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

[CA_vampire]

He will win if the Dems are split among two factions again, where one faction stays home because they view the other as being nearly as bad a Trump. It’s a real possibility.

It will be idiotic if the Dems do this for a second time. Not that they don't have a lot of voters who are actually idiots, but still... Trump has already selected 2 superior court judges and he may select a third before 2020. This is a gift from those who refused to vote for Hilary, and we will "enjoy" this gift for decades.

I have no idea who will win in the primaries, I have no idea who I want to win, but whoever it is, we should all vote for him/her.

 

[berbatrick]

Twitter are banning people for calling Butt-- buttchug

 

[Red Dreams]

"He is extremely affectionate extremely flirtatious in a completely safe way" Mika Brzezinski

She starts with. "yes. The women should be listened to." Then attacks them for bringing this up based on political motivation.

EDIT:
She suspects that is the reason it is coming out now.

They rolled out Valerie Jarret to defend him.

Seriously though what has Biden to offer?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

He will win if the Dems are split among two factions again, where one faction stays home because they view the other as being nearly as bad a Trump. It’s a real possibility.

The Republicans have an advantage because the Republican establishment will get behind what their base wants. The Democrat establishment and media on the other hand constantly condescends and insults their base along with trying to out-racist dog whistle the Republicans (Biden and Clinton on the 90s crime bill), blindly supporting Republican wars without doing due diligence (Clinton, Biden and Iraq) or stealthily fecking over the bottom 80% to benefit for-profit healthcare and big pharma (Biden and the rest of the Republican-lite establishment).

 

[nimic]

He will win if the Dems are split among two factions again, where one faction stays home because they view the other as being nearly as bad a Trump. It’s a real possibility.

I don't remember exactly, but didn't the numbers actually show that the vast majority of Bernie-supporters voted for Clinton in the general election? At more or less the same ratio as Clinton supporters voted for Obama, I believe.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I don't remember exactly, but didn't the numbers actually show that the vast majority of Bernie-supporters voted for Clinton in the general election? At more or less the same ratio as Clinton supporters voted for Obama, I believe.

The estimate on Bernie to Trump voters was around 12%

Hilary to McCain voters were 25% of Hilary's primary voters. Clinton supporters are center-right poison.

 

[George Owen]

I don't remember exactly, but didn't the numbers actually show that the vast majority of Bernie-supporters voted for Clinton in the general election? At more or less the same ratio as Clinton supporters voted for Obama, I believe.

Bernie supporters: 75% voted Hillary and 10% voted Trump.

 

[Raoul]

The Republicans have an advantage because the Republican establishment will get behind what their base wants. The Democrat establishment and media on the other hand constantly condescends and insults their base along with trying to out-racist dog whistle the Republicans (Biden and Clinton on the 90s crime bill), blindly supporting Republican wars without doing due diligence (Clinton, Biden and Iraq) or stealthily fecking over the bottom 80% to benefit for-profit healthcare and big pharma (Biden and the rest of the Republican-lite establishment).

Yep. GOP support for Trump is about 80-90 percent so they will turn out to keep their guy in office. The question is whether the Dems can galvanize and turn out en masse to overwhelm the numbers and mitigate the heavy GOP Trump support.

 

[Red Dreams]

Yep. GOP support for Trump is about 80-90 percent so they will turn out to keep their guy in office. The question is whether the Dems can galvanize and turn out en masse to overwhelm the numbers and mitigate the heavy GOP Trump support.

Turnout will depend on the candidate and policies.
A candidate that does not have policies will only attack Trump.
We saw how that turned out last time.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Yep. GOP support for Trump is about 80-90 percent so they will turn out to keep their guy in office. The question is whether the Dems can galvanize and turn out en masse to overwhelm the numbers and mitigate the heavy GOP Trump support.

Biden absolutely can't do that. I won't vote for him based on his past. Bernie will turn out a huge number of progressive independents and IMO has the best chance of beating Trump (with Beto as wildcard).

Harris and Beto are unknowns at this stage for me. Harris can turn out the minorities based on identity politics (sadly she "checks the boxes") while Beto is new enough that he might be able to craft an image that can appeal to enough progressives without turning off the establishment.

 

[Red Dreams]

Biden absolutely can't do that. I won't vote for him based on his past. Bernie will turn out a huge number of progressive independents and IMO has the best chance of beating Trump (with Beto as wildcard).

Harris and Beto are unknowns at this stage for me. Harris can turn out the minorities based on identity politics (sadly she "checks the boxes") while Beto is new enough that he might be able to craft an image that can appeal to enough progressives without turning off the establishment.

You can see the MSM already defending Biden.
...by attacking women.
clever strategy.

 

[Raoul]

Biden absolutely can't do that. I won't vote for him based on his past. Bernie will turn out a huge number of progressive independents and IMO has the best chance of beating Trump (with Beto as wildcard).

Harris and Beto are unknowns at this stage for me. Harris can turn out the minorities based on identity politics (sadly she "checks the boxes") while Beto is new enough that he might be able to craft an image that can appeal to enough progressives without turning off the establishment.

Its too early to say imo. Biden is polling ridiculously well at the moment, probably moreso based on name recognition than anything else. At the end of the day this election will be about beating Trump, not policy, so whoever is perceived of having the best chance will likely get a lot of support on election day.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Its too early to say imo. Biden is polling ridiculously well at the moment, probably moreso based on name recognition than anything else. At the end of the day this election will be about beating Trump, not policy, so whoever is perceived of having the best chance will likely get a lot of support on election day.

For the umpteenth time, polling this early is ridiculously unreliable. I trust them about as much as @Edgar Allan Pillow pissing into a chamber pot and using hydro-divination to come up with numbers.

Focusing only on beating Trump is a losing strategy. It will just be a repeat of 2004 and all the Dem establishment full of hubris saying its all about beating Bush and the establishment media even calling several states before they realized their exit polling was wrong.

Also its an error to only look things as "policy" or "personality". What that view misses is articulating a vision. That's how the Dems win with someone like Bernie. You don't talk policy like a wonk (the losing strategy of Gore, Kerry Clinton x2). You win by articulating a vision that actually appeals to people like Obama did - but this time the person articulating the vision simply has to mean it.

Beating Trump is not a compelling vision to anyone but the well-off Democrats in the top 10-20% of income earners. Beat Trump feck yeah! is not going to improve the USA's absolutely shite voter turnout records. If the Dems can't walk and chew gun at the same time they will lose. Articulate a compelling vision or lose. Its really simple. People like Lakoff, Moore have been trying to get this message across to these people since Kerry. They should have learned their lesson in 2008 but they just doubled down on their hubris and greed. Its about time they step aside and let people that know whats up take over.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Its too early to say imo. Biden is polling ridiculously well at the moment, probably moreso based on name recognition than anything else. At the end of the day this election will be about beating Trump, not policy, so whoever is perceived of having the best chance will likely get a lot of support on election day.

Problem is that didn't work out for Hillary in 2016. Whoever wins the Democrat nomination needs to bring more than just 'i'm not Trump'. They need a positive campaign which focuses on their own policies

 

[Raoul]

Problem is that didn't work out for Hillary in 2016. Whoever wins the Democrat nomination needs to bring more than just 'i'm not Trump'. They need a positive campaign which focuses on their own policies

That was because no one thought Trump had a chance to win. Now that he’s here the emphasis will be to remove him at all costs.

 

[Fergies Gum]

Its stories like this that could also scupper Biden's chances of winning the nomination.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Its too early to say imo. Biden is polling ridiculously well at the moment, probably moreso based on name recognition than anything else. At the end of the day this election will be about beating Trump, not policy, so whoever is perceived of having the best chance will likely get a lot of support on election day.

The blue states will vote for anyone in Dem party and Biden will have a better chance of gaining road in swing states, esp in rust belt. Ih he can supplement his name recognition with some policies people can connect to, he'd be the one.

And the likes of Gillibrand and Harris should just feck off and not confuse the pool.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Focusing only on beating Trump is a losing strategy. It will just be a repeat of 2004 and all the Dem establishment full of hubris saying its all about beating Bush and the establishment media even calling several states before they realized their exit polling was wrong.

Though I usually disagree with Onenil's and his "I read it in a book" theories with non practical idealism....I think he got this right. Anti-Trump is a doomed agenda. Dems just refuse to realize this.

 

[Red Dreams]

ahhhhh.



"pissing into a chamber pot and using hydro-divination to come up with numbers"


If you don't learn from your mistakes, you are condemned to repeat them.
Sure. lets beat up on Trump and people will forget what an empty vessel Biden is.
He has Nothing to offer.

...And he has a long history of being on the wrong side of African Americans with his votes and speeches.

As for the Rustbelt Bernie actually has policies that would help voters in Ohio for example.
Ask a staunch Trump voter if he would like to lose his health insurance/medicare and see Social Security reduced as the Republicans have proposed.

Bernie wants to expand Social Security and bring medicare for all for starters.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

None of the candidates to date has raised more than John Edwards in 2008 by the same time, who actually was 3rd in fundraising then.

No PAC money, wider field etc... granted, but it’s not a good sign regarding enthusiasm.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Problem is that didn't work out for Hillary in 2016. Whoever wins the Democrat nomination needs to bring more than just 'i'm not Trump'. They need a positive campaign which focuses on their own policies

Early indicators are ‘electability’ is very high on Blue voters’ priority list, so in a primary without much in the way of policy to distinguish the top candidates aside from Bernie it may win out.

And in that context of Dem vs Dem, which is the stage we’re at now, it actually worked out well for Hillary. Perceived electability made her the easier choice over Bernie.

 

[Eboue]

Perceived electability made her the easier choice over Bernie.

True but since berniewouldhavewon and she didnt, it shows that what we think we know about who is more electable isnt worth much.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Though I usually disagree with Onenil's and his "I read it in a book" theories with non practical idealism....I think he got this right. Anti-Trump is a doomed agenda. Dems just refuse to realize this.

If anyones ideas lack any sort of practical grounding in the real world its yours Pillow

 

[ErranMorad]

Though I usually disagree with Onenil's and his "I read it in a book" theories with non practical idealism....I think he got this right. Anti-Trump is a doomed agenda. Dems just refuse to realize this.

Really? Have any of the candidates come out with an explicit Anti-Trump agenda? How many have you heard or seen butting heads with him?

 

[Cal?]

It will be idiotic if the Dems do this for a second time. Not that they don't have a lot of voters who are actually idiots, but still... Trump has already selected 2 superior court judges and he may select a third before 2020. This is a gift from those who refused to vote for Hilary, and we will "enjoy" this gift for decades.

I have no idea who will win in the primaries, I have no idea who I want to win, but whoever it is, we should all vote for him/her.

We have those who refused to vote for Hillary to thank for the mess the world is in.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

We have those who refused to vote for Hillary to thank for the mess the world is in.

No we have those Democrat elitists that tried to pre-select a horrible center-right candidate with insane baggage and ram that choice down our throats to thank for Trump.

And Trump himself is a symptom not a cause. The world was a mess before he got elected thanks to 25 years of Republican-lite neoliberalism.

 

[Cal?]

No we have those Democrat elitists that tried to pre-select a horrible center-right candidate with insane baggage and ram that choice down our throats to thank for Trump.

And Trump himself is a symptom not a cause. The world was a mess before he got elected thanks to 25 years of Republican-lite neoliberalism.

We will end up going in circles again. But Hillary did get over a million more primary votes

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

We will end up going in circles again. But Hillary did get over a million more primary votes

And again those numbers are the result of a massive skewed primary where super delegates completely changed the equation and rendered many voters like everyone in California meaningless. Just because people voted for Hilary doesn't mean they liked her or wanted her. It was as we all know shoved down everyone's throats by the Dem elitists.

So stop derailing this thread about 2020 election with your Hilary whining. Go take that into an appropriate thread.

 

[Cal?]

And again those numbers are the result of a massive skewed primary where super delegates completely changed the equation and rendered many voters like everyone in California meaningless. Just because people voted for Hilary doesn't mean they liked her or wanted her. It was as we all know shoved down everyone's throats by the Dem elitists.

So stop derailing this thread about 2020 election with your Hilary whining. Go take that into an appropriate thread.

The super delegates system has been around forever and no one made such a big deal out of it before. Obama got the nomination despite Hillary getting more super delegate support back then.

Voting for her doesn’t mean they want her? So let’s rely on polls ahead of actually voting?

 

[Raoul]

Really? Have any of the candidates come out with an explicit Anti-Trump agenda? How many have you heard or seen butting heads with him?

Correct. No one is explicitly anti-Trump for good reason, because talking policy and not about him is implicitly being anti-Trump. We already know he is planning on making the 2020 election a referendum between socialism and capitalism (a shrewd strategy by the GOP) so the candidates are wise to avoid getting drawn into his preferred narrative.

 

[nimic]

The estimate on Bernie to Trump voters was around 12%

Hilary to McCain voters were 25% of Hilary's primary voters. Clinton supporters are center-right poison.

If that's correct, then surely that weakens Raoul's point even further? After all, Obama managed to win, and by your numbers his party was even more split than in 2016.

 

[Raoul]

If that's correct, then surely that weakens Raoul's point even further? After all, Obama managed to win, and by your numbers his party was even more split than in 2016.

The ideologies are far more split today than in the past. Back then it was Obama’s largely establishment view v Clinton’s establishment view. Today it’s establishment v progressive, where the latter are calling for real structural change in how the country operates.

 

[Kentonio]

If that's correct, then surely that weakens Raoul's point even further? After all, Obama managed to win, and by your numbers his party was even more split than in 2016.

Not really. Obama took the left of the party and was moderate enough to take enough centrists to win the nomination. Clinton had quite a lot of centre right Dems and of course the racists in the party. Those feckers were always going to switch to McCain when the choice was him or Obama.

 

[Kentonio]

Really? Have any of the candidates come out with an explicit Anti-Trump agenda? How many have you heard or seen butting heads with him?

Bernie has been regularly kicking his ass. But of course Bernie also has an extremely strong platform of his own beyond anti-Trump.

 

[The Firestarter]

The ideologies are far more split today than in the past. Back then it Obama’s largely establishment view v Clinton’s establishment view. Today it’s establishment v progressive, where the latter are calling for real structural change in how the country operates.

Was that what Obama ran on? I remember one word, 'Change'. Him actually changing almost feck all is another matter.

 

[Raoul]

Was that what Obama ran on? I remember one word, 'Change'. Him actually changing almost feck all is another matter.

Irrespective of whether they use the word, they all run on some variation of change, otherwise they wouldn’t bother running on a platform of preserving the status quo. In Obama’s case there was a palpable feeling of Dubya fatigue in 2007/08, with two wars lingering and a financial crisis looming, so it was easy for him to walk through that door by using his change slogan.

 

[altodevil]

Obama was black. That was enough to win in 2008. He was a shitty president, but after Bush his intelligence and charisma was like a ray of sunshine. It's just when we look back now and realise he achieved nothing.

 

[The Firestarter]

Obama was black. That was enough to win in 2008. He was a shitty president, but after Bush his intelligence and charisma was like a ray of sunshine. It's just when we look back now and realise he achieved nothing.

The way you put it: any black man would've won in 08. Is that what you mean ?

 

[Raoul]

Obama was black. That was enough to win in 2008. He was a shitty president, but after Bush his intelligence and charisma was like a ray of sunshine. It's just when we look back now and realise he achieved nothing.

Presidents generally don’t achieve much in terms of their agendas. They are merely 4 year placeholders to prevent the other side from making any progress. So whether one votes Sanders, Biden, or anyone else, we shouldn’t expect any substantial changes over the 2020-24 cycle.

 

[langster]

We will end up going in circles again. But Hillary did get over a million more primary votes

The only person who ever goes round in circles or derails threads is you, simply because of your pigheaded stubbornness and refusal to hear any criticism about or be told how completely shite a candidate her fuhrer was.