2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ubik said:
These are meaningless still but also fun, lulling us into a false sense of security that Trump will lose big regardless, making his inevitable reelection all the more painful and horrifying

Click to expand...


Poll is probably meaningless at this point of time, but what's interesting is Biden has a better lead over Trump than Sanders.

@RDCR07 @Fergies Gum re conversation sometime earlier on Sanders vs Biden....
 
I can still see Biden and/or Bernie running. Both seem in reasonable health in spite of their age and have high-profiles. Trump's old himself so can't exactly attack them with that.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Poll is probably meaningless at this point of time, but what's interesting is Biden has a better lead over Trump than Sanders.

@RDCR07 @Fergies Gum re conversation sometime earlier on Sanders vs Biden....
Click to expand...

I don't think it's too surprising, while he's an establishment Dem he's generally seen in a better light than Hilary and comes across as a lot more personable than her. Quite how the votes for Bernie/Biden would translate into states is unknown (how that works is more important than votes alone) although with those totals either would win comfortably.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Poll is probably meaningless at this point of time, but what's interesting is Biden has a better lead over Trump than Sanders.

@RDCR07 @Fergies Gum re conversation sometime earlier on Sanders vs Biden....
Click to expand...
Sure the Dems might prefer Biden but I think in terms of vote count, Sanders has already done this once and will fair better than Biden.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Poll is probably meaningless at this point of time, but what's interesting is Biden has a better lead over Trump than Sanders.

@RDCR07 @Fergies Gum re conversation sometime earlier on Sanders vs Biden....
Click to expand...

As you mention its way too early for this poll to mean anything.

Its annoying that CNN are still trying to keep Oprah in the headlines when most people have moved on from the speculation.
 
Cheesy said:
I don't think it's too surprising, while he's an establishment Dem he's generally seen in a better light than Hilary and comes across as a lot more personable than her. Quite how the votes for Bernie/Biden would translate into states is unknown (how that works is more important than votes alone) although with those totals either would win comfortably.
Click to expand...

Biden will face serious attacks in the primaries over Anita Hill and his previous support for credit card companies and increased bankrupcy limitations. It certainly wouldn't be an easy ride for him.
 
Cheesy said:
It is kind of weird to think that with the US electoral cycle, we're basically just a year away from this all starting up again. Fun times ahead...
Click to expand...
Dead inside already!
Dante said:
Neither will 79 year old Sanders nor 78 year old Biden run in 2020.
Click to expand...
Biden probably won't but Bernie quite possibly will. He's in this for ideological reasons and I'm not sure there's anyone else around that's heir apparent to his ideas and possessing his inherent likeability. That people mention Tulsi Gabbard kind of says it all. Warren has some overlap but has kind of alienated both sides with her prevaricating during the primary.

The only ones you can be fairly sure are running at this point are Booker, Harris and Gillibrand.
 
Ubik said:
Dead inside already!

Biden probably won't but Bernie quite possibly will. He's in this for ideological reasons and I'm not sure there's anyone else around that's heir apparent to his ideas and possessing his inherent likeability. That people mention Tulsi Gabbard kind of says it all. Warren has some overlap but has kind of alienated both sides with her prevaricating during the primary.

The only ones you can be fairly sure are running at this point are Booker, Harris and Gillibrand.
Click to expand...

The reopening govt vote was a good clue about who's running and who isn't.
 
Fergies Gum said:
As you mention its way too early for this poll to mean anything.

Its annoying that CNN are still trying to keep Oprah in the headlines when most people have moved on from the speculation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the media seem to be putting out a lot of articles on celebs running when people don't really care. Media just looking for clicks and views. Oprah, the rock, Kanye etc. Ridiculous.

I don't think Biden will run when it comes to it. 8 years as VP and being in congress before that for a long time takes quite a lot out of a person. Also, people may not take to him in the phase of campaigning before the primaries. Bernie has a much better chance with progressives and the working class voters.

It's also highly unlikely for both Warren and Bernie to run. It'll divide the progressive vote.

Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, Sanders are nailed on to run imo. It'll be a crowded field of up to 20 people.
 
In the midst of this article on John Kerry's continuing correspondence with the Palestinians, there is this:

"During the conversation, according to the report, Kerry asked Agha to convey a message to Abbas and ask him to "hold on and be strong." Tell him, he told Agha, "that he should stay strong in his spirit and play for time, that he will not break and will not yield to President Trump's demands." According to Kerry, Trump will not remain in office for a long time. It was reported that within a year there was a good chance that Trump would not be in the White House...

...According to the report, referring to the president, Kerry used derogatory terms and even worse...He surprised his interlocutor by saying he was seriously considering running for president in 2020. When asked about his advanced age, he said he was not much older than Trump and would not have an age problem."
 



These people are not just Bernard Brothers or socialists. These are people who were part of the Obama coalition that Clinton failed to hold together because her campaign didn't offer them anything to truly make their lives better. An important part of a Democratic victory in 2020 will be bringing those who voted Obama twice and then didn't vote, back to the fold. It's not going to happen by scolding, it's only going to happen with real changes to the platform and more importantly to the campaign
 
Silva said:
That was corruption not discrimination.
Click to expand...

It would suggest that if they want a female candidate so much they will corrupt the process to make it happen. It's not a big leap.

Yes, and we also have an old boys network that openly channels white men from Eton into high political office. It's far less democratic than the primaries and causes the democratic party holds.
Click to expand...

It's not because they're white men, it's because they're wealthy, and due to our history the wealth is by chance concentrated in white, somewhat patriarchal families. This is naturally dissipating over time as one would expect.

Regardless, you can't justify discrimination by pointing to some other discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Going from 90/10 males to 50/50ish isn't discrimination, it's proper representation.
Click to expand...

This is absurd logic.

If you're electing good people, they should be able to represent those of other genders, races, etc without issue. For instance, if you were to hypothetically elect me to office then I, because of my personal views and integrity, would represent women a lot better than many of today's female MPs.

If you're electing bad people, then just stop electing bad people. A bad actor is bad regardless of whether they're the same gender as you or not.

How far do you want to take this logic? Should we apply it also to race? Religious affiliation? Disability status? Favourite TV show? Because none of these should have any impact if you're electing egalitarians who give a damn about people other than themselves. You are ironically making it an issue and creating discriminatory barriers where there needn't be any.
 
ClutchHunter said:
It would suggest that if they want a female candidate so much they will corrupt the process to make it happen. It's not a big leap.
Click to expand...
It wasn't because she was a female. It was because she was the representative of corporate America.

ClutchHunter said:
It's not because they're white men, it's because they're wealthy, and due to our history the wealth is by chance concentrated in white, somewhat patriarchal families. This is naturally dissipating over time as one would expect.
Click to expand...
Natural dissipation is a myth. The reason why there's more representatives from other backgrounds in UK government is because of movements to elected people from the working classes. These movements have however been pitiful and need to step up their game because they're not working well enough.

ClutchHunter said:
Regardless, you can't justify discrimination by pointing to some other discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...
Wanting more diverse representation is not discrimination.

ClutchHunter said:
If you're electing good people, they should be able to represent those of other genders, races, etc without issue.
Click to expand...
And they way you do that is by getting them on a ballot.

ClutchHunter said:
If you're electing bad people, then just stop electing bad people. A bad actor is bad regardless of whether they're the same gender as you or not.
Click to expand...
And the way you do that is by opposing them with good candidates.

ClutchHunter said:
How far do you want to take this logic? Should we apply it also to race? Religious affiliation? Disability status? Favourite TV show?
Click to expand...
yes, yes, yes, no.

ClutchHunter said:
Because none of these should have any impact if you're electing egalitarians who give a damn about people other than themselves. You are ironically making it an issue.
Click to expand...
You're not an egalitarian if you support incremental change.
 
Ubik said:
Dead inside already!

Biden probably won't but Bernie quite possibly will. He's in this for ideological reasons and I'm not sure there's anyone else around that's heir apparent to his ideas and possessing his inherent likeability. That people mention Tulsi Gabbard kind of says it all. Warren has some overlap but has kind of alienated both sides with her prevaricating during the primary.

The only ones you can be fairly sure are running at this point are Booker, Harris and Gillibrand.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth - I haven't much else to contribute to this conversation - Gabbard came across very well to me on a podcast recently (Intercepted). She would be a positive move away from the status quo in many ways, namely the US' penchant for military interventionism and blind trust of the national security apparatus.
 
Silva said:
It wasn't because she was a female. It was because she was the representative of corporate America.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree. I'm just saying that it's not a big leap to think that they'll collude or otherwise misbehave to elect a woman if they believe it's a good idea even only ideologically. That tweet is concerning to me.

Natural dissipation is a myth. The reason why there's more representatives from other backgrounds in UK government is because of movements to elected people from the working classes. These movements have however been pitiful and need to step up their game because they're not working well enough.
Click to expand...

I suppose this speaks to a larger debate around social mobility. I guess for me the natural dissipation we speak of is inherently tied to social mobility, and if we're failing on that then there's not likely to be much movement in favour of my position.

Wanting more diverse representation is not discrimination. And the way you do that is by getting them on a ballot. And the way you do that is by opposing them with good candidates.
Click to expand...

No, but preferencing or outright only allowing more diverse candidates (where "diverse" is typically only on a handful of a nigh-infinite number of metrics) is discrimination.

"Good" to me does not mean "normal + historically oppressed gender". I think that's where we differ. For me the views of a candidate are more important then their genitalia.

yes, yes, yes, no.
Click to expand...

You'll be excluding good candidates because they're not black, not female, not disabled. So much for their apparent privilege in society.

There's another issue with this idea; it makes tyranny of the majority all too easy.

You're not an egalitarian if you support incremental change.
Click to expand...

I support radical change if it's non-discriminatory. As it stands, I don't see an alternative and to me gradual change is the lesser evil. I'm open to alternatives, though I quite fundamentally oppose yours for the reasons I've stated. For example, I am open to the possibility of completing eradicating the concept of inheritance from our society (somehow). That would be much more effective and much fairer, but people just don't seem ready for the idea.

It's quite absurd to say I'm not an egalitarian because I'm against all instances of discrimination, including those you put forward. And it needlessly creates an enemy for want of a better word out of someone that politically should be your ally. After all, we want the same outcome. We merely differ on how we'd rather get there.
 
ClutchHunter said:
I suppose this speaks to a larger debate around social mobility. I guess for me the natural dissipation we speak of is inherently tied to social mobility, and if we're failing on that then there's not likely to be much movement in favour of my position.
Click to expand...
Social mobility is also a myth. People pointing to outliers who are not representative of trends. People without it need power, not lies.

ClutchHunter said:
No, but preferencing or outright only allowing more diverse candidates (where "diverse" is typically only on a handful of a nigh-infinite number of metrics) is discrimination.

"Good" to me does not mean "normal + historically oppressed gender". I think that's where we differ. For me the views of a candidate are more important then their genitalia.
Click to expand...
One group of people being overrepresented in politics is inherently bad.

ClutchHunter said:
You'll be excluding good candidates because they're not black, not female, not disabled. So much for their apparent privilege in society.

There's another issue with this idea; it makes tyranny of the majority all too easy.
Click to expand...
Diverse selection does not mean exclusion of anyone. It's an inclusion of everyone.

ClutchHunter said:
I support radical change if it's non-discriminatory. As it stands, I don't see an alternative and to me gradual change is the lesser evil. I'm open to alternatives, though I quite fundamentally oppose yours for the reasons I've stated.
Click to expand...
This kind of radical change is only discriminatory to the status quo, which needs to get fecked anyway.

ClutchHunter said:
As it stands, I don't see an alternative and to me gradual change is the lesser evil. I'm open to alternatives, though I quite fundamentally oppose yours for the reasons I've stated.
Click to expand...
Gradual change is a myth. People only gain power when they demand it. It's never given willingly.

ClutchHunter said:
It's quite absurd to say I'm not an egalitarian because I'm against all instances of discrimination, including those you put forward.
Click to expand...
You're defending incrementalism, which is wholly discriminatory in its nature because it never works.

ClutchHunter said:
And it needlessly creates an enemy for want of a better word out of someone that politically should be your ally. After all, we want the same outcome. We merely differ on how we'd rather get there.
Click to expand...
Wanting the same outcome does not mean much. If I think your ideas for achieving an outcome are wrong, there's little point in banding together and achieving nothing.
 
Last edited:
I don't think "a safe pair of hands and more chin than you can ever feasibly need" is gonna grab the imagination in 2020. Bernie would beat him up in a battle of the septuagenarians.
 
Ubik said:
I don't think "a safe pair of hands and more chin than you can ever feasibly need" is gonna grab the imagination in 2020. Bernie would beat him up in a battle of the septuagenarians.
Click to expand...

He would have a hard time in the current climate. My sense is the Dems would be better off with someone younger - maybe someone who can springboard off of Bernie's 2016 sentiment.

They have still not resolved which way they as a party will go, which is another concern that may split them again in 2020. They need to figure out if they are the party of single payer or of fix Obamacare. Whether they are Obama type pro-free trade or more of Bernie style economic protectionism. The fact that Perez won the DNC job suggests their establishment ties are not going anywhere anytime soon.
 
If Bernie runs then the next democratic primaries will be very similar to the first time Corbyn won the Labour leadership.
 
Sweet Square said:
If Bernie runs then he wins. The next democratic primaries will be very similar to the first time Corbyn won the Labour leadership.
Click to expand...

He would definitely be the favorite in the Dem primaries, but how he would fare in a general election is an entirely different story. We can't take his 2016 head to head polling in a hypothetical match up with Trump numbers very seriously since the Trump machine would've gone to town on vilifying him in a gen election, and the fear of what Republicans think is socialism will definitely unite everyone from establishment to Trump supporters to standard conservatives.
 
Sweet Square said:
If Bernie runs then the next democratic primaries will be very similar to the first time Corbyn won the Labour leadership.
Click to expand...

His numbers have been slipping generally, but he should be ok. Biden for some reason is surging a bit. Gillibrand and Harris are running for sure.
If Bernie can frame the race as "left vs liberals", he could get the others to split votes among themselves and walk through. If it splits on "1st woman prez" and he is lumped with Biden, he's doomed.
 
Raoul said:
He would have a hard time in the current climate. My sense is the Dems would be better off with someone younger - maybe someone who can springboard off of Bernie's 2016 sentiment.

They have still not resolved which way they as a party will go, which is another concern that may split them again in 2020. They need to figure out if they are the party of single payer or of fix Obamacare. Whether they are Obama type pro-free trade or more of Bernie style economic protectionism. The fact that Perez won the DNC job suggests their establishment ties are not going anywhere anytime soon.
Click to expand...
There'll definitely be a split of some kind, the question will be how much of a multiplier Clinton herself was on it last time. Even aside from her personal qualities as a candidate, she also typified the establishment, had a bad record on foreign policy, had ties to Wall Street and accusations of corruption with the Foundation. The hate was real and that drove a lot of the sentiment against her.

My guess on the makeup of the winning candidate would be (and my predictions are always wrong) social policy on health, education and wages from Bernie's side, generic Obama Democrat nearly everywhere else.
Sweet Square said:
If Bernie runs then he wins easily. The next democratic primaries will be very similar to the first time Corbyn won the Labour leadership.
Click to expand...
There's a stonkingly large difference between the Labour membership and voters in the US Democratic primaries.
 
Ubik said:
There'll definitely be a split of some kind, the question will be how much of a multiplier Clinton herself was on it last time. Even aside from her personal qualities as a candidate, she also typified the establishment, had a bad record on foreign policy, had ties to Wall Street and accusations of corruption with the Foundation. The hate was real and that drove a lot of the sentiment against her.

My guess on the makeup of the winning candidate would be (and my predictions are always wrong) social policy on health, education and wages from Bernie's side, generic Obama Democrat nearly everywhere else.
Click to expand...

I think the mid terms will go a long way to informing potential Prez candidates where the policy sweet spot is for voters. If there's a big democratic wave that wins back the House and Senate through a massive surge in women voting, then it will likely embolden a more progressive group of candidates to throw their hat in the ring for 2020. If on the other hand the economy and stock market continue to hum along, unemployment stays low and Trump somehow evades the heat of the Russia investigation, then we will likely see more emphasis on the likes of Biden and other traditional Dems considered as front runners.
 
Raoul said:
He would definitely be the favorite in the Dem primaries, but how he would fare in a general election is an entirely different story. We can't take his 2016 head to head polling in a hypothetical match up with Trump numbers very seriously since the Trump machine would've gone to town on vilifying him and the fear of what Republicans think is socialism will definitely unite everyone from establishment to Trump supporters to standard conservatives.
Click to expand...

I find the worry over red scaring slightly overrated, look at the way Corbyn was shown in all media barring online over here in the UK(The UK isn't exactly a hot bed of communism..........yet) and Labour still did very well. Yes American aren't as left learning as people over here and I agree with you that Republican are a far harder fight than liberal Democrats but Sanders will be offering people the chance to fundamental change their lives - Healthcare, free collage, wage increase etc.(Wither he can't that done in office is another question).
berbatrick said:
His numbers have been slipping generally, but he should be ok. Biden for some reason is surging a bit. Gillibrand and Harris are running for sure.
Click to expand...
I think they'll face the same problems the Labour MP's faced, the first being they will be dictated by Sanders pushing the debate more to the left(So far it's almost guarantee that they will have to run on singe payer heath care to stand a chance) and the second being I honestly think the Liberals are completely fecked. This was Biden comments recently

Because here's the deal guys, we decided we were gonna change the world. And we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement in the first stage. The women's movement came to be," he continued.

"So my message is, get involved. There's no place to hide. You can go and you can make all the money in the world, but you can't build a wall high enough to keep the pollution out. You can't live where — you can't not be diminished when your sister can't marry the man or woman, or the woman she loves. You can't — when you have a good friend being profiled, you can't escape this stuff."
Click to expand...

This isn't a man who has the answers to the problems of healthcare, of debt, housing, poverty, police brutality.


berbatrick said:
If Bernie can frame the race as "left vs liberals"
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you. Sanders needs to show that the problems America faces today as not just the fault of nasty republicans but the outcome of liberalism(Well Neoliberalism). Which shouldn't be to hard because it's true.

Ubik said:
There's a stonkingly large difference between the Labour membership and voters in the US Democratic primaries.
Click to expand...
They are but the labour membership the first time around wasn't anywhere near of left as Corbyn. My reasoning is that Dems are doing what the Labour MP's did after losing the 2015 election, which to somewhat radicalise their support thought sheer incompetence, the latest being Schemers comments on the Trump wall and the the mess of how they've handled the dreamers.

Although I could just be talking shite and The Rock will storm to the 2020 candidacy after promising to chair shot people off social security.
 
Sweet Square said:
I find the worry over red scaring slightly overrated, look at the way Corbyn was shown in all media barring online over here in the UK(The UK isn't exactly a hot bed of communism..........yet) and Labour still did very well. Yes American aren't as left learning as people over here and I agree with you that Republican are a far harder fight than liberal Democrats but Sanders will be offering people the chance to fundamental change their lives - Healthcare, free collage, wage increase etc.(Wither he can't that done in office is another question).
Click to expand...

He would do well to get a younger, up and coming person on his ticket. Maybe someone like Kamala Harris, who isn't quite ready herself, but has similar views and would complement Bernie nicely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.