US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2

Collins favorability in Maine in March was 62/37 (+25) and she cruised it in her last few races. Despite Trumps low popularity in Maine, Collins will hold comfortably in 2020. I think the Dems are better of spending money elsewhere tbh.

pixelburp

The recent racism from Trump may have had the side effect of galvanising the democrats;, it's easy to forget but technically AOC and Pelosi started the war, before Trump waded in and made things worse all round. It arguably put things in perspective and unified the Dems in a way hitherto absent. Next steps would be to cull the herd of candidates.

marno21

Rjd2 wrote: »

Collins favorability in Maine in March was 62/37 (+25) and she cruised it in her last few races. Despite Trumps low popularity in Maine, Collins will hold comfortably in 2020. I think the Dems are better of spending money elsewhere tbh.

Indeed but her approval rating is diving in Maine. Her normally moderate stance which commanded the vote she got is gone out the window

https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1151690352505606144

To me it seems a moderate Democrat (a centrist character) could take that seat given the time left to run, especially if Trump continues his veer to the right

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

Collins favorability in Maine in March was 62/37 (+25) and she cruised it in her last few races. Despite Trumps low popularity in Maine, Collins will hold comfortably in 2020. I think the Dems are better of spending money elsewhere tbh.

There have been new polls since then, her approval rating is now negative apparently. Fivethirtyeight have an article currently on the site titled "Mitch McConnell is the only Senator more unpopular than Susan Collins".

BluePlanet

It should be a right challenge to manage to lose to Trump.
However if the DNC select another corporate Dem (Biden i'm looking at you), turn out will be suppressed and the twitter-in-chief might just sneak back in.

FartyBlartFast

People also need to take into account the fact that the republican party are going out of their way to open their elections up to interference again.

Following an election that was shown to be meddled with, why would the republican party - who claim to be obsessed with protecting elections from fraud - be so determined to kill all of the bills that have come to them in the last few years, that were designed to protect these elections?

The obvious answer being, they don't want fair elections. Otherwise how would they continue to go about committing election fraud like they have been doing in places like North Carolina and beyond?

That, in my opinion, is Trumps single biggest advantage going into 2020,and is something he will be looking to capitalise on.

eagle eye

BluePlanet wrote:

It should be a right challenge to manage to lose to Trump. However if the DNC select another corporate Dem (Biden i'm looking at you), turn out will be suppressed and the twitter-in-chief might just sneak back in.

The four main candidates at this stage won't bring out the voters to defeat Trump.
It's hard to beat an incumbent, nothing easy about beating one.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

The four main candidates at this stage won't bring out the voters to defeat Trump.
It's hard to beat an incumbent, nothing easy about beating one.

While I agree not easy, he's also one of the most controversial presidents that the US have had in their history. So it's more likely to have people come out to vote as a result.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

While I agree not easy, he's also one of the most controversial presidents that the US have had in their history. So it's more likely to have people come out to vote as a result.

No, they aren't coming out to vote for somebody they don't like. Not be of these four excite people enough.
The Saunders of four years ago might have had a chance but his message is the same and it's old now.

StringerBell

I think Warren has a shot among others.

Why do you feel none of them will get enough of the voters out? There is always, always the possibility with Democrats that they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, its kind of their thing. At this point though surely everybody opposed to Trump, everybody who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton last time, every protest vote for a pointless third candidate will this time be out in force, even if they need to do the old Republican "hold your nose and vote" for "your teams" candidate?

There is no point in looking back at historical patterns with Trump, its unchartered territory. Once a candidate is picked by the Dems I am expecting them to be fully united by the goal of getting that man out of office, even the "radicals" such as AOC have confirmed as much. She has her preferences, but whoever the nominee is will get her backing.

I think Beto needs to drop out in the next few weeks now and turn his attention to that Senate seat, the Senate is just as, if not more important than taking the WH (Assuming they hold the House)

marno21

80,000 votes would have swung the 2016 election

Trump won by 80k votes against a bland, dislikeable candidate who was a terrible politician and completely failed in the tactical game against him. He came in promising people it would be a change from the establishment candidates if the past and he would do this, that and the other for them

In reality, he has done SFA for people in swing states and he can’t run on the same campaign again. This week his latest policy of unsubtle racism may appeal to his base but it’s toxic to moderates.

If a reasonable centrist Democrat with no wild policies and no complacencies targets Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida, Texas and keeps the marginal blue states from 2016 in check it’s difficult to see any other result.

Of course, this means the Democrat candidate giving up the self harming policies and the petty infighting. Maybe trying to appeal to the Fox News viewership and stepping outside of MSNBC and CNN might help too

Limpy

marno21 wrote: »

80,000 votes would have swung the 2016 election

Trump won by 80k votes against a bland, dislikeable candidate who was a terrible politician and completely failed in the tactical game against him. He came in promising people it would be a change from the establishment candidates if the past and he would do this, that and the other for them

In reality, he has done SFA for people in swing states and he can’t run on the same campaign again. This week his latest policy of unsubtle racism may appeal to his base but it’s toxic to moderates.

If a reasonable centrist Democrat with no wild policies and no complacencies targets Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida, Texas and keeps the marginal blue states from 2016 in check it’s difficult to see any other result.

Of course, this means the Democrat candidate giving up the self harming policies and the petty infighting. Maybe trying to appeal to the Fox News viewership and stepping outside of MSNBC and CNN might help too

Trump beats any current dem candidate. MAGA vs let them in.

Rjd2

marno21 wrote: »

Of course, this means the Democrat candidate giving up the self harming policies and the petty infighting. Maybe trying to appeal to the Fox News viewership and stepping outside of MSNBC and CNN might help too

One of the things which has been cool about Yang is he actually gets this and has gone on a variety of shows such as obvious lefty podcasts,,,but also Rubin, Shapiro and Rogan and was very comfortable.

On Rogan,,one of the biggest podcasts in the world and none of the front runners have gone on it. Lefties like Secular Talk, Paxman, Martin and the likes of Tulsi and Yang have gone on it and got good exposure out of it.

However I suppose the fear for some is the purity police who don't matter making a fuss, Sanders got criticism for doing a Fox town hall:rolleyes:

Mayor Pete tbf does seem to grasp this and has popped up on Fox a bit.

rossie1977

marno21 wrote: »

80,000 votes would have swung the 2016 election

Trump won by 80k votes against a bland, dislikeable candidate who was a terrible politician and completely failed in the tactical game against him. He came in promising people it would be a change from the establishment candidates if the past and he would do this, that and the other for them

In reality, he has done SFA for people in swing states and he can’t run on the same campaign again. This week his latest policy of unsubtle racism may appeal to his base but it’s toxic to moderates.

If a reasonable centrist Democrat with no wild policies and no complacencies targets Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida, Texas and keeps the marginal blue states from 2016 in check it’s difficult to see any other result.

Of course, this means the Democrat candidate giving up the self harming policies and the petty infighting. Maybe trying to appeal to the Fox News viewership and stepping outside of MSNBC and CNN might help too

Bland fair enough she isn't most interesting
Dislikable well that had more to do with with Republican party, FBI, Russian interference and the media tearing her down for two straight years. Anyone else in that spot would be dislikable too eventually. 85% of msm coverage of Clinton was negative https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/ and obviously right wing coverage of her was abhorrent, painting her as worst person in history



Regardless what you think of her politics and politically she wasn't that far from Reagan, Bill Clinton or Obama the same thing is going to happen again to whatever candidate gets nominated. Clinton had for stronger platform than Trump whose main policies were build wall, Mexico to pay for it, healthcare is easy, lock her up!

It's going to be even harder this time because Trump is incumbent and incumbents rarely lose. Secondly Trump is the main stream medias meal ticket. He is a ratings gem for them so they won't want to lose that. We already see it in action..Trump rallies gets lots of coverage, I haven't seen fox or CNN or MSNBC air a Biden or Harris or Bernie rally live so far.

rossie1977

Couple of Dem primary polls from CBS

Iowa Biden leads by 5. Bernie in second
New Hampshire Biden leads by 7, Bernie in second
South Carolina Biden leads by 22, Bernie in second
California Biden leads by 1, Harris in her home state is second
Texas Biden leads by 10 with Beto in his home state second

Quinnipiac has Harris leading by two in Cali with Biden second

pixelburp

Don't think it was posted here already, but the other day CNN released the line-up for the second double-header of Democrat debates on 30th/31st:

Night 1 (Tuesday, July 30): Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Marianne Williamson, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock.

Night 2 (Wednesday, July 31): Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julián Castro, Andrew Yang, Jay Inslee, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Michael Bennet.

Two big head-to-heads both nights: Warren v. Sanders is the obvious standout the first night, with both of the more openly 'socialist' candidates going head to head; Buttigieg might be the wild-card, whereas Williamson's eccentricity might add a little entertainment.

Obviously then for night 2 is Harris v. Biden, so it'll be interesting to see how Biden responds after suffering under Harris' prosecutorial experience. The rest of the field won't have anything to offer and I suspect CNN will bias the questions towards those two. The Yang supporters on the internet doubtlessly crying foul again.

peddlelies

Find it pretty funny that Sanders had to reduce hours for campaign staffers as there was infighting over them wanting a 15$ wage, one that he's been campaigning for, for a long time. Economics 101.

Rjd2

pixelburp wrote: »

Don't think it was posted here already, but the other day CNN released the line-up for the second double-header of Democrat debates on 30th/31st:

Night 1 (Tuesday, July 30): Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Marianne Williamson, John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock.

Night 2 (Wednesday, July 31): Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, JuliCastro, Andrew Yang, Jay Inslee, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Michael Bennet.

Two big head-to-heads both nights: Warren v. Sanders is the obvious standout the first night, with both of the more openly 'socialist' candidates going head to head; Buttigieg might be the wild-card, whereas Williamson's eccentricity might add a little entertainment.

Obviously then for night 2 is Harris v. Biden, so it'll be interesting to see how Biden responds after suffering under Harris' prosecutorial experience. The rest of the field won't have anything to offer and I suspect CNN will bias the questions towards those two. The Yang supporters on the internet doubtlessly crying foul again.

Yang and Tulsi are much more interesting than corporate bores like Gillibrand and Booker so if the can get time they should do well. Tulsi the strongest on foreign policy as the Venezuela debacle proved will be gunning for Biden which could provide fireworks.

Before anyone states the obvious I know Tulsi is done and probably should not have run but its good to have her and Yang on stage who are unique voices among a lot of the blandness on stage.

Professor Moriarty

rossie1977 wrote: »

Bland fair enough she isn't most interesting
Dislikable well that had more to do with with Republican party, FBI, Russian interference and the media tearing her down for two straight years. Anyone else in that spot would be dislikable too eventually. 85% of msm coverage of Clinton was negative https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/ and obviously right wing coverage of her was abhorrent, painting her as worst person in history



Regardless what you think of her politics and politically she wasn't that far from Reagan, Bill Clinton or Obama the same thing is going to happen again to whatever candidate gets nominated. Clinton had for stronger platform than Trump whose main policies were build wall, Mexico to pay for it, healthcare is easy, lock her up!

It's going to be even harder this time because Trump is incumbent and incumbents rarely lose. Secondly Trump is the main stream medias meal ticket. He is a ratings gem for them so they won't want to lose that. We already see it in action..Trump rallies gets lots of coverage, I haven't seen fox or CNN or MSNBC air a Biden or Harris or Bernie rally live so far.

Those front pages are disgusting. How do the editors look themselves in the mirror.

eagle eye

Love it if Biden gets down and dirty with Harris. I'd have some belief he could take Trump if he did. She has lots of dirty laundry.

PopePalpatine

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Those front pages are disgusting. How do the editors look themselves in the mirror.

They're doing it for Jesus...or some massive tax cuts.

BonnieSituation

peddlelies wrote: »

Find it pretty funny that Sanders had to reduce hours for campaign staffers as there was infighting over them wanting a 15$ wage, one that he's been campaigning for, for a long time. Economics 101.

Care to link us to that please.

FreudianSlippers

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Care to link us to that please.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-15-dollar-minimum-wage-staff-2020-controversy-1450267

As per usual, it's a statement which sits slightly adjacent to reality.

peddlelies

Gabbard suing google. Now she knows how conservatives feel, no bias and all that.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-account-suspension-1435405

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1154444505090629633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1154444505090629633&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ftech%2F2019%2F07%2F25%2Ftulsi-gabbard-sues-google-for-censorship-of-ads%2F

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Gabbard suing google. Now she knows how conservatives feel, no bias and all that.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-account-suspension-1435405

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1154444505090629633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1154444505090629633&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ftech%2F2019%2F07%2F25%2Ftulsi-gabbard-sues-google-for-censorship-of-ads%2F

It seems fairly innocuous to me when you read the details..

They'd obviously not been spending much/anything via the account and then suddenly spiked the ad purchasing so an automated tool blocked the account due to it detecting abnormal spending patterms.

Sounds very much like the standard "suspicious activity" alerts that credit card companies have on peoples accounts. The account was re-instated as soon as they called Google, exactly what happens with your credit card.

Hardly some great conspiracy , but good PR for her I guess given her public statements about "big tech"

rossie1977

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Hardly some great conspiracy , but good PR for her I guess given her public statements about "big tech"

Maybe that's her tactic and hoping to win Republicans or something. She was on Carlson claiming bias against her during debate. Suppose when you are floating around 1-2% you need to try anything

FatherTed

I actually did google her during the debate so I don't know what she's going on about.

pixelburp

It doesn't matter your political persuasion, to a certainly mentality Google is the convenient "all seeing eye" scapegoat the moment any pushback occurs against you. With social media in general getting bad press over privacy lapses,
fake news et al, it's a tempting strawman - especially if, like most politicans, tech is beyond you. Many US politicans simply haven't a clue about the internet.

Conservativee bad faith actors bleated bias when algorithms bumped them, or Twitter nuked their fake followers; now we have an also ran drumming up some cheap paranoia points to bolster a flagging campaign. The Google is out to get you, the narrative goes, and these days who isn't a little suspicious of it?

peddlelies

Maybe we can start a social media/legacy media thread for 2020 in the near future?

If 2016 was anything to go by it will be a defining factor.

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

Conservativee bad faith actors bleated bias when algorithms bumped them, or Twitter nuked their fake followers; now we have an also ran drumming up some cheap paranoia points to bolster a flagging campaign. The Google is out to get you, the narrative goes, and these days who isn't a little suspicious of it?

If the shoe was on the other foot you wouldn't be taking it so lightly.

Any leak or document dump that's come out of google shows a very heavy liberal bias. You can be banned off twitter these days for questioning aspects of the transgender movement. Big tech can hardly be seen as Republican allies.

rossie1977

Why would a giant multinational corporation have a Republican bias? I mean they benefit every time a Republican is president via massive tax cuts and cutting of regulations allowing them run amok.

I would imagine these huge companies are laughing at these right wing conspiracies. Disney made millions on word of mouth alone on Black Panther and captain Marvel because folks were freaking out that those films were Disney attempts at pushing multiculturalism and feminism to young people...Disney only care about one thing and that's money

pixelburp

peddlelies wrote: »

If the shoe was on the other foot you wouldn't be taking it so lightly.

Any leak or document dump that's come out of google shows a very heavy liberal bias. You can be banned off twitter these days for questioning aspects of the transgender movement. Big tech can hardly be seen as Republican allies.

What shoe? Make your mind up if we're talking conservatives or republicans because you're bouncing between the two. I search US political figures and often the first results are Fox News, so show me the bias, considering you're insinuating I'm some lopsided liberal? By your metrics i should only see ... what? The Guardian? In fact last time you brought this up, I got the same set of results as you, where it's fairly clear we don't overlap.

Where I call shenanigans are conservative outlets or personas who cry foul when their demonstrated fake followers get deleted, then they pile onto the big "liberal bias" narrative because it's a convenient strawman, instead of admitting they were caught fudging the game by amassing fake users. Twitter is a shítshow and frankly you can find any number of confirmation bias examples where "Twitter did bad". The generalisation about transgender cricticism is just that.

The All Seeing Eye paranoia is moulded by whatever critic wields it, and Conservatives are desperately trying to make a narrative that they're the scolded victim. Same pattern as seen with Dana Loesch(sp) and the NRA. Helps with the MAGA mentality, the "silent majority" nonsense that pops up, even in Ireland.

FreudianSlippers

rossie1977 wrote: »

Maybe that's her tactic and hoping to win Republicans or something. She was on Carlson claiming bias against her during debate. Suppose when you are floating around 1-2% you need to try anything

Gaining Republicans won't help her in the Democratic primary

Brian?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Gaining Republicans won't help her in the Democratic primary

Perversely it can. Some states have open voting in primaries, so she can win delegates by republicans voting for her.

Won't matter in the end though. She hasn't a hope.

FreudianSlippers

Brian? wrote: »

Perversely it can. Some states have open voting in primaries, so she can win delegates by republicans voting for her.

Won't matter in the end though. She hasn't a hope.

Sorry I should have been clearer - only about 2% of people vote in primaries in open states for the other party. Support to Tulsi in the 15 open primary states from 2% of eligible Republicans will have zero impact... she could gain 10% of Republicans in those states and she still wouldn't significantly move the pin.

pixelburp

I absolutely get this is a hobby horse with me, but when Hickenlooper is posting this kind of nonsense, one wonders if they're almost enjoying fragmenting the field & ability to form a message. Heck where I a conspiracy theorist I'd almost wonder if they're platnts. Celebrating the momentum of ... ... hitting 2% in a Fox News poll. Lordy.

https://twitter.com/Hickenlooper/status/1154530463769419778

Rjd2

peddlelies wrote: »

Gabbard suing google. Now she knows how conservatives feel, no bias and all that.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-account-suspension-1435405

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1154444505090629633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1154444505090629633&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ftech%2F2019%2F07%2F25%2Ftulsi-gabbard-sues-google-for-censorship-of-ads%2F

Tulsi is great and all and I do feel for her with simpletons constantly screaming " Putin...ASSAD~""" at her but this is very slight.

I thought her comments on Harris were excellent the other day, Harris like many others said sweet **** all when Trump was attempting regime change in Venezuela, while Tulsi was the most vocal critic.


https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/07/23/lead-panel-3-live-jake-tapper.cnn

hill16bhoy

Rjd2 wrote: »

Tulsi is great and all and I do feel for her with simpletons constantly screaming " Putin...ASSAD~""" at her but this is very slight.

I thought her comments on Harris were excellent the other day, Harris like many others said sweet **** all when Trump was attempting regime change in Venezuela, while Tulsi was the most vocal critic.


https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/07/23/lead-panel-3-live-jake-tapper.cnn

Gabbard has loads of red flags over her.

She uses all the same talking points as Trump and the Russians and she is extensively and admiringly covered in Russian media.

She supports the vile Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi in India and her rhetoric about Islam is also pretty vile.

She was against the Iran nuclear deal.

And, yes, she has consistently flirted with Trump, Bannon and Assad. In fact it's pretty fair to say she's a stooge for Assad.

There are good reasons why she's the far right's favourite Democrat. It's because she thinks like them in a lot of ways.

No thanks.

---

Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

Tulsi Gabbard Hires Russian Agent to Keep Hawaii Media in Check

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/20879/Tulsi-Gabbard-Hires-Russian-Agent-to-Keep-Hawaii-Media-in-Check.aspx

Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi-gabbard-lgbt/index.html

Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists

https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbards-campaign-is-being-boosted-by-russophiles

Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Anti-War

https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1

She’s not opposed to war; she’s opposed to U.S. involvement in some wars — even if that means doing nothing to help civilians who are being slaughtered by war criminals. She has accepted huge sums of money from the defense industry, expressed support for increasing the use of drone strikes, and hinted that she would consider using torture if she thought it was necessary. And like Trump, she believes in putting “America first,” regardless of the global consequences.

As Akbar Ahmed recently reported for HuffPost, Gabbard has accepted hefty donations from arms dealers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, both of which ranked among the congresswoman’s top donors in the 2016 cycle. The defense industry was her third-largest source of funding during the same cycle, accounting for nearly 14 percent of total contributions to her campaign.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Gabbard has loads of red flags over her.

She uses all the same talking points as Trump and the Russians and she is extensively and admiringly covered in Russian media.

She supports the vile Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi in India and her rhetoric about Islam is also pretty vile.

She was against the Iran nuclear deal.

And, yes, she has consistently flirted with Trump, Bannon and Assad. In fact it's pretty fair to say she's a stooge for Assad.

There are good reasons why she's the far right's favourite Democrat. It's because she thinks like them in a lot of ways.

No thanks.

---

Posting a bunch of blog links and left wing establishment sites is definitely going to convince people. If you had your way you'd want anyone you disagree with silenced.

Here's Tulsi flirting with Trump and as you put it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-calls-trump-saudi-arabia-bitch-khashoggi2018-11?r=US&IR=T

"Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii referred to President Donald Trump as "Saudi Arabia's b----" on Wednesday over his support of the country's leadership despite acknowledging it may have ordered the killing of the Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi."

https://abcnews.go.com/theview/video/rep-tulsi-gabbard-trump-inciting-racism-bigotry-political-64490300

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says Trump is 'inciting racism and bigotry' for 'political gain'

She met with Bannon to setup a meeting with Trump when he won the Presidency to convince him to bring troops home. Oh! How horrible.

Perhaps you should stop with your labeling of everyone you don't agree with as far right and take a look in the mirror.

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

Posting a bunch of blog links and left wing establishment sites is definitely going to convince people. If you had your way you'd want anyone you disagree with silenced.

Refusing utterly to engage with any of the facts I raised and throwing around deliberate ad hominems certainly isn't going to convince anybody.

That isn't debating, it's an eight letter word that begins with a t.

MadYaker

eagle eye wrote: »

The four main candidates at this stage won't bring out the voters to defeat Trump.
It's hard to beat an incumbent, nothing easy about beating one.

Trump is by far the most beatable incumbent I’ve ever seen. There’s no candidate that ticks all the boxes but Biden is still the most likely to beat him imo. Why do you think they won’t bring out the voters?

eagle eye

MadYaker wrote:

Trump is by far the most beatable incumbent I’ve ever seen. There’s no candidate that ticks all the boxes but Biden is still the most likely to beat him imo. Why do you think they won’t bring out the voters?

They are not engaging enough, none of them have the charisma required.

ancapailldorcha

MadYaker wrote: »

Trump is by far the most beatable incumbent I’ve ever seen. There’s no candidate that ticks all the boxes but Biden is still the most likely to beat him imo. Why do you think they won’t bring out the voters?

Biden epitomises the establishment though. Voters want to see real change and the Democrats fielding a two-time VP as their candidate will be seen in much the same way as Hilary Clinton was in 2016.

MadYaker

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Biden epitomises the establishment though. Voters want to see real change and the Democrats fielding a two-time VP as their candidate will be seen in much the same way as Hilary Clinton was in 2016.

Realistically the party is split between the more progressives like AOC and the old guard like Biden and Warren etc.

Hillary was a crap candidate for many reasons, I feel Biden would be stronger, has more charisma (wouldn't be hard) Obama is a massively popular ex president so that would be a pluys for Biden. I don't know how it's going to turn out. I wouldn't feel super confident at the moment about any of the potential dem candidates. There's nobody who id look at and think "yeah he/she is the one to sink Trump"

Fr Tod Umptious

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Biden epitomises the establishment though. Voters want to see real change and the Democrats fielding a two-time VP as their candidate will be seen in much the same way as Hilary Clinton was in 2016.

I don't think anyone will be seen the same way as Hillary.
From day one back in 1999 when she was eyeballing the Senate seat in NY she was seen as a carpet bagger.
This carried all the way through to a failed presidential bid in 2008 and in 2016 it looked like she was the only one allowed to have the nomination.
She was a terrible candidate and deeply unpopular.

The voters the Dems need are the ones who deserted Hillary in the swing states.
These are likely to be more receptive to someone more centreist and more established like Biden.

All the liberals and progressive in CA and NY don't matter a damn, the Dems have those states already wrapped up, but they need the people that did not vote for Hillary.

And they live in the Midwest, will likely be white, older, and somewhat conservative.

Fr Tod Umptious

MadYaker wrote: »

Realistically the party is split between the more progressives like AOC and the old guard like Biden and Warren etc.

Hillary was a crap candidate for many reasons, I feel Biden would be stronger, has more charisma (wouldn't be hard) Obama is a massively popular ex president so that would be a pluys for Biden. I don't know how it's going to turn out. I wouldn't feel super confident at the moment about any of the potential dem candidates. There's nobody who id look at and think "yeah he/she is the one to sink Trump"

He's not really

DreamsBurnDown

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The voters the Dems need are the ones who deserted Hillary in the swing states.
These are likely to be more receptive to someone more centreist and more established like Biden.

All the liberals and progressive in CA and NY don't matter a damn, the Dems have those states already wrapped up, but they need the people that did not vote for Hillary.

This seems to be the hardest thing for a lot of people outside the US to understand. Most states outside the coasts are pretty conservative, that includes Democratic and Independent voters. Democrats who win in swing states are by and large moderates and not progressives.

Biden would almost certainly have beaten Trump in 2016 as he was quite popular relative to Clinton, and has strong appeal to working class voters. Biden would not have lost the working class vote that Clinton lost. I'm not sure however that Biden has the energy to get through the grueling process between now and next November, he is beginning to look his age.

The problem right now with the Democratic field is there is currently no obvious alternative to Biden as a moderate, should he falter, with most of the other viable candidates vying to be the most progressive. It's not unusual at this stage of the process, Democratic candidates tend to start out this way and the eventual winner moves to the center. You can see some evidence of this already as Harris has backed off on getting rid of private insurance and Warren seems to be heading the same way in recent town hall meetings.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

This seems to be the hardest thing for a lot of people outside the US to understand. Most states outside the coasts are pretty conservative, that includes Democratic and Independent voters. Democrats who win in swing states are by and large moderates and not progressives.

What happens in the "conservative" states of the US is exhaustively covered in the Irish, UK and European media - it could barely be more covered, we have had features about the "flyover states" coming out our ears since 2016 and before.

Sadly these features almost always focus on white Trump supporters, and hardly ever on anybody else.

To use your own words, what seems to be the hardest thing for US based people to understand is that many people outside the US are much more knowledgable about the "conservative" nature of these states and their political make up - especially of white Trump voters, than most people in the US itself.

We actually get a massive overrepresentation of Trump supporters and their mindset in our media.

And yet, and yet. Barack Obama was painted not just as a radical socialist, but as a grave national security threat by Republican media.

Yet he got 365 electoral college votes, winning states like North Carolina and Indiana, swept the mid-west, and got almost 70 million votes, a total no other candidate has come anywhere near in history.

So the story is actually a wee bit more complicated than just saying "these places are conservative, full stop".

Obama could not have won otherwise.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

A majority of Republican voters (52% in polling) now also support a single payer system.

I'll also refer you to your own stat for evidence that things are just a little bit more complicated than saying "states are conservative".

Single payer healthcare is not a conservative policy.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And yet, and yet. Barack Obama was painted not just as a radical socialist, but as a grave national security threat by Republican media.

Yet he got 365 electoral college votes, winning states like North Carolina and Indiana, swept the mid-west, and got almost 70 million votes, a total no other candidate has come anywhere near in history.

So the story is actually a wee bit more complicated than just saying "these places are conservative, full stop".

Obama could not have won otherwise.

I'm not saying "conservative, full stop" though, those are your words. I'm saying the swing states are conservative, certainly by European standards. They tend to vote for moderate candidates with centrist positions.

Obama ran for president in 2008 when the US was in the worst recession since the 1930s. He ran on a platform of ending the recession, focusing on jobs, and providing health care to those that didn't have insurance. Regardless of how Republicans portrayed him, Obama himself and his policies were centrist. As an example, Obama's immigration policies were quite strict, more deportations than any prior president and building many of the detention centers on the border. There was nothing socialist or radical about Obama's platform or policies while in office, he focused on the things that matter to working class and middle class Americans.

It's not just Trump supporters that are white in the "flyover states". In Indiana for example, one of the states you mentioned, 85% of the population identify as white, so most Democratic voters and most Independent voters are white, not just Trump voters. The mantra of "white people are the problem" isn't really a winning strategy when 85% of the electorate is white. A significant enough number of whites who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump in 2016, significant enough to win him the election. You simply have to appeal to these people to win. The way to appeal to them is with policies that make their lives better.

I actually think there is too much focus on Trump supporters in the media, as Republican voters likely will never vote for a Democrat anyway, at best they will stay home. You have to appeal to those that "swing" the state, and most of those are white working class and middle class voters. If the Democrats run a sensible, centrist candidate with policies similar to Obama they will win, it's really as simple as that.