Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 141647 times)

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #850 on: August 29, 2019, 02:52:23 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.

Forget other countries, New York has already tried to ban sugary drinks that exceed a certain size.

That would not have prevented you from asking for a refill, or prevented the restaurant from providing one. Is was a matter of setting the default to something smaller, not of restricting how much soda you can consume. Defaults matter because many people just take the default in many situations, and in this case people are programmed not to "waste" the soda they've paid for.

I feel like this is going to continue to get into the weeds. Slippery-slope arguments are always invalid, because you can always imagine some extreme that would be undesirable. That doesn't mean that the best option does not lie in the general direction of that extreme, just that we shouldn't go that far.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #851 on: August 29, 2019, 03:00:52 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.

Forget other countries, New York has already tried to ban sugary drinks that exceed a certain size.

New York is not in a country with nationalized healthcare. I'm not following this logic.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #852 on: August 29, 2019, 03:30:38 PM »
And banning drinks a certain size is not even close to the same thing as banning sugary drinks altogether. Just buy more if you want more.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #853 on: August 29, 2019, 04:03:27 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.

Forget other countries, New York has already tried to ban sugary drinks that exceed a certain size.

New York is not in a country with nationalized healthcare. I'm not following this logic.

First they came for the Big Gulps, and I said nothing because I'm not a Big Gulp.

/s

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #854 on: August 29, 2019, 06:17:05 PM »

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.
I was against UBI until I read deeper into it. 

I voted for Trump in 2016 for two main reasons.  Hillary is corrupt, and ACA penalty was costing me thousands. 

His UBI is really a dividend from America, the worlds largest company, if you will.  His idea of Human Centered capitalism is more reasonable than anything Bernie or Warren offer.  As is his Climate plan.
Except his UBI plan isn't feasible. Normally, a politician promising implausible things is nothing to get excited about--but when you position yourself as a technocrat who has done all his math homework, having a BS plan is materially damaging.

On the other hand, I am a massive fan of Yang's proposal to have year-round daylight savings time.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #855 on: August 30, 2019, 01:29:55 PM »
I went to the state fair today, and passed by the GOP booth, which was of course all Trump. There was a smaller banner inside that said "Trump/Pence: Make America Great Again" and then a huge banner across the top of the building outside that said "Trump 2020: Keep America Great."

Noting that Pence was absent from the larger banner, at first I of course attributed this to just Trump's massive ego and inability to share the spotlight with anyone.

But then...

I stopped.

And a thought occurred to me that I haven't been able to put out of my mind. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I have become.

I think Trump is going to kick Pence off the 2020 ticket... and put Ivanka in as VP.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #856 on: August 30, 2019, 01:45:02 PM »
I went to the state fair today, and passed by the GOP booth, which was of course all Trump. There was a smaller banner inside that said "Trump/Pence: Make America Great Again" and then a huge banner across the top of the building outside that said "Trump 2020: Keep America Great."

Noting that Pence was absent from the larger banner, at first I of course attributed this to just Trump's massive ego and inability to share the spotlight with anyone.

But then...

I stopped.

And a thought occurred to me that I haven't been able to put out of my mind. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I have become.

I think Trump is going to kick Pence off the 2020 ticket... and put Ivanka in as VP.

That would be potentially unconstitutional that the 2 people have to be from different states. I'm sure Ivanka could claim NJ or something instead. Though it's a grey area and untested by the supreme court. There is a rumor that Nikki Haley wants the spot.

I think really, evangelicals don't need Pence to settle their conscious anymore. It's all about Trump. And that really is too bad for Pence. I imagine he really really wants to run for president, but I think he'll be even more sidelined this time around.

Then again I would love to see Ivanka get stomped in a VP debate.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #857 on: August 30, 2019, 01:56:38 PM »
I went to the state fair today, and passed by the GOP booth, which was of course all Trump. There was a smaller banner inside that said "Trump/Pence: Make America Great Again" and then a huge banner across the top of the building outside that said "Trump 2020: Keep America Great."

Noting that Pence was absent from the larger banner, at first I of course attributed this to just Trump's massive ego and inability to share the spotlight with anyone.

But then...

I stopped.

And a thought occurred to me that I haven't been able to put out of my mind. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I have become.

I think Trump is going to kick Pence off the 2020 ticket... and put Ivanka in as VP.

That would be potentially unconstitutional that the 2 people have to be from different states. I'm sure Ivanka could claim NJ or something instead. Though it's a grey area and untested by the supreme court.

Well, she lives in DC now, soo...

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #858 on: August 30, 2019, 02:07:16 PM »
There's a piece in the NY Times about the troubles Buttigieg has had with race relations in South Bend in the aftermath of  a police shooting of a black suspect.

Pete Buttigieg Was Rising. Then Came South Bend’s Policing Crisis.
https://nyti.ms/2PyH3ay

Here's some excerpted points from the article

  • The number of people being shot has also risen markedly this year, after dropping last year. The city’s violent crime rate is double the average for American cities its size.
  • Policing problems in South Bend came to national attention on June 16, when a white sergeant fatally shot a 54-year-old black resident, Eric Logan. The officer’s body camera was not turned on, which was widely seen as a sign of lax standards in the department.
  • He has slipped in the polls in recent months, from double-digit poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire in the spring to the single digits more recently.
  • When pressed at the first Democratic debate in June about why just 6 percent of South Bend police officers were black, in a city where 26 percent of the residents are black, Mr. Buttigieg confessed, “Because I couldn’t get it done.”
  • There are now just 15 black officers in the police department, down from 29 in 2012, according to city data and local news reports. The city has recruited just two new black officers since April 2017, compared to 20 white officers.
  • “A lot of people are angry and hurt, but the issues didn’t just start under Mayor Pete,” said Sharon McBride, a black member of the City Council, known as the Common Council.

Here's a comment that I think is relevant and helps to round out the article:

Joseph Sipocz
South Bend, Indiana2h ago
Times Pick
Eric Logan was shot about 10 feet from my car. The criticism of the mayor is not entirely correct and the national reporting is frequently wrong or incomplete.

I live in Central High School, a historic school converted to apartments. Several national articles have described this place as luxury apartments for white residents, with the implication that Logan died because he was black in an area for wealthy white elites. Central has both white and black residents. I could live cheaper, but The Ritz, this isn't.

I attended the biggest of the community sessions with Mayor Pete on the Logan shooting. In Washington High School auditorium there was a crowd of white and black residents hoping to hear how the mayor would deal with the crisis and hoping to express their frustrations to the Mayor. In a crowd of about 450, there were about 10-15 people (white and black) who shouted down every speaker, including the black clergyman who attempted to lead the discussion. They ensured that there would be no meaningful discussion. Through all of this, Mayor Pete did not lash out, did not get flustered, but did listen and respond, although the small group shouted down most of his attempts to respond.

Our city is not unique to these issues of race and policing. Mayor Pete has been consistent in his dedication to listening and working for solutions.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #859 on: September 03, 2019, 06:40:53 PM »
^I just got back from South Bend and all the buzz I heard was about the confusing traffic roundabouts Pete has imposed on the poor mid-westerners (so much spilled persimmon pudding from the excessive centrifugal force!). The crime statistics are not good but I live in a city with a very similar murder rate and South Bend at least looks like it is safer than my local shit-hole. I suggest flying into South Bend rather than taking a train or bus from ORD so you can hear Pete's faux-hokey welcome message; he has perfected the aw-shucks mannerisms of his brethren while clearly being far more intelligent and calculating than his peers. Of course I mean this all as a compliment (except it's a plain fact roundabouts have no place in 'murica).

Speaking of 'murica and adding to my occasional campaigns conducted from highway overpasses reports, I noticed a strange diptych on I-70 in the mountains of Colorado recently: A single overpass occupied by a Trump supporter on the north end and a Yang supporter on the south end. My mind blurred the concepts and I imagined a Trump-Yang 2020 ticket (as if we need any further proof we are living in a simulation).

jinga nation

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Location: 'Murica's Johnson
  • Left, Right, Peddlin' Shite
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #860 on: September 03, 2019, 07:37:51 PM »
Speaking of 'murica and adding to my occasional campaigns conducted from highway overpasses reports, I noticed a strange diptych on I-70 in the mountains of Colorado recently: A single overpass occupied by a Trump supporter on the north end and a Yang supporter on the south end. My mind blurred the concepts and I imagined a Trump-Yang 2020 ticket (as if we need any further proof we are living in a simulation).
I saw that too, driving from Vail to Denver on Labor Day in the horrendous traffic. A 2 hour drive that took 3.5 hours.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #861 on: September 03, 2019, 07:47:53 PM »
Speaking of 'murica and adding to my occasional campaigns conducted from highway overpasses reports, I noticed a strange diptych on I-70 in the mountains of Colorado recently: A single overpass occupied by a Trump supporter on the north end and a Yang supporter on the south end. My mind blurred the concepts and I imagined a Trump-Yang 2020 ticket (as if we need any further proof we are living in a simulation).
I saw that too, driving from Vail to Denver on Labor Day in the horrendous traffic. A 2 hour drive that took 3.5 hours.
Just over one full hour to drive the 15 miles from Berthoud Pass to I-70. At least the traffic gave me some time to wonder if the two on the overpass had an opportunity to chat.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #862 on: September 03, 2019, 10:44:51 PM »
That would be potentially unconstitutional that the 2 people have to be from different states. I'm sure Ivanka could claim NJ or something instead.
Ivanka could be Donald's running mate; there's nothing in the constitution that prevents that. However, if the Trumps were to carry New York (snowballs in hell have a better chance), then the 29 Republican New York electors (who haven't been used since 1984) would only be able to cast a ballot for either Donald or Ivanka.

Article II, Section 1:
Quote
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #863 on: September 04, 2019, 07:07:46 AM »
^I just got back from South Bend and all the buzz I heard was about the confusing traffic roundabouts Pete has imposed on the poor mid-westerners (so much spilled persimmon pudding from the excessive centrifugal force!). The crime statistics are not good but I live in a city with a very similar murder rate and South Bend at least looks like it is safer than my local shit-hole. I suggest flying into South Bend rather than taking a train or bus from ORD so you can hear Pete's faux-hokey welcome message; he has perfected the aw-shucks mannerisms of his brethren while clearly being far more intelligent and calculating than his peers. Of course I mean this all as a compliment (except it's a plain fact roundabouts have no place in 'murica).

Speaking of 'murica and adding to my occasional campaigns conducted from highway overpasses reports, I noticed a strange diptych on I-70 in the mountains of Colorado recently: A single overpass occupied by a Trump supporter on the north end and a Yang supporter on the south end. My mind blurred the concepts and I imagined a Trump-Yang 2020 ticket (as if we need any further proof we are living in a simulation).

https://www.facebook.com/161470737209893/photos/rpp.161470737209893/2626771957346413/?type=3&theater

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #864 on: September 04, 2019, 02:29:18 PM »
Pete's campaign has entered what they are calling "Phrase 3." Essentially they are spending shit tons of $$$ on campaign offices and boots in the ground in every nook and cranny of Iowa and NH. To hear them talk, this has been the plan all along (although I'm fairly cynical about that). He polls (slightly) better in Iowa and NH than he does in the national polls. We'll see if any of this results in some polling upticks.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #865 on: September 05, 2019, 09:34:32 AM »
Anyone see (or more importantly, comprehend) Joe Biden in the Climate Crisis Town Hall yesterday?  I feel every time he talks he becomes less coherent. 

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #866 on: September 05, 2019, 12:14:36 PM »
Is that Town Hall available on YouTube ?

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #867 on: September 05, 2019, 03:36:53 PM »
Is that Town Hall available on YouTube ?
Each individual one is on Youtube.  I watched Biden, Yang (favorite), Sanders and Warren. 

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #868 on: September 05, 2019, 08:44:28 PM »
Well I just listened to the segments for Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg.

I was surprised at how well Biden did.  This is like a 100% turnaround from how the debates.
He came across as strong, forceful, empathetic, and gave great perspective on the climate problem. I didn't notice any language flubs or memory problems.
At this point if he can continue in this way I think he could win the nomination.

Warren and Buttigieg also did well. Buttigieg was more poised and almost every sentence he says is thoughtful and clear.
Warren also did a good job and is a pretty good communicator.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #869 on: September 05, 2019, 10:05:36 PM »
I watched all of these town halls so do you don't have to! Here are my scores and resultant rankings based purely on their policies:

RankCandidatePoints
1Yang5
2Buttigieg3
T3Klobuchar2
T3Warren2
T5O'Rourke1
T5Booker1
T5Castro1
T5Harris1
9Biden0
10Sanders-1

Other observations:
1) I agree Biden didn't fumble but he also didn't really say anything--though I admired his (relatively) optimistic outlook
2) Klobuchar's segment was the most substantive discussion and she had the best pun ("we will build a fridge to the next century")
3) Bernie is probably the most authentic candidate but that's about all I can say in his favor
4) Kamala gets terrifyingly litigious when asked how she will solve virtually any problem
5) Warren looks really funny/on meth in video running at x2 speed

Spoiler: show

Rubric (I mostly established this before watching any videos to be impartial):
  Carbon pricing:
    clear support of carbon tax = 3 points
    mention of tax but noncommittal vs vague "carbon pricing" = 2 points
    "carbon pollution pricing" or "cap and trade" = 1 point
    no mention of carbon pricing = 0 points
  Geoengineering:
    mentioned favorably = 1 point
    not mentioned = 0 points
  Nuclear:
    pro = 1 point
    not mentioned = 0 points
    con = -1 point

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #870 on: September 07, 2019, 05:58:26 PM »
So how do people think the 2020 Democrat nominee is currently polling?

Is s/he polling in double digits, meaning that the eventual nominee is one of the current front runners?  (Biden, Sanders, Warren, etc.)

Is s/he polling in single digits, meaning the eventual nominee is a dark horse?  (Booker, Yang, etc.)

Is s/he polling below 1%, meaning the eventual nominee is a, um, very dark horse?  (Ryan, de Blasio, etc.)

Is s/he not in the polls, meaning the eventual nominee hasn't entered the race yet?  (Clinton, Michelle Obama, etc.)

I tend to think the first (it'll be one of the current front runners, although personally I don't think it will be Biden or Sanders).  I'm not sure what history has to say except that unexpected things can happen.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #871 on: September 12, 2019, 08:27:45 PM »
Watching the 3rd debates and I'm really impressed with how well-spoken Corey Booker is.  He's becoming my favorite choice.

I still like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.  Those three so far are inspiring when they answered questions.

Yang is also good too.

Sanders seems like he's a bit foaming at the mouth. 

I don't think Biden can explain things well and he jumps around too much and is too confusing.  This is a bit of a let down.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #872 on: September 12, 2019, 10:23:23 PM »
Watching the 3rd debates and I'm really impressed with how well-spoken Corey Booker is.  He's becoming my favorite choice.

I still like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.  Those three so far are inspiring when they answered questions.

Yang is also good too.

Sanders seems like he's a bit foaming at the mouth. 

I don't think Biden can explain things well and he jumps around too much and is too confusing.  This is a bit of a let down.

Doesn't stop CNN from always putting Biden at the top of the "debate winners" list. lol I only watched the first hour, but Biden seemed so lame. I think he had one good answer in that time. The rest was mostly rambling nonsense.

They had this huge blank spot of time where neither Warren nor Sanders talked for 30 minutes. Honestly every time they would pass the mic to Klobuchar, Castro, Beto, and Booker just felt like a huge waste of talking time. (Though Booker and Beto has a few good lines).

Bernie looked a little ill.

Warren, the times I heard her, could communicate effectively and delivered great lines. Honestly much better than Kamala Harris. Basically flip CNN's winners and losers list and that's what I thought of the debate.

I don't read much debate analysis, but some of the articles I've read are laaammmme. Like Biden didn't have a major gaff there for he's a winner, but Warren only had clear policy proposals for every question she was given but didn't argue with anyone so that makes her a loser. What world do pundits live in?

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #873 on: September 13, 2019, 05:47:18 AM »
Watching the 3rd debates and I'm really impressed with how well-spoken Corey Booker is.  He's becoming my favorite choice.

I still like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.  Those three so far are inspiring when they answered questions.

Yang is also good too.

Sanders seems like he's a bit foaming at the mouth. 

I don't think Biden can explain things well and he jumps around too much and is too confusing.  This is a bit of a let down.

I mostly agree with that.  They needed two debate nights though.  Having 10 on stage when the moderators still give substantially more time to idiots like Biden is disappointing.   Would like to hear more from Booker, Buttigieg and Yang and less from Biden, Warren and Sanders.  Then dump Harris, Klobuchar, Castro and Beto.  Harris has too much of an infatuation and hate for Trump and anyone who has ever supported Trump.  That won't win purple states. 

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #874 on: September 13, 2019, 06:01:52 AM »
Watching the 3rd debates and I'm really impressed with how well-spoken Corey Booker is.  He's becoming my favorite choice.

I still like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.  Those three so far are inspiring when they answered questions.

Yang is also good too.

Sanders seems like he's a bit foaming at the mouth. 

I don't think Biden can explain things well and he jumps around too much and is too confusing.  This is a bit of a let down.

I mostly agree with that.  They needed two debate nights though.  Having 10 on stage when the moderators still give substantially more time to idiots like Biden is disappointing.   Would like to hear more from Booker, Buttigieg and Yang and less from Biden, Warren and Sanders.  Then dump Harris, Klobuchar, Castro and Beto.  Harris has too much of an infatuation and hate for Trump and anyone who has ever supported Trump.  That won't win purple states.

I only watched a little bit of the debate, mostly because I couldn't find anything else to watch. But yeah I noticed that Biden seemed to be speaking most of the time.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #875 on: September 13, 2019, 06:10:12 AM »
From at least an optics perspective, I thought Booker had a great night. He has a commanding presence, is physically large/imposing, speaks with passion and precision, and I really don't think anyone has laid a hand on him through all the debates thus far (but yes I know he's polling at 1-2%, so top tier doesn't want to "punch down.")

Klob and Beto were stronger too, and I think Pete's answers were some of the most presidential. I really hope a "moderate" can rise up to take Biden's spot. Biden inspires zero confidence, for me anyway. I felt sad for him several times, and I hate feeling that way.





mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #876 on: September 13, 2019, 06:30:52 AM »
Which candidates would gain the most if one other specific candidate dropped out (e.g., Warren would benefit the most if Bernie dropped out, or vice versa)?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2064
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #877 on: September 13, 2019, 07:06:03 AM »
I still think the Dems are getting Biden, like it or not, on sheer name recognition. 
How was the coverage after the debate?  Did they declare a winner?

Here's a NYT piece
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/13/opinion/debate-winners-losers.html

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #878 on: September 13, 2019, 07:06:44 AM »
Which candidates would gain the most if one other specific candidate dropped out (e.g., Warren would benefit the most if Bernie dropped out, or vice versa)?
My guess is that the most benefit would occur for Warren if Harris drops, or vice versa. Either way sets up the remaining person as the last female candidate in the field polling above 1%.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 07:39:08 AM by YttriumNitrate »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2064
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #879 on: September 13, 2019, 07:08:03 AM »
I don't think Harris or Warren will drop out.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #880 on: September 13, 2019, 07:24:31 AM »
I'd be shocked if any of the top 5 drop out before Iowa/NW. They all have plenty of money.

Castro is broke; I wouldn't be surprised to see him drop before the end of 2019.

Not sure about Yang, Beto, Klobuchar, and Booker.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #881 on: September 13, 2019, 07:35:15 AM »
Watching the 3rd debates and I'm really impressed with how well-spoken Corey Booker is.  He's becoming my favorite choice.

I still like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.  Those three so far are inspiring when they answered questions.

Yang is also good too.

Sanders seems like he's a bit foaming at the mouth. 

I don't think Biden can explain things well and he jumps around too much and is too confusing.  This is a bit of a let down.

Doesn't stop CNN from always putting Biden at the top of the "debate winners" list. lol I only watched the first hour, but Biden seemed so lame. I think he had one good answer in that time. The rest was mostly rambling nonsense.

Kinda makes you wonder why our society is so hellbent on electing senile old men to important positions of power.  Rambling nonsense is kinda their trademark move.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #882 on: September 13, 2019, 08:10:42 AM »
Watching the 3rd debates and I'm really impressed with how well-spoken Corey Booker is.  He's becoming my favorite choice.

I still like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.  Those three so far are inspiring when they answered questions.

Yang is also good too.

Sanders seems like he's a bit foaming at the mouth. 

I don't think Biden can explain things well and he jumps around too much and is too confusing.  This is a bit of a let down.

Doesn't stop CNN from always putting Biden at the top of the "debate winners" list. lol I only watched the first hour, but Biden seemed so lame. I think he had one good answer in that time. The rest was mostly rambling nonsense.

Kinda makes you wonder why our society is so hellbent on electing senile old men to important positions of power.  Rambling nonsense is kinda their trademark move.

My only guess is that it's been the status quo for so long, people feel reassured or comfortable when a candidate neatly fits into that traditional mold. Traditions are powerful things! (see: religion, fight over guns, opposition to gay marriage, etc.) ANY candidate who is not an older white guy becomes "different" and therefore the candidate's "differentness" becomes an obstacle for some.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #883 on: September 13, 2019, 01:35:30 PM »
I hope the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and S. Carolina really listen and pay attention and make a thoughtful decision because what they decide sets the tone for this primary election.

I'm wondering if Instant Runoff Voting would help when there are so many candidates to choose from, because if one candidate merely wins by getting 20% of the vote then I don't really think that's any indication of the will of the voters.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #884 on: September 13, 2019, 03:38:46 PM »
I hope the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and S. Carolina really listen and pay attention and make a thoughtful decision because what they decide sets the tone for this primary election.

I'm wondering if Instant Runoff Voting would help when there are so many candidates to choose from, because if one candidate merely wins by getting 20% of the vote then I don't really think that's any indication of the will of the voters.

Well the Dem primary works differently from how the GOP primary elected Trump.

The GOP is a combination delegates decided between popular vote and winner-take-all depending on the state. This means that a state like Ohio can assign all of its delegates based on plurality. So someone like DT can win 30% of the vote with 55% of the delegates.

The Dem primary this year is all population based distribution (though still some caucus vs primary differences). So only winning 20-30% won't gain you the nomination. That means if 4-5 candidates are splitting the vote it goes to a brokered convention where delegates are forced to revote knocking out the bottom until someone reaches 50%.

Are superdelegates a thing of the past? Nope. The rule change says that they get to vote if no one is declared the winner in round 1. DNC strategy will be to get a brokered convention so that the superdelegates can vote in the second round. They make up about 15% of the vote, so one could reasonably guess that if Biden makes it to 40% he's as good as the winner. If Warren + Sanders can hit 45%+, one of them could possibly win by combining delegates.

If no one can break 30%, it's all a crap shoot. But my guess would be that a brokered convention with no obvious plurality would bring Warren out on top.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #885 on: September 13, 2019, 03:47:37 PM »
^ I think a brokered convention would be more likely to end up with Biden as the nominee.

Anyway, I thought I read that a candidate would only win delegates in most states if they polled over 15%.  Only the candidates above that threshold would win delegates, and would do so in proportion to their polling performance.  Someone at 14% or below would get zero.

I think that will help winnow the field.  Not sure if the rate of winnowing will be satisfactory to most people.  Oh well.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #886 on: September 13, 2019, 04:01:56 PM »
^ I think a brokered convention would be more likely to end up with Biden as the nominee.

Anyway, I thought I read that a candidate would only win delegates in most states if they polled over 15%.  Only the candidates above that threshold would win delegates, and would do so in proportion to their polling performance.  Someone at 14% or below would get zero.

I think that will help winnow the field.  Not sure if the rate of winnowing will be satisfactory to most people.  Oh well.

I wasn't aware of the 15% rule. That makes me wonder if it would be more advantageous for Warren or Bernie to drop out somewhat early in order to combine votes. There are only 3 people consistently polling over 15% heck, over 10%. Outside of home states like Texas for Beto where he might score some delegates the RCP average right now is roughly:

Biden: 27
Warren: 17
Sanders: 17

That would mean the delegates would shake out as:

Biden: 44%
Warren and Bernie: 28% each.

If Warren and Bernie delegates perfectly backed each other as their #2, they have enough for one to win. But not enough to survive with superdelegates being added in. Should Joe's polls drop even into the low 20's he may not have enough to win.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #887 on: September 13, 2019, 09:51:23 PM »
Remember also that the national RCP average may differ widely from individual state results.  Beto probably polls better in Texas, Warren polls better in Massachusetts, etc.

And the results in early states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire (where Sanders probably polls well IIRC) may winnow the field early.  So for example, Harris may do well in California but she may or may not make it that far (IIRC CA's primary is in March, maybe on Super Tuesday but I don't think so).

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #888 on: September 14, 2019, 08:41:17 AM »
Remember also that the national RCP average may differ widely from individual state results.  Beto probably polls better in Texas, Warren polls better in Massachusetts, etc.

And the results in early states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire (where Sanders probably polls well IIRC) may winnow the field early.  So for example, Harris may do well in California but she may or may not make it that far (IIRC CA's primary is in March, maybe on Super Tuesday but I don't think so).

Texas, California, Minnesota, Mass. are all a part of super Tuesday. Unless Kamala's, Beto's, and Klobuchar's numbers are absolutely horrible in 4 primaries before super tuesday, I think they'll try to stick it out till then and then drop out.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #889 on: September 14, 2019, 09:26:34 PM »
Remember also that the national RCP average may differ widely from individual state results.  Beto probably polls better in Texas, Warren polls better in Massachusetts, etc.

And the results in early states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire (where Sanders probably polls well IIRC) may winnow the field early.  So for example, Harris may do well in California but she may or may not make it that far (IIRC CA's primary is in March, maybe on Super Tuesday but I don't think so).

Texas, California, Minnesota, Mass. are all a part of super Tuesday. Unless Kamala's, Beto's, and Klobuchar's numbers are absolutely horrible in 4 primaries before super tuesday, I think they'll try to stick it out till then and then drop out.

My view of the current state of the race is that it is a Mexican standoff.  The debates haven't really shifted any candidate's fortunes any great amount.  The front runners hope to stay in the lead and maintain the status quo, and wait out the others, figuring eventually they'll drop out as primaries happen.  The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.

I agree with the pundit's point that there doesn't seem to be much movement overall in the polling.

The above is all excepting Warren's slow and consistent rise, which doesn't really fit my narrative.  I suppose it is possible that if she continues to rise her changing poll stature will somehow break the deadlock.  Logically it might mean Sanders withdraws eventually, but my thought is that he won't do so on the early side of things.  It could change the perception of Biden as the sole front runner.  But I don't think it would change Biden's or anyone else's strategy for a long while.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #890 on: September 15, 2019, 08:30:55 AM »
The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.
With the (currently) top three candidates being in their middle, late, and early 70s, my guess would be that the most likely exogenous factor is medically related.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #891 on: September 16, 2019, 11:00:46 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #892 on: September 16, 2019, 11:15:11 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)
« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 11:54:20 AM by Nick_Miller »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #893 on: September 16, 2019, 12:01:07 PM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

I don't believe that the NRA is back on their heels at all.

Gun sale is the primary goal of the organization.  Mass shootings and fear sell more guns.  That's why the NRA has worked so hard to ensure that it's easy to sell guns to criminals, to repeal gun regulations of any kind, and to hamstring law enforcement when investigating gun related crimes.  This is the heyday of the NRA.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #894 on: September 16, 2019, 06:53:07 PM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #895 on: September 16, 2019, 07:34:26 PM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #896 on: September 16, 2019, 08:09:40 PM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

I'm not going to defend the NRA. They're not worth defending because of some things they've done and because of their leader. Call me cynical, but I also don't give Beto the credit you do. In fact, don't call me cynical. It's clear as day to anyone who does a 30 second google search like I just did. I reiterate that he's just grasping at straws for relevance. He directly contradicted his stance from a year ago on this topic when he actually commented that he owned an AR - https://nypost.com/2019/09/13/beto-orourkes-new-position-on-assault-weapons-is-reversal-from-stance-in-2018/. In fact, the more I research it, the more damning it becomes for him. He literally said - "If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you — at least I don’t want to do that.” Sheesh...this is a conservative's fantasy of a scapegoat - poster child for every gun owner who was already suspicious of liberals who call for universal background checks but reassures people "nobody wants to take your guns" - going from that to fervently demanding with a nice sounding curse word thrown to show he really means business and saying that he's certainly wanting to literally take guns away. Yea....

Also, news flash: mandatory confiscation of semi-automatic weapons themselves (note this is beyond limiting higher round magazines) is an extreme position whether you would like it to be or not.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #897 on: September 17, 2019, 12:00:45 AM »
^ +1, Wolfpack gets it. Beto is clearly floundering and I never understood why he was considered a serious candidate to begin with. Famous for losing an election in a blue-wave year to an unpopular Republican...that's top shelf stuff!

Also interesting to see how Castro tanked in his wild flailing cry for help when he basically called Biden senile (cf the fivethirtyeight articles to see how disasterous his results were). Yang did not have a good debate either (but at least we learned that since he's Asian, he knows a lot of doctors). Kamala was stuck in "orange man bad" mode which is quite boring and ineffective as well.

Warren keeps consolidating more support. Bernie Bros amusingly mad at WFP for the endorsement snub.

As much as I dislike democracy, I still love a good horse race/mud wrestle.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #898 on: September 17, 2019, 07:59:35 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

I have a theory that we could regulate the semi automatic weapons through mandatory licensing and insurance.  The idea is to shift the risk of loss from the victims of gun violence to the gun owners.  We would also need an uninsured incidents rider so that if there was an injury or death from an uninsured AR-15, the victim compensation would be funded by the class of legit AR-15 owners.  In practice, the insurers would set rates based on the inherent danger of each weapon, which would in turn make semi automatic weapons enormously expensive to insure.  Ordinary market forces would limit the number of people able and willing to bear that cost burden just to own an AR-15.  Another alternative would be to set up a victims compensation fund which is funded by an ammo tax.  Then you could own your AR-15, but it would be very expensive to shoot it.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #899 on: September 17, 2019, 08:23:24 AM »
Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.

I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.

Win the general. Nothing else matters.

(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)

The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough  (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.

I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.

News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.

I have a theory that we could regulate the semi automatic weapons through mandatory licensing and insurance.  The idea is to shift the risk of loss from the victims of gun violence to the gun owners.  We would also need an uninsured incidents rider so that if there was an injury or death from an uninsured AR-15, the victim compensation would be funded by the class of legit AR-15 owners.  In practice, the insurers would set rates based on the inherent danger of each weapon, which would in turn make semi automatic weapons enormously expensive to insure.  Ordinary market forces would limit the number of people able and willing to bear that cost burden just to own an AR-15.  Another alternative would be to set up a victims compensation fund which is funded by an ammo tax.  Then you could own your AR-15, but it would be very expensive to shoot it.

I belong to a couple of super-pro-2nd Amendment firearms groups on FB. They would lose their shit about this proposal. Why? Because whenever you talk about things like this with them, they call it classist and even racist, because then only rich people would be able to afford those guns.

I mean, ultimately, there's a disingenuous bullshit argument against any type of gun control. They have all been crafted over many years by the NRA to shut the conversation down. Like I said, there is no good faith effort on the right to deal with this issue.