US Presidential Election 2020

RDM_83 again

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm biased when it comes to Harris as I have bet her at 33/1 a few years ago, but getting a little concerned right now sadly.

https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/1110301531306409986

This is her with AIPAC who have came under attack from the left of the party aka those who don't trust her whatsoever. Swerving the convention like all the other front runners and then meeting them with big smiles is a bit of a mis step. She is a bit all over the place when it comes to reparations and prostitution and other issues when it comes to the progressives.

I know some have said she may be the Dem version of Rubio aka the chosen one by the establishment but like Marco this not her time whatsoever.

My bank balance hopes the above is wrong though.:(

I can easily see her winning the Dems nomination but I can also see her loosing them the election if Trump returns to form* and the economy stays buoyant.

As far as I can see she has most of the negatives of Hillary Clinton, too establishment to fire up the economic left and too into identity** politics to peel away swing and disillusioned Republican voters and not offering anything new or interesting.

Look at the groups that she is courting to support her primary at the minute.
To quote this Reuters article "teachers unions, women and black voters", that will win her the primary but those are all demographics that the Democrats do pretty ok with anyway.

In particular black voters are overwhelmingly Democrat anyway a Dem candidate has to do very very little to win that vote, how's a black candidate from California talking about some form of repartitions for slavery going to play in the swing states that she needs to win, its not simply about white voters either how will it be perceived by Hispanic, who are both a larger and less loyal as % to the democrats group. AFAIK Obama always downplayed any talk of repartitions presumably because he presumably understood how to win elections.



* Trump really isn't a great politician, he was surprisingly good at campaigning though

** All politics is identity politics in some way but Harris can easily be stereotyped to be playing it.

*** https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-harris/kamala-harris-courts-unions-minorities-with-call-to-raise-teacher-pay-idUSKCN1R70Z8

rossie1977

No real change over last week

4068ac1elhodqr

rossie1977 wrote: »

No real change over last week

Prefer live markets, rather than sample polls. The big change in the last week is some shortening on the Butthurt chap, overtaking Yang as the wildcard outsider (for Dem nom):

peddlelies

Biden should walk away with it, I wouldn't totally discount Sanders as his rallies in 2016 had a lot of energy and he has a very loyal base.

peddlelies

Inevitable stories are starting up already about Biden, perhaps he won't run after all?

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1112016906477813760

4068ac1elhodqr

SNIP. No more silly nicknames.

is_that_so

peddlelies wrote: »

Inevitable stories are starting up already about Biden, perhaps he won't run after all?

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1112016906477813760

Not that I'm defending Biden but why is this stuff suddenly appearing in 2019, apart from the obvious?

ancapailldorcha

No more one-liner insults please.

duploelabs

is_that_so wrote: »

Not that I'm defending Biden but why is this stuff suddenly appearing in 2019, apart from the obvious?

Has a whiff of Stone's tactics about it

peddlelies

This is an interesting article after a second Woman has accused Biden of inappropriately touching her. The first Woman is a Beto surrogate afaik, or at the very least attended some of his rallies.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1113055499719774208

eagle eye

This is all good, bad for Biden and if it's proven that Sanders was involved in the leaks then bad for him too. Hopefully it clears the way for a younger candidate like Beto who will win he he gets the opportunity to go up against Trump.

rossie1977

Latest PPP polling has all the leading Dems beating Trump nationally with Biden leading him by 13.

On flipside Emerson has Trump beating every Dem candidate in Nevada except Biden. Nevada was won by Clinton in 2016. Biden leads by 4 but Harris is losing by 8 currently.

4068ac1elhodqr

Polls aside^, the real-world money-markets are shortening still, on Buttgieg. Close or equal to Biden.

I may have been a bit flippant on the Majors growing popularity before, but really can't see any great performance to come.
What's this chaps gameplan, is he simply an super-liberal two-fingers up to Trump?



Am still puzzled by the fact that Yang hasn't won this, 2yrs early.
His USP needs re-reading a few times it's that surreal.

$1,000 free bucks for every adult in the country, every month for 4yrs at least.
That's: $1,000 free bucks for every adult in the country, every month. Free.

There's a brand new uk lottery game called 'set for life' which offers £10,000 everymonth if you win.
When it started, the traffic crashed their servers, and must have close to 1/2million players on each draw, it's not free to play.

Stacksofwacks

I'm kinda conflicted over the Biden groping thing. I dont think its a creepy sexual thing but more of a power dominance thing. Lots of politicians do things like shoulder touching, back slapping, bear hugs, dominant handshakes etc Now sniffing a womans hair might be a step too far but if this ends Bidens presidential run should we hold all politicians who put their hands on people publicly? I dunno its not black and white to me

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

peddlelies wrote: »

This is an interesting article after a second Woman has accused Biden of inappropriately touching her. The first Woman is a Beto surrogate afaik, or at the very least attended some of his rallies.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1113055499719774208

The article says Bernie not Beto.

peddlelies

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

The article says Bernie not Beto.

Yup I know. I was trying to make the point she probably wasn't a Bernie surrogate. Another two Women have come forward and complained about Biden's behaviour to the NYT's.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/politics/joe-biden-women-me-too.html

"The list of women coming forward is growing. Caitlyn Caruso, a former college student and sexual assault survivor, said Mr. Biden rested his hand on her thigh — even as she squirmed in her seat to show her discomfort — and hugged her “just a little bit too long” at an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She was 19."

"D. J. Hill, 59, a writer who recalled meeting Mr. Biden in 2012 at a fund-raising event in Minneapolis, said that when she and her husband, Robert, stepped up to take their photograph with the vice president, he put his hand on her shoulder and then started dropping it down her back, which made her “very uncomfortable.”

Her husband, seeing the movement, put his hand on Mr. Biden’s shoulder and interrupted with a joke."

Trump is already playing off it, bad news for the Dem's since the treatment of Women should be a focal point of attack against Trump.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

peddlelies wrote: »

Yup I know. I was trying to make the point she probably wasn't a Bernie surrogate.

Yeah, but what makes you say that? The article doesn't seem to make that suggestion at all.

peddlelies

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Yeah, but what makes you say that? The article doesn't seem to make that suggestion at all.

She was at some Beto rally a week ago or so although she supported Sanders in 2016. I'm just speculating on the possible motives for making it public and who she aligns with.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/joe-biden-issues-statement-in-response-to-lucy-flores.html

"Flores later dismissed that characterization in comments to the Atlantic and responded to some implied criticism of her attending a Beto O’Rourke rally on Saturday...

...I have also stated many times on the record that I am not supporting any candidate right now and I am listening and evaluating all the candidates just like everyone else. I’m allowed to go to a candidate rally.”

pixelburp

Apparently, Sanders is going to take part in a Town Hall hosted by... Fox News. That could be verrrrry entertaining, and has me wondering if their (inevitable?) attempts at badgering over Green Deals might backfire. Sanders is feisty and more than capable at dealing with zingers

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

Apparently, Sanders is going to take part in a Town Hall hosted by... Fox News. That could be verrrrry entertaining, and has me wondering if their (inevitable?) attempts at badgering over Green Deals might backfire. Sanders is feisty and more than capable at dealing with zingers

That is a mistake.

I was beginning to feel some hope that the DNC was going to finally stop being pussies with the Murdoch press and treat them with the dismissal, contempt and open hostility they deserve.

If Labour MPs had gone to war with the tabloids, and learned the obvious lessons that even football clubs have learned, then I don't think the UK would be where it is now.

Fox is illegitimate. It would have far less power if craven politicians boycotted it entirely.

pixelburp

Gbear wrote: »

That is a mistake.

I was beginning to feel some hope that the DNC was going to finally stop being pussies with the Murdoch press and treat them with the dismissal, contempt and open hostility they deserve.

If Labour MPs had gone to war with the tabloids, and learned the obvious lessons that even football clubs have learned, then I don't think the UK would be where it is now.

Fox is illegitimate. It would have far less power if craven politicians boycotted it entirely.

I could read it both ways: Fox News has thrown itself far down the rabbit hole with commentators such as Pirro or Carlson, and Democrats would be forgiven for walking away and ignoring them. On the other hand, I can see what Sanders (might) think: that he has effectively been given a platform to extoll the virtues of more socialist policies & believes has the confidence to sell it.

Fox's demonisation will only go so far - and I can see Sanders getting exasperated as the presenters try to railroad him - but from what I've seen of polls, support for things like Obamacare / Single Payer et al are way higher than the GOP / Fox would have you believe.

Wanderer78

pixelburp wrote:

Fox's demonisation will only go so far - and I can see Sanders getting exasperated as the presenters try to railroad him - but from what I've seen of polls, support for things like Obamacare / Single Payer et al are way higher than the GOP / Fox would have you believe.

It will be interesting to see how sanders gets on this time, there is growing weight behind things such as the green deal, with people such as aoc also pushing it, but never underestimate the republicans, and particularly trump, I still think there's a good chance he ll get a second term, interesting few months ahead.

IAMAMORON

Given that their entire political system is a giant not fit for purpose heap of crap, that has proven to not serve the will and livelihoods of the people it is employed to serve ...…. I would say you would have to envisage someone like Oprah Winfrey taking over. She would definitely be able to pick up some votes over time. Just saying like.

Given that she is extremely popular, talks a lot of ****e, has no political experience … she will probably fit right in....

Just saying like.

Wanderer78

IAMAMORON wrote:

Given that their entire political system is a giant not fit for purpose heap of crap, that has proven to not serve the will and livelihoods of the people it is employed to serve ...…. I would say you would have to envisage someone like Oprah Winfrey taking over. She would definitely be able to pick up some votes over time. Just saying like.

An understandable comment, their system is extremely messy, but I suspect, or hope, it's on the turn

Rjd2

Yang, Mayor Pete, Tulsi have all gone on Fox recently and done fine. Sanders knows he and Trump shares supporters so its a chance to woo them and maybe some of the massive audience fox has. Its a sensible move indeed.

rossie1977

Sanders is doing awful in attempts to attract older folks. Only 12% of his supporters are 65 or over, where as Trump and Biden have massive support in that age group.

Going on Fox whose viewers are mostly 50+ is probably not a bad idea in that sense to try and appeal to some of that demo.

PopePalpatine

I give it a minute before the host mentions Venezuela.

rossie1977

All he would have to do is say it's a totalitarian petrostate run by a crazed dictator and he advocates a social democracy like every other developed nation on Earth.

The most popular American president in history was a social Democrat but that's been forgotten because the voices of progressiveness were wiped out in the 1960s and Democrats became strong conservatives in the 1990s.

A slide like this would suffice

WinnyThePoo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

peddlelies wrote: »

Yup I know. I was trying to make the point she probably wasn't a Bernie surrogate.

Yeah, but what makes you say that? The article doesn't seem to make that suggestion at all.

Intentional misinformation.

peddlelies

Mod: Don't dump tweets here please.

peddlelies

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Intentional misinformation.

Misinformation about what? I've no dog in that fight. Axios article says Biden's camp blames Sander's camp for the negative stuff in the media. This is what I said

"The first Woman is a Beto surrogate afaik, or at the very least attended some of his rallies."

There's no "misinformation" there, I've linked to an article that shows she received backlash for attending Beto rallies, this was at the same time she went public with her accusation against Biden. You need to look up the definition of misinformation or learn to comprehend English better.

batgoat

peddlelies wrote: »

Trump just tweeted trolling Biden's "explanation"

Both hypocritical and immature given his own track record. I'm still not sure if there was anything remotely dodgy intended in relation to Biden btw. Trump on the other hand was pretty clear cut in terms of his motivations...

peddlelies

batgoat wrote: »

Both hypocritical and immature given his own track record. I'm still not sure if there was anything remotely dodgy intended in relation to Biden btw. Trump on the other hand was pretty clear cut in terms of his motivations...

I said this a few weeks ago on this thread - Trump's "sexual reputation" is at a deviant level, meaning he can't be viewed any worse than he already is on that topic. In a twisted way, that's an advantage for him because Biden pre 2020 buildup was seen as a clean cut figure to most of the general public.

It's entirely hypocritical, but the point is it will hurt Biden more than it hurts Trump making it a campaign issue, remember Trump still got elected even after the pussygate video.

batgoat

peddlelies wrote: »

I said this a few weeks ago on this thread - Trump's "sexual reputation" is at a deviant level, meaning he can't be viewed any worse than he already is on that topic. In a twisted way, that's an advantage for him because Biden pre 2020 buildup was seen as a clean cut figure to most of the general public.

It's entirely hypocritical, but the point is it will hurt Biden more than it hurts Trump making it a campaign issue, remember Trump still got elected even after the pussygate video.

And Trump is incredibly unpopular with the US public as demonstrated by the Mid-Terms. He is not being viewed kindly by much of the US public for good reason. So I'd be surprised if the majority actually care what he thinks of Biden.

peddlelies

batgoat wrote: »

And Trump is incredibly unpopular with the US public as demonstrated by the Mid-Terms. He is not being viewed kindly by much of the US public for good reason. So I'd be surprised if the majority actually care what he thinks of Biden.

We'll see what happens, conservatives had a good win in Wisconsin last night which will be a key battleground in 2020.

pixelburp

The severity of the charges become immaterial with Biden, and is purely a question of principal. Arguing degrees of sleaze simply plays into any narrative that leans towards democrat hypocrisy. Which it would be. Biden has to be considered toxic... because that's precisely what he is now, this was always coming the moment the rumours of his running started. Any other election cycle and maybe he could shrug it off, but to echo Michelle Obama's rhetoric, the democrats have to go high.

batgoat

pixelburp wrote: »

The severity of the charges become immaterial with Biden, and is purely a question of principal. Arguing degrees of sleaze simply plays into any narrative that leans towards democrat hypocrisy. Which it would be. Biden has to be considered toxic... because that's precisely what he is now, this was always coming the moment the rumours of his running started. Any other election cycle and maybe he could shrug it off, but to echo Michelle Obama's rhetoric, the democrats have to go high.

I think it's not a great move to run Biden in general tbh. Harris or Beto is where I'm leaning.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

peddlelies wrote: »

Misinformation about what? I've no dog in that fight. Axios article says Biden's camp blames Sander's camp for the negative stuff in the media. This is what I said

"The first Woman is a Beto surrogate afaik, or at the very least attended some of his rallies."

There's no "misinformation" there, I've linked to an article that shows she received backlash for attending Beto rallies, this was at the same time she went public with her accusation against Biden. You need to look up the definition of misinformation or learn to comprehend English better.

Sorry, but I've got to keep calling you out on this. The article does not say she "received backlash for attending Beto rallies" it simply says she attended a (one) Beto rally and that there was "implied criticism" (from a real "whatabout" opinion piece in The Atlantic - who to my knowledge is the only person making this statement) of her coming forward because of it.

peddlelies

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Sorry, but I've got to keep calling you out on this. The article does not say she "received backlash for attending Beto rallies" it simply says she attended a (one) Beto rally and that there was "implied criticism" (from a real "whatabout" opinion piece in The Atlantic - who to my knowledge is the only person making this statement) of her coming forward because of it.

At this point I don't even know what the argument is or why it's apparently such a big deal to some. I'll try to be clear, this is what I meant. Biden's camp think Bernie's is behind the #metoo backlash floating around about him. What I tried to say, perhaps worded badly, is that the first Woman was seen spotted at a Beto rally around the same time she came public so it's possible the hit's aren't all coming from Bernie's camp. I really don't care who the accusations come from, or who runs wins the nomination in 2020 for the Democrats, or whatever in party fighting that goes on between them.

"Flores later dismissed that characterization in comments to the Atlantic and responded to some implied criticism of her attending a Beto O’Rourke rally on Saturday...

“I have also stated many times on the record that I am not supporting any candidate right now and I am listening and evaluating all the candidates just like everyone else. I’m allowed to go to a candidate rally.”

If that doesn't make any sense to you that's fine I won't argue it further, I didn't mean anything by it besides pointing out a general observation that she was seen around Beto's campaign. There was speculation on social media at the time she came forward who's behind the hits on Biden, some people pointed out the same observation I did, that's all. No sinister intentions, I could care less.

Laois_Man

Shur he must have been trying to seduce Obama and all these other attractive men too....



Ridiculous! :rolleyes:

pumpkin4life

Laois_Man wrote: »

Shur he must have been trying to seduce Obama and all these other attractive men too....



Ridiculous! :rolleyes:

I find it interesting that I can post a clip of (and there are loads of these with Biden on youtube, fro) Biden touching young pre teen women in an extremely inappropriate manner and Laois Man is incapable of understanding this, especially when I said nothing about seducing in the first place.

Anyway, Biden doesn't stand a chance. He's too old, he's got a creepy pervert vibe, very easy to attack him with, and he's not going to appeal to the increasingly multicultural demographics of America.

Neither is Sanders either, for what its worth.

Laois_Man

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I find it interesting that I can post a clip of (and there are loads of these with Biden on youtube, fro) Biden touching young pre teen women in an extremely inappropriate manner

But it's not "extremely inappropriate" when he touches men in the exact same way? Or the other men in the video's who were also touching people in the same video's in the same manner?

If this is all it takes to be adjudged to be extremely inappropriate or possessing "a creepy pervert vibe" nowadays, I feckin give up!

Gbear

pumpkin4life wrote: »

He makes Donald Trump looks like an angel.

How can you not be embarassed writing something so utterly stupid?

You're talking about a guy who admitted to flagrantly groping womens' vaginas, never mind the litany of other horrible crap he's done.

Biden may not be the ideal Democrat candidate, but it's unlikely that they will be able to find a worse, more despicable or more immoral candidate than Trump even if they set out to do so deliberately.

Trump is just another example in a long line of Republicans that show their moralising is cynical sham. The Democrats might not be perfect but when bad actors are exposed, they show their mettle by having them removed.

The Republicans fall over themselves trying to make excuses for them because they don't have any principles.

pumpkin4life

Laois_Man wrote: »

But it's not "extremely inappropriate" when he touches men in the exact same way? Or the other men in the video's who were also touching people in the same video's in the same manner?

If this is all it takes to be adjudged to be extremely inappropriate or possessing "a creepy pervert vibe" nowadays, I feckin give up!

Did you watch that clip? There's a part where he puts his hand just below a young girl's breast. How old is she? 12? The one in the red dress.

All the Republicans have to do is show that little bit of a clip and Biden is done.

Laois_Man

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Did you watch that clip? There's a part where he puts his hand just below a young girl's breast. How old is she? 12? The one in the red dress.

All the Republicans have to do is show that little bit of a clip and Biden is done.

"Just below a breast" - i.e. a hip! :rolleyes:

I think that's about a minute before we can see on the video a woman place her hand actually on a young girls breast.

Outrageously predatory also!

ancapailldorcha

Don't dump Youtube videos here please. Post and response deleted.

RDM_83 again

batgoat wrote: »

I think it's not a great move to run Biden in general tbh. Harris or Beto is where I'm leaning.

Whats the appeal of Harris? I just don't really see why she is considered such a strong contender in terms of actually winning though I can see why the Hillary wing might like her.
From an outsider perspective it seems

- she is too much of a corporate democrat for the further left progressives
- she's californian and as far as I know has the most recognition there, thats already a place the Dems win
- She is very much a "system" insider but on the flip side doesn't actually have that much experience
- She has portrayed herself as "smart on crime" but at the same time has recently jumped hard on social justicey type things like the Justin Smollesk "attack"
- She isn't particularly charismatic or great at oratory, no bill clinton or Obama anyway
- She doesn't seem to have any big ideas or big legacy to point to e.g Yang for the former, Warren for the latter

+ She played a good hand against Brett Kavanaugh

Basically its seems like she wouldn't win back swing voters but at the same time she also might put of the further left from turning out to vote.

Rjd2

Harris would beat Trump, but she is one of the few Dems that Trump might have a small chance against. And I say that with no happiness as I want her to win for financial reasons. Can she win the states that trump sneaked in 2016...doubtful.

eagle eye

Rjd2 wrote:

Harris would beat Trump, but she is one of the few Dems that Trump might have a small chance against. And I say that with no happiness as I want her to win for financial reasons. Can she win the states that trump sneaked in 2016...doubtful.

Harris won't win the nomination. No chance, especially after a female losing to Trump in 2016. I doubt she'd ever get it anyway.

marno21

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I find it interesting that I can post a clip of (and there are loads of these with Biden on youtube, fro) Biden touching young pre teen women in an extremely inappropriate manner and Laois Man is incapable of understanding this, especially when I said nothing about seducing in the first place.

Anyway, Biden doesn't stand a chance. He's too old, he's got a creepy pervert vibe, very easy to attack him with, and he's not going to appeal to the increasingly multicultural demographics of America.

Neither is Sanders either, for what its worth.

There's a good chance someone who would "appeal to the multicultural demographics of America" would not win in the states where this election will be won

If Biden can win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the other swing states with the voters in California/New York etc sitting out the election because they couldn't vote for the "lesser of two evils", it would be preferential than trying to run a "perfect candidate" in the eyes of people in Los Angeles who will again not focus on the rust belt and hand it to Trump.