|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 31 2019 03:49 IyMoon wrote:
Wait, so Yang counted a poll twice?
Are the rules three different polls? meaning three different companies polls or 3 different polls even by the same people?
edit
I just read up on it and its 4 polls by 4 companies. Seems Yang was confused (that or the DNC is making up rules on the fly, but I really doubt that.) Does anyone have a copy of the actual dnc rules?
Yeah the full rules might give clarification but these are "fairly new" rules in an attempt to thin out the crazy amount of candidates
Yang also knew that NBC was part of those polls as it's in his tweet
It does become a bit wonky as it's not just straight up NBC but NBC+WSJ and NBC+SurveyMonkey
|
These rules should be made more clear imo, but I also think that Yang will easily qualify for the 3rd debate anyway.
|
So I think this is the most complete rules i've seen from the DNC. I think the wording could be cleaned up but the DNC interpretation of it doesn't seem off.
https://democrats.org/news/third-debate/
The qualification criteria for the September debate will also remain in place for October’s DNC-sanctioned debate. To qualify for the September and October debates, candidates must meet both the Polling Threshold and the Grassroots Fundraising Threshold, as detailed below:
Polling Threshold. Candidates must receive 2% or more support in at least four polls (which may be national polls, or polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada) meeting the following criteria (“Qualifying Poll Criteria”):
Each poll must be sponsored by an approved organization, which presently includes the following: Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Des Moines Register, Fox News, Monmouth University, NBC News, New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Quinnipiac University, University of New Hampshire, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, and Winthrop University. Any candidate’s four qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas. The DNC and its media partners reserve the right to add a Nevada-specific poll sponsor to this list in the near future.
For the September debate, each poll must be publicly released between June 28, 2019, and August 28, 2019. Deadlines for qualifying polls ahead of the October debate will be released in the future.
Each poll’s candidate support question must have been conducted by reading or presenting a list of Democratic presidential primary candidates to respondents. (Poll questions using an open-ended or un-aided question to gauge presidential primary support will not count).
Each polling result must be the top-line number listed in the original public release from the approved sponsoring organization/institution, whether or not it is a rounded or weighted number.
Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019. Deadlines for qualifying donations ahead of the October debate will be released in the future. An acceptable certification must provide or attach adequate verifiable evidence to show that the fundraising threshold has been reached and may include verification from ActBlue or NGP VAN regarding the campaign’s fundraising.
Still a bit wonky but it does make it clear that it "must be" different approved organizations. So even though WSJ is an approved organization because it's partnered with NBC on that poll it makes it both a WSJ and a NBC poll and thus wouldn't be different enough from the other NBC poll. Either way I think Yang probably gets the 2% somewhere before august 28
|
Yang will for sure qualify, especially after being able to declare himself the victim of the establishment DNC. All someone needs to say is "the DNC fucked me over" and they'll get a million in donations in 24 hours.
|
On July 31 2019 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Yang will for sure qualify, especially after being able to declare himself the victim of the establishment DNC. All someone needs to say is "the DNC fucked me over" and they'll get a million in donations in 24 hours.
Yeah, the DNC will cave, include him in the debate then do what they did for the first debate and ask him one question with an idiotic follow-on question and otherwise ignore him.
I don't even like Yang, but it's amazing how he was treated in the first debate.
|
On July 31 2019 05:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Yang will for sure qualify, especially after being able to declare himself the victim of the establishment DNC. All someone needs to say is "the DNC fucked me over" and they'll get a million in donations in 24 hours. Yeah, the DNC will cave, include him in the debate then do what they did for the first debate and ask him one question with an idiotic follow-on question and otherwise ignore him. I don't even like Yang, but it's amazing how he was treated in the first debate.
With 10 people on stage at the same time, it's hardly the DNC's fault that he didn't speak up like essentially every other candidate. He's gotta fight for time. I know he had some mic issues too, but always waiting your turn is not how you win debates like these. It's a crappy format imo, but candidates have to be assertive too.
|
On July 31 2019 05:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 05:21 Logo wrote:On July 31 2019 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Yang will for sure qualify, especially after being able to declare himself the victim of the establishment DNC. All someone needs to say is "the DNC fucked me over" and they'll get a million in donations in 24 hours. Yeah, the DNC will cave, include him in the debate then do what they did for the first debate and ask him one question with an idiotic follow-on question and otherwise ignore him. I don't even like Yang, but it's amazing how he was treated in the first debate. With 10 people on stage at the same time, it's hardly the DNC's fault that he didn't speak up like essentially every other candidate. He's gotta fight for time. I know he had some mic issues too, but always waiting your turn is not how you win debates like these. It's a crappy format imo, but candidates have to be assertive too.
That's not even it fully? I'll argue Yang's answer here is bad (could be stronger) but check this exchange:
DIAZ-BALART: So, Mr. Yang, if I get to understand a little bit better, Sir, you are saying $1,000 a month for everyone over 18, but a value-added tax so you can spend that $1,000 on value-added tax?
YANG: Well, the value-added tax would end up — you still would be increasing the buying power of the bottom 94 percent of Americans. You have to spend a lot of money for a mild value-added tax to eat up $12,000 a year per individual. So for the average family with two or three adults, it would be $24-36,000 a year.
But look at this... even at a 20% VAT you'd have to spend $60,000/year for your $12,000 UBI to go entirely to VAT, but 20% isn't "half of European levels" even. $60k/person is twice the country's median income. And there's no excuse for the moderator not knowing it. Regardless of how good an idea UBI or VAT are, a question like this has a pretty clear intention to try and sink the idea from resonating with American people rather than furthering a discussion.
|
On July 31 2019 05:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Yang will for sure qualify, especially after being able to declare himself the victim of the establishment DNC. All someone needs to say is "the DNC fucked me over" and they'll get a million in donations in 24 hours. Yeah, the DNC will cave, include him in the debate then do what they did for the first debate and ask him one question with an idiotic follow-on question and otherwise ignore him. I don't even like Yang, but it's amazing how he was treated in the first debate.
I don't think they'll need to cave. There will be other polls and he'll likely cross the threshold.
Imo, debates should just be the top (number) of individual donations. Start with 15, then 10, then 5 or something like that. Ignore polls, just individual donations.
|
On July 31 2019 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 05:21 Logo wrote:On July 31 2019 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Yang will for sure qualify, especially after being able to declare himself the victim of the establishment DNC. All someone needs to say is "the DNC fucked me over" and they'll get a million in donations in 24 hours. Yeah, the DNC will cave, include him in the debate then do what they did for the first debate and ask him one question with an idiotic follow-on question and otherwise ignore him. I don't even like Yang, but it's amazing how he was treated in the first debate. I don't think they'll need to cave. There will be other polls and he'll likely cross the threshold. Imo, debates should just be the top (number) of individual donations. Start with 15, then 10, then 5 or something like that. Ignore polls, just individual donations.
"Donations" or "donors"? O'Rourke really burned out quick. Seems to me the field is settled (save the also-rans lingering around).
Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris are it. Buttigeig can't get Black people (especially the ones they poll) to support him to save his life so his primary might as well be over too, but he's got the numbers to stick around a little longer than a Klobachar or Swalwell. Sanders should be all in, in Iowa and NH right now if he wants to win. Sweeping the first two contests turns it into a 2 person race before super Tuesday but I wouldn't be surprised to see Harris stick in until super Tuesday even if she's only got a chance to win California and help try to force the nominee to be a convention floor decision/trade her delegates for a cabinet position.
|
On July 31 2019 05:35 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 05:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 31 2019 05:21 Logo wrote:On July 31 2019 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Yang will for sure qualify, especially after being able to declare himself the victim of the establishment DNC. All someone needs to say is "the DNC fucked me over" and they'll get a million in donations in 24 hours. Yeah, the DNC will cave, include him in the debate then do what they did for the first debate and ask him one question with an idiotic follow-on question and otherwise ignore him. I don't even like Yang, but it's amazing how he was treated in the first debate. With 10 people on stage at the same time, it's hardly the DNC's fault that he didn't speak up like essentially every other candidate. He's gotta fight for time. I know he had some mic issues too, but always waiting your turn is not how you win debates like these. It's a crappy format imo, but candidates have to be assertive too. That's not even it fully? I'll argue Yang's answer here is bad (could be stronger) but check this exchange: Show nested quote +
DIAZ-BALART: So, Mr. Yang, if I get to understand a little bit better, Sir, you are saying $1,000 a month for everyone over 18, but a value-added tax so you can spend that $1,000 on value-added tax?
YANG: Well, the value-added tax would end up — you still would be increasing the buying power of the bottom 94 percent of Americans. You have to spend a lot of money for a mild value-added tax to eat up $12,000 a year per individual. So for the average family with two or three adults, it would be $24-36,000 a year.
But look at this... even at a 20% VAT you'd have to spend $60,000/year for your $12,000 UBI to go entirely to VAT, but 20% isn't "half of European levels" even. $60k/person is twice the country's median income. And there's no excuse for the moderator not knowing it. Regardless of how good an idea UBI or VAT are, a question like this has a pretty clear intention to try and sink the idea from resonating with American people rather than furthering a discussion.
Yeah, it was a bullshit question phrased in an absurdly dismissive way. Fuck that guy.
But I wanted to chime in to say that Yang is proposing a 10% VAT, which is pretty close to half the European levels. Though I imagine it's open to being adjusted if necessary. With a 10% VAT, an individual would have to spend $120,000 per year on VAT-taxable goods/services to negate the freedom dividend. For a family with 2 adults, they'd have to spend $240,000.
I know a lot of otherwise progressive people dismiss Yang's idea because they feel that "a VAT is regressive." (Has even happened in this very thread.) And, on it's own and with no exemptions, I'd agree. But a VAT with a focus on luxury goods/services implemented in conjunction with a basic income for all Americans is more progressive than anything else any candidate has brought forward.
edit: oh, and regarding the DNC saying that poll doesn't count, Yang's campaign reached out to the DNC the day that poll was published (weeks ago), and have reached out repeatedly, but the DNC didn't respond. I also don't expect it to be a problem. I expect he'll get another qualifying poll well in time.
|
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements
|
On July 31 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements
This is especially important with Democrats and Republicans agreeing to hamstring the next president with bipartisan support for austerity after blowing the budget out with tax cuts and military spending.
|
Benefits liquidated into cash are distinctly less powerful a market force than their service equivalents, which is why a UBI without reforms that basically swallow up the impact of the UBI amounts to little more than robbing Peter to pay Paul slightly less. A VAT fed UBI that purports to replace other welfare benefits is a recipe for creating an even more crippled and concrete lower class than we have now.
|
Biden is doing better than I thought he would be at this point. Really looks like a great deal of Bernie's original Midwest support was really just "anyone but Hilary".
A lot depends on the debates still imo. If Biden shits the bed again, I think buttigieg has a chance at being the new Biden. I dunno. It's all in the air, just saying Biden is surprising me.
|
On July 31 2019 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden is doing better than I thought he would be at this point. Really looks like a great deal of Bernie's original Midwest support was really just "anyone but Hilary".
A lot depends on the debates still imo. If Biden shits the bed again, I think buttigieg has a chance at being the new Biden. I dunno. It's all in the air, just saying Biden is surprising me.
People over 50 just love them some Biden. None of the things that make him unacceptable to people under 45 even budges his over 50 support. Who knows what electorate modeling pollsters are using though?
I'd be impressed if Democrats managed to be so terrible that they actually manage to put Biden up against Trump.
|
O'Rourke better take a knee during the anthem or he really doesn't want to win. Also that's the whitest group of people I've ever seen in Detroit (audience and stage).
|
On July 31 2019 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden is doing better than I thought he would be at this point. Really looks like a great deal of Bernie's original Midwest support was really just "anyone but Hilary".
A lot depends on the debates still imo. If Biden shits the bed again, I think buttigieg has a chance at being the new Biden. I dunno. It's all in the air, just saying Biden is surprising me. People over 50 just love them some Biden. None of the things that make him unacceptable to people under 45 even budges his over 50 support. Who knows what electorate modeling pollsters are using though? I'd be impressed if Democrats managed to be so terrible that they actually manage to put Biden up against Trump.
He's the moderate, establishment candidate with a well-known reputation spanning the Obama presidency, so I'm not at all surprised that a lot of people still feel comfortable with him.
|
Good on the "moderates" for fighting back, and it's all the more ammo for Trump when none of them win the nomination.
|
|
|
On July 31 2019 09:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2019 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden is doing better than I thought he would be at this point. Really looks like a great deal of Bernie's original Midwest support was really just "anyone but Hilary".
A lot depends on the debates still imo. If Biden shits the bed again, I think buttigieg has a chance at being the new Biden. I dunno. It's all in the air, just saying Biden is surprising me. People over 50 just love them some Biden. None of the things that make him unacceptable to people under 45 even budges his over 50 support. Who knows what electorate modeling pollsters are using though? I'd be impressed if Democrats managed to be so terrible that they actually manage to put Biden up against Trump. He's the moderate, establishment candidate with a well-known reputation spanning the Obama presidency, so I'm not at all surprised that a lot of people still feel comfortable with him.
I'm not sure that's true, or that if it was, it would be a good thing.
EDIT: I guess the DNC knew they didn't need a Fox News debate with CNN playing the role of conservative questioners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
