US Presidential Election 2020

peddlelies · 12-09-2019 11:12pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Polls weren't. The average of polls had Clinton winning nationally by 3.2 point and she won by 2.1.

There was a handful of state polls off like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Some were close to being accurate, many were way off. Sure you can argue about state polls, but it's semantics. Claiming a 90% chance is about as close to saying the election was already decided.

https://twitter.com/huffpost/status/795663593689808896

is_that_so · 13-09-2019 9:06am

Biden seems to have survived that, his least flattering platform. There will be a minimum of 11 in it next month. Wonder how long people will continue watching possible candidates go over the same ground endlessly.

is_that_so · 13-09-2019 9:10am

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

All Yang (6th fav for POTUS) needs to do is deliver his USP, perhaps by wearing a t-shirt with 'vote for me, and get yourself $1,000 for free every month'. Job done.

If Biden & Warren get into a load of nasty spats, it will help all the underdogs even more.

Biden will be hoping his eyeball won't fill up with blood (as per a recent CNN live TV debate), it's really not a good look and might get the CT's tweeting that he's shapeshifting or something.

Biden and Warren come from the school of sparring but not abusing opponents. She's a good debater and he's limited. Both are also well capable of doing deals. The underdogs are where they are for a reason, they are not real options.

SJW Lover · 13-09-2019 12:56pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Clinton won nationally by 3 million votes and majority of polls were predicting national vote not state by state

Clinton's poll numbers dropped dramatically after the comey e-mail stuff. This ABC poll has Trump winning nationally a week or so out https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-leads-clinton-point-poll-enthusiasm-declines/story?id=43199459

Ibd had him winning a few days out
https://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-2-point-lead-over-clinton-as-election-day-arrives-final-ibd-tipp-poll-results/

Sorry. I meant winning the election. Which she didnt. The Electoral College has been there for a long long time. Disregarding it should only lead to confusion for you. Like, why is Trump currently living in the White House?

RickBlaine · 13-09-2019 1:32pm

A lot of the headlines of post-debate coverage and analysis tend to focus on the various quips and zingers that the candidates may have said during the debate. I saw this user comment on The New York Times website which is spot-on:

As a Democrat, I want a candidate who is intelligent, considerate, and capable. One who takes the time to reflect on data, advice, and inputs when making decisions.
The ability to belt out bar room level one-liners like poor comedians at Open Mike Night and to win quibbles with quips doesn't interest me at all.

pixelburp · 13-09-2019 1:39pm

RickBlaine wrote: »

A lot of the headlines of post-debate coverage and analysis tend to focus on the various quips and zingers that the candidates may have said during the debate. I saw this user comment on The New York Times website which is spot-on:

And that's all very well, but when there are 9 other candidates vying for attention, now IMO is not the time for detail. You simply won't get the time to debate it, apart from anything else. Whether one likes it or not, modern US politics has gone viral and into the social media circle, so the only way to create traction at this juncture, IS with a zinger or comeback. Once the field narrows to 3, 4 candidates, then you'd hope to see more substantive debating.

To be fair to her, Warren has been one candidate who can legitimately claim to be detail oriented from the get-go.

Fan of Netflix · 13-09-2019 1:40pm

Trump will be laughing if last nights anything to go by. He will make mince meat of them.

Brian? · 13-09-2019 1:44pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Trump will be laughing if last nights anything to go by. He will make mince meat of them.

He’s a horrifically poor debater and orator. He lies and throws insults. If you think that’s winning a debate, then yeah he’ll do great.

everlast75 · 13-09-2019 1:51pm

Brian? wrote: »

He’s a horrifically poor debater and orator. He lies and throws insults. If you think that’s winning a debate, then yeah he’ll do great.

there are a number of factors in play that were not in play in 2016

1) He's not the same mentally as he was back then - and that's saying something
2) He cannot campaign on "I'll shake Washington up - drain the swamp etc". He will have had close to four years and nothing to show for it
3) not only has he not delivered, he has also had multiple scandals, declared an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony, had his charity shut down, his family exposed as tax frauds, multiple allegations of obstruction of justice, failed economic policies, the list is quite extensive
4) It won't be Hillary on the ticket for the Dems.
5) Hopefully, something will have been done about the systemic interference in the election by the Russians at that stage

I get it - the Dems need to be cautious - but if done right, Trump will be rightfully obliterated in the election and frankly, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Fan of Netflix · 13-09-2019 1:53pm

Brian? wrote: »

He’s a horrifically poor debater and orator. He lies and throws insults. If you think that’s winning a debate, then yeah he’ll do great.

Nonsense really he destroyed the Republicans and Hilary in the debates. And it doesn't matter what I think. Americans think it.

pixelburp · 13-09-2019 1:59pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Nonsense really he destroyed the Republicans and Hilary in the debates. And it doesn't matter what I think. Americans think it.

He was the hurler on the ditch in 2016, anything he said that upset the establishment played a blinder. He literally promised to open an investigation on 'crooked Hillary', repeal Healthcare and build a wall along the Mexican border. Apart from the fact none of these things happened, he can no longer claim to have all the answers from the outside.

Insofar as a billionaire real estate mogul from NY can claim otherwise, he is now The Establishment and the swamp he claimed he would drain. He will be playing a defensive game in the debates, that's undeniable.

vetinari · 13-09-2019 2:46pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Nonsense really he destroyed the Republicans and Hilary in the debates. And it doesn't matter what I think. Americans think it.

Christ, there's a new Trump troll every week it seems.
Hillary Clinton was widely acknowledged as winning all the presidential debates, not that it mattered.

The debates ultimately have little bearing on the presidential race.

They have a big bearing on the nomination race as they give candidates exposure.

I'm concerned about some of the Trump level standards being set for Biden.
He did okay at times but saw afterwards that most pundits were praising his performance. He still had several rambling answers that were similar to the nonsense Trump comes out with at times.

Seth Brundle · 13-09-2019 3:00pm

Mod note: below standard posts deleted

Brian? · 13-09-2019 3:41pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Nonsense really he destroyed the Republicans and Hilary in the debates. And it doesn't matter what I think. Americans think it.

He was awful at every debate. Stupid one liners and insults. Hilary absolutely mauled him at the 2nd debate and no one cared, she was too hated by too many people.

eagle eye · 14-09-2019 10:43am

Brian? wrote:

He was awful at every debate. Stupid one liners and insults. Hilary absolutely mauled him at the 2nd debate and no one cared, she was too hated by too many people.

I said way back in 2014 that Clinton becomes more unlikeable the more exposure she gets.
Looking at this field, Biden is liked because he was seen as a gentleman when VP, Warren is intelligent but lacks charisma, Sanders is liked because he comes across as honest. Nobody else is getting the nomination.
Trump will beat any of these. I said early on that they needed a younger male candidate who has a bit of charisma.
There are huge problems in the democratic party now, it's split between left leaning and those just right of centre. They need to get their act together.
Biden is an old man and acts like he nearly needs an arm to help him around. Warren just doesn't have charisma, smart people will vote for her but that won't get you elected. Sanders is an old man too and he keeps talking about socialism which won't get you elected. It's ingrained into many Americans that socialism is communism and that it's all bad because that's what you had in evil Russia, China and Cuba.
Only hope is that Beto O'Rourke makes a remarkable recovery and gets the nomination. He would beat Trump easily. Trump will have his way with Biden or Sanders. Warren would put up a fight but Trump as incumbent will not lose to her because she doesn't have the charisma to get enough people to the polls imo. Only hope for her is that enough people hate Trump enough to come out and vote for an alternative.

Manic Moran · 15-09-2019 6:48am

So only one person seems to be crossing my Facebook feed after the debate, and that is Beto.

Not necessarily positively, either. Then again, Churchill said that the only thing worse than being talked about badly is not being talked about at all.

peddlelies · 15-09-2019 4:41pm

Beto will say anything for attention usually with expletives, biggest fake by far from the Dem contenders. I'm content that the majority of voters see through his spiel, he's akin to Avenatti in many ways, without the lawsuits.

Rjd2 · 15-09-2019 9:18pm

The people running need to man the **** up if they want to win.

Castro said nothing wrong to Biden and Biden's mental health and memory are issues that need to be addressed. Biden has plenty of apologists in the media saying that sort of questioning is vulgar etc, but that is bollocks.

Biden is 77 and will be 81 in 2024 and has been worrying in the public area since he started campaigning.

However who has got the balls to press him on this?

Its got to be another front runner and ideally Warren or Bernie, if they somehow fall for the Biden PR that such questioning is crude then Biden will get the nomination and we may have to endure Biden v Trump debates. Christ.

pixelburp · 15-09-2019 9:41pm

TBH, I believe Castro's side of things. I don't think he was having a pop at Bidens age directly but rather catching him on a contradiction over health insurance details - which is fair game as Biden seems to have gone for a mealy mouthed halfway policy re. Healthcare, and a lot of other subjects like the vanilla centrist he is. Maybe the VPs fluff is down to age, but then again Sanders is equally old and could never be accused of getting confused.

Honestly I think this whole kerfuffle has said more about the critics of Castro than the politican himself; that's it's suggestive to me that it's the critics that have noticed Bidens age, but are feigning shock that anyone would say what they're already thinking.

is_that_so · 16-09-2019 10:22am

Manic Moran wrote: »

So only one person seems to be crossing my Facebook feed after the debate, and that is Beto.

Not necessarily positively, either. Then again, Churchill said that the only thing worse than being talked about badly is not being talked about at all.

Oscar Wilde!

Manic Moran · 17-09-2019 6:36pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Oscar Wilde!

Oops?

Rjd2 wrote: »

The people running need to man the **** up if they want to win.

Castro said nothing wrong to Biden and Biden's mental health and memory are issues that need to be addressed. Biden has plenty of apologists in the media saying that sort of questioning is vulgar etc, but that is bollocks.

Biden is 77 and will be 81 in 2024 and has been worrying in the public area since he started campaigning.

However who has got the balls to press him on this?

Its got to be another front runner and ideally Warren or Bernie, if they somehow fall for the Biden PR that such questioning is crude then Biden will get the nomination and we may have to endure Biden v Trump debates. Christ.

On the flip side, RBG is currently 86, as far as I can tell her mind is still as sharp as a tack, and also as far as I know, there's not a single person on the Democrat side questioning whether she should remain on the bench, creating caselaw which will be a precedent for generations. Why should these people question Bidens' mental capacity unless there is any indication that he has an issue?

everlast75 · 18-09-2019 9:52am

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the flip side, RBG is currently 86, as far as I can tell her mind is still as sharp as a tack, and also as far as I know, there's not a single person on the Democrat side questioning whether she should remain on the bench, creating caselaw which will be a precedent for generations. Why should these people question Bidens' mental capacity unless there is any indication that he has an issue?

1) there are indications he has an issue - multiple examples over the campaign so far
2) because people of the same age do not have the same cognitive issues and therefore have to be assessed individually and
3) as a result of this, there should be term limits on SCOTUS for that very reason. You cannot be selective about one judge over another. Not everyone can be as incredible as RBG

rossie1977 · 18-09-2019 10:19am

Kamala Harris is sitting on just 6% in her own state of California in latest Emerson poll. Biden and Sanders on 26% https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/california-2020-biden-sanders-warren-in-statistical-tie-in-democratic-primary-harris-struggles-in-home-state

This campaign has been utterly disastrous for Harris so far. She started out this time last year as strong favourite among the media and now behind a complete unknown like Yang in California.

Rjd2 · 18-09-2019 2:39pm

Should have ran as a tough on crime, Obama legacy upholding centerist.

She was never going to be progressive enough for the left in the party.

Not sure she can really pull this around.

I see Biden still strong in the polls which is odd as yet again after the last debate left wing twitter said he was a disaster.:eek:

rossie1977 · 19-09-2019 6:57pm

Latest national polls:

SurveyUSA had Biden leading Trump by 8, Sanders leading Trump by 5, Warren leading Trump by 2, Harris and Trump a tie and Trump leading Beto O'Rourke by 3 http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6189a2c3-4801-46e4-898a-f512d9ed5d17

Fox News has Biden leading Trump by 14, Sanders leading Trump by 8, Warren leading by 6, Harris by 2
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-september-15-17-2019

Rjd2 · 19-09-2019 11:50pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Latest national polls:

SurveyUSA had Biden leading Trump by 8, Sanders leading Trump by 5, Warren leading Trump by 2, Harris and Trump a tie and Trump leading Beto O'Rourke by 3 http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6189a2c3-4801-46e4-898a-f512d9ed5d17

l]

Why are they been asked by Beto? Dude is barely on 2% everywhere, surely Mayor Pete or Yang v Trump is more interesting and more likely (i know its a longshot) to happen.

4068ac1elhodqr · 19-09-2019 11:58pm

Many polls are way off the mark. Looking at actual 'real world' markets, indicates Hilary (as if) now has a better chance than Beto (<125/1 now). Yang climbing slowly, but steadily into 5th fav. Joe slipping down into 3rd.

Podge_irl · 20-09-2019 1:06am

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the flip side, RBG is currently 86, as far as I can tell her mind is still as sharp as a tack, and also as far as I know, there's not a single person on the Democrat side questioning whether she should remain on the bench, creating caselaw which will be a precedent for generations. Why should these people question Bidens' mental capacity unless there is any indication that he has an issue?

To be fair, a supreme court justice doesn't exactly have to deal with the same working conditions, stress levels and "immediacy" that a president does.

Manic Moran · 20-09-2019 5:59am

OK, I'll grant you that. Not that many of these same folks weren't going after Kavanaugh when get got a little heated under questioning, despite that he won't be under such conditions when on the court either.

vetinari · 21-09-2019 4:28pm

Kavanaugh got very heated, I'm guessing RBG wasn't as heated at her confirmation hearing.

Manic Moran · 21-09-2019 5:43pm

vetinari wrote: »

Kavanaugh got very heated, I'm guessing RBG wasn't as heated at her confirmation hearing.

Unlikely. Back then, people worried about whether or not a judge was qualified a lot more than they worried about the politics of the people nominating them, and she certainly wasn't being accused of anything. She was passed 96-3, meaning 40 Republicans voted for her.

Won't see that happening again any time soon.

StringerBell · 21-09-2019 6:26pm

Not a chance, when you have hyper partisan stints like refusing to confirm or even grant a hearing to a presidential nomination. McConnell has left a big mark on US politics

Manic Moran · 21-09-2019 7:26pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Not a chance, when you have hyper partisan stints like refusing to confirm or even grant a hearing to a presidential nomination. McConnell has left a big mark on US politics

He's not alone.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/02/16/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-nomination-president-sot-erin.cnn

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

The problem dates back, firstly, to the Reagan years, when Borking resulted in Judges trying to refuse to comment on how they would rule for fear of political repercussions, and then to the slow and stead move towards the nuclear option and refusal to vote.

Not that the latter is entirely unprecedented, there was an unfilled seat for nearly two years in the 19th Century when the Senate had taken issue with the President.

StringerBell · 22-09-2019 8:48am

I in no way suggest that McConnell is the first of his kind of politician but surely you would agree that he has been very good at it?

He stands head and shoulders above any in my memory anyway that for sure.

pixelburp · 22-09-2019 10:19am

StringerBell wrote: »

I in no way suggest that McConnell is the first of his kind of politician but surely you would agree that he has been very good at it?

He stands head and shoulders above any in my memory anyway that for sure.

He is the apotheosis of where American politics has been headed for the last umpteen decades. In a viciously bisected structure, it was only a matter of time before a canny bàstard like McConnell saw the chance to lead government by the nose through manipulation and legislative sorcery. What makes McConnell particularly bad is that he's open about, on the record on numerous occasions admitting his raison d'etre was to obstruct, mutate or just kill bills not in his (or party's) interest. Combine that with the "sealion" defence of feigning civility when democrats or journos call our on what is slowly becoming a minority led country. It's outright Machiavellian.

Rjd2 · 28-09-2019 7:46pm

https://twitter.com/IbrahimAS97/status/1177719744096559110

Think the Sanders v Warren face of will get more heated over next year. The establishment have clearly warmed to Warren so expect the usual Clinton lines of attack v Bernie.

StringerBell · 29-09-2019 8:57am

I think they are slowly starting to come around to Warren being the best candidate. I haven't listened but MSNBC aren't exactly the best and that comment if correct is just nonsense.

She has a great ground game, has great debating style and still manages to come along with that folksie feel despite being clearly highly intelligent.

I called Warren as the candidate a long time out and her momentum keeps on churning, I think Sanders will endorse her next year after they work out a deal. It's the VP position I'm still completely lost on to fill the ticket.

Mayor Pete for a long shot?

everlast75 · 29-09-2019 10:07am

StringerBell wrote: »

Mayor Pete for a long shot?

Maybe Beto to take Texas.

Harris for A.G.

Would expect Pete to get a high profile role

eire4 · 29-09-2019 9:58pm

StringerBell wrote: »

I think they are slowly starting to come around to Warren being the best candidate. I haven't listened but MSNBC aren't exactly the best and that comment if correct is just nonsense.

She has a great ground game, has great debating style and still manages to come along with that folksie feel despite being clearly highly intelligent.

I called Warren as the candidate a long time out and her momentum keeps on churning, I think Sanders will endorse her next year after they work out a deal. It's the VP position I'm still completely lost on to fill the ticket.

Mayor Pete for a long shot?

I have been wondering about that possibility for a while. Warren and Sanders if they both stay in the race on the Democratic side would split a lot of votes between them and probably cost each other a very good shot at the nomination. I think if indeed one of them at some point before the primaries actually begin or early enough in them steps down and endorses the other then they have a very good chance of actually being the Democratic nominee. As you say right now Warren seems to be the more likely of the 2 but the first primary is still not until February so I do not think this will happen until at the earliest January.

Water John · 29-09-2019 10:06pm

Well into March IWT before Sanders or Warren will yield. There would need to be very clear signals from early primaries for it to happen, even then.

vetinari · 30-09-2019 7:57pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem dates back, firstly, to the Reagan years, when Borking resulted in Judges trying to refuse to comment on how they would rule for fear of political repercussions, and then to the slow and stead move towards the nuclear option and refusal to vote.

Not that the latter is entirely unprecedented, there was an unfilled seat for nearly two years in the 19th Century when the Senate had taken issue with the President.

That's quite a misleading view. Bork got a confirmation vote and lost it.
Anthony Kennedy ended up filling the seat and won his vote 97 - 0.
That's the system actually working properly imo.

What we have today is hyper partisanship primarily constructed by Mitch.
Kavannaugh by right should have lost his vote and someone else would have been nominated. Instead reoublican senators had to support "their guy" regards of any allegations.

It's also the reason why I think it will be important for the Democratic nominee to embrace the idea of ending the legislative fillibuster.
The republicans have no interest in working with the Democrats so it's nonsensical to argue that you have a legislative agenda if you support keeping the fillibuster.

Manic Moran · 01-10-2019 4:42pm

vetinari wrote: »

That's quite a misleading view. Bork got a confirmation vote and lost it.
Anthony Kennedy ended up filling the seat and won his vote 97 - 0.
That's the system actually working properly imo.

What we have today is hyper partisanship primarily constructed by Mitch.
Kavannaugh by right should have lost his vote and someone else would have been nominated. Instead reoublican senators had to support "their guy" regards of any allegations.

It's also the reason why I think it will be important for the Democratic nominee to embrace the idea of ending the legislative fillibuster.
The republicans have no interest in working with the Democrats so it's nonsensical to argue that you have a legislative agenda if you support keeping the fillibuster.

Yes, but the reason Bork lost the confirmation vote was that he answered questions honestly, which, when they didn't meet up with the political goals, resulted in the Senators voting against him not because he wasn't qualified, but because he wasn't in tune politically with their ideologies. Ever since then, SCOTUS nominees have been extremely cagey with their answers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/19/167645600/robert-borks-supreme-court-nomination-changed-everything-maybe-forever

"The nomination changed everything, maybe forever," says Tom Goldstein, publisher of the popular SCOTUSblog, which extensively covers the Supreme Court. "Republicans nominated this brilliant guy to move the law in this dramatically more conservative direction. Liberal groups turned around and blocked him precisely because of those views. Their fight legitimized scorched-earth ideological wars over nominations at the Supreme Court, and to this day both sides remain completely convinced they were right. The upshot is that we have this ridiculous system now where nominees shut up and don't say anything that might signal what they really think."

scotus-confirmation-votes-promo-2300.jpg?v0?c=78fca0b43c6db52d9f772111210e60071b7cf7d3-1536055549

scotus-confirmation-votes-promo-2300.jpg?v0?c=78fca0b43c6db52d9f772111210e60071b7cf7d3-1536055549

Thomas is a bit of an outlier, opposed by Democrats not because of his rulings (officially, at least), but because of accusations of sexual harassment. After that, we are generally back to bipartisan "Yeah, they're qualified" for Bryer and Ginsburg. Then we start seeing a progression back towards "We don't care if they're qualified, we just don't like them" starting with Roberts, and it became full on us-vs-them from Alito onwards, from both sides.

Overheal · 01-10-2019 7:40pm

Poll shows Biden weathering the conspiracy theories.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-poll-shows-trumps-ukraine-smears-not-hurting-joe-biden/

He’s up 1 point over last week

is_that_so · 02-10-2019 3:57pm

Bernie needs an operation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49911035

StringerBell · 02-10-2019 4:16pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Bernie needs an operation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49911035

Cancelled some events etc due to the procedure, could be the beginning of the end of his bid.

is_that_so · 02-10-2019 4:36pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Cancelled some events etc due to the procedure, could be the beginning of the end of his bid.

Others will draw attention to it as well.

pixelburp · 02-10-2019 4:40pm

Sanders' campaign has puttered and stalled in the face of Biden's apparent defaulting towards victory, and Warren's savvier / folksier approach to detail, which seems to have gone down well (in the media at least).

We saw in 2016 that any health issues will be pounced on and exaggerated by the GOP, and given we've already seen Sanders campaigning with a bandage on his head (I forget what happened), things would get ugly fast. Heck, going by Castro's remarks, it could be argued that things already are on the Democrat side, re. age.

02-10-2019 7:00pm

That's the end of Bernie's bid so it'll be Warren and if Trump makes it to election day in office it'll be 4 more years.

StringerBell · 02-10-2019 7:37pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Others will draw attention to it as well.

Oh I think that's the lot for him, rightly or wrongly any heart procedure in a man of his age is going to draw huge speculation and interest. Gives very easy talking points and genuinely does raise questions I guess about the ability to do the job give the stress etc

Overheal · 02-10-2019 9:54pm

Bernie got a heart stent

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/4bf1660a-e522-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html

I'm familiar with stents: he's likely fine, but it will take time for the stent to assimilate into the arterial wall (6~18 months), but after a week you can pretty much return to active lifestyle.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments