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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

US Presidential Election 2020

Options
1…1819212324…306

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    I would need convincing of that figure.
    IMO some of those may have been Bernie supporters that couldn't or wouldn't hold their nose and vote for Clinton. But i doubt they represent a switch of party affiliation.

    Why is it that people can't seem to grasp that 42% of American voters are Independent and are quite comfortable changing parties from election to election? Of course there are core Republican and core Democrat voters, but Independent voters are the largest group. While a majority might lean toward one party or the other, the historical evidence is they will switch if motivated.

    It's on the 4th page of this report, 28.7% of white working class voters switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016, and a whopping 60% who had not voted in 2012 voted for Trump.

    https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-5/april/SocSci_v5_234to245.pdf


  • Options
    #603
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,006 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    vetinari wrote: »
    This has been shown to be wrong multiple multiple times. Elections are not about getting other party members to vote for you. They're about getting your own base out. Personally I think Biden is a poor choice from that standpoint. He's too old. The best comparison the Democrats can do is have a significantly younger candidate. Trump is currently showing serious signs of senility. Why run a candidate whom similar accusations could be leveled against?


    It's an issue for the leading democratic candidates. Warren, Biden and Sanders are all too old. They need one of the younger candidates (60 or younger) to start gaining some traction. That will give them an advantage in the general election in terms of the comparison to Trump.


    But nobody is expecting core GOP voters to vote Dem

    What the Dems need to do is win back the voters, in the swing States, who did not vote for Clinton but would have voted Dem in the past.

    Those voters are going to be white, working class, a little bit older and a bit conservative with a small "c"

    Joe Biden is the only one who might deliver those voters in 2020 and might get Trump out of the White House.

    Biden would be too old for a second term so fire away with progressives etc for 2024 but for 2020 if you want Trump out, Biden is the only man, and even he is not a guarantee.


  • Options
    #604
    vetinari
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭vetinari


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    The problem with your analysis is that millions of white working class who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched their vote to Trump in 2016.


    Again, this is patently false. I'd wager that you know what you're saying is false but are saying it anyways. Total vote numbers were way down in the 2016 election. Trump won because of that, not because millions of Democratic voters voted for Trump. He won because circa 80 thousand Democratic voters didn't vote.


  • Options
    #605
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    vetinari wrote: »
    Again, this is patently false. I'd wager that you know what you're saying is false but are saying it anyways. Total vote numbers were way down in the 2016 election. Trump won because of that, not because millions of Democratic voters voted for Trump. He won because circa 80 thousand Democratic voters didn't vote.

    So, you managed to combine six incorrect statements and an accusation of lying into one paragraph, well done.

    1. Read the study I posted or at least the fourth page, it 100% supports what I said.

    2. Total vote numbers were up in 2016 versus 2012, 137 million voted versus 129 million. Clinton got almost identical votes to Obama (-70k) but you have to look at it on a state by state basis, she got more votes in CA for example but lost the swing states because Independents switched or Democrats stayed at home.

    3. Trump got 2 million votes more than Romney and more votes than him in 38 states. Of most significance, he got more votes in states like Ohio and Michigan where Clinton was (433k) and (300k) below Obama's numbers.

    4. I didn't say Democrats switched to vote for Trump, I said voters who voted for Obama in 2012 switched to Trump. They are Independents who might normally vote Democrat but they switched in 2016.

    I accept your apology for suggesting I am a liar.


  • Options
    #606
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    It would be wonderful if the "I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary" brigade might wake up for 2020. Sure, Hillary isn't perfect but is what we've got really any better?

    "I can't vote for Biden because of his creepiness" - but the alternative?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Kamala would make bits of him. A 3 decade state deputy DA/DA/AG isn't going to wilt facing a bully.

    I don't think Hilary did either. Kamala's competence and character is not a problem. Kamala's background and reputation is.
    To people not firmly in the Democratic camp, she is a San Francisco liberal, and a number of her San Francisco-friendly policies are going to follow her on the trail. Inherently this is a turnoff to a number of folks in the swing states. Enough to scupper her? Maybe, maybe not. But it is more of a handicap for her to have to deal with than her ability to stand up to Trump.

    This article was on the front page of CNN a couple weeks back. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/kamala-harris-death-penalty-decisions/index.html

    That's not the sort of reporting which a Presidential candidate needs to be facing. What's a swing state voter going to think of her policy on the death penalty? What's a swing state voter going to conclude her policy on the death penalty even is? Remember, even in California, it has a majority approval, in middle America, it's not much of an issue. Texas executed John William King this week, and not a tear was reported in the major broadcast news anywhere in the country (Approval and even cheering was reported, however).

    It's not the only controversy. Also on CNN, a month ago, the article claims she was mischaracterizing an immigrant policy she supported in the past, which she no longer supports. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-immigration-policy-answer/index.html

    That's not the sort of baggage which other candidates have. If these... well.. not exactly hit pieces, but not positive pieces are hitting CNN now before she's even the candidate, what's going to hit once she is? Combine that with her being from the showpiece in the rest of the US of "Why to not vote Democrat", her candidacy would be courting disaster.

    The only thing in her favour seems to be that the Republicans are trying harder to alienate voters than she is.


  • Options
    #608
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    marno21 wrote: »
    It would be wonderful if the "I can't bring myself to vote for Hillary" brigade might wake up for 2020. Sure, Hillary isn't perfect but is what we've got really any better?

    "I can't vote for Biden because of his creepiness" - but the alternative?

    I'm concerned about this as well. I welcome the element within the Democrats who want to become more progressive, but trying to go too progressive too soon is going to result in Trump getting a second term. I know painting it as "too progressive" is unpalatable for some, but I think that's the reality of it.


  • Options
    #609
    vetinari
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭vetinari


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    So, you managed to combine six incorrect statements and an accusation of lying into one paragraph, well done.

    1. Read the study I posted or at least the fourth page, it 100% supports what I said.

    2. Total vote numbers were up in 2016 versus 2012, 137 million voted versus 129 million. Clinton got almost identical votes to Obama (-70k) but you have to look at it on a state by state basis, she got more votes in CA for example but lost the swing states because Independents switched or Democrats stayed at home.

    3. Trump got 2 million votes more than Romney and more votes than him in 38 states. Of most significance, he got more votes in states like Ohio and Michigan where Clinton was (433k) and (300k) below Obama's numbers.

    4. I didn't say Democrats switched to vote for Trump, I said voters who voted for Obama in 2012 switched to Trump. They are Independents who might normally vote Democrat but they switched in 2016.

    I accept your apology for suggesting I am a liar.


    You're willfully misinterpreting the data. That would be what a liar does.
    This article explains it pretty well.


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#85fb03f53ab1

    Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.


  • Options
    #610
    vetinari
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭vetinari


    The biggest factor for the 2020 election to me will be how Trump is covered by the media.
    He's still imo judged by too low a standard. What helped him in 2016 was that other candidates seemed to be held to a conventional standard but Trump was put in a separate category.

    Compared to Trump, no scandal that a Democratic candidate has should be detrimental.
    And yet like some posters have mentioned, Kamala Harris's past will be an issue, Biden's issues with women will be an issue, Warren's native American past will be an issue.

    The danger is that the media will fall prey to the need for false equivalency and elevate any Democratic "scandals" to a similar level to Trump.

    Also to add, this concern over a candidate being too progressive falls in the same category.
    A progressive president will need Congress to pass any legislation.
    Also, if judging honestly, the most radical progressive possible should still be a better candidate than Donald Trump.


  • Options
    #611
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    vetinari wrote: »
    You're willfully misinterpreting the data. That would be what a liar does.
    This article explains it pretty well.


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#85fb03f53ab1

    I'm not misrepresenting anything, read the study I posted.

    The article you posted was written a week after the election before any real analysis had been done. You can find hundreds of articles that argue the reasons why Hillary lost, but any honest article that's based on data accepts that white working class voters changing sides was a huge factor, along with a small change in core Democratic turnout.

    It also doesn't address at all the point I was making, which was that 28.7% of white working class voters (who are 40% of all voters) switched sides from the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate from 2012 to 2016. If you don't think that between 6.7 - 9.2 million voters switching sides was a major factor in Trump winning then I can't help you further.

    If those voters hadn't switched sides Hillary Clinton would have won in a landslide.

    What you are basically arguing is that 70,000 Democratic voters who stayed home is more significant than ~8 million who switched sides. I have to assume statistics isn't your strong suit.

    http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    I'm not misrepresenting anything, read the study I posted.

    The article you posted was written a week after the election before any real analysis had been done. You can find hundreds of articles that argue the reasons why Hillary lost, but any honest article that's based on data accepts that white working class voters changing sides was a huge factor, along with a small change in core Democratic turnout.

    It also doesn't address at all the point I was making, which was that 28.7% of white working class voters (who are 40% of all voters) switched sides from the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate from 2012 to 2016. If you don't think that between 6.7 - 9.2 million voters switching sides was a major factor in Trump winning then I can't help you further.

    If those voters hadn't switched sides Hillary Clinton would have won in a landslide.

    What you are basically arguing is that 70,000 Democratic voters who stayed home is more significant than ~8 million who switched sides. I have to assume statistics isn't your strong suit.

    http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

    Those 70k voters were also incredibly important. Had the small margins in MA/PA/WI been reversed, it would have swung the election the other way. There was likely enough people in those states (and likely a fair few in FL/AZ/NC, all of which had ~100k winning margins) that wouldn't vote for Hillary because they were too pure to do so, without one consideration for what their abstention has resulted in.


  • Options
    #613
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    vetinari wrote: »
    You're willfully misinterpreting the data. That would be what a liar does.
    This article explains it pretty well.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#85fb03f53ab1
    Joe Biden will suffer the same.
    There is no one, beyond the closed circles of corporate Dems, that's actually excited to see another old, establishment candidate.

    I'm starting to imagine another jerry-rigged primary to get the DCCC pre-approved candidate across, and another paltry turnout at the polls.


  • Options
    #614
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    marno21 wrote: »
    Those 70k voters were also incredibly important. Had the small margins in MA/PA/WI been reversed, it would have swung the election the other way. There was likely enough people in those states (and likely a fair few in FL/AZ/NC, all of which had ~100k winning margins) that wouldn't vote for Hillary because they were too pure to do so, without one consideration for what their abstention has resulted in.

    Agreed they turned out to be decisive, but we wouldn't be having the conversation at all if so many hadn't switched sides. 7-9 million who switched sides is a far bigger question for the DNC to ponder than 70k who stayed home, as is the fact that 8 million voted for third party candidates compared to 2 million in 2012. It's actually quite stunning that the majority of people who voted didn't like either candidate.

    The lesson for the DNC is don't run an unpopular candidate. Trump had the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in history at 61%, HRC was second highest at 52%. Hoping that your candidate will win because they are less unpopular turned out not to be a good strategy.


  • Options
    #615
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Joe Biden will suffer the same.

    He won't, Biden is quite popular and respected, especially in the rust belt. Whether he is the best Democratic candidate or not is another debate, but he would have beaten Trump in 2016 and is very likely to beat him in 2020.


  • Options
    #616
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    He won't, Biden is quite popular and respected, especially in the rust belt. Whether he is the best Democratic candidate or not is another debate, but he would have beaten Trump in 2016 and is very likely to beat him in 2020.
    He can't bring minorities out, nor women, nor millenials.
    He's old school and should stay retired.


  • Options
    #617
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    He can't bring minorities out, nor women, nor millenials.
    He's old school and should stay retired.

    This election won't be decided on who brings out minorities, women or millenials, just the same way the last one wasn't. Winning over white voters in rust belt states and purple states is far more important here.

    If 100k minority/white/women voters in LA/NY stay at home it won't make a blind bit of difference.
    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    Agreed they turned out to be decisive, but we wouldn't be having the conversation at all if so many hadn't switched sides. 7-9 million who switched sides is a far bigger question for the DNC to ponder than 70k who stayed home, as is the fact that 8 million voted for third party candidates compared to 2 million in 2012. It's actually quite stunning that the majority of people who voted didn't like either candidate.

    The lesson for the DNC is don't run an unpopular candidate. Trump had the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in history at 61%, HRC was second highest at 52%. Hoping that your candidate will win because they are less unpopular turned out not to be a good strategy.

    Indeed. It was disappointing to see Biden start off his campaign with a video condemning Trump's behaviour re: Charlottesville. HRC tried all that the last time around and it didn't work. Trump is a fairly well known quantity at this stage and I'm not sure what you can say about him that would turn people who aren't already turned at this stage.


  • Options
    #618
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    The demographics show the % of whites is shrinking every election cycle.
    By running Biden they are playing to the always shrinking pool of voters, while masses of people stay home.
    To break that cycle they need an energizing candidate like Obama was.
    They need to get those stay-at-homes to turn out.

    Biden can never do that.
    If they want an old white guy, they should just let Bernie win the primary.
    At least he has an actual message that resonates.


  • Options
    #619
    briany
    Registered Users Posts: 13,537 ✭✭✭✭briany


    I'd say Trump's tactic would be to tar Biden with the 'establishment' brush. He'll be referred to as something like Joe "Obama's 3rd term" Biden.
    Really, though, will Biden have any policies that are radical departures from Obama, or will he run entirely on a platform of "I'm not Trump! I'm experienced. I'm presidential." etc. etc?

    Something another poster mentioned above about getting Biden in for one term and then having a real progressive in for 2024 isn't really realistic, imo. American politics isn't set up for that to happen. Anybody whose points get too far from the centre ground is branded a lunatic or a raving madman or something similar, and if they're running on a Republican or Democratic ticket, those parties will do all they can to quell the tide. This happened to Trump as well, but a set of factors ended up favouring him. However, we don't know if it's something you can count on at all.


  • Options
    #620
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    I have never heard of any actual policy that Biden holds.
    He strikes me as a total waffler.
    Russian troll farms are probably cranking out De-Motivational memes with his face, right now.
    It would not be difficult.


  • Options
    #621
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    He won't, Biden is quite popular and respected, especially in the rust belt. Whether he is the best Democratic candidate or not is another debate, but he would have beaten Trump in 2016 and is very likely to beat him in 2020.
    He can't bring minorities out, nor women, nor millenials.
    He's old school and should stay retired.

    What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.
    Call it a hunch.
    Kamala Harris maybe, but Biden has no chance here.

    Watching his mug leading a panel of privileged, older, white males grilling a single young black woman plays very poorly for him.

    How can he have any appeal to black voters, what are you basing that on?


  • Options
    #623
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Biden running is hubris, pure and simple. And while he may lead the polls now, I suspect once candidates get to debate each other he may find himself out of touch very quickly, shown up by Sanders, Harris, Warren or Booker (O'Rourke and Buttigeig will sink without a trace IMO). As I've said before, Obama was nowhere near the top of the polls when the 2008 primary started. Ditto Trump,I think, am less sure there but he was definitely a joke and wildcard.


  • Options
    #624
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Biden running is hubris, pure and simple. And while he may lead the polls now, I suspect once candidates get to debate each other he may find himself out of touch very quickly, shown up by Sanders, Harris, Warren or Booker (O'Rourke and Buttigeig will sink without a trace IMO). As I've said before, Obama was nowhere near the top of the polls when the 2008 primary started. Ditto Trump,I think, am less sure there but he was definitely a joke and wildcard.

    Personally hoping for Harris or Warren tbh. Think they're strong and could win it. Plus I love Warren's policies...


  • Options
    #625
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,512 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    pixelburp wrote:
    Biden running is hubris, pure and simple. And while he may lead the polls now, I suspect once candidates get to debate each other he may find himself out of touch very quickly, shown up by Sanders, Harris, Warren or Booker (O'Rourke and Buttigeig will sink without a trace IMO). As I've said before, Obama was nowhere near the top of the polls when the 2008 primary started. Ditto Trump,I think, am less sure there but he was definitely a joke and wildcard.

    Agree with all you say there except one thing, O'Rourke has a lot of charisma and I think he'll be a serious contender.
    You are right about Trump too, he was an outsider and even when he was still in it with good support for the nomination he was dismissed by all.


  • Options
    #626
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Agree with all you say there except one thing, O'Rourke has a lot of charisma and I think he'll be a serious contender.
    You are right about Trump too, he was an outsider and even when he was still in it with good support for the nomination he was dismissed by all.

    Oh, O'Rourke has charisma but IMO he's a paper tiger, and the little I've read up on him has suggested ties with lobby groups that might stick. His social media game is on point, but when debating with seasoned, more left leaning pros, may find himself quickly outgunned and outthought. Just an inkling and like I said I openly admit to having less info on him (and Buttigeig) than others.


  • Options
    #627
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    If the Dems had any sense, they would brush away all the old hat (and new well-meaning corner flag holders) candidates that are paper tokenism against the mighty Trump.

    Instead select the chap with the most:'clearly universal, and attractive USP for each and every voter' if they want to win in 2020.


  • Options
    #628
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.

    Biden actually quite strong among black voters and his 8 year association with Obama will help.

    It's Hispanic voters he struggles with. AOC as VP would be perfect as she would appeal to demos Biden is weak but obviously she is too young to qualify.

    Screen_Shot_2019_02_12_at_9.35.15_AM.png

    2020 election comes down to who wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Harris, O'Rourke can't win 3 out of 3 there in my opinion.


  • Options
    #629
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    What are you basing this on? One of Biden's key strengths as a candidate is his appeal to black voters.
    Call it a hunch.
    Kamala Harris maybe, but Biden has no chance here.

    Watching his mug leading a panel of privileged, older, white males grilling a single young black woman plays very poorly for him.

    How can he have any appeal to black voters, what are you basing that on?

    I'm basing it on polls that show him performing strongly with black voters, rather than hunches.


  • Options
    #630
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,252 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    If I had to call it, I'd say Biden as Pres. and Harris for VP.

    Out of current crop.

    Harris's bid weakness for VP is that the Dems will carry California anyway, so go for a VP from a swing state.

    It will surely be a black woman he'll pick.

    The modern Democratic Party activists are obsessed with skin pigmentation, it's poorer voting base is not but that doesn't matter in a nomination race.

    I think the hill to climb for the Dems will be too steep.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »
    If the Dems had any sense, they would brush away all the old hat (and new well-meaning corner flag holders) candidates that are paper tokenism against the mighty Trump.

    Instead select the chap with the most:'clearly universal, and attractive USP for each and every voter' if they want to win in 2020.
    And that is who? Sounds more like a VR candidate to me! :D
    One simple plan is what they need, pick someone who can beat Trump.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement