Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts


Warren - as a compromise candidate - between  the moderate Dem (Biden) wing and the Social Democratic (Bernie) wing??  The Politico article below thinks so.

 

I could never vote for Bernie and I'd have to go back to my first vote I ever cast, George McGovern for Senate in 1976 to vote for someone as left as Warren.

  However, of all of the candidates in the Dem field, I am probably most impressed by her putting together a detailed policy package - she isn't hiding behind personality, ambiguity, or charisma but is betting that thoughtful people will see that she has done her homework and has presented a platform that clearly defines

who she is an what she wants to accomplish.  So I give her kudos for that - even if I might not agree wt those policies as a whole. 

In the end, if I were a Dem &  had to vote for her vs Biden - I would vote for her.  No more going back to the Obama, Clinton, Bush years please. 

I think the only way we start tearing down the partisan divide is to get away from the partisans of the past.  Trump will remain the partisan hack

that he is - there is no hope of him changing.   Of course my preference would be a less partisan person from right of center like Kasich.  But that

probably isn't going to happen.   I see no one on the right able and willing to take on Trump and that is a sad state of affairs.  The GOP will die wt

Trump. 

She would be a fresh face and fresh voice in the WH.   So, I'll never say never with her. 

 

 

This link: Yahoo grades 13 of Warren's proposals
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elizabeth-warrens-best-and-worst-economic-ideas-133405568.html

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/democratic-establishment-elizabeth-warren-1369874


 

Quote

 

Warren, on the other hand, is gaining traction among those who once rejected her muscular vision of liberalism. She’s drawn notice for her wide-ranging “I have a plan for that” policy playbook, which has just enough growth-and-opportunity, center-left measures to earn her a serious look from former detractors. The Massachusetts senator may be out of sync with party centrists, but she’s drawn at least one sharp line with Sanders that is resonating with prominent moderate voices as she surges into the top tier in national and early state polls.

“One is a Democratic capitalist narrative,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a centrist think tank that convened a conference of party insiders in South Carolina this week designed to warn about the risks of a nominee whose views are out of the political mainstream. “The other is a socialist narrative.”

Third Way, which isn’t backing a candidate, famously torpedoed Warren in a widely read 2013 op-ed that exposed the party’s ideological fissures on entitlements. “Nothing would be more disastrous for Democrats” than to adhere to Warren’s brand of economic populism, wrote two of the think tank’s leaders in a piece that drew condemnation from progressives.

Today, however, Third Way is learning to live with Warren even as it embarks on a mission to ensure the Democratic nominee doesn’t stray too far to the left.

Jim Kessler, one of the authors of the 2013 piece warning that Warren would lead the party off the populist cliff, raved about the senator’s performance last weekend at the Black Economic Alliance candidate forum in South Carolina.

“Elizabeth Warren kills it at @BlkEconAlliance candidate forum. Love her entrepreneurship fund,” the Third Way co-founder tweeted Saturday.

“I don’t agree with 'Medicare for All.' I don’t agree with free college, … [But] her consumer protection policies are great. I think she has a good infrastructure plan,” said self-described moderate Democrat Reagan Gray, a health care policy and political consultant attending the Third Way conference. “I absolutely know and believe people are taking a second look at her. She now seems to be getting herself away from the Bernie Sanders grouping. People are taking a second look at her and saying, ‘Hmm. Some of her policies are good. Maybe she isn’t like Bernie.’”

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment


29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I don't see how the "extremist" reference is related to Warren't comments.  What am I missing?

 

I totally agree with Ranked CHoice voting, just don't understand why her tweet is what triggered the comments.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

I don't see how the "extremist" reference is related to Warren't comments.  What am I missing?

 

I totally agree with Ranked CHoice voting, just don't understand why her tweet is what triggered the comments.

Now we are going to start paying back everyone in the last that feels like the tax code didn’t treat them fair?

 

thats BS and a road we do not want to go down. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

I don't know if you all subscribe to or know about Axios newsletters, but I've enjoyed receiving their AM newsletter for some time. It provides a nice variety of 'political' information each morning. Today's headlining story had some interesting nuggets about the polls, their flaws/strengths, and how they could play a role in 2020. But, one of their stories today also included a quote from a Nebraska farmer about how the flooding locally (and trade difficulties nationally/internationally) are impacting the ag business.

 

1 big thing: 2016 flaws lurk in 2020 polls

 

Quote

Pollsters spent a lot of time figuring out why Donald Trump's win was such a surprise in 2016 — but there isn't going to be a radical change in most election polling for 2020, Axios managing editor David Nather writes.

- Why it matters: There will be some improvements in state polls, which were the 2016 key. But polling experts warn that states are still a weak spot.

The backstory: Most national polls weren't wrong in 2016. They had Clinton ahead by a few points, and she won the popular vote by about 2 points.

- Trump won the Electoral College by squeezing out victories in the upper Midwest — which you'd need reliable state polls to foresee.

The three main reasons the Trump win was a surprise, according to a postmortem by a committee of pollsters:

- Some state polls didn't get the right mix of educational levels: They had too many college grads, who were more likely to support Clinton.
- There was a late break for Trump among voters in Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania.
- Some people didn't identify themselves as Trump voters until after the election (which could have included some who decided late).

What's changed and what hasn't:

- Some state polls are doing more to weight their samples for education.
- It's still hard to predict who will actually vote, and it may be getting harder. "In pre-Trumpian times, one side would surge and the other side wouldn't. Now both sides surge," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.
- Many state polls are still inferior to national polls.
- Voters can still decide at the last minute.

 

 

More to the story at the link above.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...