US Presidential Election 2020

StringerBell

Biden is a safe pair of hands, a return to normality and familiarity. That and name recognition have him where he is at the minute. Warren could be a very good president I feel but am doubtful she would win a general election. If pushed I'd give her the shot though.

Trump is awful, devoid of any spine or principle which doesn't translate to a good president but he is adept at reality TV which is what the campaigns basically are these days and with the coverage he will get he will be tough to stop.

I like some of the other candidates but as yet nobody has stood out other than Warren. Beto running is such a waste, he couldn't carry his own state yet he thought he could go for president? Why not target the Senate seat and be a bit tactical with their thinking, plenty of time left for him to take a shot at the big job instead of wasting space now.

Quin_Dub

StringerBell wrote: »

Biden is a safe pair of hands, a return to normality and familiarity. That and name recognition have him where he is at the minute. Warren could be a very good president I feel but am doubtful she would win a general election. If pushed I'd give her the shot though.

Trump is awful, devoid of any spine or principle which doesn't translate to a good president but he is adept at reality TV which is what the campaigns basically are these days and with the coverage he will get he will be tough to stop.

I like some of the other candidates but as yet nobody has stood out other than Warren. Beto running is such a waste, he couldn't carry his own state yet he thought he could go for president? Why not target the Senate seat and be a bit tactical with their thinking, plenty of time left for him to take a shot at the big job instead of wasting space now.

This applies to a lot of the current candidates.

O'Rourke and Buttegieg could seriously target Senate seats and winning extra senate seats is arguably more important than unseating Trump.

marno21

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This applies to a lot of the current candidates.

O'Rourke and Buttegieg could seriously target Senate seats and winning extra senate seats is arguably more important than unseating Trump.

Indeed.

They need to put clearing McConnell on the same priority level as beating Trump.

StringerBell

If it's a choice of one or the other the Senate should be targeted as a higher priority than the presidency. Hold both houses of Congress and you have a lame duck president who is kept largely under control you would imagine. Leave MM in charge as he majority leader in the Senate and the presidency loses some of its shine. Obviously taking both would be the goal ideally but if it's one or the other the strategy and priority should be securing the congress.

Manic Moran

StringerBell wrote: »

If it's a choice of one or the other the Senate should be targeted as a higher priority than the presidency. Hold both houses of Congress and you have a lame duck president who is kept largely under control you would imagine. Leave MM in charge as he majority leader in the Senate and the presidency loses some of its shine. Obviously taking both would be the goal ideally but if it's one or the other the strategy and priority should be securing the congress.

I have a strong, if unfounded, suspicion that this is more or less what happened three years ago. Since everybody "knew" that Clinton would win, I would wager a lot of folks voted Republican for their congresscritter precisely to ensure that she couldn't do a hell of a lot, then got shocked when the Republicans got all three. Then again, no major harm done, since the Republicans couldn't agree on anything much to pass.

Given that the odds are that Trump will lose, it would not surprise me at all to discover that the swing states will vote red for congress in order to limit the swing to the left. Some of the swing last year was the anti-Trump protest vote. This time around, if they want to protest Trump, they'll vote against him directly, not indirectly via congress. If Trump wins anyway, so what? The Republicans couldn't pass much last time they were in charge, why should next time be any different? So no major harm done there either.

rossie1977

StringerBell wrote: »

I like some of the other candidates but as yet nobody has stood out other than Warren. Beto running is such a waste, he couldn't carry his own state yet he thought he could go for president? Why not target the Senate seat and be a bit tactical with their thinking, plenty of time left for him to take a shot at the big job instead of wasting space now.

O'Rourke's not even going to win Texas in primary. Biden is well ahead and Sanders and Warren are pretty much neck and neck with him in native state.

eagle eye

Manic Moran wrote:

Given that the odds are that Trump will lose

As much as I'd love this to be true it's not. The Democrats are doing their very best to secure him a second term with two old guys likely to battle it out to take him on.
Old Democrats have no chance ofvl winning a Presidential election..

Itssoeasy

eagle eye wrote: »

As much as I'd love this to be true it's not. The Democrats are doing their very best to secure him a second term with two old guys likely to battle it out to take him on.
Old Democrats have no chance ofvl winning a Presidential election..

When you say "old Democrats" do you mean in terms of age or the establishment democrats ?

StringerBell

He means age, he keeps saying it.

No women, no old white men, certainly no old white Jewish men.

eagle eye

Itssoeasy wrote:

When you say "old Democrats" do you mean in terms of age or the establishment democrats ?

Age.

A Shropshire Lad

Market reckons Trump will win again, hes about evens. Biden second favourite at 4/1.... Elizabeth Warren is one to watch

eagle eye

StringerBell wrote:

No women, no old white men, certainly no old white Jewish men.

I never mentioned Jewish but you are probably right but much less of a problem than age or gender.
Putting Hilary forward messed it up for women for a while, she was a terrible candidate.
The only reason Obama won first time around was because of Mitt Romney's religion so it is a big factor.

marno21

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Market reckons Trump will win again, hes about evens. Biden second favourite at 4/1.... Elizabeth Warren is one to watch

The issue there is that’s effectively a double bet on Biden winning the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. Trump is clear favorite for the Republican nomination so that’s not as much of a factor there.

In a which Party bet, Bet365 have the Dems at 4/5 and the GOP at evens

pixelburp

Problem with all this speculation during the Phony War, or at least a long running theme, is all the self-defeating logic as to why Candidate X wouldn't win against Trump:

- Biden's too old, with too much Trumpian Baggage
- Sanders' too old, and an open socialist
- Warren is a woman, and a socialist (and inexplicably the right will roast her over the Native American gaffs - suddenly they value identity politics??)
- Harris is a black woman, and a "Coastal Elite".
- O'Rourke, Butitgieg(sp) are inexperienced.
- The rest are jars of mayonaise

At some point the Democratic narrative has to get behind someone and start emphasising the positives rather than worrying about what they're not. It's so sad to see the cliché bare out each & every time.

eagle eye

pixelburp wrote:

At some point the Democratic narrative has to get behind someone and start emphasising the positives rather than worrying about what they're not. It's so sad to see the cliché bare out each & every time.

Absolutely and if you want to win you need a guy who can walk the line. O'Rourke has so much going for him and it appears no skeletons.
He is not committed strongly to any side. I think he would win for my hand stands against Trump. In a debate he can be serious and when Trump goes on a rant he has it in him to make him look foolish.

StringerBell

eagle eye wrote: »

I never mentioned Jewish but you are probably right but much less of a problem than age or gender.
Putting Hilary forward messed it up for women for a while, she was a terrible candidate.
The only reason Obama won first time around was because of Mitt Romney's religion so it is a big factor.

No? My apologies so, must have been someone else.

Itssoeasy

eagle eye wrote: »

pixelburp wrote:

At some point the Democratic narrative has to get behind someone and start emphasising the positives rather than worrying about what they're not. It's so sad to see the cliché bare out each & every time.

Absolutely and if you want to win you need a guy who can walk the line. O'Rourke has so much going for him and it appears no skeletons.
He is not committed strongly to any side. I think he would win for my hand stands against Trump. In a debate he can be serious and when Trump goes on a rant he has it in him to make him look foolish.

But this is the problem the dems seem to be having and the left of the democrats seem to want a candidate as pure as driven snow, which as I've said before and I'll keep saying it will lose them the election.

All previous major party candidates have had to appeal to the base during the primaries and then it was move to the middle in the general election. A growing part of the democrats base want a candidate who will be strictly left and not compromise.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1141385420602859520

Wow. Sanders somewhat going after Warren and the dem establishment there. I suspect Bernie was never that concerned with Warren whose campaign struggled initially, but as she has momentum and Bernie not so much its irking him.

Also means that whoever decided Bernie and Warren were on different nights have ballsed up. Would have been drama.

eire4

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1141385420602859520

Wow. Sanders somewhat going after Warren and the dem establishment there. I suspect Bernie was never that concerned with Warren whose campaign struggled initially, but as she has momentum and Bernie not so much its irking him.

Also means that whoever decided Bernie and Warren were on different nights have ballsed up. Would have been drama.

To be fair I do not read that as Bernie sanders going after Elizabeth Warren as instead of going after the Corporate Democrats who control that party. Especially he has been going after the Third Way group who are the grouping of corporate Democrats who for the most part the dominant force in the Democratic party.

What is interesting is in all the most recent polls when you add up Sanders and Warrens numbers they together are within a point or 2 of Biden. Very early on though so probably a few more shake ups to come.

AbusesToilets

Be interesting to know how they get on in private, would they be willing to back each other if guaranteed the nomination for one of them.

peddlelies

Good on ABC news doing this story over Biden and his dealings with foreign governments like China. For anyone interested in shady dealings/corruption with foreign governments, check out Peter Schweizer's last two books.

vetinari

I think an issue that will come up again and again is how to view any "scandals" that the Democratic candidates have?
Unless they're something outrageous, they will pale against the scandals Trump has had.
The Democrats really don't want a repeat of 2016 where everyone but Trump was being held to a higher standard.

Personally, I think it's still way to early to get a sense of genuine front runners. I hope someone like Warren / Sanders/ Buttigieg proves successful as they will be able to generate decent enthusiasm from the base.

hill16bhoy

vetinari wrote: »

I think an issue that will come up again and again is how to view any "scandals" that the Democratic candidates have?
Unless they're something outrageous, they will pale against the scandals Trump has had.
The Democrats really don't want a repeat of 2016 where everyone but Trump was being held to a higher standard.

Personally, I think it's still way to early to get a sense of genuine front runners. I hope someone like Warren / Sanders/ Buttigieg proves successful as they will be able to generate decent enthusiasm from the base.

In the current media climate, it won't work like that

Media outlets cowed by the constant bombardment of threatening propaganda are bending over backwards to try and appear "fair" to Trump

I say "fair" in inverted commas because to be actually fair in reality would entail giving a level of scrutiny and challenge that the vast majority simply are not offering - Trump is winning this battle - media outlets are running with his narratives, framing and language and they are not challenging it

Fascists know that if you just constantly threaten and gaslight, people will stop challenging you because it becomes so mentaly wearing and draining

All fascists destroy truth to this end yet paint their opponents as "corrupt"

Therefore the focus will actually turn to "scandals" against the Democrats - that's what happened to Clinton in 2016, and what will happen to whoever is the candidate in 2020

So if Warren is the candidate, expect lots of focus on "Pocahontas" etc., expect literally anything to be dredged up and if they can't find anything, it will be invented and covered exhaustively - while Trump will get away pretty much scot free in this regard

And it will be a derogation of duty on the part of the traditional media that allows it to happen

Look at what the Republicans do to anybody who opposes them - look at what they did to Christine Blasey Ford, look at how they demonise asylum seekers and even their children, look at what happened to John Kerry in 2004

These are not rational actors, they are political terrorists

Going for impeachment is the only way any of the criminality, corruption and fascist grotesqueness surrounding Trump will matter

In an election campaign and without impeachment proceeedings, he will simply ride through it and the Republicans will turn the tables and make the Democrat appear "scandal-ridden"

I fear Democrats and the reputable media have not learned their lesson at all

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Media outlets cowed by the constant bombardment of threatening propaganda are bending over backwards to try and appear "fair" to Trump

Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual - unless Harvard are seen as a biased source in your eyes. Plenty of studies out showing he had over 90% negative coverage in 2018 from the major broadcast and cable networks.



Also

These are not rational actors, they are political terrorists

( Republican party )

Only someone totally radicalized would come out with such idiotic statements.

Professor Moriarty

peddlelies wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual - unless Harvard are seen as a biased source in your eyes. Plenty of studies out showing he had over 90% negative coverage in 2018 from the major broadcast and cable networks.



Also

( Republican party )

Only someone totally radicalized would come out with such idiotic statements.

Obviously he's a very negative human being and POTUS to invite such negative reporting. Perhaps if he got his act together he might garner more favourable reportage.

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual -

So, "peddlelies", are you now telling us that Trump hasn't been constantly engaging in constant threatening propaganda against the media?

Do you think consistently calling the media "the enemy of the people" is threatening propaganda?

Do you think it carries dictatorial overtones?

These are yes/no questions.

peddlelies

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Obviously he's a very negative human being and POTUS to invite such negative reporting. Perhaps if he got his act together he might garner more favourable reportage.

That's definitely it. Sure weren't they fair to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. I'd even go as far as to say that the major tech companies have an equal split down Democratic/Republican lines. *snigger*

Professor Moriarty

peddlelies wrote: »

That's definitely it. Sure weren't they fair to Mitt Romney and Rand Paul. I'd even go as far as to say that the major tech companies have an equal split down Democratic/Republican lines. *snigger*

Do you know the real reason why everybody is against poor Donald?

ancapailldorcha

hill16bhoy wrote: »

These are not rational actors, they are political terroristsall

Dial back the insults please.

peddlelies wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, devoid of reality as per usual - unless Harvard are seen as a biased source in your eyes. Plenty of studies out showing he had over 90% negative coverage in 2018 from the major broadcast and cable networks.



Also

( Republican party )

Only someone totally radicalized would come out with such idiotic statements.

peddlelies wrote: »

That's definitely it. Sure weren't they fair to Mitt Romney and Rand Paul. I'd even go as far as to say that the major tech companies have an equal split down Democratic/Republican lines. *snigger*

Next snide or uncivil comment from you will net you a ban.

rossie1977

If we are throwing up random charts re media bias then..



Btw nobody in their right mind would believe roughly 50% of fox news coverage on trump is negative in nature

pixelburp

Getting back to the actual subject at hand, the more interesting polls I'm curious about would be how Trump is doing in the Rust Belt?

I had theorised in the main thread that Trump latched onto the moribund cities and states slowly dying from a changing economy, and promised them a dream of "clean coal" and the like. Do we know how those states are looking 2 years in? Is there any kind of shift away, now that (presumably), these same states are not seeing the return of the Good Times.

rossie1977

He isn't doing good in rust belt. He is underwater everywhere except Indiana with double digit negative in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

vetinari

His approval rating is ultimately meaningless. As long as he can demonize the Democratic opponent, republican leaning voters will probably vote for him. Like hill16bhoy said, the media will probably go soft on Trump. They'll ultimately imo help Trump by providing enough negative coverage about whomever the Democratic nominee is so that he can argue that the nominee is not any better than him.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

Btw nobody in their right mind would believe roughly 50% of fox news coverage on trump is negative in nature

It wasn't a random graph, it was neutral research by Harvard University of his first 100 days in office, not some link from the "dailykos". Here's the link to their study.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

rossie1977

Actually graph I posted came from same place of study not Dailykos https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

Question do you believe 50% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump?

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

Question do you believe 50% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump?

If you look at some of their main anchors and commentators, not contributors or guests, you have people like Neil Cavuto, Shepard Smith, John Roberts, Breit Baier, Chris Wallace, Julie Banderas, Juan Williams etc who certainty aren't spokespeople for Trump and have been critical of him. I wouldn't call people like Shannon Bream and Martha McCallam cheerleaders either.

On the other side you have Tucker, Hannity, Laura, Jeanire Pirro, The Five and Fox and Friends who are cheerleaders. Jessie Waters has a weekly show and he's definitely a cheerleader too. So is Greg Gutfeld.

Do I believe Fox is overall 50% negative towards Trump? The report from Harvard said it was for that time period of his first 100 days, so yes I believe they were 50% negative for that time period. Do I think it's the same now? I don't know, probably not. I don't watch Fox news or any US news station. I do know that quickly looking over the anchor lists of outlets like CNN and MSNBC leads me to a very easy decision on which are more biased.

marno21

rossie1977 wrote: »

Actually graph I posted came from same place of study not Dailykos https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

Question do you believe 50% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump?

Apart from people like Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, it's hard to believe that 5% of Fox News coverage is negative towards Trump. Unless accurate reporting some of what he does that his base approves of, but doesn't sit well with centrists or liberals constitutes "negative coverage".

The idea that 50% of coverage of Trump on Fox & Friends/Carlson/Hannity/Ingraham, some of the higher shows in the ratings, is negative is comical.

pixelburp

vetinari wrote: »

His approval rating is ultimately meaningless. As long as he can demonize the Democratic opponent, republican leaning voters will probably vote for him. Like hill16bhoy said, the media will probably go soft on Trump. They'll ultimately imo help Trump by providing enough negative coverage about whomever the Democratic nominee is so that he can argue that the nominee is not any better than him.

It is a useful guide though; Trump isn't the plucky outsider anymore and he promised A LOT. Effectively inventing a new resource (clean coal) and telling a lot of communities that he'd bring them back to peak prosperity. The trade war has also had a negative impact in various quarters - necessitating bailouts (so much for the fiscal conservatism of the GOP) - so I wonder how much support he can expect from communities potentially twice disenfranchised.

Not that the democrats will likely say or do much for these communities (nobody wants to go to someone's town and tell them coal isn't coming back, suck it up)

peddlelies

marno21 wrote: »

Carlson/Hannity/Ingraham

This is the last I'm going to say about this since this is being dragged off topic. I'd strongly agree with the statement that Fox's primetime shows and the morning show are hyper partisan and firmly lodged up Trump's ass. Only a fool would argue otherwise. That wasn't what the question was though.

Mr.Nice Guy

Seems there's a Democratic debate tonight (early hours our time), as well as the next day.

When is this happening? And where?
Wednesday and Thursday night, of course. The Democrats will debate between 9-11pm EDT in a double-header. Both nights will be live on TV – specifically NBC – and on the cable channels MSNBC and Telemundo. The debates will also be streamed on NBCNews.com, and on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

The debates are being held in the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in downtown Miami. The fact Florida is a swing state crucial to the 2020 election is surely just a happy coincidence.

Who is appearing?
On Wednesday: Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar will be duelling it out. Oh, and also: Washington’s governor, Jay Inslee; former housing and urban development secretary JuliCastro; Hawaii representative Tulsi Gabbard; New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio; Ohio congressman Tim Ryan and former Maryland congressman John Delaney.

On Thursday, it’s the turn of frontrunner Joe Biden; Vermont senator Bernie Sanders; California senator Kamala Harris; South Bend’s mayor, Pete Buttigieg; New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand; Colorado senator Michael Bennet; former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper; California congressman Eric Swalwell; entrepreneur Andrew Yang and author Marianne Williamson.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/26/democratic-debate-2019-watch-2020-election-when-where-who

Thursday's one looks more intriguing to me, but keen to see how Warren and O'Rourke fare in the first one.

pixelburp

I hope these first debates cut the chaff quickly enough; I've said it before but the likes of Ryan, Bennett, Delaney et al are total spoofers elongating the process beyond sense. It doesn't even speak to the ideological divide in the Democrats at the moment because half the field are generic, career Democrat-centrists.

Obviously they're entitled to run, but when the likes of Tim Ryan scrap into the debate by dint of polling 1% in 3 states, unless you earnestly believe you can take on Trump, there's no good reason to run.

marno21

There should really be a Fox News debate when the field narrows down. It would be quite effective imo

It would appeal to a far more relevant audience than a debate hosted by Rachel Maddow whilst quite a few swing voters watch Hannity & co propaganda.

Rjd2

It seems that Warren is the chosen one now looking at the amount of leeway she is getting.

On immigration,,,,I'd love for someone to ask them do they support open borders,,,nothing wrong with that position whatsoever, but I want them to say it instead of dodging it because they are worried about poll numbers.

Also when talking about immigration,,,pretty dire that nobody really focused on US imperialism which has played a part in the current high levels of immigration in the USA.

Rjd2

Beto clearly has annoyed everyone, Booker and Castro especially out to get him.

Rjd2

A relatively light debate sadly, but I doubt the Dem base will care to much as its early days. The answers on Mitch especially was little better than the ****e that Boris comes out regarding Brexit.,just empty slogans.


Worst performers were Ryan, Delaney and the abysmal Beto who was very much " i suppose good things but oppose bad things" all night.

Castro will be the happiest of the also rans as he had a really good first hour, although. Inslee whose campaign is doomed was solid all night and like Tulsi has a unique voice which is good for the campaign when trash like Beto is running.

Tulsi as expected got the gotcha question and she can expect to be treated like **** for the rest of the campaign sadly. Her smackdown on Tim " I'm all about the working class,,,but lets stay in Afghanistan forever" Ryan was a highlight but she is very much the Ron Paul of this race.

Warren obviously the chosen one who supposedly is the policy expert had an okish night, but the establishment is behind her so it won't matter that much.

In future with the closing arguments...enough about your backstory and actual policy please

Mr.Nice Guy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Seems there's a Democratic debate tonight (early hours our time), as well as the next day.



Thursday's one looks more intriguing to me, but keen to see how Warren and O'Rourke fare in the first one.

Half the people in that debate aren't even in the the thread's poll.

Meta request: Mods, make this a monthly thread with new polls each month.

NSAman

Jesus, if the”debate” tonight was their best ... Dems are fooked.

Not one person impressed, o’rourke was useless. Booker is as always about himself.

Dems need to stop this identity politics crap, it’s costing them.

eire4

NSAman wrote: »

Jesus, if the”debate” tonight was their best ... Dems are fooked.

Not one person impressed, o’rourke was useless. Booker is as always about himself.

Dems need to stop this identity politics crap, it’s costing them.

Agree with you on that last pint very strongly. The reality is that the modern Republican party is so much about hating everyone that is not a white male that the Democrats don't even need to spend so much time on identity politics anyway. The facts are that roughly 45% of Americans will not vote next year in the election and if the Democrats actually cared truly about the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans and spoke to that with a focus on policies that would address the economic interests of most Americans they would win in a landslide if they could even get just 5-10% of that 45% to actually show up and vote. But they won't because they are fundamentally a corporate controlled party and just not interested. As I have said before the Republicans clearly and unapologetically represent the richest 1%. The Democrats pretend to care about the rest but really they only care about the next 20 odd percent and could care less about most Americans.

eire4

Rjd2 wrote: »

A relatively light debate sadly, but I doubt the Dem base will care to much as its early days. The answers on Mitch especially was little better than the ****e that Boris comes out regarding Brexit.,just empty slogans.


Worst performers were Ryan, Delaney and the abysmal Beto who was very much " i suppose good things but oppose bad things" all night.

Castro will be the happiest of the also rans as he had a really good first hour, although. Inslee whose campaign is doomed was solid all night and like Tulsi has a unique voice which is good for the campaign when trash like Beto is running.

Tulsi as expected got the gotcha question and she can expect to be treated like **** for the rest of the campaign sadly. Her smackdown on Tim " I'm all about the working class,,,but lets stay in Afghanistan forever" Ryan was a highlight but she is very much the Ron Paul of this race.

Warren obviously the chosen one who supposedly is the policy expert had an okish night, but the establishment is behind her so it won't matter that much.

In future with the closing arguments...enough about your backstory and actual policy please

I am going to disagree with you on Warren. To my mind Biden is clearly the establishments choice. The corporate Democrats who control that party want no part of someone like Warren running the country and disrupting the gravy train they are on.

pixelburp

NSAman wrote: »

Jesus, if the”debate” tonight was their best ... Dems are fooked.

Not one person impressed, o’rourke was useless. Booker is as always about himself.

Dems need to stop this identity politics crap, it’s costing them.

These debates are meant for Democratic voters, makes sense they would channel issues that matter - or are perceived to matter - to the voters they're chasing. The language will change once the race comes down to 2, and later when it's vs. Trump because obviously the net will need to be cast wider. For now, bringing up so-called 'identity politics' makes sense & is fine.