US Presidential Election 2020

peddlelies

Brian? wrote: »

Is this a joke? The democrats are largely a Conservative party, with some fringe elements.

Are they? Wikipedia's definition seems to be fairly far away. I'd argue the definition below is what the Republican party represent, and far from the beliefs that the current Democrat party shows.

Conservatism in the United States is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business and anti-labor union, anti-communism, individualism,advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.

American conservatives consider individual liberty—within the bounds of American values—as the fundamental trait of democracy; this perspective contrasts with that of modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice and emphasize the need for state intervention to achieve these goals. American conservatives believe in limiting government in size and scope, and in a balance between national government and states' rights.

Brian?

peddlelies wrote: »

Are they? Wikipedia's definition seems to be fairly far away. I'd argue the definition below is what the Republican party represent, and far from the beliefs that the current Democrat party shows.

Conservatism in the United States is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business and anti-labor union, anti-communism, individualism,advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.

American conservatives consider individual liberty—within the bounds of American values—as the fundamental trait of democracy; this perspective contrasts with that of modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice and emphasize the need for state intervention to achieve these goals. American conservatives believe in limiting government in size and scope, and in a balance between national government and states' rights.

The Democrats are slightly more socially liberal that the GOP. When it comes to economics, they are slightly less conservative than he than the GOP.

It’s easy to look at the likes of AOC and believe the Dems are a left wing party, the only reason AOC etc are in the Democratic Party is because of the dysfunctional 2 party system.

Let’s not forget 99% of democrats are devout Christians, in public. Bill Clinton signed DOMA, making gay marriage illegal at a federal lever and Obama only reversed course when he was elected presided. Obama, the arch liberal, wasn’t in favour of gay marriage when he ran for president.

peddlelies

Brian? wrote: »

The Democrats are slightly more socially liberal that the GOP. When it comes to economics, they are slightly less conservative than he than the GOP.

It’s easy to look at the likes of AOC and believe the Dems are a left wing party, the only reason AOC etc are in the Democratic Party is because of the dysfunctional 2 party system.

Let’s not forget 99% of democrats are devout Christians, in public. Bill Clinton signed DOMA, making gay marriage illegal at a federal lever and Obama only reversed course when he was elected presided. Obama, the arch liberal, wasn’t in favour of gay marriage when he ran for president.

All the Democrats on stage in a recent debate raised their hands when asked if taxpayers should pay the burden to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, those of which are already living in the country. ( 10-30 million? )

That's fairly far out from what I'd consider conservative principles.

Overheal

Democrats lost in 2016 for reasons which included never-Clinton voters, including Bernistas that felt (given the preponderance of evidence) that the DNC has fixed it's own primaries to help Clinton win.

At the moment they have characters in the primary all hitting each other, like Tulsi Gabbard who doesn't like where she's polling and has taken to declaring a rigged process and taking stabs at other candidates - sometimes with no self awareness. All very par for the course at this stage in the cycle, of course: many of the Republicans who wrote off Trump as a dangerous lunatic now actively lick his boots or have at one time or another since the election. But, Trump managed to rally enough Republican voters to win, if not a plurality of voters. Clinton did not manage this, she did not manage to attract Democrats to her side to get out the vote in what were considered safe districts that she lost. At the DNC convention the atmosphere was actually fairly toxic, and speeches given by the likes of Sarah Silverman left Bernistas in particular quite miffed: the message was 'too bad, so sad, get in rank, "baba-booie".' Wasn't received well, and it really doesn't help that Clinton is not inherently likable, and does things that are really quite conceited. Her 9/11 fainting episode really didn't help things either. Nor did Russian interference.

Compare to 2008 when Obama was at the DNC, and he announced Biden as his running mate. Clinton supporters weren't happy, but in turn got behind her being Secretary of State (because, she is a seasoned hand at diplomacy and foreign policy, this really was the best 2nd spot for Clinton). McCain listened to the RNC and picked Palin has his VP, and while that made for good in-the-minute politics (because Republicans were 'shattering the glass ceiling' more than the Dems were) it failed to gain traction when it became clear that Palin had no knack for national and especially international politics.

Unless Democrats nominate a strong party-unity ticket I don't think this will end well for them. The other thing I don't see happening is one of them picking a conservative running mate for a true unity ticket - something I think would blast Trump out of the race, personally, he would lose a huge swath of the conservative base overnight, what would be left behind are the all-in MAGA's, never-Dems, and the alt-right.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

Is this a joke? The democrats are largely a Conservative party, with some fringe elements.

I would kind of agree. They are very much a center right party when it comes to economics. They have become more center left socially in recent years but overall I would see them as a center right party when you tag on their foreign policy which is full on imperialism and bullying governments away from anything to the left that might disturb the big US multinationals or military and installing far right puppet governments to help them control and or exploit the country as well as their support of the for profit health care system in the US.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

The Democrats are slightly more socially liberal that the GOP. When it comes to economics, they are slightly less conservative than he than the GOP.

It’s easy to look at the likes of AOC and believe the Dems are a left wing party, the only reason AOC etc are in the Democratic Party is because of the dysfunctional 2 party system.

Let’s not forget 99% of democrats are devout Christians, in public. Bill Clinton signed DOMA, making gay marriage illegal at a federal lever and Obama only reversed course when he was elected presided. Obama, the arch liberal, wasn’t in favour of gay marriage when he ran for president.

I would very much agree with you about why AOC is in the Democratic Party. The Democrats are very much up to their eyes in corruption and colluding with the Republicans to make sure they maintain their duopoly on power in DC and that no other voices can ever become relevant or allowed to get real power that might actually benefit the best interests of most Americans.

Brian?

peddlelies wrote: »

All the Democrats on stage in a recent debate raised their hands when asked if taxpayers should pay the burden to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, those of which are already living in the country. ( 10-30 million? )

That's fairly far out from what I'd consider conservative principles.

Most of the democrats running aren’t indicative of the party as a whole. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would be a much better guide.

Manic Moran

Clinton's back in the news, claiming Russians are working to support... Gabbard.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Rjd2

Manic Moran wrote: »

Clinton's back in the news, claiming Russians are working to support... Gabbard.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1185313613889888258


Gabbard v. Clinton once again shines a light on the 2 Democratic Parties: The one that treats Trump as the logical conclusion to decades of failed policy and the other that treats him as an aberration—the fault of uninformed voters who just didn’t know what was good for them.

Agree with the above. Tulsi is not perfect and probably should even be running, but the abuse she has to endure the last few years since exposing how biased the DNC was for Clinton is sickening.

She is just back from military service ffs.

Pleased to see Yang and Williamson come and bat for her.All eyes on Bernie. The same people who scream PUTIN@!!! at Tulsi for the most part loath him also so he really should speak out. Thankfully Nina Turner one of his top people has came out to support Tulsi today.

Overheal

Clinton is back in the news - again - the inquiry into “the emails” is complete!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/state-department-probe-of-clinton-emails-finds-no-deliberate-mishandling-of-classified-information/2019/10/18/83339446-f1dc-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

No deliberate mishandling of classified investigation. Dozens of individuals also mentioned as “culpable” of emailing classified information, however the reporting seems to indicate most all those individuals “were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them” take from that what you will. Government officials to this day still end up using private email for business. Gulags for the lot of them?

Overheal

Rjd2 wrote: »

Agree with the above. Tulsi is not perfect and probably should even be running, but the abuse she has to endure the last few years since exposing how biased the DNC was for Clinton is sickening.

She is just back from military service ffs.

Pleased to see Yang and Williamson come and bat for her.All eyes on Bernie. The same people who scream PUTIN@!!! at Tulsi for the most part loath him also so he really should speak out. Thankfully Nina Turner one of his top people has came out to support Tulsi today.

She’s fairly right leaning for the party or at least that the image she conveys; she’s trying to pull moderate conservatives to support her seemingly. Was just on tucker Carlson again last night clapping back at what Hillary said.

Danzy

peddlelies wrote: »

All the Democrats on stage in a recent debate raised their hands when asked if taxpayers should pay the burden to give illegal immigrants free healthcare, those of which are already living in the country. ( 10-30 million? )

That's fairly far out from what I'd consider conservative principles.

It's fairly far out from Left wing politics as well.

friendlyfun

Is paying healthcare to illegal immigrants (though they're already playing billions in tax) a problem?

Danzy

friendlyfun wrote: »

Is paying healthcare to illegal immigrants (though they're already playing billions in tax) a problem?

If you want to kill it as a concept, no.

Manic Moran

The argument isn’t whether or not it’s a good thing, the argument is whether or not we shouldn’t sort out the problems we have internally to the US first. It won’t take too long to walk around any city in the US and encounter someone who is a US citizen who needs healthcare.

Danzy

Looking like they'll be at least 10 candidates in the late November debate.

10 weeks out from the Iowa primary on Feb 3rd.

That is desperate politics.

Another 3 hours of one liners and surface scratching, focus spread out on multiple candidates, donations across multiples.

Against a President with massive recognition and fund raising ability.

The Dems need to realize they have no God given right to win this.

I hope they don't but they could at least get their head out of the proverbial.

eagle eye

I'm still holding a bit of hope that Beto gathers support and gets the nomination. He is the only candidate that I am confident will beat Trump.

Danzy

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm still holding a bit of hope that Beto gathers support and gets the nomination. He is the only candidate that I am confident will beat Trump.

Beto won't even feature in Texas.

eagle eye

Danzy wrote:

Beto won't even feature in Texas.

I know that's a possibility but the Dems are losing the presidential election with any of the other candidates imo.

Danzy

eagle eye wrote: »

I know that's a possibility but the Dems are losing the presidential election with any of the other candidates imo.

The potential candidates is a poor enough pool of those who fall short and those who have been on the political circuit since Gaybo went on Tv.

Beto has something but it just never took off.

Mayor Pete might be a VP type but he has plateaued as well.

eagle eye

Danzy wrote:

Mayor Pete might be a VP type but he has plateaued as well.

He is gay and the religious types will all be against him. For that reason. I don't think he is a good fit for VP. He'd be a good one to pick for an important cabinet role, I think he'd do well in a role that deals with other countries so Secretary of State would be a good post for him imo.

Danzy wrote:

Beto has something but it just never took off.

He gained a little with the El Paso thing but he needs somebody with a bit of intelligence to manage him.

Danzy wrote:

The potential candidates is a poor enough pool of those who fall short and those who have been on the political circuit since Gaybo went on Tv.

Yeah it's a huge problem, old guys and a woman who lacks charisma are the three main candidates, it's not good.

Overheal

It seems like all the Biden attack ads about Shokin and Burisma are doing their level best to root out the front runner of the Democratic primary - because, he’s running away with the latest poll. At 34% in the latest CNN poll that puts him at the peak of his candidacy so far

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/new-cnn-poll-joe-biden-increases-lead-over-political-rivals-highest-support-since-april/

I wonder how long the “Biden won’t win the nomination therefore Trump wasn’t engaged in quid pro quo” defense will hold.

pixelburp

538 are running an interesting article, breaking down the fallback preferences of Democrat voters; title item being that Warren is very popular as the backup / second choice of other leading candidates. Also of interest is that Biden & Sanders' supporters have the largest percentage of supporters ONLY considering them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-2020-candidates-have-something-in-common-their-supporters-also-like-warren/

Whatever about national elections, it does paint a picture that Warren's socialism seems to be more palatable than (say) Sanders'

reg114

I think the Dems have an identity crisis on their hands and as such no single candidate stands out as someone strong enough to challenge Trump despite all of his awfulness.

Warren's main problem is she's an intellectual woman who speaks a language many Americans don't understand.

Biden is a journeyman politician who's prone to foot in mouth and who was lucky enough to have been given the golden ticket by Obama. He has neither the intellect nor the principles needed to get America on track

Buttigeig is a PR dream, saying all the right things, he's multi-lingual , articulate and a war vet, but his record as mayor is suspect and I really don't think he has enough experience to occupy the Oval office.

Sanders just had a heart attack and is 78 years of age. He reminds me of grandpa Simpson ranting and raving .. its an unkind analogy but its how many of the electorate will see him . Some of his ideas are worthy but like Biden he is far too old to tackle the job of running America, especially given the stresses it puts on fit men. Look at how Obama aged in his 8 years in the whitehouse.

Kamala Harris is a very impressive politician but hasnt a chance of being elected because she, much like Warren is an articulate intellectual woman. She is also a woman of colour and I dont believe America is mature enough to vote for a woman nevermind a woman of colour.

The rest of the candidates havent really registered with me and I dont see them feature. My gut says it'll come down to Biden v Warren for the vote. And unfortunately Biden will win the vote. If that happens you could very well be looking at another 4 years of Trump.

eagle eye

reg114 wrote:

Warren's main problem is she's an intellectual woman who speaks a language many Americans don't understand.

Warren's big problem is that she lacks charisma

reg114 wrote:

Biden is a journeyman politician who's prone to foot in mouth and who was lucky enough to have been given the golden ticket by Obama. He has neither the intellect nor the principles needed to get America on track

Yes he looks and acts like someone who could be in the early throws of dementia.

reg114 wrote:

Buttigeig is a PR dream, saying all the right things, he's multi-lingual , articulate and a war vet, but his record as mayor is suspect and I really don't think he has enough experience to occupy the Oval office.

Buttigeig's biggest problem is that he is gay. No chance America elects a gay man.

reg114 wrote:

Sanders just had a heart attack and is 78 years of age. He reminds me of grandpa Simpson ranting and raving .. its an unkind analogy but its how many of the electorate will see him . Some of his ideas are worthy but like Biden he is far too old to tackle the job of running America, especially given the stresses it puts on fit men. Look at how Obama aged in his 8 years in the whitehouse.

He has been banging the same drum for too long now. It's hard to taken seriously when you've previously lost a battle for the nomination.

reg114 wrote:

Kamala Harris is a very impressive politician but hasnt a chance of being elected because she, much like Warren is an articulate intellectual woman. She is also a woman of colour and I dont believe America is mature enough to vote for a woman nevermind a woman of colour.

Kamala Harris has skeletons in her closet. The affair with a man thirty years her senior which is easy to paint as selling her body to climb the ladder is a huge problem.

There isn't one candidate there to worry the Republicans.
And there are lots of Democrats who would be a great nominee. I keep saying that if Beto managed to win it he'd win the election but there are far better candidates than him who never entered the race.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

Warren's big problem is that she lacks charisma


Yes he looks and acts like someone who could be in the early throws of dementia.


Buttigeig's biggest problem is that he is gay. No chance America elects a gay man.


He has been banging the same drum for too long now. It's hard to taken seriously when you've previously lost a battle for the nomination.


Kamala Harris has skeletons in her closet. The affair with a man thirty years her senior which is easy to paint as selling her body to climb the ladder is a huge problem.

There isn't one candidate there to worry the Republicans.
And there are lots of Democrats who would be a great nominee. I keep saying that if Beto managed to win it he'd win the election but there are far better candidates than him who never entered the race.

Trump lost the candidacy for the reform party

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

Trump lost the candidacy for the reform party

Yeah nobody knows anything about them. Ross Perot was a big enough name but besides him they get very little media attention.

The Phantom Jipper

eagle eye wrote: »

Warren's big problem is that she lacks charisma


Yes he looks and acts like someone who could be in the early throws of dementia.


Buttigeig's biggest problem is that he is gay. No chance America elects a gay man.


He has been banging the same drum for too long now. It's hard to taken seriously when you've previously lost a battle for the nomination.


Kamala Harris has skeletons in her closet. The affair with a man thirty years her senior which is easy to paint as selling her body to climb the ladder is a huge problem.

There isn't one candidate there to worry the Republicans.
And there are lots of Democrats who would be a great nominee. I keep saying that if Beto managed to win it he'd win the election but there are far better candidates than him who never entered the race.

Not sure I agree with either of these Warren takes. She's known for being able to break complicated things down so that they're easily understood. That's literally one of the things that's hyped up as being a quality of hers.

How is charisma being defined? My perception of her before the campaign was that she was meant to be a bit of a stiff. In reality she seems very good at dialling up the folksiness, and seems a good retail politician with the selfies etc. I think this is reflected in her having the lowest unfavorability ratings of all the candidates.

Overheal

Next Debate threshold puts Tulsi, Castro and Beto under the gun to gain traction in the polls and secure more donors

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/thinning-the-herd-new-dnc-debate-criteria-will-likely-trim-field-dramatically/

The DNC announced that the sixth debate of the campaign — to be held on Dec. 19 in Los Angeles and hosted by PBS and Politico — will require candidates to earn at least 4 percent of the vote in at least four qualifying polls (or 6 percent in two early polling states), and 200,000 unique donors in order to make the stage.

Already, the field of 12 at the October debate seems likely to be cut to nine or possibly 10 for the November forum. According to FiveThirtyEight, only nine candidates have hit the polling threshold of 3 percent in four qualifying polls — with previous qualifiers such as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), and former HUD secretary Julian Castro currently on the outside looking in.

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

Next Debate threshold puts Tulsi, Castro and Beto under the gun to gain traction in the polls and secure more donors

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/thinning-the-herd-new-dnc-debate-criteria-will-likely-trim-field-dramatically/

The DNC announced that the sixth debate of the campaign — to be held on Dec. 19 in Los Angeles and hosted by PBS and Politico — will require candidates to earn at least 4 percent of the vote in at least four qualifying polls (or 6 percent in two early polling states), and 200,000 unique donors in order to make the stage.

Already, the field of 12 at the October debate seems likely to be cut to nine or possibly 10 for the November forum. According to FiveThirtyEight, only nine candidates have hit the polling threshold of 3 percent in four qualifying polls — with previous qualifiers such as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), and former HUD secretary Julian Castro currently on the outside looking in.

Hard to figure out why they aren't cutting more aggressively.

Guess they have their reasons.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

Hard to figure out why they aren't cutting more aggressively.

Guess they have their reasons.

Give the candidates rope to hang themselves; a hard cut would sure look like DNC manipulating the primary too much and the dropped candidates will still likely raise hell about it either way.

Manic Moran

CNN’s analysis dept has an interesting one on the effect in the swing states of impeachment.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/politics/impeachment-unpopular-swing-states-wisconsin/index.html

Just 43% of voters in these six states want to impeach and remove from office at this point. The majority, 53%, do not. This means that the margin for not impeaching and removing Trump in these states (+10 points) is running well ahead of Trump's margin in these states of about 1.5 points. Put another way, impeaching and removing Trump from office in these states is not a popular position.

That said, the poll does not reflect two items of reality. One is whether or not the current hearings actually discover something paricularly impeachable, which presumably will affect the swing, and the other is the fact that the Senate probably wouldn’t pass it anyway, which means that the effect of the process will be presumably minimized as the question seems to imply successful impeachment.

is_that_so

Overheal wrote: »

Give the candidates rope to hang themselves; a hard cut would sure look like DNC manipulating the primary too much and the dropped candidates will still likely raise hell about it either way.

It's only a few months to the start of the selection process so no real reason to do what the primaries will do anyway.

Overheal

11 circuit upholds lower court decision on the DNC primary rigging case

“ The court’s ruling, affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, did little to reflect or instill confidence in the American electoral system. The ruling went in favor of the defendants not because of an absence of wrongdoing, but rather because it seemed impossible to fit their conduct into an appropriate legal context.”

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-donors-lose-case-alleging-dnc-improperly-tipped-the-scales-in-favor-of-hillary-clinton/

Just confirming what some of us already knew. But it’s all politics so the courts are toothless.

The parties can run their primaries however they want, but I maintain they shouldn’t get federal monies if they’re doing it as a fix. Not to mention it does nothing for public trust (one of the things the framers spoke about in the federalist papers - tied it to impeachment too)

rossie1977

Latest polls out this past week

Survey USA, Biden leads by 10 from Warren
The Hill/Harris Biden by 8 from Warren
Economist/YouGov Biden by 1 from Warren
CNN Biden by 15 from Warren
Quinnipiac Warren by 7 from Biden
Politico/Morning Consult Biden by 12 from Warren/Sanders

pixelburp

It is weird how steady Biden has stayed. I honestly can't figure it out; is it just that still congested field that's keeping his lead secure, his name-brand, or some mix of the lot?

marno21

pixelburp wrote: »

It is weird how steady Biden has stayed. I honestly can't figure it out; is it just that still congested field that's keeping his lead secure, his name-brand, or some mix of the lot?

Familiarity and lack of extremism would be my two reasons. Familiarity because he was number two for the last normal administration, and the second reason because he sticks to the bread and butter issues without needing to resort to stuff that gets labelled as "socialism" or pandering to minority issues that the others have been guilty of that may win them a few votes but would turn off far larger numbers.

rossie1977

pixelburp wrote: »

It is weird how steady Biden has stayed. I honestly can't figure it out; is it just that still congested field that's keeping his lead secure, his name-brand, or some mix of the lot?

I think alot of it has to do with his popularity in the South and plains ie traditional conservative strongholds. He is going to be competitive in North East, rust-belt and Pacific Coast but will clean up in South and across plains. Those voters aren't going to be swayed much by media controversies as we saw with Trump and even Roy Moore picked up big vote with sexual assault allegations hanging over him.

The latest polls in South Carolina have Biden leading by 12 and 17. The fact its left leaning Warren in second place highlights how bad the more conservative Democrats campaigns have been, people like O'Rourke and Harris should be ahead of Warren in deep south.

I expect Biden wins every state I coloured red in primary and most rather easily which obviously gives him big boost (edit to point out Iowa shouldn't be red there as that's a Dem battleground state in primary)

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

538 are running an interesting article, breaking down the fallback preferences of Democrat voters; title item being that Warren is very popular as the backup / second choice of other leading candidates. Also of interest is that Biden & Sanders' supporters have the largest percentage of supporters ONLY considering them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-2020-candidates-have-something-in-common-their-supporters-also-like-warren/

Whatever about national elections, it does paint a picture that Warren's socialism seems to be more palatable than (say) Sanders'

I still don't think America will vote in a woman as president.

Brian?

pixelburp wrote: »

It is weird how steady Biden has stayed. I honestly can't figure it out; is it just that still congested field that's keeping his lead secure, his name-brand, or some mix of the lot?

He’s a good candidate running a good campaign. He may be too establishment for many online commentators, but he’s extremely well like and fondly remembered.

Also, he will destroy Trump in the debates.

The Phantom Jipper

pixelburp wrote: »

It is weird how steady Biden has stayed. I honestly can't figure it out; is it just that still congested field that's keeping his lead secure, his name-brand, or some mix of the lot?

I think a lot of it has to do with people not necessarily paying a lot of attention just yet. He does a lot worse in Iowa and New Hampshire where the voters are presumably more engaged, which I don't think bodes well for him.

rossie1977

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with people not necessarily paying a lot of attention just yet. He does a lot worse in Iowa and New Hampshire where the voters are presumably more engaged, which I don't think bodes well for him.

As long as he is at least competitive ie top 3 in northwest, rust belt he should be fine and tough to beat.

If he gets wiped out by Warren and Sanders from Maine down to DC and from Pennsylvania to Iowa he is obviously going to struggle.

Overheal

A leaked video of Warren talking to union bosses

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-the-full-leaked-then-scrubbed-video-of-elizabeth-warrens-meeting-with-union-executives/

Rjd2

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with people not necessarily paying a lot of attention just yet. He does a lot worse in Iowa and New Hampshire where the voters are presumably more engaged, which I don't think bodes well for him.

The boomers love Joe.

Every debate the internet is full of takes from lefty commentators who would never vote for him about how his campaign died that night and well yeah he is still more than standing.

Tulsi and Harris polling around the same is wild,,,Harris has to be the biggest flop of the campaign sadly.

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

The boomers love Joe.

Every debate the internet is full of takes from lefty commentators who would never vote for him about how supposedly his campaign that night and well yeah he is still more than standing.

Tulsi and Harris polling around the same is wild,,,Harris has to be the biggest flop of the campaign sadly.

I agree his supporters are drowned out as they're not the most visible and vocal but his support still seems a little soft to me. The more eyes he has on him, the faster his aura of being electable is going to evaporate. That's already started to happen in the early voting states. He doesn't even have the cash behind him that an establishment front runner usually has, which will make it more difficult to prop up his support.

Brian?

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I agree his supporters are drowned out as they're not the most visible and vocal but his support still seems a little soft to me. The more eyes he has on him, the faster his aura of being electable is going to evaporate. That's already started to happen in the early voting states. He doesn't even have the cash behind him that an establishment front runner usually has, which will make it more difficult to prop up his support.

Biden will win the most super delegates, he's the candidate most likely to take back the rust belt from Trump. He doesn't scare old white voters, he attracts black voters due to his association with Obama and he does pretty well with Hispanics.

As Trump continues to self destruct he'll only look more presidential.

I honestly don't get the negativity. I wouldn't vote for him, he's too corporate, but that won't hurt him in the general IMO.

The Phantom Jipper

Brian? wrote: »

Biden will win the most super delegates, he's the candidate most likely to take back the rust belt from Trump. He doesn't scare old white voters, he attracts black voters due to his association with Obama and he does pretty well with Hispanics.

As Trump continues to self destruct he'll only look more presidential.

I honestly don't get the negativity. I wouldn't vote for him, he's too corporate, but that won't hurt him in the general IMO.

I've nothing against the guy but he has had a poor campaign so far. Maybe there's enough goodwill built up over the years that people will give him a pass but it wouldn't surprise me to see his campaign fall apart. It seems like his campaign is based around electability but not backed up by much else like fundraising, endorsements or early state polling.

Brian?

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I've nothing against the guy but he has had a poor campaign so far. Maybe there's enough goodwill built up over the years that people will give him a pass but it wouldn't surprise me to see his campaign fall apart. It seems like his campaign is based around electability but not backed up by much else like fundraising, endorsements or early state polling.

What's been poor about his campaign so far? He essentially turns up and says "Vote for me I'm Joe Biden" and he's miles ahead in most polls.

The Phantom Jipper

Brian? wrote: »

What's been poor about his campaign so far? He essentially turns up and says "Vote for me I'm Joe Biden" and he's miles ahead in most polls.

You've alluded to part of the problem yourself; hanging your hat on people voting for you because they've heard of you before is a bit of a flimsy case for why you should be president.

Have you seen any of the debates? Did you find those impressive? They've been a very mixed bag to say the least, in my opinion. He doesn't seem to have a good ground game in the early states. His fundraising has been poor, as is his cash on hand etc. If his gradual decline in the polls continues, he won't credibly be able to make an electability case, and what then?

Zubeneschamali

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Have you seen any of the debates?

The debates don't affect actual voters much, although pundits writing people off after the debates may.