US Presidential Election 2020

SharpshooterTom

Biden's certainly looking good for the nomination. He's got some serious staying power and if in a couple of weeks his numbers are at 30-35% like they are at the moment then I don't see him losing.

The only scenario I see whereby he could lose is if Sanders drops out and endorses Warren, then we would have a real race on our hands.

The rest have no chance, just like the 2016 GOP primaries its very difficult for many of them to break out.

It really looks like its going to be Trump vs Biden next year.

SharpshooterTom

Harris is playing the role of Marco Rubio at the moment, professional smooth politician, telegenic, but a bit empty, and I suspect when Biden/Warren clobbers her in her home state in California she'll drop out.

RobertKK

Tulsi Gabbard is the only one who would be a good president.
Not afraid to speak up that supporting regime change against Assad has been led by countries like Saudi Arabia who are supporting Islamists in foreign countries and pushing for war with Iran.
She ends up being called an Assad apologist by some but the people who supported regime change in that country contributed to things being far worse.
Her biggest fault is she uses common sense.

pixelburp

The more I see of him, the more I think Biden would be an absolute disaster of a candidate; not that it's surprise news, but he really is a floundering spoofer with a laundry list of potential controversies to dip into over his career. To be fair to him, he made for an entertaining attack dog during the Obama presidency; it always felt a tactical move in the Good Cop / Bad Cop mould, so Obama could stay above the partisan quagmire, Biden the one actually swinging punches.

He doesn't even seem that quick off the mark anymore, looking at last nights debates. Just that bit slower and more bewildered, if I'm being honest. I'd criticised Sanders on this very thread for looking a bit tired and spent, but he was classically feisty and competitive 2 nights ago so clearly I'm off the mark. Biden has seemed just ... lost, since the beginning. If the likes of Delaney are the empty suits of the Establishment, Biden is surely the monarch at the top of the pile.

is_that_so

pixelburp wrote: »

The more I see of him, the more I think Biden would be an absolute disaster of a candidate; not that it's surprise news, but he really is a floundering spoofer with a laundry list of potential controversies to dip into over his career. To be fair to him, he made for an entertaining attack dog during the Obama presidency; it always felt a tactical move in the Good Cop / Bad Cop mould, so Obama could stay above the partisan quagmire, Biden the one actually swinging punches.

He doesn't even seem that quick off the mark anymore, looking at last nights debates. Just that bit slower and more bewildered, if I'm being honest. I'd criticised Sanders on this very thread for looking a bit tired and spent, but he was classically feisty and competitive 2 nights ago so clearly I'm off the mark. Biden has seemed just ... lost, since the beginning. If the likes of Delaney are the empty suits of the Establishment, Biden is surely the monarch at the top of the pile.

It really doesn't seem as if they have any great candidate at this moment. Biden will last the pace for sure and might be a useful not-Trump candidate. Of the rest, at present I think there's only Warren and even if she doesn't get the nod she should be on the ticket.

StringerBell

Warren will be the candidate imo, I think she is the only one with a chance of overhauling Biden and I am confident she will do it. Long way to go but I think a ticket with Warren on it is a certainty. Herself and Pete would make an interesting pair, I think Bernies time has come and gone at this point but he has the potential to be persuasive, Harris will come again but I don't see her getting the nomination this time round, a very astute politician and she will be back. Biden I think could probably win a general with the right running mate (Warren/Harris maybe) and if he is the one that comes out with the nomination then I would hope that he will bring out enough voters in certain states to put himself over the top.

Biden or Warren will be the candidate and I would personally, and have stated before, prefer and believe in Warren to get the job done.

hill16bhoy

StringerBell wrote: »

Warren will be the candidate imo, I think she is the only one with a chance of overhauling Biden and I am confident she will do it. Long way to go but I think a ticket with Warren on it is a certainty. Herself and Pete would make an interesting pair, I think Bernies time has come and gone at this point but he has the potential to be persuasive, Harris will come again but I don't see her getting the nomination this time round, a very astute politician and she will be back. Biden I think could probably win a general with the right running mate (Warren/Harris maybe) and if he is the one that comes out with the nomination then I would hope that he will bring out enough voters in certain states to put himself over the top.

Biden or Warren will be the candidate and I would personally, and have stated before, prefer and believe in Warren to get the job done.

Warren is the one candidate who can both seriously energise the young progressive base which won the 2018 election, and have massive appeal to swing voters.

Watching these debates, I'm always struck by how much optics matter.

Warren is winning these debates from whichever standpoint you look at it.

She's winning in a policy sense and setting the agenda.

She has the charisma, she has the debating skills, she has the fighting qualities, she has the integrity, and she comes across as just a great human being in general.

She is by a distance the most convincing candidate when you watch her in action.

Biden is just so lacklustre. You wouldn't even know his attack lines are attack lines, such is his poor delivery of speech. Everything about him says he's yesterday's man.

Fan of Netflix

Gabbard is very impressive hopefully she makes the next debate, she owned Kamala Harris. Yang also offers something different on automation, again hopefully he hangs in there.

FreudianSlippers

Biden needs to drop out. This is Warren/Harris/Sanders-ville.

Dytalus

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Biden needs to drop out. This is Warren/Harris/Sanders-ville.

It's probably me being my usual self and overthinking things, but I get the impression he doesn't hugely want to run. He's been doing pretty poorly in the debates so far, and I've seen him do considerably better. I haven't seen the same energy as even some of the other centrists, let alone the progressives, in his campaign.

I wonder if he's being run because the Democratic Party is playing it safe and want a well known member of the 'old guard' to get elected. Which we all know worked so brilliantly last time.

pixelburp

Dytalus wrote: »

It's probably me being my usual self and overthinking things, but I get the impression he doesn't hugely want to run. He's been doing pretty poorly in the debates so far, and I've seen him do considerably better. I haven't seen the same energy as even some of the other centrists, let alone the progressives, in his campaign.

I wonder if he's being run because the Democratic Party is playing it safe and want a well known member of the 'old guard' to get elected. Which we all know worked so brilliantly last time.

Honestly, I think its age, and I'd be someone loathed to default to under-estimating the elderly as a policy. The prickling in my thumbs make me wonder if his stature and confidence allowed him to believe he had it in the tank for another campaign - with nobody surrounding him to suggest otherwise.

He just looks utterly lost, and bereft of ideas, surrounded by all those younger faces (and I mean 'relatively' younger, Kamela Harris is hardly AOC's contemporary or anything), and increasingly comes across like yesterday's Democrat, clinging on to talking points and gestures that are simply archaic. 2008's Joe Biden would chew up Trump for breakfast - 2019 Biden? Ooph, I'm not sure.

The polls don't lie, the man is the clear frontrunner ATM the moment but I honestly believe that's entirely his national status and nothing else. He's a former Vice-President after all, but in that VP status lies a clue: he played second fiddle to a man who himself came from nowhere, Obama starting behind a crowd of establishment figures including Hillary Clinton.

rossie1977

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Biden needs to drop out. This is Warren/Harris/Sanders-ville.

That's not going to happen with such a big lead. I think if anything Biden will have extended lead over everyone but Sanders and Warren after the debates.

I would be worried about Sanders long term if he doesn't clarify fully his position on healthcare though. Medicare for all shouldn't mean people don't have option to buy or keep their existing insurance. About 30% of Canadians use private health insurance e.g.

DreamsBurnDown

Nobody has laid a glove on Sanders or Warren yet, Tuesday's night's debate was very tame compared to last night. Biden has taken serious shots in both debates and last night it was the turn of Harris to take some. Too early to conclude much until Biden, Sanders, Harris and Warren are on the same stage.

It does appear that Harris is setting herself up to be the more centrist alternative to Biden, relative to Sanders and Warren. There really is no other candidate to assume this role, the rest are pretty weak in comparison. The upcoming battles will be fascinating, hopefully the party can stay united during the process.

rossie1977

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Nobody has laid a glove on Sanders or Warren yet,

I think a lot of that has to do with fact they were able to keep the issues they wanted to talk about open and by that able to totally frame debate in their favour.

Attacking Biden on his history could work or it could backfire. Biden comes across now as tougher on crime, tougher on illegal immigration than his opponents after last night..something many Democrats would be happy to hear never mind independents and on the fence Republicans who might have issue with Trump's bluster and rhetoric.

DreamsBurnDown

rossie1977 wrote: »

Attacking Biden on his history could work or it could backfire. Biden comes across now as tougher on crime, tougher on illegal immigration than his opponents after last night..something many Democrats would be happy to hear never mind independents and on the fence Republicans who might have issue with Trump's bluster and rhetoric.

Health care and immigration are going to be the two big issues, with the assumption that the economy is still doing reasonably OK. 54% of Americans do not want private insurance eliminated, and I'm not even convinced how many are actually aware that eliminating private insurance could be the candidate's position (I suspect it won't be by the time of the election debates next year).

Immigration is a bit of a minefield. National polls indicate a 2:1 majority against decriminalizing illegal entry and providing free health care. This is likely to be a much higher percentage against in swing states. It's playing into the Trump narrative that Democrats don't care about border security.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Nobody has laid a glove on Sanders or Warren yet, Tuesday's night's debate was very tame compared to last night. Biden has taken serious shots in both debates and last night it was the turn of Harris to take some. Too early to conclude much until Biden, Sanders, Harris and Warren are on the same stage.

It does appear that Harris is setting herself up to be the more centrist alternative to Biden, relative to Sanders and Warren. There really is no other candidate to assume this role, the rest are pretty weak in comparison. The upcoming battles will be fascinating, hopefully the party can stay united during the process.

Warren and Sanders were tag teamed by four different candidates and blew them out of the water.

They didn't have a glove laid on them because they won the battle of ideas easily and their opposition was pushing the same old, same old.

Biden began last night's debate by talking about what can't be done. The main viral clip from night 1 was Warren asking why candidates were running at all if they only wanted to talk about what can't be done, and then on night 2, Biden literally starts off by completely proving Warren's point for her.

Biden's support has proved sticky enough so far but he reminds me of Woolworths or Eircom or HMV or Nokia. A market leading brand which fails to innovate yet for a long time remains popular because it has wide name recognition, a sense of nostagia attached to it and a customer base which is prone to inertia and only uses those products or services because it doesn't really know anything else. But eventually, it suffers death by a thousand cuts and people see through it for offering a poor product or service and desert it.

Harris's problem is that she doesn't really stand for anything. She has consistently flip flopped and tried to play both sides of the party but it hasn't worked, and she's now developing a trustworthiness problem. Her bounce after the first debate fell away quickly, and she had a shocker last night. She's wide open to attack on her criminal justice record and this will be pushed relentlessly. And she doesn't have real charisma or stage presence, her manner suits a congressional hearing or a court room perfectly, but it doesn't suit a political debate stage. She's beginning to remind me of Hillary Clinton actually.

Here's another thing. Biden under conventional wisdom is seen to be best positioned to win the rust belt, and his schtick is that of being a "union man". But Harris is perceived to be weak in that geographical area, and there may well be more than a grain of truth in that view.

Polls show that Sanders is the most popular alternative candidate among Biden's supporters. Warren is steadily building support and momentum in what looks like a long term, sustainable manner, as opposed to the quick rise and then drop in support for Harris. So if Biden falls away, why would Harris be the one to benefit? Why would people who support the self proclaimed "union man" transfer to Harris rather than two canididates whose appeal is heavily aimed at the rust belt in Sanders and Warren?

People know what Warren and Bernie stand for, they're willing to fight for and defend their ideas with real passion, and they're winning the battle of ideas comfortably - and the so called "moderate" wing of the party (there's nothing moderate about corporate influence in politics or trying to appeal to Republican hard liners who aren't going to vote for you anyway) is losing heavily.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Polls show that Sanders is the most popular alternative candidate among Biden's supporters. Warren is steadily building support and momentum in what looks like a long term, sustainable manner, as opposed to the quick rise and then drop in support for Harris. So if Biden falls away, why would Harris be the one to benefit? Why would people who support the self proclaimed "union man" transfer to Harris rather than two canididates whose appeal is heavily aimed at the rust belt in Sanders and Warren?

People know what Warren and Bernie stand for, they're willing to fight for and defend their ideas with real passion, and they're winning the battle of ideas comfortably - and the so called "moderate" wing of the party (there's nothing moderate about corporate influence in politics or trying to appeal to Republican hard liners who aren't going to vote for you anyway) is losing heavily.

It's hardly surprising that Sanders is seen as the best alternative to Biden, given that Biden and Sanders have by far the greatest name recognition nationally. The same polls by the way which have Sanders at 27% as second pick have Harris at 15% and Warren at 8%.

How can moderates be losing heavily if the candidate with a 15 point lead is a moderate? Moderate Democrats are not appealing to Republican hard liners, they are appealing to moderate Democrats and Independents, a combined demographic that is a much larger voting block than progressive Democrats.

Not sure where you are getting the idea that Kamala Harris isn't charismatic, she is highly engaging and charismatic.

The big ideas that Sanders and Warren are running on will undoubtedly gain approval in progressive states like NY and CA, the question is how well will they do in the states that decide the election. The evidence from those states is they consistently choose moderate Democrats, as in the 2018 midterms.

Attempts to paint moderate Democrats as Republicans is really dumb imo, in particular given the current state of the GOP.

Vince135792003

A long way to go but I think it will come down to Biden and Warren.

peddlelies

I must say after seeing Harris point her finger and act so condescending in numerous public hearings towards people I found this segment thoroughly enjoyable.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1156882265294721026

Kamala's responce post debate to Anderson Cooper, how will she handle Trump?

"This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight," Harris said. "When people are at 0 or 1% or whatever she might be at, so I did expect to take some hits tonight."

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that Sanders is seen as the best alternative to Biden, given that Biden and Sanders have by far the greatest name recognition nationally. The same polls by the way which have Sanders at 27% as second pick have Harris at 15% and Warren at 8%.

How can moderates be losing heavily if the candidate with a 15 point lead is a moderate? Moderate Democrats are not appealing to Republican hard liners, they are appealing to moderate Democrats and Independents, a combined demographic that is a much larger voting block than progressive Democrats.

Not sure where you are getting the idea that Kamala Harris isn't charismatic, she is highly engaging and charismatic.

The big ideas that Sanders and Warren are running on will undoubtedly gain approval in progressive states like NY and CA, the question is how well will they do in the states that decide the election. The evidence from those states is they consistently choose moderate Democrats, as in the 2018 midterms.

Attempts to paint moderate Democrats as Republicans is really dumb imo, in particular given the current state of the GOP.

You tell us that Biden leading the polls is a victory for conservative, ie. so called "moderate" Democrats (the term "moderate" in relation to them is Orwellian), yet tell us in the same breath that Sanders' popularity is down to name recognition.

That's a contradiction and I'm really not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion.

The opposite is true.

Everybody knows what Sanders stands for. It's his policies, not his name recognition, that is attracting support.

Warren is building support primarily because of her policies and how she's able to communicate them.

Biden on the other hand is where he is purely because of name recognition and association with Obama. It's nothing to do with his performances so far in this campaign- because it's been very mediocre at best - or his pre-Obama background.

Then we have a load of self proclaimed "centrists" and "moderates" who are on basically 0 in the polls.

Progressives are absolutely right when they call out corporate Democrats as being more of the same. US healthcare is a joke and people are crying out for genuine change. Trump is a criminal who needs to be ousted.

Voice these basic truths, and the so called "moderates" tell you what can't be done, and insult you and call you crazy. While claiming that they can work on a "bipartisan" basiss with a Republican party that has been completely devoured by the crazies. Now that is crazy.

And people wonder why progressives are angry at so called "moderates". It's because they offer nothing except a return to the status quo that has already been rejected.

hill16bhoy

I see Tulsi Gabbard couldn't bring herself to say Assad is a torturer and a murderer after the debate last night.

My word, she's vile. Anti-war me hole, a Russian controlled disruptor, more like.

Incredible how Bannon, Trump, Breitbart, RT and all the rest of the far right Russiabot set love her so much, isn't it.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You tell us that Biden leading the polls is a victory for conservative, ie. so called "moderate" Democrats (the term "moderate" in relation to them is Orwellian), yet tell us in the same breath that Sanders' popularity is down to name recognition.

That's a contradiction and I'm really not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion.

And people wonder why progressives are angry at so called "moderates". It's because they offer nothing except a return to the status quo that has already been rejected.

That's not what I suggested. I said Biden and Sanders are the only two candidates who had national prominence coming in to the nomination process, Biden because he was VP for 8 years and Sanders because he ran in 2016 and was a genuine contender well into the 2016 primary season. The rest of the candidates were not well known nationally, and have to establish themselves. Therefore it is no surprise that at this stage Biden is #1 and Sanders #2 for most Democrats nationally. Warren, Harris and a few others are in the process of establishing themselves nationally, securing the nomination is a long process.

I would say moderates are more angry at progressives than visa versa, based on my personal interactions with lots of people in the US from both sides of the party. You can get nothing done in US politics without the support of Congress, a health care plan that includes eliminating private insurance is dead in the water as not alone Republicans but many Democrats will oppose it. It is absolutely untrue to say moderates are for the status quo, they have and can accomplish incremental change, the ACA for example was incremental change. The entire decade of the 90s was the most prosperous for Americans in living memory, accomplished by a moderate Democratic president.

You don't have to tell me about the issues surrounding US health care, as someone who has lived in the US for decades, works in the health care field, and been on numerous health plans, I suspect I understand the challenges better than most posters on here. It's an incredibly complex issue and the way to tackle it is incremental, focus on getting health insurance to those that currently are not on a plan or would like an alternative to their existing plan by offering a public option, expanding Medicaid to more on lower income. Many unions have already came out and said they are not giving up their private insurance plans, the "Medicaid for all" plan as presented by Sanders and Warren is already DOA.

Also keep in mind when you say people are "crying out for change" that over 90% of Americans have health insurance or are covered by a government plan, and most are very happy with the quality of health care they receive. Many are not happy with the cost of health care and insurance but Americans pay far less in income taxes than their equivalents in Europe who have broader national health plans. Would most working class Americans be willing to pay higher taxes to have a public option? I would say yes. Would most working class Americans pay more in taxes to only have a public option? I would say no.

The danger with the progressive agenda as currently promoted by Sanders and Warren is it represents the pathway for Trump being reelected. When you see any questioning of their plans been called "Republican talking points", and the most popular ex-president in recent memory being criticized on stage last night for his policies, many Democrats let alone Independents are worried the party is losing the plot. The debacle of George McGovern in 1972 comes to mind.

The important point is there is no need for it, a sensible and achievable approach to health care, immigration, taxation, etc. will see Trump defeated.

BluePlanet

The reason the calls for Medicare-for-All are so strong today, is because those moderates (Clinton, Obama and Biden) totally bottled it when they held the reigns.

StringerBell

When was Biden president?

Obama pretty much did all he do tbf, I have criticism of Obama in terms of his achievements but what he managed to do with ACA has my full appreciation.

He used up practically all of his political capital to push that through, there was a price to pay for him for it but he got it done.

Which Clinton are we talking about? The one who actually was President or the one who is President in some peoples mind?

eire4

BluePlanet wrote: »

The reason the calls for Medicare-for-All are so strong today, is because those moderates (Clinton, Obama and Biden) totally bottled it when they held the reigns.

it is also on the table as the current for profit health system they have is out of control financially with costs continuing to spiral higher and higher and drug companies allowed to charge immoral prices for vital medicines. The ACA did a few good patches but it has done nothing to solve the continuing out of control premiums and drug prices. The bottom line is the current for profit health system in the US is not working and thousands of Americans die and or have to live with their illnesses as a direct result of their not being able to afford the health care they need.

Cheerful Spring2

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I see Tulsi Gabbard couldn't bring herself to say Assad is a torturer and a murderer after the debate last night.

My word, she's vile. Anti-war me hole, a Russian controlled disruptor, more like.

Incredible how Bannon, Trump, Breitbart, RT and all the rest of the far right Russiabot set love her so much, isn't it.

I witnessed a master class actually -she was debunking this silly nonsense on MSNBC and she put them in their place. Strong woman who doesn't take their bull****. She was even most looked up democratic candidate on google after the debates too. Has many left and right supporters. Tucker Carlson loves her and has on after every debate. She is appealing to both sides. The democratic party side a clueless entity and will pick someone who Trump will take apart easily. Tulsi has the strength to take him on and challenge him. Trump even got upset about one of her comments he was supporting Al Qaeda this got to him and spoke about it- unfortunately the idiots within the democratic party are blind to this.

BluePlanet

StringerBell wrote: »

When was Biden president?

He wasn't. His political capital is tied to his tenure as Obama's vice pres. He brags about it every chance he gets and is a major supporter of Obama care.

StringerBell wrote: »

Which Clinton are we talking about? The one who actually was President or the one who is President in some peoples mind?

Both. When Bill was pres Hillary led the charge for Health Care Reform, nada happened.
Later she ended up talking serious money from big Pharma, she's part of the problem.

rossie1977

The fact Obama managed to pass the ACA was a monumental moment in US politics. At the time every tv network and newspaper was telling him not to pass it unless he had full bi-partisan support. Obama spent a full year trying to convince Republicans to get on board even allowing them amend the bill. The idea that universal healthcare or Medicare for all would be possible even 10 years ago is laughable.

However now with McConnell and Trump ramming bills through without any consultation it's a different ball game completely. Next Dem president doesn't need cross party support, they can do what they like..

Anyways first poll post second debate

SharpshooterTom

rossie1977 wrote: »

The fact Obama managed to pass the ACA was a monumental moment in US politics.

Worth noting that the ACA still leaves 30+ million uninsured (and rising), around 10% at the moment. The uninsured rate previously hovered around 13-15%. So its a step foward but lets not over exaggerate its far from universal healthcare.

It also leaves too much power to the executive which means the Republicans can undermine it any time they're in power hence why the uninsured rate is rising at the moment.

I think eventually if the Republicans get enough time over the upcoming decades they'll gradually weaken Obamacare anyway.

StringerBell

They weakened it plenty before passing it!