US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2

If you want to talk about betting Biden at 7/5 implying a 40% chance of victory in November seems quite generous, to suggest otherwise you have to argue that the intense polling which has Biden clearly ahead in match up's, Biden's crushing win in the primary and the current horrific circumstances aren't relevant.

Best of luck with that.

marno21

Klobuchar being vetted for VP

https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1263562668838879232

No surprise to see her in the running really given how far she went in the primaries. Surely quite a wide field being vetted alongside her

StringerBell

One of my top picks for VP.

Carfacemandog

Terrible call, it would be like Bernie going with Warren had he won. Obama when he was the young, first black nominee with a left wing campaign, picked old man centrist Biden for a reason. Unless Warren has turned it down, this looks like a case of the corporate wing of the democrats shooting themselves in the face for ideologies sake in my opinion.

This has Tim Kaine 2.0, and another refusal to show much compromise to bring the party closer together, written all over it in my opinion.

StringerBell

I think it makes perfect sense if you look at the electoral map, Biden brings the black vote and everything else associated with the Obama administration. The VP doesn't need to do that, the VP appealing to middle America and moderates is exactly what is needed for the coming election, not a radical or perceived radical choice to give any of the moderates of those in the rust belt/middle America any pause for thought.

I'd also suggest that as they are vetting multiple candidates it would be best to hold off on calling it a terrible call, as they only call being made would be to vet someone for a potential position. It would be a terrible call not to vet a potential candidate surely

The Nal

Well hes kind of stuck now because he has to pick a woman. Which is ridiculous. But she is one of many who they're vetting at the moment.

Carfacemandog

StringerBell wrote: »

I think it makes perfect sense if you look at the electoral map, Biden brings the black vote and everything else associated with the Obama administration. The VP doesn't need to do that, the VP appealing to middle America and moderates is exactly what is needed for the coming election, not a radical or perceived radical choice to give any of the moderates of those in the rust belt/middle America any pause for thought.

I'd also suggest that as they are vetting multiple candidates it would be best to hold off on calling it a terrible call, as they only call being made would be to vet someone for a potential position. It would be a terrible call not to vet a potential candidate surely

Biden was the guy to win 'middle America' and the rust belt, that's all I've been hearing since his campaign launched. That Sanders, despite his person being fitted to them like a glove wasn't someone they would go for because of policy (something the US simply does not vote on) but 'Scranton Joe!' would win them over. That is why Klobuchar does not make sense to me.

Warren on the other hand, beyond the fact that she would eviscerate anyone she was against in debates etc unlike anyone else on either side (ask Bloomberg), would make plenty of sense for attracting the under-40 voters who were the driving force behind the 2018 'blue wave' election that saw them take back the house strongly, and while not taking the Senate, at least beating forecasts in it (a Senate that is very much in play this year). Since then obviously this group has only grown in numbers while the boomer demographic has naturally shrank, and very, very importantly... these people are way more likely to vote Democrat down ballot as opposed to a farmer who was happy with everything the Trump admin were doing until it affected them personally.

There is also the fact that I flat out do not trust anyone even mildly politically engaged still claiming to be 'independent' or 'not fully decided' after what we have seen from the Trump admin over the last 3.5 years, and I think motivating younger voters who feel neither party have attempted to speak for them is a much wiser choice. Many studies have shown that the rust belt switch was far more to do with racial resentment than economic anxiety, and the longer they continue to support Trump or look the other way when he screws them so long as he pushes the right 'emotional' buttons, the more and more I have become inclined to agree with this.

We've been hearing all about compromise etc while Sanders has been getting called a Nazi from media surrogates of his own party, and I think going with a Klobuchar, Buttigieg, etc will really drive show that to be the fallacy it increasingly seems to be.

Quin_Dub

I think the latest Fox News Poll gives a bit of insight into the areas that Biden might need help.

In terms of Policy areas , the only place that Trump has a (narrow) lead is on the economy , Biden has strong leads on everything else.

In terms of demographics , he is WAY more popular with Women than Trump (or Clinton) , he is less popular among Black voters than Clinton was (still way ahead of Trump though).

Generally that Fox Poll has very little for Trump/GOP to cling to , it's fairly awful all round at this stage - But 5 months is a very long time.

StringerBell

I'm on the mobile and there's too much here for me to get back to considering how annoying it is to write long posts on the mobile but I'll return to this later

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Biden was the guy to win 'middle America' and the rust belt, that's all I've been hearing since his campaign launched. That Sanders, despite his person being fitted to them like a glove wasn't someone they would go for because of policy (something the US simply does not vote on) but 'Scranton Joe!' would win them over. That is why Klobuchar does not make sense to me.

Warren on the other hand, beyond the fact that she would eviscerate anyone she was against in debates etc unlike anyone else on either side (ask Bloomberg), would make plenty of sense for attracting the under-40 voters who were the driving force behind the 2018 'blue wave' election that saw them take back the house strongly, and while not taking the Senate, at least beating forecasts in it (a Senate that is very much in play this year). Since then obviously this group has only grown in numbers while the boomer demographic has naturally shrank, and very, very importantly... these people are way more likely to vote Democrat down ballot as opposed to a farmer who was happy with everything the Trump admin were doing until it affected them personally.

There is also the fact that I flat out do not trust anyone even mildly politically engaged still claiming to be 'independent' or 'not fully decided' after what we have seen from the Trump admin over the last 3.5 years, and I think motivating younger voters who feel neither party have attempted to speak for them is a much wiser choice. Many studies have shown that the rust belt switch was far more to do with racial resentment than economic anxiety, and the longer they continue to support Trump or look the other way when he screws them so long as he pushes the right 'emotional' buttons, the more and more I have become inclined to agree with this.

We've been hearing all about compromise etc while Sanders has been getting called a Nazi from media surrogates of his own party, and I think going with a Klobuchar, Buttigieg, etc will really drive show that to be the fallacy it increasingly seems to be.

Foxtrol

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Biden was the guy to win 'middle America' and the rust belt, that's all I've been hearing since his campaign launched. That Sanders, despite his person being fitted to them like a glove wasn't someone they would go for because of policy (something the US simply does not vote on) but 'Scranton Joe!' would win them over. That is why Klobuchar does not make sense to me.

Biden absolutely destroyed Sanders in the rust belt and 'middle America' voters during the primary, so those claims weren't wrong for democrat voters anyway.

I wouldn't be a huge fan of her as a VP pick but like Biden playing a low risk 'hiding in his basement' campaign at this point there is no need to do something crazy and lose momentum. She strengthens a point of strength without any risk of blow back.

Warren on the other hand, beyond the fact that she would eviscerate anyone she was against in debates etc unlike anyone else on either side (ask Bloomberg), would make plenty of sense for attracting the under-40 voters who were the driving force behind the 2018 'blue wave' election that saw them take back the house strongly, and while not taking the Senate, at least beating forecasts in it (a Senate that is very much in play this year). Since then obviously this group has only grown in numbers while the boomer demographic has naturally shrank, and very, very importantly... these people are way more likely to vote Democrat down ballot as opposed to a farmer who was happy with everything the Trump admin were doing until it affected them personally.

Under 40 voter was the driver of 2018 but it didn't come from the far left Bernie/Warren camp. It was moderate suburban voters, either showing up or switching from GOP to Dem. I really like Warren but her pivot towards Bernie for the primary leaves the perception that a far left candidate is only one step from being president that is just giving Trump an attack forum to scare away moderates.

There is also the fact that I flat out do not trust anyone even mildly politically engaged still claiming to be 'independent' or 'not fully decided' after what we have seen from the Trump admin over the last 3.5 years, and I think motivating younger voters who feel neither party have attempted to speak for them is a much wiser choice. Many studies have shown that the rust belt switch was far more to do with racial resentment than economic anxiety, and the longer they continue to support Trump or look the other way when he screws them so long as he pushes the right 'emotional' buttons, the more and more I have become inclined to agree with this.

I don't get your logic here. You don't trust anyone that is not fully decided but then want to pander for the youth/far left vote (neither one has shown it will actually turn out). As you said, I don't trust any young or far left voter that claims to be on the fence at this point. Trump is losing his base and moderate republicans and independents are leaving him, the last thing Biden should be doing is invigorating them or scaring them away by selecting someone that fires them up.

We've been hearing all about compromise etc while Sanders has been getting called a Nazi from media surrogates of his own party, and I think going with a Klobuchar, Buttigieg, etc will really drive show that to be the fallacy it increasingly seems to be.

One of the pillars of the Bernie campaign strategy in both 2016 and 2020 was demonising the DNC and anyone associated with it. Are you still complaining about a few folk punching back? At least Bernie understands this time that the most important thing is defeating Trump, not trying to bleed every tiny victory against the DNC and ending up losing the general.

Rjd2

I'm not a fan of Amy K and Biden and its a totally underwhelming partnership to say the least.

However I'm not the voter who will determine the election and Amy is a really good call. She has won tougher races than some of the others suggested and is the type of politician that would help Biden nail down the rust belt and that will be game set match Biden.

What state does Harris and Warren the other 2 betting favs win for Biden that he wasn't going to?

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Amy K and Biden and its a totally underwhelming partnership to say the least.

However I'm not the voter who will determine the election and Amy is a really good call. She has won tougher races than some of the others suggested and is the type of politician that would help Biden nail down the rust belt and that will be game set match Biden.

What state does Harris and Warren the other 2 betting favs win for Biden that he wasn't going to?

It is arguable that Harris could help with getting out the black vote throughout the country (including swing states in the south and rust belt), Hillary would be president now if that vote didn't fall off a cliff in 2016.

Warren doesn't offer much and even has another issue that Massachusetts has a republican governor who will be able to nominate whoever he wants to fill her senate seat until an election. It could really hinder Biden for his initial period as president if the senate is tight.

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Amy K and Biden and its a totally underwhelming partnership to say the least.

However I'm not the voter who will determine the election and Amy is a really good call. She has won tougher races than some of the others suggested and is the type of politician that would help Biden nail down the rust belt and that will be game set match Biden.

What state does Harris and Warren the other 2 betting favs win for Biden that he wasn't going to?

Harris has as much claim to juicing black turnout as Klobuchar has for swinging rust belt states. An increased black turnout brings North Carolina and Georgia in to play and helps in places like Philadelphia and Detroit.

Manic Moran

Well, Biden has certainly affirmed he believes he's the candidate of the black voter.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/joe-biden-breakfast-club-interview-274490

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday emphatically defended his ties to the African American community — telling a popular black radio personality that he “ain’t black” if he was still weighing whether to support Biden or President Donald Trump in November’s general election.

(In the embedded video, it's part of the sign-off section at the end)

I'm OK with Klobuchar. I was going to vote for her in the Primary until she pulled out.

Water John

Biden has the Obamas to lock in the African American vote. It's that vote that swung him the nomination. Always liked Klobuchar since she quietly dismantled Brett Kavanugh. She'd certainly tie in the Mid West. That leaves the Latino and suburban vote. Is he ok on those fronts?

Rjd2

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is arguable that Harris could help with getting out the black vote throughout the country (including swing states in the south and rust belt), Hillary would be president now if that vote didn't fall off a cliff in 2016.

Warren doesn't offer much and even has another issue that Massachusetts has a republican governor who will be able to nominate whoever he wants to fill her senate seat until an election. It could really hinder Biden for his initial period as president if the senate is tight.

Joe wont have an issue with the black vote whatsoever as the primary proved and its a base he has always done really well with. He also will have Barack doing plenty of heavy lifting.

Maybe you could argue younger lefty black voters voted Bernie over Joe, but those voters aren't going to vote for Harris just because she is also black, their is serious differences there politically.

Amy also to her credit timed her drop out perfectly, did it the day before her state voted where she was fav to win which helped Biden immensely and hurt Bernie. Biden owes her.

The Harris endorsement of Biden meant absolutely nothing when it came.

peddlelies

Biden stirring the identity politics pot, wasn't it he who also said Romney would put black people back in chains?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html

"Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, outlined a slate of economic proposals Friday in a new television interview, but also ignited controversy by telling a radio host that black voters torn between voting for him and President Trump “ain’t black.”

The Phantom Jipper

peddlelies wrote: »

Biden stirring the identity politics pot, wasn't it he who also said Romney would put black people back in chains?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html

"Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, outlined a slate of economic proposals Friday in a new television interview, but also ignited controversy by telling a radio host that black voters torn between voting for him and President Trump “ain’t black.”

He was being sarcastic.

Rjd2

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

He was being sarcastic.

Yeah was a crappy one liner, not amusing but not as cynical as some are saying. Mountain, moehill etc.

Off to shower after defending Joe more than once today.

peddlelies

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

He was being sarcastic.

Don't think he should consider standup. Biden's record is atrocious, even if he was being sarcastic ( he wasn't ) it's not something he should be joking about.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"You've got more questions?" Biden replied.

"Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

Charlemagne responded, "It don't have nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the fact, I want something for my community."

"Take a look at my record, man!" Biden shot back.

Manic Moran

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yeah was a crappy one liner, not amusing but not as cynical as some are saying. Mountain, moehill etc.

Off to shower after defending Joe more than once today.

The host responded correctly, mind.

And humourous or not the intent, the underlying premise does seem to be that black folks ought not to have any debate on the matter. It will be interesting to see how black conservative commentators respond.

Rjd2

peddlelies wrote: »

Don't think he should consider standup. Biden's record is atrocious, even if he was being sarcastic ( he wasn't ) it's not something he should be joking about.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-tha-god-you-aint-black/index.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"You've got more questions?" Biden replied.

"Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

Charlemagne responded, "It don't have nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the fact, I want something for my community."

"Take a look at my record, man!" Biden shot back.

I don't really want to defend Biden, but saying "look at my record" isn't the worst thing a politician can say, you can argue his record is bad, but judging from how black voters came out for him in the primary they disagree.

Every experienced politician left or right always point to their record when it comes to questions about demographic groups, just up to the voters to decide then.

peddlelies

Rjd2 wrote: »

I don't really want to defend Biden, but saying "look at my record" isn't the worst thing a politician can say, you can argue his record is bad, but judging from how black voters came out for him in the primary they disagree.

Every experienced politician left or right always point to their record when it comes to questions about demographic groups, just up to the voters to decide then.

To be honest with you, I have little interest in who wins the election. Trump is as dumb as a bag of rocks and brings a lot of carnage but he's the only one willing to take on China and has a strong anti war stance while Biden is your old school corporate Democrat who will settle the ship and be much more diplomatic but do very little towards China since they've been in bed together for decades.

I predict Biden wins pretty easily in the end, and it might be a good thing for the country to try and calm political tensions as long as keeps the "blacks back in chains" comments to himself.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

Joe wont have an issue with the black vote whatsoever as the primary proved and its a base he has always done really well with. He also will have Barack doing plenty of heavy lifting.

Maybe you could argue younger lefty black voters voted Bernie over Joe, but those voters aren't going to vote for Harris just because she is also black, their is serious differences there politically.

Amy also to her credit timed her drop out perfectly, did it the day before her state voted where she was fav to win which helped Biden immensely and hurt Bernie. Biden owes her.

The Harris endorsement of Biden meant absolutely nothing when it came.

Getting out the black democrat vote during the primary is very different than energising and getting out the broader black vote in the general. Hillary's presumption that their vote would turn out (like the presumption the rust belt would turn out) is what lost her the election.

Foxtrol

Trump in his usual inability to get out of his own way, rather than letting the media run with the nonsense faux outrage about the Biden comments charges out and says he is going to force governors to open churches this weekend, despite not having no such power to do so.

Water John

Foxtrol wrote: »

Getting out the black democrat vote during the primary is very different than energising and getting out the broader black vote in the general. Hillary's presumption that their vote would turn out (like the presumption the rust belt would turn out) is what lost her the election.

The key reason Clinton lost was, the Rust Belt States. Biden is strong there and Klobuchar would wrap them up.

Carfacemandog

Foxtrol wrote: »

Biden absolutely destroyed Sanders in the rust belt and 'middle America' voters during the primary, so those claims weren't wrong for democrat voters anyway.

I wouldn't be a huge fan of her as a VP pick but like Biden playing a low risk 'hiding in his basement' campaign at this point there is no need to do something crazy and lose momentum. She strengthens a point of strength without any risk of blow back.

Your first paragraph just shows why Klobuchar is a poor VP pick for Biden. For a Warren or sanders she could would make sense. For Biden? No, it's just doubling down in the same crowd.

If courting the largest voting demographic, and the one who swayed 2018 in the democrats favour is 'crazy' then they may as well just give up and go home now.

Under 40 voter was the driver of 2018 but it didn't come from the far left Bernie/Warren camp. It was moderate suburban voters, either showing up or switching from GOP to Dem. I really like Warren but her pivot towards Bernie for the primary leaves the perception that a far left candidate is only one step from being president that is just giving Trump an attack forum to scare away moderates.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Warren if you think she pivoted. Towards Sanders in the primaries - she actually did the reverse, which is where her campaign lost its momentum. Whether it would have held it or not otherwise, nobody knows.

As for 2018, it's been well documented that under 40s far prefer the progressive wing of the party to thd corporatist one. They are willing to hold their nose to vote against Trump (something that can't be said for the corporatist wing of the party), but lets not fool ourselves into thinking younger Americans prefer Biden, Clinton, Buttigieg etc over Sanders, Warren, AOC and the likes.

I don't get your logic here. You don't trust anyone that is not fully decided but then want to pander for the youth/far left vote (neither one has shown it will actually turn out). As you said, I don't trust any young or far left voter that claims to be on the fence at this point. Trump is losing his base and moderate republicans and independents are leaving him, the last thing Biden should be doing is invigorating them or scaring them away by selecting someone that fires them up.

I do not trust many of those who are politically involved and considers themselves 'undecided', yet I do trust those who have shown they truly despise Trump but would need reassurances that the Democrat hierarchy do not, indeed, consider them (the progressive wing) to be akin to actual nazis.

One of the pillars of the Bernie campaign strategy in both 2016 and 2020 was demonising the DNC and anyone associated with it. Are you still complaining about a few folk punching back? At least Bernie understands this time that the most important thing is defeating Trump, not trying to bleed every tiny victory against the DNC and ending up losing the general.

Sanders lost, Biden won. It is Bidens job to bring the party together, as it was Clintons. Clinton failed by largely Ignoring sanders supporters, I would hope Biden does not make the same mistake.

I would be saying the exact same had Sanders won in the primaries and looked to make Warren, Cortez or someone of that ilk his VP nomination. There was a reason Biden was Obama's VP back in 2008 after all.

And to reiterate, down ballot is where I think this decision would hurt the democrats worst of all, and it's where they did so poorly in 2008 when they sent such negative messaging to those younger voters and the progressive wing of the party.

Water John

I can see your argument. Personally I'd be more radical but don't know what would be the surer to win, which I feel is the first requirement. I doubt if he'll pick a Senator unless the seat is very safe.

Foxtrol

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Your first paragraph just shows why Klobuchar is a poor VP pick for Biden. For a Warren or sanders she could would make sense. For Biden? No, it's just doubling down in the same crowd.

The presumption that because Biden was strong in the primaries with one demographic that it would automatically transfer into the general is exactly why Hillary lost.

It is an easy choice if the decision is either doubling down on a strength or picking someone that could turn out to be a weakness.

If courting the largest voting demographic, and the one who swayed 2018 in the democrats favour is 'crazy' then they may as well just give up and go home now.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Warren if you think she pivoted. Towards Sanders in the primaries - she actually did the reverse, which is where her campaign lost its momentum. Whether it would have held it or not otherwise, nobody knows.

I'm quite knowledgeable of Warren, she is a former republican and up until the run up to 2020 was pretty responsible with her policies and plans (or plans for plans). That went out the window early in her run, going chasing Bernie voters, but then later imploded when she tried to pull back again to put sane achievable plans for them.

As for 2018, it's been well documented that under 40s far prefer the progressive wing of the party to thd corporatist one.

Look at the districts that went blue in 2018. There weren't many AOC types flipping seats, it was moderates in the suburbs (heavily younger and female).

They are willing to hold their nose to vote against Trump (something that can't be said for the corporatist wing of the party), but lets not fool ourselves into thinking younger Americans prefer Biden, Clinton, Buttigieg etc over Sanders, Warren, AOC and the likes.

You've made my point for me. Those voters that love Bernie/Warren should hold their noise and vote for Biden. Who they want to try to get to the polls are the unlikely voters that Bernie and Warren haven't shown any capacity to bring in.

I do not trust many of those who are politically involved and considers themselves 'undecided', yet I do trust those who have shown they truly despise Trump but would need reassurances that the Democrat hierarchy do not, indeed, consider them (the progressive wing) to be akin to actual nazis.

You can have all the reassurances you want if you're still upset by throwaway comments, it doesn't mean you have the right to be pandered to with a VP pick, especially if it ends up losing the election.

Sanders lost, Biden won. It is Bidens job to bring the party together, as it was Clintons. Clinton failed by largely Ignoring sanders supporters, I would hope Biden does not make the same mistake.

I would be saying the exact same had Sanders won in the primaries and looked to make Warren, Cortez or someone of that ilk his VP nomination. There was a reason Biden was Obama's VP back in 2008 after all.

And to reiterate, down ballot is where I think this decision would hurt the democrats worst of all, and it's where they did so poorly in 2008 when they sent such negative messaging to those younger voters and the progressive wing of the party.

Clinton ran on one of the most progressive policy platforms ever for a general and still it wasn't enough for some cry baby Sanders supporters, who decided to sit it out or vote 3rd party.

Biden has the full support of Sanders and Warren and has already adopted a number of their policies. If those and the likelihood of the supreme court going conservative for a generation (if it isnt lost after 2016) isn't enough they'll find some excuse not to turn up in November.

Carfacemandog

Foxtrol wrote: »

The presumption that because Biden was strong in the primaries with one demographic that it would automatically transfer into the general is exactly why Hillary lost.

It is an easy choice if the decision is either doubling down on a strength or picking someone that could turn out to be a weakness.

Clinton was never strong with the rust belt, though. Tim Kaine wasn't either. Both were seen as bland and 'safe' but even before the election, people had lamented that Biden may have played better with that crowd - and it turned out of be true.

Trump on the other hand had issues with Evangelicals and the religious right, or so it was thought, and Pence was brought in to protect against that. Similarly to why Biden was picked for Obama.

I'm quite knowledgeable of Warren, she is a former republican and up until the run up to 2020 was pretty responsible with her policies and plans (or plans for plans). That went out the window early in her run, going chasing Bernie voters, but then later imploded when she tried to pull back again to put sane achievable plans for them.

come on now, if you are familiar with her you know
she has been in the progressive wing of the party since she first ran. There is a reason sanders was e couraging her to run in 2016 before doing so himself, and it's not because she was a central, corporatist member of the party.

Look at the districts that went blue in 2018. There weren't many AOC types flipping seats, it was moderates in the suburbs (heavily younger and female).

You've made my point for me. Those voters that love Bernie/Warren should hold their noise and vote for Biden. Who they want to try to get to the polls are the unlikely voters that Bernie and Warren haven't shown any capacity to bring in.

See, that "shut up and like it" attitude isn't how you bring differently minded people together, and is how you wind up with larger numbers than wanted staying home in November. If the democrats want to make that same mistake again, it's theirs to make. And again, I would say the exact same if Bernie had won and picked someone like Warren or aoc as his running partner.

You can have all the reassurances you want if you're still upset by throwaway comments, it doesn't mean you have the right to be pandered to with a VP pick, especially if it ends up losing the election.

Defending the labelling of a guy whose family died in the Holocaust as a mere "throwaway comment" is again not how you get those who supported him to show up in November, and frankly is more what I would expect to see from a Trump supporter defending one of his disgusting comments. Again, it shows a determination to not learn from past mistakes.

Clinton ran on one of the most progressive policy platforms ever for a general and still it wasn't enough for some cry baby Sanders supporters, who decided to sit it out or vote 3rd party.

Biden has the full support of Sanders and Warren and has already adopted a number of their policies. If those and the likelihood of the supreme court going conservative for a generation (if it isnt lost after 2016) isn't enough they'll find some excuse not to turn up in November.

It's becoming clear that you just have outright disdain for the progressive wing of the democrat party, which is a shame. Optically, Clinton made very few concession whatsoever to that wing of the party, and her clear hatred for the man and his supporters showed again in these primaries with her comments. If you wish to continue down that road, you'll be looking at 4 more years of Trump with another terrible down ballot showing, and no doubt will be blaming everyone but yourself for it.

hotmail.com

Biden is a car crash. Could America be about to replace Trump with an even dumber president?

Democrats as usual, happy to harp on about identity politics, forgetting their electoral base in the process.

Professor Moriarty

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden is a car crash. Could America be about to replace Trump with an even dumber president?

Democrats as usual, happy to harp on about identity politics, forgetting their electoral base in the process.

Where is your evidence that Biden is "dumber" than Trump?

Overheal

If this is a stupid question, ignore me. But, how wild would a Bill Gates presidency be? The right already despises him thanks to online defamation, so he has that going. He's a multibillionaire, but the moderates love him, which means the left hates him, that I think it could work. And he could just go into work and want to do something as President that day and the opposing Congress would say "But Mr. President, you can't, because we won't fund it!" President Gates just whips out his chequebook and says "Don't worry about it, I'll cover this," and he writes a personal cheque out to the US Treasury as heads explode on the evening news.

For Forks Sake

Overheal wrote: »

If this is a stupid question, ignore me. But, how wild would a Bill Gates presidency be? The right already despises him thanks to online defamation, so he has that going. He's a multibillionaire, but the moderates love him, which means the left hates him, that I think it could work. And he could just go into work and want to do something as President that day and the opposing Congress would say "But Mr. President, you can't, because we won't fund it!" President Gates just whips out his chequebook and says "Don't worry about it, I'll cover this," and he writes a personal cheque out to the US Treasury as heads explode on the evening news.

He could bring George Soros along as VP, just to double the outrage levels

Manach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Where is your evidence that Biden is "dumber" than Trump?

Biden: ‘You Ain’t Black’ if You Don’t Back Me over Trump

Hawkeye9212

Overheal wrote: »

If this is a stupid question, ignore me. But, how wild would a Bill Gates presidency be? The right already despises him thanks to online defamation, so he has that going. He's a multibillionaire, but the moderates love him, which means the left hates him, that I think it could work. And he could just go into work and want to do something as President that day and the opposing Congress would say "But Mr. President, you can't, because we won't fund it!" President Gates just whips out his chequebook and says "Don't worry about it, I'll cover this," and he writes a personal cheque out to the US Treasury as heads explode on the evening news.

Wild. Bill Gates would be crushed in an election.

peddlelies

Overheal wrote: »

If this is a stupid question, ignore me. But, how wild would a Bill Gates presidency be? The right already despises him thanks to online defamation, so he has that going. He's a multibillionaire, but the moderates love him, which means the left hates him

If everyone hates him what chance does he have lol.

MadYaker

Bill Gates is way too smart to run for president.

BonnieSituation

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Terrible call, it would be like Bernie going with Warren had he won. Obama when he was the young, first black nominee with a left wing campaign, picked old man centrist Biden for a reason. Unless Warren has turned it down, this looks like a case of the corporate wing of the democrats shooting themselves in the face for ideologies sake in my opinion.

This has Tim Kaine 2.0, and another refusal to show much compromise to bring the party closer together, written all over it in my opinion.

Warren is way too old to be a VP for Biden. There was no way that was ever countenanced.

BonnieSituation

Manach wrote: »

Biden: ‘You Ain’t Black’ if You Don’t Back Me over Trump

I mean:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-task-force-sunday/index.html

That was one briefing.

I watched that live. I'm a native English speaker. I still barely understood it.

Trump IS dumber than a bag of rocks.

For anyone to think that Biden is dumber is simply wrong and should have bleach injected inside them while a light is shone into the cavern where there brain might have been.

PyreOfHellfire

Manach wrote: »

Biden: ‘You Ain’t Black’ if You Don’t Back Me over Trump

A sarcastic joke. Ironically the same crowd calling out the media for being "fake news" are now trying to spin an obvious joke as a serious statement. :rolleyes:

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

Wild. Bill Gates would be crushed in an election.

The current president is a reality TV show star who is a supposed billionaire with multiple accusations of sexual assault and many actual cases of fraud. The idea that a tech billionaire with a history of actual philantropy behind him would get crushed in an election is irrational at best.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on the internet. "Imagine becoming one of the richest men on the planet by commercialising breakthroughs in computing and logistics, breaking the innovation barrier multiple times in one of the most cut throat industries in modern capitalism, tech. Saving hundreds of thousands of lives through your vaccine charity work. Donating billions to aid people less fortunate than you and leaving basically all of your hard earned money to the poor of the world in your will. Only to be scorned by internet yokels who couldn't even be doing their favourite recreational activity, complaining through conspiracy theories, if it weren't for your breakthroughs leading to the computers they use to moan about how evil you are."

is_that_so

Manach wrote: »

Biden: ‘You Ain’t Black’ if You Don’t Back Me over Trump

Someone allowing a catchphrase upstage them. It could well have been tested out in front of a mirror and that's where it should have stayed. Not the kind of silly throwaway he should be using at any time and he really can't compete with Trump on the dumb and the manifestly made-up.

StringerBell

Manach wrote: »

Biden: ‘You Ain’t Black’ if You Don’t Back Me over Trump

He asked for evidence he was dumber than Trump, that is going to take some doing which i eagerly await the attempt.

That doesn't scratch the surface for what would be acceptable as evidence he is dumber than Trump I hope the OP has better.

Professor Moriarty

Manach wrote: »

Biden: ‘You Ain’t Black’ if You Don’t Back Me over Trump

Do I have to start quoting Trump in response? Seriously?

Water John

Not batting for or against her, but it doesn't look good when your lawyer lets you go, as a client.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/22/joe-biden-tara-reade-lawyer

She may also be in hot water;
'Meanwhile, defense lawyers in California have said that they are reviewing criminal cases in which Reade has served as an expert witness on domestic violence, out of concern that she had misrepresented her educational credentials in court.

Days after CNN raised questions about Reade’s educational background, a spokesperson for Antioch University confirmed to the New York Times that she had not received a degree from the school.' From the above.

Rjd2

I don't read much into the lawyer "dropping" her,,but atm while I don't think anyone can say for 100% that Biden is innocent, the current state of affairs regarding the allegation and this is been very kind to Tara look very lightweight.

We may have further revelations and these things take time, but right now story is pretty much dead and Biden undeniably deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Trump for all his flaws knows he can't really attack Biden on this even if their was overwhelming proof (their clearly isn't] because he knows the chatter about his alleged assaults would get very loud.

pixelburp

Biden made his first public appearance in 2 months, for a Memorial Day tribute. Notably, he & his wife wore a (black) face mask. Needless to say Trump did nothing of the sort at his own Memorial Day appearance. Obviously given how politicised America has made CoVid, any number of readings can be made here - not least the continuing "he's so frail" angle against Biden - but personally, it's hard not to see it as blindingly common sense from the Democrat. If nothing else, he's practising what he had been preaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arEc0mCUebw

Brian?

pixelburp wrote: »

Biden made his first public appearance in 2 months, for a Memorial Day tribute. Notably, he & his wife wore a (black) face mask. Needless to say Trump did nothing of the sort at his own Memorial Day appearance. Obviously given how politicised America has made CoVid, any number of readings can be made here - not least the continuing "he's so frail" angle against Biden - but personally, it's hard not to see it as blindingly common sense from the Democrat. If nothing else, he's practising what he had been preaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arEc0mCUebw

Here's a random thought: Joe Biden is the only politician I regularly see wear sunglasses. He looks cool AF in fairness.

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

Biden made his first public appearance in 2 months, for a Memorial Day tribute. Notably, he & his wife wore a (black) face mask. Needless to say Trump did nothing of the sort at his own Memorial Day appearance. Obviously given how politicised America has made CoVid, any number of readings can be made here - not least the continuing "he's so frail" angle against Biden - but personally, it's hard not to see it as blindingly common sense from the Democrat. If nothing else, he's practising what he had been preaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arEc0mCUebw

There was a poll recently that only 8% of people in the US never wear a mask. In the Trump stronghold of Staten Island there was a video this weekend of a group of customers hounding a woman out of a grocery store. Trump in his usual stupidity is playing to that tiny percentage and looks like he doesn't care about those that are in the risk categories (part of his old base).

Like always it is all about appearances, Trump wants it to appear everything is back to normal. He'd be much better off politically if he pushed more folk to wear masks and social distance now so the spread decreased and everything could then get back to normal in the run up to the election. He is gambling again that it'll go away 'like a miracle'

BonnieSituation

Brian? wrote: »

Here's a random thought: Joe Biden is the only politician I regularly see wear sunglasses. He looks cool AF in fairness.

It's hard not to look like the cool wearing aviators.

Amazing how simple and dignified that all looked eh? People are going to get some serious side by sides with him and Trump over the next few months.