US Presidential Election 2020

duploelabs

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Would give him very poor odds. As said the veganism plus elements of his private life would probably scupper him.

What is it about his private life that you allude to?

Hande hoche!

duploelabs wrote: »

What is it about his private life that you allude to?

His bachelor status. Shouldn't matter but it does to some voters.

Water John

He be competing with a man who says 'grab them by the pussy'.

NSAman

Water John wrote: »

Oh, so that's the problem with Schiff.

The problem with Schiff, is that he us totally unlikable and has created falsehoods which don't bear out the facts.

duploelabs

NSAman wrote: »

The problem with Schiff, is that he us totally unlikable and has created falsehoods which don't bear out the facts.

Can you cite these falsehoods?

reg114

Biden is no paragon of virtue,. Consider his failure to vote for Bill Clinton's conviction when the latter lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky which led to impeachment proceedings. Bill Clinton on the surface of it was a veritable statesman compared with Trump but dig down a little and you will find deeply morally flawed individual who buried many political corpses to rise to the top. My point is Clinton (supported by now presidential candidate and self-styled statesman himself Joe Biden)is no different to Trump. In American political circles the left is really no different to right when it comes down to moral fortitude. Trump simply lacks any veneer of intelligence, a trait he shares with a clumsy Joe Biden who landed on his feet when he joined the Obama ticket. If Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate in 2020 you are looking at 4 more years of Trump sadly.

pixelburp

reg114 wrote: »

Biden is no paragon of virtue,. Consider his failure to vote for Bill Clinton's conviction when the latter lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky which led to impeachment proceedings. Bill Clinton on the surface of it was a veritable statesman compared with Trump but dig down a little and you will find deeply morally flawed individual who buried many political corpses to rise to the top. My point is Clinton (supported by now presidential candidate and self-styled statesman himself Joe Biden)is no different to Trump. In American political circles the left is really no different to right when it comes down to moral fortitude. Trump simply lacks any veneer of intelligence, a trait he shares with a clumsy Joe Biden who landed on his feet when he joined the Obama ticket. If Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate in 2020 you are looking at 4 more years of Trump sadly.

That's all well and good on his personal code, but there's no way you can seriously call Joe Biden representative of "The Left", he's an establishment centrist through and through, hence the acrimony within the Democrats. Sanders and Warren are the left leaning candidates by any sensible metric, while most of the rest of the field to some degree are themselves centrist; on key left leaning issues where there has been loud clamouring for change or introduction, Biden hasn't shared that approach. He's the establishment, but if he's left of centre, it's in the same way 00:01 is the morning time. But as it happens he's also beating Trump by clear margins in most reliable polls so who knows what'll defeat Trump.

Jesus effing Christ

eagle eye wrote: »

If Booker could get the nomination he'd beat Trump.

A few weeks ago you thought deval patrick would be a serious contender.
These strong bold predictions of yours are getting a bit old, maybe you should look at where you're getting your info and ask more of them.

Jesus effing Christ

reg114 wrote: »

If Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate in 2020 you are looking at 4 more years of Trump sadly.

Im not a Biden supporter.

Why do so many posters think by adding this prediction "yadda yadda yadda then trump wins" it somehow adds weight to whatever they have to say. You do realise that you cant see into future and nobody thinks you can! A year out from the general every prediction I've seen on here and elsewhere about the general election shows naivety more than anything.
Today there seems to be 5 contenders, 4 of which are in their 70s if any one of the 4 died it would completely change the race.

eagle eye

Jesus effing Christ wrote:

A few weeks ago you thought deval patrick would be a serious contender. These strong bold predictions of yours are getting a bit old, maybe you should look at where you're getting your info and ask more of them.

I said the same thing about both of them. If they get the nomination they'll beat Trump.
I'm not saying they will get the nomination just that they'd beat Trump.
No chance that Biden, Warren or Sanders beats Trump but they look most likely to be the final three sadly.

Jesus effing Christ

eagle eye wrote: »

Deval Patrick will be a serious contender. He is younger than Biden and Sanders too.

This is your first and full post on deval patrick. No, if's or but's here.
Given you can tell with such certainty what will happen a year from now, any chance of you making predictions for the next few weeks or months even.

I could now say if IRON MAN was in the general HE'D BEAT TRUMP (FULL STOP). But we'll just never know will we.
Therefore I'd get to carry on making my baseless outlandish predictions

eagle eye

Jesus effing Christ wrote:

This is your first and full post on deval patrick. No, if's or but's here. Given you can tell with such certainty what will happen a year from now, any chance of you making predictions for the next few weeks or months even.

What do you want?
Do I need to talk about his links and support for Obama or Bill Clinton? The fact he'd get the Black vote? His Chicago links? I'd imagine most people know these things.

Jesus effing Christ

I want you to put your crystal ball away and give it a rest with claims such as this.

eagle eye wrote: »

No chance that Biden, Warren or Sanders beats Trump but they look most likely to be the final three sadly.

you clearly have failed to take stock of events that have already happened, such as the rise in popularity across the country of many left wing progressive positions.

The US is finally showing a bit of cop on, so right now it can be summarised as.

WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT?
has been pushed aside for.
WHY DO OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS HAVE IT?

eagle eye

Jesus effing Christ wrote:

The US is finally showing a bit of cop on, so right now it can be summarised as.

You are grossly overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate.

eire4

eagle eye wrote: »

You are grossly overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate.

To be fair I think it is more a case of the American electorate or a large chunk of it begin checked out. Roughly 45% do not vote in general elections and close to 60% don't vote in midterms. I posit that is because they do not believe in the system which is totally corrupted and offers only a choice between a lesser and a greater evil in most of the country.

I have long said if the Democrats were actually really interested in representing the best interests of the vast majority of Americans they would pivot towards FRD like positions such as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and they would have a chance at maybe pulling in some of those who don't vote. The hardcore far right are lost. The so called middle ground is a tiny group in reality the really big group out there is the 45% or so who have checked out. But of course the Democratic party is part of the problem and has shown no interest in any of the above other then some of the more progressive members but they represent a minority in the party still.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

I have long said if the Democrats were actually really interested in representing the best interests of the vast majority of Americans they would pivot towards FRD like positions such as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and they would have a chance at maybe pulling in some of those who don't vote. The hardcore far right are lost. The so called middle ground is a tiny group in reality the really big group out there is the 45% or so who have checked out. But of course the Democratic party is part of the problem and has shown no interest in any of the above other then some of the more progressive members but they represent a minority in the party still.

Both sides have made this argument in the past. After John McCain failed, many conservatives said it was a deserved loss because the Republicans attempted to field an unexciting, boring moderate, and not a true conservative who espoused conservative ideals. For the last three years, many Democrats have been doing this exact same. To a very large extent, talking about the numbers who can be brought back in is irrelevant.

Your problem is that your assertion is not supported by the data. Most of the seats which flipped Red to Blue in 2018 were run by moderate democrats, not progressives. It works. See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html
One Year From Election, Trump Trails Biden but Leads Warren in Battlegrounds
Signs that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College has persisted or even increased since 2016.

Why would moderate Biden be doing better in head-to-heads than more progressive Warren if there is a good grounding in your assertion? Polls show that of swing state voters, 2/3 of those who voted Trump in 2016, then a Democrat congresscritter in 2018 are looking to vote Trump in 2020. (At least as of a month ago, maybe the current impeachment business may change that, but absent data, it's the best I can find).

Let's say that a more progressive candidate manages to be the messiah to the masses of those who want progressive policies, and brings them out in droves. The vast majority of them are in places like New York City or San Francisco which helps not a whit. A slim majority of Americans support single-payer healthcare. 2/3 of voters in Wisconsin don't. 58% of Michiganians don't.

And, from articles recently, the Democrat primary voters are thinking about this as well. From this weekend:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/trump-is-hanging-over-every-aspect-of-the-democratic-presidential/article_c7af3414-e6b3-5dad-8bd0-115fe02f364b.html

"I identify as a Democratic socialist. Progressive politics speak to me and that's what I prefer, but I also understand that I am not representative of the whole electorate," said Maggie Willems, a social studies teacher who has been agonizing over her choice for months. "We need to be sure to select a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump."

Further food for thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/progressive-candidates-conservative-values.html
Why Progressive Candidates Should Invoke Conservative Values
Research suggests they would gain moderate and conservative support — without losing ground among their base.

AbusesToilets

Calling them Progressive Democrats implies that their policy positions are trending towards the extreme, when in reality the majority of US citizens support initiatives such as Medicate for all, Financial reform, environmental protection.

It's lobbying from vested interests that have done everything in their power to promote these views as being put there.

RobertKK

I chat with a number of Americans regularly from different states, they feel the Democrats have gone too left, but would vote for a Democrat over Trump if they picked someone like Tulsi Gabbard, but at present they would vote Trump over the leading Democrat candidates.

Water John

So some of your American contacts believe Biden to be too far to the left???
IWT these acquaintances are very much, too far to the right.

Jesus effing Christ

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your problem is that your assertion is not supported by the data. Most of the seats which flipped Red to Blue in 2018 were run by moderate democrats, not progressives.

If the moderate position is so popular why did most moderates start there primary campaign pretending to be progressives only slowly moving back to the centre one by one when they realized nobodys buying it. Remember back when " well now, they've all adopted Bernies positions so no need for the old man anymore" was all the rage.
Where they planning on doing the old pivot, cos that's worked so well for the dems since Bill Clinton.

And where's your data? one carefully worded line doesn't mean ****. There are hundreds of considerations to take into account when considering the popularity of moderates v progressives in the midterms.

And it is you, who needs to provide the data! beause along with the majority or democratic party and all of the establishment media and all of Washington its you who are constantly saying the same thing; "Keep your eye on the prize, Beat Trump! And whatever you do, dont ever ever dare look under the hood, to see truth about the fine selection centrist candidates we've already picked for you. Brown, white, male, female, gay , straight take your pick just dont ask any questions."

I get it. you and them, are backing terrible candidates who only got where they are, through legally bribery. You know full well, those corrupt candidates cant go head to head with the progressives candidates on any metric, they'd be destroyed! if you compared their record up against that of a progressive.
So the bull**** " only a moderate can beat trump " is the only route that offers some hope of holding onto the status quo.

dwayneshintzy

RobertKK wrote: »

I chat with a number of Americans regularly from different states, they feel the Democrats have gone too left, but would vote for a Democrat over Trump if they picked someone like Tulsi Gabbard, but at present they would vote Trump over the leading Democrat candidates.

So they're Republicans?



Why do they like Tulsi Gabbard so much?

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Both sides have made this argument in the past. After John McCain failed, many conservatives said it was a deserved loss because the Republicans attempted to field an unexciting, boring moderate, and not a true conservative who espoused conservative ideals. For the last three years, many Democrats have been doing this exact same. To a very large extent, talking about the numbers who can be brought back in is irrelevant.

Your problem is that your assertion is not supported by the data. Most of the seats which flipped Red to Blue in 2018 were run by moderate democrats, not progressives. It works. See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html
One Year From Election, Trump Trails Biden but Leads Warren in Battlegrounds
Signs that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College has persisted or even increased since 2016.

Why would moderate Biden be doing better in head-to-heads than more progressive Warren if there is a good grounding in your assertion? Polls show that of swing state voters, 2/3 of those who voted Trump in 2016, then a Democrat congresscritter in 2018 are looking to vote Trump in 2020. (At least as of a month ago, maybe the current impeachment business may change that, but absent data, it's the best I can find).

Let's say that a more progressive candidate manages to be the messiah to the masses of those who want progressive policies, and brings them out in droves. The vast majority of them are in places like New York City or San Francisco which helps not a whit. A slim majority of Americans support single-payer healthcare. 2/3 of voters in Wisconsin don't. 58% of Michiganians don't.

And, from articles recently, the Democrat primary voters are thinking about this as well. From this weekend:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/trump-is-hanging-over-every-aspect-of-the-democratic-presidential/article_c7af3414-e6b3-5dad-8bd0-115fe02f364b.html

"I identify as a Democratic socialist. Progressive politics speak to me and that's what I prefer, but I also understand that I am not representative of the whole electorate," said Maggie Willems, a social studies teacher who has been agonizing over her choice for months. "We need to be sure to select a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump."

Further food for thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/progressive-candidates-conservative-values.html
Why Progressive Candidates Should Invoke Conservative Values
Research suggests they would gain moderate and conservative support — without losing ground among their base.

Your problem is your post does not relate to the central contention I made in my post.

Interestingly you say the many people who do not vote which stands at roughly 45% in general elections and around 60% in mid terms so roughly half of Americans overall on average is irrelevant. Interesting. Personally I like democracy and think people voting is very relevant. Then you go full bore into ignoring my position which is that basically on average half of Americans do not vote for which I posit that this fact which is an actual fact is IMHO because they have checked out due to the total corruption of the system where their choice very often is between an evil or a lesser evil. Instead you go off talking about where Democrats won seats in the last mid terms which actually just backs up my point because again over half of Americans did not vote in the last mid terms elections. So again Democrats made no attempt to win back some of the voters who do not vote by actually be willing to follow FDR style policies which would be in the best interests economically of most Americans. It was just more of the same old Corporate Democrats in action and the pathetic voter turnout was to be expected and this time they won more of the seats because of just how big the gap was between evil and lesser evil. But it does not change the fact that roughly half of Americans once again did not bother to vote and why would they congress does not represent their best economic interests.


You mention Warren and how Biden is doing better in head to heads in the primary. Again just proving my main contention because the facts are and again they are actual facts the voter turnout in primaries is so low they almost make the actual main elections look representative of the people. So shock horror the Democratic primaries have a center right political in the lead not a surprise as again the Democratic party as an organization is beholden to their corporate masters and has no real interest in anything that would upset that apple cart. The main stream media are very much a key component in the maintenance of the current oligarchy which is the US government in DC. For example in this regard talking about the magic horse of electability and deliberately ignoring the fact that roughly half of the country is checked out thus encouraging them to push their own narrative to keep it this way.

As for your so called food for thought no thanks. Just another way of making sure the status quo remains the same and that the corruption in DC continues unabated while the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans is not just ignored but actively worked against at the behest of the wealthy and major corporations. Again no attempt to actually bring in the roughly half of Americans who do not vote by actual FDR style politics which would be in the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. In fact when you look at the corporate controlled Democratic party when in power over the last 40 odd years they have moved further to the right and look where that has left the financial situation of most Americans especially when contrasted with the financial position of the wealthy which has of course resulted in massive income inequality growth in the US as well of course as playing a part in the turning of the US into an oligarchy and one scarily now that is showing tendencies of authoritarianism.

RobertKK

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

So they're Republicans?



Why do they like Tulsi Gabbard so much?

They like her anti war stance and feel she is more centrist than a lot of the lefter leaning candidates.
She also dislikes Hillary which is a plus given some voted for Trump given their dislike of Hillary Clinton.

Some are just Trump supporters but others are open to change but they do not like the front runners for the Democrats.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

Your problem is your post does not relate to the central contention I made in my post.

Interestingly you say the many people who do not vote which stands at roughly 45% in general elections and around 60% in mid terms so roughly half of Americans overall on average is irrelevant. Interesting. Personally I like democracy and think people voting is very relevant. Then you go full bore into ignoring my position which is that basically on average half of Americans do not vote for which I posit that this fact which is an actual fact is IMHO because they have checked out due to the total corruption of the system where their choice very often is between an evil or a lesser evil. Instead you go off talking about where Democrats won seats in the last mid terms which actually just backs up my point because again over half of Americans did not vote in the last mid terms elections. So again Democrats made no attempt to win back some of the voters who do not vote by actually be willing to follow FDR style policies which would be in the best interests economically of most Americans. It was just more of the same old Corporate Democrats in action and the pathetic voter turnout was to be expected and this time they won more of the seats because of just how big the gap was between evil and lesser evil. But it does not change the fact that roughly half of Americans once again did not bother to vote and why would they congress does not represent their best economic interests.


You mention Warren and how Biden is doing better in head to heads in the primary. Again just proving my main contention because the facts are and again they are actual facts the voter turnout in primaries is so low they almost make the actual main elections look representative of the people. So shock horror the Democratic primaries have a center right political in the lead not a surprise as again the Democratic party as an organization is beholden to their corporate masters and has no real interest in anything that would upset that apple cart. The main stream media are very much a key component in the maintenance of the current oligarchy which is the US government in DC. For example in this regard talking about the magic horse of electability and deliberately ignoring the fact that roughly half of the country is checked out thus encouraging them to push their own narrative to keep it this way.

As for your so called food for thought no thanks. Just another way of making sure the status quo remains the same and that the corruption in DC continues unabated while the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans is not just ignored but actively worked against at the behest of the wealthy and major corporations. Again no attempt to actually bring in the roughly half of Americans who do not vote by actual FDR style politics which would be in the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. In fact when you look at the corporate controlled Democratic party when in power over the last 40 odd years they have moved further to the right and look where that has left the financial situation of most Americans especially when contrasted with the financial position of the wealthy which has of course resulted in massive income inequality growth in the US as well of course as playing a part in the turning of the US into an oligarchy and one scarily now that is showing tendencies of authoritarianism.

You are utterly missing the point. It doesn't matter how many votes are cast nationally, it matters where they are cast geographically. It is a known issue that voters in New York or Utah are less inclined to vote because they feel the State is likely to go one way or the other. So let's take your 45% assertion at face value.

However, if you look at voter turnout where the voters know their vote really counts, the swing states, you suddenly see that the voters are coming out, in numbers.

Let's go down a list of Swing States, shall we? We can compare voter turnout with a respectable electoral region, like Ireland (65.1% in the 2016 general election), or our good neighbors in the Great White North, Canada (66% two months ago in their General).

These aren't polls, these are figures from the State websites.

We'll kick off with the Great State of Florida.
https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/elections-data/voter-turnout/
75% in 2016, 63% in 2018.

Or we can go up to the Badger State
https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/page/general_election_voter_registration_and_absentee_s_40046.xlsx
67% in 2016. (Doesn't show for 2018)

Keystone State:
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/pages/votingelectionstatistics.aspx
70% of estimated eligible voters, 87% of those who are actually registered to vote in 2016

Buckeye State
https://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/election-results-and-data/historical-election-comparisons/voter-turnout-in-general-elections/#gref
71% in 2016, 56% in 2018

Wolverines?
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_8722-29616--,00.html
63% in 2016. Eeek! One which is less than Ireland. Michigan often has low turnout, mind, it's still more than they had in 2012.

How about Old Dominion, quite a topical State recently?
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/resultsreports/registrationturnout-statistics/
72% in 2016, 59% in 2018

Let's try going West to the Silver State. Battle Born!
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
77% in 2016, 63% in 2018. I guess Nevadans like to vote.

How about the Centennials?
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/resultsData.html
72.1% in 2016, 62% in 2018


The elections are being decided in these Swing States. Whatever your opinions on the "States vote independently" system, it is the system, and that's what the politicians need to win. Turnout in these states is already high. Arguing that "Because most voters don't vote, therefore the solution is to get more voters out there" (and just assuming that they'll vote for the one party) completely ignores the point of diminishing returns which is encountered when one already has a high turnout where it matters.

Manic you seem to be explaining the situation as if you think someone doesn't understand the situation. eire4 does understand the situation and they have a problem with it. The fact that swing states have a higher turnout both demonstrates the situation and supports the point being made.
If person A dislikes something and person B explains it (needlessly) then finished by saying "that's how it is so that's how it is" then I think person B may be missing the entire point.

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

Manic you seem to be explaining the situation as if you think someone doesn't understand the situation. eire4 does understand the situation and they have a problem with it. The fact that swing states have a higher turnout both demonstrates the situation and supports the point being made.
If person A dislikes something and person B explains it (needlessly) then finished by saying "that's how it is so that's how it is" then I think person B may be missing the entire point.

I could not really have said it better.

Manic Moran

Ok. You don’t like the way the US votes by State for President. I do. It’s a wash.

But if you want to talk about, as the thread title says, “Beating losing to Trump in 2020”, and strategies for doing so, our personal approval or disapproval of the voting methodology is irrelevant. Your post #1786 above equates more progressive policies with higher turnout and a better chance to win. I do not believe the figures bear this out because of the already high turnout of voters in the swing states.

rossie1977

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Calling them Progressive Democrats implies that their policy positions are trending towards the extreme, when in reality the majority of US citizens support initiatives such as Medicate for all, Financial reform, environmental protection.

It's lobbying from vested interests that have done everything in their power to promote these views as being put there.

They call themselves that.

How does the word 'progressive' suggest extremism?

Humans over the centuries have been progressive in nature rather than regressive.

AbusesToilets

rossie1977 wrote: »

They call themselves that.

How does the word 'progressive' suggest extremism?

Humans over the centuries have been progressive in nature rather than regressive.

It's how the term progressive is framed in the media by those with agendas that stand to lose out if those policies are enacted. Suggesting that the public isn't in favour of the ideas,that they're too liberal or some such. The reality is that they aren't leftist positions, they're entirely in line with the desires of the majority of the public, however only one group of politicians are putting them forward.

Mr Meanor

What about this guy, any chance?
Andrew Yang
https://time.com/5718279/andrew-yang-primary-support/