US Presidential Election 2020

BonnieSituation

Biden commits to a female VP.

Sanders says he's moving in that direction.

Honestly, Trump is going to get eaten up.

Water John

Yes, whoever wins this debate, Trump lost.

BonnieSituation

Water John wrote: »

Yes, whoever wins this debate, Trump lost.

Neither can lose this. It's actually a lesson.

Delighted.

Headshot

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Biden commits to a female VP.

I wonder would Warren be the choice

EltonJohn69

Headshot wrote: »

I wonder would Warren be the choice

Hillary ?

BonnieSituation

Headshot wrote: »

I wonder would Warren be the choice

Too old. You can't have 2 septuagenarians on the ticket.

The VP need to be younger as there's a higher risk of the older man dying in office.

I'd say it'll be Harris.
---

It's actually been a rather shrewd call from Bernie to stay in as it's made Joe look presidential in his responses.

Water John

Biden will have to pick some one to capture the Latino vote.

BonnieSituation

Water John wrote: »

Biden will have to pick some one to capture the Latino vote.

I don't know about that.

Who would you reckon?

eagle eye

Water John wrote:

Biden will have to pick some one to capture the Latino vote.

Maybe the Nevada senator?

sid waddell

I think Biden will pick Harris, but Tammy Baldwin is a decent option as she's from Wisconsin and on the progressive wing of the party - pro-Medicare For All, anti-Iraq War, and she's openly lesbian. I think though open to correction that the Democrats would get to keep her senate seat if she was vice president.

BonnieSituation

sid waddell wrote: »

I think Biden will pick Harris, but Tammy Baldwin is a decent option as she's from Wisconsin and on the progressive wing of the party - pro-Medicare For All, anti-Iraq War, and she's openly lesbian. I think though open to correction that the Democrats would get to keep her senate seat if she was vice president.

It won't be Baldwin. America is barely ready for a female VP nevermind a gay VP. In time. Not 2020.

Rjd2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It won't be Baldwin. America is barely ready for a female VP nevermind a gay VP. In time. Not 2020.

They need to be careful of pulling a senator from a redish type state also.

I know this will contradict it, but Kloub' would make the rust belt states even more difficult for Trump so understandably she is 2nd fav betting wise.

She won't do much for non white and youth turnout, but its possible Biden wins this on normie dem voters alone anyhow.

I don't actually think the fav Harris would help win any battleground states no not sure what overall value she would add.

Warren would add nothing to the Biden base, she proved in the last few months outside white college educated voters she has no base, and those voters probably will go to Biden anyhow.

Igotadose

Rjd2 wrote: »

They need to be careful of pulling a senator from a redish type state also.

I know this will contradict it, but Kloub' would make the rust belt states even more difficult for Trump so understandably she is 2nd fav betting wise.

She won't do much for non white and youth turnout, but its possible Biden wins this on normie dem voters alone anyhow.

I don't actually think the fav Harris would help win any battleground states no not sure what overall value she would add.

Warren would add nothing to the Biden base, she proved in the last few months outside white college educated voters she has no base, and those voters probably will go to Biden anyhow.

Harris would destroy Pence in the debate, though, which isn't enough reason to choose her but would be very entertaining. Remember she was a prosecutor prior to the Senate.

I'd say Klobuchar would be a good choice, personally would much prefer Harris but these elections are about the swing states and it's the one time every 4 years the midwest matters in US politics.

Brian?

Statistically the VP pick doesn't matter a damn. 538 did a great piece on it in 2016, I'll try to find it.

StringerBell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Too old. You can't have 2 septuagenarians on the ticket.

The VP need to be younger as there's a higher risk of the older man dying in office.

I'd say it'll be Harris.
---

It's actually been a rather shrewd call from Bernie to stay in as it's made Joe look presidential in his responses.

Harris would be a bit of a risk I think, maybe klobuchar?

spacecoyote

Was previously a lot of talk around Stacy Abrams getting a VP nod. Would probably be a great nod by Sanders if things were going his way as it would improve his standing in the southern states, but I'm not sure whether she would offer much of a bump to Biden as he already seems to have the Black vote & Southern states leaning pretty heavily his way

everlast75

Brian? wrote: »

Statistically the VP pick doesn't matter a damn. 538 did a great piece on it in 2016, I'll try to find it.

Surely the individual circumstances of each election matter?

The Phantom Jipper

I think Abrams would be good as she could make Georgia competitive but Biden is so old that he probably needs somebody like Harris, or run the risk of becoming McCain in 08 having the spotlight on the shortcomings of his VP.

AbusesToilets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxYhsjjWfV4

What year is it again? I do wish there was an ability to fact check live during these debates, and call candidates on what they say.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Statistically the VP pick doesn't matter a damn. 538 did a great piece on it in 2016, I'll try to find it.

Given age of candidates, I think that'll shift this time.

nc6000

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Hillary ?

Is she not finished at this stage? I still don't understand why odds are being given on her being the next president.

Quin_Dub

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It doesn't make it as clear as it should.

Basically does Congress continue as is in the absence of a Congressional election.

Not quite.. The house stay as is, but in the Senate, basically all the Senators that would have been up for election automatically lose their seats and this time around that is mostly GOP Senators.
The Governors of the impacted states can if they wish , select a representative and have them be the Senator for the Great State of XYZ.

I'd have to go look but there are a least a few Senators that are in States with Governors from the other side so that could have an impact on control of the Senate as well.

But bottom line , if there's no Election , then Pelosi automatically becomes President in January as it currently stands

MadYaker

Trumps presidency is over. This time next month hundreds of thousands of Americans will be dieing from Coronavirus in overcrowded hospitals. No politician can survive something like that.

StringerBell

Wouldn't put it past him actually, but absolutely this has harmed his re election hopes. It has to, and he is only making it worse with his actions. I agree that for any politician under normal circumstances they would be screwed, I don't like to deal in those kind of absolutes when it comes to Trump though.

Quin_Dub

MadYaker wrote: »

Trumps presidency is over. This time next month hundreds of thousands of Americans will be dieing from Coronavirus in overcrowded hospitals. No politician can survive something like that.

The reality is that most politicians the world over are going to be dealing with that over the coming months at scales relative to the size of their countries.

However , what will irrevocably damage politicians is when people recognise that the actions or inactions of said politicians contributed to making what will be a bad situation anyway, much worse.

And this is what will do for Trump and possibly quite a few others at regional and national levels around the world.

For example - Italy is in the absolute horrors , but thus far I'm not seeing any major complaints from people about the Government - Things are awful , but it seems that people see that the Italian authorities are trying their best and doing whatever they can.

Penn

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The reality is that most politicians the world over are going to be dealing with that over the coming months at scales relative to the size of their countries.

However , what will irrevocably damage politicians is when people recognise that the actions or inactions of said politicians contributed to making what will be a bad situation anyway, much worse.

And this is what will do for Trump and possibly quite a few others at regional and national levels around the world.

For example - Italy is in the absolute horrors , but thus far I'm not seeing any major complaints from people about the Government - Things are awful , but it seems that people see that the Italian authorities are trying their best and doing whatever they can.

Agreed. Most governments are acting fairly quickly and had little-to-no advance time to prepare for it, and are dealing with it as best they can. Even here in Ireland we have a caretaker government who most of the country essentially told to f*ck off, but who are throwing themselves into doing what needs to be done and acting as solidly as possible.

Trump downplayed and ignored it for as long as possible, even holding rallies with thousands of people, and calling it a Democratic hoax. Now he can't deny the reality of it and his inaction and lack of learning from what other countries are having to do is going to cost thousands of unnecessary deaths. And every time he talks about how he's not responsible, saying what about Biden and H1N1, how great they're actually doing because Wall Street will be happy with the interest rate... he's showing that he is in no way fit to lead this crisis, and that will be remembered and used against him come November.

Joe_ Public

Above all this is what will be remembered about the trump presidency, and that is saying something, the guy who dithered and deflected in the face of the countrys biggest emergency in decades. Remember george w getting slaughtered for flying over new orleans and releasing a photo of him staring wistfully out the window? Small beer compared to this. People want their guy to be presidential at the very least, this guy never had a chance. In any rational society he should be toast, but predictions have a tendency to go awry of late.

Water John

As was said in 2016, who do you want to take the call at 3 am? People picked Trump and it was always a question of what would happen when he faced a real emergency.
US, because of their international role in disease prevention, should have been able to take action very early.
Despite Trump stripping down the key office involved, he still has Fauci and Birx, who are very good. Just let them do their job.
Trump spent time, farting around on a new test, when one was already available.

eagle eye

Igotadose wrote:

Harris would destroy Pence in the debate, though, which isn't enough reason to choose her but would be very entertaining. Remember she was a prosecutor prior to the Senate.

Remember she had an affair with a man 30 years older than her. Do you think she'll get a free ride on that against Pence? She talks about being a woman of her word, Pence brings it up, she talks about family, Pence brings it up.
She would be an awful choice.

The Phantom Jipper

eagle eye wrote: »

Remember she had an affair with a man 30 years older than her. Do you think she'll get a free ride on that against Pence? She talks about being a woman of her word, Pence brings it up, she talks about family, Pence brings it up.
She would be an awful choice.

I know Democrat voters generally hold their politicians to different standards, but Trump was apparently having unprotected sex with a porn star while his wife was in hospital having given birth to their youngest son. Pence or anyone else is in no position to play the family values card.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

Remember she had an affair with a man 30 years older than her. Do you think she'll get a free ride on that against Pence? She talks about being a woman of her word, Pence brings it up, she talks about family, Pence brings it up.
She would be an awful choice.

And do you think if Pence brings that up, she couldn't absolutely trounce his boss for the multiple affairs, rape allegations etc? The two of them have zero legs to stand on and anyone open to convincing will see that in a second.

That is nowhere near enough to write her off.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

And do you think if Pence brings that up, she couldn't absolutely trounce his boss for the multiple affairs, rape allegations etc? The two of them have zero legs to stand on and anyone open to convincing will see that in a second.

I think she gets destroyed in any debate with Pence. She won't be facing Trump, she'll be facing Pence who is as clean as they come in that area.
Men don't get nearly as tarnished by this stuff as women.

AbusesToilets

everlast75 wrote: »

And do you think if Pence brings that up, she couldn't absolutely trounce his boss for the multiple affairs, rape allegations etc? The two of them have zero legs to stand on and anyone open to convincing will see that in a second.

That is nowhere near enough to write her off.

The fact she's a pretty awful candidate, with a long history as the DA for locking up minorities. Not to mention her general veneer of insincerity and corporate backing. There's a reason her campaign flamed out.

MadYaker

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The reality is that most politicians the world over are going to be dealing with that over the coming months at scales relative to the size of their countries.

However , what will irrevocably damage politicians is when people recognise that the actions or inactions of said politicians contributed to making what will be a bad situation anyway, much worse.

And this is what will do for Trump and possibly quite a few others at regional and national levels around the world.

For example - Italy is in the absolute horrors , but thus far I'm not seeing any major complaints from people about the Government - Things are awful , but it seems that people see that the Italian authorities are trying their best and doing whatever they can.

The Italian government were extremely slow to act despite warnings from the WHO and elsewhere and as a result thousands will die who probably could have been saved. The Americans are exactly the same. It’ll be even worse there because they have less capacity in their health system than the Italians do and massively obese population.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

I think she gets destroyed in any debate with Pence. She won't be facing Trump, she'll be facing Pence who is as clean as they come in that area.
Men don't get nearly as tarnished by this stuff as women.

Destroyed by what metric? Who do you think will be convinced by the pearl clutching Pence?

And do you not think there's a direct contradiction between Pence having an issue with Harris and not having one with Trump?

As I said - you have to work on those willing to listen to reason.

A 3 year old could deal with any of those type of questions. Harris would be formidable.

Whether she helps win the swing states or electoral heartlands is another question.

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

Destroyed by what metric? Who do you think will be convinced by the pearl clutching Pence?

And do you not think there's a direct contradiction between Pence having an issue with Harris and not having one with Trump?

As I said - you have to work on those willing to listen to reason.

A 3 year old could deal with any of those type of questions. Harris would be formidable.

Whether she helps win the swing states or electoral heartlands is another question.

Regardless of Harris' own flaws and history, she has 3+ years of Trump's presidency and 73 years of Trump's life to throw at Pence. It won't be about attacking Pence, it'll be about attacking the Trump Admin as a whole

Brian?

everlast75 wrote: »

Surely the individual circumstances of each election matter?

I would have thought that, but the data doesn't support it.

Even the pick of Palin didn't make a difference statistically. I thought it would have driven voters away from McCain, but it really didn't matter a damn.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

I think she gets destroyed in any debate with Pence. She won't be facing Trump, she'll be facing Pence who is as clean as they come in that area.
Men don't get nearly as tarnished by this stuff as women.

Have you ever seen Pence debate anyone?

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

As I said - you have to work on those willing to listen to reason.

The majority of those watching don't really listen. The outcome for the majority will be that she's a slut.
You mention those willing to listen, that's a very small percentage of the electorate. That's why we have slogans and short advertisement messages.

Foxtrol

All this talk of Pence but I won't be a bit surprised if Trump tries to make him the fall guy for the absolute disaster to come and 'fires' him for another VP for 2020, like Nikki Haley.

Pence knows where a lot of the bodies are buried so it would be a big gamble that he didn't talk.

Foxtrol

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's actually been a rather shrewd call from Bernie to stay in as it's made Joe look presidential in his responses.

Not sure about shrewd. It wasn't as if Bernie went soft on Biden to allow him to look presidential.

Bernie supporters did help Biden though, the way they spoke about him in the run up set the bar so low that anything above Biden forgetting where he was would be seen as a strong performance.

Any talk of being shrewd or anything like that goes out the window if Bernie doesn't drop out on Wednesday. There is basically no path for him to get more delegates than Biden and at this point Bernie is actually putting people's lives by dragging it on.

rossie1977

Harris would wipe the floor with Pence or Trump in a one on one debate.

eagle eye

rossie1977 wrote:

Harris would wipe the floor with Pence or Trump in a one on one debate.

She will come me out of any debate with the tag 'slut'.

ELM327

rossie1977 wrote: »

Harris would wipe the floor with Pence or Trump in a one on one debate.

Yes, but only in the eyes of the democrats.
Which, as they need to steal middle of the road votes from Trump, is irrelevant.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

She will come me out of any debate with the tag 'slut'.

no offence, but I'm taking from your post the tag is *your* interpretation, and not the "average joe" take...

everlast75

Could this be Mitch seeing the writing on the wall for November?


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/mcconnell-judges-republicans.html

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

no offence, but I'm taking from your post the tag is *your* interpretation, and not the "average joe" take...

My post is telling you how the average Joe will see it, not my personal opinion.

MadYaker

everlast75 wrote: »

Could this be Mitch seeing the writing on the wall for November?


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/mcconnell-judges-republicans.html

Haha Mitch is such a snake but he’s smart. Trump even knows he’s fcuked, why else would he be trying to buy a vaccine under the table from Germany.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

My post is telling you how the average Joe will see it, not my personal opinion.

You feel you’ve a very keen insight into the mind of the “average Joe”, why is that?

I seriously doubt she’ll be tagged as a slut in a debate. Maybe in twitter campaigns and Superpac ads, but it would be stupid to bring up in a debate.

rossie1977

The moderator controls debates not the candidates.

A relationship from 26 years ago wouldn't even be up for discussion on a live debate.

By the time September/October comes around health and the economy will be the only two things that matter to politicians, voters and the media if things continue the way they are for any extended period.