US Presidential Election 2020

eagle eye

Rjd2 wrote:

Biden is the most likely person to beat Bernie and most importantly Trump, those are the reasons why he is running.

It's hard to beat an incumbent, old guy vs incumbent old guy won't work imo.

Fr Tod Umptious

eagle eye wrote: »

It's hard to beat an incumbent, old guy vs incumbent old guy won't work imo.

But as said many times here you have to look at where the election is won and lost.

In 2016 that was the so called rust belt.

What is the demographic of voters in the rust belt.
My theory is that they would be older rather than younger.
As people get older they get more conservative, that's why Sanders is more popular with the younger generation.
Trump's base is older rather than younger.
So your target voter is going to be older and lean more center right than center left.

That makes Biden the perfect choice to win those states.

He'll still win NY and California and lose Mississippi, but that doesn't matter as long as he can appeal to the rust belt.

Fr Tod Umptious

Rjd2 wrote: »

Biden is the most likely person to beat Bernie and most importantly Trump, those are the reasons why he is running.

Is he actually running ?

batgoat

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Is he actually running ?

He's expected to announce today.

The Phantom Jipper

Deleted User wrote: »

New York was a joke. Loads of people wanted to vote for Sanders but the date to register as a Democrat was very early.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/new-york-primary-deadlines-voter-registration

The rules were the same for both candidates. In any event, the result was 58 -42 to Clinton, a convincing win by any measure.

Bernie did well in caucuses, which are less accessible and democratic than primaries. The process worked in his favour in that regard, and he lost out in others.

Paleface

I think Biden can beat Trump. Obama will come out hard backing him too with a lot of the same people who worked for him involved in running the campaign behind the scenes.

pixelburp

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

The Phantom Jipper

pixelburp wrote: »

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

It's hypocrisy on their part in my opinion. You don't get to complain about corporate tax cuts, children locked in cages etc if you couldn't even be bothered to vote against Trump. Susan Sarandon and others spoke of Trump winning having some silver linings, as it would hasten the "revolution".The privilege you must have to impose such hardship on people rather than betray your sense of ideological purity is staggering.

Eric Cartman

pixelburp wrote: »

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

+1 Sanders is actually the most dangerous person to have around , he makes anyone else on the dem side look like an establishment hack and makes their more centerist policies look more to the right. Aslong as he's in the running its just fracturing and division

rossie1977

pixelburp wrote: »

And with that, the cracking sound you hear is the Democrat voting base splitting in twain once more, between the indentured establishment figure in Biden, and brazenly socialist Bernie Sanders. Unless Harris or Warren get a bump once the campaigning begins in earnest (and the former would easily take Biden's place as the 'establishment' hate figure), it seems safe to assume we're looking down the barrel of another Democratic sh*tshow of infighting, and ideological Purity Tests.

Maybe, maybe there's a chance the base won't make the same mistake twice, given from their point of view the very worst outcome occurred last time, but I don't imagine this is the case. Assuming the super-delegates stack the deck for Biden, it's a nice theory to imagine the spurned, so-called 'Bernie bros' will swallow their pride - but that's just it, a theory.

Don't see it. Biden wouldn't be seen as establishment like Clinton was, in fact Harris, Booker would be considered establishment more than Biden.

Among Sanders voters Biden is overwhelmingly second choice with 34%, Warren second in 16%. Same with Biden supporters, their second choice is Sanders with 34%, Harris next on 11%

pixelburp

I don't think Sanders is 'dangerous', his policies obviously resonate with many and wouldn't ruffle feathers in much of the EU, but his presence is the Final Mutation with a two-party system: candidates who are left of centre have to plant their flag somewhere if they want to get ahead in American politics, and with the Republicans fully embracing the Tea Party, that leaves the Democrats. Sanders himself IIRC ran as an independent for the longest time.

By all accounts, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and other more obviously socialist - or socialist-adjacent - politicians should be running as part of a Third Party, but it doesn't exist so they're wedged into this increasingly ideologically overstuffed Democratic party. Under normal circumstances, Nancy Pelosi & Ocasio-Cortez would have no business sharing the same floor, yet bizarrely they do. It's no wonder the fractures show.

Sad Professor

The Dems are no more ideologically overstuffed than the Republicans are. The two US parties aren't parties as we would understand them. More like alliances of different parties. Also, Sanders (a social democrat) and AOC (a left liberal) would have fit in the party just fine in the post-war New Deal/Great Society era. The domination of the party by people that would have been considered moderate Republicans (which is how Obama described himself) in previous decades is the thing that needs to change.

Anyway I think Dems like the idea of Biden more than the man himself who is incredibly gaffe prone and boring. I don't think he can win.

MadYaker

A Biden / Sanders ticket would be strong but I don't think they are compatible. I think Biden has a better shot overall than Bernie does but only if he can get the bernie supporters out to vote for him. He could do this by taking on board some of sanders proposals. I wonder who he'll pick as a running mate. Probably have to be a woman?

Jimmy_oc1998

I always find US elections funny. They spend months grilling people in their own party and then once all that is out of the way they're supposed to support each other.

Sleepy Joe is in good shape for a 76 year old. Be 81 by the time he'd be finished.

Fr Tod Umptious

MadYaker wrote: »

A Biden / Sanders ticket would be strong but I don't think they are compatible. I think Biden has a better shot overall than Bernie does but only if he can get the bernie supporters out to vote for him. He could do this by taking on board some of sanders proposals. I wonder who he'll pick as a running mate. Probably have to be a woman?

In a general election he does not need Bernie supporters he needs people who voted for Trump because Hiliary was such a poor choice.

MadYaker

He does need the bernie supporters as well though. They stayed at home instead of voting for clinton. I hope they realise this time around that by staying at home they might as well vote for trump.

SoundsRight

Biden is their best hope, but it would go against all their posturing over the years. They want politics to be less pale, male and stale, so are they going to select a white guy in his seventies ahead of a woman or POC? I would imagine it would leave a lot of voters disinterested.

MadYaker

SoundsRight wrote: »

Biden is their best hope, but it would go against all their posturing over the years. They want politics to be less pale, male and stale, so are they going to select a white guy in his seventies ahead of a woman or POC? I would imagine it would leave a lot of voters disinterested.

I think that was true the last time around but Trump is no longer an unknown quantity. I think at the moment priority number one for the democrat base is getting the orange guy out of the white house. Anyone else is better for now and in 2024 they can worry about electing a progressive. The majority of Americans aren't ready for Sanders or his type yet anyway. They need to wait for another election cycle or two for some more of the older generation to die and stop voting for dinosaurs like biden and trump.

DreamsBurnDown

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In a general election he does not need Bernie supporters he needs people who voted for Trump because Hiliary was such a poor choice.

He (or whoever wins the nomination) needs to get back at least some of the white working class vote which has historically voted Democrat but largely abandoned the party in 2016. Something like 45% of eligible voters are white without a college degree, and Trump won that demographic by 2:1 over Hillary. It's actually an astonishing statistic when you consider Democrats have historically been the party of the working man and Republicans the party of the rich.

The question for Democrats is how to appeal to that huge segment and get some of them back. I think anyone sensible recognizes what won't work, calling them racists, sexists, etc. You simply have to appeal to them on policy that your vision for the country includes them and will improve their standard of living. The focus should be on reducing heath care costs, increasing minimum wage, support for small business and manufacturing, maintaining low income taxes for low to moderate income, etc.

You can do that and attack Trump at the same time. You don't have to attack his potential voters as Hillary did in 2016, you need to bring some of them and those on the fence on board. Obama was able to unite the party and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in 2008, Biden can do the same and should select either Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, as two old white guys would be a terrible optic (four in total including Trump and Pence).

Itssoeasy

I'm sorry if this point has been raised in this thread, but let's say trump doesn't win reelection in 2020 and therefore a new president will assume office in January 2021. Given what he was saying prior to the last election about whether he'd except the election result and from memory he wouldn't say he would at the time. Do posters thing he'll except a defeat even remotely gracefully ? The few inaugurations I've seen live and others I've found footage of the persistent line is that the USA has this "peaceful transition of power" and I don't think Trump will do it honestly. Nothing I've seen in nearly three years makes me think he'll leave if he loses. Who'd force him to leave the White House honestly ?

DreamsBurnDown

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm sorry if this point has been raised in this thread, but let's say trump doesn't win reelection in 2020 and therefore a new president will assume office in January 2021. Given what he was saying prior to the last election about whether he'd except the election result and from memory he wouldn't say he would at the time. Do posters thing he'll except a defeat even remotely gracefully ? The few inaugurations I've seen live and others I've found footage of the persistent line is that the USA has this "peaceful transition of power" and I don't think Trump will do it honestly. Nothing I've seen in nearly three years makes me think he'll leave if he loses. Who'd force him to leave the White House honestly ?

He'd be led out in handcuffs if he didn't accept the result.

rossie1977

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The question for Democrats is how to appeal to that huge segment and get some of them back. I think anyone sensible recognizes what won't work, calling them racists, sexists, etc.

First up Clinton didn't call the entire working class of the us anything. She was specifically referring to the hardcore Trump supporters, most likely those that follow him to rallies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-us-2016-37329812/clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-basket-of-deplorables

Those folks are gone, they will not vote anyone but Trump. Dems could put Jesus Christ himself on the ticket and they will still vote Trump.

You simply have to appeal to them on policy that your vision for the country includes them and will improve their standard of living. The focus should be on reducing heath care costs, increasing minimum wage, support for small business and manufacturing, maintaining low income taxes for low to moderate income, etc.

So basically copy Clintons policies https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

The problem is nobody listened or cared about policies last election. It was all about the emails, Benghazi, look her up, crooked Hillary, Hillary dying. No doubt same tactics will be used again regardless what Dem candidate emerges.

The mainstream media focused all of their time last election on either giving Trump thousands of hours of free advertising or the emails and Benghazi. The right wing media and Republicans portrayed Clinton as biggest monster on the planet.

You can do that and attack Trump at the same time. You don't have to attack his potential voters as Hillary did in 2016, you need to bring some of them and those on the fence on board. Obama was able to unite the party and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in 2008, Biden can do the same and should select either Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren as his running mate, as two old white guys would be a terrible optic (four in total including Trump and Pence).

Trump attacked muslims, blacks, hispanics, women constantly during last election. He will do it again during 2020 election.

marno21

McConnell came out yesterday and stated he would be the "grim reaper" if a post 2020 Democratic president tries to push through "socialism" by blocking anything that comes before the Senate

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1121491566173065217

Whatever about Trump, there is going to be a sorry legacy to this individuals tenure.

MadYaker

marno21 wrote: »

McConnell came out yesterday and stated he would be the "grim reaper" if a post 2020 Democratic president tries to push through "socialism" by blocking anything that comes before the Senate

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1121491566173065217

Whatever about Trump, there is going to be a sorry legacy to this individuals tenure.

Whats the logic behind allowing one guy in the senate to block votes at a whim? Seems incredibly undemocratic to me.

vetinari

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In a general election he does not need Bernie supporters he needs people who voted for Trump because Hiliary was such a poor choice.

This has been shown to be wrong multiple multiple times. Elections are not about getting other party members to vote for you. They're about getting your own base out. Personally I think Biden is a poor choice from that standpoint. He's too old. The best comparison the Democrats can do is have a significantly younger candidate. Trump is currently showing serious signs of senility. Why run a candidate whom similar accusations could be leveled against?


It's an issue for the leading democratic candidates. Warren, Biden and Sanders are all too old. They need one of the younger candidates (60 or younger) to start gaining some traction. That will give them an advantage in the general election in terms of the comparison to Trump.

vetinari

MadYaker wrote: »

Whats the logic behind allowing one guy in the senate to block votes at a whim? Seems incredibly undemocratic to me.

If (very big if) the Democrats win the presidency, senate and the house, you'll see the fillibuster for legislation get removed imo. Warren has already talked about it. It ultimately helps the Republicans more than the Democrats.

briany

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 Sanders is actually the most dangerous person to have around , he makes anyone else on the dem side look like an establishment hack and makes their more centerist policies look more to the right. Aslong as he's in the running its just fracturing and division

This is the biggest excuse going for presidential candidates. "If that wing nut hadn't siphoned off votes, I would have won. Wah."

Maybes if your policies weren't so bland and boring, offering little hope of positive change, you would have all the votes you need.

Additionally, it doesn't matter if Bernie makes them look like establishment hacks, because Trump definitely will. He'll be throwing haymakers from the out and dispensing with all nicety. If they try to debate Trump, responding to his jabs with a dismissive head shake and chuckle, they will be in trouble.

DreamsBurnDown

rossie1977 wrote: »

First up Clinton didn't call the entire working class of the us anything. She was specifically referring to the hardcore Trump supporters, most likely those that follow him to rallies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-us-2016-37329812/clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-basket-of-deplorables

Those folks are gone, they will not vote anyone but Trump. Dems could put Jesus Christ himself on the ticket and they will still vote Trump.

The problem with your analysis is that millions of white working class who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched their vote to Trump in 2016. Are they deplorables? 25% of white working class voters who had voted for Obama twice abandoned the Democratic party in 2016. If you don't believe that Democrats had lost touch with the working class in much of America, and not just whites, I probably can't convince you, but the evidence suggests it.

Hillary Clinton isn't solely to blame for that obviously, but she was deeply unpopular (as was Trump) and regarded as part of the same old crowd in Washington who talked the talk but never delivered. While banks were bailed out, companies left in droves and lobbyists still controlled Washington, nobody seemed to care about working people who continued to struggle to make ends meet.

The issues that working Americans care about are decent paying jobs, outsourcing which has decimated manufacturing, cost of health care and health insurance, corruption in government, protecting social security, keeping Wall Street in check, etc. The reality is that after eight years of Obama and the promise of change, the standard of living of most working class Americans declined, wages were stagnant or declined, and the cost of health care, third level education, etc. went through the roof.

It was also an election campaign unlike no other in living memory, so the potential for an upset was always a possibility.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

First up Clinton didn't call the entire working class of the us anything. She was specifically referring to the hardcore Trump supporters, most likely those that follow him to rallies.

She said half, which turned out to be over 30 million people.

Even calling a single voter deplorable would be an idiotic thing for any candidate to do.

"She didn't say all! Only half!" is such a lazy cop out, especially when used in hindsight.

BluePlanet

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The problem with your analysis is that millions of white working class who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched their vote to Trump in 2016. Are they deplorables? 25% of white working class voters who had voted for Obama twice abandoned the Democratic party in 2016.

I would need convincing of that figure.
IMO some of those may have been Bernie supporters that couldn't or wouldn't hold their nose and vote for Clinton. But i doubt they represent a switch of party affiliation.