Election 2020

[Eric the Green]

Debate tonight on CNN, available online. 9 p.m. ET

Democratic Presidential Nomination, real clear politics poll average Jan.14
Biden 27.2
Sanders 19.2
Warren 16.6
Buttigieg 7.2
Bloomberg 6.2
Yang 3.6
Klobuchar 3.2
Steyer 2.4
Gabbard 1.8
Booker 1.0 (dropped out)
Bennet 0.8
Delaney 0.5
Patrick 0.3

Biden +8.0

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/795715253...ed-to-know

We're up to the seventh debate, and down to six candidates.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates return to the debate stage Tuesday at 9 p.m. ET — this time in Iowa, which hosts the first-in-the-nation caucuses in less than three weeks.

Just six of the remaining 12 Democratic candidates qualified for this debate, making it the smallest debate stage yet. And all six qualifying candidates are white, reflecting the diminishing racial diversity of the field.

Something Is Missing In Iowa As Democrats Once Again Debate: A Clear Favorite.

Tuesday's prime-time tussle comes as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has notably stepped up his criticism of other top-tier candidates, especially former Vice President Joe Biden. The back-and-forth between the two septuagenarians over issues including Biden's Iraq War vote has illustrated the progressive vs. moderate divide within the Democratic Party.

But in the last few days, a rift has also emerged between the two leading progressives, with Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren breaking a de facto nonaggression pact to trade barbs.

Sanders and Biden have, individually, led the last two polls in Iowa.

A Monmouth University survey released Monday found Biden ahead, with the backing of 24% of likely caucusgoers. Sanders came in at 18%, followed at 17% by Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and at 15% by Warren.

Days earlier, the well-respected Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa poll found Sanders leading at 20%, ahead of Warren (17%), Buttigieg (16%) and Biden (15%).

Clearly, it's a tight, jumbled race. And a lot could change, because just 40% of respondents to the Register/CNN/Mediacom survey said their minds are made up about which candidate to support on caucus night on Feb. 3.

Debating tonight are:
Joe Biden, horoscope score 14-7
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Pete Buttigieg, 7-9
Amy Klobuchar, 7-7
Tom Steyer, 11-7

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus, Monmouth: Biden 24, Sanders 18, Buttigieg 17, Warren 15, Klobuchar 8, Yang 3, Booker 4, Steyer 4, Gabbard 2,

New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary, Boston Herald/FPU: Biden 26, Sanders 22, Warren 18, Buttigieg 7, Klobuchar 2, Gabbard 4, Steyer 2, Yang 2, Booker 1, Bennet 0
Biden +4

Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus, FOX News: Biden 23, Sanders 17, Warren 12, Buttigieg 6, Steyer 12, Yang 4, Klobuchar 2, Booker 3, Gabbard 2, Bloomberg 2 Biden +6

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary, FOX News: Biden 36, Sanders 14, Warren 10, Steyer 15, Buttigieg 4, Booker 2, Yang 2, Bloomberg 2, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 1, Williamson 0, Patrick 0 Biden +21

[Eric the Green]

Mayor Wayne Messam of Miramar, Fla., dropped out of the presidential race.
By Maggie Astor
Nov. 20, 2019

Wayne Messam, the mayor of Miramar, Fla., has ended a presidential campaign that barely got off the ground.

Mr. Messam, 45, announced his decision on Wednesday in a post on Medium.

“I jumped in an already crowded field of capable candidates to change the direction of this nation caused by the dysfunction of Washington and the poor leadership of the current presidency,” he said. “I knew the odds were a steep hill to climb but I have always fought for what is right and will continue to break barriers never broken.”

Mr. Messam declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination on March 28, discussing student debt, prescription drug costs and clean air, and telling CNN that he wanted to provide “the leadership that will make these issues a priority and have the political will to solve these issues for the American people.”

He touted his background as a son of Jamaican immigrants, a former professional football player, a small-business owner and a mayor. But he did not articulate a vision that distinguished him from the many other candidates in the field, most of them better known and more politically experienced.

He rarely registered 1 percent in the polls, and he did not qualify for any of the Democratic debates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/po...-2020.html

Note: he had a positive horoscope score of 15-8. He could be a factor in the future, but it shows a good score is not enough. A candidate needs to be well-known or very rich or have some kind of position and record. Even Donald Trump was already a household name, and had put himself out as a candidate before. People saw him on his TV show as an executive.

[sbarrera]

(01-14-2020, 04:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/795715253...ed-to-know

We're up to the seventh debate, and down to six candidates.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates return to the debate stage Tuesday at 9 p.m. ET — this time in Iowa, which hosts the first-in-the-nation caucuses in less than three weeks.

Just six of the remaining 12 Democratic candidates qualified for this debate, making it the smallest debate stage yet. And all six qualifying candidates are white, reflecting the diminishing racial diversity of the field.

Something Is Missing In Iowa As Democrats Once Again Debate: A Clear Favorite.

Tuesday's prime-time tussle comes as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has notably stepped up his criticism of other top-tier candidates, especially former Vice President Joe Biden. The back-and-forth between the two septuagenarians over issues including Biden's Iraq War vote has illustrated the progressive vs. moderate divide within the Democratic Party.

But in the last few days, a rift has also emerged between the two leading progressives, with Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren breaking a de facto nonaggression pact to trade barbs.

If the party's big story is rifts among septuagenarians, mostly from the Silent generation, we are not looking at a dynamic new party that has a future on the forefront of change.

[Eric the Green]

(01-15-2020, 07:34 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(01-14-2020, 04:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/795715253...ed-to-know

We're up to the seventh debate, and down to six candidates.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates return to the debate stage Tuesday at 9 p.m. ET — this time in Iowa, which hosts the first-in-the-nation caucuses in less than three weeks.

Just six of the remaining 12 Democratic candidates qualified for this debate, making it the smallest debate stage yet. And all six qualifying candidates are white, reflecting the diminishing racial diversity of the field.

Something Is Missing In Iowa As Democrats Once Again Debate: A Clear Favorite.

Tuesday's prime-time tussle comes as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has notably stepped up his criticism of other top-tier candidates, especially former Vice President Joe Biden. The back-and-forth between the two septuagenarians over issues including Biden's Iraq War vote has illustrated the progressive vs. moderate divide within the Democratic Party.

But in the last few days, a rift has also emerged between the two leading progressives, with Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren breaking a de facto nonaggression pact to trade barbs.

If the party's big story is rifts among septuagenarians, mostly from the Silent generation, we are not looking at a dynamic new party that has a future on the forefront of change.

I was not too impressed with the field during the debate.

But I was never too impressed with this field. It depends on who steps up. The best candidates didn't.

But there is no other party available to us now that can have any future on the forefront of change. And I am sure change is coming. The people will have to make do with the leaders it has. 

(Republicans are not the peoples' leaders)

[David Horn]

(01-15-2020, 07:34 AM)sbarrera Wrote: If the party's big story is rifts among septuagenarians, mostly from the Silent generation, we are not looking at a dynamic new party that has a future on the forefront of change.

Exactly! This, among other reasons, is why I'm not a Democrat. They forget who their adversaries are and fight among themselves -- at least to the extent that Democrats actually fight. And that's my second point of disagreement. The Republicans came to the fight armed with every weapon they can muster, but the Democrats bring Robert's Rules of Order. Really?

So far. I've seen no evidence that the Democrats want to win at more than an intellectual level. Bernie may be the sole exception. If it's not Bernie, then whoever gets the nod had better take lessons fast.

[Eric the Green]

(01-17-2020, 08:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2020, 07:34 AM)sbarrera Wrote: If the party's big story is rifts among septuagenarians, mostly from the Silent generation, we are not looking at a dynamic new party that has a future on the forefront of change.

Exactly! This, among other reasons, is why I'm not a Democrat.  They forget who their adversaries are and fight among themselves -- at least to the extent that Democrats actually fight.  And that's my second point of disagreement.  The Republicans came to the fight armed with every weapon they can muster, but the Democrats bring Robert's Rules of Order.  Really?  

So far. I've seen no evidence that the Democrats want to win at more than an intellectual level.  Bernie may be the sole exception.  If it's not Bernie, then whoever gets the nod had better take lessons fast.

I re-registered Democrat this year to vote in the primary for a local candidate, Rishi Kumar, who would be the next Ro Khanna from our county in congress, and to vote for Bernie. As a registered Green for many years I could not do that in my state, and I prefer to support a party rather than remain "independent," which to me means I am not making any statement with my registration.

I agree. They'd better take lessons from him, and listen to the voters, which need to provide the groundswell for progress and against obstruction that we need. Ultimately, the quality of our politicians depends on the quality of the people, and the people have let us down even more than the politicians have done. I think Democrats cave in to Republicans because Democrats can't count on their backers in sufficient quantity and enthusiasm to defy the enormous power that the system and its people and its money have provided to the Republicans and to the centrist "new" Democrats these last 40 years or more. 

I think the Democratic Party is moving toward progress and toward taking action for the people, but it needs to be more resolute. But of course the quality of the candidates also depends on who chooses to step up and run for president. So far, almost all candidates who did take their swing were inadequate to say the least, and most of them have already dropped out. Even those who are left, which are the better ones, are not that impressive and may not have the chops or the passion and charismatic appeal to beat the Drump.

[David Horn]

(01-17-2020, 12:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-17-2020, 08:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2020, 07:34 AM)sbarrera Wrote: If the party's big story is rifts among septuagenarians, mostly from the Silent generation, we are not looking at a dynamic new party that has a future on the forefront of change.

Exactly! This, among other reasons, is why I'm not a Democrat.  They forget who their adversaries are and fight among themselves -- at least to the extent that Democrats actually fight.  And that's my second point of disagreement.  The Republicans came to the fight armed with every weapon they can muster, but the Democrats bring Robert's Rules of Order.  Really?  

So far. I've seen no evidence that the Democrats want to win at more than an intellectual level.  Bernie may be the sole exception.  If it's not Bernie, then whoever gets the nod had better take lessons fast.

I re-registered Democrat this year to vote in the primary for a local candidate, Rishi Kumar, who would be the next Ro Khanna from our county in congress, and to vote for Bernie. As a registered Green for many years I could not do that in my state, and I prefer to support a party rather than remain "independent," which to me means I am not making any statement with my registration.

I agree. They'd better take lessons from him, and listen to the voters, which need to provide the groundswell for progress and against obstruction that we need. Ultimately, the quality of our politicians depends on the quality of the people, and the people have let us down even more than the politicians have done. I think Democrats cave in to Republicans because Democrats can't count on their backers in sufficient quantity and enthusiasm to defy the enormous power that the system and its people and its money have provided to the Republicans and to the centrist "new" Democrats these last 40 years or more. 

I think the Democratic Party is moving toward progress and toward taking action for the people, but it needs to be more resolute. But of course the quality of the candidates also depends on who chooses to step up and run for president. So far, almost all candidates who did take their swing were inadequate to say the least, and most of them have already dropped out. Even those who are left, which are the better ones, are not that impressive and may not have the chops or the passion and charismatic appeal to beat the Drump.

The old rubric about Republicans falling in line and Democrats falling in love is true, but only partially accurate.  Democrats are undisciplined; that's beyond dispute.  What's ignored is the opposite of love: indifference.  For whatever reason, the Democrats never see politics in an existential framework.  The GOP sees it no other way.  The Dems need passion.  The Republicans, only focus.  I think it's due to the difference in world view:  If the world is always a threat, you find allies where you can.  The Democrats I know think the world is basically good, so allies are desirable if not truly necessary.  They're wrong on that.

[Warren Dew]

If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

[Eric the Green]

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

There's no evidence of such a ploy. Pelosi's action was intended to pressure the Republicans to include witnesses at Drumpface's impeachment trial. And there's nothing Bernie can do about it, lying down or otherwise.

[Eric the Green]

Some interesting polls from real clear politics today:

New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary WHDH/Emerson Sanders 23, Biden 14, Warren 14, Buttigieg 18, Klobuchar 10, Gabbard 5, Yang 6, Steyer 4, Bennet 0 Sanders +5

California Democratic Primary KGTV-TV/SurveyUSA Biden 30, Sanders 20, Warren 20, Buttigieg 8, Yang 4, Bloomberg 6, Steyer 4, Gabbard 2, Klobuchar 2 Biden +10

Wednesday, January 15:

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 27, Sanders 20, Warren 19, Buttigieg 7, Bloomberg 5, Yang 3, Klobuchar 3, Steyer 1, Gabbard 2, Booker 2, Bennet 0 Biden +7

Wisconsin Democratic Primary Marquette Biden 23, Sanders 19, Warren 14, Buttigieg 15, Bloomberg 6, Yang 6, Klobuchar 4, Steyer 1, Gabbard 1 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Marquette Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Sanders Marquette Sanders 47, Trump 46 Sanders +1
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Warren Marquette Trump 48, Warren 45 Trump +3
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Buttigieg Marquette Trump 46, Buttigieg 44 Trump +2

Warren fell back to 16.0 today.

[Eric the Green]

Bloomberg is paying millions for his ads in CA and elsewhere. Here in Norcal I only see ads for the billionaires, Bloomberg and Steyer. They are rising in the polls in CA, but Biden and Sanders are still way ahead of them, and so is Warren.

Democratic Presidential Nomination: the dirty dozen:
Biden28.4
Sanders20.4
Warren14.8
Buttigieg7.2
Bloomberg7.0
Yang3.8
Klobuchar3.0
Steyer2.4
Gabbard1.8
Booker1.7 (dropped out)
Bennet1.0
Delaney0.3
Patrick0.3

Biden +8.0

[ResidentArtist]

The ads that I get on the internet have been almost exclusively for Bloomberg, but it might be a bit different on television. From what I gather his advertising has been quite widespread. Anytime I search something even a little bit political there's a link to his website.

I ordinarily wouldn't see this as a big deal but it is a little off putting that he's able to do this all with his own money, especially when you consider that Bloomberg has his own media outlet. That's not just a presidential candidate, that's an oligarch.

[David Horn]

The NY Times decided not to decide, and endorsed two candidates for POTUS: Elizabeth Warren on the Progressive track, and Amy Klobuchar on the institutional track. Make of that what you will, but the very fact that the NY Times would consider a non-intuitionalist at all tell us just how messed up the country is at the moment. They said as much when they noted how badly all the institutions have collapsed under DJT. The light may be coming on that the rot is a direct result of too much institutional thinking, and too much coddling of our capitalist overlords.

[Marypoza]

(01-20-2020, 12:23 PM)David Horn Wrote: The NY Times decided not to decide, and endorsed two candidates for POTUS: Elizabeth Warren on the Progressive track, and Amy Klobuchar on the institutional track.  Make of that what you will, but the very fact that the NY Times would consider a non-intuitionalist at all tell us just how messed up the country is at the moment.  They said as much when they noted how badly all the institutions have collapsed under DJT.  The light may be coming on that the rot is a direct result of too much institutional thinking, and too much coddling of our capitalist overlords.

-- yeah that they consider Lizbitch a progressive (check her record) shows how messed up the NYT is @ least

[Marypoza]

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

-- Bernie has surrogates. I saw a tweet from lhlan sating  *we* (presumably the Squad) will be stumping in IA 4 him. Nina & Pramila will also be in IA. Personally l think it's a blessing in disguise- all these strong women stumping 4 him should hopefully put this sexism bs 2 rest. if it does come up they can say, "lf Bernie were sexist l wouldn't be standing here right now. Next!"

& Bernie himself is supposed 2b chartering a jet 2 take him 2 events in IA when the impeachment farce is not in session.

[David Horn]

(01-21-2020, 07:36 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-20-2020, 12:23 PM)David Horn Wrote: The NY Times decided not to decide, and endorsed two candidates for POTUS: Elizabeth Warren on the Progressive track, and Amy Klobuchar on the institutional track.  Make of that what you will, but the very fact that the NY Times would consider a non-intuitionalist at all tell us just how messed up the country is at the moment.  They said as much when they noted how badly all the institutions have collapsed under DJT.  The light may be coming on that the rot is a direct result of too much institutional thinking, and too much coddling of our capitalist overlords.

-- yeah that they consider Lizbitch a progressive (check her record) shows how messed up the NYT is @ least

You may need to get your thinking realigned a bit.  Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good guarantees the success of the bad -- truly bad, in this case.  I know you think a lot of Bernie, but no one in the Congress really likes the guy.  He'll be great at rallying the troops, much like DJT does on the other side, but it won't go anywhere.  I don't see even the most progressive members of Congress being that excited about his program.  

And what part of EW's record bother you?  Is it the GOP period, or something more recent?  If it's the former, then keep in mind the rule of converts: they're among the most committed.

[David Horn]

(01-21-2020, 07:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

-- Bernie has surrogates. I saw a tweet from lhlan sating  *we* (presumably the Squad) will be stumping in IA 4 him. Nina & Pramila will also be in IA. Personally l think it's a blessing in disguise- all these strong women stumping 4 him should hopefully put this sexism bs 2 rest. if it does come up they can say, "lf Bernie were sexist l wouldn't be standing here right now. Next!"

& Bernie himself is supposed 2b chartering a jet 2 take him 2 events in IA when the impeachment farce is not in session.

If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

[Eric the Green]

Interesting. Sanders is slowly catching up to Biden now. Klobuchar has caught up with Yang again. Bloomberg has caught up with Buttigieg. Things are shaping up according to the horoscope scores! I hope it continues. Only a candidate with a good score has any chance against the champion demagogue criminal.

Democratic Presidential Nomination polling average Jan.23, with horoscope scores:
Biden 28.7 14-7
Sanders 22.0 14-7
Warren 14.8 8-7
Bloomberg 7.7 7-5
Buttigieg 7.7 7-8
Klobuchar 3.5 7-7
Yang 3.3 8-15
Steyer 2.3 11-7
Gabbard 1.5 11-6
Bennet 0.8 8-9
Delaney 0.4 7-5
Patrick 0.0 9-6 (late entry, having trouble getting traction)

Biden +6.7

Note that 3/4 of these candidates still running have positive or tie scores, and those with the best two scores are leading.

On the other hand, among the many candidates who have dropped out, all but two had a negative horoscope score, and that includes Wayne Messam who was too unknown, too poor and too unqualified for his positive score to give him a boost. The other was Steve Bullock (10-7). The rest were:

Julian Castro, 8-13
Bill DeBlasio, 12-15
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-13
Cory Booker, 6-7
John Hickenlooper, 6-12
Kamala Harris, 4-16
Beto O'Rourke, 11-26
Seth Moulton, 9-10
Tim Ryan, 3-12
Richard Ojeda, 10-13
Eric Swalwell, 4-6
Marianne Williamson, 13-14
Jay Inslee, 3-7
Mike Gravel, 5-10
Joe Sestak, 3-10
plus, Republican Mark Sanford, 5-7

What did all these candidates have in common? They were not skilled candidates. They could not connect, were not likable, articulate, confident, energetic, strategic, or charismatic enough.

See http://philosopherswheel.com/hna.html

[Eric the Green]

(01-22-2020, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 07:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

-- Bernie has surrogates. I saw a tweet from lhlan sating  *we* (presumably the Squad) will be stumping in IA 4 him. Nina & Pramila will also be in IA. Personally l think it's a blessing in disguise- all these strong women stumping 4 him should hopefully put this sexism bs 2 rest. if it does come up they can say, "lf Bernie were sexist l wouldn't be standing here right now. Next!"

& Bernie himself is supposed 2b chartering a jet 2 take him 2 events in IA when the impeachment farce is not in session.

If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

I wonder who the best surrogates for Sanders would be there.

Quote:You may need to get your thinking realigned a bit. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good guarantees the success of the bad -- truly bad, in this case. I know you think a lot of Bernie, but no one in the Congress really likes the guy. He'll be great at rallying the troops, much like DJT does on the other side, but it won't go anywhere. I don't see even the most progressive members of Congress being that excited about his program.

And what part of EW's record bother you? Is it the GOP period, or something more recent? If it's the former, then keep in mind the rule of converts: they're among the most committed.

One thing is clear. EW is not the candidate who can beat Trump. If you want the good rather than the perfect to win, then Sanders is the guy, not the gal Elizabeth (aka Crusader Rabbit). She just doesn't have it. Since she unloaded on Bernie with her whiny, bitchy remark "Did you call me a liar on national TV?" she has been falling in the polls. She revealed her weakness. For those who like Warren's policies that are not quite perfectly progressive, meaning she might have a better chance than Sanders the "perfect" progressive, consider the fact that Sanders has the candidate skills necessary to beat the Drump. He is an inspiring speaker who gets people behind him. He is strong and energetic, and very straightforward in his care for the people. He means what he says and says what he means. This is attractive to voters, while the wonky and pedantic Warren is not.

The horoscope scores tell the tale regarding the inherent abilities of the candidates. The record is the record, results are results; beliefs that astrology is bunk are irrelevant!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

If Sanders is supposed to be hard to get along with in the Senate, then why have both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar said they have worked with Bernie on many issues, and that Bernie is their friend? That does not compute. Sanders makes clear that as president, he will not be a dictator like Trump. He knows he has to work with congress. Members of the Senate will not elect the president; the voters will. And what does the unlikable Mrs. Hillary know about who can get along with whom?

[Eric the Green]

You REALLY think Crusader Rabbit can beat Drumpface? Can he (She) beat the red states like Texas? Seriously??





Refer back to this post at the bottom of the last page: http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid48911