Page 91 of 1306 FirstFirst ... 418189909192931011411915911091 ... LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,820 of 26103
  1. #1801
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    19 of 20. And no - I didn't watch the first debate. I don't intend to watch the second either
    15 of 20. I missed the 1st night of the first debate but saw the 2nd night. Consequently, it's weird to me to refer to the nights combined as "the first debate." In my mind, I saw the first debate, though, in reality, I only saw 1/2 of it. Psychologically, it allows me to totally dismiss night 1.

    The nightly split for the second debate is interesting with Sanders and Warren as the heavy hitters in night 1 and persons of color candidates and Biden in night 2. It seems like the two groups of heavy hitters might be intersted in driving different conversations. I'll be intersted to see if the public mentally incorportates the two nights into a "second debate" or if the nights are thought of as separate.

  2. #1802
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    So, here's where the current field of Dems stand based on recent polling and the RCP averages --- Here's the link as I can't seem to make the photo appear bigger in thread.


    Attachment 9619
    While I have been harsh about the DNC requirements for the September debate (surprisingly, they haven't called for my solution), it appears from this that only 7 or 8 will actually qualify. On a crowded stage it's hard to imagine any of the other 12 making enough of a splash to make a move.

    So cutting down to 8 from a field of 20 is a reasonable step. Will be interesting to see what the next cutdown criteria will be. I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but I think I just want the whole thing to be over.

  3. #1803
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    While I have been harsh about the DNC requirements for the September debate (surprisingly, they haven't called for my solution), it appears from this that only 7 or 8 will actually qualify. On a crowded stage it's hard to imagine any of the other 12 making enough of a splash to make a move.

    So cutting down to 8 from a field of 20 is a reasonable step. Will be interesting to see what the next cutdown criteria will be. I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but I think I just want the whole thing to be over.
    I'm surprised they haven't turned it into more of a "reality" show than it already is, maybe make them climb some rocks, shoot some elk, camp with grizzlies...might boost the ratings.

    I might start paying attention when it get down to your aforementioned seven or eight...

  4. #1804
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    I'm surprised they haven't turned it into more of a "reality" show than it already is, maybe make them climb some rocks, shoot some elk, camp with grizzlies...might boost the ratings.

    I might start paying attention when it get down to your aforementioned seven or eight...
    During the first debate, my idea was to vote someone off the island every commercial break. Still going with that one.

  5. #1805
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    I'm surprised they haven't turned it into more of a "reality" show than it already is, maybe make them climb some rocks, shoot some elk, camp with grizzlies...might boost the ratings.

    I might start paying attention when it get down to your aforementioned seven or eight...
    Hah. I don't know if he's going to do it again for the 2020 Dems but for the 2016 Republican primary, Colbert did a recurring Hunger Games bit every time one of the candidates dropped out. Colbert obviously has a strong partisan lean but it was a clever bit and I could see him doing it again considering the number of Dems running. Here's Marco Rubio's farewell...

    Regarding grizzlies, Putin already has the bear demographic well-saddled:

    vladimir-putin-riding-bear.jpg

  6. #1806
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    538 ran an article about how it will be difficult for a lot of contenders to get into the 3rd debate. The donor threshold is a challenge, but a cal for those $1 donations can help a lot with that. The bigger problem for most of the field is the 2% polling in at least 4 major polls. As you can see from this chart that 538 made, the polling cutoff really trims the field.



    I suspect Booker will get there in donors and he already made it in polls so I think he will be on the stage. But, Castro, Beto, and Klobuchar (who I consider to be the other mildly viable contenders) probably need a strong moment or two in next week's debate to get a polling boost otherwise they are going to be left out.

    It increasingly looks like this is a 5 person race with Booker closest to making it 6. The debate on CNN next week may be the last chance anyone else has to really make a case to be person #7. I think 6-8 on a debate stage in September would be ideal for the Dems.

    -Jason "the top 5 crushed everyone else in fundraising during quarter 2... that's a big deal" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  7. #1807
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Thomasville, NC
    I got four of them...

  8. #1808
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by Devilwin View Post
    I got four of them...
    I'd bet the national median is 2, maybe 3. I'd guess 90-ish% of Americans could name and ID Biden, maybe 80-ish% could do the same for Bernie, then it'd fall off precipitously.

  9. #1809
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I'd bet the national median is 2, maybe 3. I'd guess 90-ish% of Americans could name and ID Biden, maybe 80-ish% could do the same for Bernie, then it'd fall off precipitously.
    Wow, you're even more disillusioned in the American electorate than I am. Kudos. I think.

  10. #1810
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    During the first debate, my idea was to vote someone off the island every commercial break. Still going with that one.
    I am curious to see if the DNC (or whoever is allegedly the adult in charge of this thing) speaks up about the format for the second debate. I have seen a lot of negative comments about the "raise your hand if..." questions (particularly regarding healthcare) and some of those responses could really come back to bite some candidates if they advance. I recognize that that is an easy way to get a sense of where people stand when dealing with these huge groups, but most policy questions have a lot of nuance that can't be properly addressed this way. They also can't be properly addressed with the very quick sound bites that each candidate is allowed, but they are a lot better than the raising of a hand.

  11. #1811
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Wow, you're even more disillusioned in the American electorate than I am. Kudos. I think.
    I remember in high school civics, my teacher put on each and every test..."Who is the President? Who is the Vice President?". Every test kids would get it wrong.

  12. #1812
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I remember in high school civics, my teacher put on each and every test..."Who is the President? Who is the Vice President?". Every test kids would get it wrong.
    Doesn't surprise me in the least. According to this poll back in February, 12% of Americans had never even heard of Mike Pence. That's about 30 million people.

    I don't know that a figure like that is necessarily some sort of indictment. For one, it's a big, diverse country and some folks just are not plugged into politics at all. I live around a sizable Amish community...no idea what they teach in their communities (they make a mean whoopie pie though) but with the rest of their lifestyle, there's no reason they'd no or care who Mike Pence is. For another thing, dummies. In any population, there has to be some marginal percent of barely functional, yet voting adults within spitting distance of deficiency. Start adding up these blocs and that Pence 12% figure seems reasonable...at least to me.

  13. #1813
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Here is the draw for next week's debate:



    -Jason "serious question-- can you identify all 20 just by their faces" Evans
    13/20 for me. Pretty amazing the scores here, given how closely the people on this thread follow the race. There really needs to be a huge culling. How about something March Madness style?

    Of course, they left off the third day of the debate, which is just a video feed of Jason Evans explaining all the correct solutions to the country's problems.

  14. #1814
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Ok folks... reopening the thread. Let's all play nice. No more conversation about whether or not what Trump said/did was racist unless you have some link or poll or something other than an opinion about it.

    Thanks.
    Unfortunately, Trump himself is making this more of an issue now. It is impossible to go to any leading news website this morning and not see that it is front and center. Here is a screenshot from the MSN page.

    politics.jpg

    Trump himself made it more of an issue when he backtracked from the pressure he was applied to disavow the chant at the Greenville rally.

    Here is the thing for me. It seems to me that for possibly the first time in a presidential election, racism/nationalism, whatever you want to call it, is going to be a major issue in the campaign. It seems to be unavoidable. The Democrats are doing their best to make it an issue, and that probably works well in their favor. I can't see that the GOP can be too thrilled by it.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  15. #1815
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Unfortunately, Trump himself is making this more of an issue now. It is impossible to go to any leading news website this morning and not see that it is front and center. Here is a screenshot from the MSN page.

    politics.jpg

    Trump himself made it more of an issue when he backtracked from the pressure he was applied to disavow the chant at the Greenville rally.

    Here is the thing for me. It seems to me that for possibly the first time in a presidential election, racism/nationalism, whatever you want to call it, is going to be a major issue in the campaign. It seems to be unavoidable. The Democrats are doing their best to make it an issue, and that probably works well in their favor. I can't see that the GOP can be too thrilled by it.
    How old are you, kid? I wasn't paying much attention at the time since I was only 6, but in 1968 George Wallace got 46 electoral votes and over 13% of the popular vote. That may not seem like a lot, but it's the only time in the past 70 years that a 3rd party candidate received electoral votes. I imagine he had other policies but his main pitch was to bring back segregation.

    I must admit I'm pretty happy he only got 13% backing years ago...and will say no more about that.

    Here's a neat visual showing the electoral college map going all the way back to Washington.

    https://www.270towin.com/historical-...ial-elections/

  16. #1816
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    How old are you, kid? I wasn't paying much attention at the time since I was only 6, but in 1968 George Wallace got 46 electoral votes and over 13% of the popular vote. That may not seem like a lot, but it's the only time in the past 70 years that a 3rd party candidate received electoral votes. I imagine he had other policies but his main pitch was to bring back segregation.

    I must admit I'm pretty happy he only got 13% backing years ago...and will say no more about that.

    Here's a neat visual showing the electoral college map going all the way back to Washington.

    https://www.270towin.com/historical-...ial-elections/
    Indeed...and without going into the weeds, Dick Nixon's Southern Strategy was race based beyond question.

  17. #1817
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    How old are you, kid? I wasn't paying much attention at the time since I was only 6, but in 1968 George Wallace got 46 electoral votes and over 13% of the popular vote. That may not seem like a lot, but it's the only time in the past 70 years that a 3rd party candidate received electoral votes. I imagine he had other policies but his main pitch was to bring back segregation.

    I must admit I'm pretty happy he only got 13% backing years ago...and will say no more about that.

    Here's a neat visual showing the electoral college map going all the way back to Washington.

    https://www.270towin.com/historical-...ial-elections/
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Indeed...and without going into the weeds, Dick Nixon's Southern Strategy was race based beyond question.
    I guess since I wasn't born until 69, that I was more focused on the races that I was alive and around for. In my time, I don't remember any presidential election where this issue was such a focus. Being a North Carolinian, I am well aware of Helms' senate races and his campaign ads and proclamations of fear, but the national office to me has always seemed to me to be more focused on the economy and foreign policy as the front running issues.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  18. #1818
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I guess since I wasn't born until 69, that I was more focused on the races that I was alive and around for. In my time, I don't remember any presidential election where this issue was such a focus. Being a North Carolinian, I am well aware of Helms' senate races and his campaign ads and proclamations of fear, but the national office to me has always seemed to me to be more focused on the economy and foreign policy as the front running issues.
    Happy 50th! You'll get some discounts this year, but the real goodies start at 55.

  19. #1819
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Indeed...and without going into the weeds, Dick Nixon's Southern Strategy was race based beyond question.
    Only indirectly, Budwom. The major contradiction in domestic US politics, after the Republican progressives began to burn out, was why conservative Southerners stuck with the Democratic Party, when the Democratic Party, especially after the 1948 Democratic convention, was clearly much more liberal. This was driven home in the Great Society programs under LBJ, which were passed in the wake of the Kennedy assasination and the overwhelming Democratic victory in 1964.

    I think race is only part of this picture. Nixon had a Southern strategy, although he didn't need it in 1972 against McGovern and he didn't get many of the Deep South states in 1968 because of Wallace. The Republican strategy was based on a range of economic and social issues -- civil rights, unions, federal spending, states rights, welfare and social programs -- where the national Republicans had more in common with the Southern Democrats.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  20. #1820
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Only indirectly, Budwom. The major contradiction in domestic US politics, after the Republican progressives began to burn out, was why conservative Southerners stuck with the Democratic Party, when the Democratic Party, especially after the 1948 Democratic convention, was clearly much more liberal. This was driven home in the Great Society programs under LBJ, which were passed in the wake of the Kennedy assasination and the overwhelming Democratic victory in 1964.

    I think race is only part of this picture. Nixon had a Southern strategy, although he didn't need it in 1972 against McGovern and he didn't get many of the Deep South states in 1968 because of Wallace. The Republican strategy was based on a range of economic and social issues -- civil rights, unions, federal spending, states rights, welfare and social programs -- where the national Republicans had more in common with the Southern Democrats.
    I guess we'll have to disagree on that one, Sage...I think history records the Southern Strategy having at its core a reaction to (some of what you mention) civil rights, voting rights, school integration...that seems very direct to me.

Similar Threads

  1. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 12:28 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •