Who Is Running In 2020? by JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this next debate end of September?
More could qualify by then, right?

Thursday, September 12, 2019 with a second night on September 13 if needed. The limit will be capped at 10 candidates per night.
Rather than the 1% polling threshold and/or 65,000 unique donors, the new qualifications will require at least 2% polling support and 130,000 unique donors, with at least 400 unique donors across 20 states.

https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2019/05/abc-news-to-host-3r
d-democratic-debate-with-tighter-threshold/

I hope the info helps!

I still have not reviewed all of this.
Your info looks like what I had seen before, when i thought it was for the first 2 debates.

But those polling threshhold requirements - are they not required to be within the timeframe of July & August? The specific dates may be expired by now. So that might mean that that component of the requirements is now disqualifying for some of the hopefuls.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 10, 2019 3:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Hi JSF

Sorry to be so late getting back to you.

The deadline to qualify for September is August 28, 2019. (And it looks like you don't necessarily have to have been in the earlier debates.)

https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2019/08/these-8-candidates-
have-qualified-for-the-september-democratic-debate/

When it comes to poll results they need to be democratic-approved polls. I don't know what those polls are though the links in the next few paragraphs might have information. I don't know if you have to have ever reached at least 2% in the polls at any time, or if you have to be at least 2% in current polls. There was some debate about open ended polls as well (survey monkey) which were apparently disqualified before the second debate (according to WaPo). Sadly, I went to the DNC site and found NOT ONE link regarding how they're conducting the debates. http://www.democraticnationalcommittee.org/home.html Looking around, I found an entirely different website that had NOT ONE link regarding how they're conducting the debates. https://democrats.org/2020-2/

YAY DEMOCRATS !!!! All for fresh air and sunshine !!! /snark

This is supposedly a list of qualifying polls and the calculations
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dHSFg0jrAeIAqDlFZqAu-5N2x-wk8P
T-6H4DbCendUM/edit#gid=1699107941

This page looks like people are trying to unscramble what the DNC is doing by trying to figure out what voodoo gets the same results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_
debates_and_forums#Only_use_DNC_approved_polls

And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Sadly, I went to the DNC site and found NOT ONE link regarding how they're conducting the debates. http://www.democraticnationalcommittee.org/home.html Looking around, I found an entirely different website that had NOT ONE link regarding how they're conducting the debates. https://democrats.org/2020-2/

Another example of the government purposefully obfuscating something that should be completely transparent and easy enough for a 2 year old to figure out?

Ya don't say.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 11, 2019 2:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-
gabbard-kamala-harris-syria-iraq-870003/

Who’s Afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?

“It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth.”

Gabbard, 38, burst into headlines after a July 31 Democratic Party presidential debate, when she went after California Senator Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General of the State of California. The “smear campaign” refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite.

If you want to see what the democratic party really stands for, look who they attack. -1k

The Gabbard-Harris exchange was brief but revealing, as a window into a schism in the Democratic Party. Harris was elected Attorney General of California in 2010. She frequently sought moderate or even conservative positions on issues like criminal sentencing, drug enforcement, and prison labor. These stances were standard among Democrats back when being “tough on crime” was considered an essential component of the “electability” argument.

The Democratic electorate has changed, becoming especially concerned -01 about mass incarceration. However, the party has not quite caught up. Gabbard exposed these divisions in the July 31 event, when she said: “She put over 1500 people in jail for marijuana, and then laughed about it -02 when asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

The Detroit crowd cheered all the way through Gabbard’s next point, about Harris’ blocking the introduction of DNA evidence -03 in a murder case. The applause unnerved Harris, who looked like someone dented her car. She’d been at 20 points in a July 2 Quinnipiac poll; after a multi-week slide that culminated with Gabbard’s attack, Harris was at 7 percent -04, a “distant fourth” behind Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.

When media drumbeats a particular position, in this case anti-Gabbard, it functions as part of the deep state that wants to control elections by controlling your information, and your opinions. -1k

Having wounded a presumptive frontrunner backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports. Many of these continued the appalling recent Democratic Party tradition of denouncing anything it doesn’t like as treasonous aid to foreign enemies.

* Harris national press chair Ian Sams tweeted, “Yo, you love Assad!” -05, a reference to Gabbard’s controversial visit with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2017.
* He then tweeted a link -06 to an insidious February 2 NBC News story, which asserted that Gabbard’s campaign was the beneficiary of Russian bots.

* Harris herself meanwhile gave a sneering interview to Anderson Cooper. “This is going to sound immodest,” she said, but as a “top-tier candidate,” she could “only take what [Gabbard] says and her opinion so seriously.”
* She added Gabbard was an “apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches.”

* The New York Times wrote Gabbard believes the United States has “wrought horror on the world” and that “critics have called her actions un-American.” -07

* Politico denounced Gabbard’s “Star Wars bar scene-like following” and hissed -08
that the Daily Stormer was a supporter (Gabbard has repeatedly condemned white nationalism and sworn off their support).

* On The View, co-host Sunny Hostin called -09 Gabbard a “Trojan Horse,”

* while Ana Navarro viciously insinuated Gabbard, an Iraq veteran, was part of a foreign column. “I suspect there is something going on,” said Navarro. “I think she’s a decent human being who served this country, but I’m paranoid.”

The campaign against Gabbard is part of another remarkable shift in the Democratic Party. Barack Obama’s star began to rise as a presidential candidate 12 years ago, in 2007, when asked in a debate if he’d be willing to meet with Iran, Syria -10, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.

Obama said he would -11, that “it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.” He added: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration — is ridiculous.” He went on to cite, as Gabbard has done, the example of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who both met with Soviet leaders.

It is true that Hillary Clinton pushed back against Obama’s position in that debate, calling it “irresponsible,” but the moment was a key in endearing Obama to liberal voters who were tired of Bush’s gunboat lunacy. The episode also helped define one of the more meaningful policy differences between Clinton and Obama. But the progressive position that meeting with dictators and/or adversaries is not only defensible but desirable no longer has any representation in major America media.

Gabbard’s position approach to war and intervention may be different from Obama’s (and especially different from president Obama, as opposed to candidate Obama), but it’s not as has been represented in most press accounts, some of which have bordered on the insane. This comically absurd passage -12 appeared in the New York Times: (passage failed to load in article)

Forget about arguing Gabbard was a “Trojan Horse”; this piece argued that by meeting with Assad, she was somehow opposed to democracy generally, and that this was hypocritical because she is running for president in a democratic election. This is even more preposterous than the goofball right-wing talking points arguing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is hypocritical because she espoused socialism while wearing a nice suit.

Gabbard’s actual views follow logically from her experience as a soldier in the Middle East, and as a native of a state that went through a remarkable nuclear scare -13 a year ago.

She’s not an isolationist. She’s simply opposed to bombing the crap out of, and occupying, foreign countries for no apparent positive strategic objective, beyond enriching contractors.

She is like many soldiers (and embedded reporters for that matter) who returned disillusioned from the Middle Eastern theater. Of concern: the extreme loss of life among both Americans and resident populations, and the outrageous profiteering amid abuse of foreign contract workers who are used to staff and service American bases.

In a long-ranging interview with myself and my co-host Katie Halper, for a new Rolling Stone-produced podcast, Gabbard spoke about her political evolution, Iraq, the 2018 nuclear scare in Hawaii, her decision to run for president, the confrontation with Harris, and the state of both the media and the Democratic Party.

The full interview will be released in audio and video soon. Here, in the meantime, are excerpts:

On the issue that drove her to run for the Hawaii state legislature at the age of 21:

The most populated island in the state is the island of Oahu, where I live and where I grew up. What I saw through this process as we were going around gathering signatures, getting people aware of the danger of building a landfill over a water aquifer, was how close the landfill developer was with the politicians who were greasing the wheels to get this project approved without really being the consumer protectors that they’re supposed to be.

So that, for me, was saying, “Hey, I can go out and gather signatures all day, but I want to be in that room where they’re making the decisions.” So that was what drove me to make that decision.

On her experiences in her first deployment in Iraq with a field medical unit of the Hawaii National Guard, and how they started to change her mind about the war:

We were lied to, and… we were betrayed…. This really wasn’t about going after Al-Qaeda. This wasn’t about fulfilling that mission of protecting the American people at all. It was a regime change war that was launched under the guise of national security, under the guise of humanitarianism, and, “Look at all these atrocities that this brutal dictator has done to his own people,” and done really for the benefit of corporate interests and oil.

On the military’s use of “Third Country Nationals” on bases in Iraq:

We started making friends with what were called the Third Country Nationals that were hired by KBR Halliburton to come and do things like clean the outhouses, or cook the meals in the chow hall, so we’d start to make friends with them and talk with them and go outside behind the tent, start cooking rice and sharing food, and just started asking them, “Hey, how much are you guys making? How are you being treated?”

It was outrageous to see. I mean, hearing, “Oh, I get paid $500 a month,” a month, “to work 12-hour days, six, seven days a week.” “How often do you get home to see your family?”
“Maybe once a year, but probably every other year.”

And just knowing the billions of dollars these companies are making, and really to have this indentured servitude, it just, it went to, “Well this is the military industrial complex.”

On her conclusions about the efficacy of foreign interventions:

We look at terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They have been born out of these wars, and have been strengthened because of these wars and interventions. So it’s made us less safe, as a country. It has come at a tremendous cost to both our service members and their families…

It’s come at a tremendous cost to the American people, with the $6-plus trillion that’s been spent since 9/11 alone. Families in Flint, Michigan right now, who are still being told, “Sorry, there’s just not enough money to make sure you’ve got clean water…” We’re still spending $4 billion a month in Afghanistan.

On the underpublicized Hawaii nuclear scare of 2018, and how that motivated her to run for president:

Early on a Saturday morning, over a million people all across our state woke up to a warning that went out across cell phones, blaring on sirens, saying, “There’s a missile incoming. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.”

It was absolutely terrifying, terrifying, because we quickly came to realize there was no shelter. There was nowhere for our loved ones to go, and this is where we had kids on our University of Hawaii college campus sprinting in all directions. “Seek immediate shelter,” but where do you go?

On the media reaction to her exchange with Senator Kamala Harris:

It’s so ridiculous that it’s laughable. It’s so ridiculous. But it just shows, though, that launching a smear campaign is the only response that they have to the truth, which means they’re afraid of the truth because it’s real. And more and more people are seeing past the façade that they have built up for so long.

On an NBC News story on February 2, asserting that she was being supported by the “Russian propaganda machine” -14 – a story that appeared timed to the launch of her campaign:

We were contacted about that story a few days or maybe a week before my official launch for my campaign for president, and we were told it was going to come out in the week after I was going to announce my candidacy… until all of a sudden we found out when the article was posted. I think it was two hours before I gave my speech.

On the revival of this storyline after the debate exchange with Harris:

I think it, again, it’s revealing about how pathetic it is that that’s all they can respond to when really the issue that I was raising in that debate with Senator Harris was the record that she claims to be very proud of as Attorney General, a record that she claims is about being a champion for the people… Instead of responding to that and saying why she’s so proud of this, she responds with a smear campaign.

On the general practice of accusing people you disagree with of disloyalty, beginning with those who opposed the Iraq war:

Those brave few who stood up against that vote, who stood up against the war, were accused of that. “You love brutal dictators! You love Saddam Hussein! You’re not a real patriot! You must not love America unless you support this war!” And look at how those same attacks are being lobbed against me today for being a leading voice against the regime change war that we’re continuing to wage now today in Syria…

On Democrats who say they’ve seen the light about Iraq:

If you look at a lot of politicians now, it’s easy and popular to say, “Oh, of course the Iraq War was wrong. Of course,” now that we’re almost 20 years later from launching that war.

But what about today? Where’s your courage today to stand up against the regime change efforts in Syria, and in other countries, frankly, that are happening right now?

On the state of cooperation, or lack thereof, within congress:

After the last votes of the week are done, it’s sprinting to the car and to the airport. And I get it, because we need to get back home to our constituents and to be able to spend time with folks in our district… It really just gets to, I think, that bigger problem where there’s not a will or a desire to engage with people who you may disagree with, maybe on a few things, or maybe a lot of things… This hyper-partisanship and putting party before people, putting politics before the wellbeing of the people.

On her background and how it informs her view of how to improve political dialogue in America:

Where I come from, where we find the solution is called ‘aloha’… What “Aloha” really means is, “I come to you with respect, I come to you with love and compassion and care,” and a recognition that, no matter your political beliefs, what party you belong to, your race, ethnicity, religion, orientation, all of these things that are too often used to divide us, “Aloha” is that recognition that we are all connected.

-01 https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/91-percent-americans-support-crimi
nal-justice-reform-aclu-polling-finds
-02 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/politics/kamala-harris-snoop-tup
ac.html
-03 https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2
33375207.html
-04 https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3637
-05 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1156774825236619265
-06 https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1156741869621133318
-07 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-pres
idential-race.html
-08 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/08/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-
2020-1452578
-09 https://www.thedailybeast.com/meghan-mccain-clashes-with-view-co-hosts
-on-tulsi-gabbard-shes-no-russian-stooge+
-10 https://www.rollingstone.com/t/syria/
-11 https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/25/clinton.obama/
-12 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-pres
idential-race.html
-13 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/01/16/the-h
awaii-alert-was-an-accident-the-dread-it-inspired-wasnt/
-14 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-mac
hine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2019 4:16 PM

Today I hear that Kamala Harris and Pocahontas are clammoring to celebrate the 5 Year Anniversary of Career Criminal Michael Brown robbing a store, then jaywalking with his loot, then attacking a Police Officer in his Police Car!!

Can't be too surprised to hear Democraps Celebrating Criminals, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2019 5:07 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Today I hear that Kamala Harris and Pocahontas are clammoring to celebrate the 5 Year Anniversary of Career Criminal Michael Brown robbing a store, then jaywalking with his loot, then attacking a Police Officer in his Police Car!!

Can't be too surprised to hear Democraps Celebrating Criminals, right?

Well, uh ... honestly, I'm not going to take the time to try and dig this out of the news. Plus it's got so many extra things in it, I wouldn't know which ones to search on. Perhaps you could provide a link?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2019 5:21 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

But I am glad to see Harris down in the polls at this point. After a big bump up after the first debate, she had a long slide, and Gabbard added another divot after the second debate. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

But then, the nomination is a long ways away. Who knows how long that's going to last. And people have the memory of goldfish (no Arc gene!), and Gabbard won't be around to smack Harris upside the head anymore. Aside from which, the M$M is really pulling for Harris and trying to bury Gabbard, and I expect we'll see smear attacks on Gabbard at least up until the debate list is generated (at which point, being absent, she'll be an empty piñata and cease to be a profitable target); and on the other hand, favorable Harris coverage whenever possible for as long as possible. They really need a Biden plan B, and Harris is the only one who at this point looks acceptable to tptb with a shot at the wh.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 12, 2019 10:05 PM

Trump would destroy Harris.

Buttigieg is the Democrat's only hope in the general unless there is a serious dark horse candidate yet to come.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2019 1:48 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I'm kind of interested in the process. Hillary was shoehorned in. So now the democrats want to be, well, more democratic - except not really. Because they REALLY want to keep their current gig going.

Biden is plan 'Biden A' to achieve that. I believe Harris is for now plan 'Biden B'. All the rest of the same-old same-old are too far down in the polls. And everyone else with reasonable percentages is a problem for how the democrats REALLY want things to work*. (*See the smearing of Tulsi Gabbard as an indication of what democrats really want to protect.)

So I'll be watching the news for more slant.

Personally, if either Harris or Biden end up the candidate, I'll once again be voting for 'not for the democrat'.

And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:54 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, speaking of truth in humor, I got this from an article about the influence of Israel in US policy: "Almost thirty years ago, American politician Pat Buchanan described Congress as “Israeli occupied territory.”"

https://ahtribune.com/us/israelgate/3368-adam-schiff.html

And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 13, 2019 8:42 PM

This seems interesting, haven't had time to delve into it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/gillibrand-slams-the-nra-federalist-so
ciety-in-supreme-court-filing.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Today I hear that Kamala Harris and Pocahontas are clammoring to celebrate the 5 Year Anniversary of Career Criminal Michael Brown robbing a store, then jaywalking with his loot, then attacking a Police Officer in his Police Car!!

Can't be too surprised to hear Democraps Celebrating Criminals, right?
Well, uh ... honestly, I'm not going to take the time to try and dig this out of the news. Plus it's got so many extra things in it, I wouldn't know which ones to search on. Perhaps you could provide a link?

Sorry, I forgot Fake News MSM wouldn't mention it.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/12/kamala-harris-elizabeth-
warren-reignite-dangerous-ferguson-lie/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:22 PM

Hickenlooper is out.

Today he announced the transition of his campaign from POTUS to Senator.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 15, 2019 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm kind of interested in the process. Hillary was shoehorned in. So now the democrats want to be, well, more democratic - except not really. Because they REALLY want to keep their current gig going.

Biden is plan 'Biden A' to achieve that. I believe Harris is for now plan 'Biden B'. All the rest of the same-old same-old are too far down in the polls. And everyone else with reasonable percentages is a problem for how the democrats REALLY want things to work*. (*See the smearing of Tulsi Gabbard as an indication of what democrats really want to protect.)

So I'll be watching the news for more slant.

Personally, if either Harris or Biden end up the candidate, I'll once again be voting for 'not for the democrat'.

And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?

Yang is the 9th to qualify, Steyer and Castro are reportedly close. Gabbard making progress.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/8/20758519/democratic-debate-qualification-
polls-candidates-yang-gabbard

1. The polling threshold: A candidate must hit 2 percent or more in at least four polls released between June 28 and August 28.

These can be either national polls or early state polls (of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina).
These polls must be conducted by one of these organizations: CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Associated Press, NPR, the Des Moines Register, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University, the University of New Hampshire, or Winthrop University.
One catch is that a candidate cannot use multiple polls by the same organization covering the same geographic area. (For example, if there are two NBC national polls showing a candidate meeting the threshold, only one of them will count).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 2:04 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The one nugget I got out of the article, had me smacking myself on the forehead going - oh! yeah.

Quote:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-20/bromance-myth-why-obama-neve
r-trusted-his-stupid-running-mate

"speculation about Obama's refusal to endorse his former running mate (Biden) mounts"

I suppose though that Obama will endorse the official candidate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 2:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

As of today, from the Real Clear Politics graph (highest or lowest // today)

Biden 41.4 // 28.8
Sanders 24.0 // 16.0
O'Rourke 9.5 // 3.0
Harris 25.2 // 7.4
Booker 6.0 // 2.2

Warren 7.0 // 15.4
Buttigieg <1 // 5.0*

* Buttigieg was as high as 8.3, but then the issue of the police force hit the news, and he dropped down to ~5, where he's been more or less stuck ever since.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 2:38 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
As of today, from the Real Clear Politics graph (highest or lowest // today)

Biden 41.4 // 28.8
Sanders 24.0 // 16.0
O'Rourke 9.5 // 3.0
Harris 25.2 // 7.4
Booker 6.0 // 2.2

Warren 7.0 // 15.4
Buttigieg <1 // 5.0*

* Buttigieg was as high as 8.3, but then the issue of the police force hit the news, and he dropped down to ~5, where he's been more or less stuck ever since.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

We're so far out these numbers don't mean that much. The main thing to watch now would be just getting to the next debate. Campaigners have to be thrifty and smart spending their campaign dollars - you don't want to run a Wimpy campaign.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 2:41 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/

Updated on: August 20, 2019 / 10:48 AM / CBS News

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang, businessman

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:01 PM

Heard a new Rasmussen poll. 63% of Americans expect Trump to be re-elected in 2020.

Last week, I heard a poll about Dems. Biden was leading, Sanders dropped 13%, Pocahontas fell into 2nd place.
But the one I found most interesting was that there was an almost 50-50 split among Democrats regarding to direction forward: half thought the Dems should resurrect the failed policies of Obama and protect his legacy with more failure, and the other half wanted to abandon the past Obama failures and develop new policies and direction for the Dems to work towards.

Then yesterday I heard that Kamala fell something like 12%, based upon 2 minutes from Tulsi Gabbard.

But that part about Dems arguing about whether to move forward or regress back to Obama, that seems to indicate that no matter who they annoint as candidate, that person still won't get more than half of the Democrat vote. They've broken themselves apart, splintered yet occupying the same banner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/

Updated on: August 20, 2019 / 10:48 AM / CBS News

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang, businessman

So Castro is the new addition.

One more week to make the 28 August deadline.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:17 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Heard a new Rasmussen poll. 63% of Americans expect Trump to be re-elected in 2020.

A few weeks ago PBS TV news had a special from Iowa, and the reporter (whose name I forget) had to admit in one brief phrase (among the very long focus on democrats) that Trump was very popular in Iowa.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Last week, I heard a poll about Dems. Biden was leading, Sanders dropped 13%, Pocahontas fell into 2nd place.

Warren was never in first after Biden officially entered, so she didn't drop to second (from first). Over the long haul, Sanders has dropped and Warren actually picked up, till they're neck-and-neck for place and show.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Then yesterday I heard that Kamala fell something like 12%, based upon 2 minutes from Tulsi Gabbard.

Harris was sagging pretty continuously after peaking right after the first debate, but the Gabbard's takedown of her was most excellent! and cost maybe another 3 percentage points.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
But the one I found most interesting was that there was an almost 50-50 split among Democrats regarding to direction forward: half thought the Dems should resurrect the failed policies of Obama and protect his legacy with more failure, and the other half wanted to abandon the past Obama failures and develop new policies and direction for the Dems to work towards.

But that part about Dems arguing about whether to move forward or regress back to Obama, that seems to indicate that no matter who they annoint as candidate, that person still won't get more than half of the Democrat vote. They've broken themselves apart, splintered yet occupying the same banner.

To my mind, that split is a real thing among democrats.

And, sorry democrats, Trump got the 'economically marginalized in mid-country states' (aka deplorables in flyover country) ahead of you. You no longer own the issue. So they're trying to play catch-up on that. C'mon little kid. I got some caaaaaaaaaandy for you!

Anyway, the only way I can see for the democrats out of the mess they got themselves into is to do what Buttigieg said: find the right thing to do, make it policy, and defend it. And that means not sliding over issues they've been blinding themselves to for decades, not pandering to victim groups, not making extravagant promises.

I've been harping on this since before the 2016 election, but I think a 'fair deal'* policy and message - credibly delivered of course - is the realistic, right, and winning thing to do. *FAIR meaning equal, covering all American citizens equally (I shouldn't have to point out more than once that 'fair' means equally applied to everyone regardless of color, creed, sex etc, but there it is), with a good economic contract between the individuals and society (and 'fair' also means just - what good does it do to have everyone equally competing for starvation wages?)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:41 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/

Updated on: August 20, 2019 / 10:48 AM / CBS News

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang, businessman

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So Castro is the new addition.

One more week to make the 28 August deadline.

But note that people who don't make the third debate can still qualify for the 4th, since the criteria are the same.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:51 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Democrat John Hickenlooper announces campaign for Senate after exit from crowded presidential field ...

Jay Inslee, the candidate who focused his presidential bid on climate change, drops out of 2020 race ...

I understand why Inslee withdrew, but I'm sorry to see him go. He would have been the consummately credible candidate in the democratic field. I hope he comes back in the next election cycle.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/

Updated on: August 20, 2019 / 10:48 AM / CBS News

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang, businessman
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So Castro is the new addition.

One more week to make the 28 August deadline.
But note that people who don't make the third debate can still qualify for the 4th, since the criteria are the same.

I'm not understanding you, I think.

There are 3 candidates who have qualified for one measure and not the other. Inslee, Gabbard, Steyer. They have all qualified for donations, but not for the polling threshold.

Nobody has qualified for the polling threshold while not attaining the donations threshold.

The polling threshold has a deadline of 28 August. Another day in Sept does not count.

If another candidate attains the polling threshold by 28 August without getting the donor threshold, I have not looked into whether they would have one more day (12 Sept) to qualify for the 4th debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 22, 2019 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Heard a new Rasmussen poll. 63% of Americans expect Trump to be re-elected in 2020.
A few weeks ago PBS TV news had a special from Iowa, and the reporter (whose name I forget) had to admit in one brief phrase (among the very long focus on democrats) that Trump was very popular in Iowa.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Last week, I heard a poll about Dems. Biden was leading, Sanders dropped 13%, Pocahontas fell into 2nd place.
Warren was never in first after Biden officially entered, so she didn't drop to second (from first). Over the long haul, Sanders has dropped and Warren actually picked up, till they're neck-and-neck for place and show.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Then yesterday I heard that Kamala fell something like 12%, based upon 2 minutes from Tulsi Gabbard.
Harris was sagging pretty continuously after peaking right after the first debate, but the Gabbard's takedown of her was most excellent! and cost maybe another 3 percentage points.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
But the one I found most interesting was that there was an almost 50-50 split among Democrats regarding to direction forward: half thought the Dems should resurrect the failed policies of Obama and protect his legacy with more failure, and the other half wanted to abandon the past Obama failures and develop new policies and direction for the Dems to work towards.

But that part about Dems arguing about whether to move forward or regress back to Obama, that seems to indicate that no matter who they annoint as candidate, that person still won't get more than half of the Democrat vote. They've broken themselves apart, splintered yet occupying the same banner.
To my mind, that split is a real thing among democrats.

And, sorry democrats, Trump got the 'economically marginalized in mid-country states' (aka deplorables in flyover country) ahead of you. You no longer own the issue. So they're trying to play catch-up on that. C'mon little kid. I got some caaaaaaaaaandy for you!

Anyway, the only way I can see for the democrats out of the mess they got themselves into is to do what Buttigieg said: find the right thing to do, make it policy, and defend it. And that means not sliding over issues they've been blinding themselves to for decades, not pandering to victim groups, not making extravagant promises.

I've been harping on this since before the 2016 election, but I think a 'fair deal'* policy and message - credibly delivered of course - is the realistic, right, and winning thing to do. *FAIR meaning equal, covering all American citizens equally (I shouldn't have to point out more than once that 'fair' means equally applied to everyone regardless of color, creed, sex etc, but there it is), with a good economic contract between the individuals and society (and 'fair' also means just - what good does it do to have everyone equally competing for starvation wages?)

Warren and Sanders:
Bernie was in 2nd place.
Pocahontas was lower.
Bernie fell.
Pocahontas also fell at some point. But because Bernie fell more that she did, she ended up in 2nd place, with Bernie behind her.

Sorry if I confused anybody.

Other item: if they are going to play catch-up, do they need help from Secretary Swiftboat Ketchup?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 23, 2019 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/

Updated on: August 20, 2019 / 10:48 AM / CBS News

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang, businessman
So Castro is the new addition.

One more week to make the 28 August deadline.

Mounting is out, from MA. Just heard it.

A worrisome possibility occurred to me. If Gabbard ever converted the nonsense that comes out of her mouth, she could be a problem.

I did not vote for Trump, expect I will not again, nor any of the Dems running now. I assume Trump will win, provided he is alive and alert.

If she managed to duplicate her scathing takedown of Kamala while debating Trump, she might be the only person to attain that goal. The idiot Libs would continue to let fly overhead most of what she says, but the undecided swing voters could be swayed by her incisive logic attacks, and I feel Trump is vulnerable in that regard, but only from the likes of her.

Fortunately for us, she is submerged in delusion, and ulikely to swerve into rationality. But this is a concern, just in case she were to try an evil scheme to pretend she was reasonable, act like a centrist/right of centerist, just until she gets Innaugurated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 23, 2019 8:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The polling threshold has a deadline of 28 August. Another day in Sept does not count.

Just that while they may not make it to debate #3, they can still make it to debate #4, which has the exact same thresholds.

As I understand it, once they meet the donations threshold, the clock doesn't reset after debate #3 and they don't have to meet that donations threshold all over again. So all they have to do is meet the polling threshold, and more time after debate #3 will give them a chance to do that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 23, 2019 9:07 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Warren and Sanders:

before Biden?

Quote:

Bernie was in 2nd place.
Pocahontas was lower.
Bernie fell.
Pocahontas also fell at some point.

Warren fell at certain points, but not by much in the graph. And overall her trajectory has been up while Sanders' is down. Their lines have crossed a couple of times, but only at places where they're nearly equal.

Quote:
But because Bernie fell more that she did, she ended up in 2nd place, with Bernie behind her.

Sorry if I confused anybody.

To make sure I'm understanding, you mean relative to each other, or overall in the entire field?

Anyway, scroll down a bit on the linked page, you'll see the graph. If you grab the vertical line and move it left and right, you'll get the standings of everyone as colored flags over time.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Quote:
Other item: if they are going to play catch-up, do they need help from Secretary Swiftboat Ketchup?

That pun was SO bad, it kinda hurt!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The polling threshold has a deadline of 28 August. Another day in Sept does not count.
Just that while they may not make it to debate #3, they can still make it to debate #4, which has the exact same thresholds.

As I understand it, once they meet the donations threshold, the clock doesn't reset after debate #3 and they don't have to meet that donations threshold all over again. So all they have to do is meet the polling threshold, and more time after debate #3 will give them a chance to do that.

The deadline for polling threshold for Debates 3 and 4 is 28 August. Debate #3 is in September. September is after 28 August. No polling results in September can count toward the polling threshold.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/

Updated on: August 20, 2019 / 10:48 AM / CBS News

Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang, businessman
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So Castro is the new addition.

One more week to make the 28 August deadline.
But note that people who don't make the third debate can still qualify for the 4th, since the criteria are the same.
I'm not understanding you, I think.

There are 3 candidates who have qualified for one measure and not the other. Inslee, Gabbard, Steyer. They have all qualified for donations, but not for the polling threshold.

Nobody has qualified for the polling threshold while not attaining the donations threshold.

The polling threshold has a deadline of 28 August. Another day in Sept does not count.

If another candidate attains the polling threshold by 28 August without getting the donor threshold, I have not looked into whether they would have one more day (12 Sept) to qualify for the 4th debate.

Nobody has met the polling threshold while not making the donor threshold.

The polling threshold deadline is 28 August. No polling results after that can count. Including September.

Quote:

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/8/20758519/democratic-debate-qualification-
polls-candidates-yang-gabbard

1. The polling threshold: A candidate must hit 2 percent or more in at least four polls released between June 28 and August 28.

These can be either national polls or early state polls (of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina).
These polls must be conducted by one of these organizations: CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Associated Press, NPR, the Des Moines Register, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University, the University of New Hampshire, or Winthrop University.
One catch is that a candidate cannot use multiple polls by the same organization covering the same geographic area. (For example, if there are two NBC national polls showing a candidate meeting the threshold, only one of them will count).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Warren and Sanders:
before Biden?
Quote:

Bernie was in 2nd place.
Pocahontas was lower.
Bernie fell.
Pocahontas also fell at some point.
Warren fell at certain points, but not by much in the graph. And overall her trajectory has been up while Sanders' is down. Their lines have crossed a couple of times, but only at places where they're nearly equal.
Quote:
But because Bernie fell more that she did, she ended up in 2nd place, with Bernie behind her.

Sorry if I confused anybody.
To make sure I'm understanding, you mean relative to each other, or overall in the entire field?

Anyway, scroll down a bit on the linked page, you'll see the graph. If you grab the vertical line and move it left and right, you'll get the standings of everyone as colored flags over time.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Quote:
Other item: if they are going to play catch-up, do they need help from Secretary Swiftboat Ketchup?
That pun was SO bad, it kinda hurt!

I must have been confusing.

At some point, Biden was in First place, with the highest percentage in polling.

Sanders was lower than Biden, let us say he was in 2nd place.

Pocahontas was lower that Bernie, not in 1st or 2nd place.

Biden stayed above those 2. Bernie fell in % polling.

Pocahontas also fell in % polling. But Bernie fell more, to a lower level, leaving Pocahontas with a higher percent than Bernie.
Therefore she was in 2nd place, behind Biden and above Bernie.

She fell in the polling percentage. She ended up in 2nd place after this fall.
So she fell in percentage, and landed in 2nd place (behind Biden).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 24, 2019 2:28 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Candidates who don't qualify for the third debate might still qualify for the fourth debate. Perhaps this explains it more clearly than I seem to have done.

Quote:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-make-the-third-democrati
c-debate-and-who-could-miss-it/

But failing to make the third debate isn’t necessarily all she wrote for some of the lower-tier candidates. According to an email sent by the DNC to the campaigns earlier this month, polls that count toward qualification for the third debate will also count for the fourth debate in October (date still TBD). In theory, that means a candidate who came up short of making the third debate might be able to pick up enough qualifying surveys and donors to make the fourth debate. However, failing to make the third debate might signal to potential supporters and prospective contributors that a candidate isn’t worth backing, thus making it harder to get the polls and donors necessary to qualify for the October event.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 24, 2019 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Candidates who don't qualify for the third debate might still qualify for the fourth debate. Perhaps this explains it more clearly than I seem to have done.
Quote:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-make-the-third-democrati
c-debate-and-who-could-miss-it/

But failing to make the third debate isn’t necessarily all she wrote for some of the lower-tier candidates. According to an email sent by the DNC to the campaigns earlier this month, polls that count toward qualification for the third debate will also count for the fourth debate in October (date still TBD). In theory, that means a candidate who came up short of making the third debate might be able to pick up enough qualifying surveys and donors to make the fourth debate. However, failing to make the third debate might signal to potential supporters and prospective contributors that a candidate isn’t worth backing, thus making it harder to get the polls and donors necessary to qualify for the October event.

Alright.

I was thinking that the 3rd debate was 12 SEpt, and the 4th debate was 13 Sept. That is wrong. September is the 3rd Set of debates. Then October is the 4th Set of debates.

I finally found the qualifying for October:

Qualification

Any candidates who have qualified for the third debate also qualify for the fourth debate; Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren, and Yang currently qualify.[93]

A memo released by the DNC on August 5 indicated that the qualification period for the fourth debate in October started on June 28, which was the same day that qualification began for the third debate (in effect allowing all candidates who qualified for the third debate to automatically be in the fourth debate). The deadline for the fourth debate is two weeks before the October debate. This also gives candidates who miss the September deadline for the third debate more time to qualify for the October debate.[94]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
https://www.vox.com/2019/8/8/20758519/democratic-debate-qualification-
polls-candidates-yang-gabbard

1. The polling threshold: A candidate must hit 2 percent or more in at least four polls released between June 28 and August 28.

These can be either national polls or early state polls (of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina).
These polls must be conducted by one of these organizations: CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Associated Press, NPR, the Des Moines Register, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University, the University of New Hampshire, or Winthrop University.
One catch is that a candidate cannot use multiple polls by the same organization covering the same geographic area. (For example, if there are two NBC national polls showing a candidate meeting the threshold, only one of them will count).

I recall seeing this list and noticing that Zogby and Rasmussen were not among the polls for qualification.

I finally realized that this is strictly, solely, precisely for DEMOCRATS. Real World, or accurate Polling is prohibited for such purposes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 29, 2019 4:54 PM

I heard Gillibrand is out, announced via tweety.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 30, 2019 10:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I didn't respond earlier, but indeed, she is out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 30, 2019 10:33 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_presidential_primary_debate_(Septem
ber_12,_2019)

ABC

Thursday, September 12, 2019
Joe Biden
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julián Castro
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O’Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang

Polling criteria

A candidate must receive 2 percent support or more in four national or early state polls—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada—publicly released between June 28, 2019, and August 28, 2019. Any candidate’s four qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas. Qualifying polls are limited to the following organizations and institutions:
Associated Press
ABC News
CBS News
CNN
Des Moines Register
Fox News
Monmouth University
NBC News
New York Times
National Public Radio
Quinnipiac University
University of New Hampshire
Wall Street Journal
USA Today
Washington Post
Winthrop University

Grassroots fundraising
Candidates must also provide verifiable evidence that they reached the following fundraising thresholds:
Donations from at least 130,000 unique donors; and
A minimum of 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 31, 2019 12:16 AM

Tulsi Gabbard got screwed and won't be allowed in the 3rd debate.

The DNC is worried that she would destroy Elizabeth Warren after the spanking she gave Kamala Harris last time. That wouldn't be good for them. Warren is their ace in the hole since they're concerned about Biden and the increasing evidence of dementia.

Look at some of the bottom tier candidates that are still invited to the 3rd debate. Then look at the RCP polling aggregate and ask yourself how it makes sense that some of them are making it to the final round but Gabbard isn't going to be there.

If I were her, I would do a live stream on YouTube or Twitch at the same time the debate is scheduled and just do an hour long AMA. She'd kill it with the Democrat youth vote if she did that.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 1, 2019 1:36 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I consider Salon to be one of the bellwethers of the neo-liberals. Its writers are having some Joe 'the gaffemaster' Biden angst.

What if Joe Biden wins? It could mean long-term trouble for Democrats
Paul Rosenberg
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/31/what-if-joe-biden-wins-it-could-mean-
long-term-trouble-for-democrats/

Is Joe Biden the new Ed Muskie? A cautionary tale of the 1972 frontrunner
Matthew Rozsa
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/31/is-joe-biden-the-new-ed-muskie-a-caut
ionary-tale-of-the-1972-frontrunner/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 1, 2019 3:12 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Ahhh, democracy, that gets run by 'the people'.

I think the title of this article could be 'What Flavor of Billionaire Toady Will YOU Be Allowed to Vote For in the Democratic Primary?'

Quote:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/americas-billionaires-congealing-a
round-warren-and-buttigieg

As of just a few weeks ago, the Democratic Party’s five top U.S. Presidential candidates, in terms of whom had been backed the most strongly by America’s billionaires, were, in order from the top: Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennett, and Joe Biden. Warren was 12th down from Buttigieg’s #1 position, in support from the billionaires. Sanders was at the very bottom — zero billionaires backing him (he was the only one of the 17 reporting candidates who had no billionaire backer).

The Democratic Party’s billionaires are just crazy about Buttigieg, but the question right now is whom will they choose to be running against him during the decisive final round of the primaries? Would they rather it be Sanders? Or instead Warren?

That contains a rather backward prediction that, thanks to high levels of billionaire-backing, Buttigieg will be a final top contender.

Quote:
They definitely prefer Warren.

Why Warren right now?

Quote:
Her recent soaring poll-numbers are raising her support, from them, so strongly that the neoconservative-neoliberal (i.e., pro-billionaire) David Bradley’s The Atlantic magazine headlined on August 26th, “Elizabeth Warren Manages to Woo the Democratic Establishment”. This magazine reported (to use my language, not theirs) that the rats from the sinking ship Joe Biden have begun to jump onboard the U.S.S. Elizabeth Warren’s rising ship, which might already be tied even-steven with the other two leading ships, of Biden and of Sanders. Since Sanders is the only American Presidential candidate whom no billionaire supports, there are strong indications that Warren is drawing some of them away from Biden.

Ultimately, the goal is to have two acceptable candidates that get voted on, which means, NOT Sanders.

Quote:
This could turn the nominating contest into, ultimately, Buttigieg versus Warren (both of whom are acceptable to billionaires), instead of into Buttigieg versus Sanders (which would pose the threat to them of producing a Sanders Presidency).

But if Sanders should sneak through, billionaires might support Trump instead.

Quote:
There is little reason to think that Buttigieg will decline to the #2 position in billionaires’ support; but, if this contest turns into Sanders v. Buttigieg, instead of into Warren v. Buttigieg, then Democratic Party billionaires not only would pour even more money into Buttigieg’s campaign against Sanders, but they would likely end up donating to the Republican Presidential nominee in 2020 if Sanders ends up beating Buttigieg (as polls indicate he almost certainly would). By contrast, if this nominating contest ends up being between Warren v. Buttigieg, then the Party’s billionaires wouldn’t likely switch to supporting the Republican Presidential nominee — they’d continue donating to the Democratic Party, regardless of which of those two candidates wins the nomination, in order to defeat Trump (or whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be), and take the control of the country away from Republican billionaires (as it now is).

The article then goes on to highlight how intentional and focused the billionaires' anti-Sanders campaign is.

Because ... Sanders ...

The anti-Sanders campaign, in their own words and actions (edited for length and readability)

Quote:
> On April 19th, Jonathan Martin headlined in the New York Times, “‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum”

> (The) Daily Kos, targets to make suckers of Democrats who might vote in the primaries for people that the billionaires actually fear — and that’s now especially Sanders

> David Brock (Media Matters)... said he has had discussions with other operatives about an anti-Sanders campaign and believes it should commence “sooner rather than later.”

> Howard Wolfson who spent months immersed in Democratic polling and focus groups on behalf of former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, had a blunt message for Sanders skeptics: “People underestimate the possibility of him becoming the nominee at their own PERIL.”

> longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz [the billionaire former Vice Chairman of Lockheed Martin] organized a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington about What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity ...

> [Rufus] Gifford [former President Barack Obama’s 2012 finance director, who] ... has gone public in recent days with his dismay over major Democratic fund-raisers remaining on the sidelines, said of Mr. Sanders, “I feel like everything we are doing is playing into his hands.”

And why is Warren so "vastly more preferred by billionaires than is Sanders"? And what is her role?

Quote:

So: the rise of Elizabeth Warren gives the billionaires a ‘progressive’ candidate who might either win the nomination or else at least split progressive voters during the primaries (between Sanders and Warren) and thus give the nomination to Buttigieg, who is their first choice (especially since both Biden and Harris have been faltering so badly of late).

Her record in the U.S. Senate is consistently in support of U.S. invasions, coups, and sanctions against countries that have never invaded nor even threatened to invade the U.S., such as Venezuela, Palestine, Syria, and Iran; she’s 100% a neocon (just like G.W. Bush, Obama and Trump were/are); and, to billionaires, that is even more important than her policy-record regarding Wall Street is, because the Military Industrial Complex, which she represents, is even more important to enforcing and spreading the U.S. megacorporate empire than the investment-firms are. So, whereas they would be able to deal with Warren, they wouldn’t be able to deal with Sanders, whose policy-record is remarkably progressive in all respects, and not only on domestic U.S. matters. Whereas the public pays attention virtually only to domestic matters, billionaires care even more about foreign than about domestic affairs — and this fact — more than anything else — makes Sanders utterly unacceptable to them.

I got a few items of interest to keep an eye on (in the author's words, rearranged into one description):

The Atlantic magazine: ‘moderate’-Democrat rag owned by David Bradley is neoconservative-neoliberal (also listed as neocon) (i.e., pro-billionaire)

Daily Kos: progressive’-Democrat rag founded and owned by the CIA asset and El Salvadorian aristocrat Markos Moulitsas, a ‘former' Republican far-right person, who set up his website in 2002 and suddenly specialized in fooling progressive Democrats to endorse whomever the billionaire-run Democratic National Committee wants them to support. Daily Kos targets to make suckers of Democrats who might vote in the primaries for people that the billionaires actually fear (Sanders).

Media Matters: David Brock founder anti-progressive Democratic Party website against Republicans

neocon rags: The Atlantic, The New Republic, New Yorker, and Mother Jones

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 2, 2019 2:13 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Now THIS article says that 'Wall Street' (as opposed to the billionaire's club, above) does NOT like Warren, and that Buttigieg (despite being at the top of the billionaires' donor roll) isn't seen as a real alternative.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-02/wall-streets-worst-nightmare
-2020-coming-true

Wall Street's Worst Nightmare For 2020 Is Coming True
The 2020 presidential election could turn out to be a real-life horror movie: A Nightmare on Wall Street.

“Wall Street executives who want Trump out,” Politico reported in January, “list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California.”

But seven months later, those “appealing nominees” don’t seem appealing to a lot of voters. Biden’s frontrunner status is looking shaky, while other Wall Street favorites no longer inspire investor confidence: Harris is stuck in single digits, Booker is several points below her, and Gillibrand just dropped out of the race.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are drawing large crowds and rising in polls. In pivotal early states like Iowa and especially New Hampshire, reputable poll averages indicate that Biden is scarcely ahead.

“Bankers’ biggest fear” is that “the nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader” like Warren or Sanders, Politico reported, quoting the CEO of a “giant bank” who said: “It can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders. It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win.”

But the very biggest fear among corporate elites is that Warren or Sanders could win — and then use the presidency to push back against oligarchy. If Biden can’t be propped up, there’s no candidate looking strong enough to stop them.

Biden, Warren and Sanders, as the New York Times reported on Wednesday, are “a threesome that seems to have separated from the rest of the primary field.” In fourth place, national polling averages show, Harris is far behind.

Biden’s distinguished record of servicing corporate America spans five decades. He is eager to continue that work from the Oval Office, but can he get there? A week ago, a Times headline noted reasons for doubt: “Joe Biden’s Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge.” Enthusiasm for Biden has been high among Democratic-aligned elites, but not among Democratic-aligned voters.

While corporate news organizations — and corporate-enmeshed “public” outlets like NPR News and the PBS NewsHour — evade primary contradictions, Sanders directly hammers at how huge corporations are propelling media bias and undermining democracy.

Even though he has inspired media onslaughts — such as the now-notorious 16 anti-Sanders articles published by the Washington Post in a pivotal 16-hour period during the 2016 primary contest — the Sanders campaign is so enormous that even overtly hostile outlets must give him some space. In an op-ed piece he wrote that the Post published seven weeks ago, Sanders confronted Biden’s wealth-fondling approach.

Under the headline “The Straightest Path to Racial Equality Is Through the One Percent,” Sanders quoted a statement from Biden: “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble.”

Sanders responded: “I respectfully disagree” — and he went on to say — “It is my view that any presidential candidate who claims to believe that black lives matter has to take on the institutions that have continually exploited black lives.”

Such insight about systemic exploitation is sacrilege to the secular faith of wealth accumulation that touts reaching billionaire status as a kind of divine ascension. Yet Sanders boldly challenges that kind of hollowness, shedding a fierce light on realities of corporate capitalism.

“Structural problems require structural solutions,” Sanders pointed out in his Post article, “and promises of mere ‘access’ have never guaranteed black Americans equality in this country. . . . ‘Access’ to health care is an empty promise when you can’t afford high premiums, co-pays or deductibles. And an ‘opportunity’ for an equal education is an opportunity in name only when you can’t afford to live in a good school district or to pay college tuition. Jobs, health care, criminal justice and education are linked, and progress will not be made unless we address the economic systems that oppress Americans at their root.”

Like many other progressives, I continue to actively support Sanders as a candidate who bypasses euphemisms, names ultra-powerful villains - and directly challenges those in power who’ve been warping and gaming the economic systems against working-class people.

Those systems are working quite nicely for the ultra-rich, like the giant bank CEO who told Politico that “it can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders.” That’s the decision from Wall Street. The decision from Main Street is yet to be heard.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 2, 2019 6:49 PM

Warren isn't really progressive.

She's been a neo-lib corporatist right along with Hillary and Nancy the whole way up until the last two election cycles where she's attempting to rebrand herself as a progressive hero to the far left.

The only two candidates up there that have a chance that the DNC will allow to make it to the general are Biden and Warren. Harris would be allowed as well, but she's not viable anymore and doesn't matter. Bernie doesn't have the support that he did last time, so the DNC won't have to collude against him. They will not collude against Warren in any circumstance and would happily see her win the primary because she is one of them, no matter how she's been playing it off recently. She's Joe Biden minus the dementia and the penis.

It's only between Biden and Warren now. Unless some freak Dark Horse candidate comes in, like in a scenario where Biden steps down and let's Hillary take his place, or maybe Oprah Winfrey or The Rock... or Michelle Obama....

Not even sure that would be within the rules of the primary, but since when has the DNC given two shits about rules?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 3, 2019 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I heard Gillibrand is out, announced via tweety.

A few days before, I had heard that she was giving out expensive T-shirts (like $30) in exchange for one dollar of donation, so that she could make the threshold for the number of different donors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_presidential_primary_debate_(Septem
ber_12,_2019)

ABC

Thursday, September 12, 2019
Joe Biden
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julián Castro
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O’Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang

Polling criteria

A candidate must receive 2 percent support or more in four national or early state polls—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada—publicly released between June 28, 2019, and August 28, 2019. Any candidate’s four qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas. Qualifying polls are limited to the following organizations and institutions:
Associated Press
ABC News
CBS News
CNN
Des Moines Register
Fox News
Monmouth University
NBC News
New York Times
National Public Radio
Quinnipiac University
University of New Hampshire
Wall Street Journal
USA Today
Washington Post
Winthrop University

Grassroots fundraising
Candidates must also provide verifiable evidence that they reached the following fundraising thresholds:
Donations from at least 130,000 unique donors; and
A minimum of 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.

Has anybody been following how close Tulsi is to getting the Polling threshold? If she achieves it now, it would qualify her for the October debates.
I reallyhope she gets into the debates, it would help waken up the Party, and re-align it. Not enough to win against Trump, but perhaps shape the future into something useful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_presidential_primary_debate_(Septem
ber_12,_2019)

ABC

Thursday, September 12, 2019
Joe Biden
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julián Castro
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O’Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang

Polling criteria

A candidate must receive 2 percent support or more in four national or early state polls—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada—publicly released between June 28, 2019, and August 28, 2019. Any candidate’s four qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas. Qualifying polls are limited to the following organizations and institutions:
Associated Press
ABC News
CBS News
CNN
Des Moines Register
Fox News
Monmouth University
NBC News
New York Times
National Public Radio
Quinnipiac University
University of New Hampshire
Wall Street Journal
USA Today
Washington Post
Winthrop University

Grassroots fundraising
Candidates must also provide verifiable evidence that they reached the following fundraising thresholds:
Donations from at least 130,000 unique donors; and
A minimum of 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.

Has anybody been following how close Tulsi is to getting the Polling threshold? If she achieves it now, it would qualify her for the October debates.
I really hope she gets into the debates, it would help waken up the Party, and re-align it. Not enough to win against Trump, but perhaps shape the future into something useful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 5, 2019 9:41 PM

Is there still time to qualify?

I thought I had heard that she was out, period.

If this isn't true, I'd love to see something stating factually that she can still be in the debates.

As I stated before, if you went by the RCP polling aggregate, she should already be in. But the DNC has been cherry picking which polls it is accepting so they can keep her out.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 6, 2019 4:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Well, Harris has been down in the single digits for a month, and down from a high of 15.2 to today's 6.7. Awwwww ... couldn't happen to a nicer amoral opportunist.

Mayor Pete has been +/- 5% for 2 months, but there's been a percentage point or so slow drop over that time, from just over 5% to just under.

In the last week Biden's come up 3+% (did anything happen in the meantime that I missed?); while Warren and Sanders are still w/ half a percent of each other.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 6, 2019 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Is there still time to qualify?

I thought I had heard that she was out, period.

If this isn't true, I'd love to see something stating factually that she can still be in the debates.

As I stated before, if you went by the RCP polling aggregate, she should already be in. But the DNC has been cherry picking which polls it is accepting so they can keep her out.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I had misread some things earlier. But 1kiki has helped me see where I was incorrect.
Tulsi cannot qualify for the 3rd set of debates, in September. She had attained the donor requirments, but not the polling requirments, which had a deadline of 28 August.

But she still has the donor portion satisfied for the requirements for the 4th set of debates, in October. The deadline for that polling requirement is likely 2 weeks before the debate, which seems to not be set yet. So if she garners the needed % in one of the ultra-libtard polls, she should be able to participate in the October debates. Which I hope she does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 6, 2019 6:01 PM

I don't understand why the MSM is lying to the Democrats again for 2020. RCP aggregates have everybody beating Trump in the General, including even Harris.

Hilarious.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 6, 2019 6:12 PM