jason1637 said:
For the second debates she needs to poll atleast 2% in atleast 3 or 4 polls iirc. |
I thought that was the 3rd debate?
HylianSwordsman said:
I thought that was the 3rd debate? |
It's for the debates in September. I'm not sure if those are the second or third.
| HylianSwordsman said: Obama's charm is wearing off of Joe, and it's showing. I'm hoping for a debate bomb too, and it seems possible. The guy is all hot air and no vision, running because he thinks he's great and it would be fun to be president. Not all that different from who we already have. I think you underestimate how conservative Joe is though. Pete isn't in his lane. Pete is establishment friendly, but there are a lot of people in the establishment that want him to work his way up to stardom, so they won't let him win. Kamala Harris would be the establishment favorite if Joe's star fades, because she's fairly close to the establishment's wants and has a bit of charm to her, like Obama did. Would've maybe been O'Rourke but his star is already fading and he's nearing irrelevance, or Castro, if he ever catches fire and becomes flavor of the month, which he might after the debate. If you remember me, you'll know I'm a Bernie guy, but Warren is a very close second for me. If momentum truly shifts her way and she's the best chance to beat Creepy Uncle Joe, I'll happily fall in behind her. She'd be exciting to vote for in 2020. If she doesn't win, the eventual nominee would be foolish to not have her either as a running mate or in his eventual cabinet. She'd be the best damn secretary of labor this country ever had, but she'd be amazing in most cabinet positions. |
This I am thinking since she is running and putting out one policy proposal after another. Everything looks thought through. She should be an asset to every president willing to listen to her.
jason1637 said:
It's for the debates in September. I'm not sure if those are the second or third. |
The third debate. First two debates are held based on the original criteria.
| HylianSwordsman said: Obama's charm is wearing off of Joe, and it's showing. I'm hoping for a debate bomb too, and it seems possible. The guy is all hot air and no vision, running because he thinks he's great and it would be fun to be president. Not all that different from who we already have. I think you underestimate how conservative Joe is though. Pete isn't in his lane. Pete is establishment friendly, but there are a lot of people in the establishment that want him to work his way up to stardom, so they won't let him win. Kamala Harris would be the establishment favorite if Joe's star fades, because she's fairly close to the establishment's wants and has a bit of charm to her, like Obama did. Would've maybe been O'Rourke but his star is already fading and he's nearing irrelevance, or Castro, if he ever catches fire and becomes flavor of the month, which he might after the debate. If you remember me, you'll know I'm a Bernie guy, but Warren is a very close second for me. If momentum truly shifts her way and she's the best chance to beat Creepy Uncle Joe, I'll happily fall in behind her. She'd be exciting to vote for in 2020. If she doesn't win, the eventual nominee would be foolish to not have her either as a running mate or in his eventual cabinet. She'd be the best damn secretary of labor this country ever had, but she'd be amazing in most cabinet positions. |
Given his ongoing support for Medicare-for-all, I get what you're saying about "Mayor Pete" being an imperfect match for the politics of neoliberalism, but the essential defining factor as to whether one qualifies as being essentially in that lane or else as a progressive in the current world-historic context is one's position on the Green New Deal. That recent report on the pace of global warming has transformed the politics of the left worldwide of late such that we can now see (e.g. not only in the ascendancy of the Sunrise movement in this country, but also in the growth of support for Green parties, for instance, in the recent EU elections) that environmentalism is a top priority issue on the minds of most sincerely left-leaning voters today. The fact that Pete Buttigieg lacks a serious plan in this area akin to AOC's ideas tells you a lot about where he lands at the end of the day. Candidates like yes, Kamala Harris seem more serious about these things to me.
Kamala Harris is running on the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all, impeachment, slavery reparations...the kind of politics that resulted in a couple of billionaires threatening independent presidential runs earlier this year, which they may well follow through on should someone like Harris, or even more especially Sanders or Warren, become the Democratic nominee. I don't think you'd see a similar billionaire revolt if say Pete Buttigieg became the nominee and that's the point I'm trying to make in connection to him. It's not as if the party establishment is incapable of switching their support from one candidate to another should their first option prove too weak for the job. I've seen that happen already in 2004 when they switched from initially backing Joe Lieberman to backing John Kerry and in 2008 when they switched from backing Hillary Clinton initially to clearly switching to the Obama camp well before the Iowa Caucus. It's not difficult for me to imagine the DNC going from backing Joe Biden to backing Pete Buttigieg down the way. These things happen. But there are always certain candidates whom they would never support; candidates who are too far outside their control, and to that end I find it impossible to imagine the DNC ever supporting Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or even realistically Kamala Harris (given what she's currently running on anyway).
The thing about Kamala Harris to me is that she's a former prosecutor who, for my taste anyway, brings too many of those qualities to her presidential run. She's too lawlerly; too careful and cautious about precisely what she says and how she says it and too slow to produce a lot of clear and definite policy proposals. She'd be more than acceptable to me were she to become the nominee, but I'm not sure she's fully what America needs right now. I would like more decisive leadership than what she offers.
Last edited by Jaicee - on 12 June 2019
| Mnementh said: The third debate. First two debates are held based on the original criteria. |
Correct. As it should be. I very much want some of the more obscure candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand to have a real chance to gain the visibility and traction their campaigns badly need and the debates form the far and away best opportunity for that to happen, so I don't want the criteria getting stricter too terribly quickly. This pacing offers just enough time for a more obscure candidate to be seen and heard in a couple debates viewed by tens of millions of Americans and improve in the polls as a result if they're going to.
Jaicee said:
Correct. As it should be. I very much want some of the more obscure candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand to have a real chance to gain the visibility and traction their campaigns badly need and the debates form the far and away best opportunity for that to happen, so I don't want the criteria getting stricter too terribly quickly. This pacing offers just enough time for a more obscure candidate to be seen and heard in a couple debates viewed by tens of millions of Americans and improve in the polls as a result if they're going to. |
Yeah. I think this time the DNC does the right thing with comparatively loose criteria to qualify for debates. I see some critics of that in classical media. That comes from th thinking of politics as some sort of sports: my team has to win against the other team. But in reality politics is about bettering the life of the people. So this process is not only to decide of the next candidate. These debates can pitch policy ideas to a general public. In the debates millions will hear for the first time about UBI and the upcoming problems of automation from Andrew Yang, about the real impact of the endless wars from Tulsi Gabbard, about the destructive results of climate change from Jay Inslee, about the political aristocracy from Marianne Williamson.I don't see any of these candidates have a real shot at the nomination, but pitching their policy ideas, putting focus on current problems will still impact politics. And this is important. Because it is never about who wins in the end. It is about which problems are addressed and how.
Last edited by Mnementh - on 12 June 2019
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Yang is polling over 2% in 3 polls. I really hope he wins. I always watch his daily livestreams on instagram and he's such a genuine and nice guy and he has good policies on his website.
Jaicee said:
Given his ongoing support for Medicare-for-all, I get what you're saying about "Mayor Pete" being an imperfect match for the politics of neoliberalism, but the essential defining factor as to whether one qualifies as being essentially in that lane or else as a progressive in the current world-historic context is one's position on the Green New Deal. That recent report on the pace of global warming has transformed the politics of the left worldwide of late such that we can now see (e.g. not only in the ascendancy of the Sunrise movement in this country, but also in the growth of support for Green parties, for instance, in the recent EU elections) that environmentalism is a top priority issue on the minds of most sincerely left-leaning voters today. The fact that Pete Buttigieg lacks a serious plan in this area akin to AOC's ideas tells you a lot about where he lands at the end of the day. Candidates like yes, Kamala Harris seem more serious about these things to me. Kamala Harris is running on the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all, impeachment, slavery reparations...the kind of politics that resulted in a couple of billionaires threatening independent presidential runs earlier this year, which they may well follow through on should someone like Harris, or even more especially Sanders or Warren, become the Democratic nominee. I don't think you'd see a similar billionaire revolt if say Pete Buttigieg became the nominee and that's the point I'm trying to make in connection to him. It's not as if the party establishment is incapable of switching their support from one candidate to another should their first option prove too weak for the job. I've seen that happen already in 2004 when they switched from initially backing Joe Lieberman to backing John Kerry and in 2008 when they switched from backing Hillary Clinton initially to clearly switching to the Obama camp well before the Iowa Caucus. It's not difficult for me to imagine the DNC going from backing Joe Biden to backing Pete Buttigieg down the way. These things happen. But there are always certain candidates whom they would never support; candidates who are too far outside their control, and to that end I find it impossible to imagine the DNC ever supporting Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or even realistically Kamala Harris (given what she's currently running on anyway). The thing about Kamala Harris to me is that she's a former prosecutor who, for my taste anyway, brings too many of those qualities to her presidential run. She's too lawlerly; too careful and cautious about precisely what she says and how she says it and too slow to produce a lot of clear and definite policy proposals. She'd be more than acceptable to me were she to become the nominee, but I'm not sure she's fully what America needs right now. I would like more decisive leadership than what she offers. |
Hmm, I clearly didn't pay enough attention to his environmental positions. Shame on me. I'll have to knock him down a few pegs on my list. That said, I do think he's too small time to be president. I'd prefer he run for something statewide first, maybe use the energy from his presidential run to give him the necessary name recognition to win statewide.
Harris isn't the staunch liberal you think she is. Just look at what she did as a lawyer. I don't trust her. I genuinely think the billionaires like her actually, and would be fine with her as a nominee. While they might back Pete, he's down on their list a bit. Like I said, after Biden, there's still Harris, O'Rourke, Castro, Hickenlooper, Klobochar, and de Blasio above him in neoliberal preference. It mostly comes down to who looks to have the most momentum, and right now Biden is fading and Buttigieg is fading faster.
I thought you were a Gillibrand girl? What changed your mind about her? Or is it just you gave up hope since she's barely qualifying for the debates?
| HylianSwordsman said: Hmm, I clearly didn't pay enough attention to his environmental positions. Shame on me. I'll have to knock him down a few pegs on my list. That said, I do think he's too small time to be president. I'd prefer he run for something statewide first, maybe use the energy from his presidential run to give him the necessary name recognition to win statewide. Harris isn't the staunch liberal you think she is. Just look at what she did as a lawyer. I don't trust her. I genuinely think the billionaires like her actually, and would be fine with her as a nominee. While they might back Pete, he's down on their list a bit. Like I said, after Biden, there's still Harris, O'Rourke, Castro, Hickenlooper, Klobochar, and de Blasio above him in neoliberal preference. It mostly comes down to who looks to have the most momentum, and right now Biden is fading and Buttigieg is fading faster. I thought you were a Gillibrand girl? What changed your mind about her? Or is it just you gave up hope since she's barely qualifying for the debates? |
Did you look at the Iowa survey I linked you to earlier? I ask because Buttigieg polled at 14% therein, which was just two points behind Bernie Sanders and only 10 behind front-runner Joe Biden, and also a major improvement from how he polled in the same survey back in March (1%), so...there is, in other words, no indication of lost momentum for the Buttigieg campaign, at least in Iowa. I'm not sure where you're getting that impression from. It's candidates like Beto O'Rourke and Amy Klobuchar who appear to have lost momentum of late.
(Incidentally, Elizabeth Warren also fared quite well in that survey of Iowa voters, polling at 15% support, just one point behind Sanders and nine behind Biden. There was also another, national survey released this week by The Economist and YouGov that found Warren in second place behind only Biden, with 16% support.)
As to Kirsten Gillibrand, I still like her. It's just that Elizabeth Warren has impressed me beyond my expectations. I'm not closed-minded about Gillibrand. I watched the CNN town hall they did with her and can confirm that she's a candidate I'd definitely be open to supporting still potentially, but gravitate toward Warren at present because of a lot of unique stands she's taken on things like trust-busting and her superior ability to communicate her policy ideas in detail.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
