2019 dem primary debates

[vi edit]

Steyer is...bleh. Whatever. He's just another De Blasio or Bloomburg. Or Howard Schultz. Dems aren't looking for daddy billionaire to save them. (De Blasio is *only* worth 150 mil, I know).

 

[ivwshane]

I think his message is diluted when he tosses his hat in the ring. Now his impeachment ads look like a nobody who was trying to find an easy way to become a presidential candidate (politically speaking).

 

[Bitek]

Yeah, I bet this is whittled in half by July 30th.
Swalwell out. Bet Hickenlooper, Inslee, Williams, Yang, Ryan, Gillibrand and Klobuchar are out as well.

Hickenlooper needs to drop out before he makes an ass or of himself and run for the CO senate seat.

When they asked in the debate "how will you defeat Mitch McConnell" that should have been his answer as just walked off stage.

Beto already blew it.

 

[Bitek]

I think his message is diluted when he tosses his hat in the ring. Now his impeachment ads look like a nobody who was trying to find an easy way to become a presidential candidate (politically speaking).

Man, I wonder if all those people who signed his online petition are feeling rooked for giving out personal info for his campaign to spam.

 

[glenn1]

Got this email today. I think Mayor Pete needs a better fundraiser idea than "Win a trip to Detroit".

Hi Glenn,
In just two weeks, Pete will take the stage for the second Democratic primary debate, and you have the chance to join him in Detroit.
Make a donation of any size and be automatically entered to win a trip to join Pete in Detroit at the end of the month.
During the last debate, Pete proved that he's the candidate to lead us through this moment between eras in the life of our nation.
We know he’ll make us proud this debate, too – and you could be there to watch. We’re sending one lucky supporter and a friend to Detroit (flights and hotel on us!) to watch Pete on the debate stage.

Thank you,
Pete for America

 

[soulcougher73]

Got this email today. I think Mayor Pete needs a better fundraiser idea than "Win a trip to Detroit".

Hi Glenn,
In just two weeks, Pete will take the stage for the second Democratic primary debate, and you have the chance to join him in Detroit.
Make a donation of any size and be automatically entered to win a trip to join Pete in Detroit at the end of the month.
During the last debate, Pete proved that he's the candidate to lead us through this moment between eras in the life of our nation.
We know he’ll make us proud this debate, too – and you could be there to watch. We’re sending one lucky supporter and a friend to Detroit (flights and hotel on us!) to watch Pete on the debate stage.

Thank you,
Pete for America

That was your take away from that? Don't you think people that donated to him would be excited to meet him in Detroit? It's not like this is just a random trip for no reason.

 

[glenn1]

That was your take away from that? Don't you think people that donated to him would be excited to meet him in Detroit? It's not like this is just a random trip for no reason.

I have donated to his campaign which is why I’m on the email list for this contest. Unless I’m misreading the email It doesn’t seem like there’s a “meet him” prize involved in the contest. But rather fly to Detroit and be in the auditorium during the debate that he’s in. In prize terms,

Meet Mayor Pete >>>>>> see the debate in person >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to Detroit

 

[glenn1]

Only one poll (July 15-17) and yes I realize (A) the results for Trump are worse and (B) the question isn't ideally phrased (way too broad) but still not a great sign for Dems at this stage of the game (see page 12 of the link):

Overall, do you think the ideas being offered by the Democratic candidates running for president would generally move the country in:

National Adults: The right direction: 43% The wrong direction: 46% Unsure: 11%

National Registered Voters: The right direction: 43% The wrong direction: 48% Unsure: 9%

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3


Still plenty of time to work on messaging but these results do probably reflect unease with topics such as school busing and reparations being some of the hot topics among Democratic candidates; most of the country just isn't there yet to consider these the most pressing issues of the day.

 

[dank69]

Only one poll (July 15-17) and yes I realize (A) the results for Trump are worse and (B) the question isn't ideally phrased (way too broad) but still not a great sign for Dems at this stage of the game (see page 12 of the link):

Overall, do you think the ideas being offered by the Democratic candidates running for president would generally move the country in:

National Adults: The right direction: 43% The wrong direction: 46% Unsure: 11%

National Registered Voters: The right direction: 43% The wrong direction: 48% Unsure: 9%

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3


Still plenty of time to work on messaging but these results do probably reflect unease with topics such as school busing and reparations being some of the hot topics among Democratic candidates; most of the country just isn't there yet to consider these the most pressing issues of the day.

It isn't the messaging that is the problem. It's that at least 50% of Americans think socialism is evil.

 

[vi edit]

Dems are going to be down to simple flow chart shortly.

If Biden is Nominee
Then young people and progressives *have* to vote for him in general
Or Trump Wins

If Harris is a nominee
Then old people, young people, black people, white men and moderates must support her in the general
Or Trump Wins

If Warren is a nominee
Then old people, young people, black people, white men and moderates must support her in the general
Or Trump Wins

If any of those fail to follow the charts then welcome to 4 more years of Trump.

All of them have groups that are willing to stay at home in protest that they don't have their first choice.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It isn't the messaging that is the problem. It's that at least 50% of Americans think socialism is evil.

No one thinks in general that governmental policies are "evil" on the face of it.

But... reparations and taxing random people to give to other random people? Yeah, I can see some unpopularity there.

A public option for healthcare? I believe TONS on both sides of the aisle can get behind this. Think gubment is evil and corrupt? Then who cares! The free market will offer better options.

Publicly funded daycare? Again, 90% of the country - be it republican or democrat can get behind things like this. The only people that wouldn't support this are snoody liberals that won't put their kids in public education in the first place.

There are tons of ways to reach across the aisle if you actually try.

 

[K1052]

Dems are going to be down to simple flow chart shortly.

If Biden is Nominee
Then young people and progressives *have* to vote for him in general
Or Trump Wins

If Harris is a nominee
Then old people, young people, black people, white men and moderates must support her in the general
Or Trump Wins

If Warren is a nominee
Then old people, young people, black people, white men and moderates must support her in the general
Or Trump Wins

If any of those fail to follow the charts then welcome to 4 more years of Trump.

All of them have groups that are willing to stay at home in protest that they don't have their first choice.

Part of ticket making is to pick a VP who will reinforce your weak areas. Clinton did a terrible job of it for 16 with Kane. Trump managed to land a white evangelical with no morals whatsoever...did wonders.

A lot of people would probably stomach a Biden vote if he picked say Warren or Abrams. I'm among those people.

 

[Bitek]

No one thinks in general that governmental policies are "evil" on the face of it.

But... reparations and taxing random people to give to other random people? Yeah, I can see some unpopularity there.

A public option for healthcare? I believe TONS on both sides of the aisle can get behind this. Think gubment is evil and corrupt? Then who cares! The free market will offer better options.

Publicly funded daycare? Again, 90% of the country - be it republican or democrat can get behind things like this. The only people that wouldn't support this are snoody liberals that won't put their kids in public education in the first place.

There are tons of ways to reach across the aisle if you actually try.

I think all of this is true and I've discussed with others offline.

It's good to have a debate focused on policies, otoh some are pushing the father edges to get attention in a crowded field. Some of the messages are just more aggressive than the electorate is at right now.

The flip side however is that it's still very early, and moderately left positions are popular. The less popular ideas and politicians will be weeded out. If cards are played right, it could leave a nominee with credibility for seeming "moderate" in proposing transformative policies like a public option.

If he survives, this could help Biden significantly in the general.

 

[Bitek]

Part of ticket making is to pick a VP who will reinforce your weak areas. Clinton did a terrible job of it for 16 with Kane. Trump managed to land a white evangelical with no morals whatsoever...did wonders.

A lot of people would probably stomach a Biden vote if he picked say Warren or Abrams. I'm among those people.

If say if it's Biden it has to be a POC woman like Harris or Abrams.
Warren would be a liability with little upside.

 

[K1052]

No one thinks in general that governmental policies are "evil" on the face of it.

But... reparations and taxing random people to give to other random people? Yeah, I can see some unpopularity there.

A public option for healthcare? I believe TONS on both sides of the aisle can get behind this. Think gubment is evil and corrupt? Then who cares! The free market will offer better options.

Publicly funded daycare? Again, 90% of the country - be it republican or democrat can get behind things like this. The only people that wouldn't support this are snoody liberals that won't put their kids in public education in the first place.

There are tons of ways to reach across the aisle if you actually try.

Basically draw a circle around anyting getting over 50% and make that the eventual Dem candidate platform. There is an enormous thirst for progressive programs in the country. Partisanship is strong but campaigning on things that are highly popular against an unpopular president/GOP could be a good idea.

 

[K1052]

If say if it's Biden it has to be a POC woman like Harris or Abrams.
Warren would be a liability with little upside.

Biden does well with AA so I don't necessarily agree with that. Giving progressives their end of this like the evangies got with Pence would probably be a sounder move.

 

[ivwshane]

Reparations seem like a dead end, as illustrated by s0me0nesmimd1 people don't understand what's actually being proposed and why. Its too complex of an issue for ignorant and lazy electorate to understand in an election type environment. All they hear is "giving money from one group from another" and most candidates aren't proposing that at all.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Basically draw a circle around anyting getting over 50% and make that the eventual Dem candidate platform. There is an enormous thirst for progressive programs in the country. Partisanship is strong but campaigning on things that are highly popular against an unpopular president/GOP could be a good idea.



View attachment 8756

I'll go through part of the list then...

"Background Checks for gun purchases" (leaving the quote at this) - No brainer. No one legitimately disagrees with this aside from the NRA. Just don't be stupid and speak in generalities for "gun control" - be specific and say you want background checks. Don't scare away people with generalities.

"Medicare for all that want it" - As I mentioned earlier, a public option. Seems great. As I said earlier, offer it to everyone as an OPTION - with other options for competition. If the Government option beats out the competition over time, then so be it.

"Government regulation of prescription drug prices" - Yep yep yep. Most people can relate to this in some way or another.

"A pathway to citizenship" - Yeah, overall going to have to disagree. The problem that people like myself have is that these people cut in line. Period, end of story. What we should be doing:
1) Fund more money to increase how fast it goes through court
2) Prevent further illegal crossings so that we can reduce the costs
3) Ramp up legal immigration efforts - basically almost a recruitment type of advocacy.

Fuck people that cut in line. Fuck pieces of shit that think laws don't apply to you. Simple as that. My wife who is an immigrant actually offered up a reasonable solution for illegal immigration - Anyone that is illegal must pay a penalty tax that no others have to pay. For this, you will not be deported. You will not be arrested, etc... presuming that you do not commit crimes. Don't like it? Leave and get back in line.

"Legalizing marijuana" - Fuck legalizing marijuana, legalize it all and tax the shit out of it.

"A green new deal" - Sure, absolutely. I don't know how were going to obtain all the materials and get the cheap labor to compete with China for the likes of manufacturing solar panels, but whatever? Overall for it.

"A wealth tax" - We already have a progressive income tax. Try again. If people want all these additional programs listed above then it is a 100% requirement that we start taxing the middle and lower class instead of giving them all handouts or we simply cannot self-sustain

"A ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons" - Meh, don't think this one is worth fighting, personally I'm not a gun nut so I don't care. I find that this only comes from the most childish of morons that can't even do the simple research to understand that 95% of gun dealths are via handgun/shotgun. But then again, we are talking about arguing with stupid people.

"Minimum wage of $15/hour" - go for it. If you want to get rid of labor jobs faster than they already are I don't care. Not my problem, but don't be surprised if the crowd of people crying becomes louder because more of them become unemployed because they have 0 technical skills.

 

[dank69]

No one thinks in general that governmental policies are "evil" on the face of it.

...

This is demonstrably false.

 

[glenn1]

I'll go through part of the list then...

"Background Checks for gun purchases" (leaving the quote at this) - No brainer. No one legitimately disagrees with this aside from the NRA. Just don't be stupid and speak in generalities for "gun control" - be specific and say you want background checks. Don't scare away people with generalities.

"Medicare for all that want it" - As I mentioned earlier, a public option. Seems great. As I said earlier, offer it to everyone as an OPTION - with other options for competition. If the Government option beats out the competition over time, then so be it.

"Government regulation of prescription drug prices" - Yep yep yep. Most people can relate to this in some way or another.

"A pathway to citizenship" - Yeah, overall going to have to disagree. The problem that people like myself have is that these people cut in line. Period, end of story. What we should be doing:
1) Fund more money to increase how fast it goes through court
2) Prevent further illegal crossings so that we can reduce the costs
3) Ramp up legal immigration efforts - basically almost a recruitment type of advocacy.

Fuck people that cut in line. Fuck pieces of shit that think laws don't apply to you. Simple as that. My wife who is an immigrant actually offered up a reasonable solution for illegal immigration - Anyone that is illegal must pay a penalty tax that no others have to pay. For this, you will not be deported. You will not be arrested, etc... presuming that you do not commit crimes. Don't like it? Leave and get back in line.

"Legalizing marijuana" - Fuck legalizing marijuana, legalize it all and tax the shit out of it.

"A green new deal" - Sure, absolutely. I don't know how were going to obtain all the materials and get the cheap labor to compete with China for the likes of manufacturing solar panels, but whatever? Overall for it.

"A wealth tax" - We already have a progressive income tax. Try again. If people want all these additional programs listed above then it is a 100% requirement that we start taxing the middle and lower class instead of giving them all handouts or we simply cannot self-sustain

"A ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons" - Meh, don't think this one is worth fighting, personally I'm not a gun nut so I don't care. I find that this only comes from the most childish of morons that can't even do the simple research to understand that 95% of gun dealths are via handgun/shotgun. But then again, we are talking about arguing with stupid people.

"Minimum wage of $15/hour" - go for it. If you want to get rid of labor jobs faster than they already are I don't care. Not my problem, but don't be surprised if the crowd of people crying becomes louder because more of them become unemployed because they have 0 technical skills.

Shorter version of what you said - basically all these ideas have broad support in the abstract but often quickly lose support once you start explaining the "how" you'd do it. Often getting to the objective matters more to the politicians and their partisan base than how it's done - witness Trump and his current way of dealing with immigration (and "Fixing immigration" is likewise an abstract goal most voters support).

People will support broad goals like this under the assumption that it won't negatively impact them much, or the impact is worth it to obtain some bigger goal. "Universal background checks for firearm purchases" is a good example - if you made the checks cheap (preferably free) and easy to do then it gets almost 100% support. In practice what it means is that you need to repeatedly travel to a FFL dealer, pay them a fee for every single transaction, wait for it to be completed, and hope your buyer doesn't lose patience and walk away from the deal. Basically it's like going to the DMV to get license plates (complete pain in the ass) and it's not something you only need to do every few years - if you're an avid collector you might need to go through the DMV equivalent several times a year.

Ditto for "Medicare for all." Sounds great in the abstract, once people start thinking it through and realize "hey this might negatively impact my employer subsidized Blue Cross plan which I really like, then I'll have to go on Medicare too" then the support goes away.

 

[soulcougher73]

Shorter version of what you said - basically all these ideas have broad support in the abstract but often quickly lose support once you start explaining the "how" you'd do it. Often getting to the objective matters more to the politicians and their partisan base than how it's done - witness Trump and his current way of dealing with immigration (and "Fixing immigration" is likewise an abstract goal most voters support).

People will support broad goals like this under the assumption that it won't negatively impact them much, or the impact is worth it to obtain some bigger goal. "Universal background checks for firearm purchases" is a good example - if you made the checks cheap (preferably free) and easy to do then it gets almost 100% support. In practice what it means is that you need to repeatedly travel to a FFL dealer, pay them a fee for every single transaction, wait for it to be completed, and hope your buyer doesn't lose patience and walk away from the deal. Basically it's like going to the DMV to get license plates (complete pain in the ass) and it's not something you only need to do every few years - if you're an avid collector you might need to go through the DMV equivalent several times a year.

Ditto for "Medicare for all." Sounds great in the abstract, once people start thinking it through and realize "hey this might negatively impact my employer subsidized Blue Cross plan which I really like, then I'll have to go on Medicare too" then the support goes away.

Why would the FFL dealer lose patience when this check and time frame would just apply to every other person who was interested in said gun? He may personally find it annoying, but losing patience wont solve his problem.

 

[glenn1]

Why would the FFL dealer lose patience when this check and time frame would just apply to every other person who was interested in said gun? He may personally find it annoying, but losing patience wont solve his problem.

The FFL dealer is getting paid for basically doing something that requires nearly zero effort on his part. I'm talking about the 3rd parties buying/selling the weapon losing patience when they need to use the services of an FFL to do the check because they can't simply do it themselves online or something. I could have just sold you one firearm a week ago and decide to sell a second one to you, I gotta go back through the whole rigamarole again. The biggest roadblock to "universal background checks" is that full compliance would mean making them easier to do, faster to complete, cheaper to do, etc and those most advocating for background checks just don't give a shit about making them easier. Right now it's just a big PITA factor for most 3rd party sellers/buyers with very little perceivable benefits. Most gun sellers aren't just going to dark alleys in the inner city and holding an Ebay style auction, they're selling to folks they know or giving the firearm outright to a known person or family member.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The FFL dealer is getting paid for basically doing something that requires nearly zero effort on his part. I'm talking about the 3rd parties buying/selling the weapon losing patience when they need to use the services of an FFL to do the check because they can't simply do it themselves online or something. I could have just sold you one firearm a week ago and decide to sell a second one to you, I gotta go back through the whole rigamarole again. The biggest roadblock to "universal background checks" is that full compliance would mean making them easier to do, faster to complete, cheaper to do, etc and those most advocating for background checks just don't give a shit about making them easier. Right now it's just a big PITA factor for most 3rd party sellers/buyers with very little perceivable benefits. Most gun sellers aren't just going to dark alleys in the inner city and holding an Ebay style auction, they're selling to folks they know or giving the firearm outright to a known person or family member.

I mean, that's kind of the point isn't it? To limit the flow of firearms, as well as track who's got them? That sounds more like a feature, not a bug.

Someone who seriously wants a firearm is going to go through the rigmarole, and someone who's on a 'whim' or possibly looking to do something on the spur of the moment will have a chance to reconsider after the second or third trip to the FFL.

 

[soulcougher73]

The FFL dealer is getting paid for basically doing something that requires nearly zero effort on his part. I'm talking about the 3rd parties buying/selling the weapon losing patience when they need to use the services of an FFL to do the check because they can't simply do it themselves online or something. I could have just sold you one firearm a week ago and decide to sell a second one to you, I gotta go back through the whole rigamarole again. The biggest roadblock to "universal background checks" is that full compliance would mean making them easier to do, faster to complete, cheaper to do, etc and those most advocating for background checks just don't give a shit about making them easier. Right now it's just a big PITA factor for most 3rd party sellers/buyers with very little perceivable benefits. Most gun sellers aren't just going to dark alleys in the inner city and holding an Ebay style auction, they're selling to folks they know or giving the firearm outright to a known person or family member.

As Osiris said this sounds like a feature, not a bug. We want them to be tracked. Who has what and when.

 

[dank69]

The FFL dealer is getting paid for basically doing something that requires nearly zero effort on his part. I'm talking about the 3rd parties buying/selling the weapon losing patience when they need to use the services of an FFL to do the check because they can't simply do it themselves online or something. I could have just sold you one firearm a week ago and decide to sell a second one to you, I gotta go back through the whole rigamarole again. The biggest roadblock to "universal background checks" is that full compliance would mean making them easier to do, faster to complete, cheaper to do, etc and those most advocating for background checks just don't give a shit about making them easier. Right now it's just a big PITA factor for most 3rd party sellers/buyers with very little perceivable benefits. Most gun sellers aren't just going to dark alleys in the inner city and holding an Ebay style auction, they're selling to folks they know or giving the firearm outright to a known person or family member.

Don't forget, I could have murdered 7 people between the time I bought that first gun from you and the time I want to buy the second.