Drifter
American
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 68,483
Let's talk about the Biden Harris campaign and what it means for us....
AOC would be 42 by then, which is a good age for president (she probably wouldn’t try earlier anyway), or if Kamala loses in 2024, AOC can try in 28.No doubt about it. If Biden wins and Harris takes over, it would mean a progressive wouldn't stand a chance of being President until at least 2032, which is a very long time when you think about M4A etc.
No, none of that is remotely feasible or necessary.I get that, but someone still has to lead the thinking and take the big decisions ... and it doesn't seem that Biden will be up to it.
As a fan of Obama, I like the idea of him clocking in for 4 hours every day, telling Biden what to do. They have the relationship where it would work.
No, none of that is remotely feasible or necessary.
Also, Clinton’s lead was never as big as this, nowhere near.I hope lightning doesn't strike twice!
Also, Clinton’s lead was never as big as this, nowhere near.
People miss the point of polls. Being 3 points ahead with a poll that has a margin of error of 4 points is not the same as being 15 points ahead.
Unless unprecedented voter suppression happens, Biden is going to easily win.
No doubt. Heck, Obama is living large now, he wouldn't want to go back and help, even if he could.
Also, Clinton’s lead was never as big as this, nowhere near.
People miss the point of polls. Being 3 points ahead with a poll that has a margin of error of 4 points is not the same as being 15 points ahead.
Unless unprecedented voter suppression happens, Biden is going to easily win.
Better than him not getting elected? Surely that's easy.
I know it’s a big deal, but is it actually that outrageous a prediction at this point?My outrageous prediction for this election is that Texas will go blue.
Short term maybe, but medium term (2024/28) and beyond there are many other things that can happen.
For climate change, there is a cast-iron gaurantee of zero meaningful climate action till 2028. There is a strong chance of a more refined version of Trumpism (Josh Hawley, Tucker Carlson) in 2024, and the Dems will not have Russia/covfefe type stuff to throw at them.
For me as a leftist, there is a cast-iron gaurantee of there being zero left power till 2028 at the earliest. For you it should be an equal choice, Trump will try and lower taxes and Biden will not raise them. AFAIK you don't have visa issues either.
Yeah. It was predicted two years ago (Beto vs Ted) and even 4 years ago. As always, the answer is one cycle later.I know it’s a big deal, but is it actually that outrageous a prediction at this point?
He has pretty much embraced Green New Deal without saying so.I hear Biden's climate policy is pretty good.
https://slate.com/business/2020/07/...an-is-the-green-new-deal-minus-the-crazy.html
It is not. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/minnesota/I thought Minnesota usually was a blue state. Is it leaning towards Trump now? That's a bit weird to me.
Well Texas hasn’t been blue since 1976 so I’d say so. Trump’s team probably has that down as a sure thing.I know it’s a big deal, but is it actually that outrageous a prediction at this point?
He has pretty much embraced Green New Deal without saying so.
I also like (unlike Bernie) that he didn't embrace the bullshit populism of no nuclear energy. I actually think that the easiest way to go away from coal/oil/gas energy is by fully embracing nuclear energy.Yes, apparently it was created in consultation with Jay Inslee.
Yea like I say I know it’s a big deal, I’m just not sure it’s that outrageous a prediction given it’s been seemingly getting closer for a while now.Well Texas hasn’t been blue since 1976 so I’d say so. Trump’s team probably has that down as a sure thing.
The one @Raoul posted is nationalAre these polls in the battleground states? It's one thing to be up in California but Biden needs to be way up in Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc... That is the game Hilary bottled completely.
They will pay lip service to the real progressive actions in the Green New Deal, but you’re mad if you think this regime will actually embrace such things if they present any obstacle to economic recovery.He has pretty much embraced Green New Deal without saying so.
He has pretty much embraced Green New Deal without saying so.
I always thought that for 'the green' energy to have any chance of succeeding, it needs to make economic sense. Humans won't harm their economy for the stuff that will happen in 3 decades.They will pay lip service to the real progressive actions in the Green New Deal, but you’re mad if you think this regime will actually embrace such things if they present any obstacle to economic recovery.
As I said, it does not need to be. You can have both.They will pay lip service to the real progressive actions in the Green New Deal, but you’re mad if you think this regime will actually embrace such things if they present any obstacle to economic recovery.
Talk is cheap.
The US gonna be crossing their worst economic crisis in 100 years. Whoever wins out of Trump/Biden, will wanna show short term economic growth. That means, fuel the machine.
I don't think anyone can predict medium term expectations that well. Nobody could have predicted Trump will be president and US will pull out of Paris agreement even just before last elections.Short term maybe, but medium term (2024/28) and beyond there are many other things that can happen.
For climate change, there is a cast-iron gaurantee of zero meaningful climate action till 2028. There is a strong chance of a more refined version of Trumpism (Josh Hawley, Tucker Carlson) in 2024, and the Dems will not have Russia/covfefe type stuff to throw at them.
For me as a leftist, there is a cast-iron gaurantee of there being zero left power till 2028 at the earliest. For you it should be an equal choice, Trump will try and lower taxes and Biden will not raise them. AFAIK you don't have visa issues either.
Looks like Twitter has got a new nickname for Harris
"Mamala"
No bueno
Hillary had a record (since FDR) winning margin in California which distorted her national numbers. Based off of primaries and history, while Biden will breeze through Cali he’s not winning to the degree she did. I have a longer post in here I’ll try to find that broke down numbers.Are these polls in the battleground states? It's one thing to be up in California but Biden needs to be way up in Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc... That is the game Hilary bottled completely.
Good fecking postAm puting off some work past 2 days so I had some time to dig into the data. Looked at Yougov from August 9, 2016, the most recent Yougov, and the 2016 exit poll. Looked at the swings within each group. THe problem for the 2016 Yougov was the large number of DK/3rd parties (especially Gary Johnson, who was at 10% most of which seems to have gone to Trump in November), so I excluded all that and looked at the 2-person vote only.
tl;dr - Clinton maxed out what a centrist can do among women, black, and young people. The swing is coming from men not women. Ths data from Hispanics is inconsistent. The age trend is weirder than I thought, the boomers are equal to the overall swing mostly, the big change is 45-64. OTOH, 30-45 are stagnant or leaving the party in significant numbers.
The most consistent effect is people earning over 100k, going from a roughly even split to 60% Biden.
Specualting - Bernie would be doing much worse with 45-64 and much better with 30-44, marginally worse with 65+. Much, much worse with >100k. Marginally better with 18-29, <50k and blacks and hispanics. Overall significanly worse but probably still in the lead.