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…2526283031…306

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    A Shropshire Lad
    Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭A Shropshire Lad


    Market reckons Trump will win again, hes about evens. Biden second favourite at 4/1.... Elizabeth Warren is one to watch


  • Options
    #813
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,655 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    StringerBell wrote:
    No women, no old white men, certainly no old white Jewish men.
    I never mentioned Jewish but you are probably right but much less of a problem than age or gender.
    Putting Hilary forward messed it up for women for a while, she was a terrible candidate.
    The only reason Obama won first time around was because of Mitt Romney's religion so it is a big factor.


  • Options
    #814
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,354 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    A Shropshire Lad wrote: »
    Market reckons Trump will win again, hes about evens. Biden second favourite at 4/1.... Elizabeth Warren is one to watch

    The issue there is that’s effectively a double bet on Biden winning the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. Trump is clear favorite for the Republican nomination so that’s not as much of a factor there.

    In a which Party bet, Bet365 have the Dems at 4/5 and the GOP at evens


  • Options
    #815
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Problem with all this speculation during the Phony War, or at least a long running theme, is all the self-defeating logic as to why Candidate X wouldn't win against Trump:

    - Biden's too old, with too much Trumpian Baggage
    - Sanders' too old, and an open socialist
    - Warren is a woman, and a socialist (and inexplicably the right will roast her over the Native American gaffs - suddenly they value identity politics??)
    - Harris is a black woman, and a "Coastal Elite".
    - O'Rourke, Butitgieg(sp) are inexperienced.
    - The rest are jars of mayonaise

    At some point the Democratic narrative has to get behind someone and start emphasising the positives rather than worrying about what they're not. It's so sad to see the cliché bare out each & every time.


  • Options
    #816
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,655 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    pixelburp wrote:
    At some point the Democratic narrative has to get behind someone and start emphasising the positives rather than worrying about what they're not. It's so sad to see the cliché bare out each & every time.
    Absolutely and if you want to win you need a guy who can walk the line. O'Rourke has so much going for him and it appears no skeletons.
    He is not committed strongly to any side. I think he would win for my hand stands against Trump. In a debate he can be serious and when Trump goes on a rant he has it in him to make him look foolish.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,050 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I never mentioned Jewish but you are probably right but much less of a problem than age or gender.
    Putting Hilary forward messed it up for women for a while, she was a terrible candidate.
    The only reason Obama won first time around was because of Mitt Romney's religion so it is a big factor.





    No? My apologies so, must have been someone else.

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



  • Options
    #818
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,624 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    eagle eye wrote: »
    pixelburp wrote:
    At some point the Democratic narrative has to get behind someone and start emphasising the positives rather than worrying about what they're not. It's so sad to see the cliché bare out each & every time.
    Absolutely and if you want to win you need a guy who can walk the line. O'Rourke has so much going for him and it appears no skeletons.
    He is not committed strongly to any side. I think he would win for my hand stands against Trump. In a debate he can be serious and when Trump goes on a rant he has it in him to make him look foolish.
    But this is the problem the dems seem to be having and the left of the democrats seem to want a candidate as pure as driven snow, which as I've said before and I'll keep saying it will lose them the election.

    All previous major party candidates have had to appeal to the base during the primaries and then it was move to the middle in the general election. A growing part of the democrats base want a candidate who will be strictly left and not compromise.


  • Options
    #819
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,019 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1141385420602859520

    Wow. Sanders somewhat going after Warren and the dem establishment there. I suspect Bernie was never that concerned with Warren whose campaign struggled initially, but as she has momentum and Bernie not so much its irking him.

    Also means that whoever decided Bernie and Warren were on different nights have ballsed up. Would have been drama.


  • Options
    #820
    eire4
    Registered Users Posts: 6,641 ✭✭✭eire4


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1141385420602859520

    Wow. Sanders somewhat going after Warren and the dem establishment there. I suspect Bernie was never that concerned with Warren whose campaign struggled initially, but as she has momentum and Bernie not so much its irking him.

    Also means that whoever decided Bernie and Warren were on different nights have ballsed up. Would have been drama.

    To be fair I do not read that as Bernie sanders going after Elizabeth Warren as instead of going after the Corporate Democrats who control that party. Especially he has been going after the Third Way group who are the grouping of corporate Democrats who for the most part the dominant force in the Democratic party.

    What is interesting is in all the most recent polls when you add up Sanders and Warrens numbers they together are within a point or 2 of Biden. Very early on though so probably a few more shake ups to come.


  • Options
    #821
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 9,998 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Be interesting to know how they get on in private, would they be willing to back each other if guaranteed the nomination for one of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Good on ABC news doing this story over Biden and his dealings with foreign governments like China. For anyone interested in shady dealings/corruption with foreign governments, check out Peter Schweizer's last two books.



  • Options
    #823
    vetinari
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭vetinari


    I think an issue that will come up again and again is how to view any "scandals" that the Democratic candidates have?
    Unless they're something outrageous, they will pale against the scandals Trump has had.
    The Democrats really don't want a repeat of 2016 where everyone but Trump was being held to a higher standard.

    Personally, I think it's still way to early to get a sense of genuine front runners. I hope someone like Warren / Sanders/ Buttigieg proves successful as they will be able to generate decent enthusiasm from the base.


  • Options
    #824
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    vetinari wrote: »
    I think an issue that will come up again and again is how to view any "scandals" that the Democratic candidates have?
    Unless they're something outrageous, they will pale against the scandals Trump has had.
    The Democrats really don't want a repeat of 2016 where everyone but Trump was being held to a higher standard.

    Personally, I think it's still way to early to get a sense of genuine front runners. I hope someone like Warren / Sanders/ Buttigieg proves successful as they will be able to generate decent enthusiasm from the base.

    In the current media climate, it won't work like that

    Media outlets cowed by the constant bombardment of threatening propaganda are bending over backwards to try and appear "fair" to Trump

    I say "fair" in inverted commas because to be actually fair in reality would entail giving a level of scrutiny and challenge that the vast majority simply are not offering - Trump is winning this battle - media outlets are running with his narratives, framing and language and they are not challenging it

    Fascists know that if you just constantly threaten and gaslight, people will stop challenging you because it becomes so mentaly wearing and draining

    All fascists destroy truth to this end yet paint their opponents as "corrupt"

    Therefore the focus will actually turn to "scandals" against the Democrats - that's what happened to Clinton in 2016, and what will happen to whoever is the candidate in 2020

    So if Warren is the candidate, expect lots of focus on "Pocahontas" etc., expect literally anything to be dredged up and if they can't find anything, it will be invented and covered exhaustively - while Trump will get away pretty much scot free in this regard

    And it will be a derogation of duty on the part of the traditional media that allows it to happen

    Look at what the Republicans do to anybody who opposes them - look at what they did to Christine Blasey Ford, look at how they demonise asylum seekers and even their children, look at what happened to John Kerry in 2004

    These are not rational actors, they are political terrorists

    Going for impeachment is the only way any of the criminality, corruption and fascist grotesqueness surrounding Trump will matter

    In an election campaign and without impeachment proceeedings, he will simply ride through it and the Republicans will turn the tables and make the Democrat appear "scandal-ridden"

    I fear Democrats and the reputable media have not learned their lesson at all


  • Options
    #825
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Media outlets cowed by the constant bombardment of threatening propaganda are bending over backwards to try and appear "fair" to Trump

    Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual - unless Harvard are seen as a biased source in your eyes. Plenty of studies out showing he had over 90% negative coverage in 2018 from the major broadcast and cable networks.

    2FnQJOl.png

    Also
    These are not rational actors, they are political terrorists
    ( Republican party )

    Only someone totally radicalized would come out with such idiotic statements.


  • Options
    #826
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    peddlelies wrote: »
    Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual - unless Harvard are seen as a biased source in your eyes. Plenty of studies out showing he had over 90% negative coverage in 2018 from the major broadcast and cable networks.

    2FnQJOl.png

    Also

    ( Republican party )

    Only someone totally radicalized would come out with such idiotic statements.

    Obviously he's a very negative human being and POTUS to invite such negative reporting. Perhaps if he got his act together he might garner more favourable reportage.


  • Options
    #827
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    peddlelies wrote: »
    Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual -

    So, "peddlelies", are you now telling us that Trump hasn't been constantly engaging in constant threatening propaganda against the media?

    Do you think consistently calling the media "the enemy of the people" is threatening propaganda?

    Do you think it carries dictatorial overtones?

    These are yes/no questions.


  • Options
    #828
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Obviously he's a very negative human being and POTUS to invite such negative reporting. Perhaps if he got his act together he might garner more favourable reportage.

    That's definitely it. Sure weren't they fair to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. I'd even go as far as to say that the major tech companies have an equal split down Democratic/Republican lines. *snigger*


  • Options
    #829
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    peddlelies wrote: »
    That's definitely it. Sure weren't they fair to Mitt Romney and Rand Paul. I'd even go as far as to say that the major tech companies have an equal split down Democratic/Republican lines. *snigger*

    Do you know the real reason why everybody is against poor Donald?


  • Options
    #830
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,494 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    These are not rational actors, they are political terroristsall

    Dial back the insults please.
    peddlelies wrote: »
    Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual - unless Harvard are seen as a biased source in your eyes. Plenty of studies out showing he had over 90% negative coverage in 2018 from the major broadcast and cable networks.

    2FnQJOl.png

    Also

    ( Republican party )

    Only someone totally radicalized would come out with such idiotic statements.
    peddlelies wrote: »
    That's definitely it. Sure weren't they fair to Mitt Romney and Rand Paul. I'd even go as far as to say that the major tech companies have an equal split down Democratic/Republican lines. *snigger*

    Next snide or uncivil comment from you will net you a ban.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #831
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    If we are throwing up random charts re media bias then..

    hillarybias2.jpg?1466988363

    Btw nobody in their right mind would believe roughly 50% of fox news coverage on trump is negative in nature


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Getting back to the actual subject at hand, the more interesting polls I'm curious about would be how Trump is doing in the Rust Belt?

    I had theorised in the main thread that Trump latched onto the moribund cities and states slowly dying from a changing economy, and promised them a dream of "clean coal" and the like. Do we know how those states are looking 2 years in? Is there any kind of shift away, now that (presumably), these same states are not seeing the return of the Good Times.


  • Options
    #833
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    He isn't doing good in rust belt. He is underwater everywhere except Indiana with double digit negative in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/


  • Options
    #834
    vetinari
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭vetinari


    His approval rating is ultimately meaningless. As long as he can demonize the Democratic opponent, republican leaning voters will probably vote for him. Like hill16bhoy said, the media will probably go soft on Trump. They'll ultimately imo help Trump by providing enough negative coverage about whomever the Democratic nominee is so that he can argue that the nominee is not any better than him.


  • Options
    #835
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Btw nobody in their right mind would believe roughly 50% of fox news coverage on trump is negative in nature

    It wasn't a random graph, it was neutral research by Harvard University of his first 100 days in office, not some link from the "dailykos". Here's the link to their study.

    https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/


  • Options
    #836
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Actually graph I posted came from same place of study not Dailykos https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

    Question do you believe 50% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump?


  • Options
    #837
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    rossie1977 wrote: »

    Question do you believe 50% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump?

    If you look at some of their main anchors and commentators, not contributors or guests, you have people like Neil Cavuto, Shepard Smith, John Roberts, Breit Baier, Chris Wallace, Julie Banderas, Juan Williams etc who certainty aren't spokespeople for Trump and have been critical of him. I wouldn't call people like Shannon Bream and Martha McCallam cheerleaders either.

    On the other side you have Tucker, Hannity, Laura, Jeanire Pirro, The Five and Fox and Friends who are cheerleaders. Jessie Waters has a weekly show and he's definitely a cheerleader too. So is Greg Gutfeld.

    Do I believe Fox is overall 50% negative towards Trump? The report from Harvard said it was for that time period of his first 100 days, so yes I believe they were 50% negative for that time period. Do I think it's the same now? I don't know, probably not. I don't watch Fox news or any US news station. I do know that quickly looking over the anchor lists of outlets like CNN and MSNBC leads me to a very easy decision on which are more biased.


  • Options
    #838
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,354 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Actually graph I posted came from same place of study not Dailykos https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

    Question do you believe 50% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump?

    Apart from people like Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, it's hard to believe that 5% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump. Unless accurate reporting some of what he does that his base approves of, but doesn't sit well with centrists or liberals constitutes "negative coverage".

    The idea that 50% of coverage of Trump on Fox & Friends/Carlson/Hannity/Ingraham, some of the higher shows in the ratings, is negative is comical.


  • Options
    #839
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    vetinari wrote: »
    His approval rating is ultimately meaningless. As long as he can demonize the Democratic opponent, republican leaning voters will probably vote for him. Like hill16bhoy said, the media will probably go soft on Trump. They'll ultimately imo help Trump by providing enough negative coverage about whomever the Democratic nominee is so that he can argue that the nominee is not any better than him.

    It is a useful guide though; Trump isn't the plucky outsider anymore and he promised A LOT. Effectively inventing a new resource (clean coal) and telling a lot of communities that he'd bring them back to peak prosperity. The trade war has also had a negative impact in various quarters - necessitating bailouts (so much for the fiscal conservatism of the GOP) - so I wonder how much support he can expect from communities potentially twice disenfranchised.

    Not that the democrats will likely say or do much for these communities (nobody wants to go to someone's town and tell them coal isn't coming back, suck it up)


  • Options
    #840
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    marno21 wrote: »
    Carlson/Hannity/Ingraham

    This is the last I'm going to say about this since this is being dragged off topic. I'd strongly agree with the statement that Fox's primetime shows and the morning show are hyper partisan and firmly lodged up Trump's ass. Only a fool would argue otherwise. That wasn't what the question was though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users Posts: 45,552 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Seems there's a Democratic debate tonight (early hours our time), as well as the next day.
    When is this happening? And where?
    Wednesday and Thursday night, of course. The Democrats will debate between 9-11pm EDT in a double-header. Both nights will be live on TV – specifically NBC – and on the cable channels MSNBC and Telemundo. The debates will also be streamed on NBCNews.com, and on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

    The debates are being held in the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in downtown Miami. The fact Florida is a swing state crucial to the 2020 election is surely just a happy coincidence.

    Who is appearing?
    On Wednesday: Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar will be duelling it out. Oh, and also: Washington’s governor, Jay Inslee; former housing and urban development secretary JuliCastro; Hawaii representative Tulsi Gabbard; New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio; Ohio congressman Tim Ryan and former Maryland congressman John Delaney.

    On Thursday, it’s the turn of frontrunner Joe Biden; Vermont senator Bernie Sanders; California senator Kamala Harris; South Bend’s mayor, Pete Buttigieg; New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand; Colorado senator Michael Bennet; former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper; California congressman Eric Swalwell; entrepreneur Andrew Yang and author Marianne Williamson.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/26/democratic-debate-2019-watch-2020-election-when-where-who

    Thursday's one looks more intriguing to me, but keen to see how Warren and O'Rourke fare in the first one.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement