Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

Options
1…94959799100…306

Comments

  • Options
    #2882
    briany
    Registered Users Posts: 13,614 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Deleted User wrote: »
    As Biden gets more airtime and exposure he'll bleed support. He struggles to string a sentence together. Yes, yes, I know, can say the same about Trump, but he gets a pass for some reason.

    No, as other candidates drop out, it'll be really only be Biden and Sanders on the debate stage. Biden won't be getting hit from all sides by the likes of Harris, Warren and Yang. It makes it easier for him to prep and easier to find the words of rebuttal.

    Outside of debates, he can be more carefully stage-managed.


  • Options
    #2883
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    Biden needs to pick a progressive running mate, preferably a woman and preferably of an ethnic minority. There is talk that Trump might ditch Pence and go with Haley and if he does so he'll be a more difficult proposition to beat.

    AOC would be great be she's not eligible. Stacey Abrams and Catherine Cortez Masto are possibilities, but Kamala Harris is probably likeliest, and she's not really a progressive.

    Turnout was very good last night but Democrats cannot rely on running against Trump to drive turnout. They have to build bridges with the progressive wing of the party and they have to give young people a real reason to turn out in November. They can't just rely on the Hillary Clinton playbook of being "Not Trump".


  • Options
    #2884
    2ndcoming
    Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭2ndcoming


    So Biden wins a bunch of Southern states that the democrats have zero chance of winning, which then scuppers the candidate far more likely than him to win the swing states they're going to need in November if they want to beat Trump. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.


  • Options
    #2885
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    Gbear wrote: »

    I'm certainly concerned about the energy and bringing out turnout, especially among the youth vote (for whatever that counts for), but I don't think it's anything like the disaster that a, for example, Bloomburg, or Gabbard candidacy would be.
    To round out his candidacy with someone like Stace Abrams, or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, would, I think, broaden his appeal sufficiently.

    Ultimately, a lot of things went wrong for Clinton, and were poorly executed, and beyond her general unfavourability and the years of attacks she experienced, she had a poor ground game in the Rust Belt, she lacked the sort of relatability of Biden, and she had both coordinated (Manafort and Russia) and uncoordinated (Comey) misinformation campaigns directed against her.

    I agree on Abrams. Warren has burned a lot of bridges lately.

    I suspect and fear that Gabbard may run interference as a third party candidate. I've long suspected she is dodgy as hell, she has a massive ego, is an attention seeker and she'd only love to hand the election to Trump. Either way she is going to be a toxic influence between now and November.

    Biden will face the sort of sustained smear campaign Clinton faced, have no doubt about it. The Burisma conspiracy theory will be ramped up to 11, expect to hear Anita Hill mentioned at every opportunity, and he will be portrayed as a liar to the African American community, which let's face it, he is.

    What I think the Democrats will get right this time is their use of surrogates. Obama will be used to campaign for Biden almost as much as if he himself is running.


  • Options
    #2886
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Gbear wrote: »
    [...]

    I'm certainly concerned about the energy and bringing out turnout, especially among the youth vote (for whatever that counts for), but I don't think it's anything like the disaster that a, for example, Bloomburg, or Gabbard candidacy would be.
    To round out his candidacy with someone like Stace Abrams, or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, would, I think, broaden his appeal sufficiently.

    Yes, I've long been fasincated by the VP pick, because that could have a big impact on the votes Biden/ Sanders bring to the fold - be they lapsed Democrats or those feeling ideologically spurned by the eventual winner. Among the many flaws of Clinton's campaign, her picking the non-entity of Tim Kaine (I had to google him him just to recall) was a particularly egregious example of not knowing her flaws. She needed an outsized personality to counter her flat, uncharismatic demeanour. Obama's was a good example: he the good cop, reasonable and accommodating, while Biden acted as the bad cop, confrontational & most seen during the VP debate when he happily chewed up Paul Ryan IIRC.

    And then there's the uncomfortable reality of age; no two ways about it, Biden and Sanders are old, and who they pick as VP may inherit the throne by dint of circumstance (though I daresay the WH doctors have access to treatments we don't even know exist. As conspiratorial as that may sound). Who Biden or Sanders pick as their running mate may become a topic in of itself, effectively being "do you want X to become president by default". President Stacey Abrams would be ... interesting (though why she keeps coming up as a VP pick, I don't quite understand).

    If Biden wins, and he doesn't pick the right VP candidate, I honestly think that could sink his ability to bring the spurned Sanders votes onboard.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2887
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,343 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    2ndcoming wrote: »
    So Biden wins a bunch of Southern states that the democrats have zero chance of winning, which then scuppers the candidate far more likely than him to win the swing states they're going to need in November if they want to beat Trump. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Biden won North Carolina comfortably which Obama won in 2008 in general election. He won Minnesota which Clinton lost in 16 primary and just about held onto vs Trump. He won Maine which Clinton didn't win in 16 primary and ended up losing one electoral college vote vs Trump. Easily won Virginia which Trump team were looking at as possible gain in November.

    Biden is going to be alot stronger in Florida vs Trump than Sanders would. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania he would likely be just as strong as Sanders vs Trump.


  • Options
    #2888
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Trump is going to tear Biden to shreds in the debates. Regardless of his politics he is clearly on a downward spiral cognitively, plus he has all of the establishment baggage of Clinton. He may actually be a worse candidate.


  • Options
    #2889
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,249 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    droidus wrote: »
    Trump is going to tear Biden to shreds in the debates. Regardless of his politics he is clearly on a downward spiral cognitively, plus he has all of the establishment baggage of Clinton. He may actually be a worse candidate.

    Jesus - I wish I was as certain of the future as some of the folk are on here.

    Firstly, it is likely that there will be no debates. Word from Trump's camp is that he isn't bothered.

    Secondly, you cannot say Biden candidate is on a downward spiral cognitively without acknowledging some of the daily howlers from Trump.

    Establishment baggage? He has 8 year's VP experience.

    What about Trump's 4 years of empty promises? How's that wall coming along? Is the swamp drained? Is Hillary locked up yet?


  • Options
    #2890
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Yeah, Trump is a steaming pile of lying senile dogs**t, so what?

    Biden has all of the weaknesses of Hillary, and almost none of her strengths. Ukraine will be the new emails, Biden will flounder badly and the result will probably be the same, if not worse for the dems.


  • Options
    #2891
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,249 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    droidus wrote: »
    Yeah, Trump is a steaming pile of lying senile dogs**t, so what?

    Biden has all of the weaknesses of Hillary, and almost none of her strengths. Ukraine will be the new emails, Biden will flounder badly and the result will probably be the same, if not worse for the dems.

    so.. logically anyone is better than a steaming pile of lying senile dogs**t??

    It's not that hard, really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2892
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    lol, since when did 'logic' have anything to do with US politics?


  • Options
    #2893
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Gbear wrote: »
    I'm honestly not sure that Biden deserves the Black vote solely by virtue of having been there with Obama, but he has it and that's that.

    You're not seeing the big picture if you think their support for Biden is solely because of Obama.

    Biden has campaigned for decades with black democrats in the south and fought with them to make tangible improvements in the lives of people. He is a known commodity and people voters trust have sided with Joe.

    Contrast that with Bernie who rarely (if ever) led any legislative drives to improve their situation and spends his time on the campaign trail calling the people they trust pawns of big corporations.


  • Options
    #2894
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Well, sortof.

    Virginia is an Open Primary state. Any voter can vote in any Primary. There was no Republican primary in Virginia this year.

    In 2016, 1.8million Virginians voted in the primary, this year the figure is about 1.4 million.

    In 2008, just under a million voted in the Democrat primary, just under a half-million in the Republican primary. So overall State turnout in 2016 is lower than in 2008. The Democrat figure is higher, but this is easily explained by there not being any competition for the voter's attention. Bear in mind, the fact that it's an open primary also means that registered Republicans can vote in the Democratic Primary for whoever they would like to face off against Trump in the hope of getting someone beatable. It's known as "Raiding".

    That seems like wishful thinking. Parties have trouble getting their own voters out for primaries and you're telling me that 700k republicans bothered to go to the polls and stand in line to 'raid' this election and while 'raiding' chose the candidate that Trump is clearly is more afraid of.


  • Options
    #2895
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    To an extent I agree with that as that absurd debate about Castro which he could not put to bed proved. However he simply was never going to be accepted by the Dem mainstream no matter if he had pivoted to the centre somewhat.

    Its loathsome what the Dems done, but credit where its due they were able to get Pete and Amy to step down on the eve which was a masterstroke while Warren ran interference for them.

    The Republicans in 2016 were not able to do the same with Trump as nobody in the party likes Cruz unlike Biden who is well liked and they don't have an Obama type figurehead who is popular across the board.

    Trump also to be fair won voters the pundits did not expect him to win,and from what I see so far I dunno if Bernie has really expanded his base from 2016 that much.

    He might not have been accepted into the mainstream but a small pivot rather than doubling down might have kept Clyburn from endorsing Biden and Biden doesn't have a big win in SC and Amy, Pete, and Beto don't throw their support behind Biden.

    I don't see what is 'loathsome' about moderate democrats being smart and moving behind a candidate that aligns to their views and has the best shot to win the nomination and they believe to win the general.

    I doubt anyone would call Warren or the far left of the democratic party loathsome if Warren did the same for Bernie.


  • Options
    #2896
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    everlast75 wrote: »
    How's that wall coming along?

    Speaking of which, 19 states are suing the Trump admin for diverting funding to the wall building project:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/03/states-sue-trump-administration-border-wall-119806


  • Options
    #2897
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Wow. Joe Biden. How utterly uninspiring. Boring and the definition of establishment.

    Over 300 million people in the US and this is the best they can give us? As long as the economy continues to be very strong in the U.S then I see Trump having a great chance of another 4 years.


  • Options
    #2898
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,280 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    That seems like wishful thinking. Parties have trouble getting their own voters out for primaries and you're telling me that 700k republicans bothered to go to the polls and stand in line to 'raid' this election and while 'raiding' chose the candidate that Trump is clearly is more afraid of.

    Republicans and independents (Note, Virgnia does not register by party, there is no way of definitely knowing how many of what party are in the State). Bear in mind that about a half million folks who voted last time around did not vote this time (and overall turnout is about 30%), and not all those who voted in the Republican primary last time and the Democrat this time will be malicious raiders. Some will be independents, and some will be the sort of person who just consider it their civic duty to vote every chance they get, and if the other party is the only choice, so be it. If you factor this in, let’s say you use the nationwide average of 28% of voters identifying as Republicans, and presume an independent is more likely to vote in the Democrat primary than a Republican, you have to conclude that the number of malicious raiders is fairly small.


  • Options
    #2899
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,231 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Warren was the ablest performer in the Dems race. If she had balls, literally, she would be unstoppable now. Whoever is the candidate should find a key role for her. One would suspect Biden would pick Harris or possibly Klobuchar for VP.


  • Options
    #2900
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Water John wrote: »
    Warren was the ablest performer in the Dems race. If she had balls, literally, she would be unstoppable now. Whoever is the candidate should find a key role for her. One would suspect Biden would pick Harris or possibly Klobuchar for VP.

    Warren is too old to be VP for either Bernie or Biden.

    I think that all 3 should form some sort of role in any administration as a way to shore up wavering support in the general. If it's let it be known that say, Bernie will end up in Biden's cabinet then that may sate his supporters somewhat.

    Essentially what happened with Obama and Clinton.


  • Options
    #2901
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,249 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Warren is too old to be VP for either Bernie or Biden.

    I think that all 3 should form some sort of role in any administration as a way to shore up wavering support in the general. If it's let it be known that say, Bernie will end up in Biden's cabinet then that may sate his supporters somewhat.

    Essentially what happened with Obama and Clinton.

    I agree.

    I also thought that if Biden says that he is running with Harris for A.G., Mayor Pete for Minister for the Interior, Warren for Sec of State etc etc and name the all star team in advance of the election, with Obama on the trail too, I think it will be a stronger chance of beating Trump.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2902
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,249 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/axios/status/1235220074061090816?s=19

    Bloomberg out.


  • Options
    #2903
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    everlast75 wrote: »
    I agree.

    I also thought that if Biden says that he is running with Harris for A.G., Mayor Pete for Minister for the Interior, Warren for Sec of State etc etc and name the all star team in advance of the election, with Obama on the trail too, I think it will be a stronger chance of beating Trump.

    Absolutely.


  • Options
    #2904
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    everlast75 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/axios/status/1235220074061090816?s=19

    Bloomberg out.

    I know there has been talk about some tactical purpose to Bloomberg's run during its brief, anti-climactic lifespan, but I've never quite seen it and just struck as a deeply cynical, vainglorious move by someone with more money than sense. To have then taken the stage looking unprepared and out his depth just confirmed it for me. Howard Schultz, with just a little less self-awareness. Good riddance to a sideshow.


  • Options
    #2905
    Englo
    Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Englo


    Water John wrote: »
    Warren was the ablest performer in the Dems race. If she had balls, literally, she would be unstoppable now. Whoever is the candidate should find a key role for her. One would suspect Biden would pick Harris or possibly Klobuchar for VP.
    If I am correct, Bloomberg beat her soundly last night.

    I far preferred Bernie and have serious concerns over Thursday Joe's campaigning ability in the likes of the rust belt, but both are highly experienced politicians with a long history to go from. Warren is newer to politics directly, but has proven remarkably capable and effective, and had the best laid out plans of any candidate by a mile.

    Bloomberg beating Warren so soundly was the most damning indictment of the American voting public since 2016. Its not that surprising, but is absolutely no less disappointing.


  • Options
    #2906
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,879 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    I think what you seen yesterday was fear voting. People who have a decent life and health plan went out to vote against Bernie because they are afraid of his policies. The age profile of voters suggests that too.


  • Options
    #2907
    Englo
    Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Englo


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I think what you seen yesterday was fear voting. People who have a decent life and health plan went out to vote against Bernie because they are afraid of his policies. The age profile of voters suggests that too.

    Which is fine, people are entitled to their own concerns founded or otherwise. But how these people went to Bloomberg over Biden is just nothing short of amazing (though, again, expected).


  • Options
    #2908
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    everlast75 wrote: »
    I agree.

    I also thought that if Biden says that he is running with Harris for A.G., Mayor Pete for Minister for the Interior, Warren for Sec of State etc etc and name the all star team in advance of the election, with Obama on the trail too, I think it will be a stronger chance of beating Trump.
    I was thinking of that - Sanders and Biden come up with some handshake agreement to give each other strong cabinet positions whatever way the primaries go.

    This could backfire though. Biden could present his "all-star" team in advance of the election, and while one would hope it would bring the democratic voters together, it could also be spun as a stitch-up. As the DNC basically not giving the voters any power - "All of the candidates you rejected are going to get a seat in the government anyway! The democrats don't believe in democracy!"

    A strong pick for VP like Harris would go down well, but I'd leave it at that. Agree with Sanders privately to appoint him to a strong cabinet position (Labour or Education) in exchange for his support through the rest of the campaign.


  • Options
    #2909
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Warren is too old to be VP for either Bernie or Biden.

    I think that all 3 should form some sort of role in any administration as a way to shore up wavering support in the general. If it's let it be known that say, Bernie will end up in Biden's cabinet then that may sate his supporters somewhat.

    Essentially what happened with Obama and Clinton.

    There was really no hint though during the election campaign in 2008 that Obama was going to give Clinton a cabinet position. My recollection is that the announcement when it came in, I guess December or January after he won, was widely perceived as a big surprise.

    You get one shot at an olive branch to other wings of a party during your campaign and that's the VP nomination.

    Obama used that very effectively. Al Gore used it terribly.


  • Options
    #2910
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,039 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Water John wrote: »
    Warren was the ablest performer in the Dems race. If she had balls, literally, she would be unstoppable now. Whoever is the candidate should find a key role for her. One would suspect Biden would pick Harris or possibly Klobuchar for VP.

    She got plenty of favorable media coverage, its on her that she failed.

    Kloub as VP for Biden would make sense for the rust belt, Warren as VP ? The white liberal New York Times journos would be sown up but as her abysmal results have shown not sure she really has that much appeal outside that niche market.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2911
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,925 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    sid waddell wrote: »
    There was really no hint though during the election campaign in 2008 that Obama was going to give Clinton a cabinet position. My recollection is that the announcement when it came in, I guess December or January after he won, was widely perceived as a big surprise.

    You get one shot at an olive branch to other wings of a party during your campaign and that's the VP nomination.

    Obama used that very effectively. Al Gore used it terribly.

    It's funny you say that. After I posted this earlier, I was thinking to myself as to when it actually happened. I genuinely don't remember it happening any earlier than you suggest. But there is a lingering (maybe false?) memory of the concession of some sort of cabinet position being mentioned for HRC during the late stages of the campaign. Forgive my momentary lapse either way.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement