DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

nan said:
 OMG, I could not disagree more!  Those two are my least favorite news personalities.  I absolutely despise them both.  I think she's up there with Alex Jones for conspiracy theories and he's dumb as a stump.  They are both totally in the tank for the establishment and I expect they will be providing questions as directed by their corporate overlords.  He was cited in Wikileaks as working unethically in the Clinton campaign. I'm sure the Progressive candidates (which is Gabbard tonight) will not be treated well.  Hopefully Tulsi gets asked something better than "Why did you meet with Assad?"   They can at least do better than that.
So, we have a wide range of MOL opinions!  We better open a separate thread for thisl-

 But you didn't address the question of cocktails. What are you drinking? I never could get the hang of mixed drinks so I'm sticking with beer myself.

PVW said:
 But you didn't address the question of cocktails. What are you drinking? I never could get the hang of mixed drinks so I'm sticking with beer myself.

 Drinking would probably be a good idea. I would agree with that.

drummerboy said:
 Didn't you mean to say that Chuck Todd ALWAYS disappoints? He's the worst of all of the major talking heads. And Maddow is way too full of herself these days. She has become annoying to watch.

 I remembered that you didn't like either of them from past remarks, also don't you watch CNN instead of MSNBC? That said, who do you like on either station?

On which FIOS channel is tonight's debate being shown?

TomR

nan said:
 OMG, I could not disagree more!  Those two are my least favorite news personalities.  I absolutely despise them both.  I think she's up there with Alex Jones for conspiracy theories and he's dumb as a stump.  They are both totally in the tank for the establishment and I expect they will be providing questions as directed by their corporate overlords.  He was cited in Wikileaks as working unethically in the Clinton campaign. I'm sure the Progressive candidates (which is Gabbard tonight) will not be treated well.  Hopefully Tulsi gets asked something better than "Why did you meet with Assad?"   They can at least do better than that.
So, we have a wide range of MOL opinions!  We better open a separate thread for thisl-

 Please watch some of her coverage of the new state demands on the last Planned Parenthood clinic in Missouri which they are threatening to close in a state of 1,000,000 women of child bearing age. A tip from doctors at the clinic revealed what a physician called state sanctioned sexual assault because of unnecessary invasive exams. After the shows coverage on a topic few shows would cover, doctors refused to continue complying and the state just backed down on the requirement. Still in court to determine if the last clinic will close. Over 7 states are down to one clinic each. Very little coverage. She started covering such topics years ago.

Coincidently on a night when the Hyde amendment may come up, a commercial just aired against funding for abortion, and limitations on Roe.

Not sure you should judge her until you look at some more of her work.

A Democrat front runner should be  like fire, Trump is like ice. Because  everyone running for the Democrats are luke warm water Trump may actually win a second term. 

nan said:

BG9 said:
Sanders Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

Yes, do make sure Trump gets re-elected if you don't get the nomination.

 I'm so glad he answered like this--he's had enough of the stupid shaming.  How many times has he been asked this?  No other candidate gets asked this question (and no one since Bernie has been asked for taxes).  Enough.  He's not putting up with crap anymore and the establishment reportes can shove it.  Good for him!
PLUS-- from the day he announced he has said he would support the winner.  This is just a gotcha question.

 and he got got. not encouraging.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

BG9 said:
Sanders Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

Yes, do make sure Trump gets re-elected if you don't get the nomination.

 I'm so glad he answered like this--he's had enough of the stupid shaming.  How many times has he been asked this?  No other candidate gets asked this question (and no one since Bernie has been asked for taxes).  Enough.  He's not putting up with crap anymore and the establishment reportes can shove it.  Good for him!
PLUS-- from the day he announced he has said he would support the winner.  This is just a gotcha question.

 and he got got. not encouraging.

One of the "pro-Bernie" claims about Warren is that she can't handle tough questions.  Well, Bernie flubbed this response to a screamingly obvious and expected question.  A simple and intelligent response (that doesn't involve attacking the questioner) is easy to prepare and be ready with.  

nohero said:
One of the "pro-Bernie" claims about Warren is that she can't handle tough questions.  Well, Bernie flubbed this response to a screamingly obvious and expected question.  A simple and intelligent response (that doesn't involve attacking the questioner) is easy to prepare and be ready with.  

 You hate anything Bernie says or does and there is no way you would vote for him, except if he gets the nomination.  HIs supporters were thrilled with his response because we are sick of the mainstream media constantly attacking him with gotcha questions and we thought he was too nice in 2016.  2020 Bernie is tougher and does not take crap.  

He is a selfish pig.

sbenois said:
He is a selfish pig.

 He wants the rich to pay their fair share and get Medicare for everyone like other countries and free college and and end private prison and student debt and continue the legacy of FDR    His campaign motto is "Not Me.  Us."   What part of that makes him a "selfish pig?"

When pressed on whether he will support the nominee of the party, Mr. Not Me, Us,  becomes Mr. Not the US, Me.

Sorry you can't grasp that.  But then again, you are a BOT.

Buttigieg gets endorsement from mayor of Parkland

https://twitter.com/Lucasfcarroll/status/1143302241513873409?s=19

Nan, if you are not a bot, please type what you see here:

52WHk4uF

And check this box:

I am not a bot [   ]

Smedley said:
Nan, if you are not a bot, please type what you see here:
52WHk4uF
And check this box:
I am not a bot [   ]

 You are nowhere near as amusing as you think you are.

Drifting back to tuition -

Runner_Guy said:  "If only public colleges are "free," then the non-elite private college will struggle badly with enrollment and very likely close.  The closings of private colleges would be disruptive and very costly for the federal and state governments since public enrollment will soar."

What makes you think the public colleges would increase their enrollment so much, either as a cause or an effect of private school closings?  This did not happen, afaik, in the past when state schools were free or near-free to state residents.  The public schools might become more selective if low/free tuition returned, but that's a different issue.

For the record, University of California campuses (and I think the state colleges too) were tuition-free when I attended, and fees were $80.67 per quarter.  This was before Reagan & Howard Jarvis, back when people saw taxes as the cost of civilization.  As to the effect on people's lives after college:  10 years out of school, i was able to buy a small house in LA on a modest income ($35K?), despite having degrees in an "impractical" field and paying income taxes at a combined marginal rate of 49% (38% federal, 11% CA).  Really.

The times are out of joint.

end drift

Smedley said:
Nan, if you are not a bot, please type what you see here:
52WHk4uF
And check this box:
I am not a bot [   ]

 And this makes sense on a COMMUNITY MESSAGE BOARD how?  

Okay, we’re past the point of almost all of the declared candidates having a national stage to introduce themselves.  There will be more analysis in the coming days but I think one key indicator will be fundraising.  Some candidates will see a boost and some will probably tail off.

If some of the lower-tier candidates start to drop out I think it will be worth paying attention to who picks up some of their support.  It’s also going to be interesting watching the two biggest (oldest)  names and how they do.  Again it will be interesting to see where that support migrates to.

nan said:

Smedley said:
Nan, if you are not a bot, please type what you see here:
52WHk4uF
And check this box:
I am not a bot [   ]

 And this makes sense on a COMMUNITY MESSAGE BOARD how?  

 I was being facetious 

mrincredible said:
Okay, we’re past the point of almost all of the declared candidates having a national stage to introduce themselves.  There will be more analysis in the coming days but I think one key indicator will be fundraising.  Some candidates will see a boost and some will probably tail off.
If some of the lower-tier candidates start to drop out I think it will be worth paying attention to who picks up some of their support.  It’s also going to be interesting watching the two biggest (oldest)  names and how they do.  Again it will be interesting to see where that support migrates to.

Biden and Sanders are such known quantities it's hard to believe they're going to pick up much support when candidates drop out.  If after 8 years as VP, Biden isn't getting some voters' support now, what's going to change their minds if Yang, Williamson, Ryan, et al withdraw?  I think Biden is already near his ceiling.  He could still win the nomination in a crowded field, but I don't see him polling 10 points higher if the field drops to 6 candidates.

ml1 I tend to agree with you that Biden and Sanders may be maxed out on polling support. 

I feel like it's more likely we might roll into convention with nobody holding enough delegates for a straight win in the first ballot.  I could see Harris, Warren and/or Buttegieg carrying enough states to come to convention with either a shot at the nomination or at least do some major bargaining.

Bernie will almost certainly pick up some support when Gabbard drops out. 

Klinker said:
Bernie will almost certainly pick up some support when Gabbard drops out. 

 that 0.8% is going to put him over the top!

Klinker said:
Bernie will almost certainly pick up some support when Gabbard drops out. 

 Or vice versa.   

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

BG9 said:
Sanders Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

Yes, do make sure Trump gets re-elected if you don't get the nomination.

 I'm so glad he answered like this--he's had enough of the stupid shaming.  How many times has he been asked this?  No other candidate gets asked this question (and no one since Bernie has been asked for taxes).  Enough.  He's not putting up with crap anymore and the establishment reportes can shove it.  Good for him!
PLUS-- from the day he announced he has said he would support the winner.  This is just a gotcha question.

 and he got got. not encouraging.

One of the "pro-Bernie" claims about Warren is that she can't handle tough questions.  Well, Bernie flubbed this response to a screamingly obvious and expected question.  A simple and intelligent response (that doesn't involve attacking the questioner) is easy to prepare and be ready with.  

 Why is this a "pro-Bernie" claim? 

mjc said:
Drifting back to tuition -
Runner_Guy said:  "If only public colleges are "free," then the non-elite private college will struggle badly with enrollment and very likely close.  The closings of private colleges would be disruptive and very costly for the federal and state governments since public enrollment will soar."
What makes you think the public colleges would increase their enrollment so much, either as a cause or an effect of private school closings?  This did not happen, afaik, in the past when state schools were free or near-free to state residents.  The public schools might become more selective if low/free tuition returned, but that's a different issue.
For the record, University of California campuses (and I think the state colleges too) were tuition-free when I attended, and fees were $80.67 per quarter.  This was before Reagan & Howard Jarvis, back when people saw taxes as the cost of civilization.  As to the effect on people's lives after college:  10 years out of school, i was able to buy a small house in LA on a modest income ($35K?), despite having degrees in an "impractical" field and paying income taxes at a combined marginal rate of 49% (38% federal, 11% CA).  Really.

The times are out of joint.
end drift

2-3 generations ago the proportional price difference between public and private colleges was roughly the same as it is today, but the overall differences in dollars-per-student and as dollars-as-a-percentage-of-income were very small, since both private and public colleges were low-cost.

By contrast, if public colleges in 2019 were free (or just tuition-free), the difference between that and the full-cost of a private college would be $20,000-$40,000 per student per year.  

At that price difference, I think far fewer students would choose non-elite private colleges and their financial viability would be endangered.  Private colleges have fixed costs that don't diminish with enrollment declines, after all.

Also, until the last few years, private colleges benefited from the overall increase in the college-age population and the percentage of Americans going to college, so even if more students chose public colleges, private colleges still saw enrollment stability or increases.  However, the growth in the number of college-age Americans has leveled-off and so has the percentage of students going to college.  

There already is a trend of non-elite private colleges struggling and closing.  Sanders and Warren will kill even more off.

As the student population shifts from private to public colleges, and public colleges realize they've been given a blank check by the federal government, I don't know how an already-expensive government proposition wouldn't become even more expensive than predicted now.

---

As a strong environmentalist, but as someone who is just moderate on most other issues, I am dismayed that no one is talking about "free" public transportation.  

sbenois said:
He is a selfish pig.

Projecting again.

(cross posted) 

Google traffic during Pete's closing statement.   (NB the screen grab was done by someone in a different time zone.)

I also think it's premature to think that Harris's attack on Biden means Biden voters migrate to her.  I think they divide out to Warren and Buttigieg, but can't guess as to what proportion.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

BG9 said:
Sanders Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

Yes, do make sure Trump gets re-elected if you don't get the nomination.

 I'm so glad he answered like this--he's had enough of the stupid shaming.  How many times has he been asked this?  No other candidate gets asked this question (and no one since Bernie has been asked for taxes).  Enough.  He's not putting up with crap anymore and the establishment reportes can shove it.  Good for him!
PLUS-- from the day he announced he has said he would support the winner.  This is just a gotcha question.

 and he got got. not encouraging.

One of the "pro-Bernie" claims about Warren is that she can't handle tough questions.  Well, Bernie flubbed this response to a screamingly obvious and expected question.  A simple and intelligent response (that doesn't involve attacking the questioner) is easy to prepare and be ready with.  

Click to Read More

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

BG9 said:
Sanders Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

Yes, do make sure Trump gets re-elected if you don't get the nomination.

 I'm so glad he answered like this--he's had enough of the stupid shaming.  How many times has he been asked this?  No other candidate gets asked this question (and no one since Bernie has been asked for taxes).  Enough.  He's not putting up with crap anymore and the establishment reportes can shove it.  Good for him!
PLUS-- from the day he announced he has said he would support the winner.  This is just a gotcha question.

 and he got got. not encouraging.

One of the "pro-Bernie" claims about Warren is that she can't handle tough questions.  Well, Bernie flubbed this response to a screamingly obvious and expected question.  A simple and intelligent response (that doesn't involve attacking the questioner) is easy to prepare and be ready with.  

 Why is this a "pro-Bernie" claim? 

 Because I see it repeated over and over by pro-Bernie people.  

By the way, the "avoiding of the main point" is obvious, in your response.  Ignore the main point about Bernie, and try for a distraction.