Who Is Running In 2020?
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 01:47
VIEWED: 46005
PAGE 2 of 8
Quote:IDK. But I think we're already seeing the party* (*you call that a par-tay?) line with Pelosi. Without Hillary to crystallize on, I guess we'll just have to wait and see who the DNC picks. My guess is it's one of the pro-Israel pro-military candidates. or at the very least, one without any anti-military baggage, so they can go on with business as usual, assuming they win.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Which of these is considered the "Centrist" this time around, ready to railroad Bernie to the gutter?
I haven't paying attention, what is Pelosis party line?
You think they will allow DNC to pick, or just preselect?
Obama hated Israel, so last Dem POTUS was who, BJ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no way the Corpo-Establishment-Neo-Liberals are going to give any presidential power to the Socialists or Communists in 2020.
Nancy's already shown on several occasions she makes no bones about squaring off against them and any of their ideas.
The extreme left is already turning on Bernie very early in his bid and calling him a Republican.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the DNC after the 2020 election, as well as what happens to the fringe Left. I'd imagine they're going to split off from the Democratic party entirely and try to form their own version in the hopes of one day dwarfing the Lefty Establishment and cannibalizing them.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's a great graph that shows the extremism of the Left these days:
Not only does it show that about half of the "Republican" voters fall on the left side of the graph on economic issues, but it also shows that around half of the "Democratic" voters are toward the center or even toward the top on social issues and identity politics.
Notice the Bottom Right corner. That's the Alt-Right there, folks. The Identitarians that are fiscally conservative. Not a lot of them, are there? It also looks as though there is a healthy mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that fall into that category.
Your bottom left, especially the big blob of blue in lower left octant. Well... that's your AOC supporting, authoritative, identity politics driven, Socialist lefty fringe that throws out the word Nazi a dozen times a day.
You'd be astute for noticing that there is no equal and opposite for the upper right octant.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarians-just-might-exist/
I'd surmise from this graph that if the Democrats were to drop identity politics altogether, that the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in the future. But if they choose to continue down that route you're only going to see the blobs further separate from each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's a great graph that shows the extremism of the Left these days:
Quote:You must be looking at a different plot than what you posted.
Not only does it show that about half of the "Republican" voters fall on the left side of the graph on economic issues, but it also shows that around half of the "Democratic" voters are toward the center or even toward the top on social issues and identity politics.
Looks to me like the 50% line for blue from top to bottom is between -0.5 and -1.0, around -0.75 - nowhere even close to center. Looks like only 5% of Blue is above 0.0.
Quote:
Notice the Bottom Right corner. That's the Alt-Right there, folks. The Identitarians that are fiscally conservative. Not a lot of them, are there? It also looks as though there is a healthy mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that fall into that category.
Your bottom left, especially the big blob of blue in lower left octant. Well... that's your AOC supporting, authoritative, identity politics driven, Socialist lefty fringe that throws out the word Nazi a dozen times a day.
You'd be astute for noticing that there is no equal and opposite for the upper right octant.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarians-just-might-exist/
I'd surmise from this graph that if the Democrats were to drop identity politics altogether, that the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in the future. But if they choose to continue down that route you're only going to see the blobs further separate from each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's a great graph that shows the extremism of the Left these days:Quote:You must be looking at a different plot than what you posted.
Not only does it show that about half of the "Republican" voters fall on the left side of the graph on economic issues, but it also shows that around half of the "Democratic" voters are toward the center or even toward the top on social issues and identity politics.
Looks to me like the 50% line for blue from top to bottom is between -0.5 and -1.0, around -0.75 - nowhere even close to center. Looks like only 5% of Blue is above 0.0.Quote:
Notice the Bottom Right corner. That's the Alt-Right there, folks. The Identitarians that are fiscally conservative. Not a lot of them, are there? It also looks as though there is a healthy mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that fall into that category.
Your bottom left, especially the big blob of blue in lower left octant. Well... that's your AOC supporting, authoritative, identity politics driven, Socialist lefty fringe that throws out the word Nazi a dozen times a day.
You'd be astute for noticing that there is no equal and opposite for the upper right octant.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarians-just-might-exist/
I'd surmise from this graph that if the Democrats were to drop identity politics altogether, that the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in the future. But if they choose to continue down that route you're only going to see the blobs further separate from each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
No. We're looking at the same graph. You're just misunderstanding what I said.
There is about a 50/50 split for Republicans on either side of 0 for economics. That much is easy to see, that's what I said, and I don't believe you're arguing that point.
I used a different metric for the identitarianism for Democrats by saying that nearly 50% of them are somewhere near the center (0) or even toward the top. I didn't ever specify an exact "center" for them on these issues.
I was simply illustrating the point that while social issues are without a doubt more important to Liberals in general, a vast majority of them are not Identitarian extremists in the bottom left corner. (To which I also made the point that there is no equal and opposite group on the upper right corner made up of Republicans... hardly anyone is up there at all).
I'd consider anybody within 0.5 on any end of either metric to be "center" and the (arguably) most reasonable people of the bunch. The further you get from 0.5 on either metric, the more unreasonable you become until you're part of an extreme.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Here's a great graph that shows the extremism of the Left these days:Quote:You must be looking at a different plot than what you posted.
Not only does it show that about half of the "Republican" voters fall on the left side of the graph on economic issues, but it also shows that around half of the "Democratic" voters are toward the center or even toward the top on social issues and identity politics.
Looks to me like the 50% line for blue from top to bottom is between -0.5 and -1.0, around -0.75 - nowhere even close to center. Looks like only 5% of Blue is above 0.0.Quote:
Notice the Bottom Right corner. That's the Alt-Right there, folks. The Identitarians that are fiscally conservative. Not a lot of them, are there? It also looks as though there is a healthy mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents that fall into that category.
Your bottom left, especially the big blob of blue in lower left octant. Well... that's your AOC supporting, authoritative, identity politics driven, Socialist lefty fringe that throws out the word Nazi a dozen times a day.
You'd be astute for noticing that there is no equal and opposite for the upper right octant.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarians-just-might-exist/
I'd surmise from this graph that if the Democrats were to drop identity politics altogether, that the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in the future. But if they choose to continue down that route you're only going to see the blobs further separate from each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
No. We're looking at the same graph. You're just misunderstanding what I said.
There is about a 50/50 split for Republicans on either side of 0 for economics. That much is easy to see, that's what I said, and I don't believe you're arguing that point.
I used a different metric for the identitarianism for Democrats by saying that nearly 50% of them are somewhere near the center (0) or even toward the top. I didn't ever specify an exact "center" for them on these issues.
I was simply illustrating the point that while social issues are without a doubt more important to Liberals in general, a vast majority of them are not Identitarian extremists in the bottom left corner. (To which I also made the point that there is no equal and opposite group on the upper right corner made up of Republicans... hardly anyone is up there at all).
I'd consider anybody within 0.5 on any end of either metric to be "center" and the (arguably) most reasonable people of the bunch. The further you get from 0.5 on either metric, the more unreasonable you become until you're part of an extreme.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
You're still looking at a different plot.
Looks like only about 5% of Blue dots are between -0.25 and +0.25 up/down.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm looking at the same plot.
You're reading what I said wrong, twice now.
Try again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Will Freedom Liberty be a topic in the election?
Washington Has Destroyed Western Liberty: The Era of Tyranny Has Begun
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/04/27/washington-has-destroy
ed-western-liberty-the-era-of-tyranny-has-begun/
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=YQkOzl0aQv0
Jimmy Dore: The California DNC is openly cheating progressives and Bernie Sanders refuses to say anything about it?
https://invidio.us/watch?v=YQkOzl0aQv0
Rand Paul, 'The Electoral Prospects Don't Look That Good'
https://reason.com/2019/04/26/rand-paul-on-a-prospective-justin-amash-
presidential-run-the-electoral-prospects-dont-look-that-good/
Journlaists and politik turn on each other? The Loony Left Eats itself?
Kamala Harris owns a handgun. That's unacceptable for a 2020 Democrat.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/26/kamala-harris-owns-h
andgun-unacceptable-2020-democratic-race-column/3567371002/
What news on big tech censorship?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The next 2 days have the Dem candidate debates scheduled in Miami.
https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2019/03/first-2020-democrat
ic-debate-set-for-june-26-and-27-in-miami/
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/2020-democratic-debates-which-c
andidates-have-qualified.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Apparently Pocahontas Warren is not going to the debates.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The next 2 days have the Dem candidate debates scheduled in Miami.
https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2019/03/first-2020-democrat
ic-debate-set-for-june-26-and-27-in-miami/
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/2020-democratic-debates-which-c
andidates-have-qualified.html
She even refused to go to the Senate to vote on a Bill for Emergency Funding of Detention Centers, because she was too busy protesting at Homestead Detention Center. She also announced that she WOULD NOT leave the protest until all of the children have been released (apparently to wander around without guardians while their miscreant adult co-travellers are still incarcerated), AND Homestead is CLOSED!! So obviously this attendance crisis forbids her from leaving to attend the Democrap Debates.
Unless, of course, if she is lying. Being a Democrap, that is likely a given for Pocahontas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did anyone watch the debates? I'm sorry I missed them.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I recorded them - saw the first half of the first debate. I intend to watch the all the rest later.
I got to the part where everyone but especially Castro was pissing and moaning about those poor immigrants, frequently neglecting the 'illegal' aspect - except Castro who wants to decriminalize it. I couldn't take it any more. I had to stop after a while.
ETA: what I find objectionable is that for them, it's not about human rights. If it was, they would be equally pissing and moaning about all the citizens of this country who lack things like medical care, nutritious regular meals, and adequate housing - in some cases, any housing at all. Unless you assume that citizens here in the US deserve fewer human rights than anyone else.
No, this is theater for scoring political points. That's all it is.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol. The debates were an embarrassing shit show for Democrats, and they all know it.
You'll notice that nobody here who would be excited about all of the great moments have anything positive to say about them.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
lol. The debates were an embarrassing shit show for Democrats, and they all know it.
You'll notice that nobody here who would be excited about all of the great moments have anything positive to say about them.
Wrong of course. Or at least, not right for the reasons you think. For one, it's too early - I've got laundry to do that's more important. Also, who gives a shit about watching 20 politicians argue? Or say anything? It's the worst kind of theatre - just boring.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nah. It's great entertainment. Watching them debase themselves and each other is better than most of the drek that Hollywood puts out these days.
Pure comedy gold.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Nah. It's great entertainment. Watching them debase themselves and each other is better than most of the drek that Hollywood puts out these days.
Pure comedy gold.
So, just to confirm - the fact that no one here (that you rightly or wrongly consider a Dem) is saying how great these debates were (other than you), doesn't mean what you said it does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why don't you take a second to re-read that question to yourself out loud and see if you know what the hell it is you're actually asking.
When I said they were great, I meant like a cheesy Nic Cage flick, or Leprechaun in the Hood.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll see if I can find more highlights for you since you missed it.
I think I'm sold on Marianne Williamson and I'm going to vote for her in the primaries. Love how she's channeling Pat Benatar.
Although I do think the best line so far was Gabbard's when she bitch slapped Tim Ryan so hard we thought it was a thunderclap all the way up here in Indiana when she said "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11. Al Qaeda did."
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In other words - your mind is made up about which party you'll vote for, you're just waiting for democrats to serve you the special of the day? So - why bother listening to anything any politician says?
Originally posted by CEREALMUSH:
Also, who gives a shit about watching 20 politicians argue? Or say anything? It's the worst kind of theatre - just boring.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Also, who gives a shit about watching 20 politicians argue? Or say anything? It's the worst kind of theatre - just boring.- CEREALMUSH
In other words - your mind is made up about which party you'll vote for, you're just waiting for democrats to serve you the special of the day? So - why bother listening to anything any politician says? KIKI
Including Trump?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Why don't you take a second to re-read that question to yourself out loud and see if you know what the hell it is you're actually asking.
When I said they were great, I meant like a cheesy Nic Cage flick, or Leprechaun in the Hood.
Why don't you stop huffing glue and read your own posts. Someone with your account posted: "You'll notice that nobody here who would be excited about all of the great moments have anything positive to say about them."
I disagreed because "So, just to confirm - the fact that no one here (that you rightly or wrongly consider a Dem) is saying how great these debates were (other than you), doesn't mean what you said it does."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rephrase the question please. Your use of parenthesis to try to say 5 things in a single sentence at the same time is quite confusing.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Also, who gives a shit about watching 20 politicians argue? Or say anything? It's the worst kind of theatre - just boring.- CEREALMUSH
Quote:
In other words - your mind is made up about which party you'll vote for, you're just waiting for democrats to serve you the special of the day? So - why bother listening to anything any politician says? KIKI
Quote:Well, if CEREALMUSH followed his own logic, it would be true. He should ignore Trump along with every other politician, as he claims to do.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Including Trump?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
But never underestimate the power of CEREALMUSH to provide inadvertent humor with his epic logic fails.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, in any case, I hope to find full versions of the debates online and listen as I work in the kitchen. If it's anything like KIKI said, I expect that it'll be like having a dentist drill in my ear. Especially all the handwringing about OHTHEPOORMIGRANT!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
tic tac
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
different results
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The biggest winner by far was Marianne Williamson. She's the mystical magical Earth Mother who will make everything better for everyone. She smiles as if she just knows things the others never could, and with her mesmerizing voice simply tells us that love will conquer all. Quite an extraordinary debut for an unknown on that debate stage.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Full transcript: 2019 Democratic debate Night One, sortable by topic
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-first-d
emocratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816
Full transcript: 2019 Democratic debate Night Two, sortable by topic
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-2019-de
mocratic-debate-night-two-sortable-topic-n1023601
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have done a lousy job keeping the data updated in this thread.
For now, here is a roster of those 20 candidates who participated in the late-June Debates:
1. Pocahontas Warren.
2. Beto O-Rourke.
3. Cory Booker.
4. Julian Castro.
5. Tulsi Gabbard.
6. Jay Inslee.
7. Amy Klobuchar.
8. Bill DeBlasio.
9. John Delaney.
10. Tom Ryan.
11. Biden.
12. Bernie.
13. Pete Buttigieg.
14. Kamala Harris.
15. Kirsten Gillibrand.
16. Michael Bennett.
17. Marianne Williamson.
18. Eric Swalwell.
19. Andrew Yang.
20. John Hickenlooper.
To be clear, the requirements for the October Debates do not preclude other candidates from becoming eligible. I assume the above 20 have met some sort of criteria, unless Hilliary just Annointed them.
Reportedly, the top 3 are Biden, Bernie, and Pocahontas. Some reports are that the expected frontrunner in the fall will be Pocahontas. Maybe that is why she was allowed to change her answer the day after the first debate, when somebody told her how stupid it was.
If I understand correctly, DNC rules to qualify for the Fall Debates are 2-fold. At least 130,000 individual donors/contributors must have added to the campaign fund. And the candidate must have polled at least 2% in 4 approved polls during the period from June-August. I guess they also must have at least 20 States in which they have at least 400 donors.
Only 6 spots are allocated for the Fall Debates.
Some folk have commented on the lack of depth or substance in their debates and statements. This is reportedly due to the absolute need to increase their donor count, to spur those wackos on the Left to contribute to their campaign.
Already qualified:
Biden, Bernie, Pocahontas, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg.
Booker has only got about 100,000 donors. Beto has not polled high enough yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Today Swalwell dropped out so he can pursue his House seat.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have done a lousy job keeping the data updated in this thread.
For now, here is a roster of those 20 candidates who participated in the late-June Debates:
1. Pocahontas Warren.
2. Beto O-Rourke.
3. Cory Booker.
4. Julian Castro.
5. Tulsi Gabbard.
6. Jay Inslee.
7. Amy Klobuchar.
8. Bill DeBlasio.
9. John Delaney.
10. Tom Ryan.
11. Biden.
12. Bernie.
13. Pete Buttigieg.
14. Kamala Harris.
15. Kirsten Gillibrand.
16. Michael Bennett.
17. Marianne Williamson.
18. Eric Swalwell.
19. Andrew Yang.
20. John Hickenlooper.
To be clear, the requirements for the October Debates do not preclude other candidates from becoming eligible. I assume the above 20 have met some sort of criteria, unless Hilliary just Annointed them.
Reportedly, the top 3 are Biden, Bernie, and Pocahontas. Some reports are that the expected frontrunner in the fall will be Pocahontas. Maybe that is why she was allowed to change her answer the day after the first debate, when somebody told her how stupid it was.
If I understand correctly, DNC rules to qualify for the Fall Debates are 2-fold. At least 130,000 individual donors/contributors must have added to the campaign fund. And the candidate must have polled at least 2% in 4 approved polls during the period from June-August. I guess they also must have at least 20 States in which they have at least 400 donors.
Only 6 spots are allocated for the Fall Debates.
Some folk have commented on the lack of depth or substance in their debates and statements. This is reportedly due to the absolute need to increase their donor count, to spur those wackos on the Left to contribute to their campaign.
Already qualified:
Biden, Bernie, Pocahontas, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg.
Booker has only got about 100,000 donors. Beto has not polled high enough yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I understand Kamala Harris has been supporting some proposal to pay black folk after confiscating money from descendants of Slave Owners.
So she would be paying into the fund, as her father made clear that they are descended from Slave Owners.
Talk about Virtue Signaling.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I keep forgetting to comment about this.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have done a lousy job keeping the data updated in this thread.
For now, here is a roster of those 20 candidates who participated in the late-June Debates:
1. Pocahontas Warren.
2. Beto O-Rourke.
3. Cory Booker.
4. Julian Castro.
5. Tulsi Gabbard.
6. Jay Inslee.
7. Amy Klobuchar.
8. Bill DeBlasio.
9. John Delaney.
10. Tom Ryan.
11. Biden.
12. Bernie.
13. Pete Buttigieg.
14. Kamala Harris.
15. Kirsten Gillibrand.
16. Michael Bennett.
17. Marianne Williamson.
18. Eric Swalwell.
19. Andrew Yang.
20. John Hickenlooper.
To be clear, the requirements for the October Debates do not preclude other candidates from becoming eligible. I assume the above 20 have met some sort of criteria, unless Hilliary just Annointed them.
Reportedly, the top 3 are Biden, Bernie, and Pocahontas. Some reports are that the expected frontrunner in the fall will be Pocahontas. Maybe that is why she was allowed to change her answer the day after the first debate, when somebody told her how stupid it was.
If I understand correctly, DNC rules to qualify for the Fall Debates are 2-fold. At least 130,000 individual donors/contributors must have added to the campaign fund. And the candidate must have polled at least 2% in 4 approved polls during the period from June-August. I guess they also must have at least 20 States in which they have at least 400 donors.
Only 6 spots are allocated for the Fall Debates.
Some folk have commented on the lack of depth or substance in their debates and statements. This is reportedly due to the absolute need to increase their donor count, to spur those wackos on the Left to contribute to their campaign.
Already qualified:
Biden, Bernie, Pocahontas, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg.
Booker has only got about 100,000 donors. Beto has not polled high enough yet.
DeBlasio? Really? He was working so hard to destroy his own City, but now he wants to get promoted before he is defeated for his failures?
I saw a screen shot of Tulsi. Wait a second. An attractive woman running for President as a Democrap? How can that be? If the words coming out of her piehole were not so disgusting, she might be interesting to listen to. Saw a pic of her in slacks, and no evidence of cankles.
Has Biden been running every time since 1996?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi JSF
It's an either OR requirement with a limit of 20 candidates. If more than 20 qualified, candidates who meet the polling requirement take precedence. The first two rounds have the limits set below, the round after that the requirements double.
Democrats Set Field For First Debates Of 2020 Election Cycle
https://deadline.com/2019/06/democratic-debate-field-set-july-nbc-news
-msnbc-1202632416/
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/15/20691651/democratic-debate-2019-cnn-detr
oit-candidates-rules
1 percent in three separate qualifying polls released on or before a specific date OR raising money from at least 65,000 unique donors with at least 200 donors each in 20 states
https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-debate-schedule/2020-d
emocratic-debate-schedule/#schedule
Preliminary schedule:
First Debate
June 26 & 27, 2019
NBC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: The Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, Florida
Moderators: Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Diaz-Balart
Second Debate
July 30 & 31, 2019
CNN Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: CNN, CNN International, and CNN en Español
Live Stream: CNN.com
Night 1: Tuesday, July 30
8 pm ET, 5 pm PT
Candidates: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, Steve Bullock, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, and Marianne Williamson
Night 2: Wednesday, July 31
8 pm ET, 5 pm PT
Candidates: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julián Castro, Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, Bill de Blasio, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Gov. Jay Inslee
Location: Fox Theatre in Detroit, Michigan
Moderators: Dana Bash, Don Lemon, and Jake Tapper
Qualifications: A candidate will need to either have at least 1 percent support in three qualifying polls or provide evidence of at least 65,000 individual donations from a minimum of 200 different donors in at least 20 states.
Third Debate
September 12 & 13, 2019
ABC News Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: ABC, Univision
Live Stream: ABC News Live
Location: Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Qualifications: A candidate will need to either have at least 2 percent support in three qualifying polls, AND provide evidence of at least 130,000 individual donations from a minimum of 400 different donors in at least 20 states.
Fourth Debate
October, 2019
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Qualifications: A candidate will need to either have at least 2 percent support in three qualifying polls, AND provide evidence of at least 130,000 individual donations from a minimum of 400 different donors in at least 20 states.
Fifth Debate
November, 2019
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Sixth Debate
December, 2019
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
2020
Seventh Debate
January, 2020
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Eighth Debate
January/February, 2020
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Ninth Debate
February, 2020
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Tenth Debate
February, 2020
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Eleventh Debate
March, 2020
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
Twelfth Debate
April, 2020
Democratic Primary Debate
Aired On: TBD
Location: TBD
Sponsors: TBD
Moderators: TBD
Candidates: TBD
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I might need to review that. I thought I had read that the qualifications for the summer debates - June/July - were the either/or version, and then the fall debates were the both.
I need time later to check that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've gotten the idea that Trump is a FAR more skilled salesperson than most people realize. One way to fix a meme in the generic American mind is to gain headlines over and over and over. Most people beyond the hyper-partisan aren't going to read, or care about, any of Trump's tweets specifically. What they WILL remember is Trump+ jobs; Trump+ illegal immigration; Trump+ unfair Chinese trade practices; even Trump+ Puerto Rican corruption; and so on. And those are things they can generically get behind. (And the media is doing a great job helping Trump along by amplifying each antic. Jeeze, just STOP already! and get back to actual news.)
Trump gets in early, and by outrageousness and repetition defines what the issues are, and defines individuals, forcing everyone to be in a position of responding.
ANOTHER person who seems to understand that is AOC. Now, by luck of the draw she got a lot of early press for her win, but she's certainly not one to let an opportunity go to waste! (The other 3 of The Squad aren't nearly as individually well-known, but as a 4-pack entity have achieved recognition.)
Even though none of The Squad are running for president, they're doing a good job so far defining the entire democratic party. AND TRUMP IS HELPING THAT ALONG.
Why AOC and The Squad (some day it'll be a band name) might want to define the dems is beyond me because - if they look at their polling - none of them are popular among the general public. While that may change in the future, at this point they might as well be putting concrete around the dem candidates' feet before sinking them in the ocean.
But I can understand why Trump wants to make that connection early and often.
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG. Just shoot me now.
I've watched the democratic presidential debates. Not only that, I'll listen to them again as I'm doing stuff around the house. Maybe it'll give me some insight into what exactly they stand for (except for Warren and Sanders who've spent a lot of time developing their positions) besides generating what they hope are good sound bites.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I heard that the Tuesday Debates on Conspiracy Network Narrative garnered less than 10 million viewers. Although 3-4 times the amount of CNN's maximum audience for about 10 years, this would compare to 4 years ago when over 24 million Americans tuned in to the Republican Debates.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been thinkning about Bite-Me.
He didn't even get the nomination in 2016.
So, when was the last time a sitting Vice President, or even a past VP, was elected President from the Democrat Party?
Beyond my fresh historical memory, I'd need to look it up.
Not Biden. (sitting)
Not algore. (sitting)
Not Mondale. (past)
Not Humphrey. (sitting)
Alben Barkley didn't live until the next election.
Not Garner or Wallace. (past)
Thomas Marshall didn't live until the next election.
Not Stevenson (past).
Not Breckenridge, who was VP until the first Republican - Lincoln - was Inaugurated.
And Dallas was the only prior one to live until the 1960 election.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As you know, I think Kamala Harris is a kiss-ass to corporations and the DNC. She melted faster than frost in the morning sun when she accepted Obama's "deal" with the too big to fail banks which was just a slap on the wrist with no prosecutions. I've been completely disinterested in voting for her for ANYTHING after she showed her true colors. Obama, Booker and Harris are all just corrupt corporate kiss-butts in dark skin. Don't expect anything truly reformative from them.
Here is the exchange between Harris and Gabbard from the latest debate.
To save you from the irrelevant parts, Harris starts bragging about her record as CA Attorney General at 3:10 and at 3:45 the moderator asks Gabbard a question about something else, but Gabbard chooses instead to address Harris' record as Atorney General. Harris completely falls apart in reply.
And here is Tulsi, getting the screw-job from a bunch of women of color (Yanno,like she is.) Next, they'll be calling her a "Russian troll"
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They've already been calling her a Russian troll.
Facebook also hid the fact that she was the number 2 trending candidate all night until they were caught doing it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For whatever it means, here are post-debate polls.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Routine" my ass
Quote:MORE AT https://freebeacon.com/politics/california-removes-arrest-reports-from
California Removes Arrest Reports From Kamala Years
Routine website redesign obscures Democrat's record on criminal justice
A redesign of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation website will make it harder for voters to inspect Sen. Kamala Harris's controversial record as the state's top cop.
The department removed public access to a number of reports on incarceration in the state, including when presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D.) was California's attorney general. Twice a year, the CDCR releases information about the number of new individuals incarcerated in the California prison system as part of its "Offender Data Points" series. These reports provide important information on demographics, sentence length, offense type, and other figures relevant to criminal justice and incarceration.
Until recently, these reports were publicly available at the CDCR's website. A search using archive.org's Wayback Machine reveals that as of April 25, 2019—the most recent indexed date—ODP reports were available dating back to the spring of 2009. As of August 2019, the same web page now serves only a single ODP report, the one for Spring 2019. The pre-2019 reports have been removed.
The changes matter in part because the reports contain information about Harris's entire time as state A.G., 2011 to 2017. Harris has taken fire from multiple opponents for her "tough on crime" record as California's top cop, an image that she has tried to shed as a far-left senator and presidential candidate.
One particularly brutal attack came Wednesday night when Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hi.) laid into Harris for her record on criminal justice. Gabbard cited a Washington Free Beacon analysis — based in part on the ODP reports — that found that more than 1,500 Californians were sent to prison for marijuana-related offenses while Harris was attorney general.
-kamala-years/
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/25/tuls
Tulsi Gabbard sues Google, claims 'election interference' over suspension of ad account
Nicholas Wu | USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.
The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.
According to the lawsuit, filed by lawyers representing Gabbard's campaign Tulsi Now Inc., Google suspended the Gabbard campaign's advertising account for several hours during the first Democratic debate, when Gabbard was briefly the most-searched candidate on Google.
"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."
In response, Google says "automated systems that flag unusual activity on all advertiser accounts -- including large spending changes" were to blame for the suspension of Gabbard's account. Google says their automated systems aim to "prevent fraud and protect our customers."
"In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter," said Google spokeswoman Riva Sciuto. "We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology."
The New York Times first reported the lawsuit. Warning of the "dominance of big tech companies," Gabbard told the Times, "This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”
Gabbard's campaign website took a more aggressive tone.
"Tulsi Takes Google to Court Over Election Interference," said a banner at the top of Gabbard's campaign website, mirroring language about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Republicans have long attacked tech giants like Google for what they see as an ideological bias. Last month, President Donald Trump held a "Social Media Summit" at the White House, where he hosted prominent conservative detractors of tech companies.
Ahead of the summit, Trump railed on Twitter against the "tremendous dishonesty, bias, discrimination and suppression" of the tech companies and said they would not be able to do so for much longer.
"if Google can do this to Tulsi, a combat veteran and four term Congresswoman who is running for the nation’s highest office, Google can do this to any candidate, from any party, running for any office in the United States," says a statement on Gabbard's website.
i-gabbard-democrat-candidate-sues-google/1828271001/ I hope Tulsi get $50million to fund her campaign
*****
Quote:
WaPo Publishes Gabbard Smear Piece Filled With Blatant Lies
Caitlin Johnstone
The Washington Post, which is wholly owned by a CIA contractor who is reportedly working to control the underlying infrastructure of the global economy, has published a shockingly deceitful smear piece about Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard in the wake of her criticisms of her opponent Kamala Harris’ prosecutorial record during the last Democratic debate.
The article’s author, Josh Rogin, has been a cheerleader for US regime change interventionism in Syria since the very beginning of the conflict in that nation...
His article, titled “Tulsi Gabbard’s Syria record shows why she can’t be president”, is one of the most dishonest articles that I have ever read in a mainstream publication, and the fact that it made it through The Washington Post’s editors is enough to fully discredit that outlet.
You can readNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've heard of:
Free health care
Free college tuition
Free basic income cash
free pohones
free internet.
etc
etc.
I wonder what would happen if any candidate suggested the following:
Free guns - but only to law-abiding Citizens who pass a drug test (and not merely selling guns to his fellow habitual criminals, like Obama did)
Free American Flags
Free Improvement grants for lawe-abiding Citizens who pass a drug test
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Has anybody heard the clips from this Convention of Socialist Democrats?
I heard Rush playing the clips of this, it was hilarious. They sounded like a Student Body Council of kindergardners, without any adult supervision at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As of today 9 democrats qualify for the next round of debates.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/
Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well... Tulsi got screwed like Bernie last time.
It's Biden's race to lose.
Buttigieg is really the Democrat's only chance of winning on Trump.
He's the only one up there that's not in Biden's position who is a strategist and has an IQ in the triple digits.
A. He's gay. Everybody knows that he's gay. The media can't stop talking about the fact that he's gay. He's the only one that never brings up the fact that he's gay.
B. He's the only one outside of Biden that doesn't have the impossible task of walking a million miles of ultra-left-wing pandering back to the center when he goes up against Trump.
C. Biden is a dufus and is going to get crushed by Trump. The rest of them have already destroyed their own chances in the general election with all of their talking points in the debates.
I honestly think that Trump's chances would be less than 50/50 if he's got to go up against Buttigieg.
EDITED TO ADD: I'm only talking about the field of viable candidates here. Biden, Warren, Harris, Sanders, Buttigieg.
The rest of them should just drop out. I like Yang, but it's far too late for him.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, they started on Tulsi early - and often.
FWIW I watched then re-watched both days of the debate, round 2. I just want to say that, magically, the democratic party seems to have 'discovered' the working class - except for Sanders, Warren, and a few others who have well-established bona fides. DNC - better late than never, I guess.
I look on this through the lens of my 2 main concerns: nuclear war, and global warming.
I really like Tulsi because of her position re the military.
But the person who impressed me was Jay Inslee. He would wipe the floor with Trump. He has the smarts, the knowledge, the quickness, and the thoughtfulness to make Trump look like a kindergärtner having a tantrum. Plus he has an even-keeled, thoughtful, direct demeanor. And when he's taking an unpopular position, he can make a cogent, honest case for it. He's not evasive or defensive when it comes to answering any question. And he especially doesn't shy from addressing problems just because Trump pointed them out first. (And that's a flaw in a lot of the democratic response - instead of saying, well, yes, inner cities across the US have been rotting for years, they scream RACISM !! with as much fervor as they screamed RUSSIA !! It just makes them look like hypocrites.) Buttigieg said let's just pick the policy we think is right and argue for it. Inslee can walk that talk.
Anyway, Inslee isn't going anywhere, and neither is Gabbard, and that's too bad.
As for the rest, Harris doesn't give me quite the same level of creepiness that Hillary did, but she does come across to me as a self-serving opportunist with no moral compass. She can't defend her record when it comes up, or even acknowledge it. Instead she does the quick hustle, and that's just so transparent. But if nothing else she's willing to pitch whatever the talking points are that democrats want to hear, which I think is the secret to her popularity. Shakes head. The dems. Sigh.
I wonder if blacks are going to look at Biden as 'more of Obama', and whites (especially independents) as 'more of Hillary'. I see him as 'more of Hillary', which is everything wrong with the democratic party and why they lost the last time around. Aside from which he's just plain shifty about all the baggage he's carrying around, and an astoundingly poor debater.
Sanders and Warren have some deeply flawed policies (like reparations), but neither of them have a history of being war-hawks. I'd vote for them if they were on the ballot. But I don't think they can carry independents because a lot of their arguments are based on referring to 'values' / feelz (Warren more so than Sanders). But not everyone shares those extremely liberal values, and they don't bother to explain why they're good.
Buttigieg I think is a fast learner, and he comes up with good sound-bites. His lack of thought about national and global issues shows, I think because he seems to be making up is mind during the debate. But yeah, he would give Trump a stiff head-wind.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is this next debate end of September?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
As of today 9 democrats qualify for the next round of debates.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debates-2019-dnc-debate-housto
n-september-democrats-who-qualify/
Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
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
More could qualify by then, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not a fan of the polling support requirement.
Polling is not something to take seriously and can be easily manipulated.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 foreig
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
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?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hickenlooper is out.
Today he announced the transition of his campaign from POTUS to Senator.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yang is the 9th to qualify, Steyer and Castro are reportedly close. Gabbard making progress.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The one nugget I got out of the article, had me smacking myself on the forehead going - oh! yeah.
Quote:I suppose though that Obama will endorse the official candidate.
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"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So Castro is the new addition.
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
One more week to make the 28 August deadline.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Heard a new Rasmussen poll. 63% of Americans expect Trump to be re-elected in 2020.
Quote: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.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Last week, I heard a poll about Dems. Biden was leading, Sanders dropped 13%, Pocahontas fell into 2nd place.
Quote: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.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Then yesterday I heard that Kamala fell something like 12%, based upon 2 minutes from Tulsi Gabbard.
Quote:To my mind, that split is a real thing among democrats.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:But note that people who don't make the third debate can still qualify for the 4th, since the criteria are the same.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So Castro is the new addition.
One more week to make the 28 August deadline.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:But note that people who don't make the third debate can still qualify for the 4th, since the criteria are the same.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So Castro is the new addition.
One more week to make the 28 August deadline.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To my mind, that split is a real thing among democrats.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote: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.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Heard a new Rasmussen poll. 63% of Americans expect Trump to be re-elected in 2020.Quote: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.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Last week, I heard a poll about Dems. Biden was leading, Sanders dropped 13%, Pocahontas fell into 2nd place.Quote: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.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Then yesterday I heard that Kamala fell something like 12%, based upon 2 minutes from Tulsi Gabbard.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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Mounting is out, from MA. Just heard it.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:So Castro is the new addition.
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
One more week to make the 28 August deadline.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The polling threshold has a deadline of 28 August. Another day in Sept does not count.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:before Biden?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Warren and Sanders:
Quote: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.
Bernie was in 2nd place.
Pocahontas was lower.
Bernie fell.
Pocahontas also fell at some point.
Quote:To make sure I'm understanding, you mean relative to each other, or overall in the entire field?
But because Bernie fell more that she did, she ended up in 2nd place, with Bernie behind her.
Sorry if I confused anybody.
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:That pun was SO bad, it kinda hurt!
Other item: if they are going to play catch-up, do they need help from Secretary Swiftboat Ketchup?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote: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.
]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The polling threshold has a deadline of 28 August. Another day in Sept does not count.
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.
Quote:But note that people who don't make the third debate can still qualify for the 4th, since the criteria are the same.
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, businessmanQuote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So Castro is the new addition.
One more week to make the 28 August deadline.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:before Biden?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:Warren and Sanders:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote: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.
Bernie was in 2nd place.
Pocahontas was lower.
Bernie fell.
Pocahontas also fell at some point.
Quote:To make sure I'm understanding, you mean relative to each other, or overall in the entire field?
But because Bernie fell more that she did, she ended up in 2nd place, with Bernie behind her.
Sorry if I confused anybody.
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:That pun was SO bad, it kinda hurt!
Other item: if they are going to play catch-up, do they need help from Secretary Swiftboat Ketchup?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Alright.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I recall seeing this list and noticing that Zogby and Rasmussen were not among the polls for qualification.
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 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I heard Gillibrand is out, announced via tweety.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't respond earlier, but indeed, she is out.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:That contains a rather backward prediction that, thanks to high levels of billionaire-backing, Buttigieg will be a final top contender.
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?
Quote:Why Warren right now?
They definitely prefer Warren.
Quote:Ultimately, the goal is to have two acceptable candidates that get voted on, which means, NOT Sanders.
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.
Quote:But if Sanders should sneak through, billionaires might support Trump instead.
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).
Quote:The article then goes on to highlight how intentional and focused the billionaires' anti-Sanders campaign is.
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).
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 andNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 prom
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I heard Gillibrand is out, announced via tweety.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I had misread some things earlier. But 1kiki has helped me see where I was incorrect.
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. :)
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The polls I linked to at RCP are either limited to people who (say they) are democrats voting in the primary, unstated, or across party lines and presumably adjusted for the people in the different categories (D/ R/ I).
So I think they represent a narrower D portion of the spectrum.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME