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

Status
Not open for further replies.
fishfingers15 said:
This is not right, even before Pence got on the ticket, Trump always had huge evangelical backing. They even ditched Cruz, one of their own to back Trump. I agree on all other points.
Click to expand...

We are probably thinking of different definitions of evangelical. I am using that specifically for the people that would regularly listen to televangelists - Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart - and contribute to the formerly very powerful Moral Majority (a PAC formed in the 1970s alongside Heritage, Federalist Society and other Goldwater supporter launched institutions)

this is another illustration of what I mean.

Washington Post said:
The key to understanding Trump’s support among evangelicals is to realize that some evangelicals’ commitment to the faith is shaky, too. Trump does best among evangelicals with one key trait: They don’t really go to church. In short, the evangelicals supporting Trump are not the same evangelicals who have traditionally comprised the Christian Right and supported cultural warriors such as Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz.

Recently released data from the 2016 American National Election Studies (ANES) Pilot Study illustrate this. The study was conducted from Jan. 22-28, and here I focus on white respondents who called themselves born-again Christian. I divided evangelicals into people who “seldom or never” attend church services, those who “sometimes” attend (a few times a year, once or twice a month), and those who attend weekly or more often than weekly.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-church/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.690faa2fd6f9

EDIT:
And this explains the confusion well.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/evangelical-christian/418236/

Atlantic Monthly said:
The religious historian George Marsden once quipped that in the 1950s and 1960s an evangelical Christian was “anyone who likes Billy Graham.” But when Billy Graham was asked to define the term in the late 1980s, he replied, “Actually, that’s a question I’d like to ask somebody too.” As it turned out, even America’s most famous evangelical preacher couldn’t describe what the term meant.

Graham isn’t alone. While the word evangelical pops up in American media to describe everything from mega-churches to voting blocs, few people seem to know what an evangelical is exactly. Those who claim to know often disagree.

The disparate nature of evangelicalism makes its members difficult to define. They don’t have a single authority like the Roman Catholic pope or Mormon First Presidency, so you can’t just phone a central office and ask for the official definition. Since they span a range of denominations, churches, and organizations, there is no single membership statement to delineate identity. As a result, individual observers are left to decide how to define what makes someone or something evangelical. To the pollster, it is a sociological term. To the pastor, it is a denominational or doctrinal term. And to the politician, it is a synonym for a white Christian Republican.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
We are probably thinking of different definitions of evangelical. I am using that specifically for the people that would regularly listen to televangelists - Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart - and contribute to the formerly very powerful Moral Majority (a PAC formed in the 1970s alongside Heritage, Federalist Society and other Goldwater supporter launched institutions)

this is another illustration of what I mean.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-church/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.690faa2fd6f9

EDIT:
And this explains the confusion well.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/evangelical-christian/418236/
Click to expand...

I'm a practicing Lutheran Christian and I understand the difference, trust me.

In 2016, I used to be a part of a Methodist church based out of Norwalk, CT. The church as a whole was against Trump and I used to believe in these Washington Post articles back then, just blaming the teleevangelist prosperity gospel bollocks till moved to Illinois. One week spent in Missouri and Georgia where many churches affiliated to traditional protestant churches strongly favored Trump. In a red state, whether you were a part of a TV evangelist or a non denominational unique church or a regular church, it didn't matter. You voted Republican and by extension Trump. Pence was not a difference maker. In a blue state, traditional churches was more aligned to the liberal values. My brother's church (an AG church close to NYC) was group campaigning for Trump and I'm fairly certain that Pence wasn't a factor.
 
Raoul said:
i don't think this sort of thing will mean much to most Dems since being considered anti-military is still generally viewed as a bad thing for any politician.
Click to expand...
Yeah I image so, I just posted it showing thats there's still a big difference between ''progressive'' Dems and Bernie.
 
villain said:
Bernie out performed Hillary, I'm not surprised she lost that contest - but would Bernie out perform Trump in that same demographic?
Trump is the living embodiment of what a lot of working-class midwestern Whites want to be, Bernie is obviously more aligned to what they need - but politics is often decided on who can sell the best dream
Click to expand...
Living embodiment? Trump was a running joke before he ran, and still is amongst many who will still vote for him again.

He talks a lot of shit to the establishment which resonates with blue-collar folks that felt they’ve been left behind, which Bernie can mirror. That’s why Bernie would likely flip the upper Midwest based on recent elections/polling numbers. And that means he wins.
 
Sweet Square said:
Yeah I image so, I just posted it showing thats there's still a big difference between ''progressive'' Dems and Bernie.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if they can be progressive on key issues that count (like healthcare) then I'd say that's the main thing. Irrespective of your opinion on US military spending no President is going to scale back spending significantly.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
They didn't. They identified with hardcore evangelical Pence and his wife-mother.
Click to expand...

A lot of them definitely came to identify with Trump as standing against everything they hate, even if he's the antithesis of their own personal values. Indeed I remember seeing a poll a while back wherein evangelist Trump voters were now suddenly much, much more tolerant of things like voting for someone who had committed adultery, and voting for someone who'd been married multiple times. And Trump was popular among the hardcore religious Republicans before Pence was ever in the equation - that was how he won the primary to an extent after all. Ultimately the evangelists are willing to sacrifice their supposed morals if a politician who goes against those morals is willing to put in place policies they really like.
 
Cheesy said:
To be fair, if they can be progressive on key issues that count (like healthcare) then I'd say that's the main thing. Irrespective of your opinion on US military spending no President is going to scale back spending significantly.
Click to expand...
That's true although the only chance of not making it any bigger(Plus just a more humane policy)will come with Bernie(Even then I'm not super hopeful).
 
fishfingers15 said:
I'm a practicing Lutheran Christian and I understand the difference, trust me.

In 2016, I used to be a part of a Methodist church based out of Norwalk, CT. The church as a whole was against Trump and I used to believe in these Washington Post articles back then, just blaming the teleevangelist prosperity gospel bollocks till moved to Illinois. One week spent in Missouri and Georgia where many churches affiliated to traditional protestant churches strongly favored Trump. In a red state, whether you were a part of a TV evangelist or a non denominational unique church or a regular church, it didn't matter. You voted Republican and by extension Trump. Pence was not a difference maker. In a blue state, traditional churches was more aligned to the liberal values. My brother's church (an AG church close to NYC) was group campaigning for Trump and I'm fairly certain that Pence wasn't a factor.
Click to expand...

Fair points. But looking to 2020 its not strange to understand why they will vote for him in 2020 because he's delivered on their agenda with the courts and probably for some in the 'culture war'

Cheesy said:
A lot of them definitely came to identify with Trump as standing against everything they hate, even if he's the antithesis of their own personal values. Indeed I remember seeing a poll a while back wherein evangelist Trump voters were now suddenly much, much more tolerant of things like voting for someone who had committed adultery, and voting for someone who'd been married multiple times. And Trump was popular among the hardcore religious Republicans before Pence was ever in the equation - that was how he won the primary to an extent after all. Ultimately the evangelists are willing to sacrifice their supposed morals if a politician who goes against those morals is willing to put in place policies they really like.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I'd prefer a politician that that implemented universal health even if they themselves were cnuts rather than the Clintons who paid lip service to liberals then proceeded to implement a tonne of corporate policies that fecked people over.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
1. Polling is irrelevant now

2.Biden is the only establishment candidate so he gets all the establishment ClintonDemocrats. Meanwhile the progressives are split between many candidates.

3. Obama campaigned on universal healthcare and a public option. Even if he was more centrist the perception in 2007 was that he would be the most liberal President ever. You should have heard the talk in the SF Bay Area. All the idealists believed in Obama in 2007. By 2012 there was much less enthusiasm as the young progressives of that generation were very disappointed in Obama admin.

They didn't. They identified with hardcore evangelical Pence and his wife-mother.
Click to expand...
1 Agreed
2 Biden is sitting well ahead in the polls that includes Hillary.
3 The vote of the idealists is only worth the same as everyone else. The point is that Obama has remained popular regardless of what the idealists make of his tenure.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Fair points. But looking to 2020 its not strange to understand why they will vote for him in 2020 because he's delivered on their agenda with the courts and probably for some in the 'culture war'



That's fair. I'd prefer a politician that that implemented universal health even if they themselves were cnuts rather than the Clintons who paid lip service to liberals then proceeded to implement a tonne of corporate policies that fecked people over.
Click to expand...

Fully agreed.
 
Might be as a big a turning point in American history as RFK's assassination.
 


Former Obama staffers had been pushing him.
 
Landscape for Warren 2020 has not looked great lately, to say the least.



Good news for the Bern.
 
Klobuchar is a good choice. Warren is a good choice. Brown is a good choice.

Harris and Booker should disappear. Beto should try to win Cornyn's seat in 2020 before he gives it a push in 2024.

However, when push comes to shove, anyone but Biden & Bernie!
 
ErranMorad said:
Klobuchar is a good choice. Warren is a good choice. Brown is a good choice.

Harris and Booker should disappear. Beto should try to win Cornyn's seat in 2020 before he gives it a push in 2024.

However, when push comes to shove, anyone but Biden & Bernie!
Click to expand...

:lol:

That's exactly why the Dems lost last time and exactly why nothing will really change in the USA. Well, especially for the majority.

Good luck with that. Nice to see the last 30 years have taught you nothing.
 
langster said:
:lol:

That's exactly why the Dems lost last time and exactly why nothing will really change in the USA. Well, especially for the majority.

Good luck with that. Nice to see the last 30 years have taught you nothing.
Click to expand...

Despite the time you spent posting tweets, FML's & :lol: - you have very little understanding of anything related to politics, especially US politics. I actually do not even know what you mean by that post. The juvenile ':lol:' to start a post with irritated me to begin with.

Anyway, I am someone who believes in the collective more than in individuals. I do not believe in messiah's. I don't think a President who talks a good game or someone who talks about "making America great again", or someone who wants to give everything free - is going to "save us". Change always comes through the grassroots. Good presidents are the ones who have their ear on the ground & able to adjust according to that. There is no short cut way to solve everything. Nothing is going to change in day or in one term. Progress is incremental. You need presidents who keep the momentum going.
 
ErranMorad said:
Despite the time you spent posting tweets, FML's & :lol: - you have very little understanding of anything related to politics, especially US politics. I actually do not even know what you mean by that post. The juvenile ':lol:' to start a post with irritated me to begin with.

Anyway, I am someone who believes in the collective more than in individuals. I do not believe in messiah's. I don't think a President who talks a good game or someone who talks about "making America great again", or someone who wants to give everything free - is going to "save us". Change always comes through the grassroots. Good presidents are the ones who have their ear on the ground & able to adjust according to that. There is no short cut way to solve everything. Nothing is going to change in day or in one term. Progress is incremental. You need presidents who keep the momentum going.
Click to expand...

Wow. Look up irony in the dictionary. I'm glad my post irritated you, that made it worth posting.

The rest of your post is just bollocks. Seriously, it makes no sense at all. Nice buzz words and metaphors though. I'm sure President Grassroots who has his ear permanently to the ground will save you.

Presidents who keep momentum going? Read that back and I guarantee the only language that makes sense in is drunk or stoned bullshit or in a shit Tom Clancy novel. Seriously? Yeah, let's elect someone who kept the momentum of Reganomics, or Bush wars, or Obama's weakness or Trumps..
Yeah let's keep up the momentum of Trump.

Nobody said change will happen overnight or with one President, but look at the shit Trump has caused, imagine someone doing that for the people instead of for themselves or the 1%.

Seriously, give up posting.

I cba..And Yeah fml
 
langster said:
Wow. Look up irony in the dictionary. I'm glad my post irritated you, that made it worth posting.

The rest of your post is just bollocks. Seriously, it makes no sense at all. Nice buzz words and metaphors though. I'm sure President Grassroots who has his ear permanently to the ground will save you.

Presidents who keep momentum going? Read that back and I guarantee the only language that makes sense in is drunk or stoned bullshit or in a shit Tom Clancy novel. Seriously? Yeah, let's elect someone who kept the momentum of Reganomics, or Bush wars, or Obama's weakness or Trumps..
Yeah let's keep up the momentum of Trump.

Nobody said change will happen overnight or with one President, but look at the shit Trump has caused, imagine someone doing that for the people instead of for themselves or the 1%.

Seriously, give up posting.

I cba..And Yeah fml
Click to expand...

Your posts are juvenile and imbecilic. A lot of time and twitter doesn't make anyone an expert. Every internet yahoo who has hasn't done shit to make anyone's life better thinks he can solve the world's problem. You are no different. Sitting on your ass posting 'FML's' ain't making an iota of difference to anything. You don't get a perspective by living on dole or on Mommy & Daddy's largesse.

Should have had you on ignore long before now. Bye!
 
ErranMorad said:
Your posts are juvenile and imbecilic. A lot of time and twitter doesn't make anyone an expert. Every internet yahoo who has hasn't done shit to make anyone's life better thinks he can solve the world's problem. You are no different. Sitting on your ass posting 'FML's' ain't making an iota of difference to anything. You don't get a perspective by living on dole or on Mommy & Daddy's largesse.

Should have had you on ignore long before now. Bye!
Click to expand...

I attacked your posts, not you personally.

Also, as expected your reply was full of suppositions and embarrassing assumptions. Like your posts, they couldn't be further from the truth.

Goodbye indeed. Wow. Who promoted that one?
 
Only Bernie has earned the right to be President.
No one else has worked all these years for the working family fighting for basic rights.
But just wait for the Corporate Liberal Democrats get their knives out for him this time round too.
 
langster said:
:lol:

That's exactly why the Dems lost last time and exactly why nothing will really change in the USA. Well, especially for the majority.

Good luck with that. Nice to see the last 30 years have taught you nothing.
Click to expand...

Honestly I agree with him except the last sentence. It needs to be one of Bernie or Biden plus Brown or Klobuchar. I personally prefer Biden + Brown. With Brown taking over after a term. Likes of Harris and Booker plus the NY tagalongs should just go away. Beto is for future and should wait for a term or two and win the Senate.
 
Red Dreams said:
Only Bernie has earned the right to be President.
No one else has worked all these years for the working family fighting for basic rights.
But just wait for the Corporate Liberal Democrats get their knives out for him this time round too.
Click to expand...

This bullshit is no different than the 'Hillary has earned the right to lose again'. I'm all for Bernie Sanders but that if you are going to oppose anyone who runs against Sanders because he is not Sanders, then you are the guy who probably expected Trump to pivot.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Honestly I agree with him except the last sentence. It needs to be one of Bernie or Biden plus Brown or Klobuchar. I personally prefer Biden + Brown. With Brown taking over after a term. Likes of Harris and Booker plus the NY tagalongs should just go away. Beto is for future and should wait for a term or two and win the Senate.
Click to expand...

People look at names, not what they have accomplished.
That is the problem.selecting a candidate who has not brought anything substantial to the table is not is about to change things for the better.
There is no logical reason not to run for universal health care.
Dr. King did not see obstacles. He did what was right.
 
Red Dreams said:
People look at names, not what they have accomplished.
That is the problem.selecting a candidate who has not brought anything substantial to the table is not is about to change things for the better.
There is no logical reason not to run for universal health care.
Dr. King did not see obstacles. He did what was right.
Click to expand...
You need a candidate who can connect with people. Biden and Brown will bring in mid west and rust belt, which incidentally is where Trump had his tipping point. And Brown is progressive enough to satisfy most liberals. If many are still not satisfied, then you deserve another Trump term. Biden is Obama lite and as popular as Bernie in traditional blue states. I don't mind Bernie/Brown either...just feel Biden is more connectable and practical than Bernie ( who'll get labelled as a socialist)
 
In 2020 one of the policies Republicans will run on is Affordable Health Care.
And what will the Corporate Democrats run on?

Affordable Health Care.

Of course what the Democrats offer will be better...but how much better?
Do we think all those people at Trump's rallies want to have pre-conditions stripped off or pay unaffordable premiums and high deductibles?
And we have Corporate Liberal media stooges undermining candidates who fight for Universal health Care.
The poor Republicans need help.

the Truth is neither party currently has the interests of vast majority.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
You need a candidate who can connect with people. Biden and Brown will bring in mid west and rust belt, which incidentally is where Trump had his tipping point. And Brown is progressive enough to satisfy most liberals. If many are still not satisfied, then you deserve another Trump term. Biden is Obama lite and as popular as Bernie in traditional blue states. I don't mind Bernie/Brown either...just feel Biden is more connectable and practical than Bernie ( who'll get labelled as a socialist)
Click to expand...


Bernie certainly resonates with all spectrums. The Socialist label will matter with people who were never going to vote on policies that help anyways. Capitalism is the dirty word now.
I like Sherod Brown. In fact Bernie has said if he does not win he would support a candidate who sincerely supports his policies.

You learn a lot by listening to Corporate Liberal MSM.

Its still some ways away.
But the progressives need to start pushing early on their agenda. Or they will be drowned by the corporations.
 
Red Dreams said:
Bernie certainly resonates with all spectrums. The Socialist label will matter with people who were never going to vote on policies that help anyways. Capitalism is the dirty word now.
I like Sherod Brown. In fact Bernie has said if he does not win he would support a candidate who sincerely supports his policies.

You learn a lot by listening to Corporate Liberal MSM.

Its still some ways away.
But the progressives need to start pushing early on their agenda. Or they will be drowned by the corporations.
Click to expand...
I feel that Hillary, Harris, Booker, Bloomberg and Gillibrand will split this into a open fight and their popuality in Blue states may outweigh Brown or Klobuchar who have better chance against GOP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.