US Presidential Election 2020

FreudianSlippers

pixelburp wrote: »

Can we just agree here and now that given how the 2016 cycle went, we really, REALLY can't say definitively what scandal might explode a candidate's campaign?

As Nody pointed out, Democratic voters tend to hold higher standards for their leaders and particularly in the primaries which attract a much lower turnout generally (in both parties). The difference between the primaries and the general election though, is that in the primaries voters tend to weigh in behind a candidate they believe has a chance of winning - I'm in that direction too... I'd likely vote for Warren because I believe she has a better chance of beating Biden the primary than Harris and others. We saw with 2016 that in the main race, voters aren't afraid to cast a protest vote if they don't like the main choices.

peddlelies

Biden is sinking fast. Another poll backing up the CNN one. Biden 22, Harris 20, Warren 14, Sanders 13.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2631

Snickers Man

rossie1977 wrote: »

Harris is sitting on between 5-10% of black vote while Biden is on 50%. This might be very smart tactic by Harris or it might also backfire. It's going to be very tough to attack Biden on race issue when he spent 8 years working under Obama.

As someone linked earlier, Harris convicted large percentage of black males while prosecutor, something that Bidens black supporters are already letting folks know about.

Harris is a shameless emotional manipulator and bringing up the subject of bussing could backfire on her spectacularly.

Bussing, the forced transportation of kids to schools outside their areas--often WAY outside their areas--as a way to end segregation in education was a disastrous policy. Well meaning in intent it was coercive and divisive in practice and it showed what many on "the left" (I hate that term but it's generally understood to mean people more amenable to government intervention especially in matters of social policy) frequently have to learn the hard way: social science is not the same as natural science. You can't control the initial conditions to guarantee a desired outcome, especially if people are unwilling to co-operate fully. Not without terrible social coercion and ultimately state violence.

Bussing generally affected the less well off on either side of the racial divide, encouraged the phenomenon of "white flight" from the inner cities, leading to more de facto segregation and poorer schooling. It left a legacy of bitterness and resentment, not least among people frustrated that their "social experiment" didn't work as well as they thought it might because so many people were just not willing to play ball.

It led to accusations of racism which were often utterly unjustified and now Harris is trying to make it a retrospective moral issue. No doubt she is banking on emulating the success of the campaign against Confederate era statues and institutions named after people like Robert E Lee, figuring that if saying ANYTHING complimentary about ANYONE involved with the Confederacy is now synonymous with racism then bringing the same retrospective condemnation to an issue that is effectively dead should be a relatively easy strategy to implement.

I'm unconvinced that she will receive the same level of support for this one. It's an issue that is still strong in many people's actual memories, unlike the US Civil War. This one could backfire spectacularly, and be particularly divisive. Which is the last thing the Democrats need right now.

pixelburp

On the flipside, the Bussing incident probably helped highlight just how out of his depth Trump was; given when asked about Bussing, he literally thought it was about just bussing kids to school & the (fed) state providing transport. It hasn't really been picked on all that much, oddly, but then I guess the focus has been more about dismantling Biden than highlighting Trump's ignorance.

And that I think is the point here: Harris' tactic was potentially risky, but equally it was a curt reminder that Biden is a steadfast protector of the status quo; and as Swalwell noted, Biden was talking about passing the torch 40 years ago. The man's time in the sun has passed & he'll be attacked until his percentage points collapse.

AbusesToilets

I don't think that's the worst thing in the world. Whilst a serial antagoniser like Trump and his ilk rightfully garner scorn, I hate the trend that any misstep nowadays is a political death sentence.

StringerBell

peddlelies wrote: »

Biden is sinking fast. Another poll backing up the CNN one. Biden 22, Harris 20, Warren 14, Sanders 13.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2631

Fully expected tbf once the actual interactions with the other candidates began. He will be in the race for the duration and snapshots of certain moments here and there are useful, but limited in their usefulness.

Awful long way to go, the polls are varied too in the degree of the drop off from Biden and the pick up of Harris/Warren.

Funnily considering the circumstance, its the black vote bulwark that Biden has built up that still has him in front at the minute.

Regardless, he was never going to stay so far out ahead of the pack.

Snickers Man

pixelburp wrote: »

Biden was talking about passing the torch 40 years ago. The man's time in the sun has passed & he'll be attacked until his percentage points collapse.

Couldn't agree more on that point. If Biden were to be elected, he would be 78 years old on taking office. That's way too old, IMHO. He's older than his FOUR immediate predecessors: Trump, Obama, Bush Jr AND Clinton!

Even given that the wealthier strata of America are living to improbably great ages (Fun fact: Richard Nixon, president in the 1970s is the most recent former president to die BEFORE the age of 90) an 82 year old president doesn't bear thinking about. You're really voting for whoever he picks as his running mate.

Just don't make bussing the hill he dies on. The Dems would live to regret that.

Snickers Man

..and as for passing the torch. Sure, it's a very valid argument in the case of Biden but it might also militate against Elizabeth Warren. She is 70 already and would be older than Trump (the oldest man to be elected as a first-term president) if she were to prevail.

Putting another septuagenarian into the White House might not be the worst thing in the world in her case but it's hardly "passing the torch" to a younger generation.

BluePlanet

Snickers Man wrote: »

Harris is a shameless emotional manipulator and bringing up the subject of bussing could backfire on her spectacularly.

How could it backfire?

She had personal experience being bussed as a kid.
She successfully tied Biden to segregationists and has taken support off him.

Danzy

Harris is doing well, she also has the Clinton machine and will be the Wall St. candidate of choice so will have serious resources.

There are questions about Harris and budding that may damage her but the point remains also that she isn't that popular among black Americans.

Professor Moriarty

Danzy wrote: »

Harris is doing well, she also has the Clinton machine and will be the Wall St. candidate of choice so will have serious resources.

There are questions about Harris and budding that may damage her but the point remains also that she isn't that popular among black Americans.

If black Americans have a choice between Harris or The Donald, one would hope they might get over their dislike.

vetinari

I think Biden ultimately can't have it both ways.
The benefit of his long career for him is the massive name recognition over the other candidates.
The downside is having a 40 year political career to "defend".
That's fair enough.

The debate also showed that he's not prepared yet for a post Trump style election.
Aggression pays off these days, Harris made Biden look weak and indecisive in the debate.
I don't think Biden is cut out for this style of electioneering.

briany

If you ever watched Frasier, guys like O'Rourke or Buttigieg remind me of that new agent Frasier hired instead of Bebe, who turned out to be too nice to do his job correctly.

Danzy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If black Americans have a choice between Harris or The Donald, one would hope they might get over their dislike.

Some will, many will look at their pay cheques though.

Danzy

vetinari wrote: »

I think Biden ultimately can't have it both ways.
The benefit of his long career for him is the massive name recognition over the other candidates.
The downside is having a 40 year political career to "defend".
That's fair enough.

The debate also showed that he's not prepared yet for a post Trump style election.
Aggression pays off these days, Harris made Biden look weak and indecisive in the debate.
I don't think Biden is cut out for this style of electioneering.

He is no Vetinari, Vetinari.

vetinari

Danzy wrote: »

Some will, many will look at their pay cheques though.

Are we going to pretend that 90% of black Americans are not going to vote for the Democratic candidate? Also not that its needed, she's also black (Jamaican heritage). Winning black votes in a general election would be the least of her problems!

Professor Moriarty

Danzy wrote: »

Some will, many will look at their pay cheques though.

Indeed but only 6% of black voters defintely intend voting for Trump whereas 86% would definitely not vote for him.

Snickers Man

BluePlanet wrote: »

How could it backfire?

Because it was and is a controversial issue, a source of great bitterness and resentment, unsuccessful in the main in its implementation, and not at all regarded in hindsight as "the right thing to do".

She's trying to make out that it was and that anyone who opposed it was a racist/segregationist/defender of white privilege.

That could backfire on her. Bigly.

is_that_so

peddlelies wrote: »

Biden is sinking fast. Another poll backing up the CNN one. Biden 22, Harris 20, Warren 14, Sanders 13.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2631

When you have 24 people in a race that 20 probably shouldn't be in, you get this kind of ebb and flow polling. Sure it's very democratic but of no help to anyone in making up their minds. Some thoughts here on the race.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/04/us/politics/democratic-candidates-president-2020.html

ILoveYourVibes

vetinari wrote: »

Are we going to pretend that 90% of black Americans are not going to vote for the Democratic candidate? Also not that its needed, she's also black (Jamaican heritage). Winning black votes in a general election would be the least of her problems!

They are not going to vote for Trump.

But if the Dem candidate is not one they like they will be less motivated to get out of the house to vote at all.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Does the distribution of black votes matter?

Not a rhetorical question. If all black votes are in liberal and definitely democratic states then it won’t matter at all.

I know that Texas might be in play sometime. If not this time, though.

Danzy

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does the distribution of black votes matter?

Not a rhetorical question. If all black votes are in liberal and definitely democratic states then it won’t matter at all.

I know that Texas might be in play sometime. If not this time, though.

Good point, the black vote tends to be very concentrated it can still swing the vote in some states though.

I think while most blacks will vote Democratic, more than usual will vote Trump and many will stay at home rather than vote against him.

They'll not want to go back down the ladder.

Quin_Dub

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They are not going to vote for Trump.

But if the Dem candidate is not one they like they will be less motivated to get out of the house to vote at all.

This has always been the biggest problem for the Dems, if they don't feel 100% aligned with the candidate they just stay at home, whereas a GOP voter is far more likely to vote for the GOP candidate regardless of who they are, just to stop a Dem winning.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does the distribution of black votes matter?

Not a rhetorical question. If all black votes are in liberal and definitely democratic states then it won’t matter at all.

I know that Texas might be in play sometime. If not this time, though.

Interesting question about the distribution & of the black vote in the swing states , it would certainly be a significant factor in Florida at least, but probably less so in somewhere like Ohio , but again given how incredibly narrow the winning margins were in those states a small % change could have a significant impact.

Danzy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This has always been the biggest problem for the Dems, if they don't feel 100% aligned with the candidate they just stay at home, whereas a GOP voter is far more likely to vote for the GOP candidate regardless of who they are, just to stop a Dem winning.




Interesting question about the distribution & of the black vote in the swing states , it would certainly be a significant factor in Florida at least, but probably less so in somewhere like Ohio , but again given how incredibly narrow the winning margins were in those states a small % change could have a significant impact.

The Democratic Party are doubling down on that tendency.

is_that_so

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This has always been the biggest problem for the Dems, if they don't feel 100% aligned with the candidate they just stay at home, whereas a GOP voter is far more likely to vote for the GOP candidate regardless of who they are, just to stop a Dem winning.




Interesting question about the distribution & of the black vote in the swing states , it would certainly be a significant factor in Florida at least, but probably less so in somewhere like Ohio , but again given how incredibly narrow the winning margins were in those states a small % change could have a significant impact.

Once they get through the pageant that is this long primary season someone needs to point out to them that staying at home is not an option and more or less guarantees four more years of someone they all loathe.

pixelburp

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Does the distribution of black votes matter?

Not a rhetorical question. If all black votes are in liberal and definitely democratic states then it won’t matter at all.

I know that Texas might be in play sometime. If not this time, though.

It won't matter in liberal states, but in those red-purple ones, it's a pertinent issue, especially when you add in the controversies over gerrymandering or the purging of voter rolls. Looks like Texas is the latest to try the purging technique. It's all a cynical ploy to try and supress the vote.

eire4

is_that_so wrote: »

Once they get through the pageant that is this long primary season someone needs to point out to them that staying at home is not an option and more or less guarantees four more years of someone they all loathe.

The Democrats have been using that speach for years saying you have to vote for our candidate even if you don't like them because well look at the alternative. The lesser of 2 evils has so often been the Democrats sales pitch and well that is a significant part of the reason about 45% of Americans will not vote. Why bother it is not like the Democratic party will do much that is in the best interest of most Americans. As I have mentioned before the Republicans economically represent the best interests of the top 1% or so the Democrats the top 20% or so. Now clearly that number can be debated but the facts remain the Democratic Party does not represent the best economic interests of most Americans. They have had plenty of time in the white house since Reagan in 1980 decided to impose Freidmanite Disaster Economics on the US and income inequality has steadily grown in the US since and not made a dint in that trend because they simply are not interested.

eagle eye

Well tbh right next I wouldn't be pushed to go out and vote for any of the Democrat candidates.
They need another candidate imo.

The best of the main ones is Sanders I think.

pixelburp

I think Warren can reach people as readily as Sanders, maybe more so. If American politics is all about image, Warren presents well as a positive, enthusiastic figure. Dare I say, a touch folksy, but relatively genuine (like Sanders she has a fairly open set of priorities and policy positions). Obviously the Native American con is a huge black mark but in the pantheon of political scandals it's small beer IMO.

Harris is the bolter but IIRC her actual positions are a bit wishy washy in the manner of a typical establishment politican. I have a funny feeling once Warren joins the main group she might become the frontrunner. I'm assuming in all this Biden will plummet.

peddlelies

How does Cuomo not challenge Biden here?