Total posts: 934
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
NPC's are things that are properly programmed to serve a specific purpose meant to provide some sort of benefit or improvement... 'Properly programmed' is disqualifying in this case as it doesnt apply
Created:
Posted in:
Must be ironic that im the one of all people that gives the 25th one which grants the final medal
Created:
Posted in:
CALLED IT
"If we have reached the tipping point where candidates long polling at around 1% begin to drop out to retain their previous positions or run for state contests instead, then these are the candidates most likely to drop out next: Corey Booker, Jay Inslee, Beto O'Rourke"
Jay Inslee recently announced he is suspending his presidential campaign and instead will shift gears to running for a third term as Governor of Washington state, per the Associated Press: https://news.yahoo.com/washington-gov-jay-inslee-says-011311347.html
He is declining to endorse anyone but to the surprise of no one said he will support whoever is the eventual nominee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If I had to guess, China would prefer the US President to be someone they could bend to their will and act fairly predictably.
The issue is that both of those things hardly go hand in hand with each other..... While Trump for example can be easily swayed to one side in a way that benefits China, he hardly stays committed to that stance and can bounce back and forth on certain policies randomly for the most minor of reasons. He just delayed meeting with leaders of Denmark because he was upset at how harshly they dismissed the idea of selling Greenmark to the US, which is only the most unpredictable thing he's done this week.
On the other side, candidates who act far more predictably are the ones that would be more difficult for China to align with their agenda. Damn near every Democrat is ready to talk tough on China and call them out for their human rights abuses + handling of protests in Hong Kong, I dont see any of them being possible candidates that China could get huge concessions from without having to give up much in return.
Trump is exploitable but unpredictable, Democrats are predictable but not really exploitable.
China may just stop giving a shit since theres no clear option for them to back in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Its just one of the many oddly specific hobbies I like to pour three hours of my life into every once in a while :P
- Extensive poll analysis
- Extensive poll analysis
- Mobile Airline simulation games
- Miscellaneous tv show Fanfiction writing
- General manager mode in Madden 19
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Fuckin figures that the day after I post an update that RCP uploads THREE new polls onto their site that shifts the whole field. Ill try to keep things short and to the point
BIGGEST DEVELOPMENTS:
1 - Sanders supplants Warren as the #2 candidate
2 - Pete Buttigieg is effectively a major candidate
3 - Sanders collapsing in Nevada
4 - Biden pretty much has South Carolina locked up
Lets dive into this.
#1
In the three most recent polls to be uploaded onto the site, Sanders polled ahead of Warren in all three of them, and in the 5 of the last 7 polls taken nationally he has also been ahead of Warren. This is not the end of Warren's campaign though by any stretch, because Warren only trails Sanders by 1 point in two of the polls, and the two have routinely swapped positions in the race throughout the primaries. The two candidates have been 2nd or 3rd place dating back to May, except for one stretch where Kamala Harris leapfrogged both of them following a strong initial debate performance, but she has now slid back into fourth place.
Bidens numbers on average hover around the low 30's to high 20's, while Sanders and Warren are usually in the high teens.... Harris meanwhile, as I pointed out earlier, has lost just about all the support she had gained following her first debate performance, and is now in danger of dropping into 5th place, which brings us to the Pete Buttigieg story.
#2
In 2 of the 3 most recent polls, Sanders beat out Warren by one point. In those same two polls, Kamala Harris is shown at a tie with Pete Buttigieg, both getting 5% in one poll and 8% in another poll.... With Beto O Rourke's campaign continually imploding as well as other moderates like Hickenlooper beginning to withdraw, Pete Buttigieg may be trying to position himself as the more moderate candidate after Biden. If Buttigieg manages to sway some undecided female and black voters to support his campaign, he could very well push into the top tier of the top candidates and have a solid ability to last long in the primary race.
#3
The last thing to note is that in some of the individual state races, not many polls have been uploaded. A large number of polling information we see is usually taken at a nation-wide level, rather than within a specific state that has an early primary. Iowa and New Hampshire havent had new poll information in about two to three weeks now, but Nevada and South Carolina have (in the past week), and the numbers are in Bidens favor.
For now.
In Nevada, the 3rd state that will hold a primary this year behind Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden's lead has dropped from a 15 point margin to a 10 point margin. Still a big lead, but a concerning regression nonetheless. While Billionaire candidate Bob Steyer managed to swing an impressive 6 points in the most recent Nevada poll, Sanders regressed from a 23% performance down to 10%, almost putting him behind Harris at 9% whose numbers havent shifted much. No other candidate appears to have absorbed this 13 point dropoff from Sanders (Though Warren did get boosted 3 points compared to the last poll) and an answer for what might have happened appears in the poll itself
Page 2 of the poll results show that the biggest chunk of undecided voters are Asian voters and Hispanic voters, both groups currently at about 16.5% undecided. Of Asian voters who do have a preference though, who they back is a bit of a surprise
1st = Biden at 19% (He wins nearly every demographic minus the youngest age bloc)
2nd and 3rd = Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, at 14.6% each.... Both candidates are Asian which partially explains this
4th and 5th = Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer, at 11.8%
Tom Steyer is a billionaire businessman who only recently entered the race for the Democratic Nomination (July 7th), and polled 1% in the Nevada poll taken around the time he announced his campaign. His surge in the state and large number of Hispanic backers may be the reason why Sanders numbers have effectively collapsed in the state of Nevada... Steyers 5 point gain and Warrens 3 point gain combined could represent over half of the support Bernie lose since the last poll to come out of the state (he dropped 13 points).... If Steyer is playing people in Nevada well enough, he could very well spoil Bernie's chances of a top 3 candidate finish behind Biden, Warren, and Harris.
#4
The last state with somewhat recent polling info is South Carolina, where a poll from the second week of August shows Biden at 36%, Warren at 17%, and Sanders at 16% https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/biden-keeps-large-lead-in-sc-s-democratic-presidential-primary/article_d5064164-be11-11e9-8de3-03c1577ccfa6.html
While Biden's lead has shrunk from almost 30 points overall to 20 points, a 20% difference between first and second place is basically not even a contest anymore. In fact, his lead in South Carolina is the largest of any candidate in any early primary state as of right now, and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.... This is because black voters account for more than 60 percent of all ballots cast in South Carolina Democratic presidential primaries, and Biden does incredibly well with black voters thanks to the fact that he was Obama's Vice President for 8 years.
Created:
Posted in:
A Pew research poll put out recently, asking more then just a quick 'which candidate do you like the most' has revealed what may be the BIGGEST piece of information that could decide who wins the nomination.
About halfway down on page 1 of the article, shown here: https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/16/most-democrats-are-excited-by-several-2020-candidates-not-just-their-top-choice/ there is a table showing which candidate that certain candidates would support if their current number one candidate dropped out for whatever reason.
Some of the info is quite surprising. While Sanders supporters would flip towards Warren the most (23%) is not that far fetched, just about every other scenario DOES go against initial expectations.
1 - If Biden dropped out, Harris would benefit the most and get the most of his voter base (24%), a ten point difference between any other candidate
2 - If Warren dropped out, her voter base would be split up somewhat evenly. Sanders would get 29%, Harris 31%, Biden 22%
3 - If Sanders dropped out, Warren would get 23% of her base, but Biden would get almost just as much at 16%
However, the biggest one is what happens with Harris.
4 - If Harris dropped out, 39% of her voter base would flip to Warren, 20% higher than the number that would go to Biden at second place
I've believed up to this point that if Sanders and Warren keep splitting the very liberal voter base while the more centrist and moderate wing coalesces around Biden, he will get the nomination before either Sanders or Warren drops out and the other gets their base.... However, Kamala Harris is now the possible king maker here. If Harris were to drop out very early in the primary season for whatever reason, Warren would far and away benefit the most from it and gain in the polls afterwards.... If that were to happen, it could lead to a domino effect where Warren emerges as the candidate for the very liberal part of the base, which could siphon off support that Sanders has, which could put Warren into a position to beat Biden or at least go toe-to-toe with him in the second half of the race.... It would all depend on how early Harris drops out, and whether or not she still has enough of a base to give Warren a noticeable bump in support to sway Sanders supporters to jump ship.
There are two other notes of interest from the poll that can be easily missed, but is critical in deciding who the nominee will become. Right before and then after the discussion about second choice candidates, the article notes that:
"A relatively large proportion of black Democrats (45%) express no preference in the open-ended question"
and
"30% of Democratic women voters express no preference for the nomination."
HALF of black voters who are Democrats do not have a current preference of a candidate and are undecided, as well as 30% of female voters. Thats HUGE..... If one half of all black voters have not picked a candidate they would prefer, and one third of female voters also havent picked a candidate to back, then whoever is the candidate that makes the strongest appeals to those two voter blocs could lock down the nomination entirely.
Just about every major candidate can pull this off..... Kamala Harris, as a black woman, could easily appeal to both of these factions equally just by showing that she knows what its like to be black and a woman, yet Biden already enjoys a massive lead in black support (29% total compared to 10% for Harris) since he was Vice President during the Obama administration, and polls very strongly with women as well.... Warren has the second most support of women (14%, Biden in first with 24%) but she struggles hard with black support (4%) and could enormously benefit from their support if they start to pick a side (more on that later).... Sanders does below average with women and black voters, the only category he leads in is youth voters (24%) who can be notoriously unreliable when it comes to actually voting.
But while women and black voters could decide who becomes the nominee, there is another part of the article that indicates who they might support in the end.
Its also in this last bit of info may be Biden's big secret. His ace in the hole for why his numbers have always been so high.
"Biden draws more support among Democrats who are Protestants and Catholics – 38% of Catholics name him as their first choice – than among religiously unaffiliated Democrats (18%)."
The religious wing of the Democratic Party MASSIVELY backs Biden over all of the other major candidates in the race right now. Catholics support Biden 38% while all other candidates COMBINED only get supported by Catholics 37%. (24% undecided)... This number gets MORE massive when examining white Catholics, then it goes up to 45% for Biden, 38% for everyone else combined, just 17% undecided
Similar results also happen with Protestants. 29% of all protestants back Biden, all other candidates get 8% at best, with 36% undecided.... This number grows in favor of Biden even more when examining BLACK protestants amazingly. Biden gets 34% of their support while all other candidates combined only get 21% (although a massive 46% are still undecided)
While Warren's route to the nomination may depend on Harris and Sanders dropping out early in the race to position herself as the strongest alternative to Biden, Biden's path to the nomination could already be decided if he can simply manage to retain the base he already has, and keeps appealing to religious and black voters who are still undecided, since those two back Biden's campaign more than any other candidate by a wide margin..... Given his history as Obama's VP while also being able to campaign on legislation he worked on as a Senator in defense of women, he could very well pull this off and lock up the nomination before anyone else has a chance to position themselves as his prime rival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is far, far more masterful at playing the village idiot
I think the word you're looking for is 'being'. 'Playing' implies that one is simply feigning being something else they otherwise are not, which i don't think applies here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol, you want me to show actual effort in a thread in the religion forum that has 1) Already gone downhill as hard as this one has, and 2) Asks people to put aside their conceptions about Christianity and scriptures to discuss the idea of God in general, with the belief that people will actually do so?
It would be a better use of my time trying to petition people to bring back the Mongol conquests of Japan.
Created:
Posted in:
Hilarity Update: John Delaney campaign event only gets 11 visitors
If you think thats pathetic, it actually is way worse
"The night before, on Delaney’s Facebook page, just two people had said they would attend, and one of those was his campaign director."
John Delaney is basically the Jim Gilmore of the 2020 Dem field
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
There are two enormous points about the Belt-And Road initiative that all attention gravitates towards, and for good reason.
The first of which is that the whole initiative may be an elaborate ploy by China to expand its influence into lesser-developed countries and replace the United States as the top influencer in the region by throwing money at everything.
By proposing infrastructure improvements in these countries whose governments cant afford to finance them, China also presents itself as the one willing to finance loans to those countries in order to undertake the infrastructure upgrades, becoming a creditor nation to countries that beforehand had no debts to China.... China's history with currency manipulation and other shady economic activities makes it a valid concern that China might exploit those loans and debts owed to them by countries that buy into the Belt and Road program in order to exert influence over those nations and align them to China's agenda, whatever it may be.
The second issue is that China may already be backing out of the program.
A lot of the projects in Africa, where infrastructure upgrades are needed the most, initial costs of projects have repeatedly increased and ballooned in price that China has shown to be more hesitant to finance. Many of the projects that were accepted by African nations were done between 2013 to 2016, when China's economic growth was at its peak https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3022301/lenders-remorse-china-finds-africa-projects-require-growing However, economic growth has since slowed down, and China is now more cautious in financing certain projects as part of the very initiative it introduced in the first place, causing them to effectively freeze a few projects they proposed in the first place.
The most obvious example of this is Kenya, where a proposed railroad from the coast of the nation to other nations further inland was put on hold because China now has concerns about the economic feasibility about the project compared to when they first explored the option: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-07-19/china-s-belt-and-road-leaves-kenya-with-a-railroad-to-nowhere
"The first half of the Kenya-Uganda railway, a 470-kilometer (290-mile) stretch between the port city of Mombasa and Nairobi, is operational but not yet making money. Beijing balked at funding the extension to Uganda amid concerns it may be a step too far beyond viability."
If China is beginning to re-evaluate the profitability of certain projects that were the go-to example they were willing to show off for their Belt and Road program, then there's no telling which other lesser projects China might become inclined to abandon, which leaves a substantial risk to African nations that buy into the program since they may end up dumping millions of dollars into a hole that goes nowhere.
Just based on that alone, The EU should stay the hell away from the Belt and Road initiative. Its effectively a ploy by China to become the top financier of projects in countries that are still developing to increase their own influence that they may be willing to forget about entirely if they decide the projects they are willing to fund wont be worth it anyways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I wouldn't call it refuge, more like "mass emigration"
^ Pretty much. It wasnt that people on DDO just one day decided to make a transition to another site, we were basically forced to move somewhere once the big spam attacks started happening and flooded the forums..... With only a limited number of options to choose from, this site was the one people gravitated towards due to its similarities to DDO and the chances of rebuilding a similar culture do DDO on here from scratch.
Other sites that already had traffic and members would make DDOians just feel like a new segment to the already existing society that runs things differently than we are used to, but this site was for the most part empty that could be molded into what DDO once was, and pretty much everybody gravitated towards that idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
If you think she's the most beatable of the main democratic options, you're miscalculating.
If Sanders wasn't running she might be though.
Biden's biggest faults are when he occasionally misspeaks and says something goofy, which given the current political situation we are in is pretty tolerable for now, and he benefits a lot from being Obama's VP by positioning himself as being a third term for Obama if he gets elected, which a lot of Dem voters would love to have at this point. Hell, people are willing to forgive his past statements about race and women and even the whole 'touching' thing just because of that, and there arent any glaring political stances of his people might take issue with since he has been fairly quiet on policy stances in the first place.
Harris hasn't had much of a national profile prior to this point, and she has shown herself to be passionate and articulate, though her numbers are now sliding as she drifts back towards being an unknown candidate.
Warren has the native ancestry thing, which to most people isnt a big deal, but the whole 'Massachusetts Ivy League liberal' thing has a BIG stigma to it that could be a big turnoff to voters who are very centrist and independent. (See Michael Dukakis in 1988 on this one). Conservatives would be quick to paint her as a far left socialist too, which to Dems isnt that big of a deal, but to Independent voters would be a sticking point since a vast majority of the country is not nearly as liberal as some candidates think it is.
I dont have many problems with any of those things myself but I do question her electability. Hers is the one I have the most concern for in a matchup against Trump second only to Bernie.
Created:
Posted in:
Basic summary: Harris has lost nearly all the support she initially gained after her first debate performance
After nearly doubling her poll numbers after a strong debate performance in late June (Going from 7% to 15% nearly overnight), Kamala Harris has since regressed back to the numbers she was seeing before the debates began. 6 of the most recent national polls all have Harris polling between 7 to 9% nationwide
State by state examinations also show some regression for her
In Iowa, a 5 point drop in numbers compared to early July after the first debate has her now at 11%, putting her in danger of sliding out of the top 5 if the trends continue: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html#polls
In New Hampshire, polls after the first debate had her anywhere from 9% to 18%, but the two most recent polls covering the state have her sitting below 9% now, leaving her in a close tie for fourth place with Pete Buttigieg: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html#polls
In California, one of the states Harris does the strongest in, her previous highs of 23% following the first debates have slid down to 17% in the most recent poll to come out for that state, dropping her from 2nd place to 4th behind Sanders, Warren, and Biden: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-6879.html#polls
(Other states dont have enough polling info from before the debate, immediately after the debate, and polls from the month of August to show any patterns)
While Harris is still definitely one of the top tier candidates with some decent odds of becoming the nominee compared to most of the field, the numbers clearly show that the advantage she gained following her first debate performance has effectively been lost a month later, leaving her back at square one and having to start over.
Created:
Posted in:
I like Tulsi Gabbard and Amy Klobuchar but I dont see them breaking out into the top tier of candidates now that a few debates have passed.
Pete Buttigeig is also interesting to me but I fear he also is still on the outside looking in compared to the upper tier candidates
Of those who are polling well, I like Biden more than Warren, Sanders, or Harris.
Created:
Posted in:
Hasn't Trumps disapproval ratings always been pretty shit though throughout his entire presidency? I think from the moment he entered office people still werent willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and kept his approval down in the 40's, which is surprising since most presidents usually get a 'honeymoon' period for a couple of months with their overall approval ratings somewhere in the 60's
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No the first primary states.
When we transition into the general election, THEN the national polls become a good measurement to use, but since we're still balls deep into the primary season the only polls that are really important are the ones in the first couple of states that hold primaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I do use RCP, but the main poll they show on their homepage features national standings. Iowa, New Hampshire, and the first couple of primary states are the polls that are the most important since the first few primary states dramatically shift the opinion in the rest of the country once a few contests actually get decided.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright computer is charged now so I can really get into this.
First off I was wrong about Bullock, he was re-elected as Governor of Montana 2 years ago and still has 2 years left for his current term. He is under no pressure to drop out of the presidential race to go for a state race instead, so he has not at any current crossroads to have to consider
First off I was wrong about Bullock, he was re-elected as Governor of Montana 2 years ago and still has 2 years left for his current term. He is under no pressure to drop out of the presidential race to go for a state race instead, so he has not at any current crossroads to have to consider
Now then, If we have reached the tipping point where candidates long polling at around 1% begin to drop out to retain their previous positions or run for state contests instead, then these are the candidates most likely to drop out next:
(Most Pressure)
- Corey Booker - Senator from New Jersey, he is in the last year of his term as a Senator and has the option to run for re-election there
- Jay Inslee - Governor of Washington, he is in the final year of his term and has the option to run for a third term as Governor in the state
- Beto O'Rourke - Almost flipped Texas blue while running for Senator in 2018, The other Senator from Texas is up for re-election in 2020 and Beto could try a run against him (John Cornyn)
(Some Pressure)
- Tulsi Gabbard - Representative from Hawaii. She is up for re-election in 2020 but would easily retain her seat as an incumbent
- Tim Ryan - Representative from Ohio. Same situation as Tulsi Gabbard
- Bill DeBlasio - Currently Mayor of NYC, his term doesnt end until 2021 so he has a little more breathing space compared to others
(No Pressure)
(No Pressure)
- Steve Bullock: Currently Governor of Montana, has 2 years left in his term
- Michael Bennett: Currently a Colorado Senator, he was re-elected in 2016 and has 2 years left
- Kirsten Gillibrand: Currently a NY Senator, she was re-elected in 2018 and has 4 years left
- Kirsten Gillibrand: Currently a NY Senator, she was re-elected in 2018 and has 4 years left
- Amy Klobuchar: Currently a Minnesota Senator, she was re-elected in 2018 and has 4 years left
(Already F-cked)
(Already F-cked)
- John Delaney: He passed on running for re-election as a Representative of Maryland in 2018 to go all-in on the Presidency, he's done in politics when he decides to stop running for President
Created:
Posted in:
NEW UPDATE: HICKENLOOPER TO DROP OUT
(I know its Fox News but everyone is reporting the same thing and theyre the first website that my phone could save the damn link to for whatever reason so im using it)
Hickenlooper was either the Governor or Senator from Colorado who did not decide to run for re-election there and instead take a shot at the presidency. Seeing as how his numbers have been close to 1% the entire race, while Colorado has races that are very winnable in comparison, it appears that Hickenlooper may have opted to drop out of the race for President because he acknowledges that his role is to flip Colorado instead.... There is a republican senator for Colorado up for reelection to the Senate this year and im fairly certain he's the most vulnerable Republican in danger of losing his seat.
This has 2 fairly important effects despite his relatively low polling numbers:
1 - Other candidates who have options elsewhere may be more inclined to drop out
Candidates who forgo state contests to go for the Presidency may start taking a look back at those state contests if they want to still have a future in politics. Certain candidates who were forced out of their previous position due to term limits have nothing to lose at this point and will campaign for as long as they desire, but candidates who can focus on state re-elections have to make a decision. With Hickenlooper pulling out to likely focus on Colorado, others may do the same, most notably Steve Bullock of Montana (Governor), and Beto O'Rourke of Texas (Almost Senator)
2 - The dropping out of minor moderate/centrist candidates could all lend their support to one of the front runners.
While 20 of the 25 current Dem candidates have about 1-2% support total, just a handful of them dropping out frees up close to 10% of voters to switch to other candidates, which is no small number by any stretch. If the supporters of the minor dropouts all drift towards a particular candidate (my money is on Biden, Buttigieg, or Harris) it could drastically shift the narrative of the race even before we start getting to the first primaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not particularly since 1) Biden still has massive leads in almost every demographic bloc of the Dem voter base
and 2) Warren is having a very large size of her max voter base split with Sanders while Biden has almost no serious centrist/moderate competitor at the moment
Im starting to think Sanders will inadvertently fuck Warren out of even having a chance at winning the nomination by splitting early primary states with her.
Created:
Posted in:
(Part 2)
Highlight #3: Dems would be most disappointed if De Blasio or Williamson became the nominee, least disappointed with Warren and Castro as the nominee
Pages 204 and 205 list a table showing all the candidates with voters indicating how disappointed they would be if that candidate became the nominee for the Democratic Party in 2020.
Top 5 Most Disappointing:
De Blasio = 26%
Williamson = 25%
Gabbard = 19%
Biden = 18%
Sanders = 17%
Top 5 Least Disappointing:
Warren = 8%
Castro = 9%
Buttigieg = 10%
Booker = 11%
Klobuchar = 12%
While De Blasio and Williamson are widely disliked for being generally nutty, Sanders and Biden score also score high on the disappointment list, most likely due to their own voting bases disliking the other candidate. Notably though, Warren is FAR less viewed as a disappointing nominee among Dem voters, with Castro and Buttigieg right behind her. Among Dem voters, Warren appears to be the one who is the least prone to suppress turnout from the Dem party, or at least much better so than Sanders or Biden would.
Highlight #4: Older voters care WAYYYYYYY the fuck more about electability than policy agreement
Page 209 may show the starkest divide between older Dem voters and Younger Dem voters based on any metric you can measure by. In this part of the poll, older voters 65 and up care more about the Dem nominee being someone who can beat Trump in 2020 than they do about agreeing with the policy positions of the nominee (82% care about winning, 19% care about agreeing with their policies)
That number drops HARD as you go towards younger voters.
65 and up = 82% to 19% care more about electing someone who can win
45 to 65 = 66% to 34% care more about electing someone who can win
30 to 44 = 57% to 43% care more about electing someone who can win
18 to 30 = 52% care more about electing someone whose policy proposals they agree with than they do about having the candidate be able to win
While young voters are split 50-50 in supporting a candidate based on their policy proposals compared to their ability to beat Trump in 2020, older voters are skewed FAR more in favor of electing someone who could win in 2020.
Highlight #5: What Democrats are most concerned with has shifted
Page 250 on wards in the poll results highlight general campaign issues to ask how much voters care about those issues. Considering that this is during the Dem primaries, what Democrats consider the most important could indicate which candidates are in the best position to sway undecided primary voters to supporting their campaign before the critical primary contests begin
Here is the list of what Dem voters consider the most important issues this election
(Issue = Very Important = Somewhat Important = Not Very Important = Not Important)
Healthcare = 81% = 14% = 4% = 1%
The Environment = 74% = 19% = 4% = 2%
Gun Control = 74% = 18% = 7% = 2%
Medicare = 70% = 24% = 6% = 1%
The Economy = 65% = 29% = 5% = 2%
Social Security = 68% = 23% = 8% = 1%
Education = 66% = 26% = 7% = 2%
Terrorism = 53% = 30% = 13% = 4%
Taxes = 52% = 35% = 10% = 3%
Abortion = 51% = 28% = 12% = 9%
Foreign Policy = 50% = 37% = 8% = 5%
Budget Deficit = 46% = 37% = 12% = 6%
Use of Military Force = 45% = 36% = 15% = 4%
Free Trade/Globalization = 43% = 42 = 11 = 4%
Gay Rights = 38% = 32% = 17% = 13%
War in Afghanistan = 31% = 38% = 23% = 8%
Healthcare is clearly the top concern among Democrat voters in the primaries for the 2020 cycle, With the Environment, Gun Control, and Medicare right behind it.... While almost every issue listed above was considered at least somewhat important by 70% of Dem voters, there are clearly some issues that hold peoples attention compared to others.
(Republicans in the same poll on Page 284 indicated that the biggest issues to them was Immigration by a very wide margin. 29% of Republican voters considered immigration as the most important issue in 2020, with the Economy only getting 14%.
Created:
Posted in:
One of the things I appreciate about YouGov polls is that they go into literal fucktons of detail showing what types of people support which candidates for what reasons. Theyre not simple 'who do you currently support' polls that are taken at face value, there almost all-encompassing diagnosis's of the current election cycle.
Here's the highlights from the most recent one processed from data taken a week ago https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7jv630mjdk/econTabReport.pdf
Highlight #1: The most unfavorable candidates (compared to favorable) are De Blasio, Williamson, and Hickenlooper.
When polled about which candidates voters hold would rate in terms of favorability (how much they like or dont like a particular candidate) a majority of candidates received votes of 'Dont Know', meaning voters just didnt know much about that candidate to have an opinion of them. Given the huge field of candidates, thats not a surprise. Whats interesting though is finding out which candidates ARE known to most voters, but are not seen in a favorable light, and there were some leaders.
Here's the list of all candidates with the worst ratio of unfavorable to favorable ratios:
Bennett = 18% Favorable, 22% unfavorable, 61% Dont know (Pg 140)
Here's the list of all candidates with the worst ratio of unfavorable to favorable ratios:
Bennett = 18% Favorable, 22% unfavorable, 61% Dont know (Pg 140)
Biden = 41% Favorable, 41% Unfavorable (Pg 142)
Booker = 30% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable (Pg 144)
Booker = 30% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable (Pg 144)
Bullock = 15% Favorable, 21% Unfavorable, 64% Dont know (Pg 146)
Buttigieg = 31% Favorable, 30% Unfavorable, 39% Dont know (Pg 148)
Castro = 26% Favorable, 29% Unfavorable, 43% Dont know (Pg 150)
De Blasio = 15% Favorable, 42% Unfavorable, 42% Dont know (Pg 152)
Delaney = 15% Favorable, 27% Unfavorable, 58% Dont know (Pg 154)
Gabbard = 22% Favorable, 29% Unfavorable, 48% Dont know (Pg 156)
Gillibrand = 24% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable, 42% Dont know (Pg 158)
Harris = 31% Favorable, 40% Unfavorable, 29% Dont know (Pg 162)
Hickenlooper = 17% Favorable, 28% Unfavorable, 55% Dont know (Pg 164)
Inslee = 18% Favorable, 23% Unfavorable, 59% Dont know (Pg 166)
Klobuchar = 23% Favorable, 30% Unfavorable, 47% Dont know (Pg 168)
Beto = 29% Favorable, 37% Unfavorable, 35% Dont know (Pg 174)
Ryan = 16% Favorable, 28% Unfavorable, 56% Dont know (Pg 176)
Bernie = 40% Favorable, 42% Unfavorable, 18% Dont know (Pg 178)
Warren = 38% Favorable, 38% Unfavorable, 24% Dont know (Pg 186)
Williamson = 18% Favorable, 32% Unfavorable, 50% Dont know (Pg 190)
Yang = 26% Favorable, 26% Unfavorable, 48% Dont know (Pg 192)
Highlight #2: Support from different ages of voters favors Biden (then Warren), except among younger demographics
Page 196 lists an entire table of who voters would most support where voters are separated based on their age. For this part, voters were allowed to select as many options as they wanted, not just the one they support the most.
Old voters (65 and over) would consider voting for the following candidates the most:
Old voters (65 and over) would consider voting for the following candidates the most:
- Biden (63% would vote for him)
- Warren (61%)
- Harris (48%)
- Buttigieg (43%)
- Sanders actually comes in 6th place for support among the very old (27%) behind Booker in 5th place (33%)
Voters aged 45 to 65 are more evenly split among the top candidates:
- Biden (53% of voters in this age range would consider voting for Biden)
- Warren (48%)
- Sanders (42%)
- Harris (35%)
- Buttigieg (30%)
Voters aged 30 to 45 are more reluctant to consider voting for certain candidates, with lower numbers across the board. The candidates they would consider voting for the most though also follow the previous patterns
- Biden (44% would consider voting for Biden)
- Warren (33%)
- Harris (31%)
- Sanders (26%)
- Buttigieg (20%)
The youngest demographic of voters ages 18 to 30 are the most reluctant of all age groups to consider supporting a candidate, but their support is the most different compared to other groups of voters. Here are the candidates this age group supports the most:
- Warren (39%)
- Sanders (35%)
- Biden (33%)
- Buttigieg (31%)
- Harris (24%)
On page 200, a table showing just the top preferred candidate among the same batch of voters reveals stark gaps between the leader of certain groups and the next runner ups.
65 years old or more = Support Biden most at 33%, Second place is Warren at 16%, Third is Buttigieg at 11%. Undecided is at 19%
45 to 54 years old = Support Biden most at 27%, Second place is Warren at 18%, Third is Sanders at 15%. Undecided is at 12%
30 to 45 years old = Support Biden most at 20%. Second place is a TIE between Sanders and Warren at 15%. Undecided also at 15%
18 to 30 years old = Supports Sanders most at 16%. Second place is Warren at 14%, Third is Buttigieg at 12%. Undecided is at 11%
While younger voters for the most part already have an eye on who they support the most, the support is pretty evenly distributed, while older voters increasingly lean towards Biden at larger and larger gaps the older the voting block becomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
My initial gut reaction is to think that we shouldnt
First off, NATO already handles most of the concerns that the US has in Europe in terms of shared security and military cooperativeness between multiple nations. When the US needs assistance from its European allies in operations targeting terrorism in North Africa, they turn to NATO, not the EU.
Second, the EU mostly exists to ease economic barriers between European nations so that goods can move around freely and quickly to everyone's benefit. This is because the numerous borders of small countries and language barriers could easily bring economic growth to a standstill if just one or two nations takes a very alarmed and security-obsessed approach to goods passing through their borders.... The US really has no need to have a say in how Euro countries manage economic issues between each other or with the United States since the US already has its own trade deals with the EU in general, which allows the US to set terms with all member nations rather than with individual EU nations one by one.
With NATO's usefulness and the EU's inherently unrelated nature to US concerns, I really dont see why the US should join the EU, because all of its concerns and interests with its European allies already have different channels to function in that work perfectly well on their own already.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Look into New Zealand too, they seem to be pretty relaxed and also have a good amount of their shit together down there.
Created:
I think that a far better use for off-shore ocean water would be desalination to turn salt water into drinkable fresh water because water issues are spreading at a much more rapid pace than food scarcity problems. Entire cities like Cape Town in South Africa (Pop 430,000) and more recently Chennai in India (Pop 7,000,000) came dangerously close to running out of water entirely before enacting strict water conservation measures and getting bailed out by more water-rich neighbors alleviated issues, but there are entire areas in rich countries and poor countries where access to fresh water is becoming increasingly problematic.
The southwestern United States, 7 Central American countries from Panama up to Honduras, Peru, Bolivia, Almost all of Central Africa near the equator, northern and eastern India, most of Southeast Asia, a lot of the Middle East and upper central China, parts of Australia..... All of these areas which are heavily populated and getting blasted with global warming (or at least prolonged drought conditions if you dont buy into that) have water issues where desalination could go a long way in maintaining water security for those areas....
Food can be moved and transported relatively easily, but due to water's weight and its wide variety of uses other than consumption, its much more difficult to move water to where it needs to be at a sufficient rate to sustain large areas, so Desalination plants would be a far better use for coastal ocean waters than ocean farms
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
For whatever reason I really gravitate towards NFL debates like which team will win which division or who is a better player.
I also get intrigued by debates regarding foreign policy issues that arent debated very often. Intervention in Venezuela, intervention in Cuba, Aid to Israel, withdrawal from Afghanistan...... Any of those things immediately catch my interest and are the ones I would willingly vote on without being specifically asked.
Created:
Posted in:
Making a thread here in the politics section regarding the 2020 Dem primary partially out of boredom and also to see if we can track where the voting bases of each candidate goes as the election season progresses and as major things happen. This was mainly inspired by the most recent poll out of Iowa showing that one candidate in particular has, effectively, shit the bed.
In a recent Iowa Monmouth poll ( I like to RCP because it aggregates polls that you can follow right to the original poll https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html ) Two major shifts took place that might fly under most people's radars
With Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris are the front runners with double digit support, the first big shift occurred with one of those in the bottom tier of candidates whose numbers took a gigantic hit: Beto O Rourke, who is now polling at <1% in Iowa https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_IA_080819/
This is a big deal because previously, Beto was polling at around 6% in Iowa, meaning that he has effectively lost his ENTIRE voter base in the first crucial primary state in the election cycle.
I know 6% isnt much, but seeing how all but 5 candidates are polling under 6% in Iowa right now, Beto just went from possibly breaking out into the upper-tier of candidates to being pretty fucked. If you cant get at least 5% in Iowa, your entire campaign is effectively screwed heading into New Hampshire, and Beto is now effectively in that category..... If you look at second pick voting, meaning who would pick certainc andidates as their second choice, Beto's drop was even harder, going from 8% down to 1% https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_IA_080819/
The poll also indicates who may have taken that support, or who at least benefits from it.... Beto dropped around 5.5 points, but the only candidates who made any major gains since April have been Warren (+12%) and Harris (+4%).... Biden's numbers have stayed about the same, and the only other big loser brings us to our second big shift, Sanders dropped 7 points from 16% down to 9%..... Assuming Warren absorbed all of Sanders's support he lost, either her or Harris were the ones who then benefitted most from Beto's dropout in support (assuming that he didn't lose his support to some other candidate, who then also lost just about as many supporters to a third candidate)
With the primaries still months away, it looks like the very left-wing vote is beginning to coalesce around Warren, while more moderate voters from lower tier candidates are starting so shift to Warren as well, or support Kamala Harris instead.... Pete Buttigieg, the next kind of 'centrist' candidate similar to Biden, didn't see his numbers shift at all in the same Iowa poll after Beto bottomed out, which means he might become the next middle-tier candidate to fall apart, since supports of lower tier candidates are not switching to him after they jump ship.
Created:
Posted in:
(Forgot I made the thread)
(Logs in to check the thread)
(Over 20 posts in thread according to notifications)
(Reads the thread)
(o_O)
(Moves on)
(Logs in to check the thread)
(Over 20 posts in thread according to notifications)
(Reads the thread)
(o_O)
(Moves on)
Created:
Posted in:
Jim Swalwell dropped out of the race on July 8th, and Tim Ryan recently suspended his campaign following the Dayton mass shooting in his home state (He says its temporary, but I have my doubts https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2019/08/ryan-suspends-his-campaign/). Last year in 2016, Rick Perry was the first person to drop out of the GOP primary race (September 10), so we may now be entering the period of time where the lesser known candidates in the primary start dropping off.
Based on your own gut feelings and current poll numbers, who do you think will be the next candidate to drop out, and if you had to guess, who will follow after them? With 12 different candidates polling at 1%, its a pretty big crapshoot to really narrow own who will drop out when, but maybe someone will nail it and then get bragging rights for the next four years.
(RCP polling for reference: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html)
So, in what order do you think the Dem candidates will drop out? Here's my guess:
21 - Ryan (Recently suspended campaign)
20 - Steve Bullock (Genuinely forgot he was even running in the first place)
19 - Hickenlooper
18 - Bennet
17 - De Blasio
16 - Williamson (Author, she'll drop out whenever she feels like it)
14 - Gillibrand
13 - Delaney
12 - Steyer (Billionaire who recently entered the race, he'll stick around for a bit)
11 - Klobuchar
10 - Castro
9 - Gabbard
8 - Yang
7 - Beto
6 - Booker
5 - Buttigieg
4 - Warren
3 - Harris
2 - Sanders
1 - Biden becomes the nominee
If you look at results showing who Dem voter's second picks would be after the main candidate they support drops out, there is a candidate who benefits the most: Biden.
Of the voter bases that support Sanders, Warren, Harris, Beto, Booker, and Klobuchar, only Warren's voter base's second choice is someone other than Biden (They would prefer Sanders more, to no one's surprise).
The fact that Biden already has a massive polling lead among more centrist-leaning Dems, combined with polls showing Biden is close to everyone's second favorite pick after the person they currently support, suggests that once candidates start dropping out, Biden will be the one who benefits the most from it...... With Sanders and Warren splitting the more left-leaning base deep into the primaries as well, and Harris kind of between the left wing faction and the more centrist faction, I don't see anyone putting together a base that can rival Biden's in time for the end of the primaries.
So what do you think will be the dropout order if you had to put together a list?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As long as Warren and Sanders split the far left vote and no other moderate candidate gains any traction, I dont see Biden losing his lead. Pete Buttigeig might be a bigger threat if he were a governor or a senator, but as a mayor his ceiling is fairly low, and I dont see him challenging Biden.
It is interesting to though see how Biden and Kamala's support almost mirror each other. After the first debate Biden lost a good chunk to her, but now he's been gaining it back over the past couple of weeks
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Some 250 mass shootings so far in 2019
The first issue is that the phrase 'mass shootings' is pretty loosely defined as any incident where more than 4 people are shot and at least wounded, which on the surface doesnt seem loosely defined but is warped when you are combining both horrible attacks like the two that took place yesterday in addition to gang violence and family incidents in urban areas which is far more the norm.
If you look at a list of 'mass shootings' in 2019, there are only 10 instances of mass shootings where more than 5 people died. Of those 10, one was a bank robbery gone bad in Florida, Another was a hostage situation that ended badly in San Jose, One was some family murder/suicide in Texas, and one was a guy in Louisiana killing off his own family and people he had relations with.
If you look at the number of 'mass shootings' where a gunman tried to indiscriminately kill as many people as he could before being killed themselves or surrendering, which is the type of thing people think of when asked to define a 'mass shooting' then there have only been 7 cases this year....
If you look at the list based on how many people were wounded in mass shooting events, the vast majority of scenarios where more than 5 people were wounded resulted in only 1 if any deaths at all.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Nah its pretty regular for people to take extended breaks from debate sites after while and to also see how other debate sites do things. Im fairly certain that every major person on DDO had at least one other account on some other debate website for a time just out of morbid curiosity. I had one myself but dont even remember what website it was nor what my username was either.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Here are the highlights I could pull from it:
1 - I have begun to see things a lot clearer now (thanks to a 2 week break to give myself a rest and get on with some real-life things).
2 - If you don't cultivate a society where the nasty are pressured into not being nasty, you always will get a society where the nasty bully everyone else who is weird in any shape or form into humiliation and silence
3 - do you value absolute fairness in a society? If yes, a great injustice happened recently to me that was deeper than bsh1 just removing debates after calling me paranoid for saying 'please don't do that.'
4 - On PM things happened and I got furious and whatever.... (later on)... There was essentially an individual who I won't name, and this individual has from very early on to now (snowballing, more and more towards 'now') been on a voting-based, forum-based and now even moderation-action-influencing-based regime of making my life hell here
5 - There is no other website than a debate website on the entire Internet that is competitive enough to have a leaderboard and such , where one individual with a grudge who doesn't at all compete in the game can entirely ruin one's time there
6 - Either you're politely dancing around the rules to flame-war and anger your opponent on the forums and debate-comments or you're playing it really really dirty and doing just the same dancing with debate removal rules, voting removal or non-removal rules and application of those rules
7 - the most likely person to vote on a debate is someone who hates a debater debating in it
8 - This is not about an individual, this is about the fact that they can do what they are doing and that the entire attitude and structure of the website physically and socially revolves around disliking one another as a fuel and passion for the debating.
9 - I am sad the website is what it is but I completely understand that this is not a DA issue, it's a debate website issue as a whole.
Basically he really doesn't like whatever updated rules were made regarding rankings on the site leaderboard since it negatively/primarily affected him, believes that a single individual is responsible for engineering this multi-pronged attack against him, but then does this 180 at the end where rather then call for an overhaul of moderation or the removal of someone from mod power, he instead blames all this on the inherent structure and design of debate websites as a whole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Franklin is committed to being in the wrong about this, as evidenced by how he outed himself as a bitch and didnt challenge the notion that he was mentally handicapped. Just leave him be.
Created:
-->
@Alec
I did actually have those as questions but had to cut them off because there is a character limit of 5000 for posts. I think I initially had like 22 or 23 questions but I had to shave them down in order to make the damn thread
Created:
Im having one of those instances where an idea has popped into my head and now my brain is refusing to let me fucking go to sleep unless I explore it to a satisfactory degree, so ima post it here to see if it does the trick and let you all toy with the idea yourselves.
Since the Dem debates for the 2020 election have been a bit of a train wreck (as also seen with the GOP debates in the 2016 election) thanks to an overcrowding of candidates running for president combined with media outlets trying to get memorable soundbites for ratings, I began wondering what it would look like if I was able to make a debate and how it would be designed? Right after that I began wondering what questions would be asked as well, and my mind has been running wild ever since.
So, here is how I would do things. (The first chunk of this is technical setup, the second half are the questions that I would have asked the candidates.)
Setup and general rules:
- 8 candidates max.... Thought about going with 7 to really limit things, but 10 is simply too much and absolutely eliminates the chance for all candidates to be able to chime in on a topic.
- On screen timers + stats..... A running timer on screen showing how much speaking time each candidate has gotten, plus a counter of how many questions a candidate has been asked. One of the only clear ways for a debate to be at least somewhat unbiased is if everyone has close to equal amounts of speaking time and questions asked to them. If a candidate really gets into their response on a question, rather then try to cut them off after some artificial amount of time, the next questions later on in the debate can simply be adjusted towards other candidates so that they can make up ground and keep overall speaking time fairly even..... This also lets the candidates really say what they want to say, rather then try to beat the buzzer and spit out whatever pre-rehearsed responses they have
- Other candidates mic's can be muted.... It's happened a couple of times in the last debates where 3 or 4 or 5 candidates all try to talk over each other in order to get screen time, so in order to prevent this from happening, the microphones of candidates who have already spoken a lot in the debate will be cut, allowing candidates with lower speaking time to be able to make a claim or an attack against someone elses response.
- Both specific questions and simple survey questions will be asked.... I do like some of the 'quick poll' questions asked in previous debates where candidates were asked if they would give up their own private healthcare for universal healthcare, for example, and I would use similar questions in this debate as well. I think its a great way to just get a reading on where candidates stand on certain issues that might not be important enough to really go into full detail over.
Thats all I really have for setup, though im sure im missing some finer details that would really make things operate better.
Here are some of the questions I would ask in the debate. I ordered the first 10 questions based on degree of importance to myself personally.
Questions:
1 - Whats the most specific policy in your platform to fight against climate change that could be passed by Congress in your term?
2 - Whats your strategy for stabilizing central American countries that are currently causing the border crisis?
3 - Do you believe the US gives too much aid to Israel, just the right amount, or too little?
4 - Venezuela has also been in complete disarray as a country, what is your strategy for remedying that situation?
5 - Do you believe that the US should tax carbon emissions?
6 - Do you believe that the use of nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change (my recent affinity for HBO's Chernobyl might have influenced this)
7 - Do you support the death penalty? (Quick poll question)
8- If you were to reduce the US military budget, what would you cut and why?
9 - Who do you regard as the US's most important ally, and how would you strengthen that relationship?
10 - Do you have a policy plan for raising the age to collect Social Security?
11 - Which candidate on the stage would you be most willing to have as your VP? (This one is mostly for fun)
12 - What proposals in your platform do you have that would help fight The Opioid Crisis that don't just throw money at the problem?
13 - Which of these do you think poses a bigger threat to Americans: Wall Street, Big Pharma, SuperPac money in politics, or the Media?
14 - What is the top education reform in your platform?
15 - What is one Obama policy that you disagree with the most?
16 - Which country do you think the US should pursue closer ties with (Bonus points to any candidate that picks Brazil)
What would you guys come up with if you were able to put together a debate? (If you're a conservative and want to design one as if it were for the 2016 election cycle, go for it)
Created:
Posted in:
Closing statements, thats a wrap I guess.
De Blasio = Entirely Forgettable. That last line of saying Trump is for 'Socialism for the Rich' kind of embodies his campaign. A long pause and then, 'what?'
Bennet = Pretty Forgettable. He had one or two smart moments where he showed he had done his homework, but he still blends together with all the rest of the white male centrists too much to stand out.
Inslee = Pretty Forgettable. Like Bennet, but I do like him a tad more in comparison. His more outspoken arguments and stances on climate change proposals does give him a little bit of distance with the blob of centrist candidates, but he's not going to become a top-tier candidate at this rate.
Gilibrand = Pretty Forgettable. Despite having some name recognition compared to other candidates, she hasnt had that 'moment' that really gets her campaign a lot of attention and gets her a bump in the polls. She reminds me a lot like Amy Klobuchar, a solid person to be a Senator, but not president.
Gabbard = Alright = She went toe-to-toe with Harris and got to have her moment on Iraq again, but she needed to do a lot more then that to really elevate her candidacy.
Castro = Pretty Forgettable = Castro's ace in the hole where he is the best candidate is on the topic of immigration, where he has really done his research and has probably the most intricate policy proposals for the topic. Unfortunately he used that card in the last debate, and in this one he didnt do much else to take it a step further
Yang = Improved = Yang absolutely receded into the background in the first debate where the only questions he got were about his UBI position. This time he got more speaking time, more diverse questions, and as a non-politician he is a respectable 'outsider' candidate who will stick around a bit longer.
Booker = Improved = More relaxed, clearer/more articulate, took some noticeable shots at Biden, whether his poll numbers elevate remains to be seen, but he definitely did better in this debate than in the previous debate.
Harris = Solid = Good amount of speaking time, held her own even when she had to play defense, She'll continue to hang around the 4th or 5th spot in the polls behind Biden, Sanders, and Bernie and I think she'll really be able to make it deep into the primaries once they kick in.
Biden = Alright = Took a ton of shots from a bunch of different candidates, but he didn't 'sink' the way Rubio sank against Chris Christie in 2016. He got through it okay, Im sure he'll still be at the top of the polls when they come out, as long as he keeps doing his homework on the issues he'll hang in there.
Created:
Posted in:
Bennett having a really smart moment by pointing out that an impeachment against Trump will likely end by a vote at the hands of Mitch McConnell. At this point when the election is less than a year and a half away, the window for impeachment has already closed
Castro claiming that going after impeachment and getting stopped by McConnell is fuel they can use to increase turnout. The point of impeachment is to actually remove a president who has completed an illegal act, not so that when the impeachment charge fails it can be used as fuel to increase turnout in the next election.
Created:
Posted in:
Wow thats it, already on to the discussion of possible impeachment?
No discussion about the situation in Central America that has triggered the border ciris
No discussion about North Korea
No discussion about Russian cyber-aggression
No discussion about the role of NATO
A question about Afghanistan, Iran, and thats it. Fucks sake....
Created:
Posted in:
Biden questioned about his vote on Iraq. NOW he admits that he first made a mistake by voting in favor of the war and lists the things hes done to show he wont make the mistake again
Gabbard not throwing Biden under the bus and blaming the Iraq War on Bush is really taking the high road here. Shit, I like her even more because of that.
De Blasio trying to get a word in on Iran when the convo already ended about XD
Created:
Posted in:
Yang correct that we need to de-escalate the situation with Iran because pulling out of the agreement that Iran now breached is what caused a lot of the recent tension we now have with Iran. As much as you could disagree with Iran about how they do things, they still pose far less of a threat than North Korea or Russia who Trump has been cozying up to.
Created:
Posted in:
Foreign policy questions, now the fun begins. First one about pulling out of Afghanistan.
Booker: "I will pull out the troops form Afghanistan as long as we do it safely and not create a vacuum"
Yeah good luck with that, there will be a vacuum left behind no matter when troops pull out because Afghanistan and Iraq are too unstable to function on their own in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
Gilibrand to Biden: "What did you mean when you said women working outside the home deteriorates the family?"
Biden: "I wrote the Violence Against Women Act and have tried to get justice for women not treated equally"
If he just straight up said he was wrong in the past and that his views have evolved since then, and THEN brought up his policies as proof that he has evolved on his views, that would have been the best strategy to do there. Instead by going right for what he's done recently, he's just trying to dodge the question and its something viewers should notice.
Harris: "Why do you not support the Hyde Amendment?" (Federal funds available for abortion)
Biden: "I support a women's right to choose, I support it, I will continue to support it"
Again another dodge, but that was a better time to dodge that one because tax dollars for abortion is a HELL of a controversial issue that could drive out GOP turnout.
Created:
Posted in:
Yang getting the 'Women get paid 80 cents for every dollar a man gets' and asking if fining companies that do this would fix the problem. He chooses to rope it to his 'Universal Basic Income' plan where every American would get paid money every month... Kind of a stretch and I can see where he was going with it, but the UBI thing is the one thing everyone who knows about Yang already knows about him. Yang didnt do himself any favors by bringing it up once again cause he did that in the last debate he was in.
Created:
Posted in:
CNN getting on track with questions specifically regarding candidates stances on free trade.
Im interested in seeing how much voters feel about NAFTA because NAFTA really entails just Mexico and Canada whereas the problems with free trade are highlighted from trade with China and other asian nations. The whole point of the TPP was to open trade with countries OTHER THAN China in an attempt to make things more balanced for other asian nations that play by the rules more often.
Created:
Posted in:
Economy questions are going to be a mixed bag. Answers going to vary from unrealistic grand programs that would never get through Congress, or shitting on Trump and either giving credit for things to Obama, or emphasizing that things are only working out for the ultra rich
CNN: "Would you keep Trump's tariffs on China?"
Fuckin softball question if ive ever seen one. Might as well ask if the candidates love America and want to run for president.
Created: