US Presidential Election 2020

duploelabs

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Obama has signalled that he's not happy with Bernie and that he'll oppose him. Obama is obviously a corporatist. He'd probably have Hillary back over Bernie.

Citation? Obama has said he won't back anyone until the challenger is chosen.

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Biden looks very corrupt with the impeachment thing. I think the Dems have to cut him loose.

The problem with Biden was I was watching the impeachment trial and a lady was going through what Biden and his son Hunter had been doing in Ukraine. It looked very bad, and at the end, she portrayed Trump as being very innocent and merely saying, I'm hearing lots about Biden, could any of it be true?, can you just get it sorted one way or the other?.

No, it's been repeatedly proven incorrect

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I think this impeachment trial will destroy Biden, and Trump possibly too as well. John Bolton is dynamite if he testifies.

Biden hasn't been charged with anything, so only in a PR sense could he be destroyed

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

If Trump is impeached and kicked out can he still run again in 2020, or is he barred?

He has already been impeached, the senate trial determines whether or not to remove him. If he is removed, then no he cannot run again

The Phantom Jipper

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is zero chance Biden beats Bernie in Ohio or Michigan. The square root of zero.

Sanders beat Clinton in Michigan in 2016 after being about 20 points behind at one point.

Biden is ahead of Bernie in the latest polls of both states from about a week ago.

ghost of ireland past

The square root of zero is still zero. You should have said, minus infinity, or minus infinity times ten.

My favorite democrat is Andy Yang, as his policies are the best. I'm not sure if he would beat Trump but in a head to head he'd have a good chance.


Is Biden or Bernie better against Trump?

It's very hard to say. I'm not sure that polling is accurate, and there wil be huge upsets and shocks going into the election.
Will hackers release data dumps?
Will Joe Rogan choose Trump or his opponent?

The democrats have no compelling candidates but then neither do the republicans if Trump was gone. Politics in America is changing rapidly, and I think a civil war is likely.

pixelburp

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

The square root of zero is still zero. You should have said, minus infinity, or minus infinity times ten.

My favorite democrat is Andy Yang, as his policies are the best. I'm not sure if he would beat Trump but in a head to head he'd have a good chance.


Is Biden or Bernie better against Trump?

It's very hard to say. I'm not sure that polling is accurate, and there wil be huge upsets and shocks going into the election.
Will hackers release data dumps?
Will Joe Rogan choose Trump or his opponent?

The democrats have no compelling candidates but then neither do the republicans if Trump was gone. Politics in America is changing rapidly, and I think a civil war is likely.

I respect the variation of opinion on the great chaotic experiment of American democracy, but that very last sentence is pure hyperbolic bunkum and makes it hard to take yours seriously TBH. Another Civil War is as likely as a new Franco-German conflict. Maybe all those "Militias" (ala those who took over an Oregon national park building) might cause problems if they become overly radicalised, but that's about it IMO.

Trump, ultimately, is the symptom here and not the disease; a grand culmination of everything from gerrymandered constituencies, disenfranchised Rust Belt'ers, and the infection of money-men in politics. 2016 was a pushback, ironically choosing a NY Real Estate mogul as the Outsider Champion. The question in front of America becomes even more stark than in 2016: do they want to fall back into the security of the Establishment, therefore Biden, or take an even bigger Leap of Faith with someone like Sanders. Warren is probably the best of both worlds but her campaign seems to have come apart somewhat.

My own speculation thinks that the middle-ground Undecideds won't take another chance on an unknown quantity, and may stick with Biden. Sanders + Democrat controlled Houses could be spectacular, but ironically could further create partisanship through the GOP's inevitable pushback against Sanders' "socialist" policies. Neither candidate though is likely to spearhead the kind of aggressive reformations needed though.

All three leading candidates could beat Trump, but equally all bets are also off; we've seen enough evidence that no scandal can stick to Trump, because there have simply been so many scandals, faux pas and frankly abhorrent behaviour that the News Cycle can't focus on any single one. The difference, as I see it, is how and whether Trump can stand infront of the nation and say "I'm doing a good job"

It really is as simple as that crude analogy about being p*ssing inside or outside the tent; Trump captured the mood of disillusionment as the Outsider, able to promise every ludicrous pipe dream from re-opening coal mines to repealing Obamacare / ACA. A good Democrat candidate should be able to murder Trump on his record, no longer able to promise the earth, moon and stars. To use another analogy, Trump is now at the other side of his own table on The Apprentice, singing for his supper.

bfa1509

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

The square root of zero is still zero. You should have said, minus infinity, or minus infinity times ten.

Minus infinity times ten is still minus infinity. You should have said the square root of minus one which is undefined or imaginary.

Andy Yang wants to give free money to everyone. He would bankrupt the country.

Michael Bloomberg is the only competition for Trump so far.

ghost of ireland past

It sounds like hyperbole to suggest a civil war but hear me out. It's also what Bill Maher is suggesting.

Trump loses the election. He raises a court challenge and goes onto Twitter riling up his base. He tells his base that the election has been stolen from him, and from them, and that they should go onto the streets carrying their weapons. Trump only needs one court or one judge to support him but I bet he's working on this already and he'll have lots of judges and court challenges ready for election day.

This is conspiratorial but I also think Trump will engage in deliberate false flag type operations to disrupt the vote and to introduce irregularities. He can then go to court on the basis of the irregularities, even if he has caused them himself!

If Trump loses in November he remains in power until January. What would he do during that period?

I think if anyone is prepared to do these things it'd be Trump. Trump intends to win at all costs in my opinion.

pixelburp

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

It sounds like hyperbole to suggest a civil war but hear me out. It's also what Bill Maher is suggesting.

Trump loses the election. He raises a court challenge and goes onto Twitter riling up his base. He tells his base that the election has been stolen from him, and from them, and that they should go onto the streets carrying their weapons. Trump only needs one court or one judge to support him but I bet he's working on this already and he'll have lots of judges and court challenges ready for election day.

This is conspiratorial but I also think Trump will engage in deliberate false flag type operations to disrupt the vote and to introduce irregularities. He can then go to court on the basis of the irregularities, even if he has caused them himself!

If Trump loses in November he remains in power until January. What would he do during that period?

I think if anyone is prepared to do these things it'd be Trump. Trump intends to win at all costs in my opinion.

You're right, it's conspiratorial, and then some. Saying Bill Maher believes the same doesn't make me think it's any more credible. This is the Politics forum, not Conspiracy Theories. Let's stick to some vague reality.

I have no doubt, if Trump loses he'll not resign his office quietly (it shouldn't be forgotten than he refused to answer whether he'd accept a losing result in 2016), but unless it's a narrow margin it'll be hot air and bluster. And if it IS another 2000 style result, that's another matter entirely but "Civil War" is nonsense.

everlast75

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

It sounds like hyperbole to suggest a civil war but hear me out. It's also what Bill Maher is suggesting.

Trump loses the election. He raises a court challenge and goes onto Twitter riling up his base. He tells his base that the election has been stolen from him, and from them, and that they should go onto the streets carrying their weapons. Trump only needs one court or one judge to support him but I bet he's working on this already and he'll have lots of judges and court challenges ready for election day.

This is conspiratorial but I also think Trump will engage in deliberate false flag type operations to disrupt the vote and to introduce irregularities. He can then go to court on the basis of the irregularities, even if he has caused them himself!

If Trump loses in November he remains in power until January. What would he do during that period?

I think if anyone is prepared to do these things it'd be Trump. Trump intends to win at all costs in my opinion.

If there is a civil war, then there will be a civil war.

What exactly is the alternative?

Capitulate to a bully?

Give in on that front and you might as well sign away your democracy.

ghost of ireland past

Trump has lots of power to do things like introduce martial law for example, or perhaps to arrest his opponents, on trumped-up charges. (pun definitely intended), after the election but before the coronation.

There will be a battle for the truth and Trump is in a good position to win that battle.


I watched a very good video by Laurence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard I think, called 'The internet has destroyed democracy', and in this video he explains how people are so confused nowadays by so many different sources of news and fake news that it's madness to expect ordinary people to be able to make good voting decisions.


You ask people to name a boat and they will choose Boaty. You ask for a president and you get Trump. This is the fundamental problem.

I have a solution which people won't like.
You have to answer political questions before you vote and your vote counts for more or for less depending on your knowledge about politics and about the issues. In other words, experts have more say than non-experts.

In summary, politics is too important to be left to idiots.


Personally I don't like Bernie's job guarantee, I much prefer the Freedom Dividend and so I'm YangGang, not BernieBro.

Fr Tod Umptious

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

It sounds like hyperbole to suggest a civil war but hear me out. It's also what Bill Maher is suggesting.

Trump loses the election. He raises a court challenge and goes onto Twitter riling up his base. He tells his base that the election has been stolen from him, and from them, and that they should go onto the streets carrying their weapons. Trump only needs one court or one judge to support him but I bet he's working on this already and he'll have lots of judges and court challenges ready for election day.

This is conspiratorial but I also think Trump will engage in deliberate false flag type operations to disrupt the vote and to introduce irregularities. He can then go to court on the basis of the irregularities, even if he has caused them himself!

If Trump loses in November he remains in power until January. What would he do during that period?

I think if anyone is prepared to do these things it'd be Trump. Trump intends to win at all costs in my opinion.

All this was supposed to happen in 2016 when Trump was going to lose to Clinton.

There was lots of talk of his base not going to accept the result etc

But in the end it was Clinton's supporters who took to the streets and would not accept the result.

Gbear

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

All this was supposed to happen in 2016 when Trump was going to lose to Clinton.

There was lots of talk of his base not going to accept the result etc

But in the end it was Clinton's supporters who took to the streets and would not accept the result.

Another example of people not understanding what democracy is, as was seen constantly around the Brexit vote.

A vote doesn't mean democracy stops. It doesn't mean people lose the right to free speech. It doesn't mean everyone in a country has to join in with the victorious party and gleefully follow them off the cliff.

The concern with Trump and those who follow him not as a politician, but as a cult leader, isn't that people will protest if he wins. The concern is that there is a fairly substantial proportion of his base that are, without wanting to beat around the bush, completely insane. People who are, or were, regular consumers of Alex Jones, people who believe that the rapture is coming, and so on. Some of these people are in Trump's cabinet.

Irritation isn't the concern. It's prolongued civil unrest and domestic terrorism from people who haven't always needed the excuse of a "stolen election" to do that sort of thing anyway.

duploelabs

Bernie's team have released a raft of immediate executive orders that will be enacted from day one...

"lifting the cap on the number of refugees accepted into the United States"
"immediately halting border wall construction"
"reinstatement of an Obama-era program that granted legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to America as children"
"unilaterally allowing the United States to import prescription drugs from Canada"
"directing the Justice Department to legalize marijuana"
"declaring climate change a national emergency while banning the exportation of crude oil"
"canceling federal contracts for firms paying less than $15 an hour"
"reversing federal rules blocking U.S. funding to organizations that provide abortion counseling"
"immediate release of disaster aid to Puerto Rico"
"review of the federal policies toward Native American tribal groups"

FreeThePants

A great example of how Joe Biden simply isn't electable, and would be a terrible candidate for the democrats to put up. If you have the letter R beside your name you can brag about sexual assault and still win an election, but this isn't the case for democrats.

I can't put up the link directly, so to summarise it is basically Biden being quizzed on climate by a democratic primary voter, and responding by grabbing his coat, repeatedly pokinghimin the chest and telling him to "go vote for someone else." - twitter.com/KathyM_Byrnes/status/1222914020774227968

It is a relief to see sanders starting to look like he may pull ahead at this point, and his key demographic is far more important than Bidens, which are middle class baby boomers claiming to still be undecided (something I am very skeptical of personally, after the last three years). Sanders on the other hand has the youth movement, which is more important now than it has been for 50-60 years as a) millennials and Gen Z outnumbered baby boomers in the 2018 elections, b) this will only grow as Gen Z age in and boomers die out (they are 55-75 years old), and c) the sheer prominence and trashy reality TV nature of this presidency has caused a big uptick in the interest from young people to get it the f*** out of their country (see: 2018 midterms).

It's true everywhere, but especially in the US, that there is a tendency to vote for who is already winning (its a huge failing of their primary process) so a strong start for Sanders may so him absolute wonders. As the utterly farcical CNN debates showed, there is definitely a sizable faction absolutely intent on "anyone but Bernie (and preferably not Warren either)" so he has quite a bit to overcome, but has down so excellently to this point. Otherwise, look forward to more videos like the above for the next 10 months.

As for Trump fearing whomever, people are giving him way too much credit - he simply looks at who is leading the primary polls and has a go at them, which is why multiple candidates has been a blessing. Biden was leading quite solidly a few months ago and so along came burisma... which has only served to make Trump look bad, Biden to some also, and a different front runner taking his place. I'm sure they have plenty of fake news articles, conspiracy theories, etc prepared for Sanders if he wins the primaries, but this is very different to 2016 with only two candidates, which allowed them to spread the propaganda much more ffectively and earlier.

In terms of name calling, Trump has been referring go him as Crazy Bernie Sanders" for at least a year now, and in the leaked video recently he also stated that he was relieved Clinton didn't pick Sanders for her VP nomination.

bfa1509

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

You ask people to name a boat and they will choose Boaty. You ask for a president and you get Trump. This is the fundamental problem.

You are basically saying there is a fundamental problem with democracy. So you only agree with democracy when it elects representatives who you were in favor of? Seems kind of unfair to the majority who don't agree with you.

PS. I love the name Boaty McBoatface!!!

Manic Moran

Special Election for a suburban State House District in Texas yesterday. Democrats had thought they had a chance to flip it, being a district Beto lost by only 3% to Cruz. A ridiculous amount of money (Millions of dollars) was spent between both sides on a race for a seat which will be voted upon again in eight months, with endorsements from Beto, Biden and Warren. Bear in mind that the Texas government meets for three months every two years, the winner of the election is never going to have a chance to vote for anything this term, barring an emergency session, this was viewed as a bellweather/publicity piece as opposed to anything concrete.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Gates-Eastman-Markowitz-election-runoff-GOP-Dems-15011924.php

sid waddell

Bernie Sanders would be an infinitely preferable president to Donald Trump. I mean a traffic cone would be. Does he have a lot of very attractive domestic policies? Certainly. If I had a vote and he was the candidate against Trump, would I vote for him? Certainly.

But what's his voting record on Russia? And should it arouse suspicion?

Gbear

sid waddell wrote: »

Bernie Sanders would be an infinitely preferable president to Donald Trump. I mean a traffic cone would be. Does he have a lot of very attractive domestic policies? Certainly. If I had a vote and he was the candidate against Trump, would I vote for him? Certainly.

But what's his voting record on Russia? And should it arouse suspicion?

He voted against the Magnitsky act. He may well claim that it was too narrow and not tough enough, but he voted against it all the same.

briany

sid waddell wrote: »

Bernie Sanders would be an infinitely preferable president to Donald Trump. I mean a traffic cone would be. Does he have a lot of very attractive domestic policies? Certainly. If I had a vote and he was the candidate against Trump, would I vote for him? Certainly.

But what's his voting record on Russia? And should it arouse suspicion?

If I was Vladimir Putin, I could see many pluses to Bernie being the Democratic nominee. Not necessarily President, but certainly nominee. Trump is the darling of the American Right, and Bernie is the darling of the American Left. It has all the makings of a remarkably bitter, hostile campaign, and Russia has an interest in wrenching the divides in American politics as wide open as they can.

seamus

The Dems will make a big mistake if they pick Biden over Sanders. Biden is much like Clinton; a long, chequered history of partisan voting, questionable personal and professional associations, personal misconducts, horror stories from staffers, etc.

Lots and lots of grist for the mill, the Trump campaign already have their dossier on Biden, with a game plan ready on how they're going to release/renew the information in the public consciousness throughout the campaign to ensure he looks as dirty as possible by November.

Sanders, by comparison, is squeaky clean. During the 2016 democratic campaign, Clinton compiled and used information (known as "oppo" - opposition research) against all of her competitors; except Sanders. Clinton supporters told themselves at the time that it was because Clinton respected him too much, she didn't want to drag his name down.

We now know of course, that's bull. The reason Clinton didn't use any dirt against Sanders, is because they couldn't find any. Sanders has no skeletons in his closet. No secret hypocrisies, no covered-up rape children, no drunken hit and runs, no bribes, no millionaire slave-trafficking playboy friends.

sid waddell

briany wrote: »

If I was Vladimir Putin, I could see many pluses to Bernie being the Democratic nominee. Not necessarily President, but certainly nominee. Trump is the darling of the American Right, and Bernie is the darling of the American Left. It has all the makings of a remarkably bitter, hostile campaign, and Russia has an interest in wrenching the divides in American politics as wide open as they can.

I think Sanders' presence as a main contender for the nomination benefits Russian interference whichever way things fall.

If he comes close but doesn't get the nomination, he and his supporters (how many online Sanders supporters are Russian bots or provocateurs? A lot I suspect) can derail Biden (presumably if its not Sanders it will be him, Warren has fallen away a bit) and spread the narrative of the primary and the nomination process being rigged in the way they spread that narrative last time (it wasn't rigged).

If he actually gets the nomination, he'll be subject to the biggest smear campaign ever seen in US politics, something that will make what Hillary Clinton endured appear child's play.

If he somehow managed to actually win the presidency, Putin could even live with that, as Sanders is unlikely to come down hard on Russia and could even bring them in from the cold, while being unable to implement any sort of progressive domestic agenda because he won't have the senate and would face opposition even in his own party and would be facing an inevitable recession (which will magically be staved off until after November, just watch) - and thus the disenchantment with politics in the US grows ever deeper, and sets the scene for Ivanka Trump 2024.

Now I could live with a Sanders presidency because he is a genuine progressive, I like his policies and rhetoric on most things, and even in the event that he was actually compromised by Russia, he'd still be infinitely preferable to Trump for a whole host of reasons, most of all because the head needs to be cut off the poisonous snake of Trumpism ASAP, but I think people are deluded about him being able to have any sort of transformative effect - he definitely wouldn't, and on foreign policy, could be pretty bad (not as bad as Trump), especially for the likes of Ukraine and the Baltic states.

Gbear

sid waddell wrote: »

I think Sanders' presence as a main contender for the nomination benefits Russian interference whichever way things fall.

If he comes close but doesn't get the nomination, he and his supporters (how many online Sanders supporters are Russian bots or provocateurs? A lot I suspect) can derail Biden (presumably if its not Sanders it will be him, Warren has fallen away a bit) and spread the narrative of the primary and the nomination process being rigged in the way they spread that narrative last time (it wasn't rigged).

If he actually gets the nomination, he'll be subject to the biggest smear campaign ever seen in US politics, something that will make what Hillary Clinton endured appear child's play.

If he somehow managed to actually win the presidency, Putin could even live with that, as Sanders is unlikely to come down hard on Russia and could even bring them in from the cold, while being unable to implement any sort of progressive domestic agenda because he won't have the senate and would face opposition even in his own party and would be facing an inevitable recession (which will magically be staved off until after November, just watch) - and thus the disenchantment with politics in the US grows ever deeper, and sets the scene for Ivanka Trump 2024.

Now I could live with a Sanders presidency because he is a genuine progressive, I like his policies and rhetoric on most things, and even in the event that he was actually compromised by Russia, he'd still be infinitely preferable to Trump for a whole host of reasons, most of all because the head needs to be cut off the poisonous snake of Trumpism ASAP, but I think people are deluded about him being able to have any sort of transformative effect - he definitely wouldn't, and on foreign policy, could be pretty bad (not as bad as Trump), especially for the likes of Ukraine and the Baltic states.

I think you're overselling how much of a maverick he is.

If Bernie wins the nomination, he will probably pick a young centrist black woman as a running mate. Maybe someone like Kamala Harris (although she sounds like a monster, so hopefully not).

Between that, a largely centrist Democratic House, and an at best 1 or 2 seat majority in the Senate, there will be a lot of pressure on Sanders to soften certain elements of his line.

Some things he can put the foot down on - I don't think we're going to see any ramping up of wars under his tenure, for example. But for some things, it's either ambiguous what his position is (I don't think he's even remotely pro-Russia, and I think he probably will sweep up some Russian-adjacent corruption in any anti-corruption measures he takes), or he will not choose such a hill to die on, so long as he can make progress on other matters.

The chief issues for him are domestic, and around repairing social institutions like healthcare and education, and improving social justice for minorities.

sid waddell

seamus wrote: »

The Dems will make a big mistake if they pick Biden over Sanders. Biden is much like Clinton; a long, chequered history of partisan voting, questionable personal and professional associations, personal misconducts, horror stories from staffers, etc.

Lots and lots of grist for the mill, the Trump campaign already have their dossier on Biden, with a game plan ready on how they're going to release/renew the information in the public consciousness throughout the campaign to ensure he looks as dirty as possible by November.

Sanders, by comparison, is squeaky clean. During the 2016 democratic campaign, Clinton compiled and used information (known as "oppo" - opposition research) against all of her competitors; except Sanders. Clinton supporters told themselves at the time that it was because Clinton respected him too much, she didn't want to drag his name down.

We now know of course, that's bull. The reason Clinton didn't use any dirt against Sanders, is because they couldn't find any. Sanders has no skeletons in his closet. No secret hypocrisies, no covered-up rape children, no drunken hit and runs, no bribes, no millionaire slave-trafficking playboy friends.

The Clinton campaign were good faith actors, in relative terms, compared to Trump, in that they pretty much drew the line at just flat out making up stuff.

John Kerry didn't have many or even skeletons in his closet. But they were simply made up by the Republicans.

Trump and his campaign (or should I say his online army of conspiracists and trolls, which I suppose is the same thing) would simply make up a load of stuff about Sanders. By the end of a hypothetical Trump v Sanders campaign, Sanders would likely be perceived as a rampant paedophile by large sections of the US public, or something like egregious like that. They did it to Clinton, remember.

Quin_Dub

seamus wrote: »

The Dems will make a big mistake if they pick Biden over Sanders. Biden is much like Clinton; a long, chequered history of partisan voting, questionable personal and professional associations, personal misconducts, horror stories from staffers, etc.

Lots and lots of grist for the mill, the Trump campaign already have their dossier on Biden, with a game plan ready on how they're going to release/renew the information in the public consciousness throughout the campaign to ensure he looks as dirty as possible by November.

Sanders, by comparison, is squeaky clean. During the 2016 democratic campaign, Clinton compiled and used information (known as "oppo" - opposition research) against all of her competitors; except Sanders. Clinton supporters told themselves at the time that it was because Clinton respected him too much, she didn't want to drag his name down.

We now know of course, that's bull. The reason Clinton didn't use any dirt against Sanders, is because they couldn't find any. Sanders has no skeletons in his closet. No secret hypocrisies, no covered-up rape children, no drunken hit and runs, no bribes, no millionaire slave-trafficking playboy friends.

Sanders faces serious obstacles to obtaining the Democratic presidential nomination. The gentle treatment he received in 2016 from the media and the Hillary Clinton campaign (which ran few negative television or media ads against him) means that many Democratic voters haven’t yet learned about the distinctly non-progressive positions he has taken on certain issues throughout his senatorial career.

Vermont is one of the whitest states in the nation, as well as among the most rural, the oldest (in terms of the age of its population), and with the fewest immigrants. Sanders, to win elections, had to appeal to hunters, older voters and other socially conservative constituencies. This explains his long opposition to gun safety measures (he voted repeatedly against the Brady bill and measures to hold gun manufacturers liable for the damage done by their products), his comparatively late conversion to the cause of gay marriage (he opposed it in Vermont as late as 2006), and his nativist opposition to certain immigration reforms (on the grounds that they would undercut wages for American workers).

If Sanders wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s a safe bet that African American voters in South Carolina will hear quite a lot from his Democratic competitors about his vote for the so-called “Charleston loophole” that allowed the white supremacist Dylann Roof to get the gun he used to kill nine African Americans at a South Carolina church. And although former vice-president Joe Biden has caught heat for writing what became the 1994 crime bill – which, many progressives claim, resulted in mass minority incarceration – Sanders voted for it as well.

The chances of Sanders actually becoming president, however, are also close to nil. I say this because in 2016 I got a glimpse of the Republican party’s opposition research book on Sanders, which was so massive it had to be transported on a cart. The Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who got to see some of its contents, declared that “it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn [Sanders] apart.”

According to Eichenwald, the book includes damning material such as the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to Texas where it would be dumped in a poor Hispanic community, that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and that he appeared at a 1985 rally in Nicaragua at which Sandinista supporters chanted “Here, there / the Yankee will die.” And then there’s Sanders’ fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men…

Sanders would get eviscerated by the GOP if he was the candidate...Whilst he might not have Skeletons from an as yet unknown hedonistic side , he definitely has skeletons elsewhere.

It's going to be ugly for any Dem candidate as there is nothing the Trump team wouldn't say or do to win , but Sanders would get wiped out sadly.

Details here

Dytalus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Sanders would get eviscerated by the GOP if he was the candidate...Whilst he might not have Skeletons from an as yet unknown hedonistic side , he definitely has skeletons elsewhere.

It's going to be ugly for any Dem candidate as there is nothing the Trump team wouldn't say or do to win , but Sanders would get wiped out sadly.

As with all things pertaining to the American media and presidential candidates (particularly progressively left-leaning ones - anything hinting of socialism is highly toxic to the american media), I'd take that with a pinch of salt without sources. I don't doubt Sanders will have something dug up on him - no politician can be around as long as he has been and maintain a clean slate.

The issue is not what do they have on him, so much as what do they have on him compared to the others. The GOP likely has massive files on all the potential candidates - attack campaigns seem very much to be the default in US politics now.

StringerBell

I'd be more confident still that Biden would stand a better chance in the general, but as long as the democrats actually unite properly behind whoever it is when the decision is made that's all that matters. It will be a close race one way or the other, to my mind the ultimate candidate is not as important in this election, it's getting on the same page and getting the vote out. Something the republicans traditionally do better even though there are more registered democrats than republicans.

sid waddell

Dytalus wrote: »

As with all things pertaining to the American media and presidential candidates (particularly progressively left-leaning ones - anything hinting of socialism is highly toxic to the american media), I'd take that with a pinch of salt without sources. I don't doubt Sanders will have something dug up on him - no politician can be around as long as he has been and maintain a clean slate.

The issue is not what do they have on him, so much as what do they have on him compared to the others. The GOP likely has massive files on all the potential candidates - attack campaigns seem very much to be the default in US politics now.

And the problem is that attack campaigns only work in one direction. They don't work against Republicans - especially Trump - they don't work against Johnson or Farage or Putin or Bolsonaro or Orban or Erdogan or Netanyhau or Salvini or Duterte or Modi or yer man in Australia, Morrison.

And that's why democracy around the world (and the very concept of truth, and therefore any hope things getting better) is so utterly screwed.

Which means our planet is screwed.

ghost of ireland past

Why would it be that attack ads only work in one direction?

That's the same as saying that Trump supporters are deplorable, one and all, and that democrat supporters are saintly.

Some Trump supporters are amenable to voting for a democrat if the right democrat was on offer. Who is that democrat?

I really don't know now, but I'm surprised that Yang's 12,000 for free every year for every adult isn't more popular. Maybe people don't believe he can deliver on it.

I saw one person comment on Reddit about Bernie's proposed abolition of past student debt, and he said that Bernie would be screwing over people who worked hard to put themselves through college without getting loans, and now they get nothing, whereas if they'd partied, to use an Irish phrase, they'd now be getting a writeoff.
It's a fairly selfish position but I can see the point. Americans just aren't used to getting things for free it seems and they actively dislike it!

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

All this was supposed to happen in 2016 when Trump was going to lose to Clinton.

There was lots of talk of his base not going to accept the result etc

But in the end it was Clinton's supporters who took to the streets and would not accept the result.

Ah here. There’s a huge difference between not accepting the result and being angry with it. The protestors in 2016 were angry that a bigoted buffoon won the election. They weren’t looking to over turn the result.

Rjd2

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-01/clinton-jabs-again-at-sanders-says-he-didn-t-seek-dem-unity

Good to see Hilary uniting the party by every week ****ting on the front runner to win the Dem nomination. Bernie can't fight back because he knows the pro Clinton media will smear him as a sexist and scream PUTIN~!!! at him.

Tlaib mocked Clinton the other night,,and sadly apologised today.:(

https://twitter.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1223442238509850624

pixelburp

Big day today, as it finally starts in earnest: the Iowa Democrstic Caucus is today, and we'll finally get a sense of how things might pan out.