Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

2nd Democratic Debate Poll

2nd Democratic Debate  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will come out as a winner on the Tuesday Debate?

    • Williamson (flopped the last debate)
    • Delaney
      0
    • Hickenlooper
    • Ryan (flopped the last debate)
      0
    • Bullock (did not qualify for the last debate)
    • Klobuchar
    • O'Rourke (flopped the last debate)
    • Buttigieg (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Warren (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Sanders (underwhelmed in last debate)
  2. 2. Who will come out as a winner on the Wednesday Debate

    • Inslee
    • Gillibrand
    • Gabbard
    • Bennet
      0
    • De Blasio
    • Booker
    • Yang
    • Castro (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Harris (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Biden (underwhelmed in last debate)
  3. 3. Will you watch the 2nd debate?



Recommended Posts

Just now, Actinguy said:

The media didn’t set the limits.  The DNC did.  And since the candidates want the DNC’s money, they have to play by the DNC’s rules.

If you’re going to constantly criticize the way this nomination process is conducted, you could at least first take a moment to learn how this nomination process is conducted.

Since I personally believe more than two parties should be functionally, viably, and potentially part of the currently politically stifled U.S. political scheme and allow true choice of leadership, I believe the Primary Nomination Process of the two main parties receives far too much institutional bandwidth and dominance - especially for an electoral/governmental activity with no mention or acknowledgement in the U.S. Constitution at all. Frankly, FAR more Americans should really be able to the ballot box in November with some enthusiasm over a viable candidate, and not a statistical majority holding their nose and grimly picking a poison and choosing the least of two evils, or sitting at home, or voting for someone else in an environment that's guaranteed to throwing away their vote. Is THAT too radical to desire an electoral system? Is THAT too much to ask for that statistical majority every election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Patine said:

Since I personally believe more than two parties should be functionally, viably, and potentially part of the currently politically stifled U.S. political scheme and allow true choice of leadership, I believe the Primary Nomination Process of the two main parties receives far too much institutional bandwidth and dominance - especially for an electoral/governmental activity with no mention or acknowledgement in the U.S. Constitution at all. Frankly, FAR more Americans should really be able to the ballot box in November with some enthusiasm over a viable candidate, and not a statistical majority holding their nose and grimly picking a poison and choosing the least of two evils, or sitting at home, or voting for someone else in an environment that's guaranteed to throwing away their vote. Is THAT too radical to desire an electoral system? Is THAT too much to ask for that statistical majority every election?

Sure.  But how.

It costs money to compete in an election.  More money than most people have.

So if you want to run for President, you either...

1) Spend your own money because you’re insanely rich, but therefore probably aren’t connected to the average person

or

2) Spend someone else’s money.  The parties...Republican and Democrat...have demonstrated the ability to raise incredible amounts of money for election purposes.  No other party has demonstrated an ability to raise funds at that level.  To a degree, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.  Why donate to a third party that is never going to win?  But how will they ever win if you don’t donate?  A vicious cycle, to be sure.  But a cycle that can not and will not be broken until a third party shows up with the cash necessary to compete.  

The whole point of the primary system is to win over the party so you get access to their cash and resources for the general election.  And the parties obviously don’t want to throw away their money on candidates who can’t win.  So prove to me that you can get votes without money, so I will then give you money which you will then spend on more votes.  Also an interesting circle.  

But the whole election process in the us requires money.  The 2016 election cost $2.4 BILLION dollars, and I’ll bet you every penny I have that 2020 will cost more.

If you want people to give you money — “real” money, the level of money you need in order to compete in a multi billion dollar race — you have to convince people that they’re not wasting their money by giving it to you.  That you don’t just have good IDEAS, but that you also have an amazing plan to actually and realistically ACCOMPLISH those ideas.  And step one of that plan had better be how you think you’re going to win the nomination and then the general election.

You show me that information by showing your high polling numbers.  Your huge donor database.  Your golden ticket to the next series of debates.

If you can’t show me these things, then you’re going to lose.  Why am I going to give my money to the loser?  

If you want to change the election/primary system, you need to go out there and raise a billion dollars or so to get your third party’s infrastructure up and running.  Until you do that, this third party idea is just pissing into the wind and complaining about the rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure.  But how.

It costs money to compete in an election.  More money than most people have.

So if you want to run for President, you either...

1) Spend your own money because you’re insanely rich, but therefore probably aren’t connected to the average person

or

2) Spend someone else’s money.  The parties...Republican and Democrat...have demonstrated the ability to raise incredible amounts of money for election purposes.  No other party has demonstrated an ability to raise funds at that level.  To a degree, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.  Why donate to a third party that is never going to win?  But how will they ever win if you don’t donate?  A vicious cycle, to be sure.  But a cycle that can not and will not be broken until a third party shows up with the cash necessary to compete.  

The whole point of the primary system is to win over the party so you get access to their cash and resources for the general election.  And the parties obviously don’t want to throw away their money on candidates who can’t win.  So prove to me that you can get votes without money, so I will then give you money which you will then spend on more votes.  Also an interesting circle.  

But the whole election process in the us requires money.  The 2016 election cost $2.4 BILLION dollars, and I’ll bet you every penny I have that 2020 will cost more.

If you want people to give you money — “real” money, the level of money you need in order to compete in a multi billion dollar race — you have to convince people that they’re not wasting their money by giving it to you.  That you don’t just have good IDEAS, but that you also have an amazing plan to actually and realistically ACCOMPLISH those ideas.  And step one of that plan had better be how you think you’re going to win the nomination and then the general election.

You show me that information by showing your high polling numbers.  Your huge donor database.  Your golden ticket to the next series of debates.

If you can’t show me these things, then you’re going to lose.  Why am I going to give my money to the loser?  

If you want to change the election/primary system, you need to go out there and raise a billion dollars or so to get your third party’s infrastructure up and running.  Until you do that, this third party idea is just pissing into the wind and complaining about the rain.

My solution is thus - and I've said it before. If the Electoral College and the gerrymandered House of Representatives were gotten out of the way, it seems logical that, over a period of time (maybe not even that long) the two main parties (which, in truth, are not truly like "political parties" in much of the world anyways - they're loose, dysfunctional, incoherent, and headless political organs with no single clear political message or platform and each tearing themselves apart at the seams from within as it is - as each Primary race already clearly shows) along their natural faultlines into organic, sensible, ideological parties that make sense and have actual cohesion, if the dinosaur relics of electoral practice designed for a very different era and mindset were no longer forcing them together each like a box of vicious snakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MysteryKnight said:

Unknown mayor to President is not a good jump.

Unless you're a white midwestern mayor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilight said:

Unless you're a white midwestern mayor...

The different with Pete is that he at least had some name recognition and work within the party. He ran to be the new DNC chair in 2017, got some endorsements from prominent politicians and made a good case for generational change even though he lost. For the last few years pundits have been saying he has a bright future in the party. Should he have ran for president? No. 

But still, look at Pete's merits and look at Messam. Big difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MysteryKnight said:

The different with Pete is that he at least had some name recognition and work within the party. He ran to be the new DNC chair in 2017, got some endorsements from prominent politicians and made a good case for generational change even though he lost. For the last few years pundits have been saying he has a bright future in the party. Should he have ran for president? No. 

But still, look at Pete's merits and look at Messam. Big difference. 

I was extremely dismissive of Pete until I saw his CNN townhall and was absolutely blown away.  I was desperately looking for a spark in anyone that I could passionately support.  Biden was...fine, but simply too old and tired now.  Others were also...acceptable, but I couldn’t believe that with 20+ candidates I couldn’t find any that I could excited about (other than just “they’re not Donald Trump”).  

Then I saw Pete speak and was immediately intrigued.  Combat Veteran, Rhode Scholar, speaks passionately about his faith while also actually respecting those who believe differently from him, AND he’s openly gay so he understands what it means to be discriminated against by your own government.

I found my spark.  I’ve sent him about $500 so far, with plans to send more.  

Its possible Messam is amazing too, I have no idea.  Didn’t see the point of checking out the zero-percenters when someone I’m passionate about is in the top 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I was extremely dismissive of Pete until I saw his CNN townhall and was absolutely blown away.  I was desperately looking for a spark in anyone that I could passionately support.  Biden was...fine, but simply too old and tired now.  Others were also...acceptable, but I couldn’t believe that with 20+ candidates I couldn’t find any that I could excited about (other than just “they’re not Donald Trump”).  

Then I saw Pete speak and was immediately intrigued.  Combat Veteran, Rhode Scholar, speaks passionately about his faith while also actually respecting those who believe differently from him, AND he’s openly gay so he understands what it means to be discriminated against by your own government.

I found my spark.  I’ve sent him about $500 so far, with plans to send more.  

Its possible Messam is amazing too, I have no idea.  Didn’t see the point of checking out the zero-percenters when someone I’m passionate about is in the top 5.

I first saw Buttigieg during the CNN debate for DNC Leadership race. I thought he was easily a better choice between Perez and Ellison. I think there was one other candidate too. He had to have been 34 or 35 then. He was as solid of a speaker then as he is now. I remember thinking that he would rise high if he weren't in Indiana. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...