Election 2020

[frae]

Looking for some entertainment I give you Marianne Williamson tweets

https://twitter.com/ellievhall/status/1144447746570641410?s=21

[B-Fly]

I’m tempted to put Harris 1 for me but I want to see her on stage with Warren. I really just think Harris will be an excellent debater vs Trump. She has natural political talent, but yes top 3 for me are some order of Harris Warren and Pete.

Yeah, I can very easily see Harris seize and own the top spot. She's got "it". But Warren hasn't done anything to lose me at this point. Both women are crushing it.

[revo]

Were there any particular policies that were impressive or notable. Or just her debating skills and demeanor ? Why should i vote for her ?

It wasn’t her policies, just that she would eviscerate Trump in a one-on-one debate.

[B-Fly]

I honestly think that most of the Democrats would have similar end goals, and that their ability to execute will depend in large part on the House and the Senate results. But ultimately, the candidate who can most effectively rally popular opinion to put pressure on Congress and who can most effectively leverage executive orders where appropriate and arm-twist or horse-trade smartly without sacrificing too much will be best situated to succeed. That's why my rankings might look strange to someone who is lining up the candidates from center-to-left. I don't think placement on the ideological spectrum will matter as much as ability to get things done given the systemic and political environment within which they'll be operating.

[swampdragon]

Looking for some entertainment I give you Marianne Williamson tweets

https://twitter.com/ellievhall/statu...570641410?s=21

There were financial and polling requirements to be a candidate in the debates

How did she meet those? Really.

[B-Fly]

There were financial and polling requirements to be a candidate in the debates

How did she meet those? Really.

She's presumably got a built in group of supporters who buy and read her books and/or attend her lectures. There are obviously a lot of people in that category alone, since she's apparently been very successful. I found most of what she said pretty loopy, but she got in a few good points, particularly the one affirming Hickenlooper's reference to kidnapping and raising it by calling it child abuse and expressing concern about the trauma being imposed on kids at the border.

[Judge Jude]

setting aside the policy for a moment, here was a key headline on Yahoo news feed this morning that perhaps tens of millions get:

"Sanders admits he would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for programs"

now, he goes on, again, to claim that you save more in health care than you pay extra in taxes.
on paper, seems plausible.
but popular American opinion on these things is that you get the tax hike - but not what's promised on the back end.
NYC-area mass transit and its fare hikes is a good example of this. the more they pay, the less they get, is their perception.

that's a very, very rough headline for Bernie - to a very large audience

...............

(second-most interesting Yahoo News headline: "Conservative U.S. Justice Gorsuch again sides with liberals in criminal case.")

and this was a child porn case!

"Only a jury, acting on proof beyond reasonable doubt, may take a person's liberty. That promise stands as one of the Constitution's most vital protections against arbitrary government," Gorsuch wrote.

[Kevin Seitzer]

There were financial and polling requirements to be a candidate in the debates

How did she meet those? Really.

[Sour Masher]

Harris was strong, I agree, and she was the one best positioned to take the shot at the front runner on bussing, and she did that effectively. I think she went very close to crossing the line between passion and personal afront to being labeled overly emotional. Very close to tears, and I think that may not play well with male voters already inclined to biases against the old stereotypes of women being too emotional. But the picture of herself as a little girl she had locked and loaded afterwards was a huge uppercut to the front runner. I agree, Biden loses the most from this debate and it is a reminder that he isn't good at debating, especially in a large group. I agree with TW and others that Sanders bombed too, until the very end. His closing about how nothing every gets done and he is the only one who can change that was on message for him and stood out.

I'm thinking even after their poor performances, Biden and Sanders stay in the top 4 in polling, with Warren and Harris rounding out the current top 4. Mayer Pete is 5 for me, and I still like him a lot, but he has a really uphill climb on race issues right now. I agree with TW that the death stare as his only response to that wasn't enough. I just like the way he carries himself and I think, like Gabbard, his military background would be a great contrast to draft-dodger Trump. Right now, I don't see anyone else int he field breaking into that top 5 as a legit contender, but there is a long way to go.

I had a Warren-Mayor Pete ticket as my preference before, but I don't think he does enough to shore up Warren's weaknesses to be a good VP pick. A Warren-Harris ticket might, though. I wouldn't want that reversed, because 1. Warren is much more valuable in the Senate than as a VP, and 2. I still think Harris is behind Warren in terms of real policy ideas. She is running a more pathos based campaign, Warren more logos based. I still prefer Warren for that reason, but do agree, as I always have said, I very much worry about how Warren does H2H against Trump in debates. Harris would be better on that, but Warren would be the better president.

[Sour Masher]

Oh, and Chris Matthews' question to Harris about whether she hated all white people because of how she was treated as a kid was example number 8 billion of why I'm dumbfounded that old uncle Chris still has a job interviewing people.

[Teenwolf]

I honestly think that most of the Democrats would have similar end goals, and that their ability to execute will depend in large part on the House and the Senate results. But ultimately, the candidate who can most effectively rally popular opinion to put pressure on Congress and who can most effectively leverage executive orders where appropriate and arm-twist or horse-trade smartly without sacrificing too much will be best situated to succeed. That's why my rankings might look strange to someone who is lining up the candidates from center-to-left. I don't think placement on the ideological spectrum will matter as much as ability to get things done given the systemic and political environment within which they'll be operating.

Bernie Sanders, "the amendment king", just wouldn't get anything done. Why is it you believe this? His record shows incredible ability to get things done. Even throughout the last year, his moves to end the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, his labour support that got Amazon and Disney to raise their minimum wages to $15/hr... yeah, I'm sure he wouldn't get anything done...

[DMT]

Harris was strong, I agree, and she was the one best positioned to take the shot at the front runner on bussing, and she did that effectively. I think she went very close to crossing the line between passion and personal afront to being labeled overly emotional. Very close to tears, and I think that may not play well with male voters already inclined to biases against the old stereotypes of women being too emotional. But the picture of herself as a little girl she had locked and loaded afterwards was a huge uppercut to the front runner. I agree, Biden loses the most from this debate and it is a reminder that he isn't good at debating, especially in a large group. I agree with TW and others that Sanders bombed too, until the very end. His closing about how nothing every gets done and he is the only one who can change that was on message for him and stood out.

I'm thinking even after their poor performances, Biden and Sanders stay in the top 4 in polling, with Warren and Harris rounding out the current top 4. Mayer Pete is 5 for me, and I still like him a lot, but he has a really uphill climb on race issues right now. I agree with TW that the death stare as his only response to that wasn't enough. I just like the way he carries himself and I think, like Gabbard, his military background would be a great contrast to draft-dodger Trump. Right now, I don't see anyone else int he field breaking into that top 5 as a legit contender, but there is a long way to go.

I had a Warren-Mayor Pete ticket as my preference before, but I don't think he does enough to shore up Warren's weaknesses to be a good VP pick. A Warren-Harris ticket might, though. I wouldn't want that reversed, because 1. Warren is much more valuable in the Senate than as a VP, and 2. I still think Harris is behind Warren in terms of real policy ideas. She is running a more pathos based campaign, Warren more logos based. I still prefer Warren for that reason, but do agree, as I always have said, I very much worry about how Warren does H2H against Trump in debates. Harris would be better on that, but Warren would be the better president.

What about Warren-Castro?

[Steve 2.0]

What about Warren-Castro?

Yeah, Trump won't have any problems name calling someone named Castro.

[Steve 2.0]

What about Warren-Castro?

I'm voting for DMT.

[umjewman]

Yeah, Trump won't have any problems name calling someone named Castro.

His nicknames are the opposite of creative - he would probably just resort to one of his old reliables like "Dopey", "Lightweight", "Crazy", "Lyin" or "Little." He doesn't really have that big of a nickname repertoire.