US Presidential Election 2020

Itssoeasy

briany wrote: »

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

I think the democrats will lose in November if sanders is the nominee for the democrats. His health is a big question mark and he's a left wing version of trump except his far more intelligent but some of his ideas and the price they cost make Sinn Fein look reasonable. He's no different to trump in that like trump sanders says to his base that it's the billionaires and millionaires fault. Now it's trumps is a complete disaster is needs to be voted out in November but not a hope IMO if Bernie sanders is the nominee. His base like trumps believe he can do no wrong.

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think the democrats will lose in November if sanders is the nominee for the democrats. His health is a big question mark and he's a left wing version of trump except his far more intelligent but some of his ideas and the price they cost make Sinn Fein look reasonable. He's no different to trump in that like trump sanders says to his base that it's the billionaires and millionaires fault. Now it's trumps is a complete disaster is needs to be voted out in November but not a hope IMO if Bernie sanders is the nominee. His base like trumps believe he can do no wrong.

To the contrary, Sanders is the Dems only hope of beating Trump.

What extravagant, expensive, ideas does Sanders have that make Sinn Fein look reasonable?

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

To the contrary, Sanders is the Dems only hope of beating Trump.

What extravagant, expensive, ideas does Sanders have that make Sinn Fein look reasonable?

Think about 2024 also.

4 years of Biden is much more likely to lead to Hawley/ Hailey/DeSantis winning 2024.

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

To the contrary, Sanders is the Dems only hope of beating Trump.

What extravagant, expensive, ideas does Sanders have that make Sinn Fein look reasonable?

Fair enough we are at different ends of this and we won't agree. Well his Medicare for all and having no private health insurance going on his own numbers will cost a bloody fortune like in the trillions at the top end. I meant reasonable in the sense of spending money not in terms of policy.

Sure Fox News and that crowd are just waiting and praying Bernie sanders becomes the nominee and they know they will have an easy time. Sanders in some but certainly not all aspects makes trump like somewhat better than he is. I mean trump and his allies will just repeat socialism over and over again.

Rjd2

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Fair enough we are at different ends of this and we won't agree. Well his Medicare for all and having no private health insurance going on his own numbers will cost a bloody fortune like in the trillions at the top end. I meant reasonable in the sense of spending money not in terms of policy.

Sure Fox News and that crowd are just waiting and praying Bernie sanders becomes the nominee and they know they will have an easy time. Sanders in some but certainly not all aspects makes trump like somewhat better than he is. I mean trump and his allies will just repeat socialism over and over again.

Tucker Carlson is on record of saying Bernie is a threat, heck Trump the guy who proved those "experts" wrong in 2016 is on record for not been comfortable with running v Bernie.

Ignore those who are saying Bernie has no chance, many of those are Never Trumpers who want the blandest Democrat to run and are still utterly clueless to why people are voting for populists.

You will get some on the right who think Bernie is an easy match up, they are still stuck in the 80s where they believe screaming Commie is a winning message, maybe in Florida but not everywhere else.

Look at Ireland, FF and FG master plan for dealing with SF was to scream IRA at them and its working out wonderfully for them isn't it?

Biden has the same percentage chance of beating Trump as does Bernie, anyone who says otherwise was sleeping when a lukewarm centerist lost to Trump in 2016.

Manic Moran

So I've been doing some quick research on tomorrow's vote here. Second election for me as a Texan, same polling station.

There are voter ID laws here, though they are quite loose. It used to be that the ID had to be no longer than 60 days out of date, now the law is 4 years. Further, if you don't have a valid ID, but you can claim a good excuse, something like a utility bill will suffice. (The polling station is not allowed question your excuse, they'll take you at your word if you sign the declaration).

However, further cementing my opinion of "A pox on both your houses", I've had a look at the sample ballots for both the Republican and Democrat parties. If you want a facepalm, here they are. Like most, I wager, I'll be voting on the Democrat ballot.

Democrat: https://www.bexar.org/DocumentCenter/View/14469/Sample-Ballot---Democratic-Party-Primary-Election-PDF
Republican: https://www.bexar.org/DocumentCenter/View/14470/Sample-Ballot---Republican-Party-Primary-Election-PDF

Given that the Texas legislature hasn't met in a year and a half, there are no propositions or referenda for enactment into law. (My old county in California has a couple of tax measures and there's one at the State level). There are, however, a ridiculous amount of positions to vote for, but what I find astounding is that they are also selected by Primary. A comparison of, for example, judges and sheriffs do not work like they do in California, where everyone votes on the nominees, instead, there are five candidates for Sheriff on the Democrat ballot, and three different ones on the Republican side. One republican has never, to my knowledge, ever been a cop, and one Democrat is a current cop who is currently facing corruption charges. And I certainly don't think that the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas should be between a Democrat nominee and a Republican nominee. I hope to hell that there are some independents on the ballot to vote for in November.

Then, once you've gotten through the fifty or so positions to vote for (47 or so consisting of people I've never heard of to form an opinion about), you then get to the party position ballots. I have to assume these are sensings to formulate the position of the Democratic Party of Texas and the Republican Party of Texas.

There is no way I can see that any proposition on either side is going to fail. There is no attempt at neutrality whatsoever. For example, the Democrat ballot (Prop #2) wants to know " Should everyone in Texas have the right to high-quality public education from pre-k to 12th grade, and affordable college and career training without the burden of crushing student loan debt?"

Hmm. "Crushing student loan debt". Not exactly the sort of unbiased statement which would pass muster in court.

Then again, hop over to the Republican ballot, (Prop #7) "Texans should protect and preserve all historical monuments, artifacts, and buildings, such as the Alamo Cenotaph and our beloved Alamo, and should oppose any reimagining of the Alamo site."

In fairness, the Alamo is considered a shrine (and you will be instructed to remove you hat upon entry), but does "beloved" belong on a poll? Is that a legal term I missed in law school?

There are eleven propositions on the Democrat ballot, all of which are very much in line with the Democrat ideals (Which is why I'll be astounded if any fail). There are ten on the Republican side, all of which are very much in line with the Republican ideals (which is why I'll be astounded if any of them fail either).

That said, unlike the Democrat ballot, at least a number of Republican ones are something more than generic party policy statements. All the Democrat ones are "A right to

---

whatever" such as "Right to be free from violence #6" "right to clean air #3" etc. Some more reasonable, such as a right to freedom from harassment #5". But the vast majority of these rights are actually obligations on other people to do things, not rights per se.

The Republican ones often take a restrictive tack instead of placing an obligation. "Do not restrict prayer in public schools" (#1), "Do not place regulations on firearms" (#2) , but even the affirmative ones are not particularly abstract. "Support the border wall (#4)", "Term limits of 12 years for State Representatives" (#8), "Make bail dependent only on risk to society and flight risk, not ability to pay" (#10) (The last of which I thought was a Democrat position, but maybe I am wrong).

Then after those there are another 70 or so positions for the Democrat party to vote upon. No wonder nobody could be arsed to show up at primaries, it's more trouble than it's worth. The Republican ballot does not have this addition.

Will let you know tomorrow how the voting process went.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

You say you don't want to want to argue policy, yet then you do argue policy.

No, I am not arguing the policy at all. You are getting confused, again.

You're saying that private heath insurance would be superior on a comprehensive public system.

I didnt say that either...

What evidence is there to suggest that?

You want to argue about something I did not say. Sorry but not biting.

You talk about electability.

Why then is Bernie winning and doing better than any other candidate in polling in the key swing states?

Finally getting somewhere.

Yes I am talking about electability. Bernie is doing very well among a certain set of democratic voters. The field was very open and he has emerged as the front runner, but now its narrowing, fast. We will see if Biden or Bloomberg can mount a credible challenge on him.

He may well be the Nominee, but a part of me cant see it. He isnt even a registered Democrat.
The Democrats are stuck either way.
Bernie is the nominee, then a large part of the moderate wing will stay at home and not vote.
If Bernie is not the nominee, the a large part of the progressive wing will stay at home and note vote.

Its hard to see them beat Trump given they are so divided.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

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

Ageist comment aside you do know that Bernie is the oldest out of the lot?

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

Ageist comment aside you do know that Bernie is the oldest out of the lot?

It's not ageist to point out that Trump and Biden are both displaying outward signs of the onset of dementia.

Bernie is not.

It is ageist to say somebody's age rules them out.

pixelburp

If Biden wins, it feels like it'll be 2016 all over again; the demographics most emboldened by Sanders will be depressed and demotivated by another Establishment careerist. Maybe this time the presence of Trump as President might persuade others to hold their nose, maybe more won't get suckered into another "Jill Stein" waste of a vote, but overall I can't help but see Biden as representative of "more of the same".

Trump made it clear enough the electorate want a change, for all his many, many faults, and don't get a sense there's a yearning to return to the kind of politics Biden represents.

Red for Danger

Joe Bidan's mind is failing it's pointless to say otherwise it could be a lot worse in 7 or 8 months time.
We've seen more of him in the last few days since the SC win but he simply couldn't capitalise on it without the gaffs.

Its not sure how much the general election debates matter but I believe Trumps aim will be just like before.
To try be seen as a " loveable rouge " if he can do that his work is done.
As most of the undecided just will tune in to see if he's the monster he's being portrayed as. I think last time in 2016 hillary allowed him to freely walk into that space.
It'll be easier for Trump when dealing with Bidan as he'll have the option of going soft on stage in the moment.
Warrens approch to bloomberg is how its done, keep it vicious, dont allow him be mr nice guy for the hour on stage.

Water John

Could someone explain to me the proposition that if Sanders is the nominee, it will negatively affect the election of other democrats on the ballots?
Is this something real or a red herring to frighten those dems running for positions, not to support Sanders?

sid waddell

Water John wrote: »

Could someone explain to me the proposition that if Sanders is the nominee, it will negatively affect the election of other democrats on the ballots?
Is this something real or a red herring to frighten those dems running for positions, not to support Sanders?

All the same stuff was said about Obama in 2008.

Sure how could a black candidate with a middle name Hussein and perceived links to the leaders of the Weather Underground win?

Totally unelectable, totally.

BonnieSituation

Manic Moran wrote: »

So I've been doing some quick research on tomorrow's vote here. Second election for me as a Texan, same polling station.

There are voter ID laws here, though they are quite loose. It used to be that the ID had to be no longer than 60 days out of date, now the law is 4 years. Further, if you don't have a valid ID, but you can claim a good excuse, something like a utility bill will suffice. (The polling station is not allowed question your excuse, they'll take you at your word if you sign the declaration).
...
...
...
Then after those there are another 70 or so positions for the Democrat party to vote upon. No wonder nobody could be arsed to show up at primaries, it's more trouble than it's worth. The Republican ballot does not have this addition.

Will let you know tomorrow how the voting process went.

This what people mean when they say that "America has too much democracy". The system is such a crock.

Can I ask, as it wasn't clear on non-primary sample ballots I saw, how do you get to vote on multiple districts in the US House or us that just for primaries?

everlast75

sid waddell wrote: »

All the same stuff was said about Obama in 2008.

Sure how could a black candidate with a middle name Hussein and perceived links to the leaders of the Weather Underground win?

Totally unelectable, totally.

genuine questions about Sanders..

1) Was he upfront about his medical history
2) was he upfront about his taxes
3) was he upfront about not signing the Magnitsky Act
4) is railing against the Democratic Party really the way forward.
5) is america okay with a self declared Socialist (given that the majority of them don't know what one is and are not prepared to learn)

Frankly, I am not 100% behind Biden. Anything I've seen about Warren has been impressive and so if I had a vote, it would be for her. But compared to Bernie, I think (and it just my opinion) that Biden has a better chance of beating Trump, especially if Biden is selected and Obama goes to bat for him. I also think that if a Trump supporter was wavering at the moment, he or she would be more likely to vote for Biden than Bernie.

Ideologically, I would prefer the more progressive candidate but there is an immediate and substantial threat to Democracy currently in the white house and removing him is a far more pressing concern than a shift in the Democratic party direction.

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

genuine questions about Sanders..

1) Was he upfront about his medical history
2) was he upfront about his taxes
3) was he upfront about not signing the Magnitsky Act
4) is railing against the Democratic Party really the way forward.
5) is america okay with a self declared Socialist (given that the majority of them don't know what one is and are not prepared to learn)

Frankly, I am not 100% behind Biden. Anything I've seen about Warren has been impressive and so if I had a vote, it would be for her. But compared to Bernie, I think (and it just my opinion) that Biden has a better chance of beating Trump, especially if Biden is selected and Obama goes to bat for him. I also think that if a Trump supporter was wavering at the moment, he or she would be more likely to vote for Biden than Bernie.

Ideologically, I would prefer the more progressive candidate but there is an immediate and substantial threat to Democracy currently in the white house and removing him is a far more pressing concern than a shift in the Democratic party direction.

I think at this point it's clear that there are going to be issues regardless whether it's Biden or Bernie. I think on GOP Senator or Congressman has already started to try open an investigation into Biden and Burisma given Biden's resurgence as a candidate, and I don't know if Bernie can attract enough of the moderates where it counts most.

The Senate is going to be the real battleground imo. Because even if Trump wins, the Dems taking the Senate would have a huge effect on what Trump can and can't do, and open him back up to stronger Senate hearings.

Joe_ Public

everlast75 wrote: »

genuine questions about Sanders..

1) Was he upfront about his medical history
2) was he upfront about his taxes
3) was he upfront about not signing the Magnitsky Act
4) is railing against the Democratic Party really the way forward.
5) is america okay with a self declared Socialist (given that the majority of them don't know what one is and are not prepared to learn)

Frankly, I am not 100% behind Biden. Anything I've seen about Warren has been impressive and so if I had a vote, it would be for her. But compared to Bernie, I think (and it just my opinion) that Biden has a better chance of beating Trump, especially if Biden is selected and Obama goes to bat for him. I also think that if a Trump supporter was wavering at the moment, he or she would be more likely to vote for Biden than Bernie.

Ideologically, I would prefer the more progressive candidate but there is an immediate and substantial threat to Democracy currently in the white house and removing him is a far more pressing concern than a shift in the Democratic party direction.

What genuine questions are there about his tax returns or the magnitsky act (which he supported in 2015 when it was upgraded)? Medical records, well people can ask the question, as to whether a (democratic) socialist can win or he should doff his cap to dem establishment, i guess thats opinion and only time will tell.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

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.

The BJP are a political party. The KKK are not.

The BJP is in India. The KKK are in the US.

The US in general is not renowned for its knowledge on anything outside of the US, particularly anything nuanced.

I agree that it should arguably be important, but it isn't. Politics is a dirty game, political operatives are often dirty operators. It is what it is.

You are entitled to your opinion that a DNC operative who has worked and has connections to the prime minister of India and his political party should not be working for someone in the US, you also have to be open to the possibility that you will be in the minority of moral outrage. The majority, very clearly simply do not care, be it through ignorance or whatever else.

The website you linked to initially is not reliable, as evidenced by the fact that they don't even have the job title correct. It is a murky business. There are no angels in politics especially as you get higher up the food chain.

You can strive for an ideal world, you must deal with the reality you live in also though.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

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.

The BJP are a political party. The KKK are not.

The BJP is in India. The KKK are in the US.

The US in general is not renowned for its knowledge, or interest for that matter on anything outside of the US, particularly anything nuanced.

I agree that it should arguably be important, but it isn't. Politics is a dirty game, political operatives are often dirty operators. It is what it is.

You are entitled to your opinion that a DNC operative who has worked and has connections to the prime minister of India and his political party should not be working for someone in the US, you also have to be open to the possibility that you will be in the minority of moral outrage. The majority, very clearly simply do not care, be it through ignorance or whatever else.

The website you linked to initially is not reliable, as evidenced by the fact that they don't even have the job title correct. It is a murky business. There are no angels in politics especially as you get higher up the food chain.

You can strive for an ideal world, you must deal with the reality you live in also though.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

It's not ageist to point out that Trump and Biden are both displaying outward signs of the onset of dementia.

Bernie is not.

It is ageist to say somebody's age rules them out.

Yes, because you are a medical professional who has diagnosed them personally.
Pull the other one.

I get it. Bernie is your guy, but drop the ageism. It is unbecoming.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

All the same stuff was said about Obama in 2008.

Sure how could a black candidate with a middle name Hussein and perceived links to the leaders of the Weather Underground win?

Totally unelectable, totally.

Bernie is not Obama though.
Again, look at the numbers.

2008 vs 2020. Obama attracted way more people and had much higher voter turnouts at the primary.
If you think Hillary vs Bernie in 2016 was bad, 2008 was Hillary in her prime, going up against this phenomenon. It was cut throat to the extreme.
Plus, Bernie's agenda is much much more radical.

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

I think at this point it's clear that there are going to be issues regardless whether it's Biden or Bernie. I think on GOP Senator or Congressman has already started to try open an investigation into Biden and Burisma given Biden's resurgence as a candidate

Agreed. But hasn't this been tried in the public courtroom. And don't forget, Trump was impeached because of the Ukraine efforts. Hard to bring up one without the other in tow.

Penn wrote: »

The Senate is going to be the real battleground imo. Because even if Trump wins, the Dems taking the Senate would have a huge effect on what Trump can and can't do, and open him back up to stronger Senate hearings.

Agreed.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, because you are a medical professional who has diagnosed them personally.
Pull the other one.

I get it. Bernie is your guy, but drop the ageism. It is unbecoming.

But I'm not the person being ageist, you are.

Projection isn't nice to watch.

markodaly

sid waddell wrote: »

But I'm not the person being ageist, you are.

Projection isn't nice to watch.

Oh please, you are being ridiculous.

x43r0

Ukraine will be used by the GOP against Biden, as will the suggestions of dementia. I wouldn't be surprised to see the pedophile accusations resurface again even

This kind of stuff doesn't have to be proven in court to swing an average voter on the fence

Joe_ Public

I would expect a lot of trumo love for sanders if biden gets the nod, as in 'bernie was a good man, i liked him. But they wouldnt let him win. I know how he feels, those guys tried to take me out too with all those false allegations. But we didnt let them win then and we wont let them win now.....corrupt establishment joe etc'. A biden win would suit trump very nicely imo.

sid waddell

markodaly wrote: »

Oh please, you are being ridiculous.

This guy is another one to put on the ignore list I think.

Red for Danger

"~If anybody knows anything about winning the democratic nomination and what it takes to win the general election it is black voters.
And if senator Sanders systematically continues to underperform with black voters, and if we see him get Sheelacked, not just beaten, but Sheelacked, as we've seen him tonight in South Carolina thats an existential question about that nomination" ~RACHEL MADDOW

South Carolina, the black voters are old and just like old whites they're for Bidan. Sanders has good numbers right up to 45/50 year olds.
Sanders is leading national with black voters
She's deliberate misleading her audience.

everlast75

x43r0 wrote: »

Ukraine will be used by the GOP against Biden, as will the suggestions of dementia. I wouldn't be surprised to see the pedophile accusations resurface again even

This kind of stuff doesn't have to be proven in court to swing an average voter on the fence

Surely such a voter might be swung by Trump being impeached for trying to get an announcement into Biden, Trump's own dementia issues and Trump being a friend of Epstein/tales of him and Ms World competitions.

Foxtrol

Red for Danger wrote: »

"~If anybody knows anything about winning the democratic nomination and what it takes to win the general election it is black voters.
And if senator Sanders systematically continues to underperform with black voters, and if we see him get Sheelacked, not just beaten, but Sheelacked, as we've seen him tonight in South Carolina thats an existential question about that nomination" ~RACHEL MADDOW

South Carolina, the black voters are old and just like old whites they're for Bidan. Sanders has good numbers right up to 45/50 year olds.
Sanders is leading national with black voters
She's deliberate misleading her audience.

Talk about deliberately misleading people, Sanders isn't strong right up to 45/50 year old, per the exit poll his vote was less than half of Biden's in the 30-44 age group (47% to 21%). Those are not 'good numbers'.

Sanders lost every age group of black voters to Biden per the exit poll and for above 65 he lost 81% to 8%. Those are terrible numbers for a guy who had 4 years to try to build support among that community.

Foxtrol

Getting to the rest of your post

Englo wrote: »

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

Pointing to a poll to a different question than the one I posed isn't evidence.

A poll stating a person's preference does not mean he has energized a base of people to turn out and vote for him, especially when claims are that Bernie will bring in all these new voters. Only true evidence we have so far are the contests that have taken place and there doesn't appear to be a significant increase in new voters, definitely not against 2008 levels.

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.

As I've dealt with yesterday, I understand the anger but it doesn't make it any less idiotic to vote against your own interests.

It is like being so angry that they are out of chocolate ice cream that you'll drink drain bleach instead of having vanilla ice cream.

Maybe it is only one side listening?

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.

Bernie and his team had direct input into the commission that designed the rules for this race

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/time-bernie-sanders-rigged-system-against-himself-n1144361

[/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

The 2016 election was decided by 77,000 votes.

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.

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.

Yes, they can trust him on his record of leading practically nothing of note. What he is offering is a moral victory of getting through 4 years and doing minimal to substantially improve the lives of people but will be seen as 'fighting' for them. At this point Bernie is basically lying to his supporters or also losing his mind - he can't implement medicare for all given the bi-partisan widespread opposition to it and he definitely can pardon all those convicted for drug convictions, like he is starting to claim.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

Talk about deliberately misleading people, Sanders isn't strong right up to 45/50 year old, per the exit poll his vote was less than half of Biden's in the 30-44 age group (47% to 21%). Those are not 'good numbers'.

Sanders lost every age group of black voters to Biden per the exit poll and for above 65 he lost 81% to 8%. Those are terrible numbers for a guy who had 4 years to try to build support among that community.

Under 30s vote too you know, and sanders won that age group, just to be exact about it. I can understand the biden euphoria after sc, dude finally got a victory after 30 years trying. But its not all it was cracked up to be, sc has one of the oldest demographics in the country, it was a key biden push so there is absolutely no guarantee that will be replicated anywhere else. Sure, bidens going to do well with blacks but sanders' numbers are ok and could hold up. The msnbc crowing after sc was ridiculous, but thats how heavily invested they are in biden at this stage.

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

Could someone explain to me the proposition that if Sanders is the nominee, it will negatively affect the election of other democrats on the ballots?
Is this something real or a red herring to frighten those dems running for positions, not to support Sanders?

The gist of it is that whilst some voters feel that Bernie may make a better President than Trump as a person and vote for him on that ground, they may not be as willing to accept his policies being enacted. Since he can only enact what Congress puts to him to sign, such a person may decide to vote for a a Republican for Congress to ensure that those policies will not be enacted.

Voted this morning, about 10am. Six machines, four people using them. A computer glitch kept me waiting three minutes (printer needed rebooting). Machine made voting easy, resulted in a paper printout which was then scanned. The computer knew which district I was in, so the 120 positions on the sample ballot was dropped to about 20 presented to me. Only issue was it was at a school, had to leave my sidearm in the car. On that note, news article on local TV on Sanders’ gun policy and its effect in Texas. Since he doesn’t have a history of being as stridently anti gun as most of the rest, the theory is he might have a point of relative advantage here.

x43r0

everlast75 wrote: »

Surely such a voter might be swung by Trump being impeached for trying to get an announcement into Biden, Trump's own dementia issues and Trump being a friend of Epstein/tales of him and Ms World competitions.

I can see a narrative developing of "I'd rather vote for 4 more years of Trump than a pedo!". People really latch onto this stuff without asking for the slightest shred of evidence

Get something like this to go viral and watch people go nuts

https://streamable.com/1l602

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Under 30s vote too you know, and sanders won that age group, just to be exact about it. I can understand the biden euphoria after sc, dude finally got a victory after 30 years trying. But its not all it was cracked up to be, sc has one of the oldest demographics in the country, it was a key biden push so there is absolutely no guarantee that will be replicated anywhere else. Sure, bidens going to do well with blacks but sanders' numbers are ok and could hold up. The msnbc crowing after sc was ridiculous, but thats how heavily invested they are in biden at this stage.

If the poster said under 30's then you'd have a point, but they either lied or were pulling numbers out of their arse saying Bernie has 'good numbers right up to 45/50 year olds'.

Under 30's do vote too and in comparison to the other age groups they were relatively 'good' for Bernie, seeing as he only lost them to Biden by 4%.

MSNBC were talking about Bernie as the presumptive nominee after Nevada, with some losing their minds about it, and claiming for weeks that Biden's campaign was dead. They blow whichever way the hype is going, which is US news today. Talking about them being 'invested' is tinfoil hat stuff

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1234829718991572992

LOL at anyone voting for Biden today. The Never Trumpers all in on Biden should really be a giveaway for any supposed leftie how average he is.

Bill Kristol the man who supported the Iraqi war,a horrific war monger who lets not forget tried to run out a Republican in congress who had the nerve to say sorry for Iraq war and even worse suggested that maybe just maybe Israel should ease up on Palestine.

Rjd2

I mean yeah vote for Biden if its him v Trump but when you have so many other options, what a ****ing loser you are to say the least.

Joe_ Public

Foxtrol wrote: »

If the poster said under 30's then you'd have a point, but they either lied or were pulling numbers out of their arse saying Bernie has 'good numbers right up to 45/50 year olds'.

Under 30's do vote too and in comparison to the other age groups they were relatively 'good' for Bernie, seeing as he only lost them to Biden by 4%.

MSNBC were talking about Bernie as the presumptive nominee after Nevada, with some losing their minds about it, and claiming for weeks that Biden's campaign was dead. They blow whichever way the hype is going, which is US news today. Talking about them being 'invested' is tinfoil hat stuff

It wasnt previous post i was addressing, it was this comment - "Sanders lost every age group of black voters to Biden per the exit polls" - which isnt correct from results ive seen. Sanders led under 30s by 2 points. If you imagine msnbc are in any way neutral on sanders, then i really dont know what to say. They and cnn had the hots for buttigieg, sorry "mayor pete", for a while but now its back to biden as the race tightens up. I dont think there's anything very subtle about it.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

The gist of it is that whilst some voters feel that Bernie may make a better President than Trump as a person and vote for him on that ground, they may not be as willing to accept his policies being enacted. Since he can only enact what Congress puts to him to sign, such a person may decide to vote for a a Republican for Congress to ensure that those policies will not be enacted.

It isn't just that though.

The house seats that the Democrats gained recently are mostly in moderate suburban areas, where Bernie and his policies are deemed to be unpopular. It is thought that it will make it more difficult to keep or win similar seats if the candidate for the house has to run opposing many aspects of Bernie's platform.

There is concern that similar will happen in the states that have senate seats available. Bernie's path to winning the presidency doesn't look to align with where democrats can make gains in the senate.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

LOL at anyone voting for Biden today. The Never Trumpers all in on Biden should really be a giveaway for any supposed leftie how average he is.

Bill Kristol the man who supported the Iraqi war,a horrific war monger who lets not forget tried to run out a Republican in congress who had the nerve to say sorry for Iraq war and even worse suggested that maybe just maybe Israel should ease up on Palestine.

And Trumpers are all on Bernie, which should be a giveaway for who they think is easier to beat in November

Rjd2

Foxtrol wrote: »

And Trumpers are all on Bernie, which should be a giveaway for who they think is easier to beat in November

Are they though?

Tucker has sounded the alarm on Bernie and Trump is not keen to run against him whatsoever.

Look like any relatively sane person I loath those 2 dudes, but they can read a room much better than so many of the "experts" who got it wrong last time round.

Foxtrol

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It wasnt previous post i was addressing, it was this comment - "Sanders lost every age group of black voters to Biden per the exit polls" - which isnt correct from results ive seen. Sanders led under 30s by 2 points. If you imagine msnbc are in any way neutral on sanders, then i really dont know what to say. They and cnn had the hots for buttigieg, sorry "mayor pete", for a while but now its back to biden as the race tightens up. I dont think there's anything very subtle about it.

Well we're using different sources then

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/south-carolina-primary-live-updates-democrats-vote-2020-candidates-n1145296/ncrd1146266#liveBlogHeader

Are you talking about specific people at msnbc/cnn or the entity themselves?

Bernie and his supporters want to have his cake and eat it. Crap on 'the establishment' and the media and then cry when those people don't support him. I understand it politically, it works well for Trump, but I'd hope more people wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for it again.

sid waddell

x43r0 wrote: »

I can see a narrative developing of "I'd rather vote for 4 more years of Trump than a pedo!". People really latch onto this stuff without asking for the slightest shred of evidence

Yet Trump was named as raping a 13 year old girl in an actually filed lawsuit which went into quite graphic and grotesque detail.

It seems there are very different rules for Republicans and Democrats.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

Are they though?

Tucker has sounded the alarm on Bernie and Trump is not keen to run against him whatsoever.

Look like any relatively sane person I loath those 2 dudes, but they can read a room much better than so many of the "experts" who got it wrong last time round.

Trump got himself impeached trying to dig up any type of dirt on Biden. To say he'd prefer to run against Biden than Bernie is ridiculous.

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

Are they though?

Tucker has sounded the alarm on Bernie and Trump is not keen to run against him whatsoever.

Look like any relatively sane person I loath those 2 dudes, but they can read a room much better than so many of the "experts" who got it wrong last time round.

The fact Trump risked impeachment to try and sully Biden's name is a clear sign who he fears in the general. Whether he should fear Biden that much is a different story, but he definitely seems to.

sid waddell

Foxtrol wrote: »

It isn't just that though.
Bernie's path to winning the presidency doesn't look to align with where democrats can make gains in the senate.

The three most likely Democratic senate gains in 2020 are Colorado, Maine and Arizona.

Polls show Sanders is comfortably ahead in all three states.

Rjd2

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

The fact Trump risked impeachment to try and sully Biden's name is a clear sign who he fears in the general. Whether he should fear Biden that much is a different story, but he definitely seems to.

Its Trump, I genuinely don't think he realised what he was doing was wrong. He has spent a career of and I am been very kind here walking the tightrope regarding right/wrong.

On Bernie from the daily beast which is not popular in Bernie circles.

Trump has many flaws, but the man proved in 2016 he knows how to read a room. I'd take his judgement over the professional critics who have spent the last few years getting it wrong.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-2020-president-privately-tells-confidants-that-socialism-wont-be-so-easy-to-beat

Englo

sid waddell wrote: »

Yet Trump was named as raping a 13 year old girl in an actually filed lawsuit which went into quite graphic and grotesque detail.

It seems there are very different rules for Republicans and Democrats.

One is a political party, the other has become a cult. That's all you need to know, and for evidence just look at most Trump supporting posts on this thread.

briany

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its Trump, I genuinely don't think he realised what he was doing was wrong. He has spent a career of and I am been very kind here walking the tightrope regarding right/wrong.

On Bernie from the daily beast which is not popular in Bernie circles.

Trump has many flaws, but the man proved in 2016 he knows how to read a room. I'd take his judgement over the professional critics who have spent the last few years getting it wrong.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-2020-president-privately-tells-confidants-that-socialism-wont-be-so-easy-to-beat

I wouldn't say he knows how to read a room, but I would say that he was able to tap into a dark undercurrent in the American psyche and bring it right to the fore. He's definitely been able to read those people. I'm not saying that it was a positive thing to do, but it shows some degree of natural instinct which many politicians running against him appeared to profoundly lack.

pixelburp

There are many things broken in America. Donald Trump stepped into the limelight, and said, with simple, demonstrative language, "I can fix all the broken things". In some ways the rise of Trump is complex, but his actual campaign, and the manner in which he conducted it, was not. It was (overly) simple language, and big ideas. Build the Wall. Repeal and Replace. Lock Her Up. Make American Great Again.

Now, it has dovetailed into a full blown cult, so Trump's inability to fix any of these broken things (infrastructure, health-care, the dying Rust Belt) hasn't been called into question half as much as it should have been; but then that's the ability of the con man. It's not his fault, no no, look at this winning over here, don't look at the crumbling bridges over there. We're winning because I tell you we're winning.

This is the fundamental reason why a Biden nomination will gift Trump the election; because all he has to do, is point at Biden and go "there's the reason we're not winning as much as we are. There's the guy that's causing your coal mines to close, even though they're not closing 'cos we're winning so much", and honestly, who can argue with that? I think Trump is a repugnant, vulgar human being and while he should be judged on the successes or failures of his 4 years, Biden will simply reframe the narrative into "Us versus Them" all over again.