November debate night set for the 20th

Currently qualified are Biden, Warren, Bernie, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Steyer and Yang.

Beto, Klobuchar, Castro and Tulsi only other candidates who have a reasonable chance of qualifying, have until Nov 13 to get those qualifying polls

10/9/2019 8:13:47 AM

Steyer, lol

10/9/2019 9:33:28 AM

^ seriously. And while they're at it, Maryanne Williamson should be able to debate too...

10/9/2019 1:21:57 PM

Do you guys see what they're doing yet?

10/9/2019 2:31:20 PM

#conspiracy
#maga
#votegreen

10/9/2019 3:27:53 PM

How about we just jump to you telling us and calling us all stupid for not being on your level?

10/9/2019 3:29:29 PM

What even is the play? The corporate media wants Tom Steyer at the debates so they create fake polls to get him there?

Wouldn’t they rather he just drop out so they can just take his absurd media buys on impeachment?

10/9/2019 3:37:28 PM

You aren't stupid at all. Its a very elaborate scheme with a lot of money and marketing behind it so its doing what its designed to do. Its also natural to think the news is journalism and would question anything that wasn't straight forward. You'd have to have followed the DNC rules committees since way back in 2017 to even have a chance to understand what is going on with the debates right now.

You'd also have to have done a lot of homework regarding the corporate makeup and portfolio interests of large media companies as well as their relationships with political platforms to understand how the media ties into that. Its too much to ask of a working person especially when your attention is being constantly diverted by the OMG LOOK AT TRUMP phenomenon.

10/9/2019 3:42:08 PM

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE

10/9/2019 4:41:13 PM

^^oh shit bringing the big brain great and unmatched wisdom

#maga
#awakening
#redpill
#votegreen

10/9/2019 4:49:47 PM

so is that dude like 100% confirmed earl?

10/9/2019 6:46:08 PM

https://twitter.com/hctrudo/status/1182359492312350720?s=21

This would make a lot of sense to consolidate primary support (which, of course, isn’t the point) but I’m not sure how it would go in a general election where the upper Midwest will likely be the tipping point.

I guess he could put Florida in play but I still think that’s a stretch.

[Edited on October 10, 2019 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ^ yes, 100%.]

10/10/2019 2:55:51 PM

I love Gillum, he presents as quite progressive, but he also has some corruption controversy on his past and couldn't beat Trump wet rag De Santis in Fl.

10/10/2019 3:15:19 PM

Tom Steyer raised $2 million with 166k donors in Q3

yes everybody hates billionaires and particularly those that buy their way into elections. regardless, Steyer is putting up relatively impressive early state polling numbers. and frankly, his messaging isn't that bad. go watch a few of his ads on youtube and look at his website. the "not a politician" angle will continue to appeal to many, and Steyer has a recent public image track record of being an earnest, politically engaged billionaire, rather than a money hungry capitalist like a Bloomberg or a Schultz (despite both of their relatively reliable Democratic party political/social stances). the question is how many Americans will believe he is authentic about his message

[Edited on October 10, 2019 at 3:49 PM. Reason : as i mentioned, i'm looking forward to seeing how he does in the debate next week]

10/10/2019 3:40:29 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-trolls-facebook-ad-zuckerberg-supports-trump.html

this is so fucking great

10/12/2019 4:40:49 PM

If you were to ask me a few months ago I was sure Biden would be the nominee.

But I think it’s really up in the air at this point.

Kamala’s ads recently seem really focused on winning the black vote. Warren is leaning heavily into the policy wonk messaging. Bernies ads are aggressively pro labor and working class. Yang reminds me a lot of Obama focusing on the concept of hope. I still think booker could make a comeback even.

Biden’s campaign seems very disorganized by comparison. He’s way too distracted by trump’s attacks, he seems to be flailing around. Warren whose probably next in line to be targeted by trumps tram has huge weakness here too since there seems to be a lot of video clips floating around of her talking about Native American heritage.

10/13/2019 1:05:21 PM

That's what happens when the entirety of your plan is to coast along and the coasting doesn't go so well.

10/13/2019 1:35:57 PM

https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/1183704043824320512?s=21

The Biden camp is hilariously bad at this.

10/14/2019 8:09:11 AM

Since MSM won't report it, I'd like to play the game where I pretend I have my own MSM network and make an MSM style smear headline.

DOES ELIZABETH WARREN's CAMPAIGN HAVE A RACISM PROBLEM?

Quote :

"In the early 2010s, Preston expressed hostility toward Asian Americans and gay Americans, tweeting in 2010, "Latino and Asian businesses need 2 stop being rude & f--n disrespectful, & I kno its A LOT to ask in CA but speak f--n English 2* #yahisaidit." Preston also shamed a gay employee at a government office, tweeting in 2011, "I LUV gay men but THIS county clerk at window G is a mahf-----n faggot wit it …hes bald but rokn jewels, acrylic nails,&silk scarves #andshit." Preston proclaimed her support for Warren in a video released over the weekend, saying she is "a Warren Democrat because I am not afraid of the fight." "Although those tweets were resurfaced as a political play, I take full responsibility for my actions and deeply apologize for my actions to those I’ve offended or hurt,” Preston said, citing her history with methamphetamine. “I also apologize to those indirectly impacted by these developments. At over 7 1/2 years clean and sober; I’ve learned to make amends when I’m wrong and to take complete accountability for my actions.""

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/elizabeth-warren-under-fire-as-campaign-surrogates-racist-homophobic-tweets-come-to-light/

10/14/2019 8:17:35 PM

Warrens moment at the LGBT forum appears to have been staged by a maxed out supporter

https://twitter.com/karpmj/status/1183875877358243841?s=21

10/15/2019 2:23:44 PM

It was an obvious softball question, who gives a shit where it came from?

10/15/2019 2:35:08 PM

I do, because Warren’s campaign is trying to set her up as the one most capable of taking on Trump on the debate stage.

And it’s another hit against her for not being trustworthy.

10/15/2019 2:49:17 PM

If a candidate were to receive a softball question from a maxed-out donor at a pro-life town hall during a Republican party presidential primary, I don't think that anyone would consider that a scandal.

Likewise, I think that you have to be digging pretty deep to consider this a scandal.

10/15/2019 3:13:57 PM

I don't think it's a scandal or anything, just misleading and reflective of the rest of her campaign: smoke and mirrors.

If it were a debate I’d call it a scandal, but this was just a town hall so not as bad.

[Edited on October 15, 2019 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2019 3:14:55 PM

What are some of the other items that make her untrustworthy?

10/15/2019 3:22:15 PM

-Her language surrounding Medicare for all and lack of a plan (plus that Harry Reid video where he basically promised she wouldn't support it. I know that's not her but I'd like to see a response from her campaign)
-Forgetting who she voted for when Reagan became president
-Forgetting her stance on gay marriage when she was a republican
-The Native American stuff coupled with her silence on the Dakota pipeline
-Failing to endorse the progressive candidate in 2016, presumably out of self interest (but at this point I'm wondering if it's also an ideological difference)
-Her slogan "Big Structural Change" despite her plans not reflecting this
-Proclaiming that capitalists can be reigned in voluntarily, despite all of history showing otherwise

There might be more I'm forgetting but that's what I have off the top of my head

[Edited on October 15, 2019 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2019 3:28:43 PM

If I came up with 10 random things of equal "dishonesty" for your preferred candidate would you be convinced that he/she isn't trustworthy also?

10/15/2019 3:32:27 PM

It'd be a hard sell but I'm open to hearing it. My candidate has been consistent and unwavering for 50+ years.

10/15/2019 3:33:52 PM

^^^ Thanks for the list.

So, you don't necessarily consider her to be a dishonest person; you just don't trust her to accomplish various objectives?

10/15/2019 3:42:57 PM

Here are 16...I would argue at least half of these are of the same level of "dishonesty" as the majority of shit on your list

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-sanders/statements/byruling/false/

To be clear, I actually don't find much of this to be really that dishonest, but since you're pointing out all these tiny things...

10/15/2019 3:53:43 PM

^^
I think she's a savvy politician who has painted herself as a Bernie alternative rather than a purely capitalist reformer. Her actual plans do not add up in comparison to her media presence.

^
They aren't tiny things to me. And they're all easily fixed, honestly. Apart from most of her plans lacking real substance.

[Edited on October 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2019 3:55:42 PM

Has Bernie issued corrective statements on all of those incorrect comments he made?

10/15/2019 3:59:52 PM

Why would anyone trust someone who says they are "capitalist to their bones" to do anything other than pursue maximum profit?

10/15/2019 4:01:04 PM

^^
I know you're being disingenuous but either way, what you're trying to compare is apples and oranges.

10/15/2019 4:03:56 PM

Actually no, I'm not being disingenuous, as my position is none of what either of us posted is a big deal...and I don't think this is apples to oranges. The things you posted are not really much more indicative of someone being dishonest than anything I posted. You can have your opinion, but this is far from some cut and dry argument that most people would agree with in a vacuum. I also seem to recall Bernie having some slightly damning positions over the years on guns, and at least someone on this board was fairly angry about his Clinton endorsement as being dishonest and/or unethical. You have a very similar point on your list.

10/15/2019 4:10:44 PM

You're bringing up factual inaccuracies and mis-statements. I'm talking what she actually wants to do, as referenced by her plans and her statements surrounding them. I could drop her entire weird history as a conservative Native American and still have major issues with her candidacy.

Forgot one: when she stood and clapped during Trump's obvious hit on Bernie and AOC: "American will never be a socialist country"

[Edited on October 15, 2019 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2019 4:14:01 PM

Quote :

"Failing to endorse the progressive candidate in 2016, presumably out of self interest (but at this point I'm wondering if it's also an ideological difference)"

Maybe as one of the most recognized voices in the party she knew endorsing would candidate in the primary would hurt the other in the general? She didn't endorse anyone until June of 2016. At that point everyone knew Hillary was going to win the nomination. Some may see that as opportunistic, to back the horse you already know will win. But I see it as being responsible and a mature leader.

10/15/2019 6:04:37 PM

As a warren hater, they are being unfair to warren piling on her about medicare for all for not saying she will raise taxes on the middle class. Its a gotcha republican question that she is correct in refusing to answer. Bernie falls for that trap and she refuses to. Its not about honesty. Its actually dishonest to say medicare for all raises taxes because its just a technicality. People hear that and think they will end up with less money. The question is intended to confuse people.

10/15/2019 8:30:59 PM

Klobuchar thinks Putin shot down MH17

10/15/2019 9:34:12 PM

10/15/2019 10:50:37 PM

https://www.axios.com/washpost-aoc-to-endorse-sanders-for-president-a54bc0dd-071b-4a2c-99f2-54123dff3ccd.html

BOOM

Hows that for #momentum?

10/15/2019 11:54:54 PM

Omar and Tlaib as well. What a night

10/16/2019 12:58:38 AM

^,^^ not sure those endorsements get him any support he doesn't already have

10/16/2019 1:21:24 AM

They could move a sliver of 2016 Bernie voters who supported Warren. Problem is she is drawing support from progressives AND Biden-weary moderates.

Not sure it does anything to help him in the Midwest or South.

But getting endorsements from them is better than not for sure.

10/16/2019 6:13:14 AM

does he need help in the midwest?

10/16/2019 8:35:23 AM

I think right now I would look more toward a Warren/Buttegig ticket.

That debate had a lot of people come out strong, with some good remarks by Warren. Warren fits a lot of what I'm interested in but I'm clearly more moderate than what she proposes. While I agree that the will MCFA raise taxes is a trick question, I think there were less dodgy ways to answer the question than how she did. I've heard her answer it more candidly in the past, and was a little surprised she didn't do it this time. I also don't think she gets businesses and disagree with her stances on Unions, that GM strikers are clearly in the right, that big companies are harmful and need to be broken up or that employees should vote for people on the company boards. A lot of that stuff is impractical, not because it's just too far left, but because there are basic human traits that would prevent them from being successful.

That said, she's decidingly better than Bernie from where I stand. Yang had a good response on the jobs for everyone comment that shows how some of Bernie's policies are also impractical.

But on the balance Warren would be my preferred vote. I like Buttegig but believe stepping from mid-size town mayor to president is a stretch, so while I like what I hear him say the most, it would be hard for me to give him my vote.

10/16/2019 11:25:05 AM

I'm pretty confused how someone could be torn between Warren and Buttiegeg.

10/16/2019 11:28:25 AM

10/16/2019 11:34:16 AM

^^Are you confused because you believe there is a clear answer between the two or because you don't see congruence?

Several factors go into candidate choices, including electability, how much you know about their past stances and likelihood of holding stances in the future, ability to play on the world stage, etc.

From a policy standpoint I more align with Buttegig and if all things were equal in those other factors, then he'd be my number one. Otherwise, Warren hits the highlights for much of my policy leanings, excluding the ones referenced above. She's not an ideological match per se but on the balance she's the best.

10/16/2019 11:42:39 AM

Fair enough. Anyways, your point of worker representation being against human nature is not true, it works in many countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors

And to your larger point, the idea that collectivism goes against human nature is totally flawed. We are a social species, and there have been prosperous communal societies throughout history in many different areas of the globe.

More detail on this can be found at 12:50 on this podcast episode, if you're interested in an expanded left-wing perspective. (And honestly, the whole episode is enlightening, it debunks many common myths surrounding socialism.)

https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/episode-101

[Edited on October 16, 2019 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2019 12:04:30 PM