US Presidential Election 2020

Red for Danger

Foxtrol wrote: »

His moaning at the time and since makes me fear he'd just be another Trump if he won the presidency. .

Can you be more specific?

What did he say that made you fearful that he was another trump

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

Biden was touted as the most electable because he was winning pretty much every poll and I think he still leads Bernie when it comes to head to head with Trump in some, if not most, swing states.

You might only see the gaffs but over the years Biden has done a lot for the party, across many states and communities. I unfortunately think time has caught up with him and it was always going to be a disappointment when people saw more of him.

I'm aware of his food work, but a good campaigner that does not make, and it definitely is apparent how much he has struggled to keep up with debates etc. The thing is, he was foisted up as 'the great hope' but never really gave much of anything to earn it, in terms of how he could compete in an election.

What was Bidens platform, in terms of policies he was looking to enact etc? He never seems to mention them and instead sticks to 'nothing statements' like when asked why people should vote for him last night his response was basically "I will earn it!". The primary is three days away, whatever he was planning to do to 'earn' more votes shoukd have been done by now. But instead, it hasn't and he just continues to tail off. This was supposed to be a locked up state for him to really push a bit of a lead with heading into Super Tuesday, now polls are showing him struggling to even win it at all.

From the way you feel frustrated about Bloomberg floating in as a former Republican I hope you can understand that how some feel similar about Bernie, floating into the party from being an independent. The money element is very different but there's a similar sense of entitlement

Those are not equal comparisons at all.

One has been in politics for over 40 years, as an independent who is highly reliable to side with democrats on the vast majority of decisions, which is why along with Angus King they are often informally trwated as democrats when discussing how senate votes will go. His support is stronger than any of the other candidates among democrat voters, because he has proven himself over time to align with many of their views, and because he has a history of consistency in such matters.

The other is a billionaire who was previously a Republican, who when mayor of New York enacted several policies that even he cannot defend surrounding issues like racial profiling, has a worldview that is closer to republicans than corporate democrats, has funded countless Republican election campaigns, including several still present, and his slip about "buying Congress" (in the way that he is currently trying to buy the presidency) is a line he has openly bragged about to wall street execs before. His support has appeared out of nowhere, on the back of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of TV ads.

Big, big difference.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't think you understand the background to feelings about Cuba and how strongly those that escaped there or their descendants feel about that regime. Trump was rightly gone after for his 'good people on both sides' statement.

No amount of whataboutery about Obama excuses them.



Clinton literally got more votes than Trump but lost the election.



I'm talking about the lens where you're annoyed the media called the victor of Iowa the victor (especially as he was such an underdog) and your lens where you believed the post Nevada coverage was about Biden. I'm not sure what US TV stations/Newspapers you're taking in to get those narratives.

Excuses what? Not having a stereotypical McCarthyite worldview? Factual statements that Obama himself made?

Each state in the election is decided on popular vote. Iowa is decided on popular vote. Fine, fire away with your possible extra delegate after a recount and think Buttigieg won Iowa. Anybody who is looking to gauge where popular opinion lies was looking at the popular vote and Bernie won that. The Iowa system is a total sham and no credence needs to be given to ludicrous technicalities which have no relevance to the presidential election. We know Clinton got more votes and lost the electoral college in 2016. That is not relevant to who won Iowa.

The narratives I mentioned have all been mainstream "centrist" ones.

In terms of "annoyance", well I'm quite happy that Sanders is doing well and Bloomberg, Buttigieg and likely Biden are falling by the wayside, thanks.

DreamsBurnDown

I thought last night was good for Bernie, as although the format of the debate was a shambles, he got asked the tough questions which will become tougher should he win the nomination. The more times he has to answer these questions, the more comfortable he should get with his responses.

I thought he did well on gun control and admitted he cast some bad votes in the past, voting four times against waiting periods for gun purchases in the 90s including voting against the Brady bill. His record since then is good, voting for assault weapons bans, etc. It's Ok to say I was wrong and my views have changed.

On Cuba he might be wise to do the same, he and any Democrats who endorse him will get decimated in south Florida if there is any hint of support for Castro. Florida is very much in play in 2020, the margins are incredibly tight there. Just say I oppose all dictators and authoritarian regimes, as this one could get out of control easily if he continues to argue the positive aspects of Cuba's regime.

The other area where he has room for improvement is on the economy, as the reality is the US economy has been trending up since 2009 and he needs to have an answer on the economy other than billionaires are bad. OK, let's say we get rid of all the billionaires, now what? What are your plans for growing small businesses, maintaining the US leadership position in technology, etc.

As for temperament, both Biden and himself are a little tetchy when questioned, Bernie even had a go at the audience last night which isn't a great look. Warren is better in this respect. Not a huge issue, but things will get a lot more heated in the national debate.

Foxtrol

Englo wrote: »

Is there any candidate you feel might do better on that front?

Many would do better on that specific list because they don't have the same views/policies but have other areas where Trump will target. The question was about Sanders though

Foxtrol

Red for Danger wrote: »

Can you be more specific?

He doesn't seem to acknowledge there being an issue or being wrong. It is all distract or deny.

Closest I've seen him come to admitting he was wrong is on gun control but he still tried to sugarcoat it.

Red for Danger wrote: »

Can you be more specific?

What did he say that made you fearful that he was another trump

Cult like supporters, refuses to find common ground, blames everyone for his failures. Too many similarities

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

Many would do better on that specific list because they don't have the same views/policies but have other areas where Trump will target. The question was about Sanders though

I was referring to "how he has reacted" as opposed to the points of attack themselves.

How do you feel he has reacted, and how do you feel he should have reacted instead?

In reference to a post of yours just after this, what would be 'finding common ground' for you with regards to Sanders?

Red for Danger

Foxtrol wrote: »

He doesn't seem to acknowledge there being an issue or being wrong. It is all distract or deny.

Closest I've seen him come to admitting he was wrong is on gun control but he still tried to sugarcoat it.



Cult like supporters, refuses to find common ground, blames everyone for his failures. Too many similarities

And any specific example stand out ? (When he was wrong didnt acknowledge)



On your 2nd answer i asked you about the man and you answered about his supporters.

Genuinely, how did you come to the conclusion of sanders having cult like supporters?

For 30 years, more and more dems have been taking about finding common ground which sounds reasonable and would be if they had got common ground but the reality of what happens is total capitulation to the gop.
Both sides serve the same donors so its rigged.

Manic Moran

sid waddell wrote: »

I find your phraseology rather unsettling, to say the least.

Maybe you should focus on Donald Trump actually pandering to racists.

If you haven’t been paying attention, the next primary is in South Carolina, which has quite a significant black demographic, thus...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/opinions/post-south-carolina-democratic-debate-commentary/index.html
The candidates outdid themselves in pandering to African American voters.

or https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/south-carolina-debate-chaos.html
The intended audience for most of Tuesday’s debate in Charleston was black voters, who comprise more than half of South Carolina’s Democratic electorate.

Or https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/democratic-candidates-appeal-black-voters-debate-south-carolina-69225241
Democratic candidates appeal to black voters, debate in South Carolina

Now, if statements like that from ABC or CNN are unsettling to you, how about being one of the 5.5 million Hispanic voters going to the polls on Tuesday?

sid waddell

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you haven’t been paying attention, the next primary is in South Carolina, which has quite a significant black demographic, thus...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/opinions/post-south-carolina-democratic-debate-commentary/index.html
The candidates outdid themselves in pandering to African American voters.

or https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/south-carolina-debate-chaos.html
The intended audience for most of Tuesday’s debate in Charleston was black voters, who comprise more than half of South Carolina’s Democratic electorate.

Or https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/democratic-candidates-appeal-black-voters-debate-south-carolina-69225241
Democratic candidates appeal to black voters, debate in South Carolina

Now, if statements like that from ABC or CNN are unsettling to you, how about being one of the 5.5 million Hispanic voters going to the polls on Tuesday?

Yes I do find that the words "pandering to black voters" have very unpleasant overtones.

"Pandering" carries obvious negative connotations - that the issues that matter to black voters are somehow illegitimate.

A media organisation's ill advised decision to use those words doesn't mean you have to embellish their mistake.

Manic Moran

Of course it has negative connotations, pandering is defined as attempting to please other people by saying or doing what you think they want you to do or say.

If any politician anywhere doesn’t pander, it’ll be the first I hear of it. They’re trying to get elected.

sid waddell

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course it has negative connotations, pandering is defined as attempting to please other people by saying or doing what you think they want you to do or say.

If any politician anywhere doesn’t pander, it’ll be the first I hear of it. They’re trying to get elected.

The words "pandering to black voters" have very negative connotations indeed about the person who uses them.

I would have thought would have been obvious, but apparently not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/opinion/bernie-sanders.html

Is this headline serious or just an attention grabber? I can't read it as not subscribed...

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/opinion/bernie-sanders.html

Is this headline serious or just an attention grabber? I can't read it as not subscribed...

"I'm not equating him with Donald Trump, but...."

"Again, I'm not equating him with Donald Trump. But.....etc etc."

That pretty much sums up the whole piece for me and i expect to read dozens of more similar from butt hurt anti sanders columnists before all this is done.

seamus

pixelburp wrote: »

What do we reckon Sanders will get hammered on by the GOP attack dogs if it comes to it?

The main talking point will be "how are we going to pay for all these crazy ideas".

Sanders has a pretty impenetrable response, which is to point out that the cost of all of his proposals combined are a fraction of the military budget.

Of course the GOP's attack will then be that Sanders is weak on security, but this is where they'll find themselves a bit cornered; One of the pillar's of the Trump campaign was the withdrawal of US troops from overseas. Retreat back to US borders, stop spending money on foreign wars, stop drone striking, no more benghazis, etc etc.
Sanders has rock solid figures on how much actually needs to be spent to keep the US secure, versus how much is spent interfering in foreign countries.

As I say, it's kind of impenetrable, but whether the voters want to hear facts or glib soundbites is the kind. This isn't Sanders' first rodeo though and he has a strong team behind him. They're not above glib soundbites.

eagle eye

Sanders is a socialist, he is Jewish, there are health concerns that he refuses to talk about.
Those are the main areas of weakness.

His anti-fracking stance is not helpful to him. His my way or the highway approach will not appeal to swing voters. They look for people who they feel understand their needs.
Trump will attack his socialist ideology in a very harsh way, no doubt about that. In the background they'll talk about Sanders health and his religion. Trump will attack his anti-fracking stance and how it would mean higher taxes for all Americans. They'll keep asking the question as to where the money will come from to fund his crazy ideals. The minute you mention taking anything off the armed forces you are in for a lot of heat. Trump has been very respectful to them since he got into office.
Trump is the teflon POTUS. Sanders has no hope against him.
There'll be a shake up on the conservative side of the Democratic party very shortly and the race for the nomination will tighten I think.

Personally I think it's time for a third party to form over there. Sanders is a democrat in name only.

Red for Danger

eagle eye wrote: »

There'll be a shake up on the conservative side of the Democratic party very shortly and the race for the nomination will tighten I think.

The very people on cable saying this have been wrong with just about everything.
We'll know soon enough what happens when a establishment candidate drops out and to what extent it adds to the remaining establishment candidates.
Lets see, their reaction if they are wrong.
Will they change their views and admit they haven't a clue. Because for them to continue on with these "electable centrist" stuff in the face of being wrong every step of the way makes them more propagandists than journalists.

Gbear

eagle eye wrote: »

Sanders is a socialist, he is Jewish, there are health concerns that he refuses to talk about.
Those are the main areas of weakness.

His anti-fracking stance is not helpful to him. His my way or the highway approach will not appeal to swing voters. They look for people who they feel understand their needs.
Trump will attack his socialist ideology in a very harsh way, no doubt about that. In the background they'll talk about Sanders health and his religion. Trump will attack his anti-fracking stance and how it would mean higher taxes for all Americans. They'll keep asking the question as to where the money will come from to fund his crazy ideals. The minute you mention taking anything off the armed forces you are in for a lot of heat. Trump has been very respectful to them since he got into office.
Trump is the teflon POTUS. Sanders has no hope against him.
There'll be a shake up on the conservative side of the Democratic party very shortly and the race for the nomination will tighten I think.

Personally I think it's time for a third party to form over there. Sanders is a democrat in name only.

I don't think you'll get very far looking at his policies. The Republican base will not vote for him on the basis of identity, with him being a Jewish socialist.

The Democratic base will be motivated to turn out for almost any Democrat because of who he's up against. The only question would be over Bloomberg.

His policies are populist - the rust belt and and other areas in swing states are in favour of Democrat policies on healthcare, and with environmental concerns brought on by things like Flint, I'd be surprised if many floating voters are too fussed about fracking.

Paying for his plans is not something that will concern anyone who identifies with the white conservative identity of Trump and the Republican party. Theyll use it as a stick to beat Bernie with, but they won't really care and weren't going to vote for him.
Anyone actually concerned about policies will not be supporting the economically illiterate policies of Trump instead.

eagle eye

Red for Danger wrote:

The very people on cable saying this have been wrong with just about everything. We'll know soon enough what happens when a establishment candidate drops out and to what extent it adds to the remaining establishment candidates. Lets see, their reaction if they are wrong. Will they change their views and admit they haven't a clue. Because for them to continue on with these "electable centrist" stuff in the face of being wrong every step of the way makes them more propagandists than journalists.

It's clear that you are all for Bernie based on this post.
What is in this post that is unattractive to the masses is the we know we are right about everything and if you disagree you are either corrupt or stupid.
That attitude will not attract swing voters.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Excuses what? Not having a stereotypical McCarthyite worldview? Factual statements that Obama himself made?

Bernie's talking elements of a regime that imprisoned, tortured, and murdered its population.

Again, Obama whataboutary won't protect him from insulting survivors or the children of survivors of the Castro regime.

Each state in the election is decided on popular vote. Iowa is decided on popular vote. Fine, fire away with your possible extra delegate after a recount and think Buttigieg won Iowa. Anybody who is looking to gauge where popular opinion lies was looking at the popular vote and Bernie won that. The Iowa system is a total sham and no credence needs to be given to ludicrous technicalities which have no relevance to the presidential election. We know Clinton got more votes and lost the electoral college in 2016. That is not relevant to who won Iowa.

It is relevant because it is the rules of the election. You can't say Bernie won Iowa, like you can't say Clinton won the election - neither are true.

The same reason is why there is an issue with judging Bernie on national polls or how much he invigorates the Dem base in states that are safe blue. It is useless when it comes to November if his policies or comments lose swing states (like Florida due to Castro comments).

The narratives I mentioned have all been mainstream "centrist" ones.

In terms of "annoyance", well I'm quite happy that Sanders is doing well and Bloomberg, Buttigieg and likely Biden are falling by the wayside, thanks.

Calling those narratives 'centrist' is exactly what I was talking about regarding the lens you see things, especially as the regularity of some of your examples live completely in your head.

I'm not sure what you really want, just to cover the victor in positive terms and ignore the rest? Going by that, Bernie would have gotten
no positive coverage in 2016, as he was only victorious in one of the first four states.

Foxtrol

Red for Danger wrote: »

And any specific example stand out ? (When he was wrong didnt acknowledge)

Castro, Bernie Bro abuse, gun votes. He doesn't see anything wrong with the first and the latter 2 he tried to deflect.

On your 2nd answer i asked you about the man and you answered about his supporters.

I didn't, my first point was regarding his the rest were about him - 'refuses to find common ground, blames everyone for his failures'.

Genuinely, how did you come to the conclusion of sanders having cult like supporters?

They never accept he is wrong, they see compromise as a weakness, they are vicious online, blame others for their candidates failings, paranoid about 'the establishment'.

For 30 years, more and more dems have been taking about finding common ground which sounds reasonable and would be if they had got common ground but the reality of what happens is total capitulation to the gop.
Both sides serve the same donors so its rigged.

That is just toxic nonsense that seems to be common with Bernie supporters. If you think the Trump or Bush policies are the same as Clinton or Obama ones then there is nothing I can say to you. Attempts to equate them is one of the reasons why Trump won the election

Joe_ Public

"The nazis introduced the first effective anti smoking campaign."

Does that statement make me an unreserved apologist and supporter of hitler? The castro thing might well hurt sanders but i hope he sticks to his guns anyway and stands firm against the stupidity of a lot of the public discourse.

rossie1977

Cubans aren't going to play big role in election, majority almost 3/4 live in Florida where Trump will beat Sanders anyway and the Cuban Americans already vote Republican.

Foxtrol

Gbear wrote: »

I don't think you'll get very far looking at his policies. The Republican base will not vote for him on the basis of identity, with him being a Jewish socialist.

The Democratic base will be motivated to turn out for almost any Democrat because of who he's up against. The only question would be over Bloomberg.

His policies are populist - the rust belt and and other areas in swing states are in favour of Democrat policies on healthcare, and with environmental concerns brought on by things like Flint, I'd be surprised if many floating voters are too fussed about fracking.

Paying for his plans is not something that will concern anyone who identifies with the white conservative identity of Trump and the Republican party. Theyll use it as a stick to beat Bernie with, but they won't really care and weren't going to vote for him.
Anyone actually concerned about policies will not be supporting the economically illiterate policies of Trump instead.

Trump won Pennsylvania by a couple of thousand votes and fracking is a huge industry for the state. Bernie's stance on it is similar to some Green policies in rural Ireland. When you're running against a climate change denier like Trump, being so aggressive on policies like that brings in so few additional voters but scares away bigger groups.

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"The nazis introduced the first effective anti smoking campaign."

Does that statement make me an unreserved apologist and supporter of hitler? The castro thing might well hurt sanders but i hope he sticks to his guns anyway and stands firm against the stupidity of a lot of the public discourse.

I don't think you'd win any votes from holocaust survivors or relatives of those that died at the hands of the Nazis.

I've no problem with the concept that you can acknowledge aspects of that are positive within people you disagree with but it is politically idiotic, like many areas of Bernie's (or Trumps) ideologies. There is so little to gain from them but they say it anyway.

Proving a point about public discourse isn't worth 4 more years of Trump... Bernie supporters wonder why people are concerned about how electable he is.

rossie1977

Current state polls:

Pennsylvania: Sanders leads Trump by 3, Biden and Warren are tied with Trump, Trump leads Bloomberg by 3

Virginia: Sanders leads by 9, Biden leads by 8, Warren by 7, Bloomberg by 6

Michigan: Sanders by 7, Biden by 4, Warren by 3

Wisconsin: Sanders by 2, Biden by 2, Warren by 2

Florida, Sanders/Warren and Trump is a tie, Biden leads by 1, Bloomberg leads by 6

Not sure why Bloomberg is so strong vs Trump in Florida

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't think you'd win any votes from holocaust survivors or relatives of those that died at the hands of the Nazis.

I've no problem with the concept that you can acknowledge aspects of that are positive within people you disagree with but it is politically idiotic, like many areas of Bernie's (or Trumps) ideologies. There is so little to gain from them but they say it anyway.

Proving a point about public discourse isn't worth 4 more years of Trump... Bernie supporters wonder why people are concerned about how electable he is.

Maybe in hindsight he'd steer clear of it but i can see why he's sticking to his position and not giving in to a narrative that is so obviously desperate to find any angle to stop his momentum. Sanders really shouldnt have to clarify his position on castro anymore than trump should explain his stance on modi/saudis etc. But, yeah, thats not the world we live in alright.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Current state polls:

Pennsylvania: Sanders leads Trump by 3, Biden and Warren are tied with Trump, Trump leads Bloomberg by 3

Virginia: Sanders leads by 9, Biden leads by 8, Warren by 7, Bloomberg by 6

Michigan: Sanders by 7, Biden by 4, Warren by 3

Wisconsin: Sanders by 2, Biden by 2, Warren by 2

Florida, Sanders/Warren and Trump is a tie, Biden leads by 1, Bloomberg leads by 6

Not sure why Bloomberg is so strong vs Trump in Florida

Sanders is a bit weak in Florida but Bloomberg is strong among the old, rich retirees.

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Maybe in hindsight he'd steer clear of it but i can see why he's sticking to his position and not giving in to a narrative that is so obviously desperate to find any angle to stop his momentum. Sanders really shouldnt have to clarify his position on castro anymore than trump should explain his stance on modi/saudis etc. But, yeah, thats not the world we live in alright.

Idiotic politics is idiotic politics. He has been around long enough, if he can't assess the impact of his statements then he should be called out for it.

What is all this talk about 'narrative'? Whether you think it is valid or not, Bernie created a news story and opportunity for his opponents to attack.

People have spent 6 years rightly attacking Trump for his idiotic comments about matters foreign and domestic but now all of a sudden it is unfair for Bernie to get any scrutiny for his statements. That is hypocrisy.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

Idiotic politics is idiotic politics. He has been around long enough, if he can't assess the impact of his statements then he should be called out for it.

What is all this talk about 'narrative'? Whether you think it is valid or not, Bernie created a news story and opportunity for his opponents to attack.

People have spent 6 years rightly attacking Trump for his idiotic comments about matters foreign and domestic but now all of a sudden it is unfair for Bernie to get any scrutiny for his statements. That is hypocrisy.

The clear narrative among establishment democrats to use whatever they can to undermine sanders and that is being ratcheted up now the panic is setting in. And beside that, the familiar old equivalence trope, in evidence in your second to last post, which elevates every trivial slip sanders might make into gaffes of trumpian proportions. Only getting warmed up i would imagine.