Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

HylianSwordsman said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
Welp that was fast, although somehow I knew it was coming.. Apparently Pete and his staff seem to have already been pressured and bullied into steering clear of the Dave Rubin show. Forget it then. Tough for me to hold any respect for the man if all it takes for him to cave are a handful of twitter brats and a few puritanical media outlets. I'll just go on supporting Yang/Tulsi/Bernie...

Check out Gravel. He definitely won't make it, but if you check him out, I bet you'll wish he made it farther.

Gravel seems awesome. I just wish he was like 20 years younger lol. He makes Bernie look young. 



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE:

Former Georgia Representative Stacey Abrams is the last potential candidate with a known interest in running. She has an expected campaign announcement prior to September.

Also, the 3rd debate is now scheduled for September 12th (plus 13th if a second night is still needed though that's very doubtful if they double the qualification rules again)

September? She misses out on the first debates. I am unsure if this is clever. At the moment she could enter above the 1-2% crowd. If the 1-2%ers have a public national debate they all can strongly increase their profile. I think the window for new candidates closes after the first debates. Well, except for extremely well-known people, say Michelle Obama.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

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

Mnementh said:
SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE:

Former Georgia Representative Stacey Abrams is the last potential candidate with a known interest in running. She has an expected campaign announcement prior to September.

Also, the 3rd debate is now scheduled for September 12th (plus 13th if a second night is still needed though that's very doubtful if they double the qualification rules again)

September? She misses out on the first debates. I am unsure if this is clever. At the moment she could enter above the 1-2% crowd. If the 1-2%ers have a public national debate they all can strongly increase their profile. I think the window for new candidates closes after the first debates. Well, except for extremely well-known people, say Michelle Obama.

I personally don't see her announcing a run.  Your point about missing the first debates is valid. It puts her at a huge disadvantage.  Maybe even the 3rd debate because that one is scheduled for Sept 12.

I just looked it up and she won't qualify for the 3rd or 4th debate because the polling period is between June 28 to August 28 and she'd have to hit a minimum of 2% on at least 4 different polls and I highly doubt she'll make that.  If she announces her campaign soon, ok, then maybe.  But not if she waits until September.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

UPDATE:

Michael Bennet has qualified via polling for the first round of debates.  That leaves just Steve Bullock, Mike Gravel, Wayne Messam and Seth Moulton as the only candidates to be left out and the deadline to qualify is approaching - June 12th.

I would not be surprised if all 4 suspended their campaigns on that date.  Even if all 4 met the qualifications in the next 5 days, only 20 candidates will be selected (based on the tie breaker criteria) to attend the debate meaning they could be left out anyway.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE:

Michael Bennet has qualified via polling for the first round of debates.  That leaves just Steve Bullock, Mike Gravel, Wayne Messam and Seth Moulton as the only candidates to be left out and the deadline to qualify is approaching - June 12th.

I would not be surprised if all 4 suspended their campaigns on that date.  Even if all 4 met the qualifications in the next 5 days, only 20 candidates will be selected (based on the tie breaker criteria) to attend the debate meaning they could be left out anyway.

Funny thing is (well not so funny for Bullock), that many media thought Steve Bullock qualified already. But the DNC clarified, that one poll that had him at 1% is not counted as a qualifying poll.

Another note: Marianne Williamson apparently has met the polling criteria and therefore reached the safe zone of qualifying with both criteria.

And I agree this will be first winnowing. I also think some of the candidates that don't make the debate will give up, and even if they don't, they probably lose all chances in the polls as public focus concentrates on the candidates in the debates. That might be helpful for some of the other candidates, that possibly can sponge up supporters. Given, that are not many, but it might be the needed kick to get at 2% to qualify for the third debate.

Also I don't think everyone will profit the same from the first two debates. Some candidates (looking at Yang, Williamson, Gabbard, Inslee) have pretty unique platfroms they are running on and can strongly focus on their area. Inslee even asked the DNC if they make a climate change specific debate (and the DNC declined). I think all of these candidates aren't that well known, but if in the debates they can focus on their main platform, many viewers will like that. Other candidates seem more… boring, running with a more or less standard political platform. I think about Delaney and Gillibrand here. I assume they will have a hard time to stand out at the debates. Well, maybe they do something unexpected.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

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

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE:

Michael Bennet has qualified via polling for the first round of debates.  That leaves just Steve Bullock, Mike Gravel, Wayne Messam and Seth Moulton as the only candidates to be left out and the deadline to qualify is approaching - June 12th.

I would not be surprised if all 4 suspended their campaigns on that date.  Even if all 4 met the qualifications in the next 5 days, only 20 candidates will be selected (based on the tie breaker criteria) to attend the debate meaning they could be left out anyway.

I'd be really sad for Gravel if that would happen. Any idea how much much is missing for him?



Bofferbrauer2 said:
SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE:

Michael Bennet has qualified via polling for the first round of debates.  That leaves just Steve Bullock, Mike Gravel, Wayne Messam and Seth Moulton as the only candidates to be left out and the deadline to qualify is approaching - June 12th.

I would not be surprised if all 4 suspended their campaigns on that date.  Even if all 4 met the qualifications in the next 5 days, only 20 candidates will be selected (based on the tie breaker criteria) to attend the debate meaning they could be left out anyway.

I'd be really sad for Gravel if that would happen. Any idea how much much is missing for him?

Gravel has not a single qualifying poll for the polling criterium and I don't know how much he needs for the donor-criterium. But donors alone will no longer cut it. 20 candidates already have qualified. No one is qualified with donors alone (Marianne Williamson has also met the polling criteria). So anyone qualifying via donors would be excluded first based on the tiebreaker-rules. So his chances are worse than slim. He would need three qualifying polls (at least) and then still with these outpoll the currrently qualified via poll people.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

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

That's too bad for Gravel. He really deserved a chance at the stage. Bennet's situation is kind of pathetic. He qualifies, but this is in spite of the fact that the poll that finally qualified him had him scoring higher among people who had never heard of him than with people who had heard of him.



Kirsten Gillibrand also hits the donor benchmark for the first two debates, which means she is now pretty safely qualified:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447734-gillibrand-hits-donor-benchmark-to-cement-place-on-first-debate-stage



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

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

What I'm watching the closest in this contest is polling out of Iowa because the Iowa Caucus comes first in the primary battle and the winner of the Iowa Caucus typically goes on to become the Democratic Party's nominee for president (e.g. has done so every time this century so far). Because their contest is first and sets the tone for the rest, Iowa voters also typically start tuning into the race earlier than other voters do, and in that way too can serve as an indicator of where things are going.

As things presently stand, there is a clear downward trend for front-runner and party establishment favorite Joe Biden among Iowa voters. In the most recent poll out of Iowa, he garnered 24% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, as compared with 27% in March before he declared his candidacy and 32% back in December. Moreover, this survey also indicates that his supporters are less enthusiastic than those of many other candidates. While Biden has long been christened the likely winner of the nominating battle (including by me, and also President Trump), I now have strong doubts that that will happen. He had a rocky start, launching his campaign by negotiating various scandals involving inappropriate touching and other forms of questionable behavior toward women, and he's proven since to just be a weak campaigner. He seems to be taking victory for granted and largely not bothering to campaign. He holds few rallies compared to many of his top rivals and doesn't attend town halls, for example. He also finds himself changing positions on issues abruptly (as in the recent case of the Hyde Amendment), which detracts from his vital image as an honest and authentic person, which has been heralded as his main asset. And then there's been just cringe-inducing stuff like the now-infamous Biden-Barack friendship bracelet and even former Obama advisor David Axelrod found to be too much in the way of naked ass-kissing.

Looking at all this, one begins to recall why Biden performed so poorly the last two times he ran for president. I hereby predict that he'll bomb in the upcoming debate and wind up as sort of the Jeb Bush of this contest.

I really think the first debate will shake things up because while these rallies and town halls may get hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of observers, the fact is that the first debate in any given nominating battle is always the single most-viewed event thereof; tens of millions of Americans will tune in. THAT is enough to shake up the race fundamentally, and I think it will. It's impossible to predict who will actually win the nomination at this early stage, but were I a betting person (and admittedly there's a reason I'm not), I'd bet that the most likely person will be Pete Buttigieg. He's more or less in the same lane as Joe Biden ideologically, but has the ability to draw in younger, more enthusiastic voters. He also just comes off as way more competent.

The candidates I'm the most interested in personally are Elizabeth Warren (mainly for her economic policy ideas) and Marianne Williamson (mainly for her foreign policy ideas), though I tend to doubt that either (especially Williamson) will emerge victorious. I also dislike Williamson's lack of governing experience, but just find her to be a unique and interesting candidate nonetheless. Elizabeth Warren has a tremendous ability to communicate complex and detailed policy positions in a way that is clear and easy to understand. It's a quality that makes her a good teacher, and I think that's something we need right now, in addition to a lot of the actual ideas that she stands for.