J.C.MacSwell

It's an analogy. It might not be a great one...but it's certainly not OT.

Even if you could assume that incorrect statement was true, why would one start sprinting mid race?

The first primary vote is seven months away. He's polling around seventh in a field of 25. Any rumours of Yang's demise are premature. He may have missed an opportunity to get four times the minutes to speak, to maybe suggest Biden or others might be somewhat racist to get a bump in the polls...but he never planned to do that anyway...it's not his style. It's a marathon not a sprint.

Still clearly movement in the right direction, especially given the fact that he had the least speaking time (though that may partially explain the strength of his numbers on the second day after..."who was the guy they wouldn't let speak?")

Sanders aside, I did not. I suggested they were further left than that of their party, and that that would make it more difficult to beat Trump. Sanders was the only one I consider to be "far left", though others seemed pulled in that direction and held some what I would consider far left positions or further left than necessary positions. Which I disagree with. I think they tend to fall somewhere in between, not just left of centre, but left of the average Democrat overall. Biden would be a bit of an exception being left of centre but right of the average Democrat. Clearly Yang is left of where I suggest he should be on some issues to beat Trump, but he is well outside the box with regard to thinking and style. Though I have some concerns with UBI, I'm for it. I believe in it as not just a balance to capitalism, but a potentially key component of capitalism that works more fairly for everyone, in a trickle up economy. Yang is for medical care for all, but not against private insurance, so pretty much mainstream on that even if slightly left. His stance on abortion is certainly left of centre like most candidates. He has other left of centre positions, some I am for and some not, and some I would advise and some not. (I wouldn't advise including everything I agree with e.g. allowing those incarcerated to vote) Probably the things I like most about Yang include his rejection of identity politics, focus on solutions, and he seems to want to include everyone, not just those on the left. He hasn't managed to give up on (almost) half of Americans. Your chart is for how much each candidate gain from immediately before each debated, to the following afternoon. This was issued about 2 days after the second debate. If both are correct, Yang must have picked up about 40,000 followers one day and over 60,000 the next.

Despite having the least speaking time, Andrew Yang seems to have picked up the most twitter followers since the debates...both in terms of percent and absolute numbers, and by very significant margins. https://nypost.com/2019/06/29/andrew-yang-scored-over-100k-new-twitter-followers-after-dem-debate/ #LetYangSpeak

Most of these reactionless drives are the equivalent to raising yourself up into the air by tugging on your own bootstraps. It all works out very nicely until you recognize all the forces at work at all times. Keep track of the centre of mass and energy of your complete system. If you think you have found a point where it can change it's position in it's own frame of reference, even temporarily, look there and you will find an error. If you can't find a point like that...you already know by definition that it does not work.

Plastics can have a significant effect on ecosystems, and any change in ecosystems can have further effects. Any changes are more likely to have detrimental than positive effects on higher organisms that evolved very slowly over long periods of time. I'm not aware of any connection between plastics in the ocean and the expected rate of climate change, but climate change is not the only potential negative effect on an ecosystem. You of course would know that...but your comments don't reflect it.

Great...we'll dump it off at your house

Stating something more accurately makes him a smartass?

So reduce the risk of thievery and vandalism by instituting caning?

It certainly is, not only in the context of this thread but that is how it is generally characterized. Dumping on the right has no bearing on bearing on left or leftist (further left) positions, or the fact that Warren holds them. They aren't her positions, leftist ones are. Perhaps you can point out where she puts any restrictions or limitations on abortions. It seems quite the opposite, where she thinks they should be both fully accessible with no restrictions, and have the state fund them.

I never used that term. I'm not trying to twist anything. You are struggling with the interpretation...as well you should...I have no doubt Warren did as well. It's really not that complicated an issue...just a really tough one. Any restrictions on abortion and the state is limiting what females can do inside their own bodies. Putting no limitations means the state is not protecting the fetus. You can't give full rights to each. Regardless of where you decide to draw the line (or choose to avoid drawing one) can you not at least see that allowing abortions is somewhat mainstream/left, and supporting unrestricted third trimester abortions is farther left? And that the candidates for the most part support abortions...most without being able to include any limitations or restrictions?...which leaves them to the left of most Americans, at least in appearance? It's a tough issue but let's not forget... ...you asked

I'm not sure what your position really is other than not accepting my interpretation of what Warren said. The alternative is that she does believe in restrictions on abortion. What Trump is suggesting is infanticide. Warren clearly didn't cover that.

THE FACTS: Federal data suggests that very few U.S. babies are born alive as a result of a failed abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 143 deaths between 2003 and 2014 involving infants born alive during attempted abortions. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/13/trump-executing-babies-after-failed-abortion-fact-check-ap/1186702001/ Stating that a fetus is nonhuman suggests it is of a different species.

I said less than human, and clarified that as less than human under the law (nonhuman is how you described it). It is an accurate interpretation of “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services” when she was asked whether she would put any limits on abortion. You don't need an Orwellian dictionary to interpret what she meant. Whether you can accept that or not doesn't change her position. Only she can do that. It is a difficult issue. Most candidates have been less clear.

Then why not include those limitations, and not give the GOP that ammo?

Example Elizabeth Warren: Warren was asked point-blank if she would put any limits on abortion, to which she answered, “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-dem-debate-elizabeth-warren-wont-say-she-supports-any-limits-on-abortion That would include third trimester abortions...or she is lying. I'm sure she understands what "full range" means in the context of answering on abortion in this manner. LOL at your "evade yet again"...

INow was interested in where I might consider the far left to be and gave some examples...I placed them roughly where I saw them on the spectrum, and added a couple. Treating undocumented border crossings was discussed in the debate (at least Thursday, not sure of Wednesday)

Most aren't doing the accounting. If they care, they often don't care to suggest how it will get paid for, or attempt to keep it as vague as possible. Most of the candidates have positions that amount to considering them less than human under the law...very much contrary to their interests, to put it mildly. Still too common for them to even imply it, even about each other. Bernie is the only one who admits to being a socialist. He is essentially Marxist, with no trust in private enterprise.

A straw man argument could be made by suggesting my caution against moving too far left is a claim they are all (not just Sanders) on the far left. So if one was made on that basis...I would certainly argue against it.

- plus allowing incarcerated felons to vote I didn't suggest any did (though I will suggest Sanders does for the most part, and many agree with much of it without carefully qualifying, and/or adding up the costs and stating how the bill gets paid) "Tread more cautiously to the left" does not equate to stating they've all lemminged themselves off the leftist cliff...yet ...but Sanders of course is trying to lead that charge

Here are some thoughts on how I perceive things (not my personal positions on policy) - Wealth tax on all assets above $50M ...I wouldn't consider this "leftist" or "far left"...depending on how much and how it would be determined - Medicare for All and total elimination of private insurance for anything other than cosmetic surgery (only 4 of the 20 debaters on stage took this position, though... most are offering a public option to buy into, or Medicare for All Who Want It) ...certainly...there seems to be an assumption that the feds can draw a nice line somewhere that is affordable through taxes...and an unstated willingness to disallow services beyond that - Offering medical help as part of those plans to undocumented immigrants ...offering emergency services (which would be later payed for by the recipient if possible) to anyone would be a pretty much a mainstream position...additional services, regardless of whether American or not, and not caring who pays for it...would be leftist - Covering all aspects of women’s reproductive health, including abortions, under those plans (though Bernie and Gillibrand seem to be the only ones openly stating this right now) ...this would certainly be left of centre...considering a late third trimester fetus less than human would be far left. - Treating undocumented border crossings as a civil offense instead of a criminal one ...certainly left of centre... - Finding a path to citizenship for those here undocumented instead of engaging in mass deportation ...fairly mainstream - Deferring action on children brought here across the border without documentation by their parents and through no fault of their own ...fairly mainstream - Providing debt free higher education (again, though, only a tiny percentage support this right now) ...plus forgiving all current student debt...definitely in the far left category of unlimited spending (not that the right controls spending well either) - Eliminating gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United, and making voting easier instead of harder (like this great set of plans from Senator Warren: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715793/elizabeth-warren-2020-voting-rights-election-security-plan ) ...left of centre in the USA...other democratic countries not so much (not that there aren't elements of it) ...far left would be allowing those incarcerated to vote (something I agree with, but I would want to focus on others getting their votes back first) -Calling everyone with any thoughts that don't agree with their own "alt right" or racist ...far left (not to be confused with liberal...especially not classic liberal)...but all too common right now

No. I really think you are off the mark equating winning strategies with the ones who inspire change. It's great when it happens, but it's rare.