Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

the-pi-guy said:
>Yang and Gabbard are far-right darlings (most of their supporters have voted Trump over Clinton at 5:1 and 12:1 rates respectively, according to YouGov) polling at 0% with the democratic mainstream, so I wouldn't lump them together with the other progressives. Besides, Yang lost votes in the data I posted.

That's very interesting for Yang. I've heard that conservatives like the idea of replacing welfare with UBI, but it's different to actually see a little data showing that support.

Neo-Nazi groups hope that Gabbards stance in support of arabic countries would mean that she's against Israel and Jews in general, hence why those support her. Trump may be a white nationalist, but when it comes to Israel, he's in full support of it. So he's not an option for them this time around despite in everything else he's so often on their wavelength.



Around the Network

Yang got pretty high-profile support today. Elon Musk is throwing his support into the the ring for Yang.



the-pi-guy said
>Yang and Gabbard are far-right darlings (most of their supporters have voted Trump over Clinton at 5:1 and 12:1 rates respectively, according to YouGov) polling at 0% with the democratic mainstream, so I wouldn't lump them together with the other progressives. Besides, Yang lost votes in the data I posted.

That's very interesting for Yang. I've heard that conservatives like the idea of replacing welfare with UBI, but it's different to actually see a little data showing that support.

They'd be left-wing conservatives then since UBI is most certainly a left-wing economic idea as it puts a large portion of the economy in the hands of the masses. It's also a type of welfare payment.

The problem isn't so much with left-wing conservatives/moderates so much as the right-wing movements.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
the-pi-guy said:
>Yang and Gabbard are far-right darlings (most of their supporters have voted Trump over Clinton at 5:1 and 12:1 rates respectively, according to YouGov) polling at 0% with the democratic mainstream, so I wouldn't lump them together with the other progressives. Besides, Yang lost votes in the data I posted.

That's very interesting for Yang. I've heard that conservatives like the idea of replacing welfare with UBI, but it's different to actually see a little data showing that support.

Neo-Nazi groups hope that Gabbards stance in support of arabic countries would mean that she's against Israel and Jews in general, hence why those support her. Trump may be a white nationalist, but when it comes to Israel, he's in full support of it. So he's not an option for them this time around despite in everything else he's so often on their wavelength.

Arabic countries aren't exactly anti-Israel anymore, they have all but abandonned the Palestinian cause, and many of them hate Palestinians (especially in Jordan where they are resentful of them, there is a significant anti-Rania faction). It is primarily the Persians who Israel has most conflict with. As well, Trump is a massive supporter of Arabic nations, giving Saudi-Arabia tens of billions in weaponry.

Being pro-Arabic isn't exactly something I would associate with neo-Nazism. But if they support her over sheer ignorance, then there isn't really a problem. Although, a pro-Arabic stance is pretty status quo at this point.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Neo-Nazi groups hope that Gabbards stance in support of arabic countries would mean that she's against Israel and Jews in general, hence why those support her. Trump may be a white nationalist, but when it comes to Israel, he's in full support of it. So he's not an option for them this time around despite in everything else he's so often on their wavelength.

Arabic countries aren't exactly anti-Israel anymore, they have all but abandonned the Palestinian cause, and many of them hate Palestinians (especially in Jordan where they are resentful of them, there is a significant anti-Rania faction). It is primarily the Persians who Israel has most conflict with. As well, Trump is a massive supporter of Arabic nations, giving Saudi-Arabia tens of billions in weaponry.

Being pro-Arabic isn't exactly something I would associate with neo-Nazism. But if they support her over sheer ignorance, then there isn't really a problem. Although, a pro-Arabic stance is pretty status quo at this point.

Me neither. But that's their reason for supporting her. They think in their mind that she "would uncover that all the wars were secretly started by the Jews" and more such nonsense. It's clear they don't understand the world and how it is working, but on the other hand, that's not something you would expect from an Neo-Nazi, either.

Best read this article here, it explains most of the reasons: https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-conservative-media-and-the-far-right-love-tulsi-gabbard-for-president



Around the Network

Just a casual note today: Elizabeth Warren has now moved up to second place in the Real Clear Politics polling average for the first time. Now she has polled in second place before in individual surveys, but not in the recent polling average overall. Until now. As of now the RCP polling averages of the candidates are:

Biden: 30.8%
Warren: 18.3%
Sanders: 16.5%
Harris: 8.3%
Buttigieg: 6.5%
Others: 2% or less

I don't suspect this move up the ladder for Warren will last. It's clearly just the effect of the last debate and will probably evaporate over the month with Sanders retaking second place by the time we get to the next debate in September because this clearly WANTS to be a race specifically between Biden and Sanders, but still it's the first time this has happened, so thought it worth casually noting anyway.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 11 August 2019

Jaicee said:

Just a casual note today: Elizabeth Warren has now moved up to second place in the Real Clear Politics polling average for the first time. Now has polled in second place before in individual surveys, but not in the recent polling average overall. Until now. As of now the RCP polling averages of the candidates are:

Biden: 30.8%
Warren: 18.3%
Sanders: 16.5%
Harris: 8.3%
Buttigieg: 6.5%
Others: 2% or less

I don't suspect this move up the ladder for Warren will last. It's clearly just the effect of the last debate and will probably evaporate over the month with Sanders retaking second place by the time we get to the next debate in September because this clearly WANTS to be a race specifically between Biden and Sanders, but still it's the first time this has happened, so thought it worth casually noting anyway.

Actually Elizabeth Warren is the only one with a steady rise and not short term bumps that tend to fade. If you look at the RCP average, she was at 5.x% in April, 9.x% in May, 11.x% in June 14.x in July and seems to rise further. So for Warren I wouldn't be that sure.

I think this has to do with Warren having built a gigantic staff force on the ground in many states. As field staff is meeting people in person she can bring her message with much more intensity to people than with TV and online presence. And she has that too. So I wouldn't be that pessimistic about her.

What baffles me that her rise doesn't come from Biden or Sanders, as both seem stable. Harris won and lost mostly in exchange with Biden, but Warrens rise seems unchanged by that. So this probably comes from the decline of lesser candidates. If you poll at about 1% and drop to .5% most people will not notice. But if ten people do that that are 5% of votes that go to another candidate. But we will see how that develops in the future.



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

Jaicee said:

Just a casual note today: Elizabeth Warren has now moved up to second place in the Real Clear Politics polling average for the first time. Now has polled in second place before in individual surveys, but not in the recent polling average overall. Until now. As of now the RCP polling averages of the candidates are:

Biden: 30.8%
Warren: 18.3%
Sanders: 16.5%
Harris: 8.3%
Buttigieg: 6.5%
Others: 2% or less

I don't suspect this move up the ladder for Warren will last. It's clearly just the effect of the last debate and will probably evaporate over the month with Sanders retaking second place by the time we get to the next debate in September because this clearly WANTS to be a race specifically between Biden and Sanders, but still it's the first time this has happened, so thought it worth casually noting anyway.

I have a small preference for Warren over Sanders, and it's mostly that Sanders. First, Sanders uses a lot of abstract terms; and while he is consistent in his terminology, he is not consistent in his definition of the terminology. This makes it sometimes unclear as to what he's talking about. I think that Williamson (who I also like) also has a huge problem here, because she sometimes speaks from the point of spiritualism rather than materialism and it sometimes scares the crap out of people (like when she says "sickness is an illusion" but she's speaking in Platonic terms where the metaphysical is the ultimate reality and materialism is an illusion). 

Warren speaks in very precise terms, and so there is no additional research to do over it. She is, IMO, one of the best communicators in the world among elected politicians. But from a policy standpoint I put her and Sanders on equal footing, I think if one or the other won it would make no difference.

I'm not a huge fan of Kamala Harris and Buttigieg. Buttigieg comes off super-rehearsed, it is hard to take him seriously. Kamala Harris, at first, came off very honest, but now it's very apparent that it's all just strategy.

Booker and Castro are two more I really like, they come off as both authentic and intelligent. Also highly spirited.

Yang I think is getting better and better. I like what he's all about, and I like that he has the GUTS to go to the US and pitch UBI; someone mentioned that Elon Musk supports Yang... I almost think it's the other way around, Musk has been pushing Yang's premises for years now and long ago suggested UBI is the best course. But I don't know Yang's history, I only first heard of him less than a year ago.

De Blasio is a guy I recognize as a very flawed politician with some problematic approaches, but I have no real disagreement with his policies and love the fact that he doesn't give a shit about what his non-constructive critics think.

Inslee I REALLY wish was making a bigger splash. I think his focus is what everyone's focus should be, fixing the worldwide environmental crisis. Luckily, this is near the top on the priorities of Warren, Yang, and Sanders.

So, my good lineup is roughly:

1a. Warren
1b. Sanders
2a. Castro
2b. Booker
2c. Williamson
3. Inslee
4. De Blasio

Those are the ones I like best. I don't think Biden, Beto, Buttigieg, Gabbard, and Gillibrand are that bad either. Harris, Klobuchar, Swalwell and Ryan are adequate.

One guy I REALLY miss being a part of the discussion is Ojeda. Miner guy with the shaved head. Seemed to have a heart of gold and just as honest. If he were running still he might be up on my second tier.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

the-pi-guy said:
>Yang and Gabbard are far-right darlings (most of their supporters have voted Trump over Clinton at 5:1 and 12:1 rates respectively, according to YouGov) polling at 0% with the democratic mainstream, so I wouldn't lump them together with the other progressives. Besides, Yang lost votes in the data I posted.

That's very interesting for Yang. I've heard that conservatives like the idea of replacing welfare with UBI, but it's different to actually see a little data showing that support.

I wouldn't call Yang a far right darling. Even if 5:1 may have supported Trump in 2016 you got ot keep in mind that 10-11% of Trump voters had previously voted for Obama and a lot of them voted for Trump because they had witnessed their jobs being automated away. Yang appeals to a lot of these folks because he's addressing problems that they're dealing with.

As for UBI it's a relatively progressive idea that oddly enough seems to have a good amount of right wing support. Richard Nixon pushed for it during his presidency and Alaska has it's own form of UBI already in place.