Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[transplantbillsfan]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

 

Not surprising at all if it's primarily big money donors.

 

Citizens United has done its damage to the Democratic party in the money-raising competition, clearly.

 

You guys seem to be claiming Trump gets most of his money from small dollar donors.

 

I would like to see where you get that information.

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Not for nothing, Nate Silver hasn't been right about much the past 5 years.

 

Right about what?  He's not predicting anything there.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Right about what?  He's not predicting anything there.

 

His reporting. Which that is.

[Deranged Rhino]

[3rdnlng]

50 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

 

I'm not trying to call you out here, but with all due respect, I got absolutely slammed on here by some idiot for not linking a site when I posted something I claimed was a fact.  I was told that's not how it's done here.

You didn't get absolutely slammed, you got biatch slapped. Furthermore, if you are going to quote "facts" then you'd better be prepared to link to those "facts". You asked me to do your work for you and I explained that it didn't work that way.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Well color me skeptical then.

 

Time is something I don't have if it takes time to find it.

 

Here's what I found:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-fundraising-q3/

Comparing the parties in 2019 so far

The Democratic Party is putting a lot of weight on grassroots fundraising this election cycle. That’s in part because of ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising tool that has raised over $3 billion for the party by helping to fuel a surge of small-dollar donations.1 When the Democratic National Committee made fundraising a criterion in determining which candidates qualify for the party’s first debates, it specified a minimum number of donors per candidate but not a minimum dollar number, prioritizing candidates who could demonstrate broad national support even if their fundraising totals were relatively low.2

 

No one is doing better with small donors than Bernie Sanders, who raised $43.0 million, or 57.8 percent of his total, from donors who gave $200 or less.3

Overall this year, 40.1 percent of Democrats’ funding came from small donors. For Trump, 15.2 percent of his total haul came from people who gave less than $200.

 

Here’s the breakdown for all the Democrats as a group and for Trump on his own for the first, second and third quarters.

 

 

 

What follows that excerpt is a chart that I can't copy and past that shows that for Trump, 15.2% of his money from the first 3 quarters is from small donors, 15.8% is from big donors, 67.8% is from transfers and 1.1% is "other"

 

By contrast, for Dems 40.1% is small donors, 36.3% is big donors, 7.7% is transfers and 15.6% is "self funding," which is Steyer, I'm guessing.

 

But again I'd be curious to see what you cited... legitimately.   

 

I'm not trying to call you out here, but with all due respect, I got absolutely slammed on here by some idiot for not linking a site when I posted something I claimed was a fact.  I was told that's not how it's done here.

 

Call me out? I told you the correct thread where the information for the linked sources to the question you asked were contained. (I linked you to the answer.) You just need to read all the links contained within that thread.

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Not for nothing, Nate Silver hasn't been right about much the past 5 years.

Besides the midterms where he projected Dems would gain 39 seats.  They gained 41.  Most on here predicted Republicans would lose some seats but not the majority. 

 

He also gave Trump the best shot in 2016 of all the major prediction models so he's still the gold standard.

 

Man.  You couldn't even beat the Zodiac Killer.

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Call me out? I told you the correct thread where the information for the linked sources to the question you asked were contained. (I linked you to the answer.) You just need to read all the links contained within that thread.

 

You linked me to a 74 page thread.

 

Would you scroll through a 74 page thread?

 

You seem awfully sure of the sourcing to so confidently say most of Trump's money is from small donors, all I asked for was a direct link to the source, not a 74 page thread that may or may not contain a link to what may or may not be a credible source.

 

Regardless, from what I can find that's not true. But despite what some posters might believe--like recently ignored ones--I'm completely accepting of facts that are actual facts.

Edited November 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

You didn't get absolutely slammed, you got biatch slapped. Furthermore, if you are going to quote "facts" then you'd better be prepared to link to those "facts". You asked me to do your work for you and I explained that it didn't work that way.

 

Ignored you, clicked "show this post," and just have to respond:

 

If the bolded is the understood way it works here--and note that after your whining I did provide a link and just obliterated the argument you were trying to make as you launched into evasive maneuvers--then I would expect @Buffalo_Gal would thus expect to be held to the same standards in providing that direct link.

 

Aloha!

Edited November 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[Buffalo_Gal]

16 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You linked me to a 74 page thread.

 

Would you scroll through a 74 page thread?

 

You seem awfully sure of the sourcing to so confidently say most of Trump's money is from small donors, all I asked for was a direct link to the source, not a 74 page thread that may or may not contain a link to what may or may not be a credible source.

 

Regardless, from what I can find that's not true. But despite what some posters might believe--like recently ignored ones--I'm completely accepting of facts that are actual facts.

 

Welp, since I probably added half of those particular links we are discussing to that thread, I have read the source material.  I have also, at one time or another, read all 74 pages of that thread.  You should read it too as you seem to be having difficulty finding the correct information, and links to that correct information is indeed found in that thread. 

 

P. S. read the damn thread. It will be enlightening.

[transplantbillsfan]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Welp, since I probably added half of those particular links we are discussing to that thread, I have read the source material.  I have also, at one time or another, read all 74 pages of that thread.  You should read it too as you seem to be having difficulty finding the correct information, and links to that correct information is indeed found in that thread. 

 

P. S. read the damn thread. It will be enlightening.

 

I'll try to read it eventually.

 

I just don't understand why it's so difficult to post what should be at most one or two links, especially if you found and added them yourself.

 

The OP in that thread that you started doesn't inspire confidence considering it's a Twitter post from some dude making a vague claim that he doesn't support with any credible evidence.

Edited November 2, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Well color me skeptical then.

 

Time is something I don't have if it takes time to find it.

 

Here's what I found:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-fundraising-q3/

Comparing the parties in 2019 so far

The Democratic Party is putting a lot of weight on grassroots fundraising this election cycle. That’s in part because of ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising tool that has raised over $3 billion for the party by helping to fuel a surge of small-dollar donations.1 When the Democratic National Committee made fundraising a criterion in determining which candidates qualify for the party’s first debates, it specified a minimum number of donors per candidate but not a minimum dollar number, prioritizing candidates who could demonstrate broad national support even if their fundraising totals were relatively low.2

 

No one is doing better with small donors than Bernie Sanders, who raised $43.0 million, or 57.8 percent of his total, from donors who gave $200 or less.3

Overall this year, 40.1 percent of Democrats’ funding came from small donors. For Trump, 15.2 percent of his total haul came from people who gave less than $200.

 

Here’s the breakdown for all the Democrats as a group and for Trump on his own for the first, second and third quarters.

 

 

 

What follows that excerpt is a chart that I can't copy and past that shows that for Trump, 15.2% of his money from the first 3 quarters is from small donors, 15.8% is from big donors, 67.8% is from transfers and 1.1% is "other"

 

By contrast, for Dems 40.1% is small donors, 36.3% is big donors, 7.7% is transfers and 15.6% is "self funding," which is Steyer, I'm guessing.

 

But again I'd be curious to see what you cited... legitimately.   

 

I'm not trying to call you out here, but with all due respect, I got absolutely slammed on here by some idiot for not linking a site when I posted something I claimed was a fact.  I was told that's not how it's done here.

Could you please summarize in 3 sentences or less, and use the čhïłłęr font for effect? All these words in sequence together makes me skeptical of the writers intent.

[Foxx]

it's getting pretty sad. they are going to have to put a stop to this soon.

https://twitter.com/michaelbeatty3/status/1190461101470650368

 

[Nanker]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

I’m sure Beto’s political future will be fine. He can go back to Texas now and run on [checks notes]confiscating guns and taxing churches.

 

 

Oh, and tearing down the border fence near El Paso.

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[row_33]

So that’s it?

 

that is all they have as candidate strength 

 

and all they have for ideas?

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

So that’s it?

 

that is all they have as candidate strength 

 

and all they have for ideas?

 

 

 

They have no ideas or strong candidates because they wasted the last three years trying to invalidate an election rather than looking inward and addressing the reasons why half the country thinks their party is insane. 

 

All they had to be is NOT crazy... and they just couldn't do it. 

 

There's no one coming to save the day either. They'll either run Joe who will get "beat like a drum", or Warren who will only assure that the African American vote for the dems is the lowest in recent history. Everyone else is playing for senate seats or to be the VP on the losing ticket. 

[row_33]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They have no ideas or strong candidates because they wasted the last three years trying to invalidate an election rather than looking inward and addressing the reasons why half the country thinks their party is insane. 

 

All they had to be is NOT crazy... and they just couldn't do it. 

 

There's no one coming to save the day either. They'll either run Joe who will get "beat like a drum", or Warren who will only assure that the African American vote for the dems is the lowest in recent history. Everyone else is playing for senate seats or to be the VP on the losing ticket. 

Almost impossible  to unseat a President in a strong economy

can the GOP take a third term 

 

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Almost impossible  to unseat a President in a strong economy

can the GOP take a third term 

 

I see several strong candidates out of Pence, Pompeo, Haley and several Republican Congressmen as possible VP's.

[row_33]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I see several strong candidates out of Pence, Pompeo, Haley and several Republican Congressmen as possible VP's.

Reagan’s greatness led to a de facto third term 

 

Trump’s greatness might also