By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

jason1637 said:

 We already know she's a believer in climate change so I don't see the issue with her doing some more fundraising. 

Apparently she just decided to attend the town hall due to the backlash.

Choosing money over the planet got us into this mess and was not a good initial decision.  Credit where credit is due though, I'm glad she made the right choice here.

Her flip-flopping illustrated in the video is still a valid critique nonetheless.

Last edited by tsogud - on 20 August 2019

 

Around the Network
tsogud said:

Kamala's planned attendance to her top bundler's fundraising events instead of the climate crisis town hall speaks volumes of what her presidency would look like.

Kystal Ball's summation and observation of this situation and of Harris's flip-flopping is absolutely right. Krystal is quickly becoming one of my favorites.

Here is her take on the situation as a whole

Edit: fixed up my original post

Yeah, Kamala is just digging herself deeper right now with things like that. A couple more blunders, and she can forget placing well in the California primary anymore.

While on the topic of the climate crisis town hall, I don't get why they invited just a handful of people to that town hall, did so months in advance, and especially why they didn't invite Inslee, for whom the climate change is the raison d'être in this primary.

numberwang said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

It's due to having been the vice president of the first black president that he has this following from the black community. The problem is that it's slowly melting and they are a very big part of the reason why Biden is leading (the other being the majority of the establishment/moderate votes and the boomers/silent). Like you said, he was at 60%, but the poll you're linked shows him already down to 47%, as more and more see that his policies are not for them or rehashes of those from other ones running, mostly Sanders and Warren.

The result is that he's slowly sliding down in the polls. While he took a hit from Harris in the first debate, he was back to 30-35% in the national polls by late July. Now, he mostly tracks below 30% in the polls even though the second debate had no direct effect on him and Harris is back to where she came from in the polls.

My prediction is that Joe's clout (not his policies) is an unchangeable Juggernaut that will make him unstoppable once we reach the southern states with the higher percentage of black Dems voters. He will crush his Dem enemies, see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentation of their women! 

Sanders is already dead in the waters since he endorsed HER in 2016. He lost half of his voter base permanently there and I don't know why he is even trying. He will endorse Biden in the end like he did last time. Can't get fooled again.

Warren's stick will work fine with white voters and can make her competitive in majority white states but will get nearly nothing from black or hispanic Dems (no clout), so she is toast too.

Tulsi and Yang are high-information candidates that will never penetrate into the consciousness of the average Dem without the backing of the msm.

He has those voters now, but there's no guarantee he'll still have them in a couple months down the road. But his lead in voters, especially black ones, is slowly eroding, so by the time the primary elections are in full swing he may very well be beatable in those states.

Also keep in mind that while he scores very high with black people, he's strongly underperforming with Latinos and Asians.

Biden should win both Carolinas. If by then he dropped so far that he's not safe there anymore, then his primary is as good as dead. For the later dates, we lack in polls to really see where everyone sits right now - most of the polls are still from spring in those states.

Speaking of which, the latest Morning Consult is out. Compared to one week before Biden dropped 2 points, which went to Warren and Yang. 31%, that's what Biden has now and what he had in early July after Harris knocked him out in the first debate (which back then was a drop of 7 points btw). They even mention that his favorability is waning.

So yeah, Biden is certainly trending down right now, and if he can't reverse course soon then everybody can see that he's vulnerable and not so much of an obvious choice anymore for those betting on electability - which would damage his campaign probably beyond repair.

Edit: added the link to the new Morning Consult.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 21 August 2019

tsogud said:
jason1637 said:

 We already know she's a believer in climate change so I don't see the issue with her doing some more fundraising. 

Apparently she just decided to attend the town hall due to the backlash.

Choosing money over the planet got us into this mess and was not a good initial decision.  Credit where credit is due though, I'm glad she made the right choice here.

Her flip-flopping illustrated in the video is still a valid critique nonetheless.

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.



Some of you are reading too much on weekly surveys which are bound to change slighly from week to week due to sheer brownian motion... as any statistician would tell you. Not to mention most of them come from low quality online-only pollsters (HarrisX, SurveyMonkey, Morning Consult, Zogby etc.) which tend to overestate the weight of younger voters, and infamously distorted the polling average of some recent elections.

This is the 2016 polling average without online pollsters of any sort, for instance.



 

 

 

 

 

Some people are not too happy with the DNC-definition of qualifying polls, as it leaves out quite a few polls from bigger publications, which could help push some candidates over the qualification line. The ones it would help are Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, Kirsten Gillibrand and Jay Inslee.

Read (and see) more:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html

https://www.change.org/p/democratic-national-committee-include-economist-emerson-suffolk-polls-for-dnc-debates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H6Puy43Ia0



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
jason1637 said:
tsogud said:

Apparently she just decided to attend the town hall due to the backlash.

Choosing money over the planet got us into this mess and was not a good initial decision.  Credit where credit is due though, I'm glad she made the right choice here.

Her flip-flopping illustrated in the video is still a valid critique nonetheless.

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

That doesn't have to mean anything. After all, she just backed out a healthcare bill she co-sponsored with Sanders 2 years ago:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-says-shes-uncomfortable-with-bernies-health-care-plan-two-years-after-cosponsoring-it

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/20/20813658/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-2020



jason1637 said:
tsogud said:

Apparently she just decided to attend the town hall due to the backlash.

Choosing money over the planet got us into this mess and was not a good initial decision.  Credit where credit is due though, I'm glad she made the right choice here.

Her flip-flopping illustrated in the video is still a valid critique nonetheless.

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

Not really, if there's anything this primary showed us it's that is not the reality anymore. You can run a successful campaign without going to big donor fundraisers. If she went through with this and then got elected as president and push came to shove how could I, or most of the American people, believe that she'd choose the climate over her big donors if their interests conflicted?

Last edited by tsogud - on 21 August 2019

 

Bofferbrauer2 said:
jason1637 said:

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

That doesn't have to mean anything. After all, she just backed out a healthcare bill she co-sponsored with Sanders 2 years ago:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-says-shes-uncomfortable-with-bernies-health-care-plan-two-years-after-cosponsoring-it

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/20/20813658/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-2020

It's been two years and she has her own plan now. If the bill was up for vote two years ago she would have voted for it.

tsogud said:
jason1637 said:

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

Not really, if there's anything this primary showed us it's that is not the reality anymore. You can run a successful campaign without going to big donor fundraisers. If she went through with this and then got elected as president and push came to shove how could I, or most of the American people, believe that she'd choose the climate over her big donors if their interests conflicted?

Harris is running aa traditional campaign and even though money does not play as big of a role as it used to be it's still very very important. i remember watching an interview with Yang and he was saying that one of his campaigns biggest worries pre 2nd debate was how much money they were going to bring in that day. Now Harris campaign is much larger than Yang's so they'd need more money.

I don't think Harris is dumb enough to take money from anti climate change activist so I don't think a conflict of interest would arise.




tsogud said: 

Not really, if there's anything this primary showed us it's that is not the reality anymore. You can run a successful campaign without going to big donor fundraisers. If she went through with this and then got elected as president and push came to shove how could I, or most of the American people, believe that she'd choose the climate over her big donors if their interests conflicted?

Harris is running aa traditional campaign and even though money does not play as big of a role as it used to be it's still very very important. i remember watching an interview with Yang and he was saying that one of his campaigns biggest worries pre 2nd debate was how much money they were going to bring in that day. Now Harris campaign is much larger than Yang's so they'd need more money.

I don't think Harris is dumb enough to take money from anti climate change activist so I don't think a conflict of interest would arise.

Money plays an incredible role in politics, it shouldn't, but it does. People are becoming increasingly aware of where a candidates bread is buttered and understand the importance of it. Speaking of Yang, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he has attended any big donor fundraisers and his campaign is more or less successful. I don't believe Gabbard has either and of course Sanders and Warren haven't as well.

Yeah you don't think she is and I don't think she really is dumb enough either but that's not something you want to leave on a whim of a select few. What if a piece of legislation proposed would be great for helping with the climate crisis but bad in some way or another for the special interests of the big donors? You can reasonably assume that if she chose the donors once she'll do it again, money talks.

Last edited by tsogud - on 21 August 2019

 

haxxiy said:

Some of you are reading too much on weekly surveys which are bound to change slighly from week to week due to sheer brownian motion... as any statistician would tell you. Not to mention most of them come from low quality online-only pollsters (HarrisX, SurveyMonkey, Morning Consult, Zogby etc.) which tend to overestate the weight of younger voters, and infamously distorted the polling average of some recent elections.

This is the 2016 polling average without online pollsters of any sort, for instance.

Well, while I post about the weekly Morning Consult numbers, I'm more interested into long-term developments. And I look at all the polls and just eliminate the crass outliners if there are any (mostly on state polls, less so on national polls).

And here, Biden has been practically on the way down since early June. First quickly (normalisation after the boost from his campaign announcement; the diss he got from Harris, from which he recovered) and since  mid July then slowly down since then.

At the same time, the only candidate who was consistently gaining votes was Warren, and at a relatively steady pace, even.

Those are changes over periods of months, not just single days.