EPT2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 24
| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14208 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On July 29 2019 06:03 Sermokala wrote: I think people are ignoring the possibility of having a presidential campaign and a vice presidential campaign going on at the same time. I would compare Yang more closely with Klobishar for a midwestern vice president pick up. A lot of the front runners other then them look like they can fall easily into traps for the campaign and alienate the midwest/florida easily. Vice presidents are historically pretty meaningless, but in the era of Trump, anything is possible. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14208 Posts
On July 29 2019 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Vice presidents are historically pretty meaningless, but in the era of Trump, anything is possible. All due respect if that's what you think you weren't paying attention in the last elections. From trumps grand bargain with the religious right in pence to Obamas steady older hand in Biden to mccains and Hillary's mistakes they've been at the least marginally important, which makes them all the difference with how close the elections have been. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46400 Posts
On July 29 2019 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Vice presidents are historically pretty meaningless, but in the era of Trump, anything is possible. I think when it comes to runningmates, they can definitely make or break an election, even if they're not as important during a presidency. They can help seal missing demographics, or turn people away from voting. Sarah Palin, Tim Kaine, and a few other recent runningmates come to mind. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On July 29 2019 05:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And before all that, one needs to specifically be a Pell Grant recipient too? I wonder what her justification is for these specific conditions. To sound like she's progressive without actually doing anything progressive? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46400 Posts
On July 30 2019 02:20 Logo wrote: To sound like she's progressive without actually doing anything progressive? Touche, although (fortunately) I doubt any Sanders or Warren supporters would fall for Harris's pseudo-progressive plan here. Is there a VOD of last night's (full) primary debate anywhere? Usually one is up on YouTube by now, but I'm having trouble finding one. Edit: Found 2 VODs here... + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46400 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Bourgeois
81 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46400 Posts
On August 04 2019 23:09 Bourgeois wrote: Eric Swalwell must be kicking himself right now. Although I found the ethics of campaigning on gun violence on the gamble that there would likely be a mass shooting sometime during the campaign disgusting, there's been two incidents since his recent dropping out and he had a real opportunity to bank on them. Eh, so does every Democratic candidate though, right? I'd imagine it's ultimately a wash between them all, and it's not like any 0-2% candidate was suddenly going to start surging due to our daily gun violence. | ||
|
Bourgeois
81 Posts
On August 05 2019 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Eh, so does every Democratic candidate though, right? I'd imagine it's ultimately a wash between them all, and it's not like any 0-2% candidate was suddenly going to start surging due to our daily gun violence. However, Swalwell was the only one who made it a central platform and had the most extreme (i.e. rational and standard by non-US standards) policy. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
Pete had a "please clap" moment, so his campaign is probably over after Iowa. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46400 Posts
| ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4558 Posts
From what I can find, this is the same amount as in 2016, but I seem to remember the superdelegate system getting lots of flak and the DNC making changes to it? Did it only change in certain states? In 2016 less than 6% of superdelegates voted Bernie and the overwhelming majority voted Hillary, seems to me like this scenario will just repeat itself if the system hasn't changed? On January 22 2020 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is becoming really disappointing. Within the past week: Warren smeared Sanders (sexism), Sanders smeared Biden (social security), and Hillary Clinton smeared Sanders (everything). Obligatory reminder to stop acting like children, because the only way to beat Trump is if moderates and progressives collectively vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Sigh. Smearing opponents appears to be a more effective strategy than repeatedly outlining your own policies nowadays. I agree it's disappointing but that's the way it seems to be. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On January 22 2020 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is becoming really disappointing. Within the past week: Warren smeared Sanders (sexism), Sanders smeared Biden (social security), and Hillary Clinton smeared Sanders (everything). Obligatory reminder to stop acting like children, because the only way to beat Trump is if moderates and progressives collectively vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Sigh. What's the "smear" from Sanders? He's critical of Biden's support for cutting Social Security, which is contrasting historical political positions, which I understand to be the point of a primary (in theory at least). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46400 Posts
On January 23 2020 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote: What's the "smear" from Sanders? He's critical of Biden's support for cutting Social Security, which is contrasting historical political positions, which I understand to be the point of a primary (in theory at least). He fallaciously quote mined some statements of Biden without offering the proper context, and non-partisan fact-checkers established that Sanders was misrepresenting Biden. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On January 23 2020 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: He fallaciously quote mined some statements of Biden without offering the proper context, and non-partisan fact-checkers established that Sanders was misrepresenting Biden. I don't believe that claim without evidence. Can you provide the fallacious quote and proper context? Because it seems to me it is clear Biden has, on multiple occasions, suggested cutting Social Security benefits. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46400 Posts
On January 23 2020 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't believe that claim without evidence. Can you provide the fallacious quote and proper context? Because it seems to me it is clear Biden has, on multiple occasions, suggested cutting Social Security benefits. Here's one example of a fact-checking source giving Sanders a thumbs-down with this situation: "A Sanders campaign newsletter said, "In 2018, Biden lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare." That stems from a speech Biden gave in 2018 in which he spoke about Ryan. Biden appeared to be mocking Ryan, not praising him. The Sanders campaign omitted what Biden said next: the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare and to change the tax code, which he said benefitted the mega rich. Overall, the point of Biden’s speech was to criticize tax cuts for the rich and call for more help to the middle class. The Sanders campaign plucked out part of what Biden said but omitted the full context of his comments. We rate this statement False." https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2020/jan/09/bernie-sanders/did-biden-laud-paul-ryan-proposal-cut-social-secur/ | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On January 23 2020 03:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Here's one example of a fact-checking source giving Sanders a thumbs-down with this situation: "A Sanders campaign newsletter said, "In 2018, Biden lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare." That stems from a speech Biden gave in 2018 in which he spoke about Ryan. Biden appeared to be mocking Ryan, not praising him. The Sanders campaign omitted what Biden said next: the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare and to change the tax code, which he said benefitted the mega rich. Overall, the point of Biden’s speech was to criticize tax cuts for the rich and call for more help to the middle class. The Sanders campaign plucked out part of what Biden said but omitted the full context of his comments. We rate this statement False." https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2020/jan/09/bernie-sanders/did-biden-laud-paul-ryan-proposal-cut-social-secur/ I wasn't sure that's what you're referring to but that doesn't change my mind. Biden was praising Ryan for proposing cutting Social Security as a necessary step. Politifact included the additional context but omitted analysis of it. I don’t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire. I don’t know a lot of them. Maybe you guys do. is obviously a reference to means testing cutsit still needs adjustments is also a well-known Washington euphemism for cuts.Biden imo was clearly chiding Ryan for proposing what he's long agreed are needed cuts to SS benefits (but a political third rail of a position) to benefit the wealthiest people by way of tax cuts. Tough love from Bernie maybe, but I wouldn't group that with Warren's smear and Clinton's Anti-endorsement. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 22 2020 20:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is becoming really disappointing. Within the past week: Warren smeared Sanders (sexism), Sanders smeared Biden (social security), and Hillary Clinton smeared Sanders (everything). Obligatory reminder to stop acting like children, because the only way to beat Trump is if moderates and progressives collectively vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Sigh. On some level I can understand and accept the Sanders/Biden and the Sanders/Warren scuffles. Much as we would like it to be otherwise, aggressive campaigning does occasionally involve some words being said. I can accept that not all smears are “fair” representations, since it’s in the heat of the campaign. Special mention of the Clinton comment though for being particularly bad. Not only was it done without any chance of campaign gain, but also remember that Sanders endorsed her in 2016 well beyond his personal agreement with her policies. To turn around and be petty about the possibility of him being the nominee this time around is just disgraceful. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 23 2020 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote: Tough love from Bernie maybe, but I wouldn't group that with Warren's smear and Clinton's Anti-endorsement. Even ignoring any basis of factuality, the Sander's comments on the other candidates have been based around policy (Joe Biden's record on SS), while say Warren and Clinton's smears are purely non-policy (is he sexist, do people like him). It is pretty clear at this point that there hasn't been a really effective or impactful attack on Sanders along policy lines (i.e. all of his policies are generally very popular) so the other candidates have to find alternative avenues of attack. | ||
| ||
