U.S. Democratic Primary

[Raider5678]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

hopefully the passionate person causes passionate voting response

Go Andrew Yang!!!!!

 

I mean. He get's a passionate voting response from me at least. I feel that he'd fair extremely well against Trump. He has very little baggage, he's straight forward, he's not boring to listen to speak, he's not an absolute a-hole, he has a very good grasp of economics, and even though a lot of what he mentions is a rather extreme idea to conservatives, his arguments are really well laid out. They're not mind boggling  complex. Simple, and to the point. I'm not entirely optimistic of Universal Basic Income and how it'll work, but if he were president I wouldn't mind us trying and seeing how it went because it doesn't seem like we're throwing ourselves off a cliff without a plan other then "it sounds good and people applaud."

Edited November 9, 2019 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Lol. Still a bit of an oddity if you ask me. A one trick pony. 

Don’t get me wrong. I like his trick. I just think there’s more needed to be in charge than support for a freedom dividend. 

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Don’t get me wrong. I like his trick. I just think there’s more needed to be in charge than support for a freedom dividend. 

He has extensive agenda's on other things. See his healthcare and gun control agenda.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/medicare-for-all/

[iNow]

I have. Thx

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Lol. Still a bit of an oddity if you ask me. A one trick pony. 

Don’t get me wrong. I like his trick. I just think there’s more needed to be in charge than support for a freedom dividend. 

Did you hear that somewhere? From someone trying to dismiss him out of hand for political reasons? Or you based it on your own research? 

Just curious. I expect it to be a common perception for those not paying closer attention, but I doubt that would include you.

He's put out an awful lot and made it available through his site and on twitter. I don't agree with everything, but I do think he's the best candidate and has a solid chance to succeed. This could include making his ideas mainstream, and even becoming President.

20 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Go Andrew Yang!!!!!

 

I mean. He get's a passionate voting response from me at least. I feel that he'd fair extremely well against Trump. He has very little baggage, he's straight forward, he's not boring to listen to speak, he's not an absolute a-hole, he has a very good grasp of economics, and even though a lot of what he mentions is a rather extreme idea to conservatives, his arguments are really well laid out. They're not mind boggling  complex. Simple, and to the point. I'm not entirely optimistic of Universal Basic Income and how it'll work, but if he were president I wouldn't mind us trying and seeing how it went because it doesn't seem like we're throwing ourselves off a cliff without a plan other then "it sounds good and people applaud."

+1, though the Universal Basic Income is a conservative idea in many respects.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did you hear that somewhere? From someone trying to dismiss him out of hand for political reasons? Or you based it on your own research? 

My own conclusion from my own unconscious inner dialog. A modern day Ross Perot. Interesting, but not serious. 

It’s my opinion. It’s neither right nor wrong. It just is. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

A modern day Ross Perot. Interesting, but not serious. 

I thought the same of Trump.......

Edited November 10, 2019 by Raider5678

[iNow]

And he remains unserious

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 11/9/2019 at 9:28 PM, iNow said:

My own conclusion from my own unconscious inner dialog. A modern day Ross Perot. Interesting, but not serious. 

It’s my opinion. It’s neither right nor wrong. It just is. 

Okay, thanks.

 

New Quinnipac Poll released (seems Michael Bloomberg not yet included) 

Counts toward December debate which is good for Yang to check another box.(4%, which is the thresh hold requirement, or at least one of them)

https://poll.qu.edu/new-hampshire/release-detail?ReleaseID=3648

Note Gabbard at 6% (with enemies like Hilary Clinton...who needs friends?)

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

New Quinnipac Poll released (seems Michael Bloomberg not yet included) 

Counts toward December debate which is good for Yang to check another box.(4%, which is the thresh hold requirement, or at least one of them)

He’s also doing quite well with money raising. I looked at the link but it’s hard to read on my mobile. How’s he polling among African American likely voters?

That’s a key insight right now I’m watching with these candidates. It may not be in the poll you shared and the last I found on google was from months ago. 

[iNow]

Meanwhile, former Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick is now also considering getting into the race. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

He’s also doing quite well with money raising. I looked at the link but it’s hard to read on my mobile. How’s he polling among African American likely voters?

That’s a key insight right now I’m watching with these candidates. It may not be in the poll you shared and the last I found on google was from months ago. 

I really don't know. I haven't seen any breakdown on that. (in this they did break out white with college degree 3%, and white without 5%)

Why do you feel it is important? I do think he is open to some indirect reparations but would mostly rely on his freedom dividend and other social programs righting things less divisively over time. He would point to Flint Michigan as the type of thing that should not be happening and he would prioritize to be righted immediately. Generally I don't think he tends to focus on intersectionality other than to admit or point out what is obvious and will do his best to give answers (better on podcasts and interviews than debates) 

"important" should be read as why in a strategic sense in your opinion for votes...of course it is important

Edited November 12, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why do you feel it is important?

Not to be too crass, but do democrats only win when receiving the majority of the black vote. Specifically, black women. If they don’t get excited by a candidate and choose not to show up, Democrats lose. See also: Hillary 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Not to be too crass, but do democrats only win when receiving the majority of the black vote. Specifically, black women. If they don’t get excited by a candidate and choose not to show up, Democrats lose. See also: Hillary 

I think they would show up. I can't really think of a group that would have more to gain by his policies...maybe those in jail on nonviolent cannabis charges,

In Canada...they would be allowed to vote.

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can't really think of a group that would have more to gain by his policies...maybe those in jail on nonviolent cannabis charges

If that’s the play, then Cory Booker is a much better fit than Yang. 

29 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In Canada...they would be allowed to vote.

Ouch. Touché!

[MonDie]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Not to be too crass, but do democrats only win when receiving the majority of the black vote. Specifically, black women. If they don’t get excited by a candidate and choose not to show up, Democrats lose. See also: Hillary 

The Voting Rights Act and supreme court cases like Shelby v Holder (now overturned) and Shaw v Reno address the issue of racial gerrymandering.  It might be easy to gerrymander black neighborhoods, but it's also very unconstitutional.  Stacy Abrams started the Fair Fight initiative after the Georgia governer's race was outright illegally stolen from her.  Thomas Hofeller plotted similar mischeif (the citizenship question), and Donald Trump's deportations might have a similar motive.  The importance of having their vote depends on how well we protect their right to vote.  I don't think any other group's right to vote is explicitly protected by constitutional precedent, and we must hold the new appointees to the letter of the law, somehow.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think they would show up. I can't really think of a group that would have more to gain by his policies...maybe those in jail on nonviolent cannabis charges,

In Canada...they would be allowed to vote.

That is, if they aren't swayed by the inflation counter-argument.

... Or the OJ argument...

[iNow]

Gerrymandering is a problem and Stacy Abrams is doing great work, but both of those things are peripheral to my point. A democratic candidate who doesn’t inspire heavy turnout among African American voters tends to lose. That’s related, but separate from the idea of GOP working hard to suppress and disenfranchise those voters. 

[MonDie]

On 11/11/2019 at 9:11 PM, iNow said:

Gerrymandering is a problem and Stacy Abrams is doing great work, but both of those things are peripheral to my point. A democratic candidate who doesn’t inspire heavy turnout among African American voters tends to lose. That’s related, but separate from the idea of GOP working hard to suppress and disenfranchise those voters. 

Well then, you seem to have an observation without a hypothesis.  The correlation=causation explanation is that african-american voters are an important voting bloc, and Republicans are reducing the effective size of this voting bloc.  If they are successful, your discussion is moot.

Bernie Sanders was arrested for protesting for civil rights, I guess Cory Booker ran into a burning house, and Andrew Yang will force african-americans to finally collect their welfare checks.  The city of Newark, formerly governed by Booker, recently protested the lead in its water.  The people drinking and breathing that lead are sure to be disproportionately black, and their districts are sure to be solidly blue urban districts.

Somehow...

---

*surely* to be (adverb form)

[iNow]

Re: Booker, I was primarily referencing his massive bipartisan focus on criminal justice reform.

Also, his concept of baby bonds 

[MonDie]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Re: Booker, I was primarily referencing his massive bipartisan focus on criminal justice reform.

Also, his concept of baby bonds 

I don't know Booker's justice reform proposals, but I know Harris supported civil asset forfeiture, which puts her on par with Biden and his support for the 1994 crime bill.  I worry that this won't actually be a bad thing for her, but I don't know exactly how: TYT Breaks HUGE Pete Buttigieg Story  The manipulation within buttigieg's police department doesn't seem so different from the conspiracy against Lula de Silva in Brazil.

edited 5:36 CST

Edited November 13, 2019 by MonDie

[iNow]

On 11/11/2019 at 6:26 PM, iNow said:

Meanwhile, former Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick is now also considering getting into the race. 

It’s official. He’s in. The pool of candidates is back up to 18

[iNow]

3 hours ago, MonDie said:

Harris supported civil asset forfeiture, which puts her on par with Biden and his support for the 1994 crime bill.  I worry that this won't actually be a bad thing for her, but I don't know exactly how

She’s plagued by bigger problems. That’s how it won’t be a bigger problem for her. It’s simply not a large enough story to rise above the other noise.

She’s not standing up for anything consistent, instead choosing to speak in poll tested consultant approved bullet points. It’s unclear WHY she’s the best choice or what principles drive her (other than avarice).

She’s smart and forceful and accomplished and witty, but that’s not coming through in her speeches nor on her campaign, a campaign which has fallen behind badly since the temporary spike she saw after challenging Biden in the 1st debate.
 

Funding is drying up and she’s pulled her campaign out of most states instead choosing to go all-in in Iowa. Anything below 2nd place in the caucuses and she’s done. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by iNow

[iNow]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s official. He’s in. The pool of candidates is back up to 18

Oops. I undersold it. It’s actually 19 </vomit>: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/1/18246059/2020-election-democratic-candidates-running-for-president-bloomberg-deval-patrick

[J.C.MacSwell]

Obama warning the Dems not to overdo it

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/11/16/obama-2020-democratic-candidates-sot-nr-vpx.cnn

[J.C.MacSwell]

Pete Buttigieg seems to have been smart enough to think the same way, and is doing well, at least in part, because of it.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-11-16-2019/index.html