2020 US Election

[Candiru]

Lol you guys. It’s Biden or Trump. It is what it is. Social media is not a good reflection of what the actual electorate thinks.

[chenGOD]

7 hours ago, Candiru said:

Lol you guys. It’s Biden or Trump. It is what it is. Social media is not a good reflection of what the actual electorate thinks.

What about this poll?

Or this Economist/YouGov poll that puts Warren and Biden neck and neck? (p.132 of the PDF - good poll that has lots of interesting breakdowns, like Warren leading Biden by 7% in families with income $100K+)

[usagi]

I haven't been keeping up with the debates but has Biden made a firm promise yet to stop creeping on young girls during photo ops?

[goDel]

3 hours ago, usagi said:

I haven't been keeping up with the debates but has Biden made a firm promise yet to stop creeping on young girls during photo ops?

He offered a compromise. He'd still like to sniff them in public. Otherwise, no creeping anymore.

[may be rude]

warren has been talking to voters and presenting a thoughtful campaign in media and has only been moving in one direction. she has been steadily gaining ground and is currently in the process of overtaking biden. polls show her winning iowa and new hampshire. betting markets favor warren, now, for the nomination.

Edited August 21, 2019 by very honest

[zlemflolia]

joes wife wants him to spread his seed

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/politics/jill-biden-joe-biden-beat-donald-trump/index.html

 

[zlemflolia]

"Your candidate might be better on, I don't know, health care, than Joe is, but you've got to look at who's going to win this election," she said. "And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, 'OK, I personally like so and so better,' but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump."

[EdamAnchorman]

1 hour ago, Zeffolia said:

 

 

I'm tired of that line of shit.  That is exactly what establishment Dems want and, wait, isn't that what they were saying about HRC, that there's no way she could lose to Trump?  How did that work out?

Voting for someone who's not really your first choice, but just there to keep the status quo and keep the party line going is the worst waste of a vote ever.

[goDel]

I'm not sure what you mean with status quo. I mean, to a large extent, democracy *is* about maintaining some kind of status quo. Simply by being dependent on a majority. Ideally, it should be near impossible to push through policies with no broad support or mandate. 

Other than that, it is a vague umbrella term you'd need to specify, I believe. If you're talking about the power of money in politics, for instance, you have a specific issue which you can use as an argument to support one candidate over the other. You can talk about potential policies and have a debate about whats best. There is no policy for or against "status quo" as far as I'm concerned. 

I might be wrong, but I suspect you have issues with the way Bernie was pushed aside in the 2016 cycle to push HRC on the ticket. Which I think is fair (to have issues with). And would also explain your attitude towards the "status quo", or "party line". As this "rigging the system" to maintain the balance of power is very much something to vote against.

If this time around, the outcome does give a good reflection of the democratic platform, or the actual party line if you will, I'm simply opposed to your position on this. Not that it really matters, btw. But whether or not the Dems win matters a lot on issues like birth control and planned parenthood, putting kids in cages after they illegally crossed the US border, and healthcare. (And it remains to be seen what Dems could do in issues like climate change. I personally think options are limited and fairly ineffective at this point in time. But that's just me. You can ignore this as well) Anyways, putting personal principles above these issues is not my idea of voting with your conscience. If not voting your first choice is a waste, then so are those kids in cages. And I really have to disagree on this one. 

[Candiru]

Biden doesn’t have decades of smear on him like Hilary did. He’s also a Dem that doesn’t have the woke intersectionality stink on him, which makes people vote for Trump and a much bigger factor than a lot of people realize I guess. 

I realize this may be disappointing, but I am getting this info from someone highly experienced in how DC works and they’ve been 100% dead on balls accurate about everything from the Kavanaugh hearings to the realities of impeachment proceedings and I’ve come to realize that reality and the things we say online and pat ourselves on the back over are not the same. This person is basically conservative, but did some real shit in DC and abroad and made me realize that most of us here have no idea how these voters think, we just have a cartoon of them in our minds, and it is NOT helping.  

If Bernie or Warren win the nomination, there will be a shit ton of people who will vote Trump just to vote against them, but happily vote for Biden. And it’s just better to win and get Trump out of office while staying politically active. All this “establishment Dem” talk will just get Trump 4 more years. Remember how he won with 80,000 votes spread across 3 states? How liberal do you think those 80,000 people are?

[EdamAnchorman]

4 hours ago, goDel said:

I'm not sure what you mean with status quo. I mean, to a large extent, democracy *is* about maintaining some kind of status quo. Simply by being dependent on a majority. Ideally, it should be near impossible to push through policies with no broad support or mandate. 

Other than that, it is a vague umbrella term you'd need to specify, I believe. If you're talking about the power of money in politics, for instance, you have a specific issue which you can use as an argument to support one candidate over the other. You can talk about potential policies and have a debate about whats best. There is no policy for or against "status quo" as far as I'm concerned. 

I might be wrong, but I suspect you have issues with the way Bernie was pushed aside in the 2016 cycle to push HRC on the ticket. Which I think is fair (to have issues with). And would also explain your attitude towards the "status quo", or "party line". As this "rigging the system" to maintain the balance of power is very much something to vote against.

If this time around, the outcome does give a good reflection of the democratic platform, or the actual party line if you will, I'm simply opposed to your position on this. Not that it really matters, btw. But whether or not the Dems win matters a lot on issues like birth control and planned parenthood, putting kids in cages after they illegally crossed the US border, and healthcare. (And it remains to be seen what Dems could do in issues like climate change. I personally think options are limited and fairly ineffective at this point in time. But that's just me. You can ignore this as well) Anyways, putting personal principles above these issues is not my idea of voting with your conscience. If not voting your first choice is a waste, then so are those kids in cages. And I really have to disagree on this one. 

By "status quo" I mean that I don't think the Democratic party is really interested in serving their constituency.  The Republicans are, at least the wealthy ones.  You're right that it should be difficult to enact policy without broad support, but I want this country to move in a democratic socialist direction, so that's how I choose to vote, even if that means Trump will be elected again.  We can't be bullied into voting for a candidate we don't want because of what may or may not happen.  Who knows what might happen if everyone just voted in what they really believe, perhaps we would have politicians who actually serve us first instead of themselves (not saying there aren't any out there right now).

You're right that I'm upset at how Bernie was jobbed in the last election, but I wasn't surprised.  The points you make are very valid, and the only argument that I have against them is that I believe strongly in my vote, and I am going to vote like I want to see the country change.  If everyone like me did that, perhaps we could really make a larger difference.  I have struggled with the things you mention, that many poor and disadvantaged people will fall behind even further the longer the Republicans control the exec. branch and Congress, but sometimes I feel like the Dems use this as an excuse to push through a candidate who will serve them and their interests over those of the people who really need it.

I'm also a realist, and I realize that Bernie will likely never win, and even if he does, it would be very difficult to make significant changes in the direction that I would like to see this country go.  But that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for someone just to stop Trump from being re-elected.  I believe that both parties right now, as a whole, are only interested in preserving themselves and their donors, be it wealthy individuals or corporations, and I refuse to support that.

[usagi]

1 hour ago, Candiru said:

Biden doesn’t have decades of smear on him like Hilary did. He’s also a Dem that doesn’t have the woke intersectionality stink on him, which makes people vote for Trump and a much bigger factor than a lot of people realize I guess. 

I realize this may be disappointing, but I am getting this info from someone highly experienced in how DC works and they’ve been 100% dead on balls accurate about everything from the Kavanaugh hearings to the realities of impeachment proceedings and I’ve come to realize that reality and the things we say online and pat ourselves on the back over are not the same. This person is basically conservative, but did some real shit in DC and abroad and made me realize that most of us here have no idea how these voters think, we just have a cartoon of them in our minds, and it is NOT helping.  

If Bernie or Warren win the nomination, there will be a shit ton of people who will vote Trump just to vote against them, but happily vote for Biden. And it’s just better to win and get Trump out of office while staying politically active. All this “establishment Dem” talk will just get Trump 4 more years. Remember how he won with 80,000 votes spread across 3 states? How liberal do you think those 80,000 people are?

Biden still sucks though. he may be considered the only viable Dem (I'm not sure it necessarily is that way) but evaluating him as an actual candidate, he's too backwards-facing and safe to implement the structural changes that are desperately needed. if you can't talk pragmatically about the strengths/weaknesses of a given candidate without the fear that doing so will break your party's viability to win the the election, then the system's broken. but what do I know, a dingo ate my baby.

[Candiru]

Just now, usagi said:

Biden still sucks though. he may be considered the only viable Dem (I'm not sure it necessarily is that way) but evaluating him as an actual candidate, he's too backwards-facing and safe to implement the structural changes that are desperately needed. if you can't talk pragmatically about the strengths/weaknesses of a given candidate without the fear that doing so will break your party's viability to win the the election, then the system's broken. but what do I know, a dingo ate my baby.

A normal president that can replace Trump does not suck and I think he is likely to make necessary improvements to the affordable care act, which is likely all that Warren or Bernie would be able to do anyway. 

Let me put it this way: If Warren or Bernie win the nomination, we actually have more reasons to be nervous than happy. I’ll be happy if either of them win the general election, though, sure. But now is not the time to gamble with the fate of the country for candidates that won’t end up being all that different once in office. If you want to make Bernie shit happen, you have to at least win an election, and then stay politically engaged with a party that isn’t currently holding the country hostage.

[Nebraska]

On 8/20/2019 at 1:15 PM, chenGOD said:

The poll cited polled 402 Democrats/democrat-leaning independents and had a margin of error of +/- 6.1%

It's a bullshit poll, and terrible reporting by CNN.

And all I can think of is: this guarantees another 4 fucking years of Trump.

 

On 8/20/2019 at 8:57 AM, goDel said:

Looks like typical clickbait journalism. A single poll is not a story.

 

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-the-2020-candidates-break-down-in-the-polls-so-far/

[usagi]

20 minutes ago, Candiru said:

A normal president that can replace Trump does not suck and I think he is likely to make necessary improvements to the affordable care act, which is likely all that Warren or Bernie would be able to do anyway. 

Let me put it this way: If Warren or Bernie win the nomination, we actually have more reasons to be nervous than happy. I’ll be happy if either of them win the general election, though, sure. But now is not the time to gamble with the fate of the country for candidates that won’t end up being all that different once in office. If you want to make Bernie shit happen, you have to at least win an election, and then stay politically engaged with a party that isn’t currently holding the country hostage.

I can see that logic. but I'd expect people to have a bit higher of a standard than "someone who isn't a complete fuckup and has the largest following". what makes you think Warren/Bernie/whoever will all end up being functionally similar? and why is Biden specifically the only guy who can really win? I'm a bit surprised people think he could command that kind of following, he seems like a completely middle-of-the-road ineffectual dude to me. I thought his reminding people constantly about the Obama years was counterproductive.

[Candiru]

Just now, usagi said:

I can see that logic. but I'd expect people to have a bit higher of a standard than "someone who isn't a complete fuckup and has the largest following". what makes you think Warren/Bernie/whoever will all end up being functionally similar? and why is Biden specifically the only guy who can really win? I'm a bit surprised people think he could command that kind of following, he seems like a completely middle-of-the-road ineffectual dude to me. I thought his reminding people constantly about the Obama years was counterproductive.

He’s much further ahead in the polls than all the other candidates combined with insight from real experts who know how to win elections that know he is the most viable because of their years of experience getting a read on the electorate.(People Hilary was too proud to listen to)

Biden is seen as a return to normalcy and doesn’t have the polarized baggage that Warren or Bernie appear to have to voters who voted Obama and then Trump(they exist, it’s fucking weird.) Basically, there are certain qualities in the Dem party, mostly embodied by Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, etc that only preach to the woke choir and help Trump by making Dems look histrionic and insufferable while being uninformed about a lot of policy they stand behind. They taint the rest and it’s better to stand apart from them. Obama had that Bernie swag when he first ran. Then his presidency happened. It takes winning an election with continued engagement to make things happen and Bernie/Warren may be better in a cabinet position. 

[usagi]

if they get a cabinet position, though. but I see.

[goDel]

At this point, it's still a bit too early to predict the dem ticket. Reason is there are still plenty candidates in the running who need to be dropped from the list. Even from the top 5 I would say. And the question will be where their support goes to. If Biden and Sanders end up being the final two, I expect Biden to win with a huge margin. As the people who would support Sanders, already support him. Although some might currently support Warren, most of current support would move to Biden, I'm guessing. If its Harris or Warren, i have more difficulty guessing. As I can see them gaining broader support than sanders. Or in other words, the growth potential of Sanders is smaller, because hes a more controversial candidate.

Other than that, I think it's very important who will be the vice president candidate. Ideally, you'd have a combination with broad support. A moderate and a quasi woke candidate. ( i really dont believe in woke candidates. Its all smoke and mirrors. Or rather, its marketing. And yes, that also holds for sanders, imo )

[Candiru]

If Biden/Warren/Sanders wins and we give half the fucks we give when Trump is president, we may see some good things happen. People still have to pay attention and do stuff. They just have to win first. Focus on the winning part for now. 

[chenGOD]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:46 PM, Nebraska said:

 

 

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-the-2020-candidates-break-down-in-the-polls-so-far/

Well shit. consider me humbled.  4 more years of trump it is. 

[usagi]

still baffled as to why Biden is so popular.

[auxien]

3 hours ago, usagi said:

still baffled as to why Biden is so popular.

Biden is popular and ahead in the polls because Biden is popular and ahead in the polls. feedback loop. also the dem elite are likely pushing him behind the scenes (he's got the most endorsements of any candidate). 

[goDel]

I'm guessing it's a combination of recognition and plenty people being more moderate. They're either unfamiliar with the other candidates (Buttigieg?) or associate the more leftist candidates with more potential chaos if they end up in the white house.

[auxien]

^very true as well goDel yeah, more Dems are 'moderate' than it seems on Twitter. which Biden generally is 'moderate' as well of course, at least compared to the way that the Dems as a whole are shifting. i certainly wasn't implying that he has zero appeal outside of his name recognition/dem elite support, but is he a /better/ candidate than the other more moderate contenders? nope. that's where his name recognition/support keep him out front. 

[goDel]

Also note that the top-2 candidates share 50% of the support. So the other 50% is still shared between quite a number of candidates. That makes the growth potential more important than the current support, at this point in time. I think this time around Sanders' potential is smaller as opposed to 2016. At least, the "feel the Bern" effect seems to be smaller. Could be me though.

Sanders is missing a HRC/establishment candidate he can attack, I think. Although I'm sure many would consider Biden establishment - and there's def plenty to support that - I don't see him as another HRC. He's just not that Goldman Sachs kinda establishment like HRC was. And in the current field of candidates, there isn't an obvious candidate earning the support of Goldman Sachs either. At least, not that I'm aware of. That makes it a bit harder for Sanders, imo. He's not running against a candidate like HRC who was controversial in her own way.

Perhaps the "feel the Bern" thing will kick into gear further on in the primaries. When the other "leftist" candidates drop out, Sanders will move more to the front and be a bit more aggressive. Don't think it'll help him though. But that's my guess.