2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 3&4 |OT| July 30-31, 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

Temascos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,389
Do yall think the debates will ever be less of a show and more actual debating? I hope all the future debates aren't locked to CNN.
CNN's debate format is shocking, there's barely room for substance in policy or getting to know the candidate as a person. 15 second rebuttals are an asinine concept and encourages the Gish Gallop method of 'debating' that lets opponents get zingers that you cannot counter.

I've been reading Team Of Rivals which is about Abraham Lincoln's run to the Presidency and his opponents who eventually became part of his cabinet. In their debates they allowed at least an hour and a half if I remember correctly, obviously too long for this day and age but at the very least we should get to know WHY a candidate has made the policy decisions they have made, even if we don't agree with it.

I've only had a brief look at Town Halls, but they tend to be better at getting to see how a candidate can handle the tough questions with substance.
 

Troast

Member
Oct 31, 2017
407
Bernie won't ever poll above 25%. Thats his ceiling.
When you talk about momentum in a campaign, Warren is slowly building hers and will ride on towards the nom. When she shows up Biden in a debate or elsewhere on the trail, you will see her surge past him.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,281
Bernie won't ever poll above 25%. Thats his ceiling.
When you talk about momentum in a campaign, Warren is slowly building hers and will ride on towards the nom. When she shows up Biden in a debate or elsewhere on the trail, you will see her surge past him.
Nationally? Regionally? By state? Overall? That simply isn’t true and has never been true for decades upon decades. We’ve already seen Sanders poll well above 25% in 2016, not to mention that polling in 2018 showed him to be the most popular politician in America. That’s some wacked out, incorrect, shit you’re saying.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Member
Dec 26, 2018
7,426
Nationally? Regionally? By state? Overall? That simply isn’t true and has never been true. We’ve already seen Sanders poll well above 25% in 2016, not to mention that polling in 2018 showed him to be the most popular politician in America. That’s some wacked out, incorrect, shit you’re saying.
When he wasn't running for president. Hilary had higher polling when she wants running, too. It proves nothing about his viability as a president.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,077
Minnesota
Bernie won't ever poll above 25%. Thats his ceiling.
When you talk about momentum in a campaign, Warren is slowly building hers and will ride on towards the nom. When she shows up Biden in a debate or elsewhere on the trail, you will see her surge past him.
Keep in mind that a majority of delegates (50% +1) is required to secure the nomination. If there are 3 or more candidates by the end of the race, nobody is reaching that number.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,281
When he wasn't running for president. Hilary had higher polling when she wants running, too. It proves nothing about his viability as a president.
3 fallacies and counting. Impressive work. The truth of the matter is that nothing you’ve said is relevant to the points being made, and simply having ‘higher’ numbers by itself does not adequately address any relative differences in polling between candidates. It’s a deflectionary tactic of no substance.

Beyond that, I could point to many politicians that have held elected office and weren’t running, never having reached such high water marks, and it still wouldn’t be relevant to the wholely dishonest claim that Sanders has a ceiling of 25%. If you’re at all interested in substantive discussion — taking the path that seems to just be about ripping down a candidate at any cost is a weird route to take.
 
Last edited:

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,575
My fan fiction has Bernie getting 100% of the delegates and then deferring to Warren because he's such a gentleman. She returns the favor, but while they're busy competing for the smallest ego, somehow Hickenlooper swoops in and takes the nom right before the buzzer. Warren just smiles and dumps gatorade on Bernie, and then everyone laughs
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,280
He's actually the most liked person running for president right now.

That depends on the poll:



(That's also a more recent poll) Either case, it's really only competition between Bernie or Biden on favorability since everyone else still has a LOT less name rec. May I say that's it's impressive that De Blasio manages to have the most unfavorability with abysmal name rec?
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,077
Minnesota
That depends on the poll:



(That's also a more recent poll) Either case, it's really only competition between Bernie or Biden on favorability since everyone else still has a LOT less name rec. May I say that's it's impressive that De Blasio manages to have the most unfavorability with abysmal name rec?
Yeah I picked the Gallup poll because it was the most recent poll I saw on their favorability ratings. I think with de Blasio it's because he's infamous in a sense, with the whole Eric Garner situation. Pretty amusing data point though.
 

Troast

Member
Oct 31, 2017
407
I wanted Bernie to win against Hillary, but I accept that the reality of 4 years later, and being the same message people just have a bad perception of him. Saying the same old things, which is true and fine because he was so progressive back then and still today with the same ideas, so how can he change the message? I do also think his age and being 4 years older now is a perception problem. Thats why I think he will be stuck around 25%.
I am glad a number of Bernie supporters last time around also realize that Warren is a better bet going against Trump.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Member
Dec 26, 2018
7,426
3 fallacies and counting. Impressive work. The truth of the matter is that nothing you’ve said is relevant to the points being made, and simply having ‘higher’ numbers by itself does not adequately address any relative differences in polling between candidates. It’s a deflectionary tactic of no substance.
Of course higher numbers count when it comes to winning elections, those numbers certainly didn't get him the nomination when last Bernie ran. The fact is Hillary had to take a dive before he could get those results with polling, had been that popular before he might have posed a real challenge in '16 after Super Tuesday. Maybe in '20 we'll get new results, but until then we have history to base his popular on.

Beyond that, I could point to many politicians that have held elected office and weren’t running, never having reached such high water marks, and it still wouldn’t be relevant to the wholely dishonest claim that Sanders has a ceiling of 25%.
Because when it really counts it doesn't appear, and this ignores the context for what happened for this to be possible. Which relied on Hillary losing to Trump. That poll wasn't done in a vacuum or on an Earth where Hillary won the presidency, it was done at that specific time and place.

If you’re at all interested in substantive discussion — taking the path that seems to just be about ripping down a candidate at any cost is a weird route to take.
Where is this complaining when people do this with other candidates running? I'm not ripping down Bernie "at all cost" it's pointing out facts about his numbers and to demystify his real popularity in America.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,281
Of course higher numbers count when it comes to winning elections, those numbers certainly didn't get him the nomination when last Bernie ran. The fact is Hillary had to take a dive before he could get those results with polling, had been that popular before he might have posed a real challenge in '16 after Super Tuesday. Maybe in '20 we'll get new results, but until then we have history to base his popular on.



Because when it really counts it doesn't appear, and this ignores the context for what happened for this to be possible. Which relied on Hillary losing to Trump. That poll wasn't done in a vacuum or on an Earth where Hillary won the presidency, it was done at that specific time and place.



Where is this complaining when people do this with other candidates running? I'm not ripping down Bernie "at all cost" it's pointing out facts about his numbers and to demystify his real popularity in America.
Take a look at his recent popularity polling. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that his high polling was the subject of time and place and then use past performances where ‘his support didn’t show when it counted’ (this is blatantly untrue) to discount the CURRENT Sanders support in completely different scenarios.

I’ve complained in this fashion about arguements made against other candidates, so have others.

I wanted Bernie to win against Hillary, but I accept that the reality of 4 years later, and being the same message people just have a bad perception of him. Saying the same old things, which is true and fine because he was so progressive back then and still today with the same ideas, so how can he change the message? I do also think his age and being 4 years older now is a perception problem. Thats why I think he will be stuck around 25%.
I am glad a number of Bernie supporters last time around also realize that Warren is a better bet going against Trump.
It’s a fair opinion to prefer Warren over Sanders, but there’s nothing of substance to suggest that people have a bad perception of him. There are some ardent ABBers on Era, but in the real world he remains highly popular.
 
Last edited:

Xiao Hu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
940
My fan fiction has Bernie getting 100% of the delegates and then deferring to Warren because he's such a gentleman. She returns the favor, but while they're busy competing for the smallest ego, somehow Hickenlooper swoops in and takes the nom right before the buzzer. Warren just smiles and dumps gatorade on Bernie, and then everyone laughs
Except that it's not Gatorade but fracking chemicals
 

Ichthyosaurus

Member
Dec 26, 2018
7,426
Take a look at his recent popularity polling. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that his high polling was the subject of time and place and then use past performances where ‘his support didn’t show when it counted’ (this is blatantly untrue) to discount the CURRENT Sanders support in completely different scenarios.
I'm not discounting that Bernie didn't become stronger post-'16, only how this wasn't always the case with his popularity. Sure it is, he lost the nomination - if he was that popular when he was running against Hillary as the polls show he should have done a lot better than he did. The support he dreamt of never materialised back then. And to this day he's had a tough battle in the polling against candidates like Joe Biden, who is the front runner.

I’ve complained in this fashion about arguements made against other candidates, so have others.
Ok.
 

RailWays

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
5,679
Yeah, I'd rather Bernie not pick Tulsi of all people as a potential VP. She doesn't even back Green New Deal.
 

Xaszatm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,586
What the fuck do voters see in Joe Biden? Is it love for president Obama?
Yes, because he was the VP people have this idea that he must share Obama's ideals and therefore any attack on him is taken as an attack on Obama (not helped by Biden freely using Obama as a shield whenever he can).
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,280
Yes, because he was the VP people have this idea that he must share Obama's ideals and therefore any attack on him is taken as an attack on Obama (not helped by Biden freely using Obama as a shield whenever he can).
Biden would have to be brain dead not to use Obama as a shield. If any politician could leverage someone with 97% approval rating, they would.
 

Cheebo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,767
Ann Arbor, MI
Anyone who likes Tulsi either doesn’t care about her homophobic statements or agrees with her offensive statements about gay people.

It’s horrible to watch her fans online (mostly places like Reddit) who just don’t give a shit about gay people and still try to convince people they are left. Sorry, no one is buying that act.

Tulsi is the only person running in which I couldn’t bring myself to vote top of the ticket if she was on it. I couldn’t live with myself voting someone who hates such contempt for gay people.
 

ckareset

Member
Feb 2, 2018
3,762
Yes that’s what she’s doing

Bridge between Biden and Kamala seems burned. Stacey said no. He seems to be on the “I’m gonnna pick a woman” train and Biden has a sensitive ego so I can see what she’s doing here actually
I dont think Biden is spiteful
Anyone who likes Tulsi either doesn’t care about her homophobic statements or agrees with her offensive statements about gay people.

It’s horrible to watch her fans online (mostly places like Reddit) who just don’t give a shit about gay people and still try to convince people they are left. Sorry, no one is buying that act.

Tulsi is the only person running in which I couldn’t bring myself to vote top of the ticket if she was on it. I couldn’t live with myself voting someone who hates such contempt for gay people.
I haven't seriously looked into them because her candidacy is a joke, but people aren't allowed to grow and change?
 

Boiled Goose

Member
Nov 2, 2017
7,770
Anyone who likes Tulsi either doesn’t care about her homophobic statements or agrees with her offensive statements about gay people.

It’s horrible to watch her fans online (mostly places like Reddit) who just don’t give a shit about gay people and still try to convince people they are left. Sorry, no one is buying that act.

Tulsi is the only person running in which I couldn’t bring myself to vote top of the ticket if she was on it. I couldn’t live with myself voting someone who hates such contempt for gay people.
I think Tulsi is a bad candidate for many reasons, but you can make this argument about most candidates if you replace the target demographic.
 

digit_zero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
492
I really don't get how Tulsi is getting so much play in this thread - she is polling at 1% and is a worse candidate than even Biden
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,281
Someone just posted a poll that has him with very high unfavorables, with only de Blasio having a higher unfavorable rating
20% is great for a well known candidate running for President or any politician. He’s roughly as well liked and viewed as unfavourable, and known as Biden and there’s no way you can argue that Biden is viewed negatively overall. Having a 1/8th unfavourable for a known politician is a fantastic ratio.

Here’s what a candidate with high unfavourable polling looks like. Hilary Clinton only ever peaked at roughly 66% favourable throughout her career with low ‘no opinion/don’t know’ and was underwater throughout the entirety of her 2016 run.



You can also see her consistent sub 40% with independents, and Candidates like Warren will see their unfavourables rise as more become aware of them.

 
Last edited:

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,575
This "signal boosting" thing is still going on, huh?

Tulsi isn't going anywhere near the nomination, she just took a swipe at Harris that hurt because it was true. And whoa, we've been talking about Tulsi Gabbard instead of Harris's record ever since, as if her sucking makes anything she said at the debate untrue. Fancy that.
 

KingKong

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,030
Theres a very obvious reason why first Marianne and then Tulsi were the most googled after the debates and thats people looking at their photos
 
Status
Not open for further replies.