The Democratic Presidential Debates

mrussel1

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

This was on Hannity so take it with a grain of salt, but he said that Trump (running unopposed) got more votes in the Texas republican primary on Tuesday than Sanders, Biden, and Warren got combined in the democratic primary in Texas. And I've seen some other good numbers for Trump in the pre-Super Tuesday primaries. Seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Republican voters to get out vote for him.

I saw this talking point as well.. but it conveniently leaves out that Bloomberg finished 3rd, not Warren.  If you add up all the D's, they exceed 2MM whereas Trump is 1.8MM.  I believe there were other issues on the ballot as well.  Either way, I don't think D's win TX so it's not particularly meaningful.  It's just a R talking point.   

I noticed it leaves Bloomberg out purposely in order to make the point they're trying to make. And call it a republican talking-point if you want, but I didn't perceive it like that. What's the point of Hannity bringing it up? To pat Republican voters on the back for voting in an unopposed primary? Or to praise Trump? Knowing Hannity, those probably ARE the reasons to bring it up so it's reasonable for you to dismiss it as a republican talking point. But I still find it to be an interesting factoid that's worth being aware of. At least for me.

It's to show the Republican audience that R voters are just as/more enthusiastic than D's.  I saw a similar stat yesterday talking about Colorado, but only counting the top three.  When you counted all the candidates, the D vote was almost double. Remember, it's literally propaganda television. 

Well I think it's a given that the D's should have way more votes overall because there's is a contested primary. But I still think Trump getting that many votes unopposed is "something." And maybe I'm just a simpleton that's tricked by propaganda television, but the R's DO seem more enthusiastic than the D's. From voting in uncontested primaries to attending Trump's Orwellian rallies. For whatever reason, they love that guy. I don't see much love from Dems for Biden. His great Super Tuesday came off (to me anyway) as the electorate saying "Well, I guess we'll go with Biden." And I'm the same way. "Whatever, I'll vote for Biden in November."

One needs to look at the midterms from 18 for a guide on enthusiasm.  

Biden = referendum on Trump
Sanders = referendum on socialistic policies

I know what I want the election to be about.  

Good point on the ‘18 midterms. But I think Biden needs more than “Trump’s awful, I’ll be better than Trump.” Not that I disagree with that notion. But that seemed to be the main point of Hillary’s campaign. 

Interesting.. I always felt like that was Trump's angle.. I can remember him saying "What've you got to lose?"

Ledbetterman10

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

This was on Hannity so take it with a grain of salt, but he said that Trump (running unopposed) got more votes in the Texas republican primary on Tuesday than Sanders, Biden, and Warren got combined in the democratic primary in Texas. And I've seen some other good numbers for Trump in the pre-Super Tuesday primaries. Seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Republican voters to get out vote for him.

I saw this talking point as well.. but it conveniently leaves out that Bloomberg finished 3rd, not Warren.  If you add up all the D's, they exceed 2MM whereas Trump is 1.8MM.  I believe there were other issues on the ballot as well.  Either way, I don't think D's win TX so it's not particularly meaningful.  It's just a R talking point.   

I noticed it leaves Bloomberg out purposely in order to make the point they're trying to make. And call it a republican talking-point if you want, but I didn't perceive it like that. What's the point of Hannity bringing it up? To pat Republican voters on the back for voting in an unopposed primary? Or to praise Trump? Knowing Hannity, those probably ARE the reasons to bring it up so it's reasonable for you to dismiss it as a republican talking point. But I still find it to be an interesting factoid that's worth being aware of. At least for me.

It's to show the Republican audience that R voters are just as/more enthusiastic than D's.  I saw a similar stat yesterday talking about Colorado, but only counting the top three.  When you counted all the candidates, the D vote was almost double. Remember, it's literally propaganda television. 

Well I think it's a given that the D's should have way more votes overall because there's is a contested primary. But I still think Trump getting that many votes unopposed is "something." And maybe I'm just a simpleton that's tricked by propaganda television, but the R's DO seem more enthusiastic than the D's. From voting in uncontested primaries to attending Trump's Orwellian rallies. For whatever reason, they love that guy. I don't see much love from Dems for Biden. His great Super Tuesday came off (to me anyway) as the electorate saying "Well, I guess we'll go with Biden." And I'm the same way. "Whatever, I'll vote for Biden in November."

One needs to look at the midterms from 18 for a guide on enthusiasm.  

Biden = referendum on Trump
Sanders = referendum on socialistic policies

I know what I want the election to be about.  

Good point on the ‘18 midterms. But I think Biden needs more than “Trump’s awful, I’ll be better than Trump.” Not that I disagree with that notion. But that seemed to be the main point of Hillary’s campaign. 

Interesting.. I always felt like that was Trump's angle.. I can remember him saying "What've you got to lose?"

I don't recall that but it sounds about right. Either way, now, he's going to at least have a few things to tout (the economy, low unemployment). He's still the same old Trump. But as an incumbent, with what I view as a weaker candidate than Hillary in Biden, his re-election might not be as crazy as his initial election.

Note on the Hillary/Biden thing. I feel if Biden ran in 2016, he would have beaten Hillary and Trump. That was his time. But now, I think 2016 Hillary was a better candidate than 2020 Biden...if that makes any sense. 

JimmyV

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

This was on Hannity so take it with a grain of salt, but he said that Trump (running unopposed) got more votes in the Texas republican primary on Tuesday than Sanders, Biden, and Warren got combined in the democratic primary in Texas. And I've seen some other good numbers for Trump in the pre-Super Tuesday primaries. Seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Republican voters to get out vote for him.

I saw this talking point as well.. but it conveniently leaves out that Bloomberg finished 3rd, not Warren.  If you add up all the D's, they exceed 2MM whereas Trump is 1.8MM.  I believe there were other issues on the ballot as well.  Either way, I don't think D's win TX so it's not particularly meaningful.  It's just a R talking point.   

I noticed it leaves Bloomberg out purposely in order to make the point they're trying to make. And call it a republican talking-point if you want, but I didn't perceive it like that. What's the point of Hannity bringing it up? To pat Republican voters on the back for voting in an unopposed primary? Or to praise Trump? Knowing Hannity, those probably ARE the reasons to bring it up so it's reasonable for you to dismiss it as a republican talking point. But I still find it to be an interesting factoid that's worth being aware of. At least for me.

It's to show the Republican audience that R voters are just as/more enthusiastic than D's.  I saw a similar stat yesterday talking about Colorado, but only counting the top three.  When you counted all the candidates, the D vote was almost double. Remember, it's literally propaganda television. 

Well I think it's a given that the D's should have way more votes overall because there's is a contested primary. But I still think Trump getting that many votes unopposed is "something." And maybe I'm just a simpleton that's tricked by propaganda television, but the R's DO seem more enthusiastic than the D's. From voting in uncontested primaries to attending Trump's Orwellian rallies. For whatever reason, they love that guy. I don't see much love from Dems for Biden. His great Super Tuesday came off (to me anyway) as the electorate saying "Well, I guess we'll go with Biden." And I'm the same way. "Whatever, I'll vote for Biden in November."

One needs to look at the midterms from 18 for a guide on enthusiasm.  

Biden = referendum on Trump
Sanders = referendum on socialistic policies

I know what I want the election to be about.  

Good point on the ‘18 midterms. But I think Biden needs more than “Trump’s awful, I’ll be better than Trump.” Not that I disagree with that notion. But that seemed to be the main point of Hillary’s campaign. 

The main point of Hillary's campaign was "shattering the glass ceiling." But you are not wrong...her final message was what kind of America do you want to live in? Her camp fully expected Republicans, particularly women, were going to defect to her in large numbers. Didn't happen, obviously. 

OnWis97

Kat said:

Now, if we can encourage the 7,804,213 voters who voted 3rd party and are in swing states to join in to remove soul-eater from office, it'll be a really good day. More people voted against soul-eater than voted for him and I don't feel like he's gained new voters.

"According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for other candidates was 7,804,213."

GOP candidates are the constant.  I think they've received roughly the same number of votes dating back to W in 2000 or even before.  The variables are the Dem candidates and third parties.  Obama brought people to the polls.  Hilary did not.  Nadar did enough to help W in 2000.  Nobody did in Obama's election.

Jill Steinski did enough (since it didn't take much) to help Trump in 2016.  Now?  Biden is probably Hillary.  He'll bring out the people that always vote and always vote Democrat, but won't be able to bring out the apolitical/center the way Obama did.  So I'm really curious to see who the third party candidates will be.  I'm thinking Tulski Gabbard may make a run.  Maybe even Bernie.  Justin Amash considering it as a Libertarian (who's that help/hurt).  It should be as close as 2016 in purple states.

HughFreakingDillon

JimmyV said:

Kat said:

Now, if we can encourage the 7,804,213 voters who voted 3rd party and are in swing states to join in to remove soul-eater from office, it'll be a really good day. More people voted against soul-eater than voted for him and I don't feel like he's gained new voters.

"According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for other candidates was 7,804,213."

Agree totally with the bolded, Kat. 63 million is his ceiling. 

you think so? I doubt he's lost voters, but with the economy and unemployment such as it is, you don't think additional people will shy away from taking a risk on "raise taxes" democrats?

dankind

JimmyV said:

Kat said:

Now, if we can encourage the 7,804,213 voters who voted 3rd party and are in swing states to join in to remove soul-eater from office, it'll be a really good day. More people voted against soul-eater than voted for him and I don't feel like he's gained new voters.

"According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for other candidates was 7,804,213."

Agree totally with the bolded, Kat. 63 million is his ceiling. 

Because there's nothing that independently minded voters love more than being "convinced" that they should vote with the establishment.

JimmyV

dankind said:

JimmyV said:

Kat said:

Now, if we can encourage the 7,804,213 voters who voted 3rd party and are in swing states to join in to remove soul-eater from office, it'll be a really good day. More people voted against soul-eater than voted for him and I don't feel like he's gained new voters.

"According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for other candidates was 7,804,213."

Agree totally with the bolded, Kat. 63 million is his ceiling. 

Because there's nothing that independently minded voters love more than being "convinced" that they should vote with the establishment.

That wasn't the part that I bolded, and I don't disagree. Dems sometimes seem to act like all these votes are theirs by right. They aren't. They can be won, but they'll need to be earned. 

JimmyV

HughFreakingDillon said:

JimmyV said:

Kat said:

Now, if we can encourage the 7,804,213 voters who voted 3rd party and are in swing states to join in to remove soul-eater from office, it'll be a really good day. More people voted against soul-eater than voted for him and I don't feel like he's gained new voters.

"According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for other candidates was 7,804,213."

Agree totally with the bolded, Kat. 63 million is his ceiling. 

you think so? I doubt he's lost voters, but with the economy and unemployment such as it is, you don't think additional people will shy away from taking a risk on "raise taxes" democrats?

I personally can't imagine anyone who wasn't with him in 2016 being won over by his first term. If you found somewhere else to put your vote then, I bet you will again.  

HughFreakingDillon

JimmyV said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JimmyV said:

Kat said:

Now, if we can encourage the 7,804,213 voters who voted 3rd party and are in swing states to join in to remove soul-eater from office, it'll be a really good day. More people voted against soul-eater than voted for him and I don't feel like he's gained new voters.

"According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for other candidates was 7,804,213."

Agree totally with the bolded, Kat. 63 million is his ceiling. 

you think so? I doubt he's lost voters, but with the economy and unemployment such as it is, you don't think additional people will shy away from taking a risk on "raise taxes" democrats?

I personally can't imagine anyone who wasn't with him in 2016 being won over by his first term. If you found somewhere else to put your vote then, I bet you will again.  

I don't know, LOADS of people care about one thing: the economy. they may have voted hillary in hopes that the economy stayed the course with another democrat, and when it did under trump, now they'll vote that way in hopes it keeps going. 

or I don't know what I'm talking about. either/or. 

CM189191

https://twitter.com/politicalwire/status/1235627769008132097?s=19

Hopefully the first of many

mrussel1

CM189191 said:

https://twitter.com/politicalwire/status/1235627769008132097?s=19

Hopefully the first of many

It means he sees Michigan as the Alamo.  He knows he can't win the black vote from Biden, so he's concentrating in Michigan, giving up on MS, GA and maybe even FL.  He needs a win and he really needs it to be decisive.  

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

Kat said:

Now, if we can encourage the 7,804,213 voters who voted 3rd party and are in swing states to join in to remove soul-eater from office, it'll be a really good day. More people voted against soul-eater than voted for him and I don't feel like he's gained new voters.

"According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton’s final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for other candidates was 7,804,213."

GOP candidates are the constant.  I think they've received roughly the same number of votes dating back to W in 2000 or even before.  The variables are the Dem candidates and third parties.  Obama brought people to the polls.  Hilary did not.  Nadar did enough to help W in 2000.  Nobody did in Obama's election.

Jill Steinski did enough (since it didn't take much) to help Trump in 2016.  Now?  Biden is probably Hillary.  He'll bring out the people that always vote and always vote Democrat, but won't be able to bring out the apolitical/center the way Obama did.  So I'm really curious to see who the third party candidates will be.  I'm thinking Tulski Gabbard may make a run.  Maybe even Bernie.  Justin Amash considering it as a Libertarian (who's that help/hurt).  It should be as close as 2016 in purple states.

I think Biden can reignite the African-American vote.  

CM189191

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

https://twitter.com/politicalwire/status/1235627769008132097?s=19

Hopefully the first of many

It means he sees Michigan as the Alamo.  He knows he can't win the black vote from Biden, so he's concentrating in Michigan, giving up on MS, GA and maybe even FL.  He needs a win and he really needs it to be decisive.  

Bernie doesn't need a win, he needs to step aside

Michigan won't go for a socialist

static111

Hopefully the party loyalists and establishment will do more to win over the more progressive side of the party if Biden does become the nominee. I don’t think this election can be won with just base support.  There is a reason that millions of Americans are behind Bernie, it isn’t the man, it is what he represents.  Real change, not the Obama feel good platitudes, but actual drastic change that is needed.  Regulation of the banking industry, closing corporate loopholes, strengthening unions, affordable/free higher education, taking a serious look at military spending, etc.  

Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.  Because keeping a workforce in a constant state of insecurity prevents organizing of labor and other movements that could actually threaten consolidated corporate power and bring about actual change and programs that people desire.

Neo-liberalism isn’t much better than neo-conservatism, one meets with banks the wealthy and those in power in private rooms and in public tells a different story about social change and the other just blatantly says business interests are the most important interests in a democracy.

There is a lot of talk of middle class and the working class in this election, but what does that even mean? It is rapidly becoming plain to see that there are two classes, the upper class ie the establishment and wealthy regardless of political party and the rest of us, the under class. Sure within the under class there are people that have a worse situation due to gender or racial inequality or sexual orientation or gender identifying characteristics, but the fact remains that we are all part of the underclass.  The nice thing about that is that if all of us in the under class get together we have the numbers to force change through action and democracy. That is what the candidacy of Bernie represents.

As for Trump, well yes the guy is a complete dirtbag and embarrassment to us all, or should be.  If you don’t think he is an embarrassment you aren’t paying attention.  

In summation my take is the reason for the rise of a more socialist left is because the underclasses have been so exploited and under represented for so long it seems like the only option.  The reality is that this was brought about by the status quo of both parties putting some mythical bottom line spreadsheet based economy ahead of the welfare of the society, which is what democracy is actually supposed to be about.

I will still vote for the Democratic nominee but don’t think that we have a chance to win if all we are doing is voting against Trump.  If the establishment wants to ensure a win slide a little to the left and give people something to vote for.

wow it feels good to rant and ramble

myoung321

static111 said:

Hopefully the party loyalists and establishment will do more to win over the more progressive side of the party if Biden does become the nominee. I don’t think this election can be won with just base support.  There is a reason that millions of Americans are behind Bernie, it isn’t the man, it is what he represents.  Real change, not the Obama feel good platitudes, but actual drastic change that is needed.  Regulation of the banking industry, closing corporate loopholes, strengthening unions, affordable/free higher education, taking a serious look at military spending, etc.  

Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.  Because keeping a workforce in a constant state of insecurity prevents organizing of labor and other movements that could actually threaten consolidated corporate power and bring about actual change and programs that people desire.

Neo-liberalism isn’t much better than neo-conservatism, one meets with banks the wealthy and those in power in private rooms and in public tells a different story about social change and the other just blatantly says business interests are the most important interests in a democracy.

There is a lot of talk of middle class and the working class in this election, but what does that even mean? It is rapidly becoming plain to see that there are two classes, the upper class ie the establishment and wealthy regardless of political party and the rest of us, the under class. Sure within the under class there are people that have a worse situation due to gender or racial inequality or sexual orientation or gender identifying characteristics, but the fact remains that we are all part of the underclass.  The nice thing about that is that if all of us in the under class get together we have the numbers to force change through action and democracy. That is what the candidacy of Bernie represents.

As for Trump, well yes the guy is a complete dirtbag and embarrassment to us all, or should be.  If you don’t think he is an embarrassment you aren’t paying attention.  

In summation my take is the reason for the rise of a more socialist left is because the underclasses have been so exploited and under represented for so long it seems like the only option.  The reality is that this was brought about by the status quo of both parties putting some mythical bottom line spreadsheet based economy ahead of the welfare of the society, which is what democracy is actually supposed to be about.

I will still vote for the Democratic nominee but don’t think that we have a chance to win if all we are doing is voting against Trump.  If the establishment wants to ensure a win slide a little to the left and give people something to vote for.

wow it feels good to rant and ramble

Well said... 

mrussel1

static111 said:

Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.  

Thanks for the fresh post.  I won't quibble with many of your points, even if I may not agree in full.  I will say your statement on banks is 100% false.  I work and have worked in senior roles that focus heavily on loss reserves, lending standards, recession planning, etc.  There is not one situation where we have ever forecasted government funds or counted on them.  In fact, the whole process is covered by Basel III rules, and was recently even enhanced on what is called the CECL accounting rules, which require banks to reserve even more than ever before.  And there are some very, very fundamental misunderstandings about TARP that I would be happy to correct if people ever have questions. 

Second, this term "precariat"...who are these rich and powerful people that describe most of us that way?  I have never heard this before.  

static111

myoung321 said:

static111 said:

Hopefully the party loyalists and establishment will do more to win over the more progressive side of the party if Biden does become the nominee. I don’t think this election can be won with just base support.  There is a reason that millions of Americans are behind Bernie, it isn’t the man, it is what he represents.  Real change, not the Obama feel good platitudes, but actual drastic change that is needed.  Regulation of the banking industry, closing corporate loopholes, strengthening unions, affordable/free higher education, taking a serious look at military spending, etc.  

Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.  Because keeping a workforce in a constant state of insecurity prevents organizing of labor and other movements that could actually threaten consolidated corporate power and bring about actual change and programs that people desire.

Neo-liberalism isn’t much better than neo-conservatism, one meets with banks the wealthy and those in power in private rooms and in public tells a different story about social change and the other just blatantly says business interests are the most important interests in a democracy.

There is a lot of talk of middle class and the working class in this election, but what does that even mean? It is rapidly becoming plain to see that there are two classes, the upper class ie the establishment and wealthy regardless of political party and the rest of us, the under class. Sure within the under class there are people that have a worse situation due to gender or racial inequality or sexual orientation or gender identifying characteristics, but the fact remains that we are all part of the underclass.  The nice thing about that is that if all of us in the under class get together we have the numbers to force change through action and democracy. That is what the candidacy of Bernie represents.

As for Trump, well yes the guy is a complete dirtbag and embarrassment to us all, or should be.  If you don’t think he is an embarrassment you aren’t paying attention.  

In summation my take is the reason for the rise of a more socialist left is because the underclasses have been so exploited and under represented for so long it seems like the only option.  The reality is that this was brought about by the status quo of both parties putting some mythical bottom line spreadsheet based economy ahead of the welfare of the society, which is what democracy is actually supposed to be about.

I will still vote for the Democratic nominee but don’t think that we have a chance to win if all we are doing is voting against Trump.  If the establishment wants to ensure a win slide a little to the left and give people something to vote for.

wow it feels good to rant and ramble

Well said... 

Thanks, I’ve been stewing with that since 2016 and that terrible fiasco so I’ve had some time to think about it. 😃 

Kat

I always remember that Joe Biden is more progressive than many realize/remember. He can be moderate but also progressive. I'm ok with voting for that because he's a decent man and we need that. 

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/05/08/bidens-early-support-for-same-sex-marriage-still-remembered-for-impact/

Lerxst1992

JimmyV said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

Sad. She was the best choice and would have taken Trump apart on the mythical debate stage. Now it will just be two (too?) old men yelling at each other and very easy for people to pretend they are same. 

I am very thankful voters and poll respondents and Massachusetts residents responded to her in the way that they did. I'll stop there as today is not the day to pile on.

You can pile on. If you guys are wrong about Biden I will never, ever let you forget it, so fair is fair.

Hes not the best, I liked pete more but knew it is not Pete's time yet.

We rest drove 29 candidates and could not take down Biden. So let's hope he continues to improve 

CM189191

Kat said:

I always remember that Joe Biden is more progressive than many realize/remember. He can be moderate but also progressive. I'm ok with voting for that because he's a decent man and we need that. 

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/05/08/bidens-early-support-for-same-sex-marriage-still-remembered-for-impact/

But Kaaaaaaaaaat

Biden's not pure as the driven snow, and I don't agree on every single policy stance he's taken

what do?