Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

US Presidential Election 2020

1…7071737576…306

Comments

  • #2162
    ghost of ireland past
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 228 ✭✭ghost of ireland past


    Water John wrote: »
    Good piece here by Conor Kenny as to why Bernie is precisely the person to take on Trump. Makes his case well.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/bernie-sanders-4997222-Feb2020/


    I'm sorry, I read the article, but where does he make a case for Bernie?


    Rick Wilson explains in depth in his book, Running against the Devil, why Bernie cannot win. Conor Kenny in the link above doesn't address any of those reasons, nor does Conor give any reasons as to why Bernie can win.


    It's the electoral college, stupid.


    (Stupid is not an insult)


  • #2163
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Water John wrote: »
    Good piece here by Conor Kenny as to why Bernie is precisely the person to take on Trump. Makes his case well.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/bernie-sanders-4997222-Feb2020/

    Makes some reasonable points. Seems to me a given that Sanders CAN beat trump but it is going to be a challenge assuming he gets the nomination.

    The comparison with uk labour is complex i think. Yes, brexit was huge but so too were demographics. Labour killed it with the youth vote but that merely helped give them bigger majorities in urban areas while the over 65s murdered them in the swing seats that mattered. Is there a lesson in that for sanders? Not sure. They said in 2016 he wasnt appealing sufficiently to minorities, now the narrative is he's not attracting the white vote in big numbers. Seems to me there's a good balance to be struck there somewhere and the fact Trump is already on the attack isnt a bad sign at all imo.


  • #2164
    ghost of ireland past
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 228 ✭✭ghost of ireland past


    Bernie's policies are not popular in the Electoral College swing states. Therefore, he cannot win, as in order to win you must win the Electoral College, and that means you must win the swing states.

    Simple stuff. Bernie will lose the Electoral College.


    The swing states are less progressive than average. They do not like progressive policies.


  • #2165
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    For a counterpoint, interview with Carville over on Vox.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/7/21123518/trump-2020-election-democratic-party-james-carville

    In addition to commenting about how the race to the left is going to affect overall chances, he makes a point I have made before. If a Sanders does win, and he’s not sure he’s the man to do it, it will be with w Republican Senate majority to keep him in check and prevent him from doing anything.

    The voters may want someone more Presidential than Trump to represent the country, that does not mean that they must accept that person’s policies.


  • #2166
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    ghost of ireland past wrote: »
    Bernie's policies are not popular in the Electoral College swing states. Therefore, he cannot win, as in order to win you must win the Electoral College, and that means you must win the swing states.

    Simple stuff. Bernie will lose the Electoral College.


    The swing states are less progressive than average. They do not like progressive policies.

    Colorado (9):
    Florida (29): Sanders 47% - Trump 47%
    Iowa (6): Sanders 43% - Trump 49%
    Michigan (16): Sanders 55.5% - Trump 43.8%
    Minnesota (10):
    Ohio (18):
    Nevada (6): Sanders 47.7% - Trump 45.7%
    New Hampshire (4): Sanders 50.7% - Trump 45.7%
    North Carolina (15): Sanders 47% - Trump 46%
    Pennsylvania (20): Sanders 48% - Trump 45.7%
    Virginia (13): Sanders 48.5% - Trump 45%
    Wisconsin (10): Sanders 46.7% - Trump 44.7%

    All data taken from RealClearPolitics, who've combined various polls to create some kind of weighted average.

    The delegate share according to those polls as it stands:

    Trump: 6
    Sanders: 84
    Toss Up: 29
    Lack of Data: 37

    Ohio, Minnesota and Colorado don't have averages done, presumably because there aren't enough polls to create one, but in each, Emerson polls have Sanders ahead by 5 or more %.

    RCP has underrated Republican performances in the past, including predicting a narrow win for Clinton in 2016, and we're still a ways out, but with that said, there isn't really anything to back up your claim.


  • Advertisement
  • #2167
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,311 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    I don't disagree with much of the above, but Bernie will find it very hard to win in Florida v Trump. Those Hispanic voters probably won't be to keen on a proud socialist.

    You could see with both Pelosi and Trump flaunting Gauido both camps were playing to Florida. Bernie on the other hand has very similar views to me on that chap and they are not repeatable here.;)


  • #2168
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,579 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    For a counterpoint, interview with Carville over on Vox.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/7/21123518/trump-2020-election-democratic-party-james-carville

    In addition to commenting about how the race to the left is going to affect overall chances, he makes a point I have made before. If a Sanders does win, and he’s not sure he’s the man to do it, it will be with w Republican Senate majority to keep him in check and prevent him from doing anything.

    The voters may want someone more Presidential than Trump to represent the country, that does not mean that they must accept that person’s policies.

    Again, Sanders policies are not far left or unpopular, they're firmly supported by a majority of citizens. Carville has long standing connections to the Clintons and the corporate wing of the Democrats, hardly shocking he'd be against Sanders.

    Your point about the Republicans controlling the Senate is fairly meaningless. It won't matter which Democrat is in the WH, the Republicans will remain as obstinate as ever.


  • #2169
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,578 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    I don't disagree with much of the above, but Bernie will find it very hard to win in Florida v Trump. Those Hispanic voters probably won't be to keen on a proud socialist.

    You could see with both Pelosi and Trump flaunting Gauido both camps were playing to Florida. Bernie on the other hand has very similar views to me on that chap and they are not repeatable here.;)

    I don't think Bernie Sanders is a socialist for wanting to adopt some of what works quite well in every other 1st world country around the world. America has plenty of money in the tresury, but their public has undergone persistent and deliberate brainwashing that it's better to use this money to bomb people in countries they'd have a hard time pronouncing than it is to fund a better standard of living for their own people. And because this military spending is so locked-down and unquestioned, then the conversation around public healthcare is always framed as an additional spend where the middle-class has more money taken out of their paycheck, and they'll be told which doctor to go to (after an 18-month wait) etc.

    Not to mention the 'radical' idea of telling pharmaceutical companies that profiteering on badly needed medicines is grossly immoral and selfish and perhaps making laws to stop that.

    There are a lot of obscenely wealthy people in the USA, it would seem, who contribute almost no value to the economy vs. what they make in a year, and who are probably frightened to death of a Sanders presidency.


  • #2170
    one world order
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 592 ✭✭✭one world order


    When the US economy is going strong and people see Trump signing trade deals that actually benefits America for once, I can't see people turning away from that towards a crazy old communist.


  • #2171
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,311 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    briany wrote: »
    I don't think Bernie Sanders is a socialist for wanting to adopt some of what works quite well in every other 1st world country around the world. America has plenty of money in the tresury, but their public has undergone persistent and deliberate brainwashing that it's better to use this money to bomb people in countries they'd have a hard time pronouncing than it is to fund a better standard of living for their own people. And because this military spending is so locked-down and unquestioned, then the conversation around public healthcare is always framed as an additional spend where the middle-class has more money taken out of their paycheck, and they'll be told which doctor to go to (after an 18-month wait) etc.

    Not to mention the 'radical' idea of telling pharmaceutical companies that profiteering on badly needed medicines is grossly immoral and selfish and perhaps making laws to stop that.

    There are a lot of obscenely wealthy people in the USA, it would seem, who contribute almost no value to the economy vs. what they make in a year, and who are probably frightened to death of a Sanders presidency.

    Dude I've been pimping Bernie this thread a bit. If I was American I'd only vote him Yang or Tulsi (PUTIN@@~~~!),,the rest? eh v Trump yeah but not in a Democrat primary.

    I just think Florida could be really hard for him with the demographics.


  • Advertisement
  • #2172
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 986 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    ghost of ireland past wrote: »
    Bernie's policies are not popular in the Electoral College swing states. Therefore, he cannot win, as in order to win you must win the Electoral College, and that means you must win the swing states.

    Simple stuff. Bernie will lose the Electoral College.


    The swing states are less progressive than average. They do not like progressive policies.

    I'd have my own concerns about Sanders but the question isn't really how the swing states perceive progressive policies. It's more how they view his progressive policies in contrast with Trump's corrupt crypto-fascism. There's all this focus on the Dem side of the equation as if it's taken as a given what Trump has to offer is popular.


  • #2173
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Again, Sanders policies are not far left or unpopular, they're firmly supported by a majority of citizens. Carville has long standing connections to the Clintons and the corporate wing of the Democrats, hardly shocking he'd be against Sanders.

    Carville's point is it doesn't matter if it's supported by a majority of the citizens. Is it supported by a majority of the citizens who are the most influential in the election? Support of 1,000,000 in California is far less important than support of 100,000 in Ohio when it comes to the Presidential election.
    Your point about the Republicans controlling the Senate is fairly meaningless. It won't matter which Democrat is in the WH, the Republicans will remain as obstinate as ever.

    They will indeed. But if there are fewer of 50 of them, then their obstinacy becomes far less of an issue for a Democrat president.As Carville observes, that 50 mark is elected upon by less than 20% of the population, and a good proportion of that isn't going to budge. There is a narrow band to play with, and you want to avoid turning them off as much as possible. Whether he supports Sanders or not, his raw argument of the truth on the ground is not wrong.

    In other words, the Democrat candidate needs to do two things in order to be effective.
    1) Convince enough people in the right places to vote for him/her instead of for Trump, that he is better suited for the Oval Office and would make a better President. That shouldn't be too unGodly hard (Despite apparently the Democrats best efforts to scupper themselves)
    2) The difficult bit: Convince enough people in the right places to vote for Senators who will allow that candidate to sign new legislation and actions to enable that person's policies.

    It is not mutually exclusive that a moderate voter (and I mean by US standards, I don't care who's a moderate or socialist by European standards: Europeans aren't running or voting) can both conclude that Bernie is a better person to be President, and at the same time, disapprove of the policies he wishes to enact. I firmly believe this was a large factor to blame for the significant Republican Congressional successes in 2016, when everyone seemed confident that Clinton would win.

    The Democratic candidate not only must win, but must also convince the voters of Alabama, Maine, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina to vote for the D Senatorial candidates who will support him/her to enact his/her stated policies (And appoint his/her judges). Otherwise, "Fantastic, the White House has a Democrat. Now what?"


  • #2174
    FreeThePants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭FreeThePants


    Apparently Bidens campaign has dropped SEVENTEEN points in the last two weeks, which is nothing short of astounding. On top of that, it looks like he might well be falling behind Amy Klobuchar (who occupies a similar space to Joe and Pete, or is closer to them ideologically than Warren or Sanders).

    I'm going to call it now - barring some epic twist of events, Bidens campaigns completely finished unless he wins NH or finishes a very close second, neither of which will be happening.


  • #2175
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Now that possible corruption in Ukraine is no longer relevant after Biden’s poor showing in Iowa, has attention been turned to possible corruption in South Bend, Indiana?

    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1226540472539238408

    In other news, latest poll

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/joe-biden-national-poll-113302

    Sanders 25 (+4)
    Biden 17 (-9)
    Bloomberg 15 (+7)
    Warren 14 (-1)
    Buttigieg 10 (+4)
    Klobuchar 4 (-3)


  • #2176
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,579 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Carville's point is it doesn't matter if it's supported by a majority of the citizens. Is it supported by a majority of the citizens who are the most influential in the election? Support of 1,000,000 in California is far less important than support of 100,000 in Ohio when it comes to the Presidential election.



    They will indeed. But if there are fewer of 50 of them, then their obstinacy becomes far less of an issue for a Democrat president.As Carville observes, that 50 mark is elected upon by less than 20% of the population, and a good proportion of that isn't going to budge. There is a narrow band to play with, and you want to avoid turning them off as much as possible. Whether he supports Sanders or not, his raw argument of the truth on the ground is not wrong.

    In other words, the Democrat candidate needs to do two things in order to be effective.
    1) Convince enough people in the right places to vote for him/her instead of for Trump, that he is better suited for the Oval Office and would make a better President. That shouldn't be too unGodly hard (Despite apparently the Democrats best efforts to scupper themselves)
    2) The difficult bit: Convince enough people in the right places to vote for Senators who will allow that candidate to sign new legislation and actions to enable that person's policies.

    It is not mutually exclusive that a moderate voter (and I mean by US standards, I don't care who's a moderate or socialist by European standards: Europeans aren't running or voting) can both conclude that Bernie is a better person to be President, and at the same time, disapprove of the policies he wishes to enact. I firmly believe this was a large factor to blame for the significant Republican Congressional successes in 2016, when everyone seemed confident that Clinton would win.

    The Democratic candidate not only must win, but must also convince the voters of Alabama, Maine, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina to vote for the D Senatorial candidates who will support him/her to enact his/her stated policies (And appoint his/her judges). Otherwise, "Fantastic, the White House has a Democrat. Now what?"

    It's not a Presidential Candidate's role in an election year to convince local voters in Senatorial races. Those will be predicated on their own merits. If we were talking about the midterm elections in 2 years, that might be a different story, as you know, those elections tend to go against the incumbent administration.

    Sanders policy ideas are directly aimed at appealing to the voters in Rust Belt states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin. Workers rights, healthcare, education. Those thoroughly working class issues, and have been shown repeatedly to have wide support across the electorate. I really struggle as to why you feel they wouldn't carry well, particularly in those swing states that Trump so narrowly won last time out.

    An interesting read here re: Carville. I agree with many of the points it makes, pointing to how outdated his, and the Corporate wing of the Democrats philosophy is.


  • #2177
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    marno21 wrote: »
    Now that possible corruption in Ukraine is no longer relevant after Biden’s poor showing in Iowa, has attention been turned to possible corruption in South Bend, Indiana?

    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1226540472539238408

    In other news, latest poll

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/joe-biden-national-poll-113302

    Sanders 25 (+4)
    Biden 17 (-9)
    Bloomberg 15 (+7)
    Warren 14 (-1)
    Buttigieg 10 (+4)
    Klobuchar 4 (-3)
    a person at an airport omigod


  • #2178
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,496 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The 4 prosecutors resigning on the Stone case, is the news of the day, really sad for the institutions of a great democracy.


  • #2179
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Water John wrote: »
    The 4 prosecutors resigning on the Stone case, is the news of the day, really sad for the institutions of a great democracy.

    Dunno. My news of the day is that Stone has a picture of Nixon tattooed on his back.


  • #2180
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,610 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Amy Klobuchars campaign from what CNN are saying are bullish about the states coming up. It sounds like it's good news and they want to finish in the top four but it seems she may do far better than that.


  • #2181
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,496 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The early figures for Klobuchar look good. Certainly in the top 3 with Sanders and Buttigeig. Warren showing poorly.
    Klobuchar would be my centerist favourite. More radical, no problem with Sanders or Warren.
    Klobuchar has a likeability factor. Seems to have done very well in the recent debates.


  • Advertisement
  • #2182
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,454 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Dunno. My news of the day is that Stone has a picture of Nixon tattooed on his back.

    Ok, but whereas one of those things is actually news the other is olds :)

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #2183
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,454 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Amy Klobuchars campaign from what CNN are saying are bullish about the states coming up. It sounds like it's good news and they want to finish in the top four but it seems she may do far better than that.

    I think she would be a decent shot v Trump in a general but not sure how she gets the nomination

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • #2184
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    StringerBell wrote: »
    Ok, but whereas one of those things is actually news the other is olds :)

    Not for me. Perspective is everything.


  • #2185
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,311 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Yang out which is a shame, was more interesting than majority of the 276 establishment careerist centerists on stage.

    I'd hope he does not drop out of politics,maybe run at a local level and test his schemes.

    The media can hype Amy and Pete as much as they want, but with the more diverse states coming on the horizon and there numbers with non white voters so poor they are pretty ****ed.

    Warren's campaign has imploded, shame last year she seemed a very alluring choice, but last few months, muddled messages and stupidly calling Bernie sexist.

    Biden's on life support, his numbers with black voters which have dwindled but still looks ok.

    Bernie however looks formidable, excited base, superb fund raising and smashing it with so many demographics he is the obvious front runner.


  • #2186
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I wonder when we'll see further drop-outs, though can't recall if that's typical with the actual campaign proper. March 3 is the so-called "Super Tuesday", when there are 15 (plus ex-pats) primaries at once, so I'm wondering whether campaigns might call a halt, being more or less confirmed dead by then. Still quite surprised by Warren's implosion of support, while Biden's campaign will be desperate to get on the board sooner rather than later.


  • #2187
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,047 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Was speaking with one of my old team-mates in the US about how things have been going so far.

    She is a registered republican, and she is amazed with how the Dems primaries are going so far because Bernie is 100% a Communist.

    When I explained that he would be pretty centrist in a European country in terms of policy & that the Dems would really be a centre-right party, she couldn't grasp it whatsoever. Was completely shocked at the idea that someone could be further left than Bernie.

    I know that its anecdotal stuff, but basically, to me, all it means is that if Bernie ends up as the candidate, it'll be pure communist, reds under the beds stuff from Trump & the Reps, and the sad thing is that a large proportion of the American public will lap that up.


  • #2188
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    Was speaking with one of my old team-mates in the US about how things have been going so far.

    She is a registered republican, and she is amazed with how the Dems primaries are going so far because Bernie is 100% a Communist.

    When I explained that he would be pretty centrist in a European country in terms of policy & that the Dems would really be a centre-right party, she couldn't grasp it whatsoever. Was completely shocked at the idea that someone could be further left than Bernie.

    I know that its anecdotal stuff, but basically, to me, all it means is that if Bernie ends up as the candidate, it'll be pure communist, reds under the beds stuff from Trump & the Reps, and the sad thing is that a large proportion of the American public will lap that up.

    The question is, will the ones who lap it up be already fully signed up to the cult of Trump, and will it actually matter?


  • #2189
    rossie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,492 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    A Jewish communist, that would be a first.

    As for when you might see big dropouts Super Tuesday on March 3rd. If candidates are not polling well (in top 3) after that I can see them dropping out.


  • #2190
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,629 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    With Biden's implosion and the galloping rise of Bloomberg it wouldn't surprise me to see Biden pull out and get behind Bloomberg. I think the conservative wing of the party would be thinking that way.
    This would potentially leave two Jewish men at the front of the race. There has never been a Jewish POTUS.


  • Advertisement
  • #2191
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,496 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Dems candidates down to 8 already. Would expect 2 more to drop out soon.
    Left with Sanders, Buttigeig, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Warren, Biden,

    Of those Warren would need to turn it around quick. Biden needs to score big in Nevada, and South Carolina. If the coloured vote starts leaving him, he's gone.
    Dems are looking firstly, for a winner. Possibly down to four by the middle of March.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement