US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2

marno21 wrote: »

There's a good chance someone who would "appeal to the multicultural demographics of America" would not win in the states where this election will be won

If Biden can win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the other swing states with the voters in California/New York etc sitting out the election because they couldn't vote for the "lesser of two evils", it would be preferential than trying to run a "perfect candidate" in the eyes of people in Los Angeles who will again not focus on the rust belt and hand it to Trump.

Agreed, I know some scream "old white men" at them, but Sanders and Biden are more likely than any other dem to win the states you listed which would block the only way that Trump wins in 2020.

DreamsBurnDown

The biggest issue the Dems have is how fractured the party is right now between centrists and the growing democratic socialists. There has been an enormous shift in attitudes towards socialism among younger people in the US, to the extent that a majority of the 18-29 age bracket polled favor socialism over capitalism. This is largely due to the 2008/9 crisis and its aftermath where government policy, including the Fed, has resulted in the already obscenely rich getting richer while working people continue to struggle to make ends meet.

There is no question in my mind that one of the (relatively) younger and left leaning generation of candidates will win, most likely Kamala Harris or Cory Brooker. I think there is almost zero chance an old white guy will be chosen, Biden has already been shafted and probably won't run, and most of the candidates have embraced Bernie's platform. Democrats will hopefully have learned the lesson of 2016 that running a deeply unliked candidate was a mistake.

rossie1977

Bad news for Warren in latest poll from Emerson. Both Biden and Sanders are significantly ahead at present in her home state of Massachusetts. Sanders on 26, Biden 23 with Warren on 14. She might have trouble holding onto third spot given Buttigieg is right behind on 11

Wanderer78

DreamsBurnDown wrote:

The biggest issue the Dems have is how fractured the party is right now between centrists and the growing democratic socialists. There has been an enormous shift in attitudes towards socialism among younger people in the US, to the extent that a majority of the 18-29 age bracket polled favor socialism over capitalism. This is largely due to the 2008/9 crisis and its aftermath where government policy, including the Fed, has resulted in the already obscenely rich getting richer while working people continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Never ever underestimate the power of the norm, as much as I'd love to see a democratic socialist such as sanders to win, this battle won't be easy, the true powers of the American political system are still firmly in control, no matter what way the people vote.

Yurt2

I'm putting a score on Pete Buttigieg for the Dem nomination. He's pretty slick, and I think he'll start attracting big donations in the next few months.

Fr Tod Umptious

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The biggest issue the Dems have is how fractured the party is right now between centrists and the growing democratic socialists. There has been an enormous shift in attitudes towards socialism among younger people in the US, to the extent that a majority of the 18-29 age bracket polled favor socialism over capitalism. This is largely due to the 2008/9 crisis and its aftermath where government policy, including the Fed, has resulted in the already obscenely rich getting richer while working people continue to struggle to make ends meet.

There is no question in my mind that one of the (relatively) younger and left leaning generation of candidates will win, most likely Kamala Harris or Cory Brooker. I think there is almost zero chance an old white guy will be chosen, Biden has already been shafted and probably won't run, and most of the candidates have embraced Bernie's platform. Democrats will hopefully have learned the lesson of 2016 that running a deeply unliked candidate was a mistake.

I take it you are talking about the Democratic nomination rather than the general election.

The one problem with having support amongst the younger people is that they don't vote in the same numbers as the order generations.

So it's all great hashtagging this, and sharing that etc on social media, it's another thing to make sure you are registered and to get out an vote in November.

Fr Tod Umptious

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Never ever underestimate the power of the norm, as much as I'd love to see a democratic socialist such as sanders to win, this battle won't be easy, the true powers of the American political system are still firmly in control, no matter what way the people vote.

Are you American ?
Do you have family in America that would be doing better if America was more "social democratic" ?

If the answer is no to the above then why do you care if a democratic socialist won the election ?

We here in Ireland love to lecture the US about how it should run itself but at the same time vote for the government that offers the tax cut, give out about the level of social welfare, discriminate against our own ethic minorities etc.

Danzy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The biggest issue the Dems have is how fractured the party is right now between centrists and the growing democratic socialists. There has been an enormous shift in attitudes towards socialism among younger people in the US, to the extent that a majority of the 18-29 age bracket polled favor socialism over capitalism. This is largely due to the 2008/9 crisis and its aftermath where government policy, including the Fed, has resulted in the already obscenely rich getting richer while working people continue to struggle to make ends meet.

There is no question in my mind that one of the (relatively) younger and left leaning generation of candidates will win, most likely Kamala Harris or Cory Brooker. I think there is almost zero chance an old white guy will be chosen, Biden has already been shafted and probably won't run, and most of the candidates have embraced Bernie's platform. Democrats will hopefully have learned the lesson of 2016 that running a deeply unliked candidate was a mistake.

Biden has a world of things he can be attacked on, not just the way with kids, decades if policy decisions etc.

Sanders will do well but there are a lot of modern Democrats who will never vote for an old white Jewish male. He'll get hit again with the #Metoo allegations re his last campaign, also on not going along with reparations, which his internal opponents are using to hive off black votes which he desperately needs.

Harris has the backing of the Clinton machine which counts for a lot with funding. The left of the party have a problem with her for being a Corporate Dem., a fair charge.

They also are pushing the line she is an Uncle Tom because she was a no nonsense prosecutor, a dead end approach.

Yurt2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I take it you are talking about the Democratic nomination rather than the general election.

The one problem with having support amongst the younger people is that they don't vote in the same numbers as the order generations.

So it's all great hashtagging this, and sharing that etc on social media, it's another thing to make sure you are registered and to get out an vote in November.

The youth vote was decisive for Obama in 2008 and 2012. He blew both McCain and Romney out of the water in the younger demographics (2 to 1 for voters under 30) - he wouldn't have won without them.


They stayed at home last time out because both Trump and Clinton were so horrible.

Fr Tod Umptious

Yurt! wrote: »

The youth vote was decisive for Obama in 2008 and 2012. He blew both McCain and Romney out of the water in the younger demographics (2 to 1 for voters under 30) - he wouldn't have won without them.


They stayed at home last time out because both Trump and Clinton were so horrible.

Black vote rather than youth vote helped Obama.

It reached record levels in 2012 and declined in 2016.

Link to follow later.

batgoat

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Are you American ?
Do you have family in America that would be doing better if America was more "social democratic" ?

If the answer is no to the above then why do you care if a democratic socialist won the election ?

We here in Ireland love to lecture the US about how it should run itself but at the same time vote for the government that offers the tax cut, give out about the level of social welfare, discriminate against our own ethic minorities etc.

My mother is American, most of my cousins are American. Cousins are generally pretty upset by the current situation. They're in their forties and would generally favour things like socialised healthcare, the ones in their twenties would be closer to European left wing in viewpoint.

Also we do have polling that most Americans favour a more socialised system, particularly with healthcare. The line that Irish people can't have an opinion on the US just seems like an effort to shutdown discussion tbh.

Eric Cartman

I think one of the biggest issues about europeans posturing for who would be suitable US candidates is that to us, democratic socialists, the center left etc... is very normal, very suitable and doesn't rock the boat here. The US isnt europe and its not what most people want there. Its a great strategy with college students and the unemployed but with the people who show up at the ballot box its a bad idea.

When picking who's the best bet for the states , I think you have to remove yourself from your own beliefs and your european thinking and realise that we're discussing a country that is not and a lot would argue should not be run like that.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think one of the biggest issues about europeans posturing for who would be suitable US candidates is that to us, democratic socialists, the center left etc... is very normal, very suitable and doesn't rock the boat here. The US isnt europe and its not what most people want there. Its a great strategy with college students and the unemployed but with the people who show up at the ballot box its a bad idea.

When picking who's the best bet for the states , I think you have to remove yourself from your own beliefs and your european thinking and realise that we're discussing a country that is not and a lot would argue should not be run like that.

Most Americans support Medicare for all... Pretty clear that GOP is representing the public less and less.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

WinnyThePoo

Yep. American politics will be going through a seachange over the next coming decades.

Americans felt medicare and health care was the most important issue during the midterms.

I see this continuing.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

Most Americans support Medicare for all... Pretty clear that GOP is representing the public less and less.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

The dems by their own principals are equally supporting those younger voters less and less , its only when you have somebody like sanders who wouldnt go under the dem banner in any other circumstance other than knowing its a 2 prty race , but he's an outlier by their metric too.

I think if you survey people with questions like 'do you support free healthcare / college etc' you'll get a resounding yes. However if you phrase the question as 'do you support socialised medicine and education at an increased tax cost to every working american' you'll find the dropoff is huge among those who pay taxes.

americans care about the money in their pocket more than most, telling them something is free sounds great to them, telling them they have to pay for it through taxes and they sour quick.

Rjd2

rossie1977 wrote: »

Bad news for Warren in latest poll from Emerson. Both Biden and Sanders are significantly ahead at present in her home state of Massachusetts. Sanders on 26, Biden 23 with Warren on 14. She might have trouble holding onto third spot given Buttigieg is right behind on 11

Said ages ago she was doomed. Its a shame as her and Tulsi are running the most interesting campaigns but both are also-rans while Beto and a few others are running on generic uninteresting cliches.

DreamsBurnDown

batgoat wrote: »

Most Americans support Medicare for all... Pretty clear that GOP is representing the public less and less.

A majority of Republican voters (52% in polling) now also support a single payer system. The main issue with American health care is cost, which has been an escalating problem for decades. On a per capita basis, the US spends more than double the OECD average, about $9K per person compared to roughly $4K in the UK. About half of that spending comes from government (Medicaid, Medicare, VA), so it's not as if the government isn't already heavily involved in the health care system.

Unless the issue of cost is addressed (and it's a highly complex problem to tackle), a single payer system would seriously threaten the financial stability of the country. Estimates, even if inflated, are that such a system would add $26 trillion over a decade. Tack that on to an existing national debt of $22 trillion and unfunded federal liabilities of between $50 and $200 trillion (depending on who's study you believe) and arguably the country is already technically bankrupt.

The challenge for both parties is how will any proposed single payer system or indeed any overall of the existing health care system be funded. For all the benefits of the ACA, the reality is that for the great majority who pay for insurance, whether through an employer plan or individually, premiums went up 60% from 2013 to 2017, compared to 10% for the prior 4 year period.

marno21

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

A majority of Republican voters (52% in polling) now also support a single payer system. The main issue with American health care is cost, which has been an escalating problem for decades. On a per capita basis, the US spends more than double the OECD average, about $9K per person compared to roughly $4K in the UK. About half of that spending comes from government (Medicaid, Medicare, VA), so it's not as if the government isn't already heavily involved in the health care system.

Unless the issue of cost is addressed (and it's a highly complex problem to tackle), a single payer system would seriously threaten the financial stability of the country. Estimates, even if inflated, are that such a system would add $26 trillion over a decade. Tack that on to an existing national debt of $22 trillion and unfunded federal liabilities of between $50 and $200 trillion (depending on who's study you believe) and arguably the country is already technically bankrupt.

The challenge for both parties is how will any proposed single payer system or indeed any overall of the existing health care system be funded. For all the benefits of the ACA, the reality is that for the great majority who pay for insurance, whether through an employer plan or individually, premiums went up 60% from 2013 to 2017, compared to 10% for the prior 4 year period.

Tax reform would be a good start. However, a few news cycles of Republican nonsense about taxing "job creators" and any meaningful plan goes out the window

DreamsBurnDown

marno21 wrote: »

Tax reform would be a good start. However, a few news cycles of Republican nonsense about taxing "job creators" and any meaningful plan goes out the window

Tax reform should help, but only if it targets the right areas and doesn't hurt the economy. Even the most positive estimates of the 70% bracket proposal suggest an additional $300 billion in a decade, assuming the economy continues to grow. The only realistic solution is economic growth, so the trick is to maintain a business friendly environment while adjusting the tax code.

The issue with tax reform is two fold. In terms of fairness, the main target should be (but won't be) the largest multinationals, many of whom pay little or no tax, but have literally every politician of both parties in their pockets. Increasing taxes on small businesses again would be a disaster, as small business is the engine of any economy and employs more people than large corporations. The second issue is whether much higher marginal tax rates generate more revenue, as the rich tend to be pretty creative when it comes to tax avoidance (the 90% rate in France didn't work out very well).

A progressive capital gains tax and further reform of corporate tax rules would be the most effective imo. Those that earn multi millions per year from capital gains should definitely be paying more tax, as should large profitable corporations, especially the technology sector.

Yurt2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Black vote rather than youth vote helped Obama.

It reached record levels in 2012 and declined in 2016.

Link to follow later.

Of course the black community came out hard for Obama but it didn't give him the Oval Office, the youth vote was even more important to his victory (African Americans are still only 14% of the population).



https://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/13/young-voters-in-the-2008-election/


https://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/study-youth-vote-was-decisive-083510


50% of 18-29 year olds turned out in both 2008 and 2012 and voted hard for Obama. Only 31% of the same age cohort voted in 2016. Youth vote delivered the Obama presidency (particularly in key swing states). They stayed at home in 2016, perhaps because you had two awful baby-boomer era candidates. A higher millennial turnout in 2016 would have made an impact for Hillary; that cohort broke towards her, though nowhere near as much as Obama. If I was a millennial American voter in 2016 I probably would have stayed home too.

Manic Moran

Yurt! wrote: »

If I was a millennial American voter in 2016 I probably would have stayed home too.

A very sad reflection on US society. Not only were Clinton and Trump not the only two names on the ballot, but there were a whole host of other things to vote on at the same time. Voting is termed a “civic duty”, and “I don’t care enough to fill out a form” will lead more and more to extremists running the shop.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think one of the biggest issues about europeans posturing for who would be suitable US candidates is that to us, democratic socialists, the center left etc... is very normal, very suitable and doesn't rock the boat here. The US isnt europe and its not what most people want there. Its a great strategy with college students and the unemployed but with the people who show up at the ballot box its a bad idea.

When picking who's the best bet for the states , I think you have to remove yourself from your own beliefs and your european thinking and realise that we're discussing a country that is not and a lot would argue should not be run like that.

Sanders and AOC are pushing for a Job Guarantee and for running the economy based on updated Modern Monetary Theory principles - i.e. keep deficit spending until you're at Full Employment.

That's literally against European treaty rules. It's anathema to Europe.

If Sanders becomes president and operates the economy along those principles, they will be far more Socially Democratic than Europe - and it will be Europe which looks like the backwards laissez-faire economy.

rossie1977

Not much change



The Hill poll but it's a much smaller sample size

eagle eye

Who among the others is the big name?If Biden or Beto gets the big name amongst the others on their side it could easily get them the ticket.

Jamiekelly

So Andrew Yang appeared on The Ben Shapiro show a few days ago and it has nearly a million views and judging by the comments it looks like he is being very well received by a solid right wing audience. Which is amazing considering his flagship proposal is Universal Basic Income and that idea usually goes down in flames when presented to any audience even slightly right of centre. He has a CNN town hall booked on Sunday and judging by his reception from the likes of Joe Rogan's audience, Ben Shapiro's audience and The Breakfast Club's audience I think he will easily overtake most of the other candidates by the time the 2020 campaigning gets going.

Rjd2

Lot of respect for the dems who are not hiding away on left wing safe spaces. Their is plenty of right wing votes up for grabs in the primary at least.

Also props to Tulsi for backing Assenge, she is doomed, but along with Warren one of the most interesting people running. A pleasant alternative to " vote for me if you want good things and if you hate bad things" from so many others running.

is_that_so

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I'm kinda conflicted over the Biden groping thing. I dont think its a creepy sexual thing but more of a power dominance thing. Lots of politicians do things like shoulder touching, back slapping, bear hugs, dominant handshakes etc Now sniffing a womans hair might be a step too far but if this ends Bidens presidential run should we hold all politicians who put their hands on people publicly? I dunno its not black and white to me

I think it more harks back to a time where a tactile politician like him was really not considered a threat. Most of what he is accused of is little more than affection or a form of comforting contact, which seems perfectly normal action to him. The collective evidence does make it seem a whole lot worse in the toxic environment of the 21st century and it could well scupper even making a bid. From his perspective there are now so many labels that seem to make him unacceptable; his colour, age, status, alleged creepiness. That Trump is a whole lot worse on many personal scores matters less because he is the incumbent and they have to find a way to beat him.

MadYaker

Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women and has had multiple accusations made against and still got elected so is it really going to hurt biden if some peole think he's creepy? Seems to be a massive double standard to me.

DreamsBurnDown

MadYaker wrote: »

Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women and has had multiple accusations made against and still got elected so is it really going to hurt biden if some peole think he's creepy? Seems to be a massive double standard to me.

I don't think it would prevent him being elected, in fact I'm pretty sure he would beat Trump if nominated. At this point he is the best equipped to do so, in the key rust belt states. The problem though is he is being attacked by Democrats even before entering the race, Lucy Flores is a Bernie supporter. It's clearly an attempt to take him out, and emphasizes the point that in this Me Too era anyone can be taken out simply by someone making an accusation against them.

Biden's behavior is a bit odd, but it's not sexual assault and he is touchy-feely towards men and women alike. If would be a shame if he is forced out of the race, as it sets a very dangerous precedent.

briany

MadYaker wrote: »

Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women and has had multiple accusations made against and still got elected so is it really going to hurt biden if some peole think he's creepy? Seems to be a massive double standard to me.

It would be a massive double standard if the two men were playing the same kind of politics, but they're not. Biden's approaching his campaign in the more traditional manner where your message isn't all that exciting or specific and your campaign rests so much on your character. In that case, it seems like you must be a person of faith, have 2.4 children, shake hands, kiss babies and enjoy alcohol very, very responsibly.



In Trump's case, he's just telling certain people what they want to hear. He's a man with 5 kids by 3 different women and is not religious. That alone should have torpedoed his chances, but in these times his message resonated with voters so much that they were willing to look at the message before looking at the man.