The Democratic Presidential Debates

The Juggler

Lerxst1992 said:

The Juggler said:

Biden now has better odds than Bernie on 538. Brokered convention still odds on favorite

Bernie dropped to 8% in 3 days.

I am concerned about the fact that democrats tend to vote early. I think I heard 40% of Cali has already voted? Plus it's obviously too late to removed Pete and Amy from the ballots. So Bernie should still have a good night. I am hoping Bloomberg sees the writing on the wall after today, drops out and throws his billions behind Joe.

Say what you want about Bloomberg, his ad campaign was/is massive AND effective. Imagine what they can do to help Biden...

CM189191

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

what dreams said:

So tomorrow my choices are basically Bernie, Warren, Biden, and Bloomberg.  What am I going to do? I still have no idea.

Bloomberg will be be horrible, just horrible on the level of a Betsy DeVos styled appointee to the Dept of Ed (charters, corporate technocrats selling our public schools to Silicon Valley, more testing, etc). His record in NY is clear on this. I can't support him for that reason alone.

I just don't think Biden has the wits left to beat Trump in a debate. It will be so painful to watch him shuffle his feet to November and still potentially lose.  As a President, I think he will be a great leader who can work with Congress to get things done and will appoint a strong Cabinet who will keep us safe and do his best to help us prosper (as much as any President can control, really not much in my view).  

Sanders will either:  a) lose the election;  b) win but accomplish nothing except divide the country more;  or c) win and bankrupt the country. None of those options work for me.

I had been favoring Warren for a while many months ago. I like her spunk. I would love to see her squash Trump in a debate. She's got the fire to do it. I think she'll campaign hard. I think she's moderated on the trail because she understands where the country is at.  I think she would be a strong leader but I'm not sure where she is at currently on the issues due to her flip flops.

So it's Biden or Warren for me, and I've got less than 24 hours to decide. I'll be figuring this out in the voting booth. It's 2016 all over again.

He was a successful mayor in a liberal city for 12 years.


How warren has slandered him and all men  ("women always tell the truth") quite  frankly is disgusting 

If Warren were the nominee I'd have a tough time voting for her.  Me voting for trump. Unbelievable. 

Thank the heavens she has been rejected by a majority of Democrats. 

Yeah, we get it. You have an unreasonable and unhealthy hate of Warren. She has little chance of winning so maybe it's time to move on.

Bully. 

Snowflake.

mrussel1

The Juggler said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The Juggler said:

Biden now has better odds than Bernie on 538. Brokered convention still odds on favorite

Bernie dropped to 8% in 3 days.

I am concerned about the fact that democrats tend to vote early. I think I heard 40% of Cali has already voted? Plus it's obviously too late to removed Pete and Amy from the ballots. So Bernie should still have a good night. I am hoping Bloomberg sees the writing on the wall after today, drops out and throws his billions behind Joe.

Say what you want about Bloomberg, his ad campaign was/is massive AND effective. Imagine what they can do to help Biden...

I heard on Sunday that it was only 20% in California.  

Spiritual_Chaos

The Comeback Kid!

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1234845439112962048?s=20

https://youtu.be/OmBxVfQTuvI

mcgruff10

The Juggler said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

finding Bloombergs ads constantly mentioning 9/11 pretty fucking distasteful....

He wasn’t even mayor.  Odd.  

Yeah, but he was sworn in 3 months later. The ads talk about him helping the city recover. It might seem distasteful, but if you were the mayor during that time, it is part of your record. To not talk about it would be political malpractice. 

That makes sense.

Ledbetterman10

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The Comeback Kid!

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1234845439112962048?s=20

This "No One" seems like a pretty strong candidate based on that projection. Maybe Bloomberg should throw his billions behind No One. 

mrussel1

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.

I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.

The cheering crowd sounded the same.

As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.

You sound bitter.  I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.

I'm mildly sympathetic.  I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students.  I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall.  We talk a lot about smart choices.  My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state.  She went to William and Mary instead.  She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad.  It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits.  That saves her 28k right there.  For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer.  This will save tens of thousands. 
Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement.  She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years.  So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions.  I'm not inclined to bail them out.  

Spiritual_Chaos

nvm

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

If these poll numbers play out, Biden will have a very good night and completely change the narrative of the race.  

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The Comeback Kid!

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1234845439112962048?s=20

This "No One" seems like a pretty strong candidate based on that projection. Maybe Bloomberg should throw his billions behind No One. 

Watch Bernie change his stance, once again, on the candidate having the most delegates being the nominee, regardless of him having the actual number required. 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.

I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.

The cheering crowd sounded the same.

As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.

You sound bitter.  I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.

I'm mildly sympathetic.  I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students.  I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall.  We talk a lot about smart choices.  My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state.  She went to William and Mary instead.  She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad.  It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits.  That saves her 28k right there.  For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer.  This will save tens of thousands. 
Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement.  She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years.  So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions.  I'm not inclined to bail them out.  

But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders. 

People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation). 

That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front in the land of private insurances is to me weird). 

mickeyrat

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The Comeback Kid!

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1234845439112962048?s=20

This "No One" seems like a pretty strong candidate based on that projection. Maybe Bloomberg should throw his billions behind No One. 

Watch Bernie change his stance, once again, on the candidate having the most delegates being the nominee, regardless of him having the actual number required. 

hes already said that.....

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.

I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.

The cheering crowd sounded the same.

As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.

You sound bitter.  I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.

I'm mildly sympathetic.  I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students.  I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall.  We talk a lot about smart choices.  My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state.  She went to William and Mary instead.  She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad.  It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits.  That saves her 28k right there.  For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer.  This will save tens of thousands. 
Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement.  She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years.  So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions.  I'm not inclined to bail them out.  

But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders. 

People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation). 

That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front is to me weird). 

I don't know what you mean by 'decent conditions'.  There are two major loan programs in the US.  There are the FFEL and direct loans (gov't backed/subsidized) and private loans (non gov't banks).  Of course the terms on the private are higher because they aren't subsidized, but they do have deferment periods and other benefits that traditional loans don't have.  Generally speaking, the terms for those loans are far more favorable than a person with teh same credit could get for credit card, auto, home, etc.  The problem is not the loan terms, it's the astronomical cost of tuition that has outpaced inflation.  There are probably 8 different reasons for that, and that's a source of much study.  But at the end of the day, yes there should be a more concerted effort to change the cost curve of tuition.  Although that doesn't really help the people out of school, with the loans today.  

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.

I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.

The cheering crowd sounded the same.

As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.

You sound bitter.  I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.

I'm mildly sympathetic.  I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students.  I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall.  We talk a lot about smart choices.  My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state.  She went to William and Mary instead.  She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad.  It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits.  That saves her 28k right there.  For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer.  This will save tens of thousands. 
Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement.  She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years.  So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions.  I'm not inclined to bail them out.  

But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders. 

People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation). 

That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front is to me weird). 

I don't know what you mean by 'decent conditions'.  There are two major loan programs in the US.  There are the FFEL and direct loans (gov't backed/subsidized) and private loans (non gov't banks).  Of course the terms on the private are higher because they aren't subsidized, but they do have deferment periods and other benefits that traditional loans don't have.  Generally speaking, the terms for those loans are far more favorable than a person with teh same credit could get for credit card, auto, home, etc.  The problem is not the loan terms, it's the astronomical cost of tuition that has outpaced inflation.  There are probably 8 different reasons for that, and that's a source of much study.  But at the end of the day, yes there should be a more concerted effort to change the cost curve of tuition.  Although that doesn't really help the people out of school, with the loans today.  

isnt it true that the gov backed loans do not see relief through either refinancing or bankruptcy?

JimmyV

The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. 

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.

I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.

The cheering crowd sounded the same.

As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.

You sound bitter.  I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.

I'm mildly sympathetic.  I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students.  I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall.  We talk a lot about smart choices.  My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state.  She went to William and Mary instead.  She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad.  It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits.  That saves her 28k right there.  For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer.  This will save tens of thousands. 
Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement.  She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years.  So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions.  I'm not inclined to bail them out.  

But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders. 

People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation). 

That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front is to me weird). 

I don't know what you mean by 'decent conditions'.  There are two major loan programs in the US.  There are the FFEL and direct loans (gov't backed/subsidized) and private loans (non gov't banks).  Of course the terms on the private are higher because they aren't subsidized, but they do have deferment periods and other benefits that traditional loans don't have.  Generally speaking, the terms for those loans are far more favorable than a person with teh same credit could get for credit card, auto, home, etc.  The problem is not the loan terms, it's the astronomical cost of tuition that has outpaced inflation.  There are probably 8 different reasons for that, and that's a source of much study.  But at the end of the day, yes there should be a more concerted effort to change the cost curve of tuition.  Although that doesn't really help the people out of school, with the loans today.  

isnt it true that the gov backed loans do not see relief through either refinancing or bankruptcy?

Generally speaking, student loans cannot be discharged.  But frankly, as someone who has worked in credit my whole career, I agree with that.  If you could file bankruptcy when you exit school and discharge 100k, why wouldn't you?  So you have bad credit for 7 years, big deal.  That's much better than paying 100k.  So if you could do that, then the cost of credit (interest rates) would increase 2 or 3x to account for all of the bad loans.  Or worse case, everyone exits that business.  

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. 

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

There's only four states on that list that matter.  The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates.  I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.  

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. 

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

There's only four states on that list that matter.  The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates.  I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.  

Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.

Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. 

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

There's only four states on that list that matter.  The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates.  I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.  

Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.

Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)

That's completely illogical thinking.  Virginia was a red state.  Colorado was a red state.  New Mexico was red.  Arizona was deep red.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically.  You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.  

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. 

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

There's only four states on that list that matter.  The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates.  I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.  

Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.

Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)

That's completely illogical thinking.  Virginia was a red state.  Colorado was a red state.  New Mexico was red.  Arizona was deep red.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically.  You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.  

No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?