US Presidential Election 2020

MadYaker

eagle eye wrote: »

The four main candidates at this stage won't bring out the voters to defeat Trump.
It's hard to beat an incumbent, nothing easy about beating one.

Trump is by far the most beatable incumbent I’ve ever seen. There’s no candidate that ticks all the boxes but Biden is still the most likely to beat him imo. Why do you think they won’t bring out the voters?

eagle eye

MadYaker wrote:

Trump is by far the most beatable incumbent I’ve ever seen. There’s no candidate that ticks all the boxes but Biden is still the most likely to beat him imo. Why do you think they won’t bring out the voters?

They are not engaging enough, none of them have the charisma required.

ancapailldorcha

MadYaker wrote: »

Trump is by far the most beatable incumbent I’ve ever seen. There’s no candidate that ticks all the boxes but Biden is still the most likely to beat him imo. Why do you think they won’t bring out the voters?

Biden epitomises the establishment though. Voters want to see real change and the Democrats fielding a two-time VP as their candidate will be seen in much the same way as Hilary Clinton was in 2016.

MadYaker

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Biden epitomises the establishment though. Voters want to see real change and the Democrats fielding a two-time VP as their candidate will be seen in much the same way as Hilary Clinton was in 2016.

Realistically the party is split between the more progressives like AOC and the old guard like Biden and Warren etc.

Hillary was a crap candidate for many reasons, I feel Biden would be stronger, has more charisma (wouldn't be hard) Obama is a massively popular ex president so that would be a pluys for Biden. I don't know how it's going to turn out. I wouldn't feel super confident at the moment about any of the potential dem candidates. There's nobody who id look at and think "yeah he/she is the one to sink Trump"

Fr Tod Umptious

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Biden epitomises the establishment though. Voters want to see real change and the Democrats fielding a two-time VP as their candidate will be seen in much the same way as Hilary Clinton was in 2016.

I don't think anyone will be seen the same way as Hillary.
From day one back in 1999 when she was eyeballing the Senate seat in NY she was seen as a carpet bagger.
This carried all the way through to a failed presidential bid in 2008 and in 2016 it looked like she was the only one allowed to have the nomination.
She was a terrible candidate and deeply unpopular.

The voters the Dems need are the ones who deserted Hillary in the swing states.
These are likely to be more receptive to someone more centreist and more established like Biden.

All the liberals and progressive in CA and NY don't matter a damn, the Dems have those states already wrapped up, but they need the people that did not vote for Hillary.

And they live in the Midwest, will likely be white, older, and somewhat conservative.

Fr Tod Umptious

MadYaker wrote: »

Realistically the party is split between the more progressives like AOC and the old guard like Biden and Warren etc.

Hillary was a crap candidate for many reasons, I feel Biden would be stronger, has more charisma (wouldn't be hard) Obama is a massively popular ex president so that would be a pluys for Biden. I don't know how it's going to turn out. I wouldn't feel super confident at the moment about any of the potential dem candidates. There's nobody who id look at and think "yeah he/she is the one to sink Trump"

He's not really

DreamsBurnDown

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The voters the Dems need are the ones who deserted Hillary in the swing states.
These are likely to be more receptive to someone more centreist and more established like Biden.

All the liberals and progressive in CA and NY don't matter a damn, the Dems have those states already wrapped up, but they need the people that did not vote for Hillary.

This seems to be the hardest thing for a lot of people outside the US to understand. Most states outside the coasts are pretty conservative, that includes Democratic and Independent voters. Democrats who win in swing states are by and large moderates and not progressives.

Biden would almost certainly have beaten Trump in 2016 as he was quite popular relative to Clinton, and has strong appeal to working class voters. Biden would not have lost the working class vote that Clinton lost. I'm not sure however that Biden has the energy to get through the grueling process between now and next November, he is beginning to look his age.

The problem right now with the Democratic field is there is currently no obvious alternative to Biden as a moderate, should he falter, with most of the other viable candidates vying to be the most progressive. It's not unusual at this stage of the process, Democratic candidates tend to start out this way and the eventual winner moves to the center. You can see some evidence of this already as Harris has backed off on getting rid of private insurance and Warren seems to be heading the same way in recent town hall meetings.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

This seems to be the hardest thing for a lot of people outside the US to understand. Most states outside the coasts are pretty conservative, that includes Democratic and Independent voters. Democrats who win in swing states are by and large moderates and not progressives.

What happens in the "conservative" states of the US is exhaustively covered in the Irish, UK and European media - it could barely be more covered, we have had features about the "flyover states" coming out our ears since 2016 and before.

Sadly these features almost always focus on white Trump supporters, and hardly ever on anybody else.

To use your own words, what seems to be the hardest thing for US based people to understand is that many people outside the US are much more knowledgable about the "conservative" nature of these states and their political make up - especially of white Trump voters, than most people in the US itself.

We actually get a massive overrepresentation of Trump supporters and their mindset in our media.

And yet, and yet. Barack Obama was painted not just as a radical socialist, but as a grave national security threat by Republican media.

Yet he got 365 electoral college votes, winning states like North Carolina and Indiana, swept the mid-west, and got almost 70 million votes, a total no other candidate has come anywhere near in history.

So the story is actually a wee bit more complicated than just saying "these places are conservative, full stop".

Obama could not have won otherwise.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

A majority of Republican voters (52% in polling) now also support a single payer system.

I'll also refer you to your own stat for evidence that things are just a little bit more complicated than saying "states are conservative".

Single payer healthcare is not a conservative policy.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And yet, and yet. Barack Obama was painted not just as a radical socialist, but as a grave national security threat by Republican media.

Yet he got 365 electoral college votes, winning states like North Carolina and Indiana, swept the mid-west, and got almost 70 million votes, a total no other candidate has come anywhere near in history.

So the story is actually a wee bit more complicated than just saying "these places are conservative, full stop".

Obama could not have won otherwise.

I'm not saying "conservative, full stop" though, those are your words. I'm saying the swing states are conservative, certainly by European standards. They tend to vote for moderate candidates with centrist positions.

Obama ran for president in 2008 when the US was in the worst recession since the 1930s. He ran on a platform of ending the recession, focusing on jobs, and providing health care to those that didn't have insurance. Regardless of how Republicans portrayed him, Obama himself and his policies were centrist. As an example, Obama's immigration policies were quite strict, more deportations than any prior president and building many of the detention centers on the border. There was nothing socialist or radical about Obama's platform or policies while in office, he focused on the things that matter to working class and middle class Americans.

It's not just Trump supporters that are white in the "flyover states". In Indiana for example, one of the states you mentioned, 85% of the population identify as white, so most Democratic voters and most Independent voters are white, not just Trump voters. The mantra of "white people are the problem" isn't really a winning strategy when 85% of the electorate is white. A significant enough number of whites who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump in 2016, significant enough to win him the election. You simply have to appeal to these people to win. The way to appeal to them is with policies that make their lives better.

I actually think there is too much focus on Trump supporters in the media, as Republican voters likely will never vote for a Democrat anyway, at best they will stay home. You have to appeal to those that "swing" the state, and most of those are white working class and middle class voters. If the Democrats run a sensible, centrist candidate with policies similar to Obama they will win, it's really as simple as that.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I'll also refer you to your own stat for evidence that things are just a little bit more complicated than saying "states are conservative".

Single payer healthcare is not a conservative policy.

Are you suggesting Republicans are not conservative?

The concept of single payer healthcare has gained a lot of traction in recent years, and a majority of Republicans now support it as well as Democrats. However, supporting something in concept and supporting it's implementation are quite different. You can see the minefield that it represents with Democratic candidates dancing around the issue of eliminating private insurance.

The reality is that most Americans are happy with the quality and timeliness of their healthcare but unhappy at the cost. The main concern with "Medicaid for all" is giving control of the entire health care system to the government. How would the Irish electorate react if the government proposed eliminating private insurance and putting everyone on HSE? How would most European countries react, is there any EU country that only has a public option?

Far better to expand Medicaid for those on lower incomes, i.e. raise the income threshold. Everyone should have health insurance, and it should be subsidized or free for those that can't afford it, but expecting that 170 million who have private health insurance are willing to drop it and trust the government is a real stretch.

Fr Tod Umptious

hill16bhoy wrote: »

What happens in the "conservative" states of the US is exhaustively covered in the Irish, UK and European media - it could barely be more covered, we have had features about the "flyover states" coming out our ears since 2016 and before.

Sadly these features almost always focus on white Trump supporters, and hardly ever on anybody else.

To use your own words, what seems to be the hardest thing for US based people to understand is that many people outside the US are much more knowledgable about the "conservative" nature of these states and their political make up - especially of white Trump voters, than most people in the US itself.

We actually get a massive overrepresentation of Trump supporters and their mindset in our media.

And yet, and yet. Barack Obama was painted not just as a radical socialist, but as a grave national security threat by Republican media.

Yet he got 365 electoral college votes, winning states like North Carolina and Indiana, swept the mid-west, and got almost 70 million votes, a total no other candidate has come anywhere near in history.

So the story is actually a wee bit more complicated than just saying "these places are conservative, full stop".

Obama could not have won otherwise.

I have always found that the Irish media have always pigeon holed Irish Americans as default Democratic party supporters.

They fail to notice that Irish Americans tend to be older, more strongly Catholic than Catholics here, and thus thend to be conservative.
They have little time for the LGBTQ+ agenda, are pro life more than pro choice and let's face it are pretty racist.

That puts a lot of them in a camp that may not necessarily vote for Trump but would certainly stay at home if a more liberal progressive Democrat was on the ballot.

DreamsBurnDown

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I have always found that the Irish media have always pigeon holed Irish Americans as default Democratic party supporters.

They fail to notice that Irish Americans tend to be older, more strongly Catholic than Catholics here, and thus thend to be conservative.
They have little time for the LGBTQ+ agenda, are pro life more than pro choice and let's face it are pretty racist.

That puts a lot of them in a camp that may not necessarily vote for Trump but would certainly stay at home if a more liberal progressive Democrat was on the ballot.

Irish Americans are split roughly 50:50 by party, as are English and Scottish Americans. The other two largest groups of European ancestry German and Italian, are roughly 60:40 Republican.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/trump-and-the-white-vote

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Are you suggesting Republicans are not conservative?

I literally quoted the statistic you introduced back to you.

Is single payer healthcare a conservative policy?

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I'm not saying "conservative, full stop" though, those are your words.

You said Democrats and Independents are conservative. So, that includes pretty much everybody - according to you.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

This seems to be the hardest thing for a lot of people outside the US to understand. Most states outside the coasts are pretty conservative, that includes Democratic and Independent voters.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You said Democrats and Independents are conservative. So, that includes pretty much everybody - according to you.

In most of the swing states. Why do you think Democrats choose moderate candidates in swing states in 2018? The gains in the 2018 midterms were largely moderate Democrats replacing Republicans. That's the path to victory in 2020, not just the presidential election but keeping the House and hopefully making gains in the Senate.

Most of the larger swing states (FL, PA, WI, OH, MI, MN) have been trending Democrat up to the 2016 election, Democrats need to restore that trend.

Fr Tod Umptious

On the topic of the media portrayal of Trump and his support over this side of the world there is a show on BBC call "Travel in Trumpland" and the tag line goes
"Ed Balls travels to America's Deep South to immerse himself in the lives of those who put Trump in power, and learn how this reality TV businessman won them over."

But this is totally untrue.
Ed would be better off traveling to the rust belt.

They put Trump in power, the Deep South was always going to be Red on the map.

rossie1977

It's not that simple though. Clinton was a centrist and Trump was seen as a radical in 2016. In truth Trump ran a faux left wing campaign in the rust-belt especially where he promised government intervention to deal with issues, he would fix healthcare and make it more affordable and clean up DC.

Itssoeasy

Why is Corey booker still in the race for the democratic nomination ? What has he offered in any way so far ? All I’ve seen him do is jump on the Biden issue and is still trying to drag it out. I know the rules for being included in a televised debate are getting tougher before the end of the year so hopefully that stops his pointless campaign.

FreudianSlippers

rossie1977 wrote: »

It's not that simple though. Clinton was a centrist and Trump was seen as a radical in 2016. In truth Trump ran a faux left wing campaign in the rust-belt especially where he promised government intervention to deal with issues, he would fix healthcare and make it more affordable and clean up DC.

He also flat-out lied and said he could bring all their coal, excuse me "clean coal", jobs back.

FreudianSlippers

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Why is Corey booker still in the race for the democratic nomination ? What has he offered in any way so far ? All I’ve seen him do is jump on the Biden issue and is still trying to drag it out. I know the rules for being included in a televised debate are getting tougher before the end of the year so hopefully that stops his pointless campaign.

IMHO we will see a shed of candidates after the debates this week, but Booker will stay in as long as he meets the campaign threshold (which he has been). He will not be one of the first to drop out in my view, as he's either angling for a position in the cabinet or he's keeping a close eye on his Senate seat for 2020... a solid run for President (and for Booker IMO that's making it another round or two) will only help his 2020 Senate campaign.

Rjd2

from what I seen of the debate...

Delaney got way to much time for someone whose campaign is absolutely dead, I get they want to focus on the centre v left but utterly bizarre how much time he spoke.

Williamson went down the best with the crowd, despite her silliness she does actually take some sense sometimes. The specific question about race she excelled,,obviously got zero chance of winning, but still running a more memorable campaign that many of the establishment politicans on stage.

Beto is an empty suit, he doesn't have the media running interference for him anymore. Saying he would not leave Iraq in his first year but in his first term....LOL. Also talking about winning Texas.

Missed a lot of Pete's stuff tbh.

Warren and Sanders did fine,,,unsure either had a really massive moment but neither lost ground whatsoever.

The lack of chat about automation talking jobs in the Mid West was obvious and Yang was correct to point out.

pixelburp

Yeah, catching up on clips and post mortems but why / how on earth did John Delaney get so much airtime? Mind you, Sanders and Warren's tag team putdowns were viral gold; I particularly liked Warren's response to Delaney consistently talking about how unrealistic Medicare for all was (sidebar IIRC Delaney actually founded a health company that floated on the stock exchange, so he's a bad faith actor on this subject):

“I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”

That some fine rhetoric, this is becoming Warren's race to lose. She right though. Sanders was much feistier too, probably in response to a stalling campaign.

edit: God help me, I'm watching Williamson's contributions during and after the debate and ... she's a kook, but she talks a good, optimistic game & I think I like her. Bringing up Flint and the inherent sociopathic nature of modern corporations is kinda on point. I could see her being Jill Stein v2: the anti-establishment vote that ultimately divides the Democratic vote.

Hande hoche!

Buttigieg's crowd won't be too happy with that performance. Imagine the impact on polling will be significantly effected by how Biden does tomorrow, if he messes it up again should be interesting to see where the support goes.

On a personal note, very glad to see Beto cratering. Absolutely a case of the media carrying water for him. Will try to catch all of the next one.

briany

rossie1977 wrote: »

It's not that simple though. Clinton was a centrist and Trump was seen as a radical in 2016. In truth Trump ran a faux left wing campaign in the rust-belt especially where he promised government intervention to deal with issues, he would fix healthcare and make it more affordable and clean up DC.

The economic protectionism certainly is not in line with market deregulation as has traditionally been promoted by American Republicans. Well, by the American establishment, really.

rossie1977

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Buttigieg's crowd won't be too happy with that performance. Imagine the impact on polling will be significantly effected by how Biden does tomorrow, if he messes it up again should be interesting to see where the support goes.

On a personal note, very glad to see Beto cratering. Absolutely a case of the media carrying water for him. Will try to catch all of the next one.

Last debate only really say small rises for Warren and Harris and like one week wobble for Biden.

The latest polls over past week:

Emerson, Biden by 13
Morning Consult, Biden by 15
The Hill, Biden by 14
Quinnipiac, Biden by 19
Fox News, Biden by 18
Economist/YouGov, Biden by 7

hill16bhoy

Warren and Sanders thrashed the opposition last night. They bith performed very solidly throughout and got the zingers in, which, let's face it, is the most important thing in this media environment where people are not inclined to watch these things through.

Delaney, Ryan, Bullock and Hickenlooper were embarrassingly bad, they'd have been better of in a Republican debate. Hopefully they're gone by the next debates.

The format was awful too and the framing of some of the questions was straight out of the Fox media handbook.

Warren still hasn't been on the same stage as Biden.

She'll do well from last night but she probably needs to get a go at taking him on directly to make a real dent in that lead - if Biden doesn't have another nightmare tonight, which is far from certain.

hill16bhoy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Buttigieg's crowd won't be too happy with that performance. Imagine the impact on polling will be significantly effected by how Biden does tomorrow, if he messes it up again should be interesting to see where the support goes.

Buttigieg is a watery, milquetoast candidate who is really only doing in any way well because of what he is - young, personable and gay.

This is about building his profile for a future senate or governor race.

There's a surprising amount of crossover between Biden's and Sanders' support.

Polls show each is the most popular second choice of the others' supporters.

A similar dynamic exists between Warren and Harris.

And that's not because of policy, because Bernie/Warren and Biden/Harris clearly overlap most of the top tier candidates.

Given that liking for Bernie among Biden's supporters, he shouldn't be written off at all yet.

pixelburp

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Buttigieg is a watery, milquetoast candidate who is really only doing in any way well because of what he is - young, personable and gay.

This is about building his profile for a future senate or governor race.

He's only 37 so I'd say future plans involve another tilt at the Presidency, if he leaves enough of a positive mark.

I agree that he presents as another career Centrist, but he made one astute, accurate remark: regardless of how left of centre the Democrats choose to lean, the Republicans will call the party "crazy socialists" in every scenario.

He's right, and it's already there in Trump & surrogates' talking points: in many ways is why Sanders/Warren should be candidate. Democrats will be called lefty wingnuts by the attack dogs regardless of who wins the candidacy - so they might as well own it. Better to have someone brazen who steps up and goes "medicare for all, fight me", than a waffly centrist who'll try to please everyone, and lose the more incensed Democrats.

rossie1977

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The format was awful too and the framing of some of the questions was straight out of the Fox media handbook.

I didn't watch it but saw some of the build. How anyone can say CNN are left wing given the way they were framing healthcare is beyond me.

eagle eye

I don't foresee a gay man getting the nomination to run for a long, long time. I'd guess he will be too old before it happens.
You've got two young Kennedy's coming through. Joe is likely to push for the nomination in 2024 I'd imagine. Jack Schlossberg will be a prime candidate in '36 or '40.