US Presidential Election 2020

eagle eye

rossie1977 wrote:

2020 is going to be alot closer than people think.

Trump will beat any old guy or woman in 2020.
Only chance to beat him is a white heterosexual male in the 40-60 age bracket.

vetinari

stefanovich wrote: »

I honestly don't think any of these candidates stand a chance against Trump. Bernie is too left for the USA. Biden has too much creepy uncle about him.

All Trump needs to do is repeat "Commie Sanders" and "Creepy Joe Biden" and they are finished.

Lol, creepy??! As someone else said, Trump is the last guy who could use creepy as an insult. Hillary Clinton lost the election by about 40k votes.
No idea why someone would think Trump will walk the next election.


Long long way to go yet. If the last election showed anything, it's that nothing is decided until the very end. Take away that muppet Comey's press conference re Hillary Clinton and she'd probably be president. Still the only think I'm glad Trump did, the firing of that smug git.

pixelburp

If there's one thing this presidency has shown of the man, is that Trump is completely tone-deaf in throwing around insults perfectly suited to his own character. I mean, that was literally his tactic in the 2016 debates. Clinton: "you're a puppet"; Trump: "no, you're the puppet". I can't see him having any problems calling Biden 'creepy', heck hasn't he already posting 'comedy' memes to that effect ('cos that's where the US Presidency exists in 2019)?

eire4

stefanovich wrote: »

I honestly don't think any of these candidates stand a chance against Trump. Bernie is too left for the USA. Biden has too much creepy uncle about him.

All Trump needs to do is repeat "Commie Sanders" and "Creepy Joe Biden" and they are finished.

I am not so sure that Sanders is too left for the US given that roughly half of Americans have checked out and do not even vote. Turnout in presidential elections is in the mid 50's and in midterms your lucky if it even gets past 40%. The reality is large majorities of Americans support the things Sanders takes about such as free college tuition, national health care or medicare for all as they call it, protecting and improving social security as examples.


The problem is the American political system is so corrupt to call it a democracy is a joke. The major corporations and the bought off 2 establishment parties do everything in their power to maintain the current system which is all about maintaining the wealth and power in the hands of a small group and the vast majority of Americans are battered and brained washed by a corporate media constantly feeding them propaganda to distract from the fact that the majority of Americans do in fact support Sanders type policies. The upshot is many Americans have checked out and do not vote. Why bother the politicians are bought and owned by the major corporations so they will only do their bidding anyway is the mindset. Plus you have major voter suppression as well and both these facts I would posit tend to eliminate mostly people who would vote for Sanders type policies. Hence you have the America we see today a far right country of the corporations by the corporations and for the corporations.

friendlyfun

Joe Kennedy (grandson of Robert Kennedy) is a very strong candidate for the US presidency. He has an idealism and potency in the way he speaks. Now a lot of people probably wouldn't want another dynasty in running for US president, but I honestly think he would be a great contender and would wipe the floor with the rest of the democrats. He's young, energetic and has a vision for the US that I think its lacking in a lot of the other candidates.

I believe he will run for US president one day, but probably not this time round.

eagle eye

friendlyfun wrote:

I believe he will run for US president one day, but probably not this time round.

I agree, just too young yet but would be ready in '24. And if he does win it then in '32 he could be followed by Jack Schlossberg to cement the Kennedys as the royalty of American politics.

theguzman

friendlyfun wrote: »

Joe Kennedy (grandson of Robert Kennedy) is a very strong candidate for the US presidency. He has an idealism and potency in the way he speaks. Now a lot of people probably wouldn't want another dynasty in running for US president, but I honestly think he would be a great contender and would wipe the floor with the rest of the democrats. He's young, energetic and has a vision for the US that I think its lacking in a lot of the other candidates.

I believe he will run for US president one day, but probably not this time round.

He is White, Male, Heterosexual and Christian, he is Toxic to the lunatics in charge of the Democrats now. I think the Ideal candidate in their minds should be a Vegan Black Transgender Disabled Muslim Lesbian, it would tick all their SJW Marxist goals.

Itssoeasy

theguzman wrote: »

friendlyfun wrote: »

Joe Kennedy (grandson of Robert Kennedy) is a very strong candidate for the US presidency. He has an idealism and potency in the way he speaks. Now a lot of people probably wouldn't want another dynasty in running for US president, but I honestly think he would be a great contender and would wipe the floor with the rest of the democrats. He's young, energetic and has a vision for the US that I think its lacking in a lot of the other candidates.

I believe he will run for US president one day, but probably not this time round.

He is White, Male, Heterosexual and Christian, he is Toxic to the lunatics in charge of the Democrats now. I think the Ideal candidate in their minds should be a Vegan Black Transgender Disabled Muslim Lesbian, it would tick all their SJW Marxist goals.

I wouldn’t call them lunatics but I do agree that the democrats are going through this purity test to find a candidate that ticks every box they have. No candidate I’ve seen ticks all those boxes so are they not going to have a candidate then ?

And I’m all for rights for everyone and people should be allowed to live as they like and love who they like. My issue is that if you don’t support these issues loudly you in some way are seen as being against the issues. Anyway I’ve gotten off topic.

There are some candidates who could easily beat trump. My worry is they’ll be so damaged from the democratic primaries because they aren’t as ideological pure as some on the left want trump will win.

Danzy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I wouldn’t call them lunatics but I do agree that the democrats are going through this purity test to find a candidate that ticks every box they have. No candidate I’ve seen ticks all those boxes so are they not going to have a candidate then ?

And I’m all for rights for everyone and people should be allowed to live as they like and love who they like. My issue is that if you don’t support these issues loudly you in some way are seen as being against the issues. Anyway I’ve gotten off topic.

There are some candidates who could easily beat trump. My worry is they’ll be so damaged from the democratic primaries because they aren’t as ideological pure as some on the left want trump will win.

They aren't lunatics, cult like fanatics, purists with a tendency to control freakery.

briany

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And I’m all for rights for everyone and people should be allowed to live as they like and love who they like. My issue is that if you don’t support these issues loudly you in some way are seen as being against the issues. Anyway I’ve gotten off topic.

People on who are hard to either side of an issue will say that those not with us are against us.

Rjd2

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/11/politics/beto-orourke-poll-of-the-week/index.html

Beto is seriously ****ed. The media were in his pocket when he ran against Cruz which was a serious help, but not anymore. He also seems to be struggling to connect with lady voters also.

I recall a criticism from someone

"Beto reminds them to much of a guy who breaks up with them because he wants to discover himself"

That might be tolerable if a teenager, but not if you are 46 running for the top job in the world.

Also a reminder to those who says likeability only matters when it comes to women are wrong.

Danzy

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/11/politics/beto-orourke-poll-of-the-week/index.html

Beto is seriously ****ed. The media were in his pocket when he ran against Cruz which was a serious help, but not anymore. He also seems to be struggling to connect with lady voters also.

I recall a criticism from someone

"Beto reminds them to much of a guy who breaks up with them because he wants to discover himself"

That might be tolerable if a teenager, but not if you are 46 running for the top job in the world.

Also a reminder to those who says likeability only matters when it comes to women are wrong.

That is some put down.

Rjd2

More on Beto's decline.The “Man, I’m just born to be in it” was a disaster and seemed to infuriate a lot of people especially when you had the likes of Warren, Tulsi, Yang, Bernie etc running on pretty substantial issues.

Another annoyance for the dems, instead of running a doomed campaign he could be challenging for a Texas senate seat.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/12/beto-o-rourke-2020-disappearing-act-what-happened-popularity-texas-politician

Like Houdini, O’Rourke has gone from front of stage to a puff of smoke in six short months. #Betomania morphed into #Betofatigue, seemingly overnight.

Look back on the events of 7 November 2018, when he delivered his concession speech, having lost to Cruz in a packed sports stadium in El Paso, and you can see the contrast. At that time he was lauded as the politician who could do the impossible: challenge a virulent Republican like Ted Cruz in a solid red state like Texas and come within an inch of victory.

Next stop Donald Trump? But from the moment he launched his presidential bid in March, he has been struggling. Those very qualities that had been the recipe of his relative success in Texas suddenly became liabilities.


His charming ways and good looks were thrown back in his face as white privilege. That wasn’t helped when he gave Vanity Fair a gift of a one-liner on the eve of launch – “Man, I’m just born to be in it” – that made many Democrats wince.

The mere decision to run for the White House was interpreted as chutzpah. As the Daily Beast cruelly put it: “Reacting to losing to Ted Cruz by running for president is like failing to land a role in a community theater production and deciding to take your talents to Broadway.”

KyussB

Wow - MMT is making its way into the mainstream, this side of the Atlantic as well, now - (regarding the Green New Deal) the Guardian are MMTers:

Critics claim such ideas are pie-in-the-sky and would require huge spending, sparking inflation or resulting in massive tax increases. Democratic leaders fret that it would make the party unelectable in conservative-leaning US states. Yet the issue is not the money to pay for the investments proposed. US government deficits are historically normal and often economically necessary. The constraint is what a nation can produce. As the economist Stephanie Kelton, who is advising Bernie Saunders, notes in her defence of the Green New Deal: “Inflation isn’t triggered by the amount of money the government creates but by the availability of biophysical resources that money tries to go out and buy.”

Policymakers ought not wait for economic theory to catch up to real-world events. Ms Ocasio-Cortez rightly sees parallels with the response to the 1930s crisis where President Roosevelt dispensed with economic orthodoxy and tamed Big Finance. He created a New Deal jobs programme that employed millions, oversaw a massive expansion of government and remade the US industrial base. Humanity will run out of limited global resources long before the US runs out of dollars. Britain needs something like Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. And we need it now – before it is too late.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/12/the-guardian-view-on-a-green-new-deal-we-need-it-now

Fantastic to see. Not long ago I could justifiably have imagined it lingering in the background for another decade or two, still.

The frustration some may know I feel about how it was treated here, before - but very gratifying to see it vindicated, now - hopefully we will be seeing it put into practice, not just in the US, but in Europe as well (much harder to achieve the latter, though easier for countries like the UK).

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/JRBoh/status/1127576042284171265

More strong numbers for Biden. Its early days, but those expecting him to fall away may need to reconsider. The gaffes of him previously been highlighted by Bernies crew simply is not clicking whatsoever.

I think if Bernie is to win, he will have to tear down Obama's reign. Has he the guts to do it, doubtful though.

Danzy

Rjd2 wrote: »

More on Beto's decline.The “Man, I’m just born to be in it” was a disaster and seemed to infuriate a lot of people especially when you had the likes of Warren, Tulsi, Yang, Bernie etc running on pretty substantial issues.

Another annoyance for the dems, instead of running a doomed campaign he could be challenging for a Texas senate seat.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/12/beto-o-rourke-2020-disappearing-act-what-happened-popularity-texas-politician

...

"His charming ways and good looks were thrown back in his face as white privilege. That wasn’t helped when he gave Vanity Fair a gift of a one-liner on the eve of launch – “Man, I’m just born to be in it” – that made many Democrats wince."

...

The same will undermine Sanders, there is an awful lot of Democratic activists who will never nominate an old white Jewish male.

pixelburp

Rjd2 wrote: »

More strong numbers for Biden. Its early days, but those expecting him to fall away may need to reconsider. The gaffes of him previously been highlighted by Bernies crew simply is not clicking whatsoever.

I think if Bernie is to win, he will have to tear down Obama's reign. Has he the guts to do it, doubtful though.

The problem with numbers that high, they can only go in one direction and smell just a touch inflated; once candidates get to the national stage proper I could see Sanders, Harris, maybe Warren cutting the gap. O'Rourke is doomed anyway, hubris manifest in not consolidating his domestic career. Fact is only Sanders rivals Biden for anything resembling a national profile, so of course polls will lean towards the candidate people have actually heard of. The reverse scenario is just as true sure and Biden could romp home in a canter but I dunno (though the DNC could also throw a spanner in the works if it tries to ram home a Biden selection)

eagle eye

It's clear there are people out to ruin Beto's chances. This could be a Republican move because he is exactly the type of candidate who would beat Trump.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

It's clear there are people out to ruin Beto's chances. This could be a Republican move because he is exactly the type of candidate who would beat Trump.

Beto is doing a great job of ruining his own chances, he doesn’t need any help right now.

It’s not the Dems choice that wins the election in 2020, it’s the state of the economy. If the Dow keeps falling a chimp in a tuxedo will beat Trump.

ancapailldorcha

theguzman wrote: »

He is White, Male, Heterosexual and Christian, he is Toxic to the lunatics in charge of the Democrats now. I think the Ideal candidate in their minds should be a Vegan Black Transgender Disabled Muslim Lesbian, it would tick all their SJW Marxist goals.

No more nonsense like this please. It's not remotely constructive.

Danzy

TheGuzman.

Please leave analysis like that to the New York Times, where it belongs and was only recently done.

eagle eye

Brian? wrote:

It’s not the Dems choice that wins the election in 2020, it’s the state of the economy. If the Dow keeps falling a chimp in a tuxedo will beat Trump.
Beto is doing a great job of ruining his own chances, he doesn’t need any help right now.

What was the economy like at the end of Obama's first term?

No old guy, woman or gay man will beat Trump.
Look at the average age of first time elected Democrat Presidents since the 60's and you'll see why I want a man between 40 and 55.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

What was the economy like at the end of Obama's first term?

No old guy, woman or gay man will beat Trump.
Look at the average age of first time elected Democrat Presidents since the 60's and you'll see why I want a man between 40 and 55.

The economy was on the up, but the incumbent wasn’t running and neither was the VP. If Biden had run he would have walked it.


I don’t want Biden to get the nomination, I’d like someone younger too, but if the economy continues to tank Trump is gone no matter what. He’s able to bat all criticism away now with his “best economy ever” nonsense, if he doesn’t have that he’s toast.

Danzy

Brian? wrote: »

but if the economy continues to tank Trump is gone no matter what. He’s able to bat all criticism away now with his “best economy ever” nonsense, if he doesn’t have that he’s toast.

The u.s. economy is doing fantastic at the moment, more importantly the growth is being shared across all income groups and sectors something not seen in a very, very long time.

On economic performance he'll walk it.

His stance on Trade is also popular with voters, even if not within his own party many old stalwarts viewing it as near identical to Bernie Sanders, which it is.

A normal recession will not be enough to take the shine off the economy for him.

Rjd2

pixelburp wrote: »

The problem with numbers that high, they can only go in one direction and smell just a touch inflated; once candidates get to the national stage proper I could see Sanders, Harris, maybe Warren cutting the gap. O'Rourke is doomed anyway, hubris manifest in not consolidating his domestic career. Fact is only Sanders rivals Biden for anything resembling a national profile, so of course polls will lean towards the candidate people have actually heard of. The reverse scenario is just as true sure and Biden could romp home in a canter but I dunno (though the DNC could also throw a spanner in the works if it tries to ram home a Biden selection)

Its not a foregone conclusion for sure, and I expect the GOP will run interference also, someone as shrewd as Mitch will know well that Biden is Trumps most difficult opponent.

Biden's selling point for many they look back at the days of Obama with fondness, things were quiet, normal and the economy was solid. Some might disagree from both aisles regarding that, but that nostalgia is powerful and if a Dem wants to beat him they may have to say

"Nope life wasn't that great under Obama whatsoever" .

eagle eye

Rjd2 wrote:

"Nope life wasn't that great under Obama whatsoever" .

I know lots of Democrats and they were all complaining about money during Obama's second term.

Danzy

Obama's legacy will be preventing the 2008 crash turning in to a global great depression.

Getting medical care as a provided scheme on the books, it needs massive improvement but at least it is there to improve.

****ing up Libya was a massive error and one which its problems continue to spread out.

rossie1977

Biden leads Trump nationally by 11 in latest Fox poll.

28 percent of voters in same poll would “definitely” vote for Trump, while 46 percent would “definitely” vote for someone else.

Looks like 2020 will be higher turnout if interest is anything to go by with 57% of respondents extremely interested in election compared to 31% in July 2015.

pixelburp

Probably not a great sign when even Fox News can't hide the reality of an unpopular president; I was going to remark that they presumably try to bias questions (no more than many politically aligned pollsters), but looking at 538 it appears the two Fox News sources rate grade A & B - so I guess they're happy enough to take the results as reliable indicators. Those polls after the first Democratic primary debate will be fascinating.

Sand

rossie1977 wrote: »

Biden leads Trump nationally by 11 in latest Fox poll.

28 percent of voters in same poll would “definitely” vote for Trump, while 46 percent would “definitely” vote for someone else.

Looks like 2020 will be higher turnout if interest is anything to go by with 57% of respondents extremely interested in election compared to 31% in July 2015.

Trump is finished. He campaigned as a change/outsider candidate in 2016. Obama campaigned as the change/outsider candidate in 2008. Both times a continuity/managerial/safe hands candidate in the shape of Clinton lost out. Americans have consistently endorsed candidates who offer a change from the current trajectory their country is on.

Trump campaigned as a radical, but he has governed as a conventional, cookie cutter Republican. I've seen his presidency summarised being as if the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 stormed the cockpit, took over the plane, and then calmly continued the attack on the Capitol Building. The base he energised to seek change in 2016 is still out there, but they wont be coming out to vote for a continuity candidate like Trump in 2020.

marno21

It will be interesting to see what he does if he loses the election, given the current apparent ability to just make up rules as he goes along.

What happens on 20/01/21 when 46 tries to move in and the incumbent refuses to move out because the election was rigged/big Dem conspiracy etc?

pixelburp

I think the worry of Trump refusing to acknowledge the result is real; but - and this is a big but that Republicans might finally show some bipartisanship - presumably the Trump family might suddenly find all those ignored or closed investigations gaining a new lease of life. Hell hath no fury like a politician with retrospective morality.

Sand

marno21 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see what he does if he loses the election, given the current apparent ability to just make up rules as he goes along.

What happens on 20/01/21 when 46 tries to move in and the incumbent refuses to move out because the election was rigged/big Dem conspiracy etc?

What will happen is someone will call the cops and he'll be evicted. Trump is a weak individual - he fears public humiliation more than anything. Trump will never acknowledge defeat gracefully, and he will never retire his Twitter account, but the concept of him barricading the White House and hunkering down like a squatter in December 2020 is just not realistic.

Danzy

Sand wrote: »

What will happen is someone will call the cops and he'll be evicted. Trump is a weak individual - he fears public humiliation more than anything. Trump will never acknowledge defeat gracefully, and he will never retire his Twitter account, but the concept of him barricading the White House and hunkering down like a squatter in December 2020 is just not realistic.

It is fantastical to pretend he won't cede if he loses.

Plays great on MSNBC but No relevance outside of driving ratings.

Eric Cartman

Sand wrote: »

What will happen is someone will call the cops and he'll be evicted. Trump is a weak individual - he fears public humiliation more than anything. Trump will never acknowledge defeat gracefully, and he will never retire his Twitter account, but the concept of him barricading the White House and hunkering down like a squatter in December 2020 is just not realistic.

might start an investigation into interference, write a book called 'what happened' and keep complaining about it for years after.

That appears to be what you do when you lose a US presidential election fairly this decade.

pixelburp

Eric Cartman wrote: »

might start an investigation into interference, write a book called 'what happened' and keep complaining about it for years after.

That appears to be what you do when you lose a US presidential election fairly this decade.

Snark all you want, but Trump equivocated on whether he'd accept the 2016 result. It was one of the bigger shocks of the campaign outside of p*ssygate. Even after winning he refused to accept he lost the popular vote, citing phantom "millions of illegal votes" and starting that phony, aborted fraud commission. To this day he still trumpets his "record breaking" victory as a non sequitur so...
... Yeah. Whether he accepts the 2020 result is a fair question, even if I don't believe his resistance would last long in the face of the threat of inconvenient investigations (those tax returns might suddenly become unblocked, for instance)

It's a bit hollow to sneer at the loser, when I've never witness a political winner so insecure in their victory.

Sand

Eric Cartman wrote: »

might start an investigation into interference, write a book called 'what happened' and keep complaining about it for years after.

That appears to be what you do when you lose a US presidential election fairly this decade.

In all fairness, I think we can expect Trump to completely redefine the term 'bad loser' from 2020 onwards. He completely lacks the self confidence or self respect to be in any way dignified in defeat, or to respect the norms of withdrawal from public discourse that former presidents observe.

The so-called mainstream media is going to continue to survive off the scraps of Trumps all caps tweets at least until he dies. At which point they will resurrect his top 10 tweets at regular intervals and on anniversaries. The only escape for normal people who do not care what Trump tweeted yesterday is death or a serious head injury.

eagle eye

I'll say it again. No old Democrat will beat Trump. It's hard to oust the incumbent, it's impossible for an old guy to win against an incumbent. Democrat candidacy history suggests that your successful candidate is aged between 40 and 55.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

I'll say it again. No old Democrat will beat Trump. It's hard to oust the incumbent, it's impossible for an old guy to win against an incumbent. Democrat candidacy history suggests that your successful candidate is aged between 40 and 55.

I would have agreed, until I saw the polls. Why are you so sure they’re wrong?

stefanovich

Brian? wrote: »

I would have agreed, until I saw the polls. Why are you so sure they’re wrong?

They haven't exactly been reliable in recent years.

I think Trump is doing a good job. His base might not been seeing the change they expected on the ground... CNN psyops could be working...

Brian?

stefanovich wrote: »

They haven't exactly been reliable in recent years.

The polls were pretty accurate in 2016, it's a myth they were inaccurate. Trump won some states with a razor thin majority, well within the margin for error. Hilary won the popular vote. So both the state and national polling were very close to the result statistically.

stefanovich wrote: »

I think Trump is doing a good job. His base might not been seeing the change they expected on the ground... CNN psyops could be working...

Trump isn't doing a good job at anything. He was handed a buoyant economy on the upswing and hasn't managed to crash it until now. It's shaking though, the China trade nonsense is going to bite hard soon. Large multinationals have started belt tightening on capital expenditure.

I have no idea what "CNN psops" means.

stefanovich

Brian? wrote: »

The polls were pretty accurate in 2016, it's a myth they were inaccurate. Trump won some states with a razor thin majority, well within the margin for error. Hilary won the popular vote. So both the state and national polling were very close to the result statistically.




Trump isn't doing a good job at anything. He was handed a buoyant economy on the upswing and hasn't managed to crash it until now. It's shaking though, the China trade nonsense is going to bite hard soon. Large multinationals have started belt tightening on capital expenditure.

I have no idea what "CNN psops" means.

I love this idea that it was somehow chance and good luck that Trump won.

He's fighting back with the Chinese and trying to improve conditions for the working class in the USA. I am glad he has the guts to stand up for them.

Markets are always shaking. Too much cocaine and not enough sense.

Everything will work itself out in the end.

CNN psyops - Psychological operations by CNN brainwashers.

FreudianSlippers

Eric Cartman wrote: »

might start an investigation into interference, write a book called 'what happened' and keep complaining about it for years after.

That appears to be what you do when you lose a US presidential election fairly this decade.

I take it you didn't read HRC's book? Aside from the fact that we know the Russians interfered with the election to get Trump elected (and we know from the Mueller report that that the very least his campaign knew about it and did nothing - I'd suggest the Mueller report outlines collusion and obstruction in relation to same, but since that's still up for debate can we at least agree that the report unequivocally outlines that there was Russian interference?), Clinton outlines her errors in her campaign and does not simply blame everyone else.

She does kinda blame Comey though :pac:

eagle eye

When it comes to taking on Trump they are going to find your every weakness. An old guy with even a hint of being touchy feely with women is going to get destroyed.
A lot of people went through financial hard times during Obama's presidency and they'll be reminded of that fact and that Biden was highly responsible. Every attempt will be made to show him up as a very old man too.

The guy I wanted to see in the running was Martin Heinrich. This guy is clean cut, the right age and appeals to all sides I think. Two years ago he put himself in the spotlight with his questioning and admonishment of Jeff Sessions. He has done a lot of good things. This guy would walk all over Trump. Sadly he has never put his name forward and won't be considered.

That leaves Beto O'Rourke, he has charisma and seems clean cut too but he appears to be a bit of a bluffer, Bill Clinton style, but he would have a great chance against Trump too I think. O'Rourke with his Irish and Hispanic heritage might well win by landslide.

Forget Sanders and Biden, forget women because that is not going to happen this time. Heinrich isn't running so Beto is the man

Jamiekelly

Brian? wrote: »

I would have agreed, until I saw the polls. Why are you so sure they’re wrong?

The polls right now include nearly 13 candidates. Once people start dropping out then it will become more concise and believable. At this stage in the 2016 election Clinton was 21 points ahead of everyone in the democratic field nationally until people started dropping out. Then it became single digits and some polls showed Bernie behind by 3-4 points. Taking polls seriously this early on is not wise.

Trump in May 2015 only had 13% in the republican polling for the nomination. Then Rubio Cruz and Romeny dropped out and it was all Trump. The idea that Biden will actually hold his polling lead is laughable. Biden has a long history of putting his foot in his mouth given half a chance and he hardly inspires devotion or excitement from the democratic base.

Itssoeasy

eagle eye wrote: »

When it comes to taking on Trump they are going to find your every weakness. An old guy with even a hint of being touchy feely with women is going to get destroyed.
A lot of people went through financial hard times during Obama's presidency and they'll be reminded of that fact and that Biden was highly responsible. Every attempt will be made to show him up as a very old man too.

The guy I wanted to see in the running was Martin Heinrich. This guy is clean cut, the right age and appeals to all sides I think. Two years ago he put himself in the spotlight with his questioning and admonishment of Jeff Sessions. He has done a lot of good things. This guy would walk all over Trump. Sadly he has never put his name forward and won't be considered.

That leaves Beto O'Rourke, he has charisma and seems clean cut too but he appears to be a bit of a bluffer, Bill Clinton style, but he would have a great chance against Trump too I think. O'Rourke with his Irish and Hispanic heritage might well win by landslide.

Forget Sanders and Biden, forget women because that is not going to happen this time. Heinrich isn't running so Beto is the man

So basically Beto is going to be the next incarnation of JFK, jimmy carter, bill Clinton, Barack Obama ?

Brian?

stefanovich wrote: »

I love this idea that it was somehow chance and good luck that Trump won.

Who says it was luck? It was partly due to a well run campaign, partly due to an anti Hilary protest vote, partly due to incompetence in the Hilary campaign and a load of other reasons.

He's fighting back with the Chinese and trying to improve conditions for the working class in the USA. I am glad he has the guts to stand up for them.

He's harming the US working class more than anyone.

Markets are always shaking. Too much cocaine and not enough sense.

Everything will work itself out in the end.

Actually the numbers say it won't work itself out before a large downturn first.

CNN psyops - Psychological operations by CNN brainwashers.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

rossie1977

Jamiekelly wrote: »

The polls right now include nearly 13 candidates. Once people start dropping out then it will become more concise and believable. At this stage in the 2016 election Clinton was 21 points ahead of everyone in the democratic field nationally until people started dropping out. Then it became single digits and some polls showed Bernie behind by 3-4 points. Taking polls seriously this early on is not wise.

Trump in May 2015 only had 13% in the republican polling for the nomination. Then Rubio Cruz and Romeny dropped out and it was all Trump. The idea that Biden will actually hold his polling lead is laughable. Biden has a long history of putting his foot in his mouth given half a chance and he hardly inspires devotion or excitement from the democratic base.

Trump had zero political experience so few took him seriously at the start. Nobody expected any Dem to challenge Clinton and Sanders was pretty much unknown outside Vermont at this point in 2015 so not really apples to apples comparison.

All the top Dem challengers be it Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders and Beto are well known. None of them can be a surprise packet at this stage. Even Obama who didn't start making national and international waves until late 2007 when he had Oprah at his rallies was leading Clinton in May/June 2007 in a handful of polls like USA today https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-04-poll-results_N.htm

So unless Yang or Buttigieg or Bennett start really taking country by storm in next few months I don't see big change either way. Biden is favourite as he has been leading in every poll for months. Sanders has a chance because there are two other progressive candidates in Warren and O'Rourke whose voters should move to when they drop out. Additionally Warren has a chance (she is gaining popularity) because she is best politican in the group either Dem or Republican and maybe Sanders isn't the same level draw this year. Finally Harris still has a chance because she is golden girl and corporate media will likely want her vs Trump not the other 3 I mentioned.

Putting foot in mouth hasn't hurt Trump so far..

ancapailldorcha

Mod: We already have a thread for the Trump presidency. Please keep this one to discussion of who might beat him in 2020. Also, please refrain from one-liner posts and soundbytes. 2 posts deleted.

eagle eye

Itssoeasy wrote:

So basically Beto is going to be the next incarnation of JFK, jimmy carter, bill Clinton, Barack Obama ?

Only on the sense that if he gets to run he will get elected.
I'd liken him charisma wise to Bill Clinton in that he appeals to a lot of people. It'll also hurt the Latino Republican vote which would be hugely important in Florida.