Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 59894 times)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #450 on: June 28, 2019, 04:15:05 PM »
I have been a big Biden fan for a long time but watching Harris take him apart was an eye opener for me.  I can only imagine what Trump would do to him.

So it comes down to a gay man, a black woman, or a "socialist".  I like them all, but is America ready?

I thought Buttigieg is the best communicator of them all. While I generally like Harris she doesn't articulate a positive vision for me to get motivated by.

I also think the 2 candidates from Colorado are both good.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #451 on: June 28, 2019, 04:16:49 PM »
I was dismayed to see both Warren and Harris (who I like) joining Bernie to say they would support the elimination of private insurance as part of a "Medicare for all" plan. Harris apparently walked it back today saying she misunderstood the question, which doesn't sound quite right since after the first debate she must have known they'd ask that question.

That's exactly the kind of position that might help get you the nomination only to lose you the general election. It's not at all a popular idea outside of the bluest states.

Yes I agree with you on this. We're going to need to just add a public option to the ACA as the first step.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #452 on: June 28, 2019, 04:18:32 PM »
I have been a big Biden fan for a long time but watching Harris take him apart was an eye opener for me.  I can only imagine what Trump would do to him.

So it comes down to a gay man, a black woman, or a "socialist".  I like them all, but is America ready?

I thought Buttigieg is the best communicator of them all. While I generally like Harris she doesn't articulate a positive vision for me to get motivated by.

I also think the 2 candidates from Colorado are both good.

Harris showed her prosecutor background. She can take someone down and make them look guilty, which makes her perfect for a debate against Trump. The positive message would have to come more from Elizabeth Warren.

A Harris/Warren ticket would be pretty interesting blend actually.

The two from CO are milquetoast. I think they would be Bob Doles in a general election.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #453 on: June 28, 2019, 07:21:19 PM »
I was dismayed to see both Warren and Harris (who I like) joining Bernie to say they would support the elimination of private insurance as part of a "Medicare for all" plan. Harris apparently walked it back today saying she misunderstood the question, which doesn't sound quite right since after the first debate she must have known they'd ask that question.

That's exactly the kind of position that might help get you the nomination only to lose you the general election. It's not at all a popular idea outside of the bluest states.

Color me dubious of her walk back also.

I'm fairly certain that she explicitly stated wanting to eliminate private insurance in her very first speech where she announced her candidacy a few months ago.  Maybe she has changed her position since then?

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #454 on: June 28, 2019, 07:46:21 PM »
Some people are excited about Harris for her pre-planned attacked on Joe Biden, pulling the all too predictable the race card.  Sorry, that did nothing for me.  And that $500/mo ($6000/year) she's talking about giving to everyone, well, it's only HALF that amount to a single person, and ONLY if that person makes under $50,000/yr, yet there's a minimum threshold as well, and the poorest people and families, such as those not working or only on social security, will get NOTHING under her plan.  You actually have to have thousands of dollars of earnings from a job to qualify.  Poor and not working?  You get NOTHING!  Living on just a meager social security benefit?  You get NOTHING!

As bad as her plan is, it's not as bad as one-issue Yang's dividend / UBI.  Yang's dividend / UBI is a non-universal payment that is redistribution of income up from the poor and elderly.  If you received $1400/mo SS check that you worked your entire career to earn, you do NOT get Yang's $1000 dividend, but you WILL pay the higher costs/taxes for everything to fund other people's UBI.  So the net effect, is your financial hardships of scraping by on SS will be even worse thanks to Yang's UBI raising your expenses while you get NOTHING!  Same with poor people receiving about a $1000/mo in benefits from social welfare programs.  Sorry, you don't get the $1000/mo UBI either - it would be break-even with your current benefits you would have to give up, but you'll pay more in costs/taxes to fund other people's UBI.  So if it hurts all these poor people mentioned so far, who will UBI benefit?  Some unemployed receiving no or very little social welfare and younger low income people will benefit, but also those wealthy people bringing in generous pensions or earning high incomes will make out very well because they'll get 100% of their sweet pensions and income, PLUS the UBI on top of it, even if they have many millions of $$$ saved.  It's pure gravy for them.  So it's really advantageous to the wealthier people at the expense of some of the poorest who get nothing except higher costs.

It's similar in some ways to Harris' plan, but at least her plan has a cut-off for high income earners.  Those on SS are still shafted with her plan, but it's worse in that the non-retired non-working poor get nothing at all with Harris' plan where they would with Yang's UBI.  At the end of the day, neither plan is acceptable and both are way too expensive.  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly in such a way that some of the most vulnerable American citizens are left out or actually hurt by the plan.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 08:23:11 PM by FIREstache »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #455 on: June 28, 2019, 08:04:21 PM »

- SNIP -

  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly to some of the most vulnerable American citizens.

If those plans ever came to a vote, it would be a hard sell.  Look how much trouble they are having selling changes in the country's medical system which will actually save the country a large amount of money over all.

All of the great giveaways will at most be realized in part as they must be compromised to pass.

On the other hand, the big tax giveaway that passed last year didn't seem to have had a lot of compromise.

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #456 on: June 28, 2019, 08:17:37 PM »
I was dismayed to see both Warren and Harris (who I like) joining Bernie to say they would support the elimination of private insurance as part of a "Medicare for all" plan. Harris apparently walked it back today saying she misunderstood the question, which doesn't sound quite right since after the first debate she must have known they'd ask that question.

That's exactly the kind of position that might help get you the nomination only to lose you the general election. It's not at all a popular idea outside of the bluest states.

She also stated her support for getting rid of private insurance during a CNN townhall earlier this year.  Her campaign walked that back soon after:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-eliminate-private-insurers-backlash/index.html

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #457 on: June 28, 2019, 08:34:08 PM »

- SNIP -

  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly to some of the most vulnerable American citizens.

If those plans ever came to a vote, it would be a hard sell.  Look how much trouble they are having selling changes in the country's medical system which will actually save the country a large amount of money over all.

All of the great giveaways will at most be realized in part as they must be compromised to pass.

On the other hand, the big tax giveaway that passed last year didn't seem to have had a lot of compromise.

Yes, Yang has virtually no chance of being elected, and Harris', if she were to actually become president, her plan probably woudn't go anywhere or would be very watered down to have a chance.  But they aren't even being honest with what their plan really is when they say that everyone will get it.  It seems like most people aren't seeing that or pointing it out and are just buying into the talking point that "everyone will get free $$$".  I haven't even spent as much time thinking about these things as I hope these candidates would have, but I could still come up with a much better and fairer idea than either of these plans.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 08:37:05 PM by FIREstache »

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #458 on: June 29, 2019, 04:25:19 AM »
Some people are excited about Harris for her pre-planned attacked on Joe Biden, pulling the all too predictable the race card.  Sorry, that did nothing for me.  And that $500/mo ($6000/year) she's talking about giving to everyone, well, it's only HALF that amount to a single person, and ONLY if that person makes under $50,000/yr, yet there's a minimum threshold as well, and the poorest people and families, such as those not working or only on social security, will get NOTHING under her plan.  You actually have to have thousands of dollars of earnings from a job to qualify.  Poor and not working?  You get NOTHING!  Living on just a meager social security benefit?  You get NOTHING!

As bad as her plan is, it's not as bad as one-issue Yang's dividend / UBI.  Yang's dividend / UBI is a non-universal payment that is redistribution of income up from the poor and elderly.  If you received $1400/mo SS check that you worked your entire career to earn, you do NOT get Yang's $1000 dividend, but you WILL pay the higher costs/taxes for everything to fund other people's UBI.  So the net effect, is your financial hardships of scraping by on SS will be even worse thanks to Yang's UBI raising your expenses while you get NOTHING!  Same with poor people receiving about a $1000/mo in benefits from social welfare programs.  Sorry, you don't get the $1000/mo UBI either - it would be break-even with your current benefits you would have to give up, but you'll pay more in costs/taxes to fund other people's UBI.  So if it hurts all these poor people mentioned so far, who will UBI benefit?  Some unemployed receiving no or very little social welfare and younger low income people will benefit, but also those wealthy people bringing in generous pensions or earning high incomes will make out very well because they'll get 100% of their sweet pensions and income, PLUS the UBI on top of it, even if they have many millions of $$$ saved.  It's pure gravy for them.  So it's really advantageous to the wealthier people at the expense of some of the poorest who get nothing except higher costs.

It's similar in some ways to Harris' plan, but at least her plan has a cut-off for high income earners.  Those on SS are still shafted with her plan, but it's worse in that the non-retired non-working poor get nothing at all with Harris' plan where they would with Yang's UBI.  At the end of the day, neither plan is acceptable and both are way too expensive.  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly in such a way that some of the most vulnerable American citizens are left out or actually hurt by the plan.

I agree. Better than nearly doubling min wage, better than UBI, better than other income-based monetary incentives, is making the ultra-wealthy and big corps pay their part in taxes, and providing social services and benefits accessible to EVERYONE, reducing the costs of tuition and pharm, etc...so that we dont NEED to earn so much just to live a low financially-stressed life.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #459 on: June 29, 2019, 04:51:24 PM »
OK, my prediction is that the next President will be one of:

Trump
Harris
Warren
Buttigieg

For various reasons, I don't think anyone else is going to make it.

Long way to go, and stuff could happen, of course.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #460 on: June 29, 2019, 05:32:41 PM »
Would Harris bring out the African American vote the same way Obama did?  If she can, it's a huge edge.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #461 on: June 29, 2019, 08:09:35 PM »
Quote
Would Harris bring out the African American vote the same way Obama did?  If she can, it's a huge edge.

This is purely anecdotal, but there seems to be a generational divide.  The older members of my family are more conservative and are leaning towards Biden (but would vote for whoever is the eventual D nominee) and the younger members are more prone to apathy and are leaning towards staying home altogether.  The black vote won't really come into play until South Carolina (my apologies to African Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire).  I think it depends on what Biden does between now and then.  If Biden is no longer carrying the aura of electability,  you may see an increase in the black vote for Booker and/or Harris.  Harris will also have an advantage in California.  As for the general election, I'm not convinced that the party can recreate the "Obama coalition" with such a huge swing to the left.  Obama did cause a spike in black voter turnout, but he also won bc he didn't alienate the industrial midwest or purplish southern states (Biden helped).  If Biden falters, I don't think anyone will gain enough votes to prevent this from becoming a long and drawn out process.  If 2016 is any indicator, that might suppress the turnout for those who strongly backed other candidates (i.e. Bernie or bust).

Of course, there's no telling what Trump will do between now and then with twitter tantrums, trade wars and/or actual confrontation with Iran/NK. 

TL; DR: Shrug emoji. 

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #462 on: June 30, 2019, 03:34:10 AM »
Interesting point.  It would make sense for Boomers to lean towards an older candidate who is like them.  But the creepy Uncle Joe factor seems like it would be a huge turn off to younger voters, particularly younger women. It was interesting that Bernie pulled in the younger voters so much last time. I wonder if he will get that same kind of appeal this time around, but maybe not so much in a crowded field.

For what Trump does, he took down tons of Republicans in 2015.  I would expect very similar slams of Dems while this primary is in progress.  I wonder which candidates he prefers to run against.

Booker is interesting, and he is single, which is unusual.  I think Michelle Obama was a huge help to Barack Obama. The Obamas were a beautiful first family, and first African American first family.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #463 on: June 30, 2019, 03:55:51 AM »
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

SaucyAussie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #464 on: June 30, 2019, 05:07:19 AM »
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

You pretty much answered your own question.  We all knew Hillary very well and that came with a huge amount of baggage - Whitewater, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, Monica Lewinsky, Vince Foster, emails, the list goes on.  (And I still voted for her.) 

Warren has more of a clean slate.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #465 on: June 30, 2019, 06:22:55 AM »
Good point.  I wonder which candidate in the field would be the hungriest, hardest worker on the campaign? 

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4590
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #466 on: June 30, 2019, 06:35:08 AM »
I would have thought the biggest electoral turn off in 2020 would be old het white men on either side - Trump on one side, Biden or Bernie on the other.  But I don't think it will happen: Trump yes, but I don't think either Biden or Bernie have enough to see off the challengers once their names and personalities are better known.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #467 on: June 30, 2019, 06:43:50 AM »
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #468 on: June 30, 2019, 06:59:03 AM »
I honestly wonder if there was market manipulation in 2016 before the election (and that's something I may need to prepare for or want to take advantage of if it reoccurs in 2020).  That big dip?  I think there are big shareholders who can dump assets and shake stuff up.

After 9/11 I care a lot about having a President who can handle things internationally.  Not a warmonger, but not a wimp. I'm not sure who will come across as the best choice for international relations. Maybe it is Biden.
This is where the Indiana mayor will fall apart -- there's just not enough experience.

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #469 on: June 30, 2019, 01:40:32 PM »
Quote
Would Harris bring out the African American vote the same way Obama did?  If she can, it's a huge edge.

This is purely anecdotal, but there seems to be a generational divide.  The older members of my family are more conservative and are leaning towards Biden (but would vote for whoever is the eventual D nominee) and the younger members are more prone to apathy and are leaning towards staying home altogether.  The black vote won't really come into play until South Carolina (my apologies to African Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire).  I think it depends on what Biden does between now and then.  If Biden is no longer carrying the aura of electability,  you may see an increase in the black vote for Booker and/or Harris.  Harris will also have an advantage in California.  As for the general election, I'm not convinced that the party can recreate the "Obama coalition" with such a huge swing to the left.  Obama did cause a spike in black voter turnout, but he also won bc he didn't alienate the industrial midwest or purplish southern states (Biden helped).  If Biden falters, I don't think anyone will gain enough votes to prevent this from becoming a long and drawn out process.  If 2016 is any indicator, that might suppress the turnout for those who strongly backed other candidates (i.e. Bernie or bust).

Of course, there's no telling what Trump will do between now and then with twitter tantrums, trade wars and/or actual confrontation with Iran/NK. 

TL; DR: Shrug emoji.
How "into" politics are the older people that are supporting Biden?  Can they name 5 other democratic primary candidates?

I feel like Biden is the front runner on name recognition/familiarity and that's it.  Most that recite his name as a good candidate can't name a single policy position he holds nor have they put much thought into their support of him.
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.
Very different platforms.  Warren is closer to Bernie on the left/right scale and Clinton was much more towards to the center.

I feel that actually makes her less likely to win a general election than Clinton but I could be wrong.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #470 on: June 30, 2019, 01:55:22 PM »
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

Why do you assume that the closest comparison is Hillary Clinton instead of one of the other 19 candidates that Warren is facing?

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #471 on: June 30, 2019, 04:44:14 PM »
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump

I guess the average American is then part native American.  I am not.  However, Elizabeth Warren's DNA tests show that she has native American blood. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535741/poll-elizabeth-warren-dna-test-2020-democratic-primary

I guess it is like global warming and smoking for the past generation.  Repeat enough disinformation enough times and people do not know the truth.

I like Elizabeth Warren.  It's not personality.  It's not looks.  It's the fact that she fought against credit card companies which take their lb of flesh from those financially vulnerable.  People voted for John Kennedy years ago because he had "charisma."  If I hire someone to do a job for me to fix the country, I do not care if they have "charisma."

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #472 on: June 30, 2019, 05:23:55 PM »
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump

I guess the average American is then part native American.

Yes, that was my point.  She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.  The indians were insulted that she tried to claim herself to be one as well.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #473 on: June 30, 2019, 06:08:27 PM »
Quote
How "into" politics are the older people that are supporting Biden?  Can they name 5 other democratic primary candidates?

I feel like Biden is the front runner on name recognition/familiarity and that's it.  Most that recite his name as a good candidate can't name a single policy position he holds nor have they put much thought into their support of him.

I'll try to explain and add in actual quotes.  They watch either CNN or MSNBC on a regular basis.  They can identify most of the "top tier" candidates but generally regard Biden as the only one who isn't slightly to completely crazy- this tends to take on an element of the younger candidates not understanding what is at stake.  They don't understand why the candidates are running on free everything PRIOR to winning office.  Post debate they hope Biden doesn't shift to the left.  They are staunch Democrats but are not particularly pro-Choice and are pretty religious.  Of the candidates running, Biden is the only one they believe has a shot at taking down Trump.  They are purely transactional in this regard.  They believe the things Bernie, Harris, Booker, Warren, etc. are fighting for are aspirational but naive.  Mayor Pete is the only other candidate they believe "sounded like he had some sense" but he's "a few years away from being ready for prime time."  Their preference for Biden tends to be expressed in terms of understanding the audience of "real American voters."  My family lives almost exclusively in the midwest and south.  They have had heard their (white) Republican neighbors talk about how Biden was the only Democrat they would even consider voting for.

Most important to them is beating Trump.  They don't understand why the Democrats are playing around with free college and free healthcare or abortion or any other issue that will do anything to alienate voters needed to beat Trump.  They fought for Civil Rights and believe just about everything they fought for will be gone (or at least they won't be around long enough to things to recover) if Trump wins another term.  RBG will likely retire in the next term and they regard another Trump SC pick as the death knell for Civil Rights.  Hillary losing resulted in the shift of the SC "because kids who didn't understand what was at stake decided to stay home or vote 3rd Party."  (Note: A lot of these kids are in my family) They believe too much is at stake to vote for candidates less likely to win the general election. I honestly do not believe there is any policy or debate performance that would change their minds.  The overall mindset is THIS IS NOT A DRILL. 

Getting Trump out of office is the only objective.  Biden is who they see as the only shot to do that.  Period.  They believe voting for another candidate in the primary is a luxury they do not have.  "For you kids it may be ok, we were kids once too.  You don't know how much had to fight to get to where we are.  I don't have enough time to gamble." 

Again, it's purely anecdotal, but I doubt the numbers for Biden's black support will decrease...if anything the numbers may go up. 

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #474 on: June 30, 2019, 07:54:55 PM »
Quote
How "into" politics are the older people that are supporting Biden?  Can they name 5 other democratic primary candidates?

I feel like Biden is the front runner on name recognition/familiarity and that's it.  Most that recite his name as a good candidate can't name a single policy position he holds nor have they put much thought into their support of him.

I'll try to explain and add in actual quotes.  They watch either CNN or MSNBC on a regular basis.  They can identify most of the "top tier" candidates but generally regard Biden as the only one who isn't slightly to completely crazy- this tends to take on an element of the younger candidates not understanding what is at stake.  They don't understand why the candidates are running on free everything PRIOR to winning office.  Post debate they hope Biden doesn't shift to the left.  They are staunch Democrats but are not particularly pro-Choice and are pretty religious.  Of the candidates running, Biden is the only one they believe has a shot at taking down Trump.  They are purely transactional in this regard.  They believe the things Bernie, Harris, Booker, Warren, etc. are fighting for are aspirational but naive.  Mayor Pete is the only other candidate they believe "sounded like he had some sense" but he's "a few years away from being ready for prime time."  Their preference for Biden tends to be expressed in terms of understanding the audience of "real American voters."  My family lives almost exclusively in the midwest and south.  They have had heard their (white) Republican neighbors talk about how Biden was the only Democrat they would even consider voting for.

Most important to them is beating Trump.  They don't understand why the Democrats are playing around with free college and free healthcare or abortion or any other issue that will do anything to alienate voters needed to beat Trump.  They fought for Civil Rights and believe just about everything they fought for will be gone (or at least they won't be around long enough to things to recover) if Trump wins another term.  RBG will likely retire in the next term and they regard another Trump SC pick as the death knell for Civil Rights.  Hillary losing resulted in the shift of the SC "because kids who didn't understand what was at stake decided to stay home or vote 3rd Party."  (Note: A lot of these kids are in my family) They believe too much is at stake to vote for candidates less likely to win the general election. I honestly do not believe there is any policy or debate performance that would change their minds.  The overall mindset is THIS IS NOT A DRILL. 

Getting Trump out of office is the only objective.  Biden is who they see as the only shot to do that.  Period.  They believe voting for another candidate in the primary is a luxury they do not have.  "For you kids it may be ok, we were kids once too.  You don't know how much had to fight to get to where we are.  I don't have enough time to gamble." 

Again, it's purely anecdotal, but I doubt the numbers for Biden's black support will decrease...if anything the numbers may go up.
Interesting perspective and it's one I don't actually disagree with relative to some of the proposals Bernie/Warren are pushing.  A more moderate candidate is needed to win a general election and things like student loan forgiveness aren't even popular with moderate democrats never mind people further right on the spectrum.  I guess I just see others in the primary that offer that and don't carry the baggage that Biden has.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #475 on: June 30, 2019, 11:04:55 PM »
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump

I guess the average American is then part native American.

Yes, that was my point.  She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.  The indians were insulted that she tried to claim herself to be one as well.

You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.  There are lots of Americans of all types. Native Americans make up only 2% of the population, and of those, few are full blooded. If you average them you'll get a low percentage. One of the best studies so far looked at a self-selected sample of Americans who submitted DNA to 23andMe and gave permission for their data to be used in the study.  Indeed, the average percentage Native American markers found in European Americans was only 0.18%. This would be an average of a lot of people with zero detectable Native DNA, with some people with a little, and a few people with a lot.

Warren's results suggest about 1.6% of her DNA were from Native ancestry.  This could have been from one Native ancestor 6 generations ago (her grandmother's grandmother's grandmother), or from SEVERAL ancestors up to 10 generations ago.

However it makes more sense to look at the percentage  of the population of self-identified European Americans who have  Native American DNA.
Quote
Using a less stringent threshold of 1%, our estimates suggest that as many as 8% of individuals from Louisiana and upward of 3% of individuals from some states in the West and Southwest carry Native American ancestry (Figure S7).

From the above study, Warren belongs to a rather small group of European Americans  (looks like about 3-4% of people in OK, from their figure) with enough Native DNA to hit the 1% threshold. Make of that what you will. 

While it's important to listen to Native voices who are pointing out that it takes more than DNA or family legends to be a Native American, and who are frustrated with cultural appropriation, it's also important to listen to those who support Senator Warren and are thankful for the work she has done as an ally of several Native tribes.

Also, if you don't support the things that Native Americans truly care about, like upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act, upholding treaties and sovereignty of Native nations, a stop to degrading and dehumanizing Native faces in the media, and a start to spreading accurate and diverse depictions of Native Americans in the news and popular culture

--then you need to consider why you care about this issue at all.
 
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 08:17:06 PM by Poundwise »

SaucyAussie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #476 on: July 01, 2019, 05:12:12 AM »
You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #477 on: July 01, 2019, 05:25:13 AM »
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6

Yes, indeed.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #478 on: July 01, 2019, 05:53:39 AM »
You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6

Yes, but she doesn't make the claim now, nor do I think she has since she was educated on why this is incorrect. Has she done so since the late 1980s?

One issue is that there is no term for people who are of Native American descent.  Native Americans are people who are actually tribal members, so there needs to be a term like "Native American American" for those with a kinship. 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 06:25:23 AM by Poundwise »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #479 on: July 01, 2019, 06:00:00 AM »
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

Quote
She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.

Why would she argue that? It's your argument. You were comparing her percentage to the average percentage to say that even her DNA test didn't support that she had an unusual amount of Native heritage.  But the data show that she does.  She has more Native DNA than do 97% of European Americans in OK, a state enriched with people with Native American DNA, in a sample that is enriched for people who felt there is something interesting enough in their DNA to go for 23andMe testing. 

It doesn't make her a Native American, but it does suggest that her family story was not made up. The fact that she has this percentage Native DNA and had an oral history of heritage, and that she accrued no known benefit to this story, support the contention that she was/is not lying.  She was just uneducated about tribal membership in a way that was not unusual in the 1980s or even today.  She was incorrect, but not telling deliberate falsehoods.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 09:02:29 PM by Poundwise »

SaucyAussie

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #480 on: July 01, 2019, 06:38:15 AM »
You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6

Yes, but she doesn't make the claim now, nor do I think she has since she was educated on why this is incorrect. Has she done so since the late 1980s?

One issue is that there is no term for people who are of Native American descent.  Native Americans are people who are actually tribal members, so there needs to be a term like "Native American American" for those with a kinship.

Fair enough.  And certainly it pales in comparison to some of the things the current president has claimed.  But I don't think the issue is going away.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1092
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #481 on: July 01, 2019, 06:51:27 AM »
Damn, Buttigieg raised almost $25M in 2Q. I'm guessing a few other candidates will exceed that, but it seems sufficient to keep him in the race long-term.

You'd think that candidates who raised more might want to announce their hauls today to steal some of his limelight. Bernie? Biden? Harris? Warren?

And candidates who raised much less might want to wait a few days? I think disclosures are due by the 15th so they can't hide their totals after that.

(and on Twitter, the salty Beto supporters are out in force! I don't engage anyone, but I watch, and holy God they must really blame Pete for Beto's lack of campaign momentum)
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 07:01:53 AM by Nick_Miller »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #482 on: July 01, 2019, 06:53:41 AM »
I was recently very involved in a local election campaign, and at least locally, it's often the hardest worker with the most money who wins.  Who will work the hardest and spend the most money out of this candidate pool?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #483 on: July 01, 2019, 06:57:08 AM »
But I don't think the issue is going away.

That's the question.  Warren is Pocahontas to conservatives at this point and has been mocked and labeled for it.  Biden is Creepy Uncle Joe.  Both are disadvantages because these labels may have some power to sway the undecideds.

I am watching this video, only 1:20 minutes in, and I have to take a break.  Being female and seeing how uncomfortable these girls and the mother, and the women are, it's very, very uncomfortable. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKuIfUIBjBM
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 07:01:43 AM by KBecks »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #484 on: July 01, 2019, 07:08:14 AM »
But I don't think the issue is going away.

That's the question.  Warren is Pocahontas to conservatives at this point and has been mocked and labeled for it.  Biden is Creepy Uncle Joe.  Both are disadvantages because these labels may have some power to sway the undecideds.

I'm not so sure about this. Hillary usually didn't talk too much about Bengazi or other past events while campaigning. But with Warren owning up to most of it, it kind of kills it. Trump may try to make it a thing, but it just doesn't stick quite as well.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #485 on: July 01, 2019, 07:10:43 AM »
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqtmoZT6vE

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!! 

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #486 on: July 01, 2019, 07:57:06 AM »
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqtmoZT6vE

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #487 on: July 01, 2019, 08:42:41 AM »
(and on Twitter, the salty Beto supporters are out in force! I don't engage anyone, but I watch, and holy God they must really blame Pete for Beto's lack of campaign momentum)

It certainly seems like they're in the same swim lane to me, so they'll think that they are competing for a very similar group of supporters.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #488 on: July 01, 2019, 08:45:30 AM »
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?  Why would you put a defeated Senate candidate on the top of your ticket? 

I mean, if that's who you want, fine!

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #489 on: July 01, 2019, 08:53:24 AM »
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?  Why would you put a defeated Senate candidate on the top of your ticket? 

I mean, if that's who you want, fine!
I dont think most general observers really think Beto is going to 1600 Pennsylvania. He does put a lot of momentum behind Texas flipping towards blue in 2020. I still think that is a long shot, but has a lot of value. A flipped Texas would really change the electoral math.

My standard broken-record statement for these big primary fields is that Id really like to see ranked choice voting. I also think that people should voice their support (even for more than one candidate) early. Primaries tend to be driven by the more ardent people in each party, which tends to pull away from the center, be it to the left or the right. Im not so sure party-driven primaries are all positives as a way to select a president.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #490 on: July 01, 2019, 09:23:28 AM »
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 09:25:06 AM by sherr »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1895
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #491 on: July 01, 2019, 09:25:28 AM »
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

This is kind of a silly question. Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.

But we can already call Beto a loser and it's accurate. 

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #492 on: July 01, 2019, 04:32:29 PM »
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

Quote
She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.

Why would she argue that? It's your argument.

I'm the one posting about it because I'm telling you about HER argument.  I don't accept her argument.  She was proven a fraud regarding the whole issue.  Even after her recent test, she thought that supported her argument.  Then the truth came out that the average American was in the same range as Warren was.  She should have just left it alone rather than making a fool out of herself.

Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 04:34:02 PM by FIREstache »

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #493 on: July 01, 2019, 04:55:18 PM »
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

This is kind of a silly question. Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.

But we can already call Beto a loser and it's accurate.
Obama lost a 2000 election for the US House of Representatives.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district_election

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #494 on: July 01, 2019, 06:20:47 PM »
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #495 on: July 01, 2019, 07:44:35 PM »
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.

Actually, there are plenty of common ideas between the candidates, and Biden shares various ideas.  There's nothing remarkable there with any of the candidates' ideas - most of them are bad ideas.  Here's a partial list:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals / universal healthcare / public option / Medicare for all - not necessarily free

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.

It was common for whites to not support busing back in the 60's and 70's.  There were plenty of reasons to oppose it.  I don't consider that a negative factor on voting for a presidential candidate in 2019.  It certainly didn't stop Barack Obama from choosing Biden as his VP running mate.

Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 07:46:37 PM by FIREstache »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #496 on: July 01, 2019, 08:01:46 PM »
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.

Actually, there are plenty of common ideas between the candidates, and Biden shares various ideas.  There's nothing remarkable there with any of the candidates' ideas - most of them are bad ideas.  Here's a partial list:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals / universal healthcare / public option / Medicare for all - not necessarily free

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.

It was common for whites to not support busing back in the 60's and 70's.  There were plenty of reasons to oppose it.  I don't consider that a negative factor on voting for a presidential candidate in 2019.  It certainly didn't stop Barack Obama from choosing Biden as his VP running mate.

Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.
Speaking for myself, I like those policies better than the Subsidized and/or unfunded trillions in tax breaks for the most wealthy (and yes, I did benefit from the Trump tax cuts).

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #497 on: July 01, 2019, 08:38:10 PM »
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.

Actually, there are plenty of common ideas between the candidates, and Biden shares various ideas.  There's nothing remarkable there with any of the candidates' ideas - most of them are bad ideas.  Here's a partial list:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals / universal healthcare / public option / Medicare for all - not necessarily free

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.

It was common for whites to not support busing back in the 60's and 70's.  There were plenty of reasons to oppose it.  I don't consider that a negative factor on voting for a presidential candidate in 2019.  It certainly didn't stop Barack Obama from choosing Biden as his VP running mate.

Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.
Speaking for myself, I like those policies better than the Subsidized and/or unfunded trillions in tax breaks for the most wealthy (and yes, I did benefit from the Trump tax cuts).
Bernie's plan will wipe out student loan debt with no income disqualifier.  Guess who stands to benefit the most from that?  Doctors, lawyers, and other professions that you would likely describe as "wealthy."

Personally, I have yet to hear a good case articulated for student loan forgiveness and until I do I consider it a deal breaker.  It doesn't seem fundamentally fair to take tax dollars to pay off debt that adults willingly signed up for and we have so many other places that could use the money more effectively (national debt, infrastructure, healthcare, green energy, etc).
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 08:42:10 PM by nick663 »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1940
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #498 on: July 01, 2019, 09:00:18 PM »
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

Quote
She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.

Why would she argue that? It's your argument.

I'm the one posting about it because I'm telling you about HER argument.  I don't accept her argument.  She was proven a fraud regarding the whole issue.  Even after her recent test, she thought that supported her argument.  Then the truth came out that the average American was in the same range as Warren was.  She should have just left it alone rather than making a fool out of herself.

No, it's not her argument. You see the part I bolded up there? You're adding that in.

Poundwise gave a good explanation of this that shows you're mischaracterizing what is meant by "average". The way you say it, one might think many or most Americans have as much Native American genetics as her, which is not the case.

For further explanation https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-fact-check-native-american-ancestry-boston-globe-journalists-trump-a8595001.html

Although I do agree that she should have left it alone. Giving numbers out just opens it up to misrepresentation and I think it was a poor tactic when dealing with someone like Trump. I prefer Buttigieg's approach of "I don't care".


ETA: I wasn't aware of this until now, but Warren also tweeted:

Quote
By the way, @realDonaldTrump: Remember saying on 7/5 that youd give $1M to a charity of my choice if my DNA showed Native American ancestry? I remember and here's the verdict. Please send the check to the National Indigenous Womens Resource Center: http://www.niwrc.org/donate-niwrc

That it was a way of calling him out on the donation and giving money to a good cause gives some justification for her decision to take a genetic test. I still disagree with her decision, but not as strongly as before. Unfortunately:

Quote
Trump then denied offering the $1 million, adding who cares."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/15/17978158/elizabeth-warren-native-american-claims-dna-ancestry-tests


« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 09:18:56 PM by Dabnasty »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #499 on: July 01, 2019, 10:05:51 PM »
To follow up, it's not meaningful to compare her score directly to the average score for European Americans, since the average could have been derived many different ways, i.e. if you average 10,000 people with the exact same score of 0.01%, you can get the same results if you average one full blooded Native American with 9,999 people with no Native ancestry at all.

What I'm trying to say is that it is RARE to have as much Native DNA as Warren has, little as it is. The simplest explanation is that her family stories hold a kernel of truth. 

That said, she could have 100% Native DNA and not be a Native American.  To be Native American, you have to be a citizen of a Native state, and she's not. It's like if all your ancestors came from Germany but you and your parents were born in the States. You're not German, just German-American.  Warren didn't understand the distinction between "Native American" and "Native-American".  But now she does and hopefully everyone else does too, which is a small silver lining, since fraudulent claims of tribal descent are frequently used to game the system and drain resources away from legitimate tribal members.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 12:30:15 PM by Poundwise »