• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Thinking like a schiffhead means looking at the available evidence and coming up with a perfectly reasonable explanation as opposed to concocting some wild conservative conspiracy theory fantasy
 
Wtf sailor just makes stuff up from nothing and drives juvenile nicknames into the ground. It’s easy to see how Trump is his idol.
 
Ignoring the rest of this and conceding a point I'm not sure I agree with (popular sentiment prefers incremental change to M4A), what does incremental change include? Just bring the public option back?

The hard part is that you're playing ball against people staking out a position so far to the right that when you make incremental change, it's so easily rolled back and leaves people vulnerable all over again.

I like a progressive pragmatism that tries to help the highest number of people the most with low-hanging fruit. And I liked the approaches around enfranchisement and poverty reduction you mentioned above. Is there a candidate you think is representing these positions best at the moment?

It seems to me that Bernie takes the best moral position, Warren takes the most pragmatic approach, and most of the rest aren't really very interested in progressive change.

I think there is a false dichotomy here between M4A (surrogate for big structural change) and anything else (surrogate for incremental change along the margins). Many of the other plans floating around (Medicare for America, for example) also represent *huge* change, and just because something is a public options, or even built on the framework of the ACA doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be a big improvement in the lives of millions of a Americans.

I agree with what you said about positive changes being rolled back, and I worry about that too. That's one of the reasons why I think enfranchisement/empowerment and fixing the broken aspects of our democracy is possibly the single most thing a candidate in 2020 can try to accomplish. Because realistically, we are likely arguing the merits of a bunch of great progressive ideas that are just going to die in the Senate anyway. And any good done can easily be undone, especially if we push some of the scarier/less popular policies at the outset and there is some backlash (that's not to say we shouldn't talk about those things, or even push for them if they are the right thing to do).

As for my preferred candidate, I'm team Warren all the way. There is not candidate that perfectly represents my views, but I think she is the best option for our time, and the most likely to make meaninful structual change. My boy Noah Smith (probably the writer I find myself agreeing with the most on politics stuff), compares her favorably to FDR in this piece. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-plans-for-u-s-economy-channel-fdr-s-new-deal
 
Dems have it all figured out. First, they will impeach Trump for trying to investigate the crimes they committed under Obama, then they will nominate Quid Pro Joe for President. Good plan. Success is certain.

This is gonna be a real Schiffshow.

Republicans had complete control under Obama for years. They spent millions on kangaroo court like Benghazi and Fast & Furious and found NOTHING.

Remind me again how many of Obama's cabinet or senior staff were accused of crimes? The closest was Cisneros paying for an apartment for his girlfriend. That's it.

Now, let's see how many crooks have or are working for Trump? I think you might need some time on a main frame computer to include everyone.
 
you don’t think Trump voters are working class? What is it that you think Trump voters do for a living exactly?

Trump only beat Clinton with voters over $50k. Hillary won by double digits in people making under $30k and $31-$49k. His base is largely in the upper-middle class to rich vote. He did win the rural vote but he also beat Clinton in the suburbs.

58250662691e882c4e8b55e2
 
Trump only beat Clinton with voters over $50k. Hillary won by double digits in people making under $30k and $31-$49k. His base is largely in the upper-middle class to rich vote. He did win the rural vote but he also beat Clinton in the suburbs.

58250662691e882c4e8b55e2

Oops !!
 
lol remember when pete asked the UAW strikers how much they had in the strike fund
 
Yeah the bigger correlation to voting for trump was being a dumb dumb white person. If you were rich and smart or poor and smart you weren’t conned, if you were poor and dumb and rich and dumb you voted trump.
 
Similarly Warren leads the Vegas field:

Warren (Even)
Biden (+350)
Yang (+1000)
Pete (+1000)
Bernie (+1200)

Democrats are -120 to win 2020 compared to GOP -110. Donald still has best individual odds to win (makes sense given he has no primary)
 
Similarly Warren leads the Vegas field:

Warren (Even)
Biden (+350)
Yang (+1000)
Pete (+1000)
Bernie (+1200)

Democrats are -120 to win 2020 compared to GOP -110. Donald still has best individual odds to win (makes sense given he has no primary)

This is a perfect example of why future book odds are about a few bettors and not real chance to win. Yang is a great example of that. A few people (or maybe just one big bet) put money on him and dropped his odds.

Another thing is the pools are so small at this point that the odds can be easily skewed.
 
Trump only beat Clinton with voters over $50k. Hillary won by double digits in people making under $30k and $31-$49k. His base is largely in the upper-middle class to rich vote. He did win the rural vote but he also beat Clinton in the suburbs.

58250662691e882c4e8b55e2
Based on percentages like 50 to 48% and 49 to 48%? Those numbers indicate to me that both parties have bases that go across the income stratas with the dems leaning lower income to a small extent
 
Last edited:
Back
Top