US Presidential Election 2020

frag420

duploelabs wrote: »

What makes you think they'll damage churches??

They are known for being fans of Norwegian Black Metal...

And plenty of black communities are pretty religious so I would say it's highly unlikely that anyone attempts to do anything to a church. I'd also not say it's particularly far left to be pissed off about police brutality and systemic racism.

stinkypinky

Deleted User wrote: »

And plenty of black communities are pretty religious so I would say it's highly unlikely that anyone attempts to do anything to a church. I'd also not say it's particularly far left to be pissed off about police brutality and systemic racism.

I didn't say it was so please don't twist what I said. I'm talking about violence, vandalism and anarchists, NOT peaceful protesters.

Sand

stinkypinky wrote: »

Some factions of the far left and their actions are the only reason why Trump will have a slimmer of hope at getting elected again in November. Some of the violence I see online is absolutely shocking - if they start damaging churches then they'll have poked the bear one step too far.

Oh right - the 'silent majority' will awaken will they?

The rioters have celebrities, media, corporations, law enforcement, local and federal government and even the UN in their corner. They'll take that chance I think. The rioters will keep pushing and the mythical silent majority will stay quiet as they always have done.

Trump has done nothing in response to the riots so even if anyone was angered, why would they vote for him in response? If anything, the election of Biden might lead to a temporary pause in the attacks.

Trump has no chance of winning in November. None at all. He abandoned his voters in 2017, and they have abandoned him.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more FYP posts please.

BonnieSituation

Tell me how wrote: »

It's not a joke.
I remember a regular occurrence a few years ago where elections in some places in the middle east and Africa would be accompanied with the news that the UN or USA were sending observers.

What has gone on in America over the last period would be enough for the US to talk about the need for transparency if it happened in any other country in the world.

'Land of the Free' is looking further and further from the truth as time goes on. And they castigated Kaepernick for disrespecting the flag.

I think if you were designing a democracy you'd have to run a mile from the US system. It's cracked.

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

What makes you think they'll damage churches??

FWIW, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cathedrals-in-6-states-damaged-by-violent-protests-91111

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/churches-burned-and-vandalized-in-riots

I don't think it's being considered anything other than part of the opportunistic damage as opposed to a targeted campaign.

Rjd2

stinkypinky wrote: »

I don't think it'll happen because even those anarchists aren't stupid enough to provoke people that far, but you never know.

https://www.wionews.com/world/american-writer-shaun-king-calls-statues-of-jesus-a-tool-of-white-supremacy-urges-to-be-torn-down-307828

"American writer and civil rights activist Shaun King has said that all images of Jesus are depicted as a "white European" and urged people that it should be torn down as it is a form of "white supremacy".

The co-founder of Real Justice PAC is known to promote his views and social justice by using social media and has spoken for the 'Black Lives Matter' movement. "

Shaun King is loathed by plenty on the left , considered an absolute grifter.

I wanted Bernie to win, but some of the surrogates he picked such as King would have been a disaster for him v Trump.

With someone like King best to ignore him.

eagle eye

Sand wrote:

The rioters have celebrities, media, corporations, law enforcement, local and federal government and even the UN in their corner. They'll take that chance I think. The rioters will keep pushing and the mythical silent majority will stay quiet as they always have done.

I think you'll find that peaceful protesters have those people in their corner not rioters.

jem

Yes Biden should win based on any element of common sence but you know the old saying common sence is the most uncommon thing.

Biden's difficulties that I can see are:
1. he isnt good at debates and prone to gaffs and "senior moments"
2. While there has been some slight changes at fox news in that some thereon are not just spouting for trump come election time I can see them all fall in line with the GOP
3. voter supression the GOP control most of the indivudal states legislatures and they are going to make it as hard as possible for the minoritys to vote ( already happening but will get worse)
4. Im not sure that some of the protests will negativly effect trump rather the opposite I think it will bring out the older conservative leaning voters.
5. a large amount of the USA population just watch fox news and even more right wing TV .
6. a large % of the USA population are basically thick as a plank

jem

loyatemu wrote: »

even in the Trump supporting districts you're talking about a handful of polling stations for up to 100K people, why so few - is it the cost of the machines? e.g. Madison County has 3 polling stations for 93K people. For comparison Westmeath with 88K people has around 50 polling stations. Party politics aside, how can you run an election like that?

I just looked up Tipperary and added up the number of poling stations per the posters for each area.
Tipperary has 277 poling booths for a population 159500 people
In Roscrea Town for example there is 4 poling stations with 11 poling booths
Population of Roscrea is about 6000

Gbear

jem wrote: »

Yes Biden should win based on any element of common sence but you know the old saying common sence is the most uncommon thing.

Biden's difficulties that I can see are:
1. he isnt good at debates and prone to gaffs and "senior moments"

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, in that despite being possibly the least popular and most polarising president in living memory, Trump has massive systemic advantages, but on this, we don't know if Trump is even going to do debates yet, and even if he decides to, at best his ignorant, narcissistic buffoonery will mean he ties with Biden, but will probably lose.


Biden's biggest threat to himself is unforced errors committed in isolation.


Any time he's directly being compared to Trump, he will likely come out favourably.

jem

Gbear wrote: »

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, in that despite being possibly the least popular and most polarising president in living memory, Trump has massive systemic advantages, but on this, we don't know if Trump is even going to do debates yet, and even if he decides to, at best his ignorant, narcissistic buffoonery will mean he ties with Biden, but will probably lose.


Biden's biggest threat to himself is unforced errors committed in isolation.


Any time he's directly being compared to Trump, he will likely come out favourably.

I have seen reports that they have agreed to 3 debates.
I hope biden wins and Trump is confined to the annels of history but I have a sneeky feeling !!

briany

One thing that the Hillary Clinton documentary claimed was that when Bill ran in '92, the Democratic establishment threatened to destroy him. This was echoed in Michael Moore's documentary 11/9 where a presidential hopeful was told that it wasn't their turn. It really gives an impression that the Democratic party is not necessarily interested in the most potentially successful candidate, but more someone who is in the good books, who has shaken the right hands, has served their time in Washington and is on message. That would be Joe Biden in a nutshell.

Don't get me wrong, I'd really question the sanity of America if Biden lost, but at the same time, his winning would only be a step in the right direction and toward stability, not a happy ending. He's very much an old Washington boy who'll do business with hawks and lobbyists while paying a bit of lip service to the progressive wing of the party.

Like, it the Democrats really don't want Double-Trump in a decade, they have to actually get on with the business of improving the lives of those in the flyover states who'd lost their jobs and hope and voted for Trump out of naivety or as a protest. If you don't do something with those people, you will end up with something even worse than Trump in the end.

Foxtrol

briany wrote: »

One thing that the Hillary Clinton documentary claimed was that when Bill ran in '92, the Democratic establishment threatened to destroy him. This was echoed in Michael Moore's documentary 11/9 where a presidential hopeful was told that it wasn't their turn. It really gives an impression that the Democratic party is not necessarily interested in the most potentially successful candidate, but more someone who is in the good books, who has shaken the right hands, has served their time in Washington and is on message. That would be Joe Biden in a nutshell.

Don't get me wrong, I'd really question the sanity of America if Biden lost, but at the same time, his winning would only be a step in the right direction and toward stability, not a happy ending. He's very much an old Washington boy who'll do business with hawks and lobbyists while paying a bit of lip service to the progressive wing of the party.

Like, it the Democrats really don't want Double-Trump in a decade, they have to actually get on with the business of improving the lives of those in the flyover states who'd lost their jobs and hope and voted for Trump out of naivety or as a protest. If you don't do something with those people, you will end up with something even worse than Trump in the end.

I understand where you're coming from but if a certain group of voters are gullible enough to buy what Trump (or similar) is selling there isn't much you can do. No matter what great achievable option you put to people it isn't going to be better than claims to magic back all the manufacturing/steel/mining jobs, which in the real world are never coming back.

Similarly, Trump's base ~30+% are a completely lost cause. They are too ingrained in 'culture wars', single issue voters, or flat out racist and as a result consistently vote against their self interest. Look at how many red states in the south rank towards the bottom of nearly every metric (education, healthcare, income, life expectancy etc etc), yet they don't change in local or state level.

Look at the ACA, that was a fundamental improvement in the lives of so many Americans yet the Democrats were gutted for it. Only now a decade later is it popular and that is more down to the risk of losing it. Improving lives doesn't necessarily mean it'll transfer to votes.

spacecoyote

This is a very good read:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-choice/

Its a long-ish piece about the evolution of the Rep policy to elections and minority voting. Felt this is probably the most appropriate thread for it.

Its going to be a very ugly few months ahead I think.

gmisk

I see a recent poll has Biden up by 14 points.
Seems to be a big turnaround.

stinkypinky

stinkypinky wrote: »

I didn't say it was so please don't twist what I said. I'm talking about violence, vandalism and anarchists, NOT peaceful protesters.

Attacking their own now - this violence only helps Trumps chances.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/504269-wisconsin-state-senator-kicked-in-the-head-during-protests

A Democratic state senator in Wisconsin said he was assaulted by protesters and “kicked in the head” on Tuesday night when he filmed a contentious demonstration outside the state Capitol.

"I don't know what happened ... all I did was stop and take a picture ... and the next thing I'm getting five-six punches, getting kicked in the head," Carpenter told a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter.

Fr Tod Umptious

briany wrote: »

One thing that the Hillary Clinton documentary claimed was that when Bill ran in '92, the Democratic establishment threatened to destroy him. This was echoed in Michael Moore's documentary 11/9 where a presidential hopeful was told that it wasn't their turn. It really gives an impression that the Democratic party is not necessarily interested in the most potentially successful candidate, but more someone who is in the good books, who has shaken the right hands, has served their time in Washington and is on message. That would be Joe Biden in a nutshell.

Don't get me wrong, I'd really question the sanity of America if Biden lost, but at the same time, his winning would only be a step in the right direction and toward stability, not a happy ending. He's very much an old Washington boy who'll do business with hawks and lobbyists while paying a bit of lip service to the progressive wing of the party.

Like, it the Democrats really don't want Double-Trump in a decade, they have to actually get on with the business of improving the lives of those in the flyover states who'd lost their jobs and hope and voted for Trump out of naivety or as a protest. If you don't do something with those people, you will end up with something even worse than Trump in the end.

Honest question.
Are these people actually any worse off after 4 years of Trump compared to 8 years of Obama ?

I think the phrase "it's the economy stupid" is over used but should it be used in this case ?

Forget about the Trump personality, the bombast, the insults, the sackings, the Tweets etc, and stop looking at it from an Irish or European perspective (Remember we ourselves are very happy to get behind the candidates that promise us the moon and the stars)

The question is have the people in the swing states suffered economically from Trump or are they doing well enough to vote for him again, or at least not bother voting for Biden ?

StringerBell

I'd suggest that if you would be looking for a detailed analysis of that question you should look around for it yourself as there is information available online about who is and is not better off under Trump and by how much.

The short answer to are people worse off under Trump at this point in time than at the end of the Obama presidency is yes.

There are short term reasons and long term reasons for that.

I would also suggest the polling from the swing states which has Trump completely underwater would enforce the position that the swing state voters agree with that answer.

Water John

Would Laura Coates, legal analyst CNN, Adjunct Professor George Washington Uni and former prosecutor, by a shout for VP? Born in St. Paul, she ticks a lot of boxes. Always speaks with great clarity, big fan of her.

StringerBell

Don't think she has the profile/experience tbf.

The list isn't actually that big given the parameters and the fact that Harris is in a safe senate seat gives her a shot but I do hope it isn't her.

Water John

She has also written a book on police reform. Don't think Harris has any warmth and lacks empathy. A black woman from the South or Mid West are Biden's optimum choices.
Gretchen Whitmer would be also a good fit.

New polls out show Trump is losing badly Biden.

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, I reiterate. Voting is run by each county’s department of elections. Look up which party controls Jefferson County and the city of Louisville. Here’s the link showing every relevant elected position by party in the county. http://elections.jeffersoncountyclerk.org/pdfs/ElOff.pdf

Now, explain to me what is in it for the Democrats to suppress the vote there?

That's a good question. What's a possible answer?

sid waddell

TomOnBoard wrote: »

That's a good question. What's a possible answer?

Obviously Republican voter suppression is exponentially more widespread, but I would guess that Democrat establishment types wouldn't be averse to a bit of voter suppression themselves, especially if they think it might get their favoured candidate in Kentucky, Amy McGrath, over the line against her primary rival Charles Booker.

eagle eye

StringerBell wrote:

The list isn't actually that big given the parameters and the fact that Harris is in a safe senate seat gives her a shot but I do hope it isn't her.

Not a chance it's Harris. Biden has that inappropriate touching of women and the hint of a sexual assault, no chance they are putting someone with him while had an affair with a married man 30 years her senior who just happened to be in position to help her career.

MadYaker

eagle eye wrote: »

Not a chance it's Harris. Biden has that inappropriate touching of women and the hint of a sexual assault, no chance they are putting someone with him while had an affair with a married man 30 years her senior who just happened to be in position to help her career.

Thanks to trump lowering the standards nobody cares about this stuff any more. He’s had multiple affairs and been accused of numerous sexual assaults. So it really doesn’t matter in politics now. Biden has to pick a woman and Harris would actually be a good pick.

eagle eye

MadYaker wrote:

Thanks to trump lowering the standards nobody cares about this stuff any more. He’s had multiple affairs and been accused of numerous sexual assaults. So it really doesn’t matter in politics now. Biden has to pick a woman and Harris would actually be a good pick.

You need somebody clean, not somebody who can be called a whore. Trump is a horrible, despicable human being but he has every chance of turning things around against a Biden/Harris combo.
I think Val Demmings is the perfect pick given the #blacklivesmatter and having been a police officer she is in a perfect position to talk about reforming the police nationwide.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

You need somebody clean, not somebody who can be called a whore.

The only time i read about her being called a whore is by you. You don't even refer to what she did. You just flat out use that word in association with her.

It makes me think that's what you believe she is. It makes me think you like calling her that.

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

The only time i read about her being called a whore is by you. You don't even refer to what she did. You just flat out use that word in association with her.

It makes me think that's what you believe she is. It makes me think you like calling her that.

But it's ok because they call trump a horrible despicable man

Water John

sid waddell wrote: »

Obviously Republican voter suppression is exponentially more widespread, but I would guess that Democrat establishment types wouldn't be averse to a bit of voter suppression themselves, especially if they think it might get their favoured candidate in Kentucky, Amy McGrath, over the line against her primary rival Charles Booker.

The Dems were the first to use gerrymandering in the US, but the GOP have taken it to crazy levels.

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

You need somebody clean, not somebody who can be called a whore. Trump is a horrible, despicable human being but he has every chance of turning things around against a Biden/Harris combo.
I think Val Demmings is the perfect pick given the #blacklivesmatter and having been a police officer she is in a perfect position to talk about reforming the police nationwide.

This post is probably making any woman reading it cringe and roll her eyes. A serial cheater who has been accused of assaulting women and has openly said he can do what he wants to them is fine, but a woman who had an affair is not.

And Boards is full of threads where people say that women who complain about being treated differently are making it up and are looking for attention.

sid waddell

Tell me how wrote: »

This post is probably making any woman reading it cringe and roll her eyes. A serial cheater who has been accused of assaulting women and has openly said he can do what he wants to them is fine, but a woman who had an affair is not.

And Boards is full of threads where people say that women who complain about being treated differently are making it up and are looking for attention.

I would hope any man who read it cringed and rolled their eyes as well, I certainly did.

Men are in no place whatsoever to tell women anything about (supposedly not) being treated unequally, same as white people are in no place to tell those of ethnic minorities anything about how they're treated in society, or straight people telling LGBTQ people anything about how they're treated in society.

As a straight, white man, I don't have to live any of those things.

briany

Tell me how wrote: »

This post is probably making any woman reading it cringe and roll her eyes. A serial cheater who has been accused of assaulting women and has openly said he can do what he wants to them is fine, but a woman who had an affair is not.

And Boards is full of threads where people say that women who complain about being treated differently are making it up and are looking for attention.

I fully agree that it is, on the face of it, quite rich not to pick Kamala Harris based on a moral failing such as adultery, in light of the opposition, but one thing he appears to be able to do quite well is accuse people of stuff he himself is guilty of doing (and maybe more so), and make that accusation stick. It's probably something to be wary of.

Trump's playing by a whole different set of political rules by playing to people's base prejudices. Biden is still going on the keeping up appearances rules of Washington where any one scandal can really hurt you. I think that's why Trump can get away with what he has already gotten away with.

Igotadose

briany wrote: »

I fully agree that it is, on the face of it, quite rich not to pick Kamala Harris based on a moral failing such as adultery, in light of the opposition, but one thing he appears to be able to do quite well is accuse people of stuff he himself is guilty of doing (and maybe more so), and make that accusation stick. It's probably something to be wary of.

She was single at the time and Brown separated from his wife, but if minorities do it, oh it's so awful. And of course the #IMPOTUS worshippers cling to the slenderest of straws when attacking anyone that might potentially be a threat to their orange hero.

Their 'affair' was pretty public. Lasted about 2 years, 20+ years ago. Of course, she did end up on an insurance board and a contract negotiation organization, which makes 2 examples of public service she did, part of a long career in it leading to her Senate seat. And hopefully as AG under President Biden, tasked with removing Trump spoor from the US Government.


https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/willie-brown-kamala-harris/

Water John

Yeah would like to have her in the Cabinet. Letting slip out gradually over the Autumn, real quality possible cabinet members would create a marked contrast with Trump's rag tag bunch.

BonnieSituation

Tell me how wrote: »

This post is probably making any woman reading it cringe and roll her eyes. A serial cheater who has been accused of assaulting women and has openly said he can do what he wants to them is fine, but a woman who had an affair is not.

And Boards is full of threads where people say that women who complain about being treated differently are making it up and are looking for attention.

You'd probably agree with me that Val Demmings would make a great VP for Martin Heinrich.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

The only time i read about her being called a whore is by you. You don't even refer to what she did. You just flat out use that word in association with her.
It makes me think that's what you believe she is. It makes me think you like calling her that.

I'm only pointing out where it will go. It's Trump and if you don't think that will happen you are deluded.
I said she had an affair with a married man 30 years older than her who just happened to appoint her to two high paying state commissions and was a big part of her successful run for DA. That man was San Francisco mayor Willie Brown. He's admitted it, it's not a secret or rumour.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm only pointing out where it will go. It's Trump and if you don't think that will happen you are deluded.
I said she had an affair with a married man 30 years older than her who just happened to appoint her to two high paying state commissions and was a big part of her successful run for DA. That man was San Francisco mayor Willie Brown. He's admitted it, it's not a secret or rumour.

'yeah people may call her that' that's some flimsy defence for calling her a Whore

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm only pointing out where it will go. It's Trump and if you don't think that will happen you are deluded.
I said she had an affair with a married man 30 years older than her who just happened to appoint her to two high paying state commissions and was a big part of her successful run for DA. That man was San Francisco mayor Willie Brown. He's admitted it, it's not a secret or rumour.

I'm deluded?

If you want to pay attention to those that will completely ignore Trump having sex with porn stars and playmates while married, Trump cheating on *all three* of his wives and who may call Harris names (see how easy it is to not use that word in adult conversation?), then you are deluded.

On a broader point, the 30-35% are a lost cause. The remainder of the population will not see her as ethically compromised on that front. Ignore them.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

I'm deluded?

Yes, if you think it won't happen.

everlast75 wrote:

If you want to pay attention to those that will completely ignore Trump having sex with porn stars and playmates while married, Trump cheating on *all three* of his wives and who may call Harris names (see how easy it is to not use that word in adult conversation?), then you are deluded.

We all know about Trump.
Why are you comparing Harris with him? The target is a to beat him, to give the best chance of success.

everlast75 wrote:

On a broader point, the 30-35% are a lost cause. The remainder of the population will not see her as ethically compromised on that front. Ignore them.

Getting people to the polls is how you beat Trump. I can give you many reasons why Kamala Harris won't do that. Her affair will be used in a seedy way, selling her body to further her career. This isn't about Trump's base, this is about swing voters and those who can become disinterested.
You do not need help winning California. You do need help to win Florida and the Midwest. She is not helping you in those areas.
She will also be painted as anti-Catholic after her attacks on the Knights of Columbus.
So now we have an anti-Catholic who broke a commandment.
Please don't mistake my posts here for personal views. I'm looking at things from the perspective what wins and loses elections. I'm not religious but I know it's considered important in the US.
I think you need a black VP candidate, I think you need somebody with a veteran or police history who can be trusted to deal with all the major issues in the US right now. Kamala Harris doesn't tick many of those boxes.

Mancomb Seepgood

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes, if you think it won't happen.


We all know about Trump.
Why are you comparing Harris with him? The target is a to beat him, to give the best chance of success.


Getting people to the polls is how you beat Trump. I can give you many reasons why Kamala Harris won't do that. Her affair will be used in a seedy way, selling her body to further her career. This isn't about Trump's base, this is about swing voters and those who can become disinterested.
You do not need help winning California. You do need help to win Florida and the Midwest. She is not helping you in those areas.
She will also be painted as anti-Catholic after her attacks on the Knights of Columbus.
So now we have an anti-Catholic who broke a commandment.
Please don't mistake my posts here for personal views. I'm looking at things from the perspective what wins and loses elections. I'm not religious but I know it's considered important in the US.
I think you need a black VP candidate, I think you need somebody with a veteran or police history who can be trusted to deal with all the major issues in the US right now. Kamala Harris doesn't tick many of those boxes.

I think the notion that criticising something that the Knights of Colombia for something that they did will be perceived is a novel one...there has been criticism of the decision from Catholic clergy,including the Archbishop of Washington,among others: https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/priestly-diary/im-done-knights-columbus

No doubt rad-trad Catholics will feel offended but they're in Trump's corner anyway and nothing will shake them.

If Trump wants to imply Kamala Harris is a prostitute,then that's one way to go...his numbers are already dire among women but why not make them worse.It might have an impact among the type of people who view women in that way.He probably has their vote anyway.

I don't think any candidate could live up to the standard you're setting here.

eagle eye

Mancomb Seepgood wrote:

I don't think any candidate could live up to the standard you're setting here.

Well I think when you look at the unfavourable ratings as opposed to the favourable ratings it tells a big story. Elizabeth Warren leads both polls but she has nearly as many who wouldn't be happy with her as would be, both in the 40-45% range. Kamala Harris has 40% favourable ratings but 35% unfavourable.
If you look through all the candidates the two that stand out as not being dislike by that many are Stacy Abrams and Val Demmings.
I think either of those would be a good candidate. I think Demmings stands out though as she was a police chief and is well qualified to talk about changing the whole culture of policing in the USA and nobody can disagree with her about that in debates. I think it's the biggest issue over the next few months.

Podge_irl

eagle eye wrote: »

If you look through all the candidates the two that stand out as not being dislike by that many are Stacy Abrams and Val Demmings.

Because nobody knows who they are...

eagle eye

Podge_irl wrote:

Because nobody knows who they are...

Stacy Abrams is well known.

Igotadose

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I think when you look at the unfavourable ratings as opposed to the favourable ratings it tells a big story. Elizabeth Warren leads both polls but she has nearly as many who wouldn't be happy with her as would be, both in the 40-45% range. Kamala Harris has 40% favourable ratings but 35% unfavourable.
If you look through all the candidates the two that stand out as not being dislike by that many are Stacy Abrams and Val Demmings.
I think either of those would be a good candidate. I think Demmings stands out though as she was a police chief and is well qualified to talk about changing the whole culture of policing in the USA and nobody can disagree with her about that in debates. I think it's the biggest issue over the next few months.

If you take the view that delivering EC votes is priority (which imo it should be), Demings is a very attractive candidate as Florida is a 'big kahuna' of EC votes and given the Covid disaster brewing there under De Santis, Trump's golden child of a governor, I think it's in play for the Democratic party.

Another candidate is the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham. She would be attractive due to the Hispanic vote, her activism while in Congress and her Western roots. If she could bring Arizona over the line for Biden, that'd be a plus. Her name shows up now and then as a possible candidate.

Warren's biggest downside is that California's in the bag for the Democratic Party, so she doesn't bring EC votes directly. Most of the West is, bar Arizona which is leaning Democratic now, and Covid will drive more votes blue, but you never know in states filled with elderlies how they'll go, they vote and they're easily manipulated through fear.

Brian?

Igotadose wrote: »

If you take the view that delivering EC votes is priority (which imo it should be), Demings is a very attractive candidate as Florida is a 'big kahuna' of EC votes and given the Covid disaster brewing there under De Santis, Trump's golden child of a governor, I think it's in play for the Democratic party.

Another candidate is the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham. She would be attractive due to the Hispanic vote, her activism while in Congress and her Western roots. If she could bring Arizona over the line for Biden, that'd be a plus. Her name shows up now and then as a possible candidate.

Warren's biggest downside is that California's in the bag for the Democratic Party, so she doesn't bring EC votes directly. Most of the West is, bar Arizona which is leaning Democratic now, and Covid will drive more votes blue, but you never know in states filled with elderlies how they'll go, they vote and they're easily manipulated through fear.

I think Harris would be a great pick. It would drive the alt-right nuts. It would enrage a lot of Trump supporters too. There'll be accusations of tokenism and her past with Brown will be brought up.

Given the current mood in the US, I believe the misogyny and race bating will bring out the undecideds for Biden. Right now he's a little bit boring for some, Harris won't be boring at all.

eagle eye

Brian? wrote:

I think Harris would be a great pick. It would drive the alt-right nuts. It would enrage a lot of Trump supporters too. There'll be accusations of tokenism and her past with Brown will be brought up.

So you think pairing somebody who had an affair with a married man with Aman who has been accused of inappropriate touching of women, and there's the sexual assault allegation, is a good idea?
I think it's an awful move.

pixelburp

eagle eye wrote: »

So you think pairing somebody who had an affair with a married man with Aman who has been accused of inappropriate touching of women, and there's the sexual assault allegation, is a good idea?
I think it's an awful move.

I think you can overstate the level to which Harris' history would play into any narrative against her. Asked back would be: did the Californian GOP leverage her personal history during any previous campaign? Harris has already had a long career, if this was really an issue it would have come up before. And if she were to be picked as VP it may be assumed she was vetted thoroughly enough that this tabloid level tattle wasn't see as potentially damaging.

Only Trump has brought up Biden's potential personal failings - there's no clear indication the campaign as a whole would do the same; for the very obvious reason that bringing infidelity into the public domain only serves to highlight the current President's own. And given the current climate, it'd be something resembling political self-harm to demean a woman for having an affair against the broader cultural pattern of men forgiven for doing the same. Christ it's still celebrated for middle-aged men to sleep with those half their age. Nor is there any hard evidence the American electorate care about extra-marital affairs, least of all in the VP.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

So you think pairing somebody who had an affair with a married man with Aman who has been accused of inappropriate touching of women, and there's the sexual assault allegation, is a good idea?
I think it's an awful move.

She didn’t have an affair with a married man. She had a relationship with a man who was separated from his wife for over 10 years. Massive difference.

I think it’s a great move.