4th Democratic debate lineup announced

[Jill 31,812]

Why is Joe Biden always the first in these graphics they make?

[PartySick 174,219]

5 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

Why is Joe Biden always the first in these graphics they make?

He's the frontrunner. Has been since he announced his candidacy

[Jill 31,812]

2 minutes ago, PartySick said:

He's the frontrunner. Has been since he announced his candidacy

Well I don't like that 

[PartySick 174,219]

2 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

Well I don't like that 

None of us do

I think once Sanders or Warren drops out (if that even happens) one will get the other's voters which will crush Biden. So fingers crossed

My main concern is neither of them dropping out, then a lot of the same voters are being split between two candidates and Biden will win just because he has the most support out of the three

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

Hope Bernie is recuperated before this one!

[Jill 31,812]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

None of us do

I think once Sanders or Warren drops out (if that even happens) one will get the other's voters which will crush Biden. So fingers crossed

My main concern is neither of them dropping out, then a lot of the same voters are being split between two candidates and Biden will win just because he has the most support out of the three

I don't understand why Warren is ahead of Bernie if Bernie's more progressive than Warren but Warren is also very progressive so I don't get why someone would vote for her when Bernie exists. Is it like an exact percentage of progressiveness they need?  My dream formula is Bernie-Warren but maybe it will end up the other way around 

[PartySick 174,219]

23 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I don't understand why Warren is ahead of Bernie if Bernie's more progressive than Warren but Warren is also very progressive so I don't get why someone would vote for her when Bernie exists. Is it like an exact percentage of progressiveness they need?  My dream formula is Bernie-Warren but maybe it will end up the other way around 

Imo, Warren is the more pragmatic choice just like Hillary was in 2016. Bernie's great but I don't see him being a useful president.

So Warren's my vote

But people also have very valid reasons for liking Bernie more. The problem is that both candidates appeal to a lot of the same people so we're kind of splitting the crowd here which gives Biden the edge

[GagaOhhLaLa 2,737]

2 hours ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I don't understand why Warren is ahead of Bernie if Bernie's more progressive than Warren but Warren is also very progressive so I don't get why someone would vote for her when Bernie exists. Is it like an exact percentage of progressiveness they need?  My dream formula is Bernie-Warren but maybe it will end up the other way around 

Bernie has the most unique donors between the two. He is loved by the people but the media calls him crazy Bernie.  Warren is getting love by mainstream media because  she is far less progressive then Bernie. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

The fact that they decided to put them on 1 night again after so many people qualified instead of their initially announced 2 day plan is disgusting.

It's probably because Biden looks better and is considered "winning" by centrists when he just does the bare minimum and doesn't ever get destroyed and that's  more likely in a large crowd  

Obv this is speculatory, but the general Biden favoritism is really gross to me and he should be falling faster than he is because hes sincerely a terrible candidate and campaigner.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I don't understand why Warren is ahead of Bernie if Bernie's more progressive than Warren but Warren is also very progressive so I don't get why someone would vote for her when Bernie exists. Is it like an exact percentage of progressiveness they need?  My dream formula is Bernie-Warren but maybe it will end up the other way around 

Simply put: Warren is a capitalist, Bernie is a Democratic Socialist. She believes we can whip capitalism and markets and businesses into shape and force them to be more ethical, Bernie says they are inherently unethical (e.g. private insurance will always have the goal of profit margins, not insuring quality health care, so we should get rid of them instead of just trying to make them better. The argument being that the system we have is already too corrupt to fail with this method, and corruption will sink its way back into the system 

Bernie is more of a grassroots organizer,  his ideas are highly populist and thus very popular amongst people of all political leanings including majorly independents. He has the *support* to make his policies work, but as Warren does not have the grassroots support to implement her policies, she will have to defer to corporate interests to support her, and this means making her policies less and less progressive to appeal to them. She's already done this on many issues, and beyond that her *recent* voting history is very unprogressive... especially on things like why she voted to expand the military budget and things around that subject... There are a lot of red flags in her campaign for progressive voters. The fear is that she would get in office and be Obama 2.0 - ran on populism, progressive policies, but ended up being forced into corporatism and centrism. I think she will be better than Obama in that regard, but not by much and  since this is our goal to get things right, settling for Warren to me is not the right thing to do here.

Ultimately, Warren is inoffensive and appeals to upper middle class and affluent, college aged white voters. She does frighten wall street and financial sectors, but that's nothing when you consider that Bernie frightens everyone in power, including Democrats and the DNC.
That is why mainstream media covers her favorably. For those not actively engaged in politics, I cant think of a reason to Dislike Elizabeth Warren other than the Pocahontas thing maybe, but that isnt sticking so far at all, so... It makes sense to me that less engaged people want Warren. They think Bernie might be a *bit* too extreme, but I'm of the belief that its essentially him or bust when it comes to the best option for the future of the country. (By that I mean, incrementalism is ineffective and easily outdone by Republicans in office, look at Trump on Obama's legacy.)

[HorusRa2 5,005]

3 hours ago, PartySick said:

Imo, Warren is the more pragmatic choice just like Hillary was in 2016. Bernie's great but I don't see him being a useful president.

So Warren's my vote

But people also have very valid reasons for liking Bernie more. The problem is that both candidates appeal to a lot of the same people so we're kind of splitting the crowd here which gives Biden the edge

You may not like what I’m going to see but the pragmatic choice of 2016 got us Donald Trump. There is a reason the pragmatic choice lost & I really urge you to reconsider. 

 

Not everybody can wait another 4 years of Trump & my biggest argument against Warren beyond the fact that Bernie is in the race is that the data isn’t showing that she’s capable of winning against DJT. I know I’m really critical of Warren in terms of the primary but as I said it’s because when compared to Bernie she’s just susceptible of that. If Bernie wasn’t in the race, the only real choice left would be Warren. 

 

When it it comes to the GE polling in 2016, the polling wasn’t really off by much. In fact the polling was correct that Clinton would get more votes but was not correct because of the electoral college. In other words, Clinton lost to Donald Trump because she didn’t appeal to the Midwest. One of the main reasons she didn’t appeal there was because Trump correctly identified that Clinton’s biggest weakness was Trade. She had either been involved with or supported every trade deal that has seemingly destroyed families economic security in Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania. To add salt to injury, she didn’t even campaign in Wisconsin and made only 6 campaign stops to Michigan. 

My sales pitch to you in terms of Bernie is that there’s no reason to doubt the polling would have been different in 2016 in terms of accuracy. What’s different is that Bernie was beating Trump by an average of about 10 points with state polling in the Midwest states in particular showing Bernie winning consistently. The reason for that is trade—Trump couldn’t use the same argument against Bernie that he did for Clinton. Bernie pulled the biggest polling discrepancy to actual results in 2016 by beating Clinton in Michigan even though polling had him losing by nearly 20 points. 4 years of a Trump presidency has now occurred and Trump now has a poor record on trade with his trade war. When you add these facts together, Bernie really is a pragmatic choice in 2020 if you want a reasonable assurance of beating Trump this time around. I know a lot of people think Warren is great or prefer her over Sanders but considering the facts & what’s at stake here, I don’t see a real reason to put her at the top of the ticket. Now I could see a reason to have her as a VP & Bernie could very well be a 1 term President & Warren could run at the top of the ticket afterwards with a 4 year record of righting the wrongs of the Trump administration with Bernie. But that is just my opinion based on what I know and what I’ve seen. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-out-campaigned-clinton-50-percent-key-battlegrounds-final-100-n683116

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-10-weeks-of-2016-campaign-stops-in-one-handy-gif/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, Lionel Hutz said:

I don't understand why Warren is ahead of Bernie if Bernie's more progressive than Warren but Warren is also very progressive so I don't get why someone would vote for her when Bernie exists. Is it like an exact percentage of progressiveness they need?  My dream formula is Bernie-Warren but maybe it will end up the other way around 

More people like her personally and the way she explains things. After every debate, she has had the highest favorability ratings. It’s often about who people relate to...who they think is “Presidential”, or who gives them hope. Traditionally, Democrats have gravitated towards someone new and this is Warren’s first run. 

Reasons vary, but Warren has a very low negativity rating, so her demeanor and message are being received in a positive way.

[MJHolland 12,725]

10 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

This is not about Tulsi, its about the facts said in the video. But if you want to make this about Tulsi, she was anti LGBTQ+ as a young person living with a right wing family. She never held any of these beliefs as an adult or a politician. Since she became an adult, joined the military, and became a politician, she only worked to help LGBTQ+ people. Yet Kamala at the age of 60 is still corrupted.

remember the other day when tulsi had tea with the murderous dictator of syria b/c I do 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, MJHolland said:

remember the other day when tulsi had tea with the murderous dictator of syria b/c I do 

Yeah I remember, so? She obviously did not go to drink tea with him, she went to talk to him during her big visit to Syria and called him a horrible dictator after the meeting. If you see something wrong with that, you dont know anything about politics.

It is a politicians job to meet with enemies and dictators just like how literally all presidents do. America openly funds, negotiates, make deals, and are allies with Saudi, Iran, Israel, and terrorists like Taliban. Yet Tulsi is attacked for talking with someone?

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, Faysalaaa said:

Yeah I remember, so? She obviously did not go to drink tea with him, she went to talk to him during her big visit to Syria and called him a horrible dictator after the meeting. If you see something wrong with that, you dont know anything about politics.

It is a politicians job to meet with enemies and dictators just like how literally all presidents do. America openly funds, negotiates, make deals, and are allies with Saudi, Iran, Israel, and terrorists like Taliban. 

I appreciate your effort but far too many people on here take CNN & MSNBC talking points as facts. The smears against Tulsi for being a diplomat in the era of US Imperialism is just too much for them. They don’t see anything wrong with our country toppling governments of other countries, launching economic warfare in the form of sanctions and putting in people of power of our choice causing chaos and war as a bad thing. && they certainly don’t care about the weapons we provide to terrorist groups so we can make money from our war machine. They think it’s perfectly okay to be part of the neoliberal and neocon framework that dominates both parties. It’s disgusting & makes me increasingly more angry every time I see it.