The Democratic Candidates

Hi!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/458919-biden-edges-higher-atop-field-of-2020-democrats-poll%3Famp

pjhawks

The Juggler said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1166032838736715776

This is akin to Trump touting the latest Rasmussen poll. 

Outlier. 

Sanders, Biden and Warren.  2 old white guys and an old white woman. just not a good direction in my opinion.  I am really afraid it's going to be a trainwreck.  Dems need new younger voices, preferably some who don't promise to give millennials free shit.

Spiritual_Chaos

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

HughFreakingDillon

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

mfc2006

HughFreakingDillon said:

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

Yup. And I agree with you. The field needs to be narrowed down considerably and I hope that happens after the next round of debates.

HughFreakingDillon

mfc2006 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

Yup. And I agree with you. The field needs to be narrowed down considerably and I hope that happens after the next round of debates.

and i recall Guiliani being near the top of the heap. that changed dramatically and quickly. 

CM189191

mfc2006 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

Yup. And I agree with you. The field needs to be narrowed down considerably and I hope that happens after the next round of debates.

Also, Russia is just starting to ramp up their propaganda campaign for 2020.  

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

This poll would be interesting if it wasn't confined to registered Democrats.  I don't think there's much of a debate that the nominee will effectively consolidate the party vote.  The question is the +/- in favorability of the independent/swing voter.

CM189191

Hi! said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2019/08/27/pocahontas-elizabeth-warrens-biggest-vulnerability-227912

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1166323164454014976?s=19

mrussel1

So this is quite interesting.. 
Sanders criticizes Yang's UBI because he is more in support of "guaranteed federal job".  Yang thinks that's unfair because not everyone 'wants' to work for the government.  It would be unfair if we made them work for the government rather than just getting free money.  
Look at Yang getting all to the left of the capitalist pig dog, Sanders.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/458972-yang-fires-back-at-sanders-over-universal-basic-income

Hi!

Looks like we are down to ten candidates for the next debate on the 12th. Deadline is tomorrow. This will keep it to one night instead of the two of others were to qualify. It’s  possible a candidate that didn’t qualify for this debate may still be able to qualify for the 4th debate, so that’s important to keep in mind as the field starts to dwindle.
 Cnn will be hosting a townhall on Sept. 5th on the issue of climate change and it looks like all the major candidates will be there. I am most interested in this. All the bullshit aside, I think climate change is probably the most important pressing issue of our time.
To sum up my overall feelings right now: I think Biden needs to get his shit together, I want to like him , but sometimes I feel like I’m settling. None of the candidates really do it for me. If I had to pick my favorite it’s probably Buddha. 

mickeyrat

seems it should still be split in two, allowing longer time for each to articulate positions.

jeffbr

mickeyrat said:

seems it should still be split in two, allowing longer time for each to articulate positions.

This. If we're down to 10, the 1st night should be candidates 6 - 10 in the polls, and the 2nd night should be the main event for the actual candidates who have a chance. I'm tired of the insignificant and inconsequential candidates trying to be consequential by sabotaging their own party's chances of defeating Drumpf by going after the front-runners.

A Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Buttigieg (or Booker or Beto or whomever the next lowest polling candidate is) debate would make much more sense. The inconsequential candidates have nothing to lose by throwing hail Mary passes and hoping against hope that one of them is a touchdown. Instead of making the debates a blood sport, it would be great to actually have policy discussion.

Hi!

jeffbr said:

mickeyrat said:

seems it should still be split in two, allowing longer time for each to articulate positions.

This. If we're down to 10, the 1st night should be candidates 6 - 10 in the polls, and the 2nd night should be the main event for the actual candidates who have a chance. I'm tired of the insignificant and inconsequential candidates trying to be consequential by sabotaging their own party's chances of defeating Drumpf by going after the front-runners.

A Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Buttigieg (or Booker or Beto or whomever the next lowest polling candidate is) debate would make much more sense. The inconsequential candidates have nothing to lose by throwing hail Mary passes and hoping against hope that one of them is a touchdown. Instead of making the debates a blood sport, it would be great to actually have policy discussion.

This is why I’m intrigued by the townhall on the 5th and like the idea centered around one topic. It will be interesting to to see if the townhall could possibly set a particular tone for the debate on the 12th. 

dignin

HughFreakingDillon said:

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

Pretty sure he was the frontrunner in polls from the beginning.

mrussel1

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

Pretty sure he was the frontrunner in polls from the beginning.

No.. not until the debates started.  It was actually Jeb that shot out first I believe. 

CM189191

mickeyrat said:

seems it should still be split in two, allowing longer time for each to articulate positions.

But then how would they speak to conservatives who need their politics delivered to them in 140 characters or less? 

pearljammr78

CM189191 said:

mickeyrat said:

seems it should still be split in two, allowing longer time for each to articulate positions.

But then how would they speak to conservatives who need their politics delivered to them in 140 characters or less? 

Classic! Love it. 

dignin

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

Pretty sure he was the frontrunner in polls from the beginning.

No.. not until the debates started.  It was actually Jeb that shot out first I believe. 

I would call that the beginning. At this time, four years ago, he was way out in front. That's in line with the current polls were talking about.

mrussel1

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I honestly put zero stock in these polls this far out. Wasn't Trump near the bottom of the polling barrel in the beginning?

Pretty sure he was the frontrunner in polls from the beginning.

No.. not until the debates started.  It was actually Jeb that shot out first I believe. 

I would call that the beginning. At this time, four years ago, he was way out in front. That's in line with the current polls were talking about.

Fair enough.  I was thinking more about announcement time.