US Presidential Election 2020

sid waddell

briany wrote: »

How much thinly-veiled, and open, anti-semitism would Sanders have to face if he did win the Democratic nomination? My guess is quite a bit considering that a portion of Trump's base are openly racist and bigoted. I'm not necessarily saying it's a large portion, but they're out there and they're vocal. Right wing news outlets would be looking at ways to dog-whistle the fact.

Loads. While the gaslighting, bull**** narrative that Sanders is himself an anti-Semite is simultaneously peddled by the Republicans and corporate media.

Republicans always falsely accuse their opponents of what they themselves are guilty of.

Starfire20

eagle eye wrote: »

Sanders hasn't a hope of getting enough people to the polls to elect him if he gets the nomination.
If you can't see that then there is no point having a discussion with you.
I keep saying it, the race for the next President is pretty much over. Trump is getting another four years. Just accept it and move on. Democrats could easily have taken him down by getting somebody in the 40-55 age bracket who has a centrist approach and can unite the party.
What they've got now and what I've been saying for months is a mess with old guys, an old woman and a gay guy who have no hope of being elected.
Beto was awful but he'd stand a better chance of beating Trump than any of what's left.

What a load of rubbish!!

Bernie Sanders beats Trump in every head-to-head poll I've seen and is the most popular politician in the country. Bigging up Beto "Platitude" O'Rourke and championing "centrism" is a losing strategy. The Dems ran a centrist last time and how did that turn out ? People are sick of the same old, same old and want a candidate who will improve their lives. Bernie has a 40yr track record of standing up and fighting for the same issues and is not just pretending, like so many other corporate Dems, just because it's politically expedient, only to walk it back in the General.

When you poll the average American on the issues, they overwhelmingly back Bernie.

pixelburp

The dog whistling over Sanders' religion would be unreal. All through proxies and 3rd parties of course but I can only imagine the level of winks and nods you'd get from the adverts. The question would really be: could Trump keep his mouth shut? I feel it's 50, 50 whether he'd have the sense and restraint NOT to make some ugly remarks.

Has there ever been a Jewish President? I'm presuming no, that they've been some derivation of Christianity throughout .

FreeThePants

eagle eye wrote: »

Sanders hasn't a hope of getting enough people to the polls to elect him if he gets the nomination.
If you can't see that then there is no point having a discussion with you.
I keep saying it, the race for the next President is pretty much over. Trump is getting another four years. Just accept it and move on. Democrats could easily have taken him down by getting somebody in the 40-55 age bracket who has a centrist approach and can unite the party.
What they've got now and what I've been saying for months is a mess with old guys, an old woman and a gay guy who have no hope of being elected.
Beto was awful but he'd stand a better chance of beating Trump than any of what's left.

As much as younger candidates would be good, if being over 70 means you're no electable, then how did donald Trump get elected while in his 70s?

Also kind of funny is that buttigieg is a centrist who fits your description, who turns 39 before he would assume office if he won. Then, quite literally in the very next sentence, you wrote him off on the basis that you're a nation of homophobes (your assumption, not mine). What's that about?

eire4

pixelburp wrote: »

The dog whistling over Sanders' religion would be unreal. All through proxies and 3rd parties of course but I can only imagine the level of winks and nods you'd get from the adverts. The question would really be: could Trump keep his mouth shut? I feel it's 50, 50 whether he'd have the sense and restraint NOT to make some ugly remarks.

Has there ever been a Jewish President? I'm presuming no, that they've been some derivation of Christianity throughout .

There has never been a Jewish president of the US. Every president has been protestant with the exception of Kennedy who was Catholic and the current one who I think while technically protestant is clearly not a believer in anything unless and except when it suits his own ends.

eagle eye

FreeThePants wrote:

As much as younger candidates would be good, if being over 70 means you're no electable, then how did donald Trump get elected while in his 70s?

Trump got elected because he went up against another dinosaur and someone who becomes more unlikeable the more exposure she gets. I said this back in 2014 on this site.
At that stage I didn't think she'd be going up against Trump. She'd have got a much worse beating from anyone else.

FreeThePants wrote:

Also kind of funny is that buttigieg is a centrist who fits your description, who turns 39 before he would assume office if he won. Then, quite literally in the very next sentence, you wrote him off on the basis that you're a nation of homophobes (your assumption, not mine). What's that about?

Yes, all the churches have a big say in the way a lot if people vote and they'll all come out against Buttigieg.

Starfire20

eagle eye wrote: »

Trump got elected because he went up against another dinosaur and someone who becomes more unlikeable the more exposure she gets.

Trump got elected because he ran a populist campaign and ran as an outsider. Someone who was going to change the system.

Now he has to defend his record and tbh, it's pretty abysmal. His core base of maga hats will support him no matter what but he only won the Electoral College by something like 70,000 votes by taking the rust belt. Bernie Sanders will crush him in the rust belt if he's the nominee.

eagle eye

Starfire20 wrote:

Bernie Sanders will crush him in the rust belt if he's the nominee.

If you think a Jewish pensioner is going to get elected POTUS then you haven't a clue about the USA.
Within two months of him getting the nomination he'll be labeled a communist, Russian sympathiser. The Christian churches won't want him elected either and they have a lot of power.

FreeThePants

eagle eye wrote: »

Trump got elected because he went up against another dinosaur and someone who becomes more unlikeable the more exposure she gets. I said this back in 2014 on this site.
At that stage I didn't think she'd be going up against Trump. She'd have got a much worse beating from anyone else.

Doesn't all of that hold true for Trump also though? Him and Clinton are within a year or two of one another, and he is the walking definition of someone who gets more unlikeable every every Tien he talks, tweets, etc - it's an incredibly sensitive topic for his supporters.

Yes, all the churches have a big say in the way a lot if people vote and they'll all come out against Buttigieg.

There is some truth there, though buttigieg is apparently very religious himself, and has had some great answers for that. Moreover though, the number of people that deep into religion who were not voting Trump, or any republican, no matter what... isnt exactly very big.

What the democrats do need to do though, is prioritise energizing the under 40 vote over catering to 'the centre', as the former is now the largest bloc in the nation which is still growing rapidly, while those yet undecided in my opinion are far fewer than made out, while boomers are starting go die at a pretty quick clip. This is why Biden is easily the worst candidate of the big 3 (or 4, if you want to include buttigieg), pandering to votes he was never going to get while alienating younger voters to the point of just sitting the whole thing out.

FreeThePants

eagle eye wrote: »

If you think a Jewish pensioner is going to get elected POTUS then you haven't a clue about the USA.
Within two months of him getting the nomination he'll be labeled a communist, Russian sympathiser. The Christian churches won't want him elected either and they have a lot of power.

To be fair, they'll label anyone anything they can without a moments thought as to whether it even makes sense. Don't forget that Trumps predecessor was both a Muslim and an atheist at teh same time as being a Nazi and a communist ("Communazi" was the popular term).

There's simply no point catering to that crowd, or trying to please them. Even if you do exactly what they want they'll complain about how awful it is while enjoying its benefits (example - all the people who love the ACA but hate Obamacare, despite them being the exact same thing). The much more obvious play is to sweep up the younger voters rather than waste your time with that lot.

eire4

sid waddell wrote: »

Loads. While the gaslighting, bull**** narrative that Sanders is himself an anti-Semite is simultaneously peddled by the Republicans and corporate media.

Republicans always falsely accuse their opponents of what they themselves are guilty of.

That is so so true. The Republicans constantly engage in classic projection.

FreeThePants

eire4 wrote: »

That is so so true. The Republicans constantly engage in classic projection.

The default mode should be to take the assumption whenever you hear a Republican accuse another politician of something, that the republican is the one doing it and is shouting about the other one to deflect when they inevitably get caught.

I took that mindset over the last 2 or 3 years, and I'm not joking when I say it turns out to be exactly the case at least 80% of the time (possibly over 90% but I'm trying to be conservative here).

pixelburp

The republicans are going to go on the attack, regardless of who the candidate is, so in many respects it's a fools errand to knit oneself in knots over who might be better on that front. Sanders will attract the most blatant Dog Whistling now that the frontrunners are all white, but everyone else will become vilified within 30 seconds of the nomination.

What Sanders has to his advantage though, is a near complete absence of scandal. I'm sure the attack dogs will find SOMETHING, but I don't get the impression there's anything remotely on the level of Biden for instance, or Warren's "ethnicity".

The Phantom Jipper

Starfire20 wrote: »

Oh noes, Trump will call him a communist or Socialist!!

He gets called that constantly by the MSM as it!! Tbh, I think that label has lost it's punch due to labeling everything left of the Republican Party as that. And again, for a guy that beats Trump consistently in the head-to-head polls, you seem to think he has no chance. Who are you trying to cod ?

Republicans will say it regardless, but most voters are discerning enough to realise when the label is warranted and when it isn't. It's a valid concern, especially when Sanders seems perfectly willing to embrace it himself. Maybe he can overcome it but there's no denying the label is incredibly unpopular.

eire4

FreeThePants wrote: »

The default mode should be to take the assumption whenever you hear a Republican accuse another politician of something, that the republican is the one doing it and is shouting about the other one to deflect when they inevitably get caught.

I took that mindset over the last 2 or 3 years, and I'm not joking when I say it turns out to be exactly the case at least 80% of the time (possibly over 90% but I'm trying to be conservative here).

The truly crazy part about all that is how 100% accurate it is to look at Republicans in that manner in terms of when they come out and accuse someone or some group of something.

Starfire20

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Republicans will say it regardless, but most voters are discerning enough to realise when the label is warranted and when it isn't. It's a valid concern, especially when Sanders seems perfectly willing to embrace it himself. Maybe he can overcome it but there's no denying the label is incredibly unpopular.

Sanders identifies as a Democratic Socialist and he's been asked, and explained, that question ad nauseam. It's an attack that's lost its sting but those in the MSM think it's some sort of gotcha. They bring that up...something something Venezuela something something...sit back all smug and think they nailed it. Meanwhile on issue after issue, people support Bernie.

Red for Danger

eagle eye wrote: »

If you think a Jewish pensioner is going to get elected POTUS then you haven't a clue about the USA.
.

Your whole outlook wouldn't be far off the mark if it was 1992, a lots has happened since.

How do think the progressives movement has grown?

FreeThePants

Red for Danger wrote: »

Your whole outlook wouldn't be far off the mark if it was 1992, a lots has happened since.

How do think the progressives movement has grown?

It might be more accurate to say it has returned rather than grown, the golden age of the US was built on socialism on no small part and continued through until 1980. It's one of the ironies of boomers bemoaning their situation regarding globalism, immigration, corporate politics etc - they point blank rejected anything that wasn't exactly this through the 80s, 90s and even 2000s which is why Raegan won a borderline unrealistic looking 93 out of 100 states over his two elections. By the time the 90s rolled around, the Democrats had no option but to go corporate with the Clintons, because the voting public wanted nothing to do with anything else.

Millennials and Gen Y simply look like they are returning to the ideals of the Silent Generation and Greatest Generation in many respects, while boomers strict adherence to corporate profits above anything and everything else is if anything the outlier. Gen X is hard to call as they never had much influence at all as a generational bloc.

I also don't know if boomers views on this issue are really all that reconcilable with the generations before and after them, which is why I would make some effort to placate them but really focus on the younger blocs personally.

eagle eye

Red for Danger wrote:

Your whole outlook wouldn't be far off the mark if it was 1992, a lots has happened since.

Nothing much has changed since then unless you live in and get fooled by the social media universe.

Red for Danger wrote:

How do think the progressives movement has grown?

What progressive movement? Who are the progressives that people look up to. A couple of 70 year olds?
As I said they had perfect candidates for this election but none of them were either interested or considered.
Besides Yang there isn't an earthly hope that any of them take down Trump.
People here talking about polls which are pointless.
Sanders won't get a vote from anybody in their mid thirties or older who are doing well enough financially to have a mortgage and enough money to live.
The last time a Democrat over 55 got elected first time up as a democrat was when Truman won but he had been the President before then as he took over when Roosevelt died.
This is a mess. I want Trump gone but it's not going to happen.

pixelburp

Only 62% of precincts reported at this point, but so far Buttigieg is leading the caucus, 26% to Sanders' 25%. Biden in fourth. More than enough precincts remaining to tip the balance though...

NSAman

eagle eye wrote: »

This is a mess. I want Trump gone but it's not going to happen.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment. Judging by just talking to people who would be democrats, they are so at odds with each other and cannot agree amongst themselves who would be the best candidate.

The Democratic party looks like a joke at this stage. It is fractured beyond repair. Between Identity politics and being too far left, they have little hope in beating Trump I am afraid to say!!

Water John

Looking at the flawed but quite transparent caucus and discussion within the DNC, I'll take it anytime over the present cult of the GOP.

The Phantom Jipper

Buttigieg behind in the raw vote total (with 62% reported) but ahead on the delegate count due to a more even spread of his support.

Amazing that Biden couldn't get to the 15% viability threshold in so many locations.

Water John

Buttigeig probably picked up some of those along with Klobuchar.

expectationlost

Pete Buttigieg wtf how is he still a thing?

Manach

Given the rabid TDS of the Democrats it will a race who they will blame, Trump or the Russians, for this organisational fiasco in an attempt to deflect from their own shortcomings and disunity.

Water John

Buttigeig doesn't attract any black voters. That rules him out.

He's winning Iowa based on what's reported so far.

sid waddell

Sanders is leading in the popular vote based on results so far. Like Buttigieg himself, I'm a believer that whoever gets the most votes in an election should be deemed the winner.

Red for Danger

eagle eye wrote: »

Nothing much has changed since then unless you live in and get fooled by the social media universe.

What progressive movement? Who are the progressives that people look up to. A couple of 70 year olds?
As I said they had perfect candidates for this election but none of them were either interested or considered.
Besides Yang there isn't an earthly hope that any of them take down Trump.
People here talking about polls which are pointless.
Sanders won't get a vote from anybody in their mid thirties or older who are doing well enough financially to have a mortgage and enough money to live.
The last time a Democrat over 55 got elected first time up as a democrat was when Truman won but he had been the President before then as he took over when Roosevelt died.
This is a mess. I want Trump gone but it's not going to happen.

So now that proped-up Bidan has done as expected and bombed out on day 1. The race narrows down to Warren and Sanders two most progressives senators, you ask,what progressives movement?
(Really, its probably all over and the most progressives guy has won)
Except Klobuchar every other moderate in the beginning tried out flank Bernie to his left, but one by one these fraudsters were outted. Have you ever wondered why they wanted to appear in line with sanders?

Both Booker and Patrick match your description whats needed and both bombed
Deval patrick held a rally and only 3 people showed up. And please dont start talking about whats needed to win the general, do you honestly think that a guy who couldn't get 1% or even .5% in the primary is electable and could go on and win the general election?
When polling shows a lot on unity on major issues.

Bury your head in sand and pretend this isn't happening all you want but its real sanders is the front runner
You should try staying away from social media it'll give you the wrong idea about things