Quantcast
Who Should Run For President on the Democratic Side?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Who Should Run For President on the Democratic Side?

Mnementh said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

By the way, anybody of you guys check the polls? Wikipedia has them in a nice list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Yeah, this is one good source. There are more.

RealClearPolitics only checks four major polls, but they conveniently have a running average of these four (I wish they also had a graph over time, so you could see how the race changes):

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Fivethirtyeight also tracks the primary polls, they have ratings for the different pollsters (something they do to make their models more accurate) and also show sample size and if the people asked are likely voters, registered voters, adults and so on. I wish they would build these polls into a model, maybe they'll do it later:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/

Fivethirtyeight also tracks endorsements, which looks quite different (I mean Booker?). They rate the 'value' of the endorsement based on office the person holds:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/

Thanks for the links.

Don't know how that endorsement ranking is supposed to work out, though. Plus, the list seems pretty outdated compared to the ones on Wikipedia, especially Bernie's endorsements are very trunkated while there are enough to warrant a separate page on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Endorsements_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Mnementh said:

Yeah, this is one good source. There are more.

RealClearPolitics only checks four major polls, but they conveniently have a running average of these four (I wish they also had a graph over time, so you could see how the race changes):

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Fivethirtyeight also tracks the primary polls, they have ratings for the different pollsters (something they do to make their models more accurate) and also show sample size and if the people asked are likely voters, registered voters, adults and so on. I wish they would build these polls into a model, maybe they'll do it later:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/

Fivethirtyeight also tracks endorsements, which looks quite different (I mean Booker?). They rate the 'value' of the endorsement based on office the person holds:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/

Thanks for the links.

Don't know how that endorsement ranking is supposed to work out, though. Plus, the list seems pretty outdated compared to the ones on Wikipedia, especially Bernie's endorsements are very trunkated while there are enough to warrant a separate page on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Endorsements_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements

Endorsements in the past were a valid indicator, but not the last word. Taking endorsements as indicator works well, if the endorsements are pretty strong for one candidate without other candidates getting also a lot. 538 explains it: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-tracking-2020-presidential-endorsements-heres-why-they-probably-still-matter/

The differences to the endorsement-tracker on Wikipedia is, that 538 only counts current office holders (with few exceptions like past presidents) and also only few office holders in regional offices (like state congress). Wikipedia lists them all, even if they never held political office, like songwriters or actors. This is in part, because 538 puts a 'value' on the endorsement, the ones not counted would be assigned 0 points. This system allows it to beforehand know the pool of possible endorsements and calculate a percentage, as they already do for calculating the persentage of endorsements from different states the candidate gets in the shown map. So 538 seems to have listed all endorsements from US-congressmen to Bernie Sanders and other office-holders they appoint points to, like representatice Rho Kanna or senator Patrick Leahy, but not from state legislature like Rhode Island State senator Sam Bell.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

SpokenTruth said:
Primary choice: Bernie Sanders.
Secondary choice: Tulsi Gabbard.

Would love to see them as candidate and running mate....either iteration.

By the way, don't bother arguing with Snoopy. To him, his opinions will always 'trump' your facts.

I thought you were going to join the caravan and teach America the wonders of socialism and how it will work this time despite it failing for the hundredth time.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Snoopy said:

1. Yet there are Countries like China and India with a bigger population and yet we have more money.

2. Eventually, we will have to drop social programs, tell other Countries they need to take care of themselves and end financial aid. It's as if social programs fail in the long run...

3. You assume wrong. Private banks will make loans, but for degrees that are actually worth it if the federal government just butt out. They will deny your loan for a liberal arts degree (unless it is really cheap) but approve your Engineering degree. And again, Universities have NO INCENTIVE to lower price because kids out of high school with no concept of money are willing to put themselves hundreds of thousand dollars in debt for joke degrees. If someone was willing to pay you a lot of money for a product, why would you lower the price?

Also, you don't need a college degree to be successful. There are other forms of education such as Coding boot camps, trade school, and even youtube videos.

1. Still, since they are still a developing country. But China is growing much faster than the US and will overtake them soon. US Has a total GDP of 20 Trillion while China is at 15 Trillion and growing at twice the speed of the US. 20 years ago the US economy was still 3 times bigger than the Chinese economy, now that's down to 25%

2. Or just cut the military budget and get some taxes from corporations and the super-rich, as they are paying next to nothing now, and certainly much, much less than they should, even some of them acknowledged that, and that was before Trumps tax cuts.

Also, drop financial aid? You do know that the US already pay much less then every other developed country as part of their GDP, and that financial aid generally pays out in the long run as these countries tend to like to deal with you in very generous terms.

3. Because it's unsustainable on the long run. At some point even the banks won't be willing to lend that much money without guarantees anymore - but what guarantee do you have to make it to your diploma and get a well-paid job that you can present to the bank beforehand? Especially in times of crisis and/or recession there's nothing you can give them unless they have rich parents who can guarantee to pay it back or poorer families who will have to gamble on their house and/or car as guarantees to the bank - at which point many poorer people will not be going to get higher degrees as the risks get too high. This then means less income for the Universities, thus jacking up the prices even higher to compensate, resulting finally in just the rich being able to afford an University degree. That's also why I said you imply a degree only for the rich, as that would be the result in the long run if nothing changes.

Youtube videos? Tell that to headhunters and employers who only look at your diplomas.

1. China eventually learned about capitalism. Glad you notice how capitalism is the way to go. However, the United States is still ahead and China is plateauing right now. Not to mention the capita per income in China is embarrassing.  Also, I forgot to say the United States has more GDP than the whole European union lol.

2. Even though we spend a lot of money on the military, it still won't cover the cost of social programs. Even if we drop the cost to $0. Not to mention military spending when done right does come up with useful inventions (Internet, GPS, microwaves, etc) and makes other countries think twice about starting wars with us. Which saves us a lot of money in the long run. The rich pay the majority of our taxes as it is. If we tax them to death, they will eventually leave and we get nothing. That includes jobs. We can drop financial aids and other countries will still do deals with us because we are leading in pretty much every relevant industry.

3. Except private banks won't be lending a lot of money compare to the federal government because private banks will be pickier. Therefore the price will go down because Universities will have no choice. Also, there are no guarantees, but there are statistics to see which loan is the best bet. Not to mention Universities can downsize on useless stuff and curriculums. Universities have a lot of ways to generate money. Just look at the sports program.

Youtube videos can teach you many things young padawan. I've made over $15,000 side money online last year thanks to some youtube videos. You can learn to program and build a portfolio, run a landlord business (which I am doing on the side now) and more. If you can prove to people you can do the job, they won't care if you have a degree unless the government forces it of course. I still remember my doctor using google/ a youtube video to help diagnose an issue I was having. What a time to live.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 09 March 2019

Bofferbrauer2 said:
ShadowSoldier said:
Joe Biden is the only real shot the Dems have against Trump

I wouldn't be so sure.

In fact, with Trump's actions provoking a counter-movement in the other direction, I think Biden is too centrist to garner the votes of of the progressives, as he's to centrist, too conservative, too much embodying "Establishment".

Also, have a look at this video. I know it's just a prediction, but it seems fairly logical to me for the most part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvOqcHSiPl0

Bernie and others though would likely struggle to get independents/centrists votes seeing as how most people not on the far left still hate socialism. Independents make up the majority in terms of political affiliation, so just know if the Democrats decide to go Bernie or some other route to please the far left crowd, it will likely (and most probably) bite them in the rear end when it comes to independent votes such as mine.

BTW, I use to like Bernie's personality initially given the contrast of everyone else, but then I listened to his policies, and safe to say after a month's time I despised him. Bernie's the type of candidate like Romney that would likely start strong but soon head on a downward trajectory once everyone understands their platform. No matter how much people can claim 'Socialism would be great' (even though history states otherwise), the majority of Americans still hate it.

Biden works because he can appeal to the middle while also being a charismatic figure for the left. Honestly, given the choice of Bernie or Trump, I'd pick Trump every time due to economic beliefs (which is seen as the biggest issue in most American elections), but if say Biden were to run, I'd have to give it some thought.



Around the Network
TH3-D0S3R said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I wouldn't be so sure.

In fact, with Trump's actions provoking a counter-movement in the other direction, I think Biden is too centrist to garner the votes of of the progressives, as he's to centrist, too conservative, too much embodying "Establishment".

Also, have a look at this video. I know it's just a prediction, but it seems fairly logical to me for the most part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvOqcHSiPl0

Bernie and others though would likely struggle to get independents/centrists votes seeing as how most people not on the far left still hate socialism. Independents make up the majority in terms of political affiliation, so just know if the Democrats decide to go Bernie or some other route to please the far left crowd, it will likely (and most probably) bite them in the rear end when it comes to independent votes such as mine.

BTW, I use to like Bernie's personality initially given the contrast of everyone else, but then I listened to his policies, and safe to say after a month's time I despised him. Bernie's the type of candidate like Romney that would likely start strong but soon head on a downward trajectory once everyone understands their platform. No matter how much people can claim 'Socialism would be great' (even though history states otherwise), the majority of Americans still hate it.

Biden works because he can appeal to the middle while also being a charismatic figure for the left. Honestly, given the choice of Bernie or Trump, I'd pick Trump every time due to economic beliefs (which is seen as the biggest issue in most American elections), but if say Biden were to run, I'd have to give it some thought.

That's not true at all,

https://morningconsult.com/2019/01/10/americas-most-and-least-popular-senators-q4-2018/

Bernie Sanders topped the Senate popularity list for the 11th quarter in a row. At 64%, he is gathering support not just from the far left, but amongst a significant portion of mainstream voters in his state.

Additionally, in Presidential Elections. The general American population would overwhelmingly vote for Bernie Sanders over Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Bernie_Sanders

 

You keep bringing up "socialism" - which isn't a specific policy. Socialism is a wide ranging school of political thought with vastly different policy points. Socialism is generally about the fair ownership of the means of production by the workers, rather than by director boards hired by unrelated investors. Another problem is the term "socialism" is very poorly understood in the US; from what I am aware, the US primary and secondary school systems have a near complete lack of education on economics, philosophy, and political sciences - so many Americans associate it with Cold-War era propaganda buzz words which are philosophically unrelated (and in many cases, the opposite) to what socialists and Bernie Sanders are actually talking about.

Bernie Sanders defines his brand as being in support of an economy that works for every American, and an end to the gross unfairness and corruption in the government. But, Sanders also supports minimum wage practices, which are social democratic in nature and common through the Western world - including the US, which has had this policy since 1938. Other socialist schools are generally not in favour of government control of the value of minimum wage as it is an overstep of authority on the worker's economy - alternatively, they prefer wage rate minimums to be negotiated between businesses and worker unions: and this would include severance package negotiations as well as minimum wages based on years of service, age, and experience, and other elements; in the current US economy, the power is in the hands of corporations, and this is a large reason why board members and high ranking executives take home disgustingly higher salaries than the workers.

But I digress.

Which specific Bernie Sanders policies do you not like?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Still too early to say but hopefully none of the neoliberal types like Obama such as Hillary, Biden or Warren if they want a chance at victory ...

Globalism is a dying ideology so Democrats need to rethink their strategy in world where nationalism surging in both directions whether right or left wing ...

A Democrats best image is that their anti-austerity but Hillary was not all that competent in defending that image because the Rust Belt's interests aligned with Trump's trade protectionism and pro-industrialism solutions ...

Politics is a game of maneuvering to capture social capital ...



Snoopy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

1. Still, since they are still a developing country. But China is growing much faster than the US and will overtake them soon. US Has a total GDP of 20 Trillion while China is at 15 Trillion and growing at twice the speed of the US. 20 years ago the US economy was still 3 times bigger than the Chinese economy, now that's down to 25%

2. Or just cut the military budget and get some taxes from corporations and the super-rich, as they are paying next to nothing now, and certainly much, much less than they should, even some of them acknowledged that, and that was before Trumps tax cuts.

Also, drop financial aid? You do know that the US already pay much less then every other developed country as part of their GDP, and that financial aid generally pays out in the long run as these countries tend to like to deal with you in very generous terms.

3. Because it's unsustainable on the long run. At some point even the banks won't be willing to lend that much money without guarantees anymore - but what guarantee do you have to make it to your diploma and get a well-paid job that you can present to the bank beforehand? Especially in times of crisis and/or recession there's nothing you can give them unless they have rich parents who can guarantee to pay it back or poorer families who will have to gamble on their house and/or car as guarantees to the bank - at which point many poorer people will not be going to get higher degrees as the risks get too high. This then means less income for the Universities, thus jacking up the prices even higher to compensate, resulting finally in just the rich being able to afford an University degree. That's also why I said you imply a degree only for the rich, as that would be the result in the long run if nothing changes.

Youtube videos? Tell that to headhunters and employers who only look at your diplomas.

1. China eventually learned about capitalism. Glad you notice how capitalism is the way to go. However, the United States is still ahead and China is plateauing right now. Not to mention the capita per income in China is embarrassing.  Also, I forgot to say the United States has more GDP than the whole European union lol.

2. Even though we spend a lot of money on the military, it still won't cover the cost of social programs. Even if we drop the cost to $0. Not to mention military spending when done right does come up with useful inventions (Internet, GPS, microwaves, etc) and makes other countries think twice about starting wars with us. Which saves us a lot of money in the long run. The rich pay the majority of our taxes as it is. If we tax them to death, they will eventually leave and we get nothing. That includes jobs. We can drop financial aids and other countries will still do deals with us because we are leading in pretty much every relevant industry.

3. Except private banks won't be lending a lot of money compare to the federal government because private banks will be pickier. Therefore the price will go down because Universities will have no choice. Also, there are no guarantees, but there are statistics to see which loan is the best bet. Not to mention Universities can downsize on useless stuff and curriculums. Universities have a lot of ways to generate money. Just look at the sports program.

Youtube videos can teach you many things young padawan. I've made over $15,000 side money online last year thanks to some youtube videos. You can learn to program and build a portfolio, run a landlord business (which I am doing on the side now) and more. If you can prove to people you can do the job, they won't care if you have a degree unless the government forces it of course. I still remember my doctor using google/ a youtube video to help diagnose an issue I was having. What a time to live.

1. Yes Capitalism is the way to go - however not unrestricted, there need to be some rules and regulations in place to protect both people and small companies. @bolded: In nominal GDP, they do. Bring it up to purchase parity power and the US drops to the third spot, behind China and the EU. Main cause is the slow growth in Italy (1.2%), UK(1.4%), France (1.6%) and Germany (1.9%), which taken together form over 50% of the EU's economy. But the rest of Europe is growing much faster, and mostly faster than the US, too (eastern EU member states consistently grow by 4%+, as do Luxembourg, Malta and Ireland ) but they are yet too small to make a big impact in the total EU growth.

2. a. Yeah, but the US military is bloated to death. It could work just as efficiently with just a third of the expenses if they just limit the different equipments to one per kind instead of a dozen per kind. That alone would already help a lot.

b. They do, as it should be - but just barely. Also, if you look it from the income perspective, it's far from enough: while the total adjusted household income has been multiplied by 6 since 1980 (from 1.6 Trillions to 9.7 Trillions), the top 1% income rose from 138 Billions to 2 Trillions, so multiplied by 14.5 and thus much more than twice the mean value. In fact, it's them who push that value up to 6x in the first place, as the bottom 50% only rose by 3.8x, from 288B to 1.095T. In other words, they went from earning twice what the top 1% does to half of what the Top 1% gains. No wonder the Top 1% pays the most taxes if they earn much more money than half the population in the first place.

3. You missed the point. The Universities will continue jacking up the prices, as there will always be enough to pay for it, but never enough for their insatiable hunger for money, thus pricing higher and higher. you can see a similar thing happening in the Videogame industry already, with DLCs and Season passes that cost more than the base game itself.

4. I know Youtube videos and the like can teach you very much (i'm using Udemy btw, which works similarly). But again, you missed the point. The point was that you might learn everything there is to learn in a domain, but you get no diploma, no proof that at one point in your life you learnt all that stuff. If a company only looks at the diplomas and sees you appying for a job but miss the necessary diploma, chances are you get filtered out despite being the best for the job.

For example, my wife learnt everything there was for a Six Sigma Black Belt on Udemy. However, since you get no diploma or certification of any kind, her knowledge is useless unless her boss sponsors a black belt teaching session, which costs over 10000$, way too much for the company she's working for (that's more than her yearly income in the Philippines).



Out of the people who have announced I like Gabbard and Yang.



Snoopy said:
SpokenTruth said:
Primary choice: Bernie Sanders.
Secondary choice: Tulsi Gabbard.

Would love to see them as candidate and running mate....either iteration.

By the way, don't bother arguing with Snoopy. To him, his opinions will always 'trump' your facts.

I thought you were going to join the caravan and teach America the wonders of socialism and how it will work this time despite it failing for the hundredth time.

See boys and girls.  This is why you don't debate with Snoopy.  Because he argues from a stand point of ignorance.  So instead of just debating him, you have to debate him AND educate him.  And you end up spending time and energy on an education he doesn't want, ignores, twists and/or clearly doesn't understand.  He could also be trolling...in which case he wins no matter what because his goal is to waste your time.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."