US Presidential Election 2020

Joe_ Public

sid waddell wrote: »

It is a centrist attack on Sanders and it's laughable.

Klobuchar has pulled out of the race and endorsed Biden, one day before her home primary.

Biden must be making some serious promises to her and Buttigieg to get them to drop out one/two days before Super Tuesday.

Not surprising, is it? Between biden offering whatever, at least one of them vp, and who knows what other senior party members leaning on them, the centrists were obviously going to fight back hard. Meanwhile, Warrens desperate campaign going to limp on to final humiliation in mass it seems.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Again, you say Sanders is not doing well with black voters. Yet a poll in the last week showed Sanders ahead with black voters nationwide.

You do realise that Joe Biden lied about being arrested trying to get see Nelson Mandela in South Africa? He has continually lied about his connections to the civil rights campaign in the 1960s.

What does that say about his attitude to black people?

As regards your last sentence, what exactly do you have a problem with when I said should Bernie Sanders be the nominee in November, he will win the overwhelming majority of the black voters in South Carolina? Though whoever the Democratic nominee is, they are highly unlikely to win South Carolina.

As you have said yourself, the key states are the mid-west ones that Trump won last time. And Sanders is currently polling ahead of Biden in all of them.

Whataboutery with Biden doesn't work. The black community knows him and so far we've seen how they've voted.

Again, a poll showed Bernie nearly even with Biden in SC.

Again, nationwide polls are basically worthless bit for US politics. If Bernie carries huge numbers of black and hispanic support in NY and California but doesn't in battleground states he loses in November.

Narrowing yourself to the rust belt as the only path to victory is incredibly dangerous.

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not surprising, is it? Between biden offering whatever, at least one of them vp, and who knows what other senior party members leaning on them, the centrists were obviously going to fight back hard. Meanwhile, Warrens desperate campaign going to limp on to final humiliation in mass it seems.

So the others dropping out is a centrist plot but you are upset that Warren won't drop out to help Bernie :rolleyes:

Imagine Warren dropping out and people believing it was some progressive conspiracy :pac:

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

Amy Klobuchar has dropped out and endorsed Biden

Bugger. I'm going to have to rethink my vote now.

Stacksofwacks

I think the dems are backing the wrong horse here. Biden is a walking disaster, none of the options are great but imo they should have unfied behind Buttigieg(who's a much better candidate) to beat Sanders. But Biden's ego wouldn't allow it. If it comes down to a 2 person race then Bernie has the nomination. Bloomberg is loathed left and right and is going nowhere.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Whataboutery with Biden doesn't work. The black community knows him and so far we've seen how they've voted.

Again, a poll showed Bernie nearly even with Biden in SC.

Again, nationwide polls are basically worthless bit for US politics. If Bernie carries huge numbers of black and hispanic support in NY and California but doesn't in battleground states he loses in November.

Narrowing yourself to the rust belt as the only path to victory is incredibly dangerous.

I'm literally quoting your own argument about the rust belt states.

OK, so Biden actually continually lying to the black community doesn't matter, but hey, Bernie said something about Cuba having good literacy and healthcare, so hang him.

This is laughable. You'd be better off just being honest and say "I hate Bernie and will shamelessly twist anything to make him look bad". That's about the sum total of your argument.

Which considering you were accusing his supporters of being like Trump, is rather ironic.

Foxtrol

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I think the dems are backing the wrong horse here. Biden is a walking disaster, none of the options are great but imo they should have unfied behind Buttigieg(who's a much better candidate) to beat Sanders. But Biden's ego wouldn't allow it. If it comes down to a 2 person race then Bernie has the nomination. Bloomberg is loathed left and right and is going nowhere.

They could never unify behind Pete because he wouldnt be able to bring along black voters, he was low single digits in SC.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

So the others dropping out is a centrist plot but you are upset that Warren won't drop out to help Bernie :rolleyes:

Imagine Warren dropping out and people believing it was some progressive conspiracy :pac:

Why do you think klobuchar bailed, especially after buttigieg had gone? At least she was heading the polls in her home state, something warren isnt doing. I think warren should have gone a week ago and i still want her to be vp, despite the differences they've had.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

See this is the crux of the matter.

Bernie supporters ask why people have concerns about him, people list their concerns and they are deemed as 'utter irrelevancies'.

The reason why this example matters, along with a laundry list of others, is that it shows that Bernie is an ideologue, doesn't know how to compromise, and has no idea how to govern. Sure Obama didn't follow through on everything he promised during the first term but he spent nearly all his capital on getting Obama through, even though it meant suicide for many democrats.

I say it's an utter irrelevancy because that's exactly what it is, a total irrelevancy. Either way.

You seem to care about it a hell of a lot though. Finger on the pulse on all that.

It isn't a crime for a politician to not be sycophantic towards Obama, much as you might like it to be.

Let me remind you that you just said Biden continually lying to the African-Ameerican community about being part of the civil rights struggle and lying about being arrested trying to see Nelson Mandela, doesn't matter at all.

So, serious lies are grand as far as you're concerned, but not being sycophantic enough towards Obama is disqualifying.

And you criticise others about "ideological purity".

Wot a larf.

Manic Moran

For the record, going back a few pages as a further sample, I pay about $340/mo for my health insurance (incl dental and vision) for myself and my family, with a $500 deductible. If I were unmarried/no kids, I'd be paying $71/mo (Or $32/mo with a $1000 deductible). Perhaps other US-based Boardsies can chime in for more of a sample.

I fully accept that others pay more and would benefit from a change in the system. I also presume that others pay less or the same. They may not benefit as much. All have a vote on the matter.

Frankly, given the horrendous inefficiency of the US's healthcare system, I think we would all benefit if something were done to simply reduce the overhead costs. It's not so much a matter of 'who pays for it', it's a matter of 'why the hell does it cost so much in the first place?'. My then-1-year-old spend four days in Intensive Care last year, the bill was a ridiculous cost, well in the five figures (Insurance covered the vast majority, of course, the rest I used pre-tax dollars). There is a difference between a call for universal healthcare, with similar daft inefficiency, and one for cheaper healthcare which is generally still on the same current system.

Stacksofwacks

Foxtrol wrote: »

They could never unify behind Pete because he wouldnt be able to bring along black voters, he was low single digits in SC.

He performed well on the first 3 states though, it was always going to be tough for him in SC as Biden had gambled it all on that state. You should check out Biden's polling numbers in the remaining states when you get a chance, they're awful, for a so called front runner and former VP(Obama's VP at that, who wont even endorse him). Bernie will smash Biden to pieces if this goes the distance. If the plan is to bring it to a contested convention then Buttigieg would have been the better bet, imo

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

I'm literally quoting your own argument about the rust belt states.

Where have I said to ignore other battleground states? My whole issue with the Castro comments is that it takes Florida off the map.

OK, so Biden actually continually lying to the black community doesn't matter, but hey, Bernie said something about Cuba having good literacy and healthcare, so hang him.

There was no victim to what Biden said, whereas what Castro did is extremely raw for many folk who were directly hurt by him.

It doesn't matter what you deem as being fair, it is what the people impacted feel about it.

This is laughable. You'd be better off just being honest and say "I hate Bernie and will shamelessly twist anything to make him look bad". That's about the sum total of your argument.

Which considering you were accusing his supporters of being like Trump, is rather ironic.

You're missing the big difference here, I also think Biden is an incredibly flawed candidate, I'm however not out defending him from practically every negative comment. You just refuse to accept the flaws with Bernie

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Why do you think klobuchar bailed, especially after buttigieg had gone? At least she was heading the polls in her home state, something warren isnt doing. I think warren should have gone a week ago and i still want her to be vp, despite the differences they've had.

Because she had no route to victory and has a long future so hanging on now will only result in resentment against her.

I really like Warren, probably my favourite candidate. I see a ticket of her and Bernie as being way too old, especially with his health issues. This will likely be her last chance to run so I can see her hanging on in the hopes of being an agreeable 3rd option come a contested convention

Foxtrol

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

He performed well on the first 3 states though, it was always going to be tough for him in SC as Biden had gambled it all on that state. You should check out Biden's polling numbers in the remaining states when you get a chance, they're awful, for a so called front runner and former VP(Obama's VP at that, who wont even endorse him). Bernie will smash Biden to pieces if this goes the distance. If the plan is to bring it to a contested convention then Buttigieg would have been the better bet, imo

The first 2 states shouldn't come into anyone's assessment as they are completely unrepresentative of the country.

I wouldn't say they are awful. Bernie was the clear front runner when most of those polls were taken and Biden's campaign listed as basically dead. Since then Biden had the most convincing win of any state in the cycle and Pete and Amy have dropped out, with Bloomberg potentially feeling the need to follow if Tuesday goes poorly.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because she had no route to victory and has a long future so hanging on now will only result in resentment against her.

I really like Warren, probably my favourite candidate. I see a ticket of her and Bernie as being way too old, especially with his health issues. This will likely be her last chance to run so I can see her hanging on in the hopes of being an agreeable 3rd option come a contested convention

Ok, but it took her right up to the eve of polling day to arrive at that conclusion? Why not several days ago before she'd committed a lot more money to it? Pete going gave her more incentive to stay in than anything. Anyway, I'm not alleging unspeakable dastardly plots here. It's politics and this is how politics is played. I dont think its definite that biden will get a huge spike from this, or the one he hopes amyway, any more than sanders would gain hugely from warren quitting. If they'd quit sooner it would have helped more.

Rjd2

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because she had no route to victory and has a long future so hanging on now will only result in resentment against her.

I really like Warren, probably my favourite candidate. I see a ticket of her and Bernie as being way too old, especially with his health issues. This will likely be her last chance to run so I can see her hanging on in the hopes of being an agreeable 3rd option come a contested convention

Who exactly is Warren an agreeable candidate for bar white liberal NYT writers which are her base? She has done **** all so far in the primaries that have took place and is predicted to do absolute **** all tomorrow.

Bernie's base are right to be skeptical of her, she did not endorse him in 2016 instead played it safe and right now with no path to victory she is hanging around hitting Bernie.

If Bernie survives this establishment coup then he is entitled to tell her to **** of regarding the VP spot. May as well go for someone like Nina Turner or one of the squad who are out there putting in the work.

Stacksofwacks

Foxtrol wrote: »

The first 2 states shouldn't come into anyone's assessment as they are completely unrepresentative of the country.

I wouldn't say they are awful. Bernie was the clear front runner when most of those polls were taken and Biden's campaign listed as basically dead. Since then Biden had the most convincing win of any state in the cycle and Pete and Amy have dropped out, with Bloomberg potentially feeling the need to follow if Tuesday goes poorly.

That Biden is only single digits in California, the largest and most blue state should tell you all you need to know. The name recognition Biden has and the positive media coverage he gets(by and large) yet 9 out of 10 of those voters are saying no, not for me Joe

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok, but it took her right up to the eve of polling day to arrive at that conclusion? Why not several days ago before she'd committed a lot more money to it? Pete going gave her more incentive to stay in than anything. Anyway, I'm not alleging unspeakable dastardly plots here. It's politics and this is how politics is played. I dont think its definite that biden will get a huge spike from this, or the one he hopes amyway, any more than sanders would gain hugely from warren quitting. If they'd quit sooner it would have helped more.

There's a saying it is harder to get out of a presidential race then to get into one. It is a snowball thing. Steyer went probably in part that he was sick of spending his own money and I doubt Pete goes if Steyer didn't and Amy doesn't go without Pete going.

I don't see the incentive you speak of for her to stay in? She risks annoying people who would blame her if Biden fails on Tuesday while also risking the general embarrassment of losing her home state.

Their votes could go anywhere but there is a larger likelihood they go towards Biden after his performance in SC than if they dropped out this time last week.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

Who exactly is Warren an agreeable candidate for bar white liberal NYT writers which are her base? She has done **** all so far in the primaries that have took place and is predicted to do absolute **** all tomorrow.

Bernie's base are right to be skeptical of her, she did not endorse him in 2016 instead played it safe and right now with no path to victory she is hanging around hitting Bernie.

If Bernie survives this establishment coup then he is entitled to tell her to **** of regarding the VP spot. May as well go for someone like Nina Turner or one of the squad who are out there putting in the work.

Her base should be people who want progressive policies and a person who has demonstrated an ability to achieve things, rather than just angrily shout about them.

I thought she'd get some transfer from the Clinton glass ceiling crowd but it seems that people are afraid of female candidates.

It seems a world wide thing that the more left you are, the more you have more personalities that want to lead the revolution rather than coalesce.

briany

I wonder what Hillary Clinton would think if Biden became US president? Outwardly, she'd express great happiness about it, I'm sure, but inside she'd have to be wondering why they picked Biden in 2020 and not her in 2016. They both very much represent that old-school Democrat establishment.

Rjd2

Foxtrol wrote: »

Her base should be people who want progressive policies and a person who has demonstrated an ability to achieve things, rather than just angrily shout about them.

I thought she'd get some transfer from the Clinton glass ceiling crowd but it seems that people are afraid of female candidates.

It seems a world wide thing that the more left you are, the more you have more personalities that want to lead the revolution rather than coalesce.

She was smashing it initially in the polls when it looked like she was running on a hardcore economic populist ticket, heck even Tucker was praising her.

Then it all feel apart and she has to take the blame there rather than the big bad sexist media. I'd have more sympathy for the vocal twitter Warren online base who are alleging sexism if they had not spent the last few years calling Tulsi a woman of color a traitor to her nation though.

She'd be a better president than all bar Bernie and Tulsi (still running somehow) but if comes to a convention then it has to be Bernie or sadly Biden who both have proven they can win states.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Where have I said to ignore other battleground states? My whole issue with the Castro comments is that it takes Florida off the map.



There was no victim to what Biden said, whereas what Castro did is extremely raw for many folk who were directly hurt by him.

It doesn't matter what you deem as being fair, it is what the people impacted feel about it.



You're missing the big difference here, I also think Biden is an incredibly flawed candidate, I'm however not out defending him from practically every negative comment. You just refuse to accept the flaws with Bernie

I've actually criticised Bernie on this thread and by no means think he's perfect, and he wasn't even my first preference from the field - Warren was - if you could fuse the best bits of the two that would be my ideal candidate.

You're doing nothing projecting your own ultra-apologism for Biden onto me.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

There's a saying it is harder to get out of a presidential race then to get into one. It is a snowball thing. Steyer went probably in part that he was sick of spending his own money and I doubt Pete goes if Steyer didn't and Amy doesn't go without Pete going.

I don't see the incentive you speak of for her to stay in? She risks annoying people who would blame her if Biden fails on Tuesday while also risking the general embarrassment of losing her home state.

Their votes could go anywhere but there is a larger likelihood they go towards Biden after his performance in SC than if they dropped out this time last week.

I dont know if there was incentive for her to stay in. Polls showed her on target to win her home state so she could have played those odds, then withdrawn on a high. But, as you suggest, she obviously doesnt want to upset her potential future boss and maybe she came to decision today to upstage buttigieg and lay claim to the vp spot. The sense of urgency about the dem establishment is palpable though. SC gave them momentum, the prospect of sanders streaking clear tomorrow has induced a sense of controlled panic. Its clear to me anyway that the machine has been in overdrive past few days, how could it be any other way given their horror of sanders and all he represents?

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote:

What evidence is there to suggest that?

The Irish healthcare system isxa good start.

Joe_ Public

briany wrote: »

I wonder what Hillary Clinton would think if Biden became US president? Outwardly, she'd express great happiness about it, I'm sure, but inside she'd have to be wondering why they picked Biden in 2020 and not her in 2016. They both very much represent that old-school Democrat establishment.

She'd console herself by asserting that her campaign had laid the groudwork for bidens victory, while analysts would pick out how bidens team had studiuosly avoided the amateurish mistakes and arrogance that littered her campaign from the beginning. If sanders wins, there will be simply no consoling her.

StringerBell

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

That Biden is only single digits in California, the largest and most blue state should tell you all you need to know. The name recognition Biden has and the positive media coverage he gets(by and large) yet 9 out of 10 of those voters are saying no, not for me Joe

Not really, whoever is the Dem nominee will win California, the margin of that victory will depend on the candidate but as the system is electoral college it doesn't matter one little bit.

The states that matter are not the guaranteed blue or red ones, its the other ones. The battleground/swing states.

Biden polls well in them, as does Sanders.

As long as the party unites behind whoever is the nominee and stays focused on the big picture instead of doing what it does best and cutting its nose off to spite its face they will retake the white house. The Senate has no chance though if Sanders is the top of the ballot, that I would say and they could lose some ground in the House too.

rossie1977

Looks like interesting day tomorrow

sid waddell

I see that Biden has hired a supporter of India's viciously anti-Muslim BJP as, wait for it, his Muslim Outreach Co-ordinator.

It'd be like hiring a KKK member as an African-American outreach co-ordinator.

https://muslimmatters.org/2020/02/27/meet-joe-bidens-muslim-outreach-coordinator-a-supporter-of-narendra-modi-and-his-islamophobic-hindu-nationalist-agenda/

If it is Trump v Biden, it'll be a battle of two candidates with early onset dementia.

https://twitter.com/shujaxhaider/status/1234574038372159488

StringerBell

Bloomberg should be dropping out pretty soon in all honesty along with Warren I guess. It's now a two way race between two elderly white men, incredible.

Joe_ Public

StringerBell wrote: »

Not really, whoever is the Dem nominee will win California, the margin of that victory will depend on the candidate but as the system is electoral college it doesn't matter one little bit.

The states that matter are not the guaranteed blue or red ones, its the other ones. The battleground/swing states.

Biden polls well in them, as does Sanders.

As long as the party unites behind whoever is the nominee and stays focused on the big picture instead of doing what it does best and cutting its nose off to spite its face they will retake the white house. The Senate has no chance though if Sanders is the top of the ballot, that I would say and they could lose some ground in the House too.

I wouldnt quibble with any of that. A big win for sanders in California, the most populous and diverse state in the US, has definite value right now though in that it cements the notion that he appeals to every group and demographic. I know that myth about his narrow appeal has been shred anyway but would be no harm to see it laid bare in real voting data. Assuming the polling is accurate.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

I see that Biden has hired a supporter of India's viciously anti-Muslim BJP as, wait for it, his Muslim Outreach Co-ordinator.

It'd be like hiring a KKK member as an African-American outreach co-ordinator.

https://muslimmatters.org/2020/02/27/meet-joe-bidens-muslim-outreach-coordinator-a-supporter-of-narendra-modi-and-his-islamophobic-hindu-nationalist-agenda/

I know you are a Sanders guy, but this is quite the reach surely? I mean, you would actually be up in arms I assume if this was slipped as an attack against your guy instead? This is actually old news too you know?

For clarity, he has been on the Biden team since early September last year iirc and he has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns over the last number of years.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

I've actually criticised Bernie on this thread and by no means think he's perfect, and he wasn't even my first preference from the field - Warren was - if you could fuse the best bits of the two that would be my ideal candidate.

Care to list out your criticisms of Bernie? I'm interested in seeing them, as

You're doing nothing projecting your own ultra-apologism for Biden onto me.

I don't think I've apologized once for Biden.

The only thing I can think of coming close was stating the fact that Biden's Mandela comments were victimless and as a result were looked at very differently than praising a dictator that murdered and stole from the families of a segment of the electorate.

The two comments you're trying to push together aren't equivalent or for that matter even similar. The way you've spoke about them together, you'd swear Biden had come out and stated there were some positives about the white government in South Africa during the apartheid.

In case you don't believe me, some criticisms I have of Biden as the nominee:
- Age has caught up to him, he is slow and getting confused regularly
- Doesn't excite the young vote
- Doesn't excite the progressive vote
- Prone to gaffs, even in his prime
- Support from Hispanics could be questionable
- Voting record could be used against him

rossie1977

StringerBell wrote: »

Bloomberg should be dropping out pretty soon in all honesty along with Warren I guess. It's now a two way race between two elderly white men, incredible.

Trump, all top Republican and Demcrats in Congress are old white people too.

I expect a big swing towards youth during next major election cycle whether that's 2024 or 2028

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wouldnt quibble with any of that. A big win for sanders in California, the most populous and diverse state in the US, has definite value right now though in that it cements the notion that he appeals to every group and demographic. I know that myth about his narrow appeal has been shred anyway but would be no harm to see it laid bare in real voting data. Assuming the polling is accurate.

It only shows he has a wide appeal in California, which doesn't align to any of the swing states.

Your logic is like saying an Irish political party is popular in Dublin, therefore it should be popular all over the country.

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

I know you are a Sanders guy, but this is quite the reach surely? I mean, you would actually be up in arms I assume if this was slipped as an attack against your guy instead? This is actually old news too you know?

For clarity, he has been on the Biden team since early September last year iirc and he has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns over the last number of years.

I'm not "a Sanders guy". Warren was my preferred candidate narrowly from him but he's certainly a much better option than Biden.

It's no exaggeration to say the BJP's ideology is Nazi-like. Modi is arguably the most dangerous man in the world today and was himself banned from the US and the EU for over a decade for inciting anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat province when he was governor there.

The head of Genocide Watch, Professor Gregory Stanton, says "India is preparing for genocide". Nobody with connections to the BJP should be next or near any US campaign.

For the record I also have a serious problem with Sanders hiring Tad Devine, who has strong links to Paul Manafort's activities in Ukraine - and I was delighted to see Devine left the Sanders campaign recently. He should be kept well away from it. Devine also worked for Al Gore and John Kerry so, like this BJP guy working for Biden, he's worked on other Democratic campaigns. That doesn't mean his presence wasn't extremely problematic.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

I'm not "a Sanders guy". Warren was my preferred candidate narrowly from him but he's certainly a much better option than Biden.

It's no exaggeration to say the BJP's ideology is Nazi-like. Modi is arguably the most dangerous man in the world today and was himself banned from the US and the EU for over a decade for inciting anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat province when he was governor there.

The head of Genocide Watch, Professor Gregory Stanton, says "India is prearing for genocide". Nobody with connections to the BJP should be next or near any US campaign.

For the record I also have a serious problem with Sanders hiring Tad Devine, who has strong links to Paul Manafort's activities in Ukraine - and I was delighted to see Devine left the Sanders campaign recently. Devine also worked for Al Gore and John Kerry so, like this BJP guy working for Biden, he's worked on other Democratic campaigns. That doesn't mean his presence wasn't extremely problematic.

Apologies, I would have been a Warren fan myself. She was my preferred candidate, I have just seen your back and forth so assumed you were backing Sanders.

I'm not arguing against anything to do with Modi, the BJP or anything like that. Bernie showed support for an actual dictator also, yet that is defended. That you don't see the irony in that is a bit odd. (For the record I also think that Bernie's comments re Cuba, and the Soviet Union are irrelevant distractions)

The guy is clearly a political operative, he has ties to the Democratic party and was hired to do a job. I don't think he is a BJP party member, but am open to correction? I believe he worked on Modi's campaign way back when?

Obama brought Modi to the WH, its politics.

It is a reach to try to paint it as anything particularly problematic for Biden for a guy who is known to have worked for, or at least supported Modi, on his campaign staff. It is a large staff, it is kind of irrelevant I would suggest and like I said, old news. Why are you bringing this up now and not in September when he moved on to the team?

I can guess I suppose, but again. Its just a distraction, it isn't important.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Care to list out your criticisms of Bernie? I'm interested in seeing them, as



I don't think I've apologized once for Biden.

The only thing I can think of coming close was stating the fact that Biden's Mandela comments were victimless and as a result were looked at very differently than praising a dictator that murdered and stole from the families of a segment of the electorate.

The two comments you're trying to push together aren't equivalent or for that matter even similar. The way you've spoke about them together, you'd swear Biden had come out and stated there were some positives about the white government in South Africa during the apartheid.

In case you don't believe me, some criticisms I have of Biden as the nominee:
- Age has caught up to him, he is slow and getting confused regularly
- Doesn't excite the young vote
- Doesn't excite the progressive vote
- Prone to gaffs, even in his prime
- Support from Hispanics could be questionable
- Voting record could be used against him

Some of my criticisms of Sanders are his reluctance to abolish the filibuster, his not being clear enough that Trump and his cronies need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and to go to prison, preferably for the rest of their lives, and his hiring of Tad Devine as I referenced in my previous post to this. I have some reservations about him on foreign policy particularly in regards to Ukraine/Georgia etc.

Biden continuallly lied through his teeth in an effort to portray himself as some sort of fearless anti-apartheid/anti-racism campaigner, which he was not.

You might bizarrely try to pass off these lies as "victimless".

You might not think they're a problem. I very much do and I wouldn't have thought I'd have to explain why.

Sanders' comments about Castro are much ado about nothing because they are both nuanced and true. Obama made the exact same comments. Did you miss what our own president said about Castro when Castro died? I presume you're howling for his head?

Did you watch the Mehdi Hasan video I posted earlier? Biden refused to call Hosni Mubarak a dictator. He was happy to deal with dictators from all over the place, including of course the Saudis.

Now some of that can be put down to a vice-President having to deal with some shady characters as part of the job.

But you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hound. Biden has cosied up to far more dictators than Bernie Sanders ever has. He has denied that dicators are dictators.

Michael Bloomberg explictly says, and I quote, "Xi Jinping is not a dictator".

And literally nobody is talking about it, least of all you.

Ths is not about "perception". This about truth.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

It only shows he has a wide appeal in California, which doesn't align to any of the swing states.

Your logic is like saying an Irish political party is popular in Dublin, therefore it should be popular all over the country.

I'm only referring to primaries, swing states are another story entirely. In the context of the primaries, not just a win but a thumping one in cali would be a big boost for sanders, especially if things are getting tight. Thats all I'm saying.

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

Apologies, I would have been a Warren fan myself. She was my preferred candidate, I have just seen your back and forth so assumed you were backing Sanders.

I'm not arguing against anything to do with Modi, the BJP or anything like that. Bernie showed support for an actual dictator also, yet that is defended. That you don't see the irony in that is a bit odd. (For the record I also think that Bernie's comments re Cuba, and the Soviet Union are irrelevant distractions)

The guy is clearly a political operative, he has ties to the Democratic party and was hired to do a job. I don't think he is a BJP party member, but am open to correction? I believe he worked on Modi's campaign way back when?

Obama brought Modi to the WH, its politics.

It is a reach to try to paint it as anything particularly problematic for Biden for a guy who is known to have worked for, or at least supported Modi, on his campaign staff. It is a large staff, it is kind of irrelevant I would suggest and like I said, old news. Why are you bringing this up now and not in September when he moved on to the team?

I can guess I suppose, but again. Its just a distraction, it isn't important.

I think it is important, extremely important.

Modi and his party are naked fascists. The BJP's popularity originates from a mob of thousands attacking the sacred Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 and literally hacking the building to the ground with anything they could get their hands on. At every stage they have had a naked and viciously anti-Islam agenda and their modus operandi on the ground is nakedly fascist too with massive paramilitary style marches of uniformed men in white shirts. Trump's visit to India last week led to pogroms against Muslims in Delhi killing at least 38.

Now a president like Obama can at least have some excuse for meeting the Prime Minister of India because of his position - even Trump can have that excuse - though Trump has gone way beyond that and clearly associated himself with the political agenda of Modi and the BJP, which is no suprise, because he wants to associate himself with pretty much every scummy far right regime everywhere.

Biden has no such excuse - nobody associated with the BJP should be near any US campaign, especially a Democratic one - and I'd be saying the exact thing for anybody else who hired somebody like that, Sanders included.

Tulsi Gabbard is heavily linked to Modi and the BJP as well and that's one of the main reasons among several why she is utterly toxic and should never be allowed stand on a Democratic platform again.

The BJP's ideology borrows heavily from that of the KKK, so I think the comparison is entirely appropriate. You wouldn't have anybody associated with the KKK on a campaign team. Why should it be different for the BJP? Because less people are aware of what they are? That's not an excuse.

And in a position of Muslim outreach, of all positions? Staggering stuff.

Why am I bringing up this BJP guy on Biden's team now? Because I became aware of it about half an hour ago and it was an immediate red flag. Anything to do with the BJP is a red flag.

rossie1977

California is actually a very conservative state outside LA and San Francisco. It's the state after all that's given us the current form of Republican politics ie Reaganism.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Some of my criticisms of Sanders are his reluctance to abolish the filibuster, his not being clear enough that Trump and his cronies need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and to go to prison, preferably for the rest of their lives, and his hiring of Tad Devine as I referenced in my previous post to this. I have some reservations about him on foreign policy particularly in regards to Ukraine/Georgia etc.

This is what you call criticism?

I'd take you seriously if you had included at one of:
- questionable support from black voters
- questionable support from moderate voters
- questionable support from hispanic voters
- health concerns
- lack of legislative accomplishments/bringing people with him
- voting record could be used against him
- previous comments could be used against him
- unpopular/expensive policies

Compared to you I went to town on Biden on actual election issues and yet you call me an ultra- apologist for him. Your 'criticisms' are one step up from not liking the colour of his suit.

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

The problem is that is well and good but has nothing to do with my post or the question you posed.

Just because they are angry doesn't mean getting a lift from Dublin to Laois isn't going to help them more in their hopes of getting to Cork than staying in Dublin and sulking.

It has everything tgo do with the question I posed. I asked why it is seen as acceptable for Biden supporters to not support Sanders if he wins, but not the reverse. You answered that because Biden is centre-left, then everyone to the left of is compelled to vote for him, which as I mentioned is very redictivist.

I pointed out that that doesn't hold true, and gave a detailed post as to why, primarily centered around the fact that many Americans, especially when we look at the under 40s (millennials and Gen y) have been in financial struggle their whole lives with no signs of improvement regardless of the economy, and would in Biden be faced with a candidate who has sworn to CEOs continue along that line, whose largely older supporters helped create this situation after being the beneficiaries of socialism, and who would not support their candidate (Sanders) in the reverse scenario as a cherry on top.

I also pointed out that I don't agree with these people as I don't agree with Biden supporters who would rather Trump over Sanders, but that their reasons for not doing so would be very valid.

You decided to ignore this and fob it off as a rant about boomers which really just helps cement my point, especially as you have again chosen to ignore their frustrations and anxieties which I have now had to reiterate twice.

If there was any evidence so far that Bernie was actually energizing that group to get the turnout required to beat Trump plus moderates then you'd have an argument but he has failed to do it thus far.

You ha e been accusing others of acting "cult like" and the likes, myself included, but why is it then that you are the one ignoring evidence already put in front of you?

From FOX News, about as far from network ideologically aligned with Sanders as you could find: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-sanders-knocks-biden-out-of-first-majority-thinks-trump-wins

The problem is that it seems like it is only one side listening.

I have to be honest here, the irony is nothing sjortnof remarkable. Three times now I have had to point out to you why Sanders supporters, though I think they should, would not be atomically compelled to vote for Biden, and you continue to flat out refused listen. Literally right above this I have had to repost a link that was already shown to you by another poster on polling.

Maybe it is only one side listening?

Bernie tried every tactic to get a contested convention in 2016, which apparently is the most toxic thing anyone could try to do in 2020.

Bernie is the only candidate that got any input into the rules for the 2020 race but the establishment are against him

Bernie negotiated a large amount of concessions for the 2016 platform, yet between him dragging it out for so long it wasn't enough and many Bernie voters stayed home or voted elsewhere.

1. I don't mind a contested convention that much.

2. Which rules are you referring to? What I do know that they changed the rules after he did much better than expected. In 2016 to force him to register as a democrat this time, but I doubt that's what you're alluding to.

3. It's a bit of a joke to say a candidate has to step down at an arbitrary point, especially given the reason that many stay in beyond their viability is to negotiate and accumulate bargaining power. The same rings true of Warren or soon enough probably Bloomberg (I'm expecting a slip for him, and rise in momentum for Biden), and Sanders supporters expecting her to step down are being hypocritical also.

Also worth noting, by your own argument above re Biden supporters voting for Trump, shouldn't the majority of Sanders supporters have actually not voted for Clinton at all but instead voted for Jill Stein (almost certain Russian asset though she turned out to be) based on their ideology? And yet they didn't, as she got a whopping 1.07% of the vote.

You posted the video but I'm yet to see you say anything about what that means about his personality or how he would govern.

If you agree with what you posted elsewhere that his problem with Obama is that he didn't follow through on everything he said in 2008 the I don't see how this isn't a large concern.

Its not that Obama didn't follow up on everything, which I think you are very well aware of. It's that he didn't follow through on so, so many important things that he ran on. I quite liked Obama and thought he did a very good job in many respects, but Obama the President and Obama the 2008 Campaigner are two very different things.

You also have conveniently left out the part where I point blank said I disagreed with it.

And as for how it speaks to his ability to govern, I actually think it shows good and bad. It does show him as quite stubborn, but it also shows that he has strong principles to try not to stray from his mandate, if elected.

It does make you wonder in terms of being a unifier in terms of the negotiations, but I think in this instance he is spot on. Trying to negotiate in good faith with republicans cod so long was one of Obama's biggest mistakes, and played a role in their ability to just steamroll over the democrats and dominantly control the narrative in the way that they have done.

You said this "yes some Sanders supporters are similar, and would rather have a Democrat party out of power in the short term but fighting for their interests, than one in power whose purpose is to serve corporations, the wealthy, and so on, while continuing to ignore the everyday worker and younger generations."

If you believe what Obama did was to ignore the everyday worker and younger generations then I don't know what to say. He balanced them with other interests but that is what governing is. While Obama did all he did, what legislation did Bernie lead? Appearing to be pure and 'fighting for their interests' means nothing if you have nothing to show for it.

Obama was well intentioned, and did a really solid job on the economy. He also knew how to speak to these younger generations and may have had their interests at heart, but the fact is that the average 20 of 30 something today is not in as good a situation as they were in mid 2008 (obviously better than in January 2009). And they weren't in as good as spot them as they had been in the 90s... and so on and so on.

All this looks like to these people is a spiral downward and downward as the money filters upwards and upwards, crippling their abilities to own homes, raise children, go to college, or just afford rent and bills. This isn't just a worry or concern in a hypothetical sense of if Candidate X were to win the election in the way that we see for some of Sanders' policies, this is the reality that many of these people have been living in for their entire lives, regardless of the letter beside the person's name in the oval office.

You can say that Bernie's history "means nothing" all you like, but it doesn't stop his supporters from feeling they can actually trust him with decades of a track record to go from as an elected official who fights for people and workers first and foremost. Calling them a cult and Nazis is absolutely not the way to get these people onside.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

I think it is important, extremely important.

Modi and his party are naked fascists. The BJP's popularity originates from a mob of thousands attacking the sacred Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 and literally hacking the building to the ground with anything they could get their hands on. At every stage they have had a naked and viciously anti-Islam agenda and their modus operandi on the ground is nakedly fascist too with massive paramilitary style marches of uniformed men in white shirts. Trump's visit to India last week led to pogroms against Muslims in Delhi killing at least 38.

Now a president like Obama can at least have some excuse for meeting the Prime Minister of India because of his position - even Trump can have that excuse - though Trump has gone way beyond that and clearly associated himself with the political agenda of Modi and the BJP, which is no suprise, because he wants to associate himself with pretty much every scummy far right regime everywhere.

Biden has no such excuse - nobody associated with the BJP should be near any US campaign, especially a Democratic one - and I'd be saying the exact thing for anybody else who hired somebody like that, Sanders included.

Tulsi Gabbard is heavily linked to Modi and the BJP as well and that's one of the main reasons among several why she is utterly toxic and should never be allowed stand on a Democratic platform again.

The BJP's ideology borrows heavily from that of the KKK, so I think the comparison is entirely appropriate. You wouldn't have anybody associated with the KKK on a campaign team. Why should it be different for the BJP? Because less people are aware of what they are? That's not an excuse.

And in a position of Muslim outreach, of all positions? Staggering stuff.

Why am I bringing up this BJP guy on Biden's team now? Because I became aware of it about half an hour ago and it was an immediate red flag. Anything to do with the BJP is a red flag.

Ok, so I looked it up for curiousity. This doesn't sound like a Muslim outreach position?

A NEW ADVISER to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, the director of outreach to the Asian-American Pacific Islander community,

Or has he switched roles at this point? Now given that your sourcing was the MM website I am sure you took what was written there with a pinch of salt.

Again, not going to argue anything regarding India, Modi, BJP, any of it. You don't need to bother highlighting any of the issues you have with them for the purposes of this, you are not a fan. You have many issues with them, they are doing horrible things. We can take that as read.

Ok, you just became aware of it, fair enough. I would say though that considering the time that has passed since he joined the team it is surely clear to you that it is not, and certainly has not been deemed important by anybody who actually matters?

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

This is what you call criticism?

I'd take you seriously if you had included at one of:
- questionable support from black voters
- questionable support from moderate voters
- questionable support from hispanic voters
- health concerns
- lack of legislative accomplishments/bringing people with him
- voting record could be used against him
- previous comments could be used against him
- unpopular/expensive policies

Compared to you I went to town on Biden on actual election issues and yet you call me an ultra- apologist for him. Your 'criticisms' are one step up from not liking the colour of his suit.

Sorry, but that post is complete raimeis. It appears you don't even understand what the word "criticism" means.

Foxtrol

rossie1977 wrote: »

California is actually a very conservative state outside LA and San Francisco. It's the state after all that's given us the current form of Republican politics ie Reaganism.

It is also a long time since the Reagan years, have you seen the current representation for the house? It is 45-6

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

Ok, so I looked it up for curiousity. This doesn't sound like a Muslim outreach position?

Or has he switched roles at this point? Now given that your sourcing was the MM website I am sure you took what was written there with a pinch of salt.

Again, not going to argue anything regarding India, Modi, BJP, any of it. You don't need to bother highlighting any of the issues you have with them for the purposes of this, you are not a fan. You have many issues with them, they are doing horrible things. We can take that as read.

Ok, you just became aware of it, fair enough. I would say though that considering the time that has passed since he joined the team it is surely clear to you that it is not, and certainly has not been deemed important by anybody who actually matters?

It should be deemed important, that's the point. If there was a person with previously undisclosed or unknown associations to the KKK on any campaign team they'd be fired no questions asked. That this isn't the case for somebody with BJP associations is down to either lack of knowledge on the Biden team's behalf or a knowledge from the Biden team that the US media has a lack of knowledge/lack of interest in what the BJP are.

Foxtrol

sid waddell wrote: »

Sorry, but that post is complete raimeis. It appears you don't even understand what the word "criticism" means.

Well you should really learn how to set expectations. Having repeatedly thrown around your criticisms as a shield to show your impartiality, the real truth is that there is basically nothing of substance you have issues with.

I'm sure I can find the most ardent Bernie Bro that would accept there is more to be concerned about and critical of Bernie than your 'criticisms'.

It is ok to have drank the Bernie cool-aid, just don't pretend you are independent.

Foxtrol

Englo wrote: »

It has everything tgo do with the question I posed. I asked why it is seen as acceptable for Biden supporters to not support Sanders if he wins, but not the reverse. You answered that because Biden is centre-left, then everyone to the left of is compelled to vote for him, which as I mentioned is very redictivist.

I pointed out that that doesn't hold true, and gave a detailed post as to why, primarily centered around the fact that many Americans, especially when we look at the under 40s (millennials and Gen y) have been in financial struggle their whole lives with no signs of improvement regardless of the economy, and would in Biden be faced with a candidate who has sworn to CEOs continue along that line, whose largely older supporters helped create this situation after being the beneficiaries of socialism, and who would not support their candidate (Sanders) in the reverse scenario as a cherry on top.

I also pointed out that I don't agree with these people as I don't agree with Biden supporters who would rather Trump over Sanders, but that their reasons for not doing so would be very valid.

You decided to ignore this and fob it off as a rant about boomers which really just helps cement my point, especially as you have again chosen to ignore their frustrations and anxieties which I have now had to reiterate twice.

I can't deal with your whole post right now so just responding to the bit related to your original question.

I understand certain folks that support Bernie are angry about all the things that you listed but no matter how valid their anger is it still doesn't make their choice make any sense.

Can you explain how anger means that getting some of what they want isn't worth voting for Biden (gun control, expanded obama care, environmental improvements etc)? Is Biden offering anything that is worse than what Trump will give them?

briany

With Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropping out, Operation Stop Sanders looks to be in full swing.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Well you should really learn how to set expectations. Having repeatedly thrown around your criticisms as a shield to show your impartiality, the real truth is that there is basically nothing of substance you have issues with.

I'm sure I can find the most ardent Bernie Bro that would accept there is more to be concerned about and critical of Bernie than your 'criticisms'.

It is ok to have drank the Bernie cool-aid, just don't pretend you are independent.

Earlier on you were mendaciously accusing others of using Trump style debating which is very ironic because your attempts at debate this evening have been exactly that.

I don't see any need to engage any further with that.