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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth Warren top pick to be Biden’s running mate – and by large margin especially on critical question

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
Click to expand...
is the top pick among Democrats to be Joe Biden’s vice president, a new poll finds, and on one critical question she’s number one by a very large margin.

In every category, in fact, the Massachusetts progressive who last fall was seen as the Democratic party’s presidential frontrunner beats out all other possible VP nominees, as Vox reports.

Progressive polling firm Data for Progress asked Democrats which of six women should be Biden’s VP. The former Obama vice president has committed to choosing a woman as his running mate, and this week launched a committee to identify and vet candidates.

Warren came in first, the poll shows, at 31%, followed by Sen. Kamala Harris at 18%, Stacey Abrams at 10%, Sen. Amy Klobuchar also at 10%, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer at 3%, and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto at 1%.

Warren was first among women, men, Biden supporters, Sanders supporters, voters over 45, voters under 45, white voters, Black or African American voters, college-educated voters, and voters without a college education.

When Democrats were asked if they would be more likely to vote for Biden if each of the six were his running mate, Warren came out on top as well, with voters saying they would be more likely to vote for the former vice president if she were on the ticket.

And when asked who of the six are most ready to be president – possibly the most critical consideration when choosing a vice presidential running mate, Warren excelled by a huge margin.

Warren was also the number one pick when asked which of the six would be best at handling the coronavirus pandemic, ensuring that policies benefit working class people, and implementing policies effectively.

The poll has one downside: a small sample size. Data for Progress polled only 605 Democratic likely voters.

But the results line up with several polls over the past year, before Warren suspended her campaign.

In one poll voters who did not support Warren as their first choice said they would be least upset if she were the presidential nominee. That same poll found voters said they were most enthusiastic about the Massachusetts Senator. In another poll voters who had not chosen Warren as their first pick overwhelmingly said she was their second choice. And in yet another poll voters said if they could skip the election, wave a “magic wand” and install a president today, they would choose Elizabeth Warren.
Click to expand...
 
Beachryan said:
It is extremely likely that Amash running would help Trump in Michigan - a crucial swing state. Imagine the whole election coming down to that one state, and his running is what gives Trump 4 more years.
Click to expand...

I absolutely do not buy that analysis, and in fact Gary Johnson got roughly 3X the votes of Jill Stein in 2016, both nationwide and in swing states. If there were no 3rd parties at all, Trump would have had a much easier win including an almost-tied popular vote.

Exit polls: Johnson drew 2% of Republicans, 1% of Democrats, and 6% of independents. Independents split 48-42 for Trump. If we imagine Johnson away and send all those voters home (taking into account the different sizes of the three party ID groups) the final result is +.4% to Trump. Put another way, even at the end Johnson held Trump’s vote down by .4%. Not enough. But that was the direction of the effect.

A calculation has been going around claiming to “prove” that Johnson and Stein cost Clinton the election. It’s been picked up and propagated by outlets from CNN to Vanity Fair. Its method is to allocate 100% of Stein’s vote and 50% of Johnson’s to Clinton, and show that she would have won under those conditions. 50% is the nod toward recognizing that not all of Johnson’s voters were plausible Clinton voters. What happens to the other 50% of Johnson’s voters, you ask? They don’t say, presumably because they know it would sound absurd. It stays with Johnson.
Click to expand...
 
The way he has gone against Reade in not just denying but actively rallying the press and focusing on what he calls inconsistencies is quite Trumpian, Trumpesque, Trumpy, Joe Trump.
 
wc1exs9de8w41.jpg

 
Beachryan said:
I genuinely would love to have a honest discussion with someone like Justin Amash, or Jill Stein. Because they must see the numbers, understand the implications of their running and then - presumably - also be able to distance themselves from the consequences.

It is extremely likely that Amash running would help Trump in Michigan - a crucial swing state. Imagine the whole election coming down to that one state, and his running is what gives Trump 4 more years.

This is a man who has been rejected by his own party because of his opposition to Trump. But presumably because his ego is so big, he's willing to potentially give the man 4 more years because...erm...he really thinks he can win the Presidency?
Click to expand...
How does Justin Amash help Trump? He is actually a right-wing nutter (he is one of the most conservative members of the House), so logically, if he gets any votes it would be from conservative voters who are against Trump, not from liberals.
 
Revan said:
Not necessarily. Parties change over the course of time. Lincoln was a Republican president, now you see Republican protestors with confederate flags. Obviously, I took a very extreme example, but parties change over time. I don't think it is ridiculous to suspect that GOP will go a bit towards the left in the next few years, if the American average voter goes a bit towards the left (which might happen, with oldies dying and young people in average being more leftish at least cultural wise).
Click to expand...
If anything the GOP will become a fascist party. I think they’re there already but in any case, there is no going left. Going right has been a trend since decades ago. The conditions for the demographic switch back in the 1900s are different than now so I’m not convinced that just because it happened then that it’s going to happen again in the way you’re intending in your post.
 
Florida Man said:
If anything the GOP will become a fascist party. I think they’re there already but in any case, there is no going left. Going right has been a trend since decades ago. The conditions for the demographic switch back in the 1900s are different than now so I’m not convinced that just because it happened then that it’s going to happen again in the way you’re intending in your post.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong, but I believe that the entire Western civilization has been going to the left (at least from social ideology, when it comes to economics it is a very different manner). Women rights and then getting high positions in politics and economy, LGBT rights, abortion, the fight against racism, all have been progressing on the left direction (obviously with some bumps here and there). With the changes in the population of the US, most of boomers who have been very conservative dying in the next few decades, the young people tend always to be more liberal, the people who come to the US too, the average voter is gonna be more left wing than right now.

Which would mean that both parties will go to the left of what they are now. At the end, the parties have to follow their own voters, otherwise they would lose voters.
 
Revan said:
I might be wrong, but I believe that the entire Western civilization has been going to the left (at least from social ideology, when it comes to economics it is a very different manner). Women rights and then getting high positions in politics and economy, LGBT rights, abortion, the fight against racism, all have been progressing on the left direction (obviously with some bumps here and there). With the changes in the population of the US, most of boomers who have been very conservative dying in the next few decades, the young people tend always to be more liberal, the people who come to the US too, the average voter is gonna be more left wing than right now.

Which would mean that both parties will go to the left of what they are now. At the end, the parties have to follow their own voters, otherwise they would lose voters.
Click to expand...
I think we’re on different wavelengths and also that reducing this to whether it is left trend or right trend is an incomplete frame. One can be socially tolerant and exist across different economic and governmental philosophies. In regards to increased social tolerance, then I can agree with you there. But I’d like to think that the world is trending left in terms of embracing socialism — it’s a tough call. More rejection by youth in the US of the Democratic party possibly. I see it in the Bernie circles online at least. I know there is increased membership of parties like the PSL and orgs like the SRA. I don’t know if that translates to what’s going on in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy.
 
To Amash point, there are two concerns from an anti-Trump perspective:

1. Trumps ceiling isn't generally above 50%. Hell get his base, but actually getting the majority in a straight 50/50 state is hard for him, because he's alienated a lot of voters.

But if Amash gets, say 5% of Michigan, it means Trump only needs 46% - something much more achievable. Some of the 5% may have been Trump voters, but many will just have not voted.

2. Biden is massively winning among voters that dislike both candidates, but still feel they should vote. If there's a third option, he'll lose that unenthusiastic vote that he'll likely need.

So I agree Amash voters are more likely to be GOP, but many wouldn't have voted, and at least some dislike Trump more than Biden.

Anyway the point should be moot - Amash himself said he'd never run unless he saw a clear mathematical way to 271. And if he believes he sees one in the USs ridiculous two party monstrosity- hes not smart enough to run imo.
 
Revan said:
I might be wrong, but I believe that the entire Western civilization has been going to the left (at least from social ideology, when it comes to economics it is a very different manner). Women rights and then getting high positions in politics and economy, LGBT rights, abortion, the fight against racism, all have been progressing on the left direction (obviously with some bumps here and there). With the changes in the population of the US, most of boomers who have been very conservative dying in the next few decades, the young people tend always to be more liberal, the people who come to the US too, the average voter is gonna be more left wing than right now.

Which would mean that both parties will go to the left of what they are now. At the end, the parties have to follow their own voters, otherwise they would lose voters.
Click to expand...

I started hearing this from some people 25 years ago. "Oh just wait until the WWII generation dies out, the boomers (who marched with MLK and protested Vietnam) are much more liberal, etc, etc". The flaw in this thinking is it doesn't take into account that many people get more conservative as they get older (exactly what happened to the boomers) and many liberals lose the will to fight after fighting for 10-20 years. I had a friend that firmly believed in the 1990s that by 2020 the GOP would have returned to the being Teddy Roosevelt progressive which is a far cry from the far right ethnonationalism fo Trump because of "old conservatives dying off" (although Teddy himself hate "the injuns").

I'm already seeing this process play out with GenX people I went to school with. People I knew from high school and college who were "somewhat liberal" or "moderate-liberal" are now staunchly conservative GOP voters. People I knew that were "mildly conservative" turned into tea party supporters and rabid Trumpite nuts. Relying on this "old conservatives will die out" is something some people have been betting on since the 1980s and its not happening the way they think it will.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I started hearing this from some people 25 years ago. "Oh just wait until the WWII generation dies out, the boomers (who marched with MLK and protested Vietnam) are much more liberal, etc, etc". The flaw in this thinking is it doesn't take into account that many people get more conservative as they get older (exactly what happened to the boomers) and many liberals lose the will to fight after fighting for 10-20 years. I had a friend that firmly believed in the 1990s that by 2020 the GOP would have returned to the being Teddy Roosevelt progressive which is a far cry from the far right ethnonationalism fo Trump because of "old conservatives dying off".

I'm already seeing this process play out with GenX people I went to school with. People I knew from high school and college who would be considered "somewhat liberal" or "moderate-liberal" are now staunchly conservative GOP voters. People I knew that were "mildly conservative" turned into tea party supporters and rabid Trumpite nuts. Relying on this "old conservatives will die out" is something some people have been betting on since the 1980s and its not happening the way they think it will.
Click to expand...

In the last 25 years, there has been tremendous progress though, and definitely the Western civilization culturally and socially has moved towards the left.

I think that people becoming more conservative when they get older is definitely true, but it covers purely the fiscal/economical part. Socially, liberal/progressive people stay liberal when they get older, but they may become much more fiscally conservative.

My point is the posts always covered only the social part. In any case, I don’t think that a xenophobic, racist party can survive in the next 20-30 years without having some reforms. It is not that McConnell will pivot to the left as the smart Eboue sarcastically said, but if the average voter is more left winging, then the new leaders of the party have no other option but to go towards the left. At the end of the day, the party follows their voters.
 
MSM is not going to go after Biden. Biden needs to have the same level of investigation as anyone else. The fact he is denying it is understandable. No is going to say I poked my finger up her pussy.
 
nimic said:
I don't get it. If Amash gets 5% and Trump gets 46%, then doesn't it follow that Biden gets 49%?
Click to expand...
Sorry, yes - meant to type 48%. Just making the point that the sharedecreases the more a third party candidate gets.
 
Foxbatt said:
MSM is not going to go after Biden. Biden needs to have the same level of investigation as anyone else. The fact he is denying it is understandable. No is going to say I poked my finger up her pussy.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/biden-tara-reade.html - This is the editorial board of the NY Times - who won the pulitzer for their investigations into Weinstein - calling for the investigations to continue, after their own - when they interviewed over 2 dozen sources - could not form a conclusion. (note that was before the neighbour who came forward to a Business Insider reporter did confirm that Reade told her of assault).

People have rightly demanded Biden be held to a higher standard than Trump, and the MSM are responding.

Sadly, at the end of they day it is highly unlikely that proof will emerge in either direction - that tends to be the case in these situations. So people - voters - will be left without some nice clean answer here. (unlike, presumably, the Trump accusations which I think even his most hardcore supporters probably admits, but just doesn't believe them to be disqualifying).
 
Revan said:
In the last 25 years, there has been tremendous progress though, and definitely the Western civilization culturally and socially has moved towards the left.

I think that people becoming more conservative when they get older is definitely true, but it covers purely the fiscal/economical part. Socially, liberal/progressive people stay liberal when they get older, but they may become much more fiscally conservative.

My point is the posts always covered only the social part. In any case, I don’t think that a xenophobic, racist party can survive in the next 20-30 years without having some reforms. It is not that McConnell will pivot to the left as the smart Eboue sarcastically said, but if the average voter is more left winging, then the new leaders of the party have no other option but to go towards the left. At the end of the day, the party follows their voters.
Click to expand...

The evidence doesn't support this for the American right in the last 40 years. Since American institutions were at their most liberal (in the late 60s, early 70s) and after Goldwater lost there was a concentrated and organized movement to establish conservative, far right institutions to push the electorate further to the right. There were the establishment of think tanks in the 70s like Heritage (1973), far right legal organizations to push a conservative agenda like the Federalist Society (1982) and the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 which led to Rush Limbaugh (1988) and the proliferation of conservative talk radio and cable news of the last 30 years which includes the Koch brothers owning crucial local television and magazines. The far right has been building powerful, behind the scenes institutions to proliferate their views and push the Overton window to the right for the last 40 years and for the most part, they have been successful as there was no real organized liberal/progressive alternatives.

Trump is not the instigator or cause of any of this. He is riding the wave that is the culmination of institutional conservative strategy over the last 40 years. This was very intentional. The far right has been building for this moment for decades. It's not just going to disappear by accident or miracle or this pie in the sky "old people dying off". Without institutions to combat the three prongs of think tanks, legal lobbying and far right media, the conservative institutions will continue to shape what voters vote for not the other way around.

And milquetoast corporation centrism (which is concerned with individual profits above all else) isn't a good bet to combat the far right institutions that have been built over the last 40 years.
 
Very very anecdotal, but there's a chess streamer I watch who hates Trump and Fox, today he was saying basically he believes Biden raped someone. He's not for Bernie or even Warren. His wife was regretting not voting for Warren or Amy and he was saying he liked Booker in the small portion I watched.
There's no easy way of telling what most Dems feel but this single anecdote would be a bad sign.
 
Silva said:
yeah, sure, that one, let's all pretend that nothing untoward happened and act shocked in november

head in the sand 2020 what could possibly go wrong
Click to expand...
Nothing untoward happened. Centrists (except one of them, who actually won more votes than Warren) dropped out to consolidate towards the centrist candidate with the highest chance of winning. And then he crushed Bernie.

Of course Bernie vs 5 centrists splitting the vote gave him the advantage, but when it came to Bernie vs Biden, it wasn’t even particularly close. Like it or not, most of Democrat voters are centrists not socialists (or even particularly very left wing).
 
Revan said:
Nothing untoward happened. Centrists (except one of them, who actually won more votes than Warren) dropped out to consolidate towards the centrist candidate with the highest chance of winning. And then he crushed Bernie.

Of course Bernie vs 5 centrists splitting the vote gave him the advantage, but when it came to Bernie vs Biden, it wasn’t even particularly close. Like it or not, most of Democrat voters are centrists not socialists (or even particularly very left wing).
Click to expand...
yeah that's fine, they're allowed to rally around their senile rapey guy at the best moment for their electoralism, and everyone who doesn't like it will not vote for said senile rapey guy and we'll be here in a few months being all like "oh my god, this is so fecked up, trump again omg america"

it's probably for the best anyway, the continuous false hope from the democrats was only making it harder for leftists to organise against it, at least with these crushing defeats it gives people more reason to go full tea party and give up a few elections until the ghouls are primaried

i don't even care about the blatant corruption at the primaries that did happen anymore, the only way the american left can win is if they make it impossible for the democrats to win without them and bernie, sadly, isn't helping
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
The evidence doesn't support this for the American right in the last 40 years. Since American institutions were at their most liberal (in the late 60s, early 70s) and after Goldwater lost there was a concentrated and organized movement to establish conservative, far right institutions to push the electorate further to the right. There were the establishment of think tanks in the 70s like Heritage (1973), far right legal organizations to push a conservative agenda like the Federalist Society (1982) and the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 which led to Rush Limbaugh (1988) and the proliferation of conservative talk radio and cable news of the last 30 years which includes the Koch brothers owning crucial local television and magazines. The far right has been building powerful, behind the scenes institutions to proliferate their views and push the Overton window to the right for the last 40 years and for the most part, they have been successful as there was no real organized liberal/progressive alternatives.

Trump is not the instigator or cause of any of this. He is riding the wave that is the culmination of institutional conservative strategy over the last 40 years. This was very intentional. The far right has been building for this moment for decades. It's not just going to disappear by accident or miracle or this pie in the sky "old people dying off". Without institutions to combat the three prongs of think tanks, legal lobbying and far right media, the conservative institutions will continue to shape what voters vote for not the other way around.

And milquetoast corporation centrism (which is concerned with individual profits above all else) isn't a good bet to combat the far right institutions that have been built over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

Good post, and I am aware of most of it (McConnell essentially admits this on his book).

At the same time, I believe that socially, the world (including the US) has gone towards the left quite a lot. Racism still exists, but it definitely is less a problem than it was before. Still much work to be done, but the globalism has made people less racist than they were before. Then you have the LGBT rights, can someone say that there hasn’t been progress in that aspect? Atheists a few decades ago were outcasts, now a lot of people proudly declare as atheists. Political correctness, meToo movement, women rights and them progressing on getting parity with men (still not there, but progress is happening) and so on...Despite the conservative organizations still the average person is more left wing (again socially) than it was 2-3 decades ago.

Fiscally it might be argued to be the other way around. Taxes for the rich have gone down, the rich own more than some decades ago, the welfare programs have weakened in many European states. I was always talking more about the social part.

In any case, I think that a racist party will struggle to attract voters if the voters get more left wing socially, despite that they might share the conservative policies with the racist party.
 
Silva said:
yeah that's fine, they're allowed to rally around their senile rapey guy at the best moment for their electoralism, and everyone who doesn't like it will not vote for said senile rapey guy and we'll be here in a few months being all like "oh my god, this is so fecked up, trump again omg america"

it's probably for the best anyway, the continuous false hope from the DNC was only making it harder for leftists to organise against it, at least with these crushing defeats it gives people more reason to go full tea party and give up a few elections until the ghouls are primaried
Click to expand...

If there were another 5 socialist candidates getting votes from Bernie, he would have never been leading in the first place. Simple arithmetics.

Sure, Biden is a pretty bad choice as candidate (as was Hillary) with a lot of baggage, and sure, he might lose. He definitely has a better chance than Bernie though (who even in a much more leftist electorate lost soundly by Biden) and most of Democrat voters chose him over Bernie. He wouldn’t have been my first choice (or fifth, for that matter) but Democrat voters wanted him.

Not voting him out of spite is foolish (as would have been the other way around have Bernie won, and then centrists organist to not vote him and blame the socialists for getting him to face Trump).

It is sad that you, Eboue and co. seem to genuinely want a Trump 2 presidency just to tell us that you were right and it was a mistake for getting Biden there.
 
Revan said:
If there were another 5 socialist candidates getting votes from Bernie, he would have never been leading in the first place. Simple arithmetics.

Sure, Biden is a pretty bad choice as candidate (as was Hillary) with a lot of baggage, and sure, he might lose. He definitely has a better chance than Bernie though (who even in a much more leftist electorate lost soundly by Biden) and most of Democrat voters chose him over Bernie. He wouldn’t have been my first choice (or fifth, for that matter) but Democrat voters wanted him.

Not voting him out of spite is foolish (as would have been the other way around have Bernie won, and then centrists organist to not vote him and blame the socialists for getting him to face Trump).
Click to expand...
which part of this person is too ideologically and personally bad is hard for centrists to understand, this isn't spite dude, this is a candidate that is flat out unvotable for the left

a significant number of democrats are neverbernie, and that's fine, they're ideologically opposed to him and we don't expect their votes, why do you expect the lefts?
 
Silva said:
which part of this person is too ideologically and personally bad is hard for centrists to understand, this isn't spite dude, this is a candidate that is flat out unvotable for the left
Click to expand...
Sure. Of course Trump is gonna do everything the left is against though. In fact, policy wise, Trump is gonna be worse for left wingers than for centrists.

Of course, we can pretend that if Biden does not win, it is all fine. But Biden not winning, means that Trump and GOP wins, a party that for the left is beyond redemption and comparable with the Nazis. Pretending that Biden not winning is not the same as Trump/GOP winning (or that somehow there is a third choice) is a Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy mental gymnastics.
 
Revan said:
Sure. Of course Trump is gonna do everything the left is against though. In fact, policy wise, Trump is gonna be worse for left wingers than for centrists.

Of course, we can pretend that if Biden does not win, it is all fine. But Biden not winning, means that Trump and GOP wins, a party that for the left is beyond redemption and comparable with the Nazis. Pretending that Biden not winning is not the same as Trump/GOP winning (or that somehow there is a third choice) is a Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
omg the cheeto will go against the left? this is going to surprise so many of us, we had no idea dude, holy shit this changes everything you must, like, read a lot or something because this is such news to us and hasn't been the major attack on the left since the 2016 general election

that second paragraph is a real masterpeice though, all you're missing is a little of russia and you'd have made me cum
 
It's obvious that Bernie is not going to get the votes when someone and anyone and everyone in the democratic party hierarchy was against him.
I think this is what the dem party is hoping that because it's Trump that people may hold their noses but still vote for Biden.
The one thing I like about Trump is that he is not eager for a war or invasion. He is certainly very verbose but I feel Biden would be more dangerous for the world in that aspect.
 
Foxbatt said:
It's obvious that Bernie is not going to get the votes when someone and anyone and everyone in the democratic party hierarchy was against him.
I think this is what the dem party is hoping that because it's Trump that people may hold their noses but still vote for Biden.
The one thing I like about Trump is that he is not eager for a war or invasion. He is certainly very verbose but I feel Biden would be more dangerous for the world in that aspect.
Click to expand...
Trump is for anything that suits him politically and for anyone that will pay.
Didn't he just recently send thousands of troops to SA for no reason?
 
Biden can't be accused of rape. He is being accused of sexual assault. Any lawyers here can comment more on this please.
 
Adisa said:
Trump is for anything that suits him politically and for anyone that will pay.
Didn't he just recently send thousands of troops to SA for no reason?
Click to expand...

He may have but there is no invasion of any country. He has not got involved in things like previous Presidents have done so far. But he has done crazy and stupid things of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.