|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 24, 2019 16:15:02 GMT
Bar for the next Democratic Presidential debate raised slightly - to get in, candidates must get 3% or over in four DNC-approved polls. The donor threshold has been raised by 35,000 and 200 individual donors in each state, too. Additionally, instead of meeting the above polling requirement, candidates can score 5%+ in two early-state polls (crucially, they can score more than once from the same pollster/region combination if they're qualifying via this method). The list of approved pollsters has also been shuffled around a bit and the qualifying date moved forward to September 13, but otherwise there are no significant changes. I don't see more than 8 candidates qualifying for the 5th debate, tbh. Edit: but with the release of the Monmouth/New Hampshire poll, Gabbard has just qualified for the 4th.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 24, 2019 21:28:33 GMT
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Sept 24, 2019 21:35:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Sept 25, 2019 9:24:39 GMT
The funny thing is, Bill Weld is very liberal on just about every social matter.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Sept 25, 2019 11:10:32 GMT
Warren leading in Quinnipiac poll.
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Sept 25, 2019 15:00:13 GMT
The funny thing is, Bill Weld is very liberal on just about every social matter. And achieved the best results ever for a republican in Massachusetts in gubernatorial elections (his second election victory was by a larger margin than Baker's last year). He won every municipality at least once out of the two elections. He only lost 6 in 1994 and won all of those 6 in 1990.
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Sept 25, 2019 15:19:40 GMT
And achieved the best results ever for a republican in Massachusetts in gubernatorial elections (his second election victory was by a larger margin than Baker's last year). He won every municipality at least once out of the two elections. He only lost 6 in 1994 and won all of those 6 in 1990. Baker did better relative to the nationwide Republican performance. But in 1994 the Republicans missed out in Florida while winning New York. Indeed 1994 is the last time a Democrat won a Florida governor race. With Baker as well, the result was almost a mirror image of Warren's senate result. It looks like around 30 percent split their tickets to vote for both Warren and Baker.
|
|
wallington
Green
The Pride of Croydon 2022 award winner
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by wallington on Sept 25, 2019 15:38:28 GMT
Biden is a bit of a joke and I can't seriously fathom how he seems to be doing so well in polls. Trump will rip him to shreds and probably do way better than last time. I'm surprised the Democratic Party establishment have ralied behind him, are the rest of the more moderate candidates so bad? I would have thought it would have made more sense to throw weight behing Warren, if she loses a moderate will have more chances of being selected next time round, if she wins, she would likely be easier to control than Sanders.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 25, 2019 15:53:06 GMT
Biden is a bit of a joke and I can't seriously fathom how he seems to be doing so well in polls. T rump will rip him to shreds and probably do way better than last time. I'm surprised the Democratic Party establishment have ralied behind him, are the rest of the more moderate candidates so bad? I would have thought it would have made more sense to throw weight behing Warren, if she loses a moderate will have more chances of being selected next time round, if she wins, she would likely be easier to control than Sanders. By his very nature, Trump has learnt little from his last campaign. The Democrats have split into factions learning different things from theirs - whichever lesson was right, the low-risk one could not have been much worse than the original HRC plan, and I certainly can't imagine Biden's campaign being less competent than 'my turn'. He has a bit more of a political nose to boot - compare and contrast his surprisingly perceptive comments on Sanders in '16 to "deplorables" (a comment which makes no strategic sense even if one thinks the voters are deplorable). As for why he does well in head-to-head polls, he appears to appeal to the kind of people who don't get reported on all that often (presumably it's his purportedly working class story and a record too long to be easily scaremongered into '[X Democrat] will bring an evil socialist revolution and is secretly working for AOC', which an awful lot of "moderates" don't have),. This kind of voter is exactly the sort the Democrats needed to either (a)win from Trump to beat him in 2016 or (b)get to the polls like they did in 2012 but failed to do in 2016. He certainly seems to have handled the Ukraine scandal well so far, and pushes cheap media around when they go for clickbait-esque questions. Clinton had an antagonistic relationship with cable news but kept trying to explain herself, and thus emails got stuck as the primary subject pundits were willing to discuss with her. Trump outright rejected scrutiny so his coverage bounced from one issue to the next. It may be demagogic to ignore scrutiny in this way, but it appears to play well with US voters - or, at least, well enough to flip an election. While the Biden campaign's behaviour does not approach Trump's in this regard, he is certainly taking a more forceful line, and it's at the very least electorally smart. I can't see him losing to Trump by a much greater margin than her. N.B. as someone who also backs Warren over Biden and thinks he is deeply flawed, I am mildly amused that most of my comments here appear to be some sort of defence of his, but a lot of the attacks on him have been rather silly (and reminiscent of the weaker criticisms of Trump), and her hype train in punditry has run far ahead of reality. Her odds are ridiculously high in the betting markets - 43.1% on RCP, over twice her polling average - for someone who is behind in 3 early states and nationally, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 25, 2019 17:56:27 GMT
Biden is a bit of a joke and I can't seriously fathom how he seems to be doing so well in polls. Trump will rip him to shreds and probably do way better than last time. I'm surprised the Democratic Party establishment have ralied behind him, are the rest of the more moderate candidates so bad? I would have thought it would have made more sense to throw weight behind Warren, if she loses a moderate will have more chances of being selected next time round, if she wins, she would likely be easier to control than Sanders. I get the impression that the lion's share of his support is coming from people who aren't paying much attention to the race, and who largely associate him with Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 19:53:20 GMT
Biden's lead is due to name recognition.
Senator for 36 years. VP for 8.
Tried to get the nomination in 88 and 08.
|
|
wallington
Green
The Pride of Croydon 2022 award winner
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by wallington on Sept 25, 2019 21:00:03 GMT
Biden's lead is due to name recognition. Senator for 36 years. VP for 8. Tried to get the nomination in 88 and 08. I'm aware of his past and the Kinnock plagiarism. His past just makes him seem the most slippery and wedged in candidate, which just makes him the easiest cannon fodder for Trump. If I was a moderate democrat he would be the worst candidate for the bigger picture of the party. But I likely just don't understand American politics.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,326
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 25, 2019 21:11:28 GMT
Biden's lead is due to name recognition. Senator for 36 years. VP for 8. Tried to get the nomination in 88 and 08. I'm aware of his past and the Kinnock plagiarism. His past just makes him seem the most slippery and wedged in candidate, which just makes him the easiest cannon fodder for Trump. If I was a moderate democrat he would be the worst candidate for the bigger picture of the party. But I likely just don't understand American politics. You probably don't, it is a different world. Trump has given him fire - going after his family is a massive mistake: Joe Biden has buried two children and this is known by the electorate, especially the Democratic heartland, and Trump's compete lack of.empathy about this makes him look like a total beast. After this, I would rejoice in a Trump-Biden match-up.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Sept 25, 2019 23:19:08 GMT
I'm aware of his past and the Kinnock plagiarism. His past just makes him seem the most slippery and wedged in candidate, which just makes him the easiest cannon fodder for Trump. If I was a moderate democrat he would be the worst candidate for the bigger picture of the party. But I likely just don't understand American politics. You probably don't, it is a different world. Trump has given him fire - going after his family is a massive mistake: Joe Biden has buried two children and this is known by the electorate, especially the Democratic heartland, and Trump's compete lack of.empathy about this makes him look like a total beast. After this, I would rejoice in a Trump-Biden match-up. Well put. And of course Trump now effectively has made his own family fair game.
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Sept 25, 2019 23:28:59 GMT
Reminder that the Trumps are experts at playing the victim card. They have a whole party of sycophants to do their bidding. [/div]
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 27, 2019 19:13:17 GMT
The DNC have announced that they plan to put all 12+ qualified candidates on one debate stage next month. Booker may drop out, and it's unlikely anyone else will make the cut, but this is borderline moronic.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 27, 2019 19:19:56 GMT
The DNC have announced that they plan to put all 12+ qualified candidates on one debate stage next month. Booker may drop out, and it's unlikely anyone else will make the cut, but this is borderline moronic. "widest possible debate".
|
|
|
Post by Richard Cromwell on Sept 27, 2019 20:56:43 GMT
To be fair, I don't remember James Garfieldnwas receiving much hate from the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 27, 2019 21:07:42 GMT
To be fair, I don't remember James Garfieldnwas receiving much hate from the electorate. the bloke who shot Garfield (Guiteau) wanted to be the American consul in Paris (he didn't speak French) and thought that by shooting Garfield he would end the feuding in the Republican party.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Cromwell on Sept 27, 2019 21:12:11 GMT
To be fair, I don't remember James Garfieldnwas receiving much hate from the electorate. the bloke who shot Garfield (Guiteau) wanted to be the American consul in Paris (he didn't speak French) and thought that by shooting Garfield he would end the feuding in the Republican party. We can always rely on you to lighten the thread with obvious goofs and nonsense!
|
|