elected than (say) Warren or Sanders; the positive (again from my standpoint) is that he's less likely to screw things up big time.

I'm not particularly worried about Steyer. I could be wrong there; I was certainly wrong about Trump in 2015 and 2016, whom I similarly dismissed. But looking at it strictly from the horse race side, it does seem like his entry is a shot directly across Warren's bow (to mix a few metaphors), and again, strictly from the horse race side the timing seems a big odd.

[Darat]

Bit of personal bickering dumped to AAH, let’s try to keep the bickering to the nominal topic thanks.

Posted By:Darat

[applecorped]

Just in time for the upcoming great merge

[Brainster]

Nate Silver puts the candidates into tiers (and sub-tiers).

Basically he has Biden and Harris in the top tier, followed closely by Warren. The next tier is Bernie over Mayor Pete. The list goes deeper but the way things are shaking out, the others seem to be stillborn. Note this:

Quote:

One of the lesser-noticed aspects of polling after the first debates is how several candidates who were deemed to have performed well in the debates by voters didn’t really see their topline numbers improve. That especially holds for Booker and Julian Castro. Both got high marks for their debate performances, and both saw their favorability ratings improve, but they’re still polling at just 1 or 2 percent in the toplines. That ought to read as a bearish signal for Booker, Castro and other candidates in this tier. They can have a good night, and it still isn’t necessarily enough to move the vote choice needle for them.

I found this observation pretty interesting:

Quote:

Also, it’s worth noting that whichever candidate wins the plurality of black voters usually wins the Democratic nomination — something that Biden and Harris probably have a better chance of doing than Warren does.

[JoeMorgue]

Assuming no major political shakeups, it's gonna wind up being a Biden/Harris Primary. The question as to how long the other candidates will take to drop out is hard to answer from this vantage point.

[Belz...]

If Sanders isn't going to be close to the top, I hope he drops out faster than last time.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Belz...

If Sanders isn't going to be close to the top, I hope he drops out faster than last time.

I fear Sanders, who I don't like outright hate or anything, has started to believe his own "Secret Frontrunner that the man is keeping down" mythology a bit too much.

I hope I'm wrong.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I found this observation pretty interesting:

Quote:

Also, it’s worth noting that whichever candidate wins the plurality of black voters usually wins the Democratic nomination — something that Biden and Harris probably have a better chance of doing than Warren does.

Biden clearly carrying black sentiment because he was Obama's VP, because on policy, they should be supporting Warren over Biden by a very long way.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Belz...

If Sanders isn't going to be close to the top, I hope he drops out faster than last time.

Why?

I predict Biden will wither away like he usually does and either Warren or Harris and Sanders will claim the top spots

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Assuming no major political shakeups, it's gonna wind up being a Biden/Harris Primary. The question as to how long the other candidates will take to drop out is hard to answer from this vantage point.

I don't think you can count Warren out yet. She still has a lane to run in (and it will be a pretty big lane if Sanders drops out early). Iowa and New Hampshire should be fertile ground for her brand of populism (South Carolina less so).

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Darat

Bit of personal bickering dumped to AAH, let’s try to keep the bickering to the nominal topic thanks.

Posted By:Darat

Request - Add a link to this thread at the end of Part 1.



Anyways, looks like Warren has a plan for Immigration up, finally.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Venom

Why?

Isn't it obvious from the last time? Once it's obvious that someone else will win, sticking around and continuing to campaign is just going to hurt the other person in the general.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Anyways, looks like Warren has a plan for Immigration up, finally.

Solid, obvious, practical plan to manage the issue of immigration.

Or in the words of the Trumpster: "OPEN BORDERS! WHITE GENOCIDE!"

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Solid, obvious, practical plan to manage the issue of immigration.



Or in the words of the Trumpster: "OPEN BORDERS! WHITE GENOCIDE!"

It must be a pretty bad plan, if this is the best summary you can come up with.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Isn't it obvious from the last time? Once it's obvious that someone else will win, sticking around and continuing to campaign is just going to hurt the other person in the general.

When it's a small field to begin with, I'd agree.

When it's a clown car, you actually want to sit on the edges early. Everyone gets their push, and then they get their intense media scrutiny and flame out when a skeleton falls out of the closet. Somewhere near the end, with a pile of 2nd and 3rd place delegate allocations, you start the backroom negotiations.

Even if it doesn't get you the nomination, you get to hand them a list of 3 cabinet positions you'll accept in exchange for releasing your delegates.

(Not endorsing any of this, but this is how crass careerists see it)

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It must be a pretty bad plan, if this is the best summary you can come up with.

You're trying to rationalize a variable with a constant.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

You're trying to rationalize a variable with a constant.

Well, "ORANGE MAN BAD" is a pretty constant refrain around here.

But it doesn't seem too much to ask, that in a thread about Democratic candidates, people find something more substantive to say about a Democratic candidate's platform. The way TGZ puts it, Warren doesn't have an immigration plan so much as she has yet another Two Minutes Hate.

Who knows? If Warren actually has a sensible immigration plan, she might be worth voting for. But TGZ's immediate spiral into senseless rage suggests she doesn't.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Solid, obvious, practical plan to manage the issue of immigration.

Or in the words of the Trumpster: "OPEN BORDERS! WHITE GENOCIDE!"

Why does she want to end private detention facilities? She says people shouldn't profit from cruelty. But if she changes how the facilities operate, doesn't that resolve profit from cruelty? Or is she saying her policies will include government ran cruelty?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Well, "ORANGE MAN BAD" is a pretty constant refrain around here.

Only because "Orange Man actually IS bad, objectively speaking."

Originally Posted by theprestige

But it doesn't seem too much to ask, that in a thread about Democratic candidates, people find something more substantive to say about a Democratic candidate's platform. The way TGZ puts it, Warren doesn't have an immigration plan so much as she has yet another Two Minutes Hate.

If that's your twisted takeaway from what he said, rather than dealing with it as it pretty obviously was, your opinion can be safely ignored on that topic.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Who knows? If Warren actually has a sensible immigration plan, she might be worth voting for.

Feel free to actually look at it!

Originally Posted by theprestige

But TGZ's immediate spiral into senseless rage suggests she doesn't.

Senseless rage? Poking at the President and the Republican Party's brazen, consistent, and constant lies about what Democrats actually say and do is senseless rage, now?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Why does she want to end private detention facilities? She says people shouldn't profit from cruelty. But if she changes how the facilities operate, doesn't that resolve profit from cruelty? Or is she saying her policies will include government ran cruelty?

These are good questions.

That part of Warren's plan doesn't make sense logically, unless we assume that the detention centers themselves are cruelty.

The idea of private citizens profiting from government detention centers is interesting, but obviously problematic. It does raise an interesting question, though: What if immigrant detention were outsourced to non-profits?

What if some progressive group, that takes immigration and border control seriously, but also has sincere humanitarian concerns about the people being detained, were to establish a non-profit NGO for operating immigration detention centers?

Could that work?

Presumably, such a non-profit would have higher costs, since they would not be inclined to cut corners on quality of life of the inmates. On the other hand, they might still be able to charge less because they wouldn't need to show a profit to investors.

It would be interesting to see what kinds of standards and guidelines such an organization would develop, for guaranteeing that their inmates were effectively detained, and enjoyed a reasonable quality of life while being detained.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Why does she want to end private detention facilities?

There's a number of reasons to end private prisons.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

She says people shouldn't profit from cruelty. But if she changes how the facilities operate, doesn't that resolve profit from cruelty?

You say that as if it's actually that easy to change or that there's particularly good reason to support that route.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Or is she saying her policies will include government ran cruelty?

Not in a relevant sense to the line of thought in play. Also, getting from the previous question to this one requires a strange contortion of logic.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by theprestige

These are good questions.

That part of Warren's plan doesn't make sense logically, unless we assume that the detention centers themselves are cruelty.

Addressed in the section right before it, if one's actually paying attention.

Quote:

End unnecessary detention. We already have the tools to effectively track and monitor individuals without shoving them into cages and camps along the border. As President, I’ll issue guidance ensuring that detention is only used where it is actually necessary because an individual poses a flight or safety risk. I will put additional layers of protection in place for certain groups, including asylum seekers, families and pregnant women, and LGBTQ+ people who are more vulnerable in a general detention facility. And I’ll enforce strict standards for remaining detention facilities, including for medical care and to end the use of solitary confinement.

It's likely worth pointing out that, for example, employing ankle monitors is much cheaper, pretty much just as effective (very possibly more effective in the long run if we include indirect effects), overwhelmingly more humane, and allows the people in question to actually contribute to the US, rather than being part of a skyrocketing drain on tax payer dollars.

ETA: And the section after, really, for good measure.

Quote:

Expand the executive use of parole and invest in alternatives-to-detention. DHS has broad authority to parole individuals who are detained prior to their cases being heard in immigration court. Community-based alternatives to detention are safer, save money, and can be more effective at ensuring compliance. I’ll significantly expand successful programs, which include case management, referrals to legal and social services, and periodic check-ins and surveillance. These programs provide a measure of dignity for those in the system, and their expanded use would save over a billion dollars each year in unnecessary detention costs.

Incidentally, for reference about how much cheaper...

Quote:

ATDs are more cost-effective than detention. ICE spends an average of more than $200 each day to detain someone in immigration detention, and, when detaining families, spends even more, as much as $319 per person per day. In contrast, low-cost ATD programs like community supervision or electronic monitoring programs can cost as little as $4.50 per day. In 2018, Congress funded ATDs at $180 million, an increase of $66 million from 2017, demonstrating its interest in funding these programs.

It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.

Originally Posted by theprestige

The idea of private citizens profiting from government detention centers is interesting, but obviously problematic. It does raise an interesting question, though: What if immigrant detention were outsourced to non-profits?

What if some progressive group, that takes immigration and border control seriously, but also has sincere humanitarian concerns about the people being detained, were to establish a non-profit NGO for operating immigration detention centers?

Could that work?

Presumably, such a non-profit would have higher costs, since they would not be inclined to cut corners on quality of life of the inmates. On the other hand, they might still be able to charge less because they wouldn't need to show a profit to investors.

It would be interesting to see what kinds of standards and guidelines such an organization would develop, for guaranteeing that their inmates were effectively detained, and enjoyed a reasonable quality of life while being detained.

It would be better than the current system, but still pointlessly wasteful when there are distinctly better options at hand.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Aridas

There's a number of reasons to end private prisons.



You say that as if it's actually that easy to change or that there's particularly good reason to support that route.



Not in a relevant sense to the line of thought in play. Also, getting from the previous question to this one requires a strange contortion of logic.

Is there any evidence that it is more.or less difficult to change public detention than a private one? Can she impose restrictions on a public facility she can't on a private one?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Is there any evidence that it is more.or less difficult to change public detention than a private one? Can she impose restrictions on a public facility she can't on a private one?

You are aware, of course, of some of the fundamental issues with for profit businesses, in general, quietly reducing services to increase profits, right? Again, though, this entire line of questioning is somewhat wrong-headed, as I touched on further in the reply I had just made to theprestige. The private prisons part is part of a larger answer and singling it out as if it's not is to take it out of context.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Aridas

You are aware, of course, of some of the fundamental issues with for profit businesses, in general, quietly reducing services to increase profits, right? Again, though, this entire line of questioning is somewhat wrong-headed, as I touched on further in the reply I had just made to theprestige. The private prisons part is part of a larger answer and singling it out as if it's not is to take it out of context.

I am not aware of that. I would like to see the research supporting your claim.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I am not aware of that. I would like to see the research supporting your claim.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you that common measures to maximize profits are common measures to maximize profits in a thread that should be focused on the 2020 Democratic candidates. So, moving on.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to prove to you that common measures to maximize profits are common measures to maximize profits in a thread that should be focused on the 2020 Democratic candidates. So, moving on.

If it is so common, then gathering evidence to support your claim would be even easier. As it is, you are making a claim without presenting evidence to support it.

[Delphic Oracle]

While not specifically about the Presidential candidates, the party unity issue seems to be slipping beyond hope...

Yesterday William Lacy Clay went on Fox News and gave their audience a nice Jerry Springer show:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...3NbT6O_WUZ_P3s

Quote:

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday night, Clay hammered Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion.

"It was such a weak argument to say she was being picked on and that four women of color were being picked on by the speaker," he said.

"It tells you the level of ignorance to American history on their part as to what we are as the Democratic Caucus.

"It is so inappropriate. So uncalled for. It does not do anything to help with unity. It was unfair to Speaker Pelosi."

Clay continued his broadside, saying the comment exposed how much Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., have to learn when it comes to being "effective legislators".

"It’s going to take a process of maturing for those freshman members. They will have to learn to be effective legislators," he said.

"It shows their lack of sensitivity to racism. To fall back on that (trope) is a weak argument. It has no place in a civil discussion."

The lawmaker closed his remarks by suggesting the four freshmen could hurt Democratic chances in upcoming elections.

"It shows they have no sensibility to different members from our caucus. Some come from red districts and those are the ones who gave us the majority. We need them all," he said.

By the way, speaking of playing the race card, the Congressional Black Caucus is accusing Justice Democrats of specifically primarying their members:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...argeting-black

Quote:

A senior House Democratic aide called it “ironic and funny” that Ocasio-Cortez is accusing Pelosi of attacking women of color, when Justice Democrats is targeting minority lawmakers.

“She’s only a woman of color when it’s convenient. None of the things she’s fought for aligned with communities of color and her group is funded only by elitist white liberals; she’s a puppet,” the top Democratic aide told The Hill in a phone call.

The aide then texted an image of a Goomba puppet from the Super Mario Bros. video game.

“I can’t tell you how pissed off people are” about the Justice Democrats, the aide added. “All these CBC members feel like they are under siege. But it’s offensive that these elitist white liberals feel like they can undermine the foundation of our party,” African American voters.

Got it. No infighting on Twitter.

Infighting is properly conducted by going to opposition inside-the-beltway press, I guess.

Yeah, I get they don't want a circular firing squad (they might be in harm's way, then). They just want progressives to line up against the wall, please.

Now Trump is jumping on board the "disrespectful to Pelosi" narrative.

Great, the party apparatus now has the same messaging as the President.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Why does she want to end private detention facilities? She says people shouldn't profit from cruelty. But if she changes how the facilities operate, doesn't that resolve profit from cruelty? Or is she saying her policies will include government ran cruelty?

Under Obama, a study found that private detention facilities were less safe, less humane, more dangerous to personell and inmates, more expensive and had higher rates of recidivism than state operated ones.
As a result, Obama stopped the use of private prisons for Federal offenses.

Trump reversed that as one of his first acts.


Warren is just applying the lessons learned: private detention facilities are objectively worse on every parameter. Until they can provide comparative service at competitive prices, they shouldn't get the job.
Simple as that.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Under Obama, a study found that private detention facilities were less safe, less humane, more dangerous to personell and inmates, more expensive and had higher rates of recidivism than state operated ones.
As a result, Obama stopped the use of private prisons for Federal offenses.

Trump reversed that as one of his first acts.


Warren is just applying the lessons learned: private detention facilities are objectively worse on every parameter. Until they can provide comparative service at competitive prices, they shouldn't get the job.
Simple as that.

She doesn't say this. If she did, I would have responded differently.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

She doesn't say this. If she did, I would have responded differently.

she doesn't need to. It's public knowledge.
Everyone studying the issue is well aware.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

she doesn't need to. It's public knowledge.
Everyone studying the issue is well aware.

I can only respond to the argument someone makes.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I can only respond to the argument someone makes.

That's not our problem.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I can only respond to the argument someone makes.

she didn't make an argument - she presented a plan.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That's not our problem.

I mean, you are free to substitute an argument for a position that person is not making. But I don't think you will like it when people start doing it to you.

[Tero]

serious note: register to vote
Trump got 46%, Hillary got 48% and Jill Stein got some
It would not have been that way if Democrats had remembered to SHOW UP!
even 45% Trump and 49% Hillary would have avoided all this!
Forget Sanders if he does not get the nomination! Vote Sleepy Joe!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Tero

serious note: register to vote
Trump got 46%, Hillary got 48% and Jill Stein got some
It would not have been that way if Democrats had remembered to SHOW UP!
even 45% Trump and 49% Hillary would have avoided all this!
Forget Sanders if he does not get the nomination! Vote Sleepy Joe!

See my sig.

[dudalb]

I am worried that members of the Bernie cult will sit this one out if Sanders does not get the nomination...which seems a probable outcome at this point.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I am worried that members of the Bernie cult will sit this one out if Sanders does not get the nomination...which seems a probable outcome at this point.

They didn't to any great degree last time, and that was in the face of being ripped off. This time in, I'd say they will suck it in and vote anyway, because he'll lose on his merits to a better candidate. (unless it's Biden, in which case, it wouldn't matter who they vote for)