US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2

No such thing as a perfect candidate, the white guys will be attacked by the identity politics police and the establishment Democrats will be attacked by the hard left for not been radical enough.

Beating Trump is not all that complicated, take the rust belt, aka states he barely won in 2016 and he is goosed he he won't be winning states that Clinton won. Biden has as good chance as most of winning those battle ground states.

The Phantom Jipper

eagle eye wrote: »

If Biden runs, or any old guy, they are handing Trump a second term.

Biden is comfortably ahead in recent polls versus Trump.

BonnieSituation

I know it didn't matter to Trump in the end but what potential skeletons are there for Biden?

Also, delighted to see Warren wavering. Cannot stand her.

4068ac1elhodqr

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Biden is comfortably ahead in recent polls versus Trump.

You could earn x3 more by betting on Biden for POTUS, than Trump - because Trump is still the firm outright favourite.

One question would be: Is DT tiring of the role in office? As it may affect his motivation to run for re-election again at the age of 74. Does he enjoy the though of another 4yrs after 2020?

/ or prefer getting back to golf, hotels, casinos and the freedom of regular life. If the latter, who would be his preffered canidate on either side to replace him.

Ultros

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I know it didn't matter to Trump in the end but what potential skeletons are there for Biden?

If ( when ) it gets dirty and personal Trump will throw rocks in a glass because of the endless hours of footage of Biden acting inappropriately towards Children/Women.

If someone came forward with accusations it would severely damage his otherwise "clean" image and shock some people, whereas accusations against Trump just seem to brush off now and won't damage him.

After the pussygrab tape and numerous allegations he ( rightly ) can't sink much lower in some peoples eyes. While it's not a positive it does protect him somewhat in a new election.

Given Biden's choirboy persona and the general public probably not super aware of footage like below there's no doubt in my mind Trump will adopt the nickname "Creepy Joe".

Richard Hillman

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I know it didn't matter to Trump in the end but what potential skeletons are there for Biden?

Also, delighted to see Warren wavering. Cannot stand her.

I think the whole "Creepy Joe" thing will start to blow up. We're all Internet savvy here and have probably all see the videos but if Trump continuesly calls him "Creepy Joe", it will be something that will be inserted into every day conversation for Americans.

No matter if his actions around children are harmless or not, that sort of insinuation sticks. Just like "Crooked Hillary" did.

I think no matter where you are on the political divide, those videos make very uncomfortable viewing.

The Phantom Jipper

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

You could earn x3 more by betting on Biden for POTUS, than Trump - because Trump is still the firm outright favourite./QUOTE]

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Biden's odds are longer because he's competing against the Democratic field, and then Trump. Trump doesn't have 20 other Republicans to defeat before making it on the ballot.

If Biden is the nominee, his current polling suggests he would beat Trump, which was my original point.

4068ac1elhodqr

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Biden's odds are longer because he's competing against the Democratic field, and then Trump. Trump doesn't have 20 other Republicans to defeat before making it on the ballot.

If Biden is the nominee, his current polling suggests he would beat Trump, which was my original point.

Only to a certain extent, if he was so great, the odds would be still be double Trumps 2.0, but less than the current offering of x8.0.

The fact remains Bernie is ahead, then there's (less creepy, easy to market) Beto, and some guy called Yang who's offering everyone in the audience a free $1,000 at the end of every month.

Have a feeling Biden is about to have a major credit card bill from parading around in an campaign bus, only for Beto/Bernie/Yang to pick up the spoils.

A few more creepy videos, or just the existing ones getting from utube to the regular older folks living room tv, and he hasn't a chance against Trump.

The Phantom Jipper

Ultros wrote: »

If ( when ) it gets dirty and personal Trump will throw rocks in a glass because of the endless hours of footage of Biden acting inappropriately towards Children/Women.

If someone came forward with accusations it would severely damage his otherwise "clean" image and shock some people, whereas accusations against Trump just seem to brush off now and won't damage him.

After the pussygrab tape and numerous allegations he ( rightly ) can't sink much lower in some peoples eyes. While it's not a positive it does protect him somewhat in a new election.

Given Biden's choirboy persona and the general public probably not super aware of footage like below there's no doubt in my mind Trump will adopt the nickname "Creepy Joe".

I can't see that being a problem for Biden - an awkward exchange, in public, standing next to her parents, in front of X amount of cameras. I've no doubt Trump fans would try and imply something else but given what Trump has said about his own daughter / has allowed other men to say about his daughter / has said about children, I don't think it's in his interests to go down that road.

The Phantom Jipper

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Only to a certain extent, if he was so great, the odds would be still be double Trumps 2.0, but less than the current offering of x8.0.

The fact remains Bernie is ahead, then there's (less creepy, easy to market) Beto, and some guy called Yang who's offering everyone in the audience a free $1,000 at the end of every month.

Have a feeling Biden is about to have a major credit card bill from parading around in an campaign bus, only for Beto/Bernie/Yang to pick up the spoils.

A few more creepy videos, or just the existing ones getting from utube to the regular older folks living room tv, and he hasn't a chance against Trump.

You're still not comparing like with like - Biden has longer odds because the betting markets don't rate his chances of beating Harris, O'Rourke and Sanders etc. Also bear in mind he hasn't officially entered the race. The fact remains that current polling suggests he would beat Trump (55%/45% according to the latest poll).

A better way of looking at this to see who the bookies think the winning party will be. The Democrats are strong favourites to win by this measure.

I would prefer if Biden wasn't the nominee personally, but it's absurd to suggest Trump would wipe the floor with him, especially based on what we currently know.

Ultros

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I can't see that being a problem for Biden - an awkward exchange, in public, standing next to her parents, in front of X amount of cameras.

There's dozens of those "awkward exchanges" as you put it. Youtube "creepy joe biden" and you'll see multiple videos with millions of hits so it's certainty something that has garnered public interest.

The Washington Post mentioned Biden's behavior on their own official youtube channel as a talking point during the 2016 campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfpWL7IFAQ4

I'm not disagreeing with you that it would be highly hypocritical of Trump to attack Biden on such a topic, but you have to understand Trump's sexual reputation is already at deviant level whereas Biden's a choirboy. It won't damage Trump much for him to go down that road but it will certainty damage Biden's clean image.

Trump isn't one to care much about being hypocritical, he'll act on impulses whether his campaign tell him to do something or not. If it is Trump and Biden the topic will come up, what else if he going to attack Biden on? I can't think of much really. Biden is a good candidate.

4068ac1elhodqr

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

... markets don't rate his chances of beating Harris, O'Rourke and Sanders etc. ...

Exactly, will have a very hard time beating other (much less creepy) Democrats, nevermind anyone else.

The Phantom Jipper

Ultros wrote: »

There's dozens of those "awkward exchanges" as you put it. Youtube "creepy joe biden" and you'll see multiple videos with millions of hits so it's certainty something that has garnered public interest.

The Washington Post mentioned Biden's behavior on their own official youtube channel as a talking point during the 2016 campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfpWL7IFAQ4

I'm not disagreeing with you that it would be highly hypocritical of Trump to attack Biden on such a topic, but you have to understand Trump's sexual reputation is already at deviant level whereas Biden's a choirboy. It won't damage Trump much for him to go down that road but it will certainty damage Biden's clean image.

Trump isn't one to care much about being hypocritical, he'll act on impulses whether his campaign tell him to do something or not. If it is Trump and Biden the topic will come up, what else if he going to attack Biden on? I can't think of much really. Biden is a good candidate.

Being gregarious and prone to social gaffes is somewhat on brand for Biden, but you could well be right if there are more like this out there, Trump could drag it down to this level despite some of the shocking things he'd said or allowed be said about his own daughter. Given that Democratic voters are likely to inflict a higher price on perceived lechery (whether real or not), it could be a net positive for him.

The Phantom Jipper

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Exactly, will have a very hard time beating other (much less creepy) Democrats, nevermind anyone else.

Glad we're in agreement, it's a fairly formidable Democratic field. Whoever emerges will likely be the favourite to win the Presidency, especially if that person is Biden, based on current polling.

4068ac1elhodqr

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Glad we're in agreement, it's a fairly formidable Democratic field. Whoever emerges will likely be the favourite to win the Presidency, especially if that person is Biden, based on current polling.

Not exactly, I said Biden will have a hard time beating the other Dems.

As for the actual POTUS can only see Yang beating DT, or maybe Beto with a bit of a chance.

The bigger question is whether or not Trump want's to face another load of years in the spotlight, as motivation will affect performance. He could if he wanted, relax into his late 70's on a sunny golf course.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

I'm not sure Beto can beat Trump... I'm not even remotely convinced he will do that well in primaries against Harris and Sanders.

rossie1977

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

You could earn x3 more by betting on Biden for POTUS, than Trump - because Trump is still the firm outright favourite.

Trump is only favourite because there is no Dem candidate, once field starts to shrink you will see different betting.

Latest Emerson poll has Biden leading Trump nationally by 10. Biden leading in Wisconsin by 8, Biden leading in Michigan by 8 (two of the three key races with Pennsylvania). Trump is only leading in Texas vs Biden by 1, Arizona is a tie and New Hampshire which Clinton just scraped has Biden winning by 10

4068ac1elhodqr

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump is only favourite because there is no Dem candidate, once field starts to shrink you will see different betting.

Maybe, or maybe not, only time will tell. Polls at this early stage in the game are best used for hanging washing on outdoors.

BonnieSituation

Ultros wrote: »

If ( when ) it gets dirty and personal Trump will throw rocks in a glass because of the endless hours of footage of Biden acting inappropriately towards Children/Women.

If someone came forward with accusations it would severely damage his otherwise "clean" image and shock some people, whereas accusations against Trump just seem to brush off now and won't damage him.

After the pussygrab tape and numerous allegations he ( rightly ) can't sink much lower in some peoples eyes. While it's not a positive it does protect him somewhat in a new election.

Given Biden's choirboy persona and the general public probably not super aware of footage like below there's no doubt in my mind Trump will adopt the nickname "Creepy Joe".

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

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I think the whole "Creepy Joe" thing will start to blow up. We're all Internet savvy here and have probably all see the videos but if Trump continuesly calls him "Creepy Joe", it will be something that will be inserted into every day conversation for Americans.

No matter if his actions around children are harmless or not, that sort of insinuation sticks. Just like "Crooked Hillary" did.

I think no matter where you are on the political divide, those videos make very uncomfortable viewing.

Aye. I was aware of those, sorry. I was more thinking is there anything else outside of the creepy Joe thing?

You're right about that sticking during a campaign.

eagle eye

Penn wrote:

Why? Biden or "an old guy" would probably appeal more to moderates who could vote either way but may be opposed to a woman being nominated, whereas progressives who do want a woman nominated and are opposed to old white guys being nominated would still be more likely to vote for one or Biden if the alternative is Trump.

The Phantom Jipper wrote:

Biden is comfortably ahead in recent polls versus Trump.

Please name the last old Democrat elected President.
The Democrats always win in a changing of the old guard platform. This is why the successful candidates have been relatively young men.
I think they would have won the last election with the right woman. Hilary Clinton was not the right woman and I said that two years before the election.
Now we are in a position where a woman has ran and failed so that option is not a good one this time around.
42-55 is the age group the Dems need to be looking at for a candidate. Beto looks progressive so at this moment in time he would be the best candidate imo.
I've mentioned others but they are not in the running.
Trump will kick ass against an old guy. He will get down and dirty and if someone like Biden tries to stay out of it he looks old, if he gets involved he has moved out of his comfort zone. No chance he beats Trump.

pixelburp

Yeah, the republicans will have no problem flinging around all the dirt in Biden's ledger, no matter how hypocritical it may seem against the current Presidents own behaviour. Biden feels head & shoulders the Democrat's most gaff & controversy prone candidate, IMO electing him would be a disaster.

BonnieSituation

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, the republicans will have no problem flinging around all the dirt in Biden's ledger, no matter how hypocritical it may seem against the current Presidents own behaviour. Biden feels head & shoulders the Democrat's most gaff & controversy prone candidate, IMO electing him would be a disaster.

Nominating him might be a disaster. Electing him will be grand in their eyes.

Muahahaha

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

You could earn x3 more by betting on Biden for POTUS, than Trump - because Trump is still the firm outright favourite.

I backed Biden at 12/1 a few weeks back, he is now down to 7/1. I think if he can get the DNC nomination then he is in with a very good chance of winning the Whitehouse. If he continues to poll well v.Trump it might become a fait accompoli, after all the Dems are going to want to be sure whoever they select actually has a chance of beating Trump. Right now only Biden is in that space of being capable of beating Trump, maybe Sanders will move into it over time but not yet. Its hard to see Harris/ORourke beating Trump IMO, they would do okay but ultimately be remembered as gallant losers.

The Phantom Jipper

eagle eye wrote: »

Penn wrote:

Why? Biden or "an old guy" would probably appeal more to moderates who could vote either way but may be opposed to a woman being nominated, whereas progressives who do want a woman nominated and are opposed to old white guys being nominated would still be more likely to vote for one or Biden if the alternative is Trump.

The Phantom Jipper wrote:

Biden is comfortably ahead in recent polls versus Trump.

Please name the last old Democrat elected President.
The Democrats always win in a changing of the old guard platform. This is why the successful candidates have been relatively young men.
I think they would have won the last election with the right woman. Hilary Clinton was not the right woman and I said that two years before the election.
Now we are in a position where a woman has ran and failed so that option is not a good one this time around.
42-55 is the age group the Dems need to be looking at for a candidate. Beto looks progressive so at this moment in time he would be the best candidate imo.
I've mentioned others but they are not in the running.
Trump will kick ass against an old guy. He will get down and dirty and if someone like Biden tries to stay out of it he looks old, if he gets involved he has moved out of his comfort zone. No chance he beats Trump.

And yet he's far ahead in the polls in a matchup versus Trump.

eagle eye

Where was Hilary in the polls against Trump early on?

rossie1977

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, the republicans will have no problem flinging around all the dirt in Biden's ledger, no matter how hypocritical it may seem against the current Presidents own behaviour. Biden feels head & shoulders the Democrat's most gaff & controversy prone candidate, IMO electing him would be a disaster.

They are going to fling dirt at every Democrat regardless who wins. O'Rourkes already gotten it on St Patrick's day and Trump buried him before that. Warren's gotten it, AOC got it and she isn't even running.

Fact is right now Biden and Sanders are best placed to beat Trump because both of those appeal more to the those in the rust belt and the likes of NH and Maine than Harris/O'Rourke.

The Phantom Jipper

eagle eye wrote: »

Where was Hilary in the polls against Trump early on?

I suspect she was ahead, and it would have been equally absurd to say at the time that she had no chance to win.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

eagle eye wrote: »

Where was Hilary in the polls against Trump early on?

Around +18 until September 2015

eagle eye

The Phantom Jipper wrote:

I suspect she was ahead, and it would have been equally absurd to say at the time that she had no chance to win.

I said before she was nominated that she wouldn't win, I said when she was well ahead that it'd be very close, this was after we knew it was Trump.
I'm telling you now that Biden will lose. It's not only because he won't do well in debates against Trump, history is against him. Democrats Presidents are normally young, all the older Presidents have been Republican.

The Phantom Jipper

eagle eye wrote: »

The Phantom Jipper wrote:

I suspect she was ahead, and it would have been equally absurd to say at the time that she had no chance to win.

I said before she was nominated that she wouldn't win, I said when she was well ahead that it'd be very close, this was after we knew it was Trump.
I'm telling you now that Biden will lose. It's not only because he won't do well in debates against Trump, history is against him. Democrats Presidents are normally young, all the older Presidents have been Republican.

Forgive me if I don't bet the life savings on your forecasts. Biden could well lose, but the certainty with which you and others are asserting it is a bit silly, considering he's leading in head to head polls, and is perceived to have a competitive advantage in states that he needs to do well in, and all the other myriad benefits that come from not being Hillary Clinton, and running against a candidate like Donald Trump.

As an aside, he's a competent debater if his VP debate with Ryan was going to go by. Should he be the nominee, the debates likely won't be his downfall considering Trump lost all three against Clinton.

Penn

eagle eye wrote: »

I said before she was nominated that she wouldn't win, I said when she was well ahead that it'd be very close, this was after we knew it was Trump.
I'm telling you now that Biden will lose. It's not only because he won't do well in debates against Trump, history is against him. Democrats Presidents are normally young, all the older Presidents have been Republican.

Again though, I would think that would be more likely to swing moderates to his side, whereas Democrats would still be far more likely to vote for Biden if the choice is Biden or Trump. Given how close it was between Hilary & Trump, the election could absolutely be won based on attracting those moderates rather than appealing to the core Democratic base (who may prefer a younger or more progressive candidate, but would still absolutely vote for Biden over Trump if that's what the choice was).

Gbear

The actual swing of votes that would've been required to give Clinton the election was something like 100,000 spread across certain states, wasn't it?

The only rustbelt state in which Trump has a positive approval is Indiana (I'm using the data here), and they were important for him. And we've only seen 1 hearing on his corruption and criminality thus far. Those that are to come are hardly going to make his numbers improve.

I do not think the odds are good on him getting a higher proportion of the popular vote. It will require an even more anomalous spread of votes skewing the result through the electoral college than last time in order for him to win.

This is an absolute open goal for the Democrats. If they can't win 2020 they will be the weakest, most pathetic collection of US politicians in the history of the state. It's one thing to be caught napping once, but they know what the situation is now. There's no more excuses.

Frankly, it shouldn't matter who their candidate is. Irresepective of what skeletons they have, they won't be as bad as Trump's, regardless of their experience, they'll have more than him, whatever their level of competency, it'll be higher than his. They need to first and foremost be strong on the message to their own base to get their arses out and vote, and they need to be extremely proactive in fighting the anti-democratic schemes of the Republican party to suppress voting in Democratic-leaning populations.

Ultros

Gbear wrote: »

Frankly, it shouldn't matter who their candidate is.

It most certainty does. Do you think the likes of Spartacus Corey Booker would beat Trump? I don't think he would, people can see through him. The radicals would be on his side but the average moderate or independent I think not.

rossie1977

Gbear wrote: »

This is an absolute open goal for the Democrats. If they can't win 2020 they will be the weakest, most pathetic collection of US politicians in the history of the state. It's one thing to be caught napping once, but they know what the situation is now. There's no more excuses.

Disagree because unseating a sitting president is extremely difficult.

Couple that with fact Trump will continously point out stuff like economy, unemployment and Dow Jones numbers. Had Romney got in in 2012 the growing economy under Obama would have guaranteed him 8 years because immediately Republicans would have credited Romney not Obama.

Thirdly and it's a big one, the media are obsessed with Trump and will willingly or inadvertently help to re-elect him. We saw that in last election and he was only candidate Trump then...now he is President. If Trump holds a rally and Democrat holds a rally same time who do you think CNN, MSNBC, fox will air.

Professor Moriarty

rossie1977 wrote: »

Disagree because unseating a sitting president is extremely difficult.

Couple that with fact Trump will continously point out stuff like economy, unemployment and Dow Jones numbers. Had Romney got in in 2012 the growing economy under Obama would have guaranteed him 8 years because immediately Republicans would have credited Romney not Obama.

Thirdly and it's a big one, the media are obsessed with Trump and will willingly or inadvertently help to re-elect him. We saw that in last election and he was only candidate Trump then...now he is President. If Trump holds a rally and Democrat holds a rally same time who do you think CNN, MSNBC, fox will air.

Sadly, there's a lot of truth in what you say. Economic modelling predicts that Trump should win. This from Politico:


The economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it,” said Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of TrendMacrolytics, a research firm whose model correctly predicted Trump’s 2016 win when most opinion polls did not. “I just don’t see how the blue wall could resist all that.”

Models maintained by economists and market strategists like Luskin tend to ignore election polls and personal characteristics of candidates. Instead, they begin with historical trends and then build in key economic data including growth rates, wages, unemployment, inflation and gas prices to predict voting behavior and election outcomes.

Gbear

Ultros wrote: »

It most certainty does. Do you think the likes of Spartacus Corey Booker would beat Trump? I don't think he would, people can see through him. The radicals would be on his side but the average moderate or independent I think not.

It shouldn't if they don't make a balls of their campaign. There is no metric in which Trump is a better candidate other than being more racist and hateful, and the majority of the populace reject those as positive characteristics, and a majority of the populace are more in favour of Democratic policies, even when you take into account wedge issues like abortion.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Disagree because unseating a sitting president is extremely difficult.

Couple that with fact Trump will continously point out stuff like economy, unemployment and Dow Jones numbers. Had Romney got in in 2012 the growing economy under Obama would have guaranteed him 8 years because immediately Republicans would have credited Romney not Obama.

Thirdly and it's a big one, the media are obsessed with Trump and will willingly or inadvertently help to re-elect him. We saw that in last election and he was only candidate Trump then...now he is President. If Trump holds a rally and Democrat holds a rally same time who do you think CNN, MSNBC, fox will air.

In a normal presidency, he'd probably be at least in the mid 50's approval wise, precisely because the economy is, at least from a layman's perspective, strong (I believe the economic indicators are pretty poor, but I doubt that'll matter unless things take a dive between now and then), and perhaps more importantly, there'd be a spectrum of disapproval on a wide array of issues of varying strengths, and those could perhaps be addressed during the campaign, but instead, the approval and disapproval are strongly polarised towards strong approval and disapproval.

If you look at some historical graphs of approval here, you see a sharp contrast between Trump's approval and those of previous presidents. In one sense, it's troubling, because you would expect the actions of a president to have some impact (eg, Nixon's nosedives due to Watergate, GW Bush's skyrockets around 9/11) and for one to be so stable despite his blundering, exposed criminalty for which he'd be on his way to jail for if he wasn't in the Oval Office, nepotism, corruption, hateful rhetoric and madness, does suggest that the Democrats do not have a pariticularly large margin for error, especially with the way the electoral college works, but as things stand there is a 10 point gap between approval and disapproval, and I cannot see how that will improve drastically for Trump, if at all, and there is a much larger population of Democrat, Democrat-leaning voters and swing voters, than there is of bulletproof Republican voters that Trump can rely on.

There is a core of voters who would vote for a pile of fox droppings so long as it was endorsed by the Republican party. The Democrats needs to talk to everyone else, outmanoeuver the efforts of Republicans to disenfranchise them, and get them out on the day.

qwerty ui op

Ultros wrote: »

It most certainty does. Do you think the likes of Spartacus Corey Booker would beat Trump? I don't think he would, people can see through him. The radicals would be on his side but the average moderate or independent I think not.

What???
If you mean progressives, Booker would way down the list, he is the epitome of a centrist candidate.
If Sander was to pull out tomorrow, the majority of his support would go to Warren and Gabbard based on their policy positions.

A moderate/centrist in Washington DC wants to hold onto the status quo and thinks things are just fine the way they are.
On the face of it, words like moderate /pragmatist /bipartisanship sound great but in reality it's just a lazy, hopeful shot in the dark.
If you actually look into their policy decisions you'll see that 9 times outta 10 the GOP are screwing over regular people, and about 7 times outta 10 the Dems are screwing over regular people. A moderate is someone who's at about 8 times outta 10.
More and more people are seeing the truth of this.

70% of people want Medicare for all
58% for free college
over 90% for background checks on guns
80% want to raise the minimim wage
I don't know how many want to end the wars but I reckon its a pretty high %

People like Bernie and AOC aren't the radicals Their just people with a bit of common sense.

Ultros

qwerty ui op wrote: »

What???
If you mean progressives, Booker would way down the list, he is the epitome of a centrist candidate.

I disagree, anyone who backs the "green new deal" is far from a centrist. He's a show-boater, people see through it.

Biden is one of the few centrists who is running, hence he'll win the nomination.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Except for perhaps Beto, who is a positive enough chap, the democrats who are running are a fairly negative bunch.

qwerty ui op

Ultros wrote: »

I disagree, anyone who backs the "green new deal" is far from a centrist. He's a show-boater, people see through it.

Biden is one of the few centrists who is running, hence he'll win the nomination.

So you think Corey Booker backs the "green new Deal" because Corey said he backs the "green new Deal".
You do know that he could be making that **** up.

This is same guy who voted against Bernie's bill to bring medicine down from Canada so people in the US could get it at a fraction of the cost they're now paying. Most of these drugs are already made in the US.

Btw, That bill almost passed, 52 to 46 with 12 republicans voting in favour of Bernie's bill and 13 Dems voting against it.
Booker has recieved $267k from the pharmaceticul industry and many of the other votes against the bill were also in receit of 6 figure sums from pharmaceutical industry.
Just another day at the office for a corporatist democrat.

Ultros

qwerty ui op wrote: »

So you think Corey Booker backs the "green new Deal" because Corey said he backs the "green new Deal".
You do know that he could be making that **** up.

He seems pretty keen. Booker is irrelevant anyway, he won't get near the nomination.

https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=887

"U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) today joined Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) to introduce a Green New Deal resolution in both the Senate and House of Representatives that would create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States, provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for Americans, support family farmers, and counteract systemic injustices – all while addressing the existential challenge of climate change."

rossie1977

Emerson poll has Biden leading Trump by 6 points in Iowa. Trump won Iowa by 9.5 points in 2016 so that would be huge shift.

Fox News has Biden leading Trump nationally by 7.

MadYaker

Anyone know why Biden hasn't announced yet?

batgoat

MadYaker wrote: »

Anyone know why Biden hasn't announced yet?

Suspect there's an element of deciding if it's wise for him to run. Doubt he would want to negatively impact the field in the long run. Personally, I'm undecided on if it's good or not for him to go for it.

4068ac1elhodqr

Most of the bookies have shorted Trump even further, after recent events. As low as just 2.38, close to evens.

So if the Dems get the best candidate they can, it's still more or less an evens 50:50 close call as to who will actually win.
One Dem chap getting some attention is Pete Butt', but really can't see him progressing any further.

eagle eye

What about a poll among the Dem candidates?
I'd imagine if you put Beto up against Trump you'd have a similar result.

Lessons need to be learned. Young Dems win Presidential election, old ones don't. Hilary Clinton(69), John Kerry(61).

Ultros

**Pre Mueller findings**

Trump's base ain't budging, although 46% of people saying they won't vote for him isn't good at all

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/435659-a-small-majority-of-americans-say-theyre-open-to-the-idea-of-re

"A majority of registered voters in a new poll say they would consider voting President Trump into a second term.

Fifty-four percent in the Hill-HarrisX survey released Monday said they would think about voting for Trump, though 46 percent of registered voters said they would not even consider casting a ballot for the president.

People who said they backed Trump in 2016 are likely to back him again.

Ninety-five percent of respondents who said they had picked Trump in his first run for office said they would vote for him again in 2020.

The vast majority of respondents who cast ballots for Trump's former Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, said they would not vote to re-elect him, though a somewhat sizable minority is at least open to the idea."

rossie1977

Emerson have Trump beating Harris by 8 in Iowa (same poll they have Biden winning by 6).

She needs to do serious work in Midwest if she has any chance of winning nomination.

eagle eye wrote: »

What about a poll among the Dem candidates?
I'd imagine if you put Beto up against Trump you'd have a similar result.

Lessons need to be learned. Young Dems win Presidential election, old ones don't. Hilary Clinton(69), John Kerry(61).

FDR was 62 and on verge of death when he got elected in 1944, Truman was 64 when elected in 1948. LBJ was 56 in 1964.

Of course you have to take into account life expectancy too. The life expectancy of a white American male in the 1940s was 62 (61 in 1935 so war didn't effect it) and 67 in 1960s.

eagle eye

rossie1977 wrote:

FDR was 62 and on verge of death when he got elected in 1944, Truman was 64 when elected in 1948. LBJ was 56 in 1964.

Of course you have to take into account life expectancy too. The life expectancy of a white American male in the 1940s was 62 (61 in 1935 so war didn't effect it) and 67 in 1960s.

And you had to go back over fifty years to find new a 56 year old.
Does that not tell you something?

Rjd2

I'm biased when it comes to Harris as I have bet her at 33/1 a few years ago, but getting a little concerned right now sadly.

https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/1110301531306409986

This is her with AIPAC who have came under attack from the left of the party aka those who don't trust her whatsoever. Swerving the convention like all the other front runners and then meeting them with big smiles is a bit of a mis step. She is a bit all over the place when it comes to reparations and prostitution and other issues when it comes to the progressives.

I know some have said she may be the Dem version of Rubio aka the chosen one by the establishment but like Marco this not her time whatsoever.

My bank balance hopes the above is wrong though.:(