US Presidential Election 2020

AbusesToilets

everlast75 wrote: »

Warren as the main, maybe Harris as VP.

Warren should then name (pre-election) O'Rourke, Sanders and the remaining 6 or 7 top runners as her perspective cabinet Secretaries, gather up all that support who may be unhappy with their candidate not getting on the ticket

I think a lot of those candidates would be far more effective in the Senate. To be frank, most of them are fairly empty suits, as it pertains to policy. I wouldn't consider O'Rourke or Booker as having any particularly searing insights into reforming government.

Dog Man Star

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think a lot of those candidates would be far more effective in the Senate. To be frank, most of them are fairly empty suits, as it pertains to policy. I wouldn't consider O'Rourke or Booker as having any particularly searing insights into reforming government.

None of that matters anymore. The President is now a figurehead. Probably has been since Reagan, but entirely now.
O'Rourke would make a fine figurehead. He's articulate, charismatic and thoroughly decent. He visited a gun show yesterday, and engaged the people there with discussions on gun legislation. He is not afraid to take this stuff head on, unlike Harris, Buttigieg and Biden, who skate around the tough questions.

marno21

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He absolutely should , far more valuable to take the Senate seat.

O'Rourke should also pull the plug and run against Cornyn in Texas.

A poll in Colorado published last week shows Hickenlooper beating incumbent Republican Cory Garnder by 13 points - 51-38

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Af9273f93-44fc-411d-ab25-6e88b356e58d

This is what the Democrats need to focus on now. Retaking the Senate is as important as winning back the White House.

Quin_Dub

Dog Man Star wrote: »

None of that matters anymore. The President is now a figurehead. Probably has been since Reagan, but entirely now.
O'Rourke would make a fine figurehead. He's articulate, charismatic and thoroughly decent. He visited a gun show yesterday, and engaged the people there with discussions on gun legislation. He is not afraid to take this stuff head on, unlike Harris, Buttigieg and Biden, who skate around the tough questions.

But if they don't control the Senate, then nothing gets done - No policies , no judges , nothing.

The Senate is arguably more important than the Presidency.

As we've seen with McConnells control over the Senate Judicial nomination process , controlling the Senate can have significant generational implications.

There are at least 3 or 4 of the current crop of Democratic contenders that would have a very real shot at turning Senate seats , that's what they need to be doing.

As an aside - When is the deadline for declaring for a Senate run?

Brian?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But if they don't control the Senate, then nothing gets done - No policies , no judges , nothing.

The Senate is arguably more important than the Presidency.

As we've seen with McConnells control over the Senate Judicial nomination process , controlling the Senate can have significant generational implications.

There are at least 3 or 4 of the current crop of Democratic contenders that would have a very real shot at turning Senate seats , that's what they need to be doing.

As an aside - When is the deadline for declaring for a Senate run?

I believe it's some time in December

spacecoyote

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As an aside - When is the deadline for declaring for a Senate run?

From what little I've read of it, it varies from state to state. That's part of the reason that a number of the Dems have stayed in up to now, there is no pressure on them to declare for the senate run yet in their state, so they can try ride things out a little longer & see can they get a bump in the Presidential campaign

The Phantom Jipper

Beto's reasoning for not running for Senate has reminded me why I find him quite irritating - “That would not be good enough for this community. That would not be good enough for El Paso. That would not be good enough for this country,". You're on 1-2% my friend, stop acting like the country is demanding you stay in the race or that there's any appetite for you to keep running.

StringerBell

I'd expect him to get a little bump but I don't see him landing a blow on the main contenders. Seems like a waste of a Senate seat really but u guess the DNC is comfortable enough with the options available to take the seat anyway

markodaly

These debates really offer very little in the way of policy, but I guess these elections are light on that anyway. Its all about that 15 second clip that goes viral.

Saying that I do like Yang, but he won't get the gig, but would like some of his policies to be discussed and taken on board.

Water John

I suggest you look up Elizabeth Warren's policy output, which is pretty impressive.

Rjd2

Biden still looks formidable while Harris numbers are a mess.

That viral moment from the first debate does not seem to have been the game changer that some said.



https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1163785820639322112

CNN poll: 2020 Democrats

Biden 29% (+7 since late June)
Sanders 15% (+1)
Warren 14% (-1)
Buttigieg 5% (+1)
Harris 5% (-12)
O’Rourke 3% (-)
Booker 2% (-1)
Castro 2% (+1)
Gabbard 2% (+1)
[everyone else 1% or less]

CNN poll shows “electability” is still top-of-mind of Democrats.

On who beats Trump, it’s Biden 35%, Warren 15%, Sanders 14%, Harris 7%, Buttigieg 5%.

54% prefer a nominee “with a strong chance of beating Trump,” while 39% prefer one who shares their position on major issues.

pixelburp

If I'm reading the PDF right - and I'm probably not - that margin of error seems to negate a lot of those changes.

Jamiekelly

I'm sick to death of looking at polls conducted by landline cold calling. It has the Bradley/Wilder effect written all over it. It's the same effect that made everyone think that Clinton would walk the election easily in the swing states. It's very easy to lie to opinion polls. It's also incredibly biased towards older voters who are often retired. If the poll doesn't show an age breakdown of people polled then it can be incredibly skewed towards certain candidates. A decent number of 18-35 year olds in the US don't even have a TV subscription package anymore, let alone an active landline.

Water John

That would explain the Harris dip.

peddlelies

Water John wrote: »

That would explain the Harris dip.

Gabbard certainly didn't do her any favours.

Hande hoche!

Will be interesting to see if they split the debates next month. Seems quite a few candidates are on the cusp of qualifying.

StringerBell

Harris didn't do herself any favours, she made a bit of a mess of an impressive opening. Lot of mistakes made but she will come again I think, if she wants another run in 4/8 years I think she will be a better prepared candidate. She needs to learn some hard lessons from this campaign though. Beto is a guy I can't work out, he has no chance of being nominated let alone elected but is still turning down a ripe Senate seat. Arrogance? I dunno, but surely he isn't foolish enough to think this is his race? Consolidate with a Senate seat, turn Texas blue and ride that wave to the WH in a few years seems like the smart play.

I still think it comes down to Biden or Warren, and I feel Warren will get the nod.

rossie1977

Warren is losing to Trump in Nevada in polls which isn't good sign. Lose that and path becomes nearly impossible to 270.

pixelburp

Jay Inslee is the latest from that pool of 1% polling candidates to drop out; slowly but surely the field is narrowing. Inslee was notable in that he was quite public about Climate Change being his number 1 goal. I suspect Booker, Castro or O'Rourke will be the first of the "known" candidates who had at least some degree of national prominence.

StringerBell wrote: »

Harris didn't do herself any favours, she made a bit of a mess of an impressive opening. Lot of mistakes made but she will come again I think, if she wants another run in 4/8 years I think she will be a better prepared candidate. She needs to learn some hard lessons from this campaign though. Beto is a guy I can't work out, he has no chance of being nominated let alone elected but is still turning down a ripe Senate seat. Arrogance? I dunno, but surely he isn't foolish enough to think this is his race? Consolidate with a Senate seat, turn Texas blue and ride that wave to the WH in a few years seems like the smart play.

I still think it comes down to Biden or Warren, and I feel Warren will get the nod.

O'Rourke carries himself with a confidence that really isn't earned: I'll admit I don't always "get" the intensity of feeling a lot of Americans feel in their culture wars, but when I look to the likes of Beto O'Rourke I understand a little of the frustration felt towards the success & power of the otherwise-mediocre "White Man" such as him.

I said it before, but I honestly believe he got "high on his own supply" so to speak, and read way too much into his canny, viral campaign during that race against Cruz. To be fair, he WAS a popular in a superficial sense, briefly endearing him to a demographic who have questionable sticking - or voting - power anyway: the internet.

Then again, he's possibly just another in a long line of bland, 'politically handsome' Democratic candidates who seem moulded from the Kennedy template; your Gary Harts, John Edwards and so on. Look good on the surface, but with no actual political backbone or policies

Rjd2

StringerBell wrote: »

Harris didn't do herself any favours, she made a bit of a mess of an impressive opening. Lot of mistakes made but she will come again I think, if she wants another run in 4/8 years I think she will be a better prepared candidate. She needs to learn some hard lessons from this campaign though. Beto is a guy I can't work out, he has no chance of being nominated let alone elected but is still turning down a ripe Senate seat. Arrogance? I dunno, but surely he isn't foolish enough to think this is his race? Consolidate with a Senate seat, turn Texas blue and ride that wave to the WH in a few years seems like the smart play.
.

I have money on Harris from a few years ago so want her to win, but what is her base?

Moderates would rather Biden and the progressives are wary about her background and would rather someone like Bernie. Her healthcare stance is not consistent... a sign of trying to please to many bases and failing horribly.

Beto is Privilege personified, loses a senate seat to one of the least likable people in America and decides to run as President:pac:. He never grasped the same media who were in his pocket v Cruz would not run interference like they did in this race.

StringerBell

Mystifying alright when you can't carry your own state but think you could win a general election.

Fan of Netflix

Its a 3 horse race between Biden, Warren and Sanders. If I was to guess right now I think Warren wins and Trump beats her.

rossie1977

Trump's leading Sanders by 10 and Harris by 8 in Arizona in latest poll. He only leads Warren by just 1. Biden leads Trump by 2.

I would imagine Arizona will be a state Dems will target but as polls are showing probably only Biden or Warren have a remote chance of winning.

Quin_Dub

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump's leading Sanders by 10 and Harris by 8 in Arizona in latest poll. He only leads Warren by just 1. Biden leads Trump by 2.

I would imagine Arizona will be a state Dems will target but as polls are showing probably only Biden or Warren have a remote chance of winning.

Not sure if Arizona is really in play.. They've only voted for a Democrat once in the last 60 years

Nody

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not sure if Arizona is really in play.. They've only voted for a Democrat once in the last 60 years

It's usually on the list as a potential swing state due to not being a heavy Republican strong hold here.

Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska's second congressional district, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

spacecoyote

Nody wrote: »

It's usually on the list as a potential swing state due to not being a heavy Republican strong hold here.

Yeah, demographic changes in the last number of years have made the state a bit more purple.

Pretty sure a Dem picked up a Senate seat in the last elections there

pixelburp

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not sure if Arizona is really in play.. They've only voted for a Democrat once in the last 60 years

Ignoring its slow moving to purple*, the fact Warren and Biden are in touch with Trump, itself is a curious thing. If this recession that's threatened comes to pass, Trumps conspiracy theory isn't going to wash methinks.

* Wouldn't it be great for US democracy if "purple" was a shorthand for an ACTUAL 3rd party, rather than the maybe-Dem, maybe-GOP limbo that some constituencies find themselves

Ash.J.Williams

I thought Trump would be a shoe in , but now i'm thinking by simply having a man (capable man) run against him this time should be enough to beat him.

The Dems either go left or go home. A neoliberal is not going to win. People have decades of evidence to show neoliberalism has been a catastrophe for them.

Bernie will hoover up in the rust belt

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

The Dems either go left or go home. A neoliberal is not going to win. People have decades of evidence to show neoliberalism has been a catastrophe for them.

Bernie will hoover up in the rust belt

Bernie could spend hours telling people what he's going to do to help them and they'd eat it up... then Trump says "that's socialism" and they immediately turn against it even though it would benefit them. The Cold War has left a deep scar on a significant portion of the US population.

marno21

Another one bites the dust.. this time Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, who didn’t appear on either of the first two debates.

The stock markets have reacted negatively to the news according to a trustworthy source:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1164975929598316544

EltonJohn69

marno21 wrote: »

Another one bites the dust.. this time Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, who didn’t appear on either of the first two debates.

The stock markets have reacted negatively to the news according to a trustworthy source:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1164975929598316544

So Trump is joking about the fact that he tanked the markets today after saying crazy stuff on Twitter ? Is that’s what’s happening ?

Sand

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

So Trump is joking about the fact that he tanked the markets today after saying crazy stuff on Twitter ? Is that’s what’s happening ?

I'm fairly sure the markets have priced in Trump saying crazy stuff on Twitter after 2 and a half years. People obsessing about Trump on Twitter are making similar mistakes as were made in 2016.

EltonJohn69

Sand wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the markets have priced in Trump saying crazy stuff on Twitter after 2 and a half years. People obsessing about Trump on Twitter are making similar mistakes as were made in 2016.

Well the markets do seem to be sensitive to US China relations..... so considering Trump was making some fairly aggressive comments about that topic....yes I think he spooked the market... seems to be a fairly obvious correlation....

is_that_so

Sand wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the markets have priced in Trump saying crazy stuff on Twitter after 2 and a half years. People obsessing about Trump on Twitter are making similar mistakes as were made in 2016.

Mostly he's ignored save on the racist stuff. 2016 didn't have an impending trade war and the risk of a domestic/global recession.

rossie1977

Latest Emerson poll, Biden leads Trump nationwide by 8, Sanders lead Trump by 4 and both Harris and Warren vs Trump is a tie.

marno21

rossie1977 wrote: »

Latest Emerson poll, Biden leads Trump nationwide by 8, Sanders lead Trump by 4 and both Harris and Warren vs Trump is a tie.

That's shocking given the Presidential behaviour over the last few weeks.

It does not paint a good picture for a future prosperous US if they believe re-electing this individual is in their best interests.

rossie1977

marno21 wrote: »

That's shocking given the Presidential behaviour over the last few weeks.

It does not paint a good picture for a future prosperous US if they believe re-electing this individual is in their best interests.

Latest Quinnipiac poll has all the main Dem candidates leading Trump

Biden leads by 16
Sanders by 14
Warren by 12
Harris by 11
Buttigieg's by 9
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638

Last month same poll only had Biden leading Trump and by 8.

pixelburp

The cynic in me can't help but wonder how many of those who gave Buttigieg the nod know he's gay. The relative civility of Democrat debates has meant it hasn't come up, but were he to somehow win the Primary the attack dogs deployed by the GOP over his preferences would make the Obama attacks look positively polite.

spacecoyote

rossie1977 wrote: »

Latest Quinnipiac poll has all the main Dem candidates leading Trump

Biden leads by 16
Sanders by 14
Warren by 12
Harris by 11
Buttigieg's by 9
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638

Last month same poll only had Biden leading Trump and by 8.

When you nail your flag to the economy mast & its the only thing keeping you afloat outside your base then you've a very thin margin.

He'll get a bounce back the other way if the China trade war disappears & the economy bounces.

Sad thing is he created the problem on the first place

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

That's shocking given the Presidential behaviour over the last few weeks.

It does not paint a good picture for a future prosperous US if they believe re-electing this individual is in their best interests.

Well if your a republican, you vote for your guy not matter what

pixelburp

So anyone worried the next debate in a few weeks would be another two nighter, you may breath easy. The deadline has passed and the pool is now down to 10 candidates. Much more manageable, and should be more focused you'd imagine. I wonder if the gloves may finally come off:

https://www.axios.com/2020-candidates-dnc-debates-7f64b0be-f448-4274-9222-d06d24dc193b.html

Joe Biden
Bernie Sanders
Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren
Pete Buttigieg
Beto O'Rourke
Cory Booker
Amy Klobuchar
Andrew Yang
Julián Castro

Gabbard & Gillibrand are probably the most high profile of those that missed the cut. No more Marrianne Williamson either, whose kookiness certainly charmed the internet, if no-one else.

Water John

At this stage, are we really looking at no one beyond the top four listed?

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

At this stage, are we really looking at no one beyond the top four listed?

I think it'd take a storming performance or two, coupled with accompanying poll jumps, to have them become serious contenders. The four I'm counting, for clarity, are Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris. Harris seems to be sinking and may have peaked too soon, so maybe its more like three top tier contenders.

Who do you think would have a serious shot at breaking into double digits? Booker and O'Rourke seem DOA at this point and wasting their time, while Buttigieg, Yang, Castro and Klobuchar appear stalled. Maybe Castro of that group, he seemed to acquit himself well last time so perhaps he'll push on.

Water John

I personally would go for a fairly radical candidate. That may not be the most pragmatic choice, so I'm hesitant. I always had a fondness for Klobuchar, who is MOR, but she seems to have stalled. Think she'd make a good VP esp able to carry the mid west.

sliabh 1956

Trump lashes out at Fox News in extraordinary rant over critical coverage of him, calling for 'new outlet' Talk about biting the hand that feeds you

The Phantom Jipper

Gillibrand has just dropped out. And then there were 22...

Rjd2

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Gillibrand has just dropped out. And then there were 22...

Had a pretty big platform and rarely polled at more than 1%. Dismal.

pixelburp

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Gillibrand has just dropped out. And then there were 22...

Makes sense, you'd imagine all those who failed to make the cut will start officially dropping out. Just a matter of being pragmatic and honest with one's self.

spacecoyote

pixelburp wrote: »

Makes sense, you'd imagine all those who failed to make the cut will start officially dropping out. Just a matter of being pragmatic and honest with one's self.

Its a bit of a weird one though, as the rules for qualification for debate 4 are identical to debate 3.

So technically, a lot of the guys that just missed out on this one, have a chunk more time to get the same number of Qualifying polls/Donors (can't remember which candidate exactly, but one of them met the donor numbers, but only had 3 qualifying polls, where 4 are necessary)

So even though only 10 are in now, the number could jump back up for the next one (arguably without the platform of the 3rd debate it might be difficult to get donors or polling numbers up)