US Presidential Election 2020

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, see with that attitude, Bernie is in for a hiding, McGovern style.

This is bizarre. I simply stated that you were wrong when you said Democratic turnout numbers were down this year. You are wrong. Numbers are up.

Now, how or why you extrapolated that a factual correction about numbers in a post on an Irish discussion forum is an indicator of what will happen in the US presidential election in November, I have no idea, but I'd guess having a bad "attitude" about being corrected on facts would be a likely reason.

Manic Moran

The political adverts are starting to hit a bit harder, now, here in TX. This evening was the first non-Bloomberg one I've seen. Three for Warren so far.

Rjd2

Warren needs to have a think right now.

She can't win and her dropping out would be a big boost for Bernie who supposedly she is closest to politically and friendship wise.

Stuff like this below really doesn't do her cause any good whatsoever.


https://twitter.com/aishaismad/status/1233899739906813952

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

Warren needs to have a think right now.

She can't win and her dropping out would be a big boost for Bernie who supposedly she is closest to politically and friendship wise.

Stuff like this below really doesn't do her cause any good whatsoever.


https://twitter.com/aishaismad/status/1233899739906813952

The cat's out of the bag? It's a competition to be the nominee. Surely she's allowed to think she should be the nominee ahead of Bernie while she's still in the race?

Sawduck

Hopefully bernie gets it, just because there is so many people against him including dems, would be interesting to see who they would vote for in a trump v sanders situation

The Phantom Jipper

Tom Steyer just dropped out.

eire4

Sawduck wrote: »

Hopefully bernie gets it, just because there is so many people against him including dems, would be interesting to see who they would vote for in a trump v sanders situation

That is so true. The very same corporate Democrats preaching that you have to vote for whoever wins no matter what in the Democratic primary will they get behind Sanders 100% if he wins open for debate I think. Because they only really mean what they say if it is one of their corporate candidates who wins.

DreamsBurnDown

markodaly wrote: »

This Biden win could help Bernie. Bloomberg will eat into the moderate vote which will be a problem for Biden. Bernie, on the other hand, has a clear run at it from the more progressive side.

We will be down to 3 or 4 candidates after Super Tuesday.
Berine, Bloomberg, Biden and one of Warren or Buttigieg

Possibly but I think Bernie and Biden is more likely. Bloomberg only entered the race as he didn't think Biden could make it, if Biden does well Tuesday Bloomberg likely will step aside.

The first four primaries are all about momentum, Warren has developed none and Buttigieg is losing momentum. Both will be gone next week imo.

briany

Pete Buttigieg's whole appears to be, "I'm gay. But before you get too freaked out over that, conservative America, I'm also a veteran, so they balance out, right?"

Much like Biden and Bloomberg, I don't get a feeling off him that he can really inspire people. If he he could do so, he probably already would have done. Bernie has an amount of ability to get people fired up. Biden more appeals to pragmatists and those who vote as a matter of course.
Problem is that Biden also represents the Washington establishment like nobody's business.

pixelburp

briany wrote: »

Pete Buttigieg's whole appears to be, "I'm gay. But before you get too freaked out over that, conservative America, I'm also a veteran, so they balance out, right?"

Much like Biden and Bloomberg, I don't get a feeling off him that he can really inspire people. If he he could do so, he probably already would have done. Bernie has an amount of ability to get people fired up. Biden more appeals to pragmatists and those who vote as a matter of course.
Problem is that Biden also represents the Washington establishment like nobody's business.

You'd have to imagine at this stage, Buttigieg's simply persisting for the benefit of the inevitable(?) 2024 run, or a run at the Senate at the bare minimum. No way this isn't long term thinking for a guy not even yet 40.

If I were a conspiratorial type, I'd even suggest he's playing the long term game here, betting that if / when a Populist Sanders (or Trump) Presidency comes to its end & the next election cycle, along will come the picture of Centrism himself, and pillar of progressive America if you so wish, to steer the ship back to normalcy.

sid waddell

One thing Biden's win last night did is increase the chances of a contested convention. Biden is the only possible challenger to Sanders but Bloomberg and Buttigieg still being in the race mean that he isn't likely to have a very good Super Tuesday based on the split "centrist" vote.

Sanders is likely to take a good lead after Tuesday but whether it will be decisive is another thing entirely.

I think the scenario where Sanders gets a plurality but not a majority of pledged delegates by the end of the primaries, with Biden x number of hundreds behind, is coming into view.

I've come to the view that if that happens, the party establishment are prepared to screw Sanders at any cost.

And the cost will be huge if they do. Not only could it fatally undermine Biden as the presidential candidate, but it could fatally undermine the Democratic party for years.

It could cause a split in the party with the progessive wing feeling it has been betrayed despite getting more votes.

The narrative that corporate Democrats are prepared to screw over Sanders at any cost would be borne out in reality, and the narrative that they would prefer to see Trump win rather than Sanders would also be seen to be true.

is_that_so

Sawduck wrote: »

Hopefully bernie gets it, just because there is so many people against him including dems, would be interesting to see who they would vote for in a trump v sanders situation

It may all come down to horse trading at the convention. Not clear that anyone will land a knockout during the primaries. At least if it's down to two we might see an end to the regular end of road guesswork opinion pieces on candidates.

Water John

Run one as the Presidential candidate- Sanders, the other for Vice President again- Biden. Some roles and policies could be clearly defined, great team. Sanders agrees to moderate one or two things.

Rjd2

Water John wrote: »

Run one as the Presidential candidate- Sanders, the other for Vice President again- Biden. Some roles and policies could be clearly defined, great team. Sanders agrees to moderate one or two things.

Its dodgy enough to have one near 80 year old leading the ticket but another as VP? Nope to old,,probably to white for the Dem party also.

Biden has numerous options for VP tbf,, Harris, Booker, Castro etc.

briany

Water John wrote: »

Run one as the Presidential candidate- Sanders, the other for Vice President again- Biden. Some roles and policies could be clearly defined, great team. Sanders agrees to moderate one or two things.

Too ideologically opposed to work together. Supposing Sanders got the nomination - his supporters don't want to see him cosying up to the centre ground. It would be like Trump picking Jeb Bush as his no. 2 in 2016.

DreamsBurnDown

A contested convention is indeed looking likely, but it was always likely with so many candidates in the race. It will be very divisive, especially if one candidate wins a plurarity of delegates and then loses the nomination. Especially as the superdelegates could effectively decide the outcome, and will decide the outcome if there are only two candidates.

The rules have already been established by the DNC though, they can hardly change them at this point. It would be a farce to change the rules in the middle of the nomination process.

It should be noted that Bernie's view on superdelegates has changed since 2016. In a recent debate he was the only candidate who said the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates should get the nomination. In May of 2016 he called for superdelegates to support him as the nominee, even though Clinton was ahead on the pledged delegate count and the popular vote. "The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic party".

If it goes to a second round the superdelegates should support whoever has the lead in pledged delegates. Whether they will or not is another question.

briany

One thing's for sure - if it comes down to the superdelegates, there's no way in hell is Bernie getting the nomination.

Stacksofwacks

I'm sick and tired of people in the American media making out Bernie Sanders to be some kind of dangerous radical, yes his policies are somewhat to the left but he's made out to be far radical than he actually is. Another that he's an ideologue, a politician with actual policies..the horror!! I couldn't name off the top of my head any of Joe Biden's policies or what he actually stands for.

But anyway, the scaremongering appears to be working and Biden's big win in South Carolina is bound to give him some momentum going into super Tuesday. I think Bernie will still end up with the most delegates but if he heads into the convention without a majority and Bloomberg or Biden on his coattails then I think he lose on the superdelegates. That would be a great result for Donald Trump.

Stacksofwacks

briany wrote: »

One thing's for sure - if it comes down to the superdelegates, there's no way in hell is Bernie getting the nomination.

Even if there is even a sliver of a chance, they will take the nomination from Bernie. He will need a sizable lead going into the convention. He may still get that but if his nearest challenger is within touching distance the its over for him unfortunately. They are already prepping for this scenario in the media by slandering Sander's supporters as boorish and unruly so that when they take the nomination the outrage from his supporters can be dismissed out of hand.

Bobtheman

Bernie is more extreme than Trump just in the other direction. Both parties need to revamp their primary systems to stop Johnny come latelys
My heart is with Bernie but he needs to moderate or he will bern out !

Water John

Someone mentioned early polling in some Super Tuesday States. Those voters will be immune to the result in SC. Similar to Warren's good debate not having an impact.
There is no equivalence between Trump and Sanders. That's just nonsense.

Joe_ Public

Bobtheman wrote: »

Bernie is more extreme than Trump just in the other direction. Both parties need to revamp their primary systems to stop Johnny come latelys
My heart is with Bernie but he needs to moderate or he will bern out !

Bernie is more extreme than trump but yet your heart is still with him. I find that statement difficult to process tbh. I think sanders is quite open to criticism on several levels but the notion that he is some kind of dubious radical extremist is to my mind a product of the gaslighting we saw against labour before the uk election. I've yet to see any hard substance put behind it, unless people think stuff like the castro comment qualifies as extreme. It helps to know where people think the boundaries are.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Biden is obviously going to win South Carolina, but on closer inspection the exit polls don't look as great for him with a view to other states.

From 538:
Sanders won 45 percent of white voters aged 17 to 44 while Biden won only 8 percent, but among black voters, Biden actually edged Sanders 41 percent to 29 percent under 45.

Obviously Biden was always going to do very well with black voters in an older, more conservative southern state given his association with Obama.

But that figure of just 8% of white voters aged 17-44 has to be alarming for him - not just for states with whiter electorates in the primaries, but in terms of his ability to win in November, whereas the black vote would fall heavily for Sanders if he makes it to November.

It should be remembered that in 2016, Hillary Clinton won South Carolina by a margin of 51.42% over Sanders.

Biden's margin of victory tonight is projected to be 24%. It looks Sanders will take second place with around 20%.

Where are you getting the assumption that the black vote would fall heavily in line behind Sanders in November more than the youth vote would fall behind Biden?

I'd argue the opposite is much more likely, as the young white vote will be out to do anything to stop Trump, whereas the broader black vote could be squeezed down, like it was in 2016.

Foxtrol

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I'm sick and tired of people in the American media making out Bernie Sanders to be some kind of dangerous radical, yes his policies are somewhat to the left but he's made out to be far radical than he actually is. Another that he's an ideologue, a politician with actual policies..the horror!! I couldn't name off the top of my head any of Joe Biden's policies or what he actually stands for.

But anyway, the scaremongering appears to be working and Biden's big win in South Carolina is bound to give him some momentum going into super Tuesday. I think Bernie will still end up with the most delegates but if he heads into the convention without a majority and Bloomberg or Biden on his coattails then I think he lose on the superdelegates. That would be a great result for Donald Trump.

I'm sick of people that appear to be uninformed of US society outside of TV and social media making comments on things they don't understand.

Bernie is an ideologue not because he has policies, it is because for decades he has shown that he is incapable of finding common ground and actually move his agendas forward. You're either 100% with him or you're all the same. He believed JFK and Nixon were the same and wanted to primary Obama, which would have hurt him going into 2012. For his decades in politics he has shown little leadership to actually get things done, mostly enjoys shouting from the sidelines.

It isn't incorrect to call his policies radical, many are much further on the left than anything we have in major parties in Ireland. I'll quote my response a few days ago to a similar moan from someone about how Bernie is portrayed by 'clueless people' regarding his healthcare policies

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think that is a quite lazy and ignorant view of the situation.

Most understand and would welcome the concept of it if they could click their fingers and have it tomorrow with the 'savings' now being claimed by Bernie. What most are wary of is the potential for it to be incredibly expensive and the risks of ending up far worse off than they are with their current plans.

What Bernie is promising is moving a country from basically no public healthcare for those of working age to something beyond what even Slaintecare is aiming for, in a country of 65 times the population and one that has to deal with states having their own rules and systems.

Having concerns about such a dramatic shift isn't a sign that they are clueless, if anything it is the opposite. It is made worse by the fact the person that is promising it has repeatedly struggled with how he is going to bring it about.

Michelinextra.

The old fox Biden made a great move

"This is your campaign"

DreamsBurnDown

Foxtrol wrote: »

It isn't incorrect to call his policies radical, many are much further on the left than anything we have in major parties in Ireland. I'll quote my response a few days ago to a similar moan from someone about how Bernie is portrayed by 'clueless people' regarding his healthcare policies

Once they understand that all private health insurance will be eliminated, there is barely a majority of Democratic voters in many states who support Bernie's medicare for all, before factoring in independents who lean Democrat, a vital group for the Democratic candidate to win. A hell of a lot of people like their health care plan, even though they might complain about it's expense.

One of the most misunderstood things about American workers in general is that income taxes are significantly lower than Europe (12% for a married couple up to $78,950 and 22% up to $169,400) which offsets much higher health insurance costs. However, a huge number of people have health insurance plans where their employer pays a significant portion, often well above 50%. These people are very concerned about giving their plans up and trusting the government to replace it with something better (Congress at a 20% approval rating doesn't help).

Biden's plan to expand Obamacare to more low income workers, protect those with pre exisitng conditions, and regulate the insurance companies, is a lot more sensible imo. Especially given that there is extreme skepticism that Bernie could ever get his plan through Congress.

briany

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Once they understand that all private health insurance will be eliminated, there is barely a majority of Democratic voters in many states who support Bernie's medicare for all, before factoring in independents who lean Democrat, a vital group for the Democratic candidate to win. A hell of a lot of people like their health care plan, even though they might complain about it's expense.

One of the most misunderstood things about American workers in general is that income taxes are significantly lower than Europe (12% for a married couple up to $78,950 and 22% up to $169,400) which offsets much higher health insurance costs. However, a huge number of people have health insurance plans where their employer pays a significant portion, often well above 50%. These people are very concerned about giving their plans up and trusting the government to replace it with something better (Congress at a 20% approval rating doesn't help).

Biden's plan to expand Obamacare to more low income workers, protect those with pre exisitng conditions, and regulate the insurance companies, is a lot more sensible imo. Especially given that there is extreme skepticism that Bernie could ever get his plan through Congress.

I don't think the lower taxes thing is misunderstood at all. The question is what you get for your money. If you pay lower taxes, but end up offsetting that gain by paying out the @rse in private insurance, then it raises the question as to whether you're better off.

But even at that, there appears to be this constant rebuttal to Bernie's plans by saying that his plan is going to cost the average tax payer more, but Bernie's tax plans appear to advocate for stronger taxes on the most wealthy, not the middle class.

And another thing he has long been critical of is America's military spending. Is it an extreme position to ask why they have all the money in the world to bomb countries a good deal of its citizens have trouble pronouncing, but always act like they're hard up when it comes to health and education? Such a question has always seemed like a taboo for a mainstream candidate.

Foxtrol

briany wrote: »

I don't think the lower taxes thing is misunderstood at all. The question is what you get for your money. If you pay lower taxes, but end up offsetting that gain by paying out the @rse in private insurance, then it raises the question as to whether you're better off.

But even at that, there appears to be this constant rebuttal to Bernie's plans by saying that his plan is going to cost the average tax payer more, but Bernie's tax plans appear to advocate for stronger taxes on the most wealthy, not the middle class.

And another thing he has long been critical of is America's military spending. Is it an extreme position to ask why they have all the money in the world to bomb countries a good deal of its citizens have trouble pronouncing, but always act like they're hard up when it comes to health and education? Such a question has always seemed like a taboo for a mainstream candidate.

His policy is that everyone above $29k will pay more taxes but for most that amount in increased taxes will be less than how much they currently pay for healthcare. The problem is that there is no guarantee in quality of the service that will be there, which scares people who have good plans currently.

Lowering military intervention isn't taboo at all, it is a pretty common thing for candidates to say. I don't think one democrat is proposing more of it and even Trump was calling for less in 2016 (though more military spending in general). The difference with Bernie is that his sweeping changes would see 'free' college for all and 'free' healthcare for all, which both come with astronomical costs to be taken on by the government and would gut the military if they just tried to shift costs (I'm not sure current military spending would even cover both).

AllForIt

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I'm sick and tired of people in the American media making out Bernie Sanders to be some kind of dangerous radical, yes his policies are somewhat to the left but he's made out to be far radical than he actually is. Another that he's an ideologue, a politician with actual policies..the horror!! I couldn't name off the top of my head any of Joe Biden's policies or what he actually stands for.

But anyway, the scaremongering appears to be working and Biden's big win in South Carolina is bound to give him some momentum going into super Tuesday. I think Bernie will still end up with the most delegates but if he heads into the convention without a majority and Bloomberg or Biden on his coattails then I think he lose on the superdelegates. That would be a great result for Donald Trump.

Hard left socialists are always talking about 'changing society'. My that measure they deserve to be called 'radical'. In recent times the term radical is associated with extreme radicalism but that's not the version of radical that's intended in relation to Bernie's socialism.

I don't share you confidence re your latter comments. Biden's win in SC couldn't be more timely. I just have a hunch Biden will swing it. Frankly Bernie doesn't look 'presidential' but on the other hand Biden does. Americans care about that sort of thing despite the current anomaly in the White house.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUVuRlYeC4g

Hillary Clinton in Germany promoting "Hillary", jump to 9 minutes in for interview.
Still blaming the Russians.

Reporter: Are you going to find out who you are going to endorse?
Hillary Clinton: Oh I'll leave that to the voters, winks and moves on.