Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 277151 times)

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2215
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1450 on: November 22, 2019, 06:10:03 AM »
One reason for liking Pete for President would be that the homophobe Putin would be completely nonplussed by it.  Also having a gay US President would probably do more for attitudes to LGBT rights across the globe than anything else I can of.

There's the identity politics.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1451 on: November 22, 2019, 07:01:02 AM »
So what do you mean by identity politics?

SO many times I hear it from straight white Christian guys who really mean that anything that deviates from THEIR identity is clearly "identity politics." I mean, women or Asian Americans or African Americans or gay folks or non-binary folks, etc., etc., could look at the current make-up for the GOP Reps in the House of Representatives and say, "Uh, what clear identity politics. Mostly all white, a majority men, and where are the gay folks? Where are the black people? Where are the Asian Americans? Where are the Latinx? Where are the Jews? Where are the atheists? Where are the bisexual folks?" I mean, where the f are they? America is VERY diverse in terms of ethnicity, gender and gender identity, religion or lack thereof, sexual orientation, etc.

Why are most of these people straight, white, Christian men between the ages of 40-70? Is it some sort of exclusive club?

This is similar to how so many straight white Christian dudes bemoan main characters in books and film who aren't identical to them, rallying under the "SJW!" banner! Woo hoo!

Is the main character a woman? "SJW!"

Is the main character a black dude? "SJW!"

Is the main character LGBTQ? "SJW"

Is the main character...gasp...a black gay woman?   *brain explodes from so much obvious SJWing*
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 07:04:58 AM by Nick_Miller »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15586
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1452 on: November 22, 2019, 07:15:54 AM »
How many presidents of the US have openly been non-Christian?  There's some identity politics for you . . .

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5280
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1453 on: November 22, 2019, 07:56:36 AM »
One reason for liking Pete for President would be that the homophobe Putin would be completely nonplussed by it.  Also having a gay US President would probably do more for attitudes to LGBT rights across the globe than anything else I can of.

There's the identity politics.

Actually, no.  Please use your terms correctly -

"noun: identity politics
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics."

Nothing I said had anything to do with "identity politics".

What I am saying is that Mayor Pete will do more to undermine and fight back against war criminal and crimes against humanity offender Putin on the day he is elected, simply by being who he is, than Donald Trump and his kidnapped Republican Party will have done in the last 4 years.

Please tell me you don't believe in the Ukraine/Crowdstrike Russian propaganda and won't be voting for anyone who does.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4524
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1454 on: November 22, 2019, 07:58:21 AM »
Is the main character...gasp...a black gay woman?   *brain explodes from so much obvious SJWing*

Trigger warning: This movie has a black gay woman as a main character. Brodudes and readers of The_Donald* are urged to find a movie about white dudes driving fast cars.


* Now TDW or 8kun.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1455 on: November 22, 2019, 08:25:07 AM »
One reason for liking Pete for President would be that the homophobe Putin would be completely nonplussed by it.  Also having a gay US President would probably do more for attitudes to LGBT rights across the globe than anything else I can of.

There's the identity politics.

And what of the make up of the current GOP catalog? Mostly white, mostly male, mostly older, mostly christian, same 2-4 schools, family circles, social circles, career network. It seems they can only identify with others of their ilk. Will only support those of their ilk. Encourage others to support those of their ilk. Yet they are the ones crying "identity politics" .

If you can't see that 240 years of all but 1, white, male, christian presidents, in a nation as diverse as ours, is not a purposeful thing and therefore requires purposeful action to break it up, then you are pretty unaware, or just downright racist or at the very least, ok with systemic racism in the form of exclusion. Sorry not gonna pull punches...consider this my full-throated, full-fisted, facepunch.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5186
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1456 on: November 22, 2019, 08:36:34 AM »
People who bandy about the term "identity politics" as an insult basically think everything that's not about white, straight, Christian people is "identity politics."

The fish does not see the water it swims in.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1457 on: November 22, 2019, 08:51:27 AM »
^ this is absolutely true. The only way Kbecks would know if former player is participating in identity politics would be if Kbecks new former player to be one or more of the following political outliers: gay or from a family of immigrants (Maltese if you want to be super specific).

But chances are Kbecks doesn't know that information and is instead blindly and ignorantly throwing around a word that rarely makes sense in the context it's used.

I am not gay but I would support Mayor Pete as president. Is that identity politics? I'm not a septegenarian, but would support Warren or Biden. I'm an atheist, but would be thrilled if someone of a non-christian faith, like Sanders won. I'd be thrilled if a woman, another person of color, or a millennial won, not because I am all 3, but because if any of these people won, it would be a symbolic representation of America and its willingess to get with the f***ing times, and one of the President's most important role is the symbolic one.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1458 on: November 22, 2019, 08:52:35 AM »
I honestly can't stand Pete. He's probably at the bottom of the list for me right next to Biden. Pete won his mayorship with 8500 votes. Not by 8500, but with a total of 8500 votes.

Add to that, he isn't a particularly effective mayor.

Add to that that he doesn't actually say anything of substance in these debates.

If he wants to run for a Senate spot in 2022, God bless him, but he looks like a politician bot to me.

Can I ask why the number of votes he got is a concern?  He could only win the race in front of him, and did it twice .

There aren't many stepping stones for someone in the minority party in their State , so ruling out someone with local experience pretty much means that ruling a candidate out on the grounds of not having State wide or Washington experience is ruling out a lot of people who are in the political minority in their part of their State, which seems a shame - they have a different experience than being a Democrat in a heavily democrat State.  And having watched some of the impeachment hearings I have to say that being an elected member of the House of Representatives with many more votes than Pete does not seem to be a guarantee of quality - although there are some impressive individuals

One reason for liking Pete for President would be that the homophobe Putin would be completely nonplussed by it.  Also having a gay US President would probably do more for attitudes to LGBT rights across the globe than anything else I can of.

1 He ran in a small liberal college town. Not representative of the state at large. Wikipedia goes back to 1987 with their mayoral elections, all Democrat wins. As far as I can tell, the South Bend Mayor is a Democrat shoe-in spot.

2. A major selling point that he tries to make is that he knows middle America, that he comes from a Red State. But he hasn't proven that he's actually even popular to a red state. And Indiana isn't even the hardest state to win in for a Democrat. If he feels that he connects so well with Red State America he should put his money where his mouth is and run for Donnelly's old spot in 2024. The GOP were afraid that he was building up to run for governor, and other democrats were begging him to run for Governor. But nope, not good enough for Pete I guess. Presidency or bust.

3. Any benefit of getting one back at Russia will be negated by having another neocon in the White House. (probably why he polls well with old people and terrible with the 18-35 demo)
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 08:54:07 AM by FIPurpose »

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
  • Location: oh
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1459 on: November 22, 2019, 09:56:11 AM »
How about the reverse of the above.  As a republican,  I don't want to hear blanket statements that the reason people won't vote for Mayor Pete is because they are a homophobe, like  I've heard in prior elections that the reason people won't vote for Obama is because they are racist and they didn't vote for Hillary because they are a mysogonist.    I've read his platform, and he doesn't sound like a moderate to me (at least on paper.)   

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1460 on: November 22, 2019, 10:26:02 AM »
Link to Polls:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

Same three lead the pack - Biden, Warren and Sanders

Predictions have been made that support for Biden will wane, but he is hanging in there.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1461 on: November 22, 2019, 10:58:12 AM »
How about the reverse of the above.  As a republican,  I don't want to hear blanket statements that the reason people won't vote for Mayor Pete is because they are a homophobe, like  I've heard in prior elections that the reason people won't vote for Obama is because they are racist and they didn't vote for Hillary because they are a mysogonist.    I've read his platform, and he doesn't sound like a moderate to me (at least on paper.)

I donít think that is a comparable example to ďYou must be voting for this person, not because you are an intelligent person who has thoughtfully considered how a candidateís platform and character makes them A) A worthy competitor and B) A worthy president, should they winĒ. But rather it insinuates an elementary-level decision making method of putting like with like.

Identity politics didnít even become a common term UNTIL our first president of color. Nobody cried identity politics when a majority white and Christian population chose a 100% majority white and Christian president for HUNDREDS of years. No one. But the narrative of why or how Obama became President became and issue of identity-based selection, rather than because people thought he would make a good president. It was and is insulting. Weíve had decades beyond the major social and civil  rights movements of not voting for gay, black/brown, or female presidents. But never had the cry of racism and homophobia for NOT voting for those groups, been as loud as the cry of IDENTITY politics the ONE FUCKING TIME we got a non white (but still half white and Christian) President.

So respectfully, The idea that you are concerned about the reversal retaliation reaching even close to the level of the original offense, is laughable. And you seem smart enough to know that.


John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1462 on: November 22, 2019, 12:06:21 PM »
I'm giving some high school students optional daily quizzes on items from the US Citizenship test, and was thinking about the 2-year terms of representatives.  On the one hand, they are nearly always in campaign mode, on the other hand, there are opportunities for opposition to go after it, and that's good too.  Waiting 6 years for senators is a long time.

The Framers wanted House members to be closer to the people via 2-year elections.

Understanding  that   an impassioned electorate might induce the House to pass rash legislation inimical  to liberty, the Framers  specified a 6-year term for senators that allowed them more time and distance for dispassionate consideration  of issues.

If  they act in this capacity I would think of senators  as chaperones for House members.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 03:37:42 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1463 on: November 22, 2019, 01:08:17 PM »
How about the reverse of the above.  As a republican,  I don't want to hear blanket statements that the reason people won't vote for Mayor Pete is because they are a homophobe, like  I've heard in prior elections that the reason people won't vote for Obama is because they are racist and they didn't vote for Hillary because they are a mysogonist.    I've read his platform, and he doesn't sound like a moderate to me (at least on paper.)

This is tricky. I do understand why as an individual you feel frustrated when people make blanket statements that include you, or even worse, statements directed at you as if someone knows how and why you made your decisions. So I agree, those blanket statements are harmful.

On the other hand, there's no question that prejudice has an influence on the vote totals. The problem is when people look at demographic data and try to apply it to individuals.

As a separate but related issue, I think there is a significant amount of latent prejudice that people hold without realizing it. This goes both ways; it's not just a Republican* thing, it's a human thing. Our minds are not so perfect as we like to think. So while nobody likes to be told they don't know their own mind, chances are some of the views you hold right now were formed in ways you don't understand, perhaps informed by your anecdotal experiences or the prejudices of people around you. I'm confident this statement applies to me as well, so it's not an accusation, just a thought about people in general.

*But it is plausible that people who live in rural areas and experience less diversity are more susceptible to it, and they tend to vote Republican. When you have only a few interactions with people of different groups you tend to overweight those experiences in terms of forming an opinion of the group they belong to. Even worse, many people's only understanding of some groups is through pop culture and the media's representation of those groups.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1464 on: November 22, 2019, 01:29:30 PM »
What I am saying is that Mayor Pete will do more to undermine and fight back against war criminal and crimes against humanity offender Putin on the day he is elected, simply by being who he is, than Donald Trump and his kidnapped Republican Party will have done in the last 4 years.

This might be the shittiest reasoning I've ever heard to vote for somebody. Just by being gay he'll "fight against" Putin? Lol no! "Comrades, I was going to invate Latvia, but since gay major pete is POTUS I'll sit home and be triggered instead, niet!" wow..

Let's just ignore that he's an ineffective major in some crap town in nowhere. He's another hillray clone neoliberal (why the DCCC and old-rich liberals like him). Oh, and poor handling of a police shooting, screwing over of poor and black citizens in his town, and coverup of police brutality. All while barely governing a tiny midwest town, imagine what he could achieve as president! *rolleyes

Why are people excited about his guy again..? (yes I know; because he's gay and he won't raise their taxes)

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1465 on: November 22, 2019, 03:29:21 PM »
Jeepers!  You sure don't think much of South Bend! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CVLVaBECuc

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5280
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1466 on: November 22, 2019, 04:43:20 PM »
What I am saying is that Mayor Pete will do more to undermine and fight back against war criminal and crimes against humanity offender Putin on the day he is elected, simply by being who he is, than Donald Trump and his kidnapped Republican Party will have done in the last 4 years.

This might be the shittiest reasoning I've ever heard to vote for somebody. Just by being gay he'll "fight against" Putin? Lol no! "Comrades, I was going to invate Latvia, but since gay major pete is POTUS I'll sit home and be triggered instead, niet!" wow..
Do you have any idea of internal conditions within Russia?  How Putin's control of speech prevents overt mentions of LGBT, and criminalises much of it?  If the USA elects a gay, married President it is a major blow to Putin's control of speech about LGBT+ issues, which would be the start of a wedge into Putin's control of the conversation within Russia.



Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1467 on: November 22, 2019, 05:34:53 PM »
What I am saying is that Mayor Pete will do more to undermine and fight back against war criminal and crimes against humanity offender Putin on the day he is elected, simply by being who he is, than Donald Trump and his kidnapped Republican Party will have done in the last 4 years.

This might be the shittiest reasoning I've ever heard to vote for somebody. Just by being gay he'll "fight against" Putin? Lol no! "Comrades, I was going to invate Latvia, but since gay major pete is POTUS I'll sit home and be triggered instead, niet!" wow..
Do you have any idea of internal conditions within Russia?  How Putin's control of speech prevents overt mentions of LGBT, and criminalises much of it?  If the USA elects a gay, married President it is a major blow to Putin's control of speech about LGBT+ issues, which would be the start of a wedge into Putin's control of the conversation within Russia.
Wait, so let me get this straight (pun intended); you think by Pete being gay, putin will be forced to talk about it, and this will somehow diminish his control? Ahahha! Yeah no. Putin surpress gays etc to rile up his base, and to generate an external enemy as distraction. He doesn't care about it, it's a tool. If anything a gay potus will give him more ammunition to produce hatred of the west in his citizens.

In any case even if his was his foreign policy appeal that's extremely silly, and a million other considerations would be more important

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1468 on: November 24, 2019, 03:08:13 PM »
Oh, and poor handling of a police shooting, screwing over of poor and black citizens in his town, and coverup of police brutality.

That's a completely inaccurate narrative of what happened in the police shooting of the car theft suspect.
 
Here's a Washington Post commentary:

One thing to keep in mind is that Mayor Buttigieg literally has no control over the investigation or any decisions made by the prosecutor's office. 

If a South Bend police officer is involved in a shooting, it is not investigated by the city of South Bend or the South Bend police to determine if there was any criminal actions by the police officer.  It is investigated by St. Joseph County Homicide to a) not have any police officers investigating other officers from the same department and b) keep the city politicians (not just the mayor, but also the city council) from interfering with the investigation.   

At this point, investigators from St. Joseph County Homicide and the St. Joseph County Prosecutors office are in charge of the criminal investigation.  Neither of these report in any way to Mayor Buttigieg.  Anything Mayor Buttigieg is back in town for is PR... not that that is a bad thing since PR is important in these situations.

For what it is worth, the investigation has already released that the deceased has a criminal record and was caught in the act breaking into cars (the knife involved was one he had just stolen that night from one of the cars in the lot according to the knife's owner).  The timeline concerning 911 calls, reports in by responding officers and the gunshot notification system doesn't leave much time for any cover up (literally 11 seconds from when the shots were fired until the first officers responding with flashing lights and siren... hence body and dash cams activated... arrived on the scene).  The officer involved was also treated for knife wounds to his arm.   We already know that the deceased victim/suspect was definitely NOT shot because ďheís black and was walking around at 2:30 in the morning" despite what the above article implies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/18/police-shooting-south-bend-will-give-buttigieg-another-chance-show-how-hell-handle-race-law-enforcement

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1469 on: November 25, 2019, 08:21:15 AM »
That's a completely inaccurate narrative of what happened in the police shooting of the car theft suspect.
Here's a Washington Post commentary:
One thing to keep in mind is that Mayor Buttigieg literally has no control over the investigation or any decisions made by the prosecutor's office. 

But it's a time honored tradition to credit or blame leaders for things they have absolutely no control over. ;-)

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1470 on: November 25, 2019, 08:51:50 AM »
Has anyone mentioned that Bloomberg is now officially in as a candidate?

I don't think he has much of a chance, and is in a similar lane as Biden. I would expect Biden's numbers to be hit hardest by Bloomberg's candidacy.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1471 on: November 25, 2019, 08:56:42 AM »
Has anyone mentioned that Bloomberg is now officially in as a candidate?

I don't think he has much of a chance, and is in a similar lane as Biden. I would expect Biden's numbers to be hit hardest by Bloomberg's candidacy.

Right so Bloomberg is only helping a Warren/Sanders candidate which I would assume he is against? His entry doesn't make sense to me beyond a typical billionaire ego.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1472 on: November 25, 2019, 09:42:26 AM »
Has anyone mentioned that Bloomberg is now officially in as a candidate?

I don't think he has much of a chance, and is in a similar lane as Biden. I would expect Biden's numbers to be hit hardest by Bloomberg's candidacy.

I think the idea that he doesnít want any donors, he wants to fund it all himself, is the height of inflated ego thinking. ďOnly I can do it, me me me. I donít want or need outside inputĒ. Itís a little disgusting. He also came out against the idea of a wealth tax and Biden was the saving grace of the richies, so when he started slipping they all panicked.

I truly believe his ego allows him to think he can win, and his funding the campaign himself, in his mind, is probably an investment in wealth retention.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1473 on: November 25, 2019, 11:01:02 AM »
The Bloomberg candidacy doesn't make much sense to me, then again I'm happy with the current slate, as are apparently most Democratic primary voters when polled, so I'm back to it not making sense. But I did read a possible theory that donors have limits on what they can spend on behalf of candidates, but that those limits aren't in play if it's your own money for your own candidacy, so maybe Bloomberg feels he will be more successful in preventing a Trump presidency by declaring as a candidate and then spending $500million on Trump attack ads, with no intention of actually trying to win any primary. Which I guess may be useful in the current situation we are in, but I'm still deeply uncomfortable with that as our reality now.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1474 on: November 25, 2019, 02:22:18 PM »
Oh, and poor handling of a police shooting, screwing over of poor and black citizens in his town, and coverup of police brutality.

That's a completely inaccurate narrative of what happened in the police shooting of the car theft suspect.
 
Here's a Washington Post commentary:

Oh wapo owned by Bezos stands up for the "socially liberal, but not too much taxes" candidate? What a surprise... /s

Also the coverup was referring to others stories, including firing an officer who complained about racist practices.

Regardless mayor pete is a under-qualified, uninteresting candidate with not much to offer except to some liberal millionaires who think Trump is a little bit too crude, but don't mind his tax policies.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1475 on: November 25, 2019, 02:54:42 PM »
Bezos has nothing to do with the reporting by the Washington Post.
The editors of the paper and the reporters themselves drive the articles.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1476 on: November 25, 2019, 04:25:00 PM »
Bezos has nothing to do with the reporting by the Washington Post.
The editors of the paper and the reporters themselves drive the articles.

You don't bite the hand that feeds.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1477 on: November 25, 2019, 06:01:02 PM »
Bezos has nothing to do with the reporting by the Washington Post.
The editors of the paper and the reporters themselves drive the articles.

You don't bite the hand that feeds.

That's not true with a credible news organization like the Washington Post. If Bezos or the advertising side of the newspaper was going to influence articles, then the editor of the newspaper would resign in protest and there would be a big public commotion.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1478 on: November 25, 2019, 06:18:55 PM »
Bezos has nothing to do with the reporting by the Washington Post.
The editors of the paper and the reporters themselves drive the articles.

You don't bite the hand that feeds.

That's not true with a credible news organization like the Washington Post. If Bezos or the advertising side of the newspaper was going to influence articles, then the editor of the newspaper would resign in protest and there would be a big public commotion.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Fox News doesn't have to tell Tucker Carlson what to say. They hired him specifically because that's the kind of thing he would say.

In the same manner, everyone at WaPo was hired because of who they are and the kind of stories they like to cover. They'll say Amazon stories are boring or unlikely, they'll continue to churn out articles that say Bernie is unelectable and raising taxes on the rich would be a bad thing. It doesn't require Bezos calling up the paper and telling them what to write.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1479 on: November 25, 2019, 07:13:16 PM »
Link to Polls:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

Same three lead the pack - Biden, Warren and Sanders

Predictions have been made that support for Biden will wane, but he is hanging in there.
The betting markets are more bullish on Pete, who is running in an increasingly close third place behind a Warren/Biden tie. Probably much of this is the impact of his momentum in the early voting states, which--if realized on the primary days--can boost his performance in subsequent states (though I've never read a rigorous study on that effect). This account on his campaign manager is interesting and probably part of the reason he is punching above the weight of his medium city (not "small town" as some people are saying...). Contrast that with Beto's incompetent campaign that couldn't properly coordinate or communicate with the media.

It's also worth noting that Pete is likely doing well because people don't particularly like the front-runners. If you're confused why they are disliked, you're probably in an information bubble.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1480 on: November 25, 2019, 07:38:08 PM »
Link to Polls:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

Same three lead the pack - Biden, Warren and Sanders

Predictions have been made that support for Biden will wane, but he is hanging in there.
The betting markets are more bullish on Pete, who is running in an increasingly close third place behind a Warren/Biden tie. Probably much of this is the impact of his momentum in the early voting states, which--if realized on the primary days--can boost his performance in subsequent states (though I've never read a rigorous study on that effect). This account on his campaign manager is interesting and probably part of the reason he is punching above the weight of his medium city (not "small town" as some people are saying...). Contrast that with Beto's incompetent campaign that couldn't properly coordinate or communicate with the media.

It's also worth noting that Pete is likely doing well because people don't particularly like the front-runners. If you're confused why they are disliked, you're probably in an information bubble.

I don't think Iowa has much of any effect on how people vote. If anything, the Iowa/ NH vote forces certain candidates to drop out and the vote consolidates in future states giving the appearance of momentum.

2008 Iowa - Mike Huckabee / Obama
        NH - McCain / Hillary
2012 Iowa - Santorum
        NH - Romney
2016 Iowa - Cruz / Hillary
        NH - Bernie / Trump

They have like a 50/50 hit rate. So not really anything you can conclude from whoever wins those primaries.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1481 on: November 25, 2019, 08:19:00 PM »
I don't think Iowa has much of any effect on how people vote. If anything, the Iowa/ NH vote forces certain candidates to drop out and the vote consolidates in future states giving the appearance of momentum.

2008 Iowa - Mike Huckabee / Obama
        NH - McCain / Hillary
2012 Iowa - Santorum
        NH - Romney
2016 Iowa - Cruz / Hillary
        NH - Bernie / Trump

They have like a 50/50 hit rate. So not really anything you can conclude from whoever wins those primaries.

With the exception of the 2008 Republican caucus, every eventual nominee either won, or came in second, in the primaries and caucuses on your list. Considering the current Democratic field, I'd say that's a huge predictor.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2822
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1482 on: November 25, 2019, 08:25:41 PM »
I don't think Iowa has much of any effect on how people vote. If anything, the Iowa/ NH vote forces certain candidates to drop out and the vote consolidates in future states giving the appearance of momentum.

2008 Iowa - Mike Huckabee / Obama
        NH - McCain / Hillary
2012 Iowa - Santorum
        NH - Romney
2016 Iowa - Cruz / Hillary
        NH - Bernie / Trump

They have like a 50/50 hit rate. So not really anything you can conclude from whoever wins those primaries.

With the exception of the 2008 Republican caucus, every eventual nominee either won, or came in second, in the primaries and caucuses on your list. Considering the current Democratic field, I'd say that's a huge predictor.

I thought I saw a 538 article that said that the Democratic nominee has come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire in nearly all of the last 50 years - in those primaries where there was not an incumbent running.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1483 on: November 25, 2019, 09:05:55 PM »
Bezos has nothing to do with the reporting by the Washington Post.
The editors of the paper and the reporters themselves drive the articles.

You don't bite the hand that feeds.

That's not true with a credible news organization like the Washington Post. If Bezos or the advertising side of the newspaper was going to influence articles, then the editor of the newspaper would resign in protest and there would be a big public commotion.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Fox News doesn't have to tell Tucker Carlson what to say. They hired him specifically because that's the kind of thing he would say.

In the same manner, everyone at WaPo was hired because of who they are and the kind of stories they like to cover. They'll say Amazon stories are boring or unlikely, they'll continue to churn out articles that say Bernie is unelectable and raising taxes on the rich would be a bad thing. It doesn't require Bezos calling up the paper and telling them what to write.

Iíve been reading the Washington Post pretty much all my life, and what you say is not true. Many of the writers and reporters predate Bezos by decades and are still there. I havenít noticed any particular Amazonian slant since he bought the paper. 

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1484 on: November 25, 2019, 09:56:07 PM »
I don't think Iowa has much of any effect on how people vote. If anything, the Iowa/ NH vote forces certain candidates to drop out and the vote consolidates in future states giving the appearance of momentum.

2008 Iowa - Mike Huckabee / Obama
        NH - McCain / Hillary
2012 Iowa - Santorum
        NH - Romney
2016 Iowa - Cruz / Hillary
        NH - Bernie / Trump

They have like a 50/50 hit rate. So not really anything you can conclude from whoever wins those primaries.

With the exception of the 2008 Republican caucus, every eventual nominee either won, or came in second, in the primaries and caucuses on your list. Considering the current Democratic field, I'd say that's a huge predictor.

I thought I saw a 538 article that said that the Democratic nominee has come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire in nearly all of the last 50 years - in those primaries where there was not an incumbent running.

2016 - Only 2 candidates
2008 - Only 2 candidates
2004 - Kerry dominated with 60% everyone else dropped by Super Tuesday
2000 - Only 2 candidates
1992 - 2 major contenders yet - Iowa Clinton came in 3rd, NH - 2nd
1988 - 3 way race; Iowa - 3rd, NH - 1st
1984 - 3 way race; Iowa - 1st, NH - 2nd
1976 - 6 way race; Jimmy won with 40% of vote; Iowa - 2nd, 'uncommitted' placed 1st; NH - 1st
1972 - 4 way race; Iowa - 3rd ;NH - 2nd
1968 - No Iowa Caucus yet.

Hmm nope. Even in a 3-way race Iowa doesn't always pick the winner or even 2nd place. But you basically have to go back to '92 before the last Dem. primary with any real contention between more than 2 people.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1485 on: November 25, 2019, 10:02:41 PM »
Bezos has nothing to do with the reporting by the Washington Post.
The editors of the paper and the reporters themselves drive the articles.

You don't bite the hand that feeds.

That's not true with a credible news organization like the Washington Post. If Bezos or the advertising side of the newspaper was going to influence articles, then the editor of the newspaper would resign in protest and there would be a big public commotion.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Fox News doesn't have to tell Tucker Carlson what to say. They hired him specifically because that's the kind of thing he would say.

In the same manner, everyone at WaPo was hired because of who they are and the kind of stories they like to cover. They'll say Amazon stories are boring or unlikely, they'll continue to churn out articles that say Bernie is unelectable and raising taxes on the rich would be a bad thing. It doesn't require Bezos calling up the paper and telling them what to write.

Iíve been reading the Washington Post pretty much all my life, and what you say is not true. Many of the writers and reporters predate Bezos by decades and are still there. I havenít noticed any particular Amazonian slant since he bought the paper.

Right and without Bezos, that company was going to go under. All of those employees' jobs were saved by Bezos' money. Maybe you can try and fight it, but that bias is going to eat into a person's brain. The idea that "well he can't be all that bad". It's why we all laugh at any scientist who publishes diet research being funded by Coca-cola, Kraft, or whomever. It doesn't matter if it's science, they're going to have a bias in their paper whether conscious or subconscious.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1486 on: November 25, 2019, 10:08:49 PM »
Buttigieg's campaign did not impress with the endorsements of his "Douglass plan". 
Knowing his weakness, they could have taken a little TLC.

This was a completely unforced error. I'm pretty disappointed with how he's been turning out.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1487 on: November 25, 2019, 10:18:03 PM »
I don't think Iowa has much of any effect on how people vote. If anything, the Iowa/ NH vote forces certain candidates to drop out and the vote consolidates in future states giving the appearance of momentum.

2008 Iowa - Mike Huckabee / Obama
        NH - McCain / Hillary
2012 Iowa - Santorum
        NH - Romney
2016 Iowa - Cruz / Hillary
        NH - Bernie / Trump

They have like a 50/50 hit rate. So not really anything you can conclude from whoever wins those primaries.

With the exception of the 2008 Republican caucus, every eventual nominee either won, or came in second, in the primaries and caucuses on your list. Considering the current Democratic field, I'd say that's a huge predictor.

I thought I saw a 538 article that said that the Democratic nominee has come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire in nearly all of the last 50 years - in those primaries where there was not an incumbent running.

2016 - Only 2 candidates
2008 - Only 2 candidates
2004 - Kerry dominated with 60% everyone else dropped by Super Tuesday
2000 - Only 2 candidates
1992 - 2 major contenders yet - Iowa Clinton came in 3rd, NH - 2nd
1988 - 3 way race; Iowa - 3rd, NH - 1st
1984 - 3 way race; Iowa - 1st, NH - 2nd
1976 - 6 way race; Jimmy won with 40% of vote; Iowa - 2nd, 'uncommitted' placed 1st; NH - 1st
1972 - 4 way race; Iowa - 3rd ;NH - 2nd
1968 - No Iowa Caucus yet.

Hmm nope. Even in a 3-way race Iowa doesn't always pick the winner or even 2nd place. But you basically have to go back to '92 before the last Dem. primary with any real contention between more than 2 people.
2008 was not a 2 person race and actually Edwards got more of the Iowa vote (but fewer delegates) than Clinton. Of course, Edwards getting 2nd place doesn't help my case, which is why it was filed as speculative. It looks like the takeaway is that wide open races like the Dems this year and the Republicans 4 years ago are perhaps too rare to draw strong conclusions due to the small sample size.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4511
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1488 on: November 25, 2019, 10:28:38 PM »
2016 - Only 2 candidates
2008 - Only 2 candidates
2004 - Kerry dominated with 60% everyone else dropped by Super Tuesday
2000 - Only 2 candidates
1992 - 2 major contenders yet - Iowa Clinton came in 3rd, NH - 2nd
1988 - 3 way race; Iowa - 3rd, NH - 1st
1984 - 3 way race; Iowa - 1st, NH - 2nd
1976 - 6 way race; Jimmy won with 40% of vote; Iowa - 2nd, 'uncommitted' placed 1st; NH - 1st
1972 - 4 way race; Iowa - 3rd ;NH - 2nd
1968 - No Iowa Caucus yet.

Hmm nope. Even in a 3-way race Iowa doesn't always pick the winner or even 2nd place. But you basically have to go back to '92 before the last Dem. primary with any real contention between more than 2 people.

In 2008 before Iowa there were at least six viable main stream candidates: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richards, Biden, Dodd. (If you want discount Kucinich I won't argue). After Iowa/NH Edwards, Obama, and Clinton were left standing and all looked like they had viable paths to the nomination, although Edwards ultimately didn't make it to super Tuesday.

In 2004 the major candidates I can remember were Edwards, Kerry, Dean, and Clarke but Lieberman and Gephardt both also looked viable at various times before IA/NH. Until January Howard Dean looked like the candidate to beat in national polls.

In 1992, which two candidates were the only "major" ones? I'd say Tsongas, Brown, and Clinton were all clearly major candidates before the Iowa Caucuses. Harkin definitely looked major for a while too.

Allow me to suggest that Iowa and NH do such a good job of narrowing the field* that in retrospect some people don't even remember how many viable and plausible presidential candidates there were running around before those two states vote.

*This doesn't have to imply that there is anything special about those particular two states. But the point is that until voting starts, different candidates are constantly surging or collapsing or what have you. Once voting starts the field rapidly and permanently narrows.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1489 on: November 25, 2019, 11:16:36 PM »
It's difficult to say what part of Iowa/NH actually causes candidates to drop. Some run out of money and don't have the funds to run a Super Tuesday campaign. You can have a Howard Dean moment that suddenly destroys your campaign. We can call Kamala a contender, but none of us would bet on her winning Iowa, NH, or the nomination. None of the candidates save 3 have polled higher than 20% nationally. Now going into the first primary that doesn't look like it will change barring one of the candidates dying. This has been 3-way race since June or so and it's going to be a 3-way race going into super Tuesday.

Iowa and NH represent about 2% of the delegates combined. They are kinda swing States. But they can also be waaaay off, especially if a candidate decides to dump all their resources on a single state (cough cough Buttigieg). Buttigieg might break through, but my guess is that he's honeymooning, will peak early December and then hang around 5% the rest of the race. Kamala is already running out of money. Ain't no one voting for klobuchar. (And that's the whole December debate stage)

My view is that it's easy to remember certain candidate moments, but we forget when they drop out or when they started slumping in the polls. Like Jeb Bush had a lot of memorable moments in 2016, but he was long gone by the time Iowa started.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4511
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1490 on: November 25, 2019, 11:45:29 PM »
December debate stage isn't set for a few weeks yet.

Baring something really unexpected, it's looking like Booker may well be the only person from November who fails to qualify for December.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 11:47:53 PM by maizeman »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1491 on: November 26, 2019, 06:53:13 AM »
Bezos has nothing to do with the reporting by the Washington Post.
The editors of the paper and the reporters themselves drive the articles.

You don't bite the hand that feeds.

That's not true with a credible news organization like the Washington Post. If Bezos or the advertising side of the newspaper was going to influence articles, then the editor of the newspaper would resign in protest and there would be a big public commotion.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Fox News doesn't have to tell Tucker Carlson what to say. They hired him specifically because that's the kind of thing he would say.

In the same manner, everyone at WaPo was hired because of who they are and the kind of stories they like to cover. They'll say Amazon stories are boring or unlikely, they'll continue to churn out articles that say Bernie is unelectable and raising taxes on the rich would be a bad thing. It doesn't require Bezos calling up the paper and telling them what to write.

Iíve been reading the Washington Post pretty much all my life, and what you say is not true. Many of the writers and reporters predate Bezos by decades and are still there. I havenít noticed any particular Amazonian slant since he bought the paper.

Right and without Bezos, that company was going to go under. All of those employees' jobs were saved by Bezos' money. Maybe you can try and fight it, but that bias is going to eat into a person's brain. The idea that "well he can't be all that bad". It's why we all laugh at any scientist who publishes diet research being funded by Coca-cola, Kraft, or whomever. It doesn't matter if it's science, they're going to have a bias in their paper whether conscious or subconscious.


Youíre just parroting Trumpís false claims that these newspapers are providing fake news stories.
In so doing youíre helping to deny the facts that come forth regarding the impeachment and Trumpís misconduct.

Maybe the truth has a liberal bias.

Youíre muddying the waters by comparing Tucker Carlson to a Wapo reporter.
You canít compare Tucker Carlsonís role at Fox to a reporterís job at the Washington Post as being equivalent examples of bias toward the media ownerís views.
Firstly Tucker Carlson is all opinion and conspiracy theory which is what heís hired to spout by Fox.
Whereas a journalist has a wall of separation from the advertising and the owner of the company so as to stick to reporting facts.
yes there is some bias that every reporter brings to a story.
Thereís also editors whose job it is is to ensure reporting is done factually without bias.
Thereís an entire professional rulebook regarding sourcing.
News organizations have to be as factual and honest as possible because the reputation is on the line..

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1492 on: November 26, 2019, 07:36:03 AM »
If Biden, Bernie, and to a slightly lesser extent, Warren, weren't all so old, I definitely think this race would be a three-person race. But I think their age, especially in Biden's case, creates lanes for others.

Imagine if Bernie was 15 years younger, without a heart attack
Imagine if Biden was 15 years younger, and could put together a decent sentencer.
Imagine if Warren was 60ish (she seems very spry and sharp, so it's just an age thing, not a performance thing for her IMO).

Yeah, it would be one of the three, no doubt in my mind.

But I'm afraid of Bernie having another health scare. And I'm terrified that Biden is not "all there" mentally. And we still have almost a year before the general. These men are almost 80!

And yes, Warren seems very sharp, and some women age better than do men, but she would STILL be the oldest president EVER elected into office for a first term.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4511
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1493 on: November 26, 2019, 07:46:58 AM »
Yes I think that's what makes this race a bit weird. All of the candidates have at least one major apparent flaw (either policy, age, or lack of polling support) that could easily be seen as a fatal flaw, and at least two of the three "majors" each seem to have pretty strong ceiling for their support below 50%: Sanders still has the 16-18% support he had before the race even started, Biden has had about 30% support the entire race, except for a short spike after he officially announce he was running.

I guess that's why people like Deval and Bloomberg are jumping in so late (even though they're clearly flawed candidates themselves). Reminds me more of 2004 where everyone was worried Dean was too liberal to win, but right up until the caucuses the people with that concern couldn't coalesce around any alternative. 2004 even included Wesley Clarke jumping in late in response to a weak field as an analogy to Bloomberg (although he didn't try to do it nearly as late as Bloomberg is).

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1494 on: November 26, 2019, 08:02:43 AM »
So Nick Miller, who do you vote for? I feel the same way, but am having trouble seeing a candidate. Why isn't Kamala Harris doing better? She has been elected statewide in California at least twice (attorney general and u.s. senate). I have some concerns about Mayor Pete's inexperience. The others are too old which puts so much pressure on the vice president pick. I just can't warm up to Klobuchar. She doesn't seem decisive enough for me.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3890
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1495 on: November 26, 2019, 08:15:19 AM »
I think Warren would be a kick ass President. She is a phenomenal person. I knew her first from her personal finance books that she wrote with her daughter. Her formula for how much to spend for basic necessities, how much for other things, and how much to save was really helpful for me in looking at my own budget. Based on her background I think she understands the concerns of regular people (job and job security, finances, healthcare) better than most presidential candidates (most are honestly out of touch). Her issue is not so much age, but that she is female.  Recent poll indicated that 50% of men would have reservations voting for a woman (can't find reference now). Not that it doesn't mean she shouldn't be the candidate, but it is a handicap.   


Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1496 on: November 26, 2019, 08:20:18 AM »
So Nick Miller, who do you vote for? I feel the same way, but am having trouble seeing a candidate. Why isn't Kamala Harris doing better? She has been elected statewide in California at least twice (attorney general and u.s. senate). I have some concerns about Mayor Pete's inexperience. The others are too old which puts so much pressure on the vice president pick. I just can't warm up to Klobuchar. She doesn't seem decisive enough for me.

That's the question, isn't it?

I have concerns with Pete's experience too. I mean, if he was a 40-something governor, I think he'd be leading the field. I still support him because I think he would surround himself with top people, and really all presidents have to ultimately rely on the expertise of others, but yes I wish he was older and more experienced.

All this being said, I still don't understand why Cory Booker's campaign has never caught on. I really like the guy. I know there are criticisms of him with corporate interests, but as you stated, everyone has a flaw. Booker's platform is very progressive, and I find him charming, funny, and strong when he speaks. He has a great voice. He's tall. Toss in the fact that he can talk about Star Trek, goes to comic cons, is vegan (I think it would bring a fresh perspective from the bully pulpit), and yeah, African American, I mean they are all positives for me.

I am considering give him a donation to help him make the next debate stage, but part of me says he has no chance, for whatever reasons.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1497 on: November 26, 2019, 08:27:37 AM »
So it's pretty much...

1) Bernie - too old, heart attack, and socialist
2) Biden - too old, horrible speaker, lots of baggage from long career
3)Warren - a woman (gasp), too radical, too "academic-sounding"
4) Pete - too young/inexperienced, gay (gasp), no support from PoC
5) Kamala - a woman (gasp), lots of baggage as prosecutor, changes her mind a lot
6) Klobuchar - a woman (gasp), very moderate, boring, trembles/shakes
7) Yang - too young/inexperienced, too weird, tells horrible jokes
8) Steyer - too billionairey, too old, too boring, has baggage that Biden alluded to
9) Booker - I just don't see the problems, but he obviously has lots of them

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1498 on: November 26, 2019, 08:28:51 AM »
Right and without Bezos, that company was going to go under. All of those employees' jobs were saved by Bezos' money. Maybe you can try and fight it, but that bias is going to eat into a person's brain. The idea that "well he can't be all that bad". It's why we all laugh at any scientist who publishes diet research being funded by Coca-cola, Kraft, or whomever. It doesn't matter if it's science, they're going to have a bias in their paper whether conscious or subconscious.


Youíre just parroting Trumpís false claims that these newspapers are providing fake news stories.
In so doing youíre helping to deny the facts that come forth regarding the impeachment and Trumpís misconduct.

Maybe the truth has a liberal bias.

Youíre muddying the waters by comparing Tucker Carlson to a Wapo reporter.
You canít compare Tucker Carlsonís role at Fox to a reporterís job at the Washington Post as being equivalent examples of bias toward the media ownerís views.
Firstly Tucker Carlson is all opinion and conspiracy theory which is what heís hired to spout by Fox.
Whereas a journalist has a wall of separation from the advertising and the owner of the company so as to stick to reporting facts.
yes there is some bias that every reporter brings to a story.
Thereís also editors whose job it is is to ensure reporting is done factually without bias.
Thereís an entire professional rulebook regarding sourcing.
News organizations have to be as factual and honest as possible because the reputation is on the line..

Hey I think I've now been accused of being a secret liberal and a secret conservative on this board!

I would still believe a WaPo story 50x over anything Fox News puts out. However, I'm also going to recognize that they have an Amazon slant. That's going to include being soft on Amazon and will continue to cover politics in their own biased way. (I'll grant you, less biased than Tucker Carlson)

Here's an article on the WaPo continuing to only cover Bernie in a negative light: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/washington-post-bernie-sanders-media-2020-coverage

WaPo doesn't have to put out conspiracy theories to be biased. They can just control what or whom they don't cover. They'll use words around a Medicare-for-all plan as "unrealistic" while claiming other candidates' plans are "serious". No one has to tell the writers at WaPo what to write. They're there because that's what they write.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15586
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1499 on: November 26, 2019, 08:37:36 AM »
I think Warren would be a kick ass President. She is a phenomenal person. I knew her first from her personal finance books that she wrote with her daughter. Her formula for how much to spend for basic necessities, how much for other things, and how much to save was really helpful for me in looking at my own budget. Based on her background I think she understands the concerns of regular people (job and job security, finances, healthcare) better than most presidential candidates (most are honestly out of touch). Her issue is not so much age, but that she is female.  Recent poll indicated that 50% of men would have reservations voting for a woman (can't find reference now). Not that it doesn't mean she shouldn't be the candidate, but it is a handicap.

Yeah, but if she's the candidate we all have to listen to at least a year of overtly racist comments about Pocahontas from the President.  Ugh.