Imabench

Making a thread here in the politics section regarding the 2020 Dem primary partially out of boredom and also to see if we can track where the voting bases of each candidate goes as the election season progresses and as major things happen. This was mainly inspired by the most recent poll out of Iowa showing that one candidate in particular has, effectively, shit the bed. 

In a recent Iowa Monmouth poll ( I like to RCP because it aggregates polls that you can follow right to the original poll https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html ) Two major shifts took place that might fly under most people's radars

With Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris are the front runners with double digit support, the first big shift occurred with one of those in the bottom tier of candidates whose numbers took a gigantic hit: Beto O Rourke, who is now polling at <1% in Iowa https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_IA_080819/

This is a big deal because previously, Beto was polling at around 6% in Iowa, meaning that he has effectively lost his ENTIRE voter base in the first crucial primary state in the election cycle. 

I know 6% isnt much, but seeing how all but 5 candidates are polling under 6% in Iowa right now, Beto just went from possibly breaking out into the upper-tier of candidates to being pretty fucked. If you cant get at least 5% in Iowa, your entire campaign is effectively screwed heading into New Hampshire, and Beto is now effectively in that category..... If you look at second pick voting, meaning who would pick certainc andidates as their second choice, Beto's drop was even harder, going from 8% down to 1%  https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_IA_080819/

The poll also indicates who may have taken that support, or who at least benefits from it.... Beto dropped around 5.5 points, but the only candidates who made any major gains since April have been Warren (+12%) and Harris (+4%).... Biden's numbers have stayed about the same, and the only other big loser brings us to our second big shift, Sanders dropped 7 points from 16% down to 9%..... Assuming Warren absorbed all of Sanders's support he lost, either her or Harris were the ones who then benefitted most from Beto's dropout in support (assuming that he didn't lose his support to some other candidate, who then also lost just about as many supporters to a third candidate) 

With the primaries still months away, it looks like the very left-wing vote is beginning to coalesce around Warren, while more moderate voters from lower tier candidates are starting so shift to Warren as well, or support Kamala Harris instead.... Pete Buttigieg, the next kind of 'centrist' candidate similar to Biden, didn't see his numbers shift at all in the same Iowa poll after Beto bottomed out, which means he might become the next middle-tier candidate to fall apart, since supports of lower tier candidates are not switching to him after they jump ship. 

 

Jim Swalwell dropped out of the race on July 8th, and Tim Ryan recently suspended his campaign following the Dayton mass shooting in his home state (He says its temporary, but I have my doubts https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2019/08/ryan-suspends-his-campaign/). Last year in 2016, Rick Perry was the first person to drop out of the GOP primary race (September 10), so we may now be entering the period of time where the lesser known candidates in the primary start dropping off. 

Based on your own gut feelings and current poll numbers, who do you think will be the next candidate to drop out, and if you had to guess, who will follow after them? With 12 different candidates polling at 1%, its a pretty big crapshoot to really narrow own who will drop out when, but maybe someone will nail it and then get bragging rights for the next four years. 

(RCP polling for reference: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html)

So, in what order do you think the Dem candidates will drop out? Here's my guess: 

21 - Ryan (Recently suspended campaign) 

20 - Steve Bullock (Genuinely forgot he was even running in the first place) 

19 - Hickenlooper

18 - Bennet

17 - De Blasio 

16 - Williamson (Author, she'll drop out whenever she feels like it)

14 - Gillibrand 

13 - Delaney

12 - Steyer (Billionaire who recently entered the race, he'll stick around for a bit)  

11 - Klobuchar 

10 - Castro

9 - Gabbard

8 - Yang 

7 - Beto 

6 - Booker 

5 - Buttigieg 

4 - Warren

3 - Harris

2 - Sanders  

1 - Biden becomes the nominee

If you look at results showing who Dem voter's second picks would be after the main candidate they support drops out, there is a candidate who benefits the most: Biden. 

Of the voter bases that support Sanders, Warren, Harris, Beto, Booker, and Klobuchar, only Warren's voter base's second choice is someone other than Biden (They would prefer Sanders more, to no one's surprise). 

The fact that Biden already has a massive polling lead among more centrist-leaning Dems, combined with polls showing Biden is close to everyone's second favorite pick after the person they currently support, suggests that once candidates start dropping out, Biden will be the one who benefits the most from it...... With Sanders and Warren splitting the more left-leaning base deep into the primaries as well, and Harris kind of between the left wing faction and the more centrist faction, I don't see anyone putting together a base that can rival Biden's in time for the end of the primaries. 

So what do you think will be the dropout order if you had to put together a list? 

Im having one of those instances where an idea has popped into my head and now my brain is refusing to let me fucking go to sleep unless I explore it to a satisfactory degree, so ima post it here to see if it does the trick and let you all toy with the idea yourselves.

Since the Dem debates for the 2020 election have been a bit of a train wreck (as also seen with the GOP debates in the 2016 election) thanks to an overcrowding of candidates running for president combined with media outlets trying to get memorable soundbites for ratings, I began wondering what it would look like if I was able to make a debate and how it would be designed? Right after that I began wondering what questions would be asked as well, and my mind has been running wild ever since. 

So, here is how I would do things. (The first chunk of this is technical setup, the second half are the questions that I would have asked the candidates.) 

- 8 candidates max.... Thought about going with 7 to really limit things, but 10 is simply too much and absolutely eliminates the chance for all candidates to be able to chime in on a topic.

- On screen timers + stats..... A running timer on screen showing how much speaking time each candidate has gotten, plus a counter of how many questions a candidate has been asked. One of the only clear ways for a debate to be at least somewhat unbiased is if everyone has close to equal amounts of speaking time and questions asked to them. If a candidate really gets into their response on a question, rather then try to cut them off after some artificial amount of time, the next questions later on in the debate can simply be adjusted towards other candidates so that they can make up ground and keep overall speaking time fairly even..... This also lets the candidates really say what they want to say, rather then try to beat the buzzer and spit out whatever pre-rehearsed responses they have

- Other candidates mic's can be muted.... It's happened a couple of times in the last debates where 3 or 4 or 5 candidates all try to talk over each other in order to get screen time, so in order to prevent this from happening, the microphones of candidates who have already spoken a lot in the debate will be cut, allowing candidates with lower speaking time to be able to make a claim or an attack against someone elses response. 

- Both specific questions and simple survey questions will be asked.... I do like some of the 'quick poll' questions asked in previous debates where candidates were asked if they would give up their own private healthcare for universal healthcare, for example, and I would use similar questions in this debate as well. I think its a great way to just get a reading on where candidates stand on certain issues that might not be important enough to really go into full detail over.

Thats all I really have for setup, though im sure im missing some finer details that would really make things operate better.

Here are some of the questions I would ask in the debate. I ordered the first 10 questions based on degree of importance to myself personally.

1 - Whats the most specific policy in your platform to fight against climate change that could be passed by Congress in your term?

2 - Whats your strategy for stabilizing central American countries that are currently causing the border crisis? 

3 - Do you believe the US gives too much aid to Israel, just the right amount, or too little?

4 - Venezuela has also been in complete disarray as a country, what is your strategy for remedying that situation?

5 - Do you believe that the US should tax carbon emissions?

6 - Do you believe that the use of nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change (my recent affinity for HBO's Chernobyl might have influenced this) 

7 - Do you support the death penalty? (Quick poll question) 

8- If you were to reduce the US military budget, what would you cut and why? 

9 - Who do you regard as the US's most important ally, and how would you strengthen that relationship?

10 - Do you have a policy plan for raising the age to collect Social Security?

11 - Which candidate on the stage would you be most willing to have as your VP? (This one is mostly for fun) 

12 - What proposals in your platform do you have that would help fight The Opioid Crisis that don't just throw money at the problem?

13 - Which of these do you think poses a bigger threat to Americans: Wall Street, Big Pharma, SuperPac money in politics, or the Media? 

14 - What is the top education reform in your platform? 

15 - What is one Obama policy that you disagree with the most? 

16 - Which country do you think the US should pursue closer ties with (Bonus points to any candidate that picks Brazil) 

What would you guys come up with if you were able to put together a debate? (If you're a conservative and want to design one as if it were for the 2016 election cycle, go for it) 

Missed the other one cause I was out of town and just got back to catch this one and make a thread for it, just gonna record my thoughts and let yall jump in on this if you want to. 

Luckily they burned 30 minutes on intros so I didnt miss much, but once again the Healthcare questions are the ones really filtering out the candidates into different camps. I dont know which candidate only supports medicare expansions and a public option, but whoever they are have my support because I have a fuckton of doubts on Universal Healthcare 

Rather then use some sort of letter grade or number grade system, Im just going to classify the candidates into four labels based on how they performed in the debates (in my opinion)

FORGETTABLE: 

 = De Blasio

 = Tim Ryan 

 = Jay Inslee

 = John Delaney

 = Eric Swalwell

 = Michael Bennet

 = Pete Buttigieg

 = John Hickenlooper

 = Marianne Williamson

 = Beto O'Rourke

While each of these candidates may have had some bright spots or shown that they did their homework on big issues, none of these guys stood out in any particular way from the other candidates who either drift more towards the center of the political spectrum, or are bastions of the far left. I'll be surprised if any of these guys following the debates will be polling higher than 6% in the coming weeks.... With the next debates not coming until the end of July, its possible that one of these guys pulls out of the race because they have the foresight to see they wont win and try to invest their time racing for a different office, but its likely they will all wait until August since the July debates are also being split into two nights to accommodate everyone who is running. These guys started at close to 0-1%, they will continue to be in that range in the coming months. 

LOST GROUND / DISSAPPOINTMENT 

 = Biden

 = Sanders

 = Gillibrand

 = Yang

Biden and Sanders took shots from a lot of different sides, Biden in particular getting blasted by Kamala Harris while Sanders just repeated the same points he used back in 2016, but the two of them still did decent enough where they will be able to hold onto a good chunk of the electorate in coming polls. Biden and Sanders will still be frontrunners, but they conceded a few percentage points to other candidates which they can afford to do at this stage of the race.... Gillibrand, who I view as a second tier candidate, didnt stand out as much as i thought she would and I wouldnt be surprised if her numbers dont budge an inch following this debate, while Yang who I kept a curious eye on despite him being way down in the field, didnt do anything besides stick to his guns about the one issue I already knew about him: Universal Basic Income..... Gillibrand and Yang missed a solid opportunity to make bigger names for themselves, while Biden and Sanders's names were so big others took swipes at them trying to knock them down a bit, and those people succeeded to a minor degree. 

HELD THEIR GROUND / ABOVE AVERAGE

 = Amy Klobuchar

 = Julian Castro

 = Corey Booker

 = Elizabeth Warren

Castro has clearly done his work regarding immigration issues, as exemplified by how he lit Beto O'Rourke on fire regarding the migrant crisis, while Booker seemed to be laser focused on delivering his responses, regardless of how pre-practiced they may have been. Amy Klobuchar I may be investing a little too heavily in, but her calm and collected posture when she was answering questions made her look like a real adult in the room.... Not someone trying to incite emotion or act like a general leading troops into a battle, but like an actual legislator.... Warren meanwhile benefitted from getting easy softball questions in day 1 of the debates without being challenged by other candidates, but some of her answers to more difficult questions missed their mark in my opinion, so her numbers should stay about the same from where they first were since she held her gound. 

BIG WINNERS

 = Tulsi Gabbard

 = Kamala Harris

Tulsi Gabbard combined Amy Klobuchar's calm demeanor with an absolute shitting all over Tim Ryan by opposing the ongoing war in Afghanistan. She rose up to cement herself almost as the 'Anti-War' candidate in the Democratic field, which in an era when the US almost cant go a year without bombing a different mid east country is an incredibly powerful label to have given the war-weariness in the country as Trump fucks around with North Korea and Iran on a regular basis..... She was clearly the big winner in the first debate, while Kamala Harris's ruthless broadside against Biden in the second debate in addition to her other moments of shining over others earned her a massive amount of attention and applause from those watching this night. If any candidates have positioned themselves to break into the upper tier of the primary (Currently limited to Biden, Warren, and Sanders) it would be Tulsi and Harris.... If they pull off similar performances in later debates and do strong in the first batch of primary states, they have the best odds of breaking into 'frontrunner' status and lighting the rest of the field on fire. 

Fucking Florida drivers dont know how to do shit when it rains in the afternoon but screw it. Tuned in earlier to see Kamala Harris talk about the Tax Code. 

Hoping this goes better than the previous debate where generic ass questions get asked for the entire first half of the debate, but I have a feeling it actually will now that the more interesting candidates are in this one (Sanders, Biden, Yang, Harris, Buttigegg or however you spell his name) 

 

Just gonna have a running commentary on the Dem debate. Missed the very opening but got in early enough to see Beto O'Rourke speak in Spanish 

Not sure if this happened recently or I just came really late to the party, but Juggle has actually stepped in onto DDO to make changes to the site long after the rest of us already fled from there a while ago. 

What did Juggle decide to do? They added more advertisements.... 

I sh** you not, In a move of hilarious stupidity, rather than try to curtail the massive number of spambots on the site that drove out actual people who used the site for a variety of different reasons, Juggle has apparently opted to instead squeeze out whatever revenue can still be made off of the dead site by packing in advertisements in the last places they possibly could. 

Pick any thread on any forum, I checked and this works on all of them, and scroll all the way down. Past all the actual responses from other people, all the way to the bottom. Once you hit rock bottom, normally what you would see is the end of the webpage or maybe a little button to take you to the next page or back to the first page..... Now though, when you scroll all the way to the bottom, you will find no less than 15 advertisements that you could find just about anywhere else on the internet.... Ads for crappy browser games, Ads for reverse mortgages, Ads for 'weird tricks to do every day!'.... I even spotted ads for a prostate pill and a miracle spice that can help pain.  

I don't use this site very often, I pop in and out once a week at most, but just glancing back at what DDO has become really drives home in my opinion how much better off we are here now on this site. This site has potential and is on the rise, DDO somehow keeps falling deeper and deeper down the crevice. 

In primary elections in recent years, for Democrats and Republicans, Iowa was the very first state that determined which presidential candidate had the most support from voters, and New Hampshire was the second state. 

Arguably though, neither of those two states really encapsulates the issues that a large share of Americans have to deal with. When was the last time that Iowa or New Hampshire made news for being the battleground of, well, ANY political issue?.... Has there ever been a housing issue in Iowa or New Hampshire? Race incidents between citizens and the police? A mass shooting or some issue involving gun legislation? Have either state been devastated by the opioid epidemic?.... Iowa and New Hampshire arguably are far different than the majority of states suffering from important issues, yet these states have some of the most authority in determining who becomes president, greatly altering who is selected to compete in the general election. 

So my question is, which state do you think should be the first state to vote in the DEM and REP primaries? Why?

I would select Ohio, which is a state with a very diverse population with a diverse amount of issues including many of the things I listed before. Since Ohio also has a knack for picking which candidate in the general election goes on to become president, letting Ohio have the first go at candidates could dramatically shift the momentum and power to candidates that would be the strongest representatives of the political party they belong to. 

For those of you who don't pay attention to decisions that Florida makes, which is perfectly excusable thanks to the craziness of the state, something quite remarkable did happen recently that from what I could tell no one saw coming

In the Democratic party's primary election for governor Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum came out on top, beating out Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, and former congresswoman Gwen Graham. Andrew Gillum can be characterized as pretty far to the left on the political spectrum, since he has gone on record saying he wants to Abolish ICE, Have Medicare for All, Go with Single Payer Healthcare on the national level, and a $15 minimum wage (though given the expensiveness of all things Floridian, this last one may seem quite tame) 

He beat out Philip Levine, not surprising, and also beat out Gwen Graham, who was considered the front runner for the longest time and is also the daughter of former Florida Senator + Florida Governor Bob Graham. Gwen Graham right up to election day led over Gillum by 7 points. No independent poll even had Gillum close to the lead by the time the election came around either. 

This sets him up with the heavily Pro-Trump GOP candidate Rob DeSantis in the general election for FL Governor, essentially making the contest a proxy campaign between Trump and Sanders, who endorsed and celebrated the corresponding candidates' victories. Given how senile and disconnected from reality some of the older members of Florida can be, it would be stunning if Gillum managed to go 2 for 2 and win the governor race for Florida. 

Long story short, Im interested in debating again since the voting quality on this site isnt overly-strict nor utter shit as it was on DDO. I have a few ideas Ive considered, but want to run them by the community first to see which ones attract the most interest. After all theres no point in making a debate that I would then have to plead to people to read and vote on. 

So whichever ones yall like the most, Ill make debates for them. 

1) Mission Impossible Fallout is a better movie than Infinity War (Pro) 

2) Long term (next 20-30 years) Venezuela is in a worse situation than Syria (Pro or Con) 

3) US voters should have to pass a citizenship test in order to be able to vote, but only for Senate and Presidential candidates (Pro) 

4) Mission Impossible Fallout will most likely win the 'Best Popular Movie' Oscar at the 2019 Academy Awards (Pro) 

5) Star Wars Last Jedi has a (alarmingly) good chance to win the 'Best Popular Movie' Oscar at the 2019 Academy Awards (Pro) 

6) Bernie Sanders would not have beaten Donald Trump in the 2016 general election (Pro) 

Ill start with those for now. Lemme know which ones you guys would be most interested in reading/voting on