Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, soon said:

Even Toe Rogaine knows its far from being a slam dunk for Biden. This outcome is noting to be excited about.

It will be a close race.  Joe has the best chance of winning the swing states - Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania all crucial.

A Biden victory and most importantly a Trump defeat is a prospect worth getting excited about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BadApples87 said:

Bernie is officially out of the race.

It's Biden vs Trump.  Let's get it on!!!  

Go Joe Go!

And The Orange is having a breakdown :rofl-lol:

Shouldn't he be focused on COVID-19? :rolleyes:

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Padme said:

And The Orange is having a breakdown :rofl-lol:

Shouldn't he be focused on COVID-19? :rolleyes:

Besides Warren dropped out months ago, since then it was Bernie vs. Joe. Joe has won especially in primaries Bernie won in 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Besides Warren dropped out months ago, since then it was Bernie vs. Joe. Joe has won especially in primaries Bernie won in 2016. 

The issue with Warren is that she didn't endorse Bernie right after she dropped out. But I believe that Warren endorsing Sanders would not have changed much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Padme said:

And The Orange is having a breakdown :rofl-lol:

Shouldn't he be focused on COVID-19? :rolleyes:

Yeah you would think the Trumpster has other things to deal with, right?!

 

Why would a Bernie supporter join Trump?  There is nothing that he stands for that matches what the Bernie people want.  He is the polar opposite of Bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BadApples87 said:

Why would a Bernie supporter join Trump?  There is nothing that he stands for that matches what the Bernie people want.  He is the polar opposite of Bernie.

They might be on the same page when it comes to trade agreements. Other than that I don't see what Trump and Bernie might have in common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BadApples87 said:

Yeah you would think the Trumpster has other things to deal with, right?!

 

Why would a Bernie supporter join Trump?  There is nothing that he stands for that matches what the Bernie people want.  He is the polar opposite of Bernie.

Some context. 2016 Bernie and Trump had similar energies. Both attracting populists on the left and right who hated the establishment of both parties. Both free trade skeptics. Bernie with his single payer, but Trump was never giving specifics on his healtchare but it sounded something like a national system. Also, Bernie's record was more of an immigration restrictionist (he would vote against amnesties and even called open borders a Koch brothers idea).

The polar opposite of Bernie is neoliberalism, so a Paul Ryan or Hilary Clinton type. Unfortunately for Trump, he talks like Huey Long and governs like Paul Ryan. But people are often fooled by rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2020 at 1:07 PM, Padme said:

The issue with Warren is that she didn't endorse Bernie right after she dropped out. But I believe that Warren endorsing Sanders would not have changed much.

Because she didn't want to endorse a candidate who doesn't do shit about his toxic supporters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who will Joe pick for Veep?

1.  Kamala Harris - Great debater.  Will solidify the African American vote.

2. Governor Whitmer (Michigan) - Popular in her state, which happens to be a huge swing state.

3.  Tulsi Gabbard - Military experience

Those would be my top 3

P.S. - NO NO NO Liz Warren!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BadApples87 said:

Who will Joe pick for Veep?

1.  Kamala Harris - Great debater.  Will solidify the African American vote.

2. Governor Whitmer (Michigan) - Popular in her state, which happens to be a huge swing state.

3.  Tulsi Gabbard - Military experience

Those would be my top 3

P.S. - NO NO NO Liz Warren!

Tulsi? Why Tulsi? Fat chance she will even be considered. Harris seems to be the best choice. Whitmer being runner up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Because she didn't want to endorse a candidate who doesn't do shit about his toxic supporters. 

Look Warren has the right to be offended. She has the right to do whatever she wants. But presidential campaigns get nasty all the time. She can't claim she didn't know that. In my opinion she never had a chance with or without Bernie's internet trolls.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Tulsi? Why Tulsi? Fat chance she will even be considered. Harris seems to be the best choice. Whitmer being runner up. 

Considering Gabbard did nothing but criticize Obama over foreign policy, it’s absurd to think Biden would let her anywhere near the White House should he win in November. Her political career with the Democratic Party is done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Padme said:

Look Warren has the right to be offended. She has the right to do whatever she wants. But presidential campaigns get nasty all the time. She can't claim she didn't know that. In my opinion she never had a chance with or without Bernie's internet trolls.

 

Not true. She was leading in the polls in late 2019. Then she backtracked on her medicare for all policy. She fumbled the issue that matters the most: healthcare. Who knows what would have happened had she just remained vague on the issue similar to Sanders. She also didn’t help herself for going after Sanders for claiming that a woman couldn’t win.  Barring those two missteps, who knows how the race would have ended up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, downzy said:

Not true. She was leading in the polls in late 2019. Then she backtracked on her medicare for all policy. She fumbled the issue that matters the most: healthcare. Who knows what would have happened had she just remained vague on the issue similar to Sanders. She also didn’t help herself for going after Sanders for claiming that a woman couldn’t win.  Barring those two missteps, who knows how the race would have ended up. 

You know after Trump won. I stopped believing in the accuracy of polls. I don't ignore them but I don't take them all that serious either. Nobody had more missteps than Biden. And look where he is. I don't think the problem with Warren was one or two issues. There was more. But only voters know what they didn't like about her. Warren would've lost going head to head against Biden in South Carolina, Super Tuesday, Michigan, etc. Warren has to look at what went wrong with her campaign. She didn't even win Massachussetts, her home. The most important issue in this election is Trump. Then come healthcare, the economy, etc

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden says he'll lower Medicare eligibility to 60 when a decade ago they were saying 55.

Come on Joe :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Padme said:

You know after Trump won. I stopped believing in the accuracy of polls.

The polling wasn’t wrong in 2016. Save for Ohio, nearly every aggregate poll, particular national polls, proved to be very accurate. The formerly blue states Trump won were a coin flip prior to the election date, with an ever so slight lean to Clinton (but were still within the margin of victory). Had the election occurred two weeks earlier when the Access Hollywood tape came out it’s almost a guarantee Clinton would have won. 

Moreover, polling is a reflection in time. If the primaries had take place in late October to mid November we would have seen Warren winning several early states. But due to some stumbles in December she lost a lot of momentum. That doesn’t mean the polling was wrong in October and November. Electoral outcomes are all about momentum. It should not be an indictment of polling if candidates lose moment closer to the election date. In fact, polls on primary dates were accurately predicting Warren wouldn’t win. So again, I’m not sure why you take issue with the accuracy of polls since they do a good job for the most part.

51 minutes ago, Padme said:

Nobody had more missteps than Biden. And look where he is.

Again, that has more to do with him as a known entity and less to do with his ability to campaign. He has largely been defined. Similar to Trump, it really doesn’t matter how many times he fucks up since his personality and character has largely been established. Warren is/was a lesser know personality on the campaign trail who was competing in a different lane. Her campaign was more policy driven, hence when she stumbled with her healthcare policies it cost her the chance to be the party’s nominee. 

55 minutes ago, Padme said:

Warren would've lost going head to head against Biden in South Carolina, Super Tuesday, Michigan, etc.

Maybe. If those primaries had taken place in October or November we could have seen a very different outcome based on the polling at that time. 

57 minutes ago, Padme said:

Warren has to look at what went wrong with her campaign. She didn't even win Massachussetts, her home. The most important issue in this election is Trump. Then come healthcare, the economy, etc

By the time we got to Massachusetts it was obvious to everyone she wasn’t going to be the nominee, hence there was little reason to vote for her. People generally don’t like to throw their votes away on a losing candidate.

But she did well in most debates and showed with Bloomberg she could tea apart and litigate a pompous and unprepared billionaire. 

9 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Biden says he'll lower Medicare eligibility to 60 when a decade ago they were saying 55.

Come on Joe :facepalm:

Is that really a reason not to vote for him though?  I think all of this is small-ball and won’t really matter. Ask Trump specifics about his healthcare plan and see what you get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Biden says he'll lower Medicare eligibility to 60 when a decade ago they were saying 55.

Come on Joe :facepalm:

Correction on this: Joe is offering straight enrollment at 60 while the plan for 55 was a buy-in option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, downzy said:

The polling wasn’t wrong in 2016. Save for Ohio, nearly every aggregate poll, particular national polls, proved to be very accurate. The formerly blue states Trump won were a coin flip prior to the election date, with an ever so slight lean to Clinton (but were still within the margin of victory). Had the election occurred two weeks earlier when the Access Hollywood tape came out it’s almost a guarantee Clinton would have won. 

Moreover, polling is a reflection in time. If the primaries had take place in late October to mid November we would have seen Warren winning several early states. But due to some stumbles in December she lost a lot of momentum. That doesn’t mean the polling was wrong in October and November. Electoral outcomes are all about momentum. It should not be an indictment of polling if candidates lose moment closer to the election date. In fact, polls on primary dates were accurately predicting Warren wouldn’t win. So again, I’m not sure why you take issue with the accuracy of polls since they do a good job for the most part.

A lot of coulda, woulda shoulda here. The "grab them by the pussy" tape played zero role.Hillary believed that the emails investigation took momentum away from her. But it was Trump and what he promised to do what got him elected. From the wall to trade agreements, the swamp, etc. Hillary was not capable to inspire and movilize people. True that polls reflect mood at a given time. That's why polls don't matter that much. What matters is results on election day.

Everyone knew when the Primaries were going to take place. Iowa has always been the first. I don't think it has to do with If the primary would've been in November. What happened to Biden also happened to Bill Clinton in 1992. I can only speak for myself here. But I never expected Warren to be the nominee. And I felt the same way about Harris, Gabbard and others.  The only surprised for me was Biden being the new come back kid

Edited by Padme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Padme said:

A lot of coulda, woulda shoulda here. The "grab them by the pussy" tape played zero role.Hillary believed that the emails investigation took momentum away from her. But it was Trump and what he promised to do what got him elected. From the wall to trade agreements, the swamp, etc. Hillary was not capable to inspire and movilize people. True that polls reflect mood at a given time. That's why polls don't matter that much. What matters is results on election day.

Not really. Polls are generally always accurate at the time they were taken. The polls right before the election day were highly accurate, save for Ohio. It’s important not to take polls that are far out from the election date as guaranteed predictors, but where current sits at that precise moment. Hence claims that Warren was never going to win is wrong if primaries had occurred much earlier.

Reverse the timing of the events related to the Access Hollywood tape and Comey’s announcement that he had reopened an investigation into Clinton’s emails. You honestly think that had Trump’s Access Hollywood tape leaked a days before the election that it wouldn’t have played a deciding factor?  I’ve studied how voters decide who they ultimately choose to vote for a large percentage of voters what happens in the days before an election has a larger effect on their vote. Events and developments closer to voting day more often than not play a significant role in how many people vote, or whether they choose to vote or not. Most people thought Trump was done after the Access Hollywood tape leaked. It likely killed a lot of motivation for people that might have voted Trump but assumed he likely wasn’t going to win. But then Comey announced his investigation into Clinton a few days before the election and this likely galvanized those same people to vote for Trump while dispiriting Clinton leaning voters. I’m not talking about the 60-70 percent of voters who had made up their minds and were going to vote anyway, but the 30-40 percent of voters who were leaning one way another and saw their motivations to vote either rise or fall based on recent developments. This notion that all people vote a certain way purely on rational motivations is a myth. It exists for some, but it does not explain how a sizeable amount of the electorate goes about who they vote for or whether they vote at all. 

29 minutes ago, Padme said:

Everyone knew when the Primaries were going to take place. Iowa has always been the first. I don't think it has to do with If the primary would've been in November. What happened to Biden also happened to Bill Clinton in 1992. I can only speak for myself here. But I never expected Warren to be the nominee. And I felt the same way about Harris, Gabbard and others.  The only surprised for me was Biden being the new come back kid

 Of course everyone knows, but that’s not the point I’m making. Claims that Warren was never going to win ignore the fact she had a legitimate shot at winning based on polling from August through November. I would agree with you if we were talking about someone like Booker, Klobuchar, or Gabbard, since none of them ever demonstrated any level of traction with voters at any point in time. But anyone who polls a lead both nationally or in early primary states at any point in a race has just as realistic shot as any other candidate. Warren stumbled close to the finish line, but like Clinton, had that finish line been earlier rather than later, we likely would have seen very different outcomes. It’s a similar dynamic in sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, downzy said:

You honestly think that had Trump’s Access Hollywood tape leaked a days before the election that it wouldn’t have played a deciding factor?

Yes! Because his supporters didn't care about that. Some of them just hated Hillary. Others only care about their guns rights. Others were the white working class who lost their jobs. Yet others only care about tax cuts, or the wall or abortion, or they just were going to vote for Trump because their pastor at their church told them to vote for Trump. Hillary couldn't movilize most of Obama voters. Participation at the 2016 was about 57 or 58% of  eligible voters.

 

27 minutes ago, downzy said:

Of course everyone knows, but that’s not the point I’m making. Claims that Warren was never going to win ignore the fact she had a legitimate shot at winning based on polling from August through November. I would agree with you if we were talking about someone like Booker, Klobuchar, or Gabbard, since none of them ever demonstrated any level of traction with voters at any point in time. But anyone who polls a lead both nationally or in early primary states at any point in a race has just as realistic shot as any other candidate. Warren stumbled close to the finish line, but like Clinton, had that finish line been earlier rather than later, we likely would have seen very different outcomes. It’s a similar dynamic in sports. 

Please explain why she lost Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada if the polls said she had a real shot. Sure, she managed to grabbed a good number of delegates. But that's not the same as winning.  If she was having some momentum in August. Something went wrong later on. I don't think it was her healthcare plan only. Hey! I was shocked when Buttigieg won Iowa. But that primary/caucus was a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Padme said:

Yes! Because his supporters didn't care about that. Some of them just hated Hillary. Others only care about their guns rights. Others were the white working class who lost their jobs. Yet others only care about tax cuts, or the wall or abortion, or they just were going to vote for Trump because their pastor at their church told them to vote for Trump. Hillary couldn't movilize most of Obama voters. Participation at the 2016 was about 57 or 58% of  eligible voters.

Well, we're going to have to disagree.  Electoral outcomes aren't just decided by what, but also by when.  There are a litany of examples of one candidate clearly on their way to victory when something dramatic or unexpected occurs and the outcome shakes out differently.  Not everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 was a supporter or could be considered part of his base.  As I mentioned earlier, perceptions of success or failure can greatly affect an outcome.  Elections are not destined.  There was nothing certain of Trump's win in 2016.  

15 minutes ago, Padme said:

Please explain why she lost Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada if the polls said she had a real shot.

Because things change.  But it doesn't change the fact that at one point in time she was leading in the polls and has just a good chance of winning as any other candidate.  She stumbled over healthcare and made a strategical error in going after Sanders.  That was what cost her a chance of winning those early states.  But it's wrong to state she never had a chance since it's clear as day that she made some unforced errors.

17 minutes ago, Padme said:

Something went wrong later on. I don't think it was her healthcare plan only.

As explained above, it was two factors.  Looking at poll numbers across time, you'll see that they peaked right before she was challenged on her healthcare plan that backtracked on her earlier claims of being a champion for Medicare for All.  She had picked up a lot of the support prior to this misstep from Sanders.  That allegiance flipped back to Sanders once it became apparent to many that Warren was being cagey about her plans for healthcare.  She decided to be realistic in her plans for changing America's healthcare system in a way that Sanders chose not to, and she paid the price for it.

This unforced error with healthcare explains why she lost her top polling results, but it's likely her attacks against Sanders that all but doomed her candidacy.  It was definitely a desperate play in an attempt to turn around a campaign that was losing momentum.  But it was the wrong one and ultimately motivated a lot of the very left-leaning supporters to find another candidate, most notably Sanders.

I'm not saying that had Warren not made these mistakes she would have been the nominee.  But it's wrong to suggest she never had a shot in light of her polling performance in late 2019 and the fact she made some questionable decisions very late into the race.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, downzy said:

Well, we're going to have to disagree.  Electoral outcomes aren't just decided by what, but also by when.  There are a litany of examples of one candidate clearly on their way to victory when something dramatic or unexpected occurs and the outcome shakes out differently.  Not everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 was a supporter or could be considered part of his base.  As I mentioned earlier, perceptions of success or failure can greatly affect an outcome.  Elections are not destined.  There was nothing certain of Trump's win in 2016

People who voted for Trump did it for different reasons. I wouldn't be suprised if some of them now change their mind. Also others didn't vote because they didn't like neither candidate.

11 minutes ago, downzy said:

She stumbled over healthcare and made a strategical error in going after Sanders.  That was what cost her a chance of winning those early states.  But it's wrong to state she never had a chance since it's clear as day that she made some unforced errors.

She went after Sanders because he was the guy to beat. That happens often in primaries. Later she went after Bloomberg for the same reason.Despite the fact that Bloomberg shot himself in the foot from the start. But the most important thing is that she needed to persuade people she was the best candidate to beat Trump. She didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The waffle on M4A was the biggest but here are some other mistakes that hurt her progressive support

-Supported Trump's obscene military budgets
-Supported Iran and Venezuela sanctions
-"I'm a capitalist to my bones"
-Clapped for Trump's chide of the progressive movement

Of course the whole DNA test thing was always something that hung over her head. AOC backing Sanders was pretty big also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BadApples87 said:

Who will Joe pick for Veep?

1.  Kamala Harris - Great debater.  Will solidify the African American vote.

2. Governor Whitmer (Michigan) - Popular in her state, which happens to be a huge swing state.

3.  Tulsi Gabbard - Military experience

Those would be my top 3

P.S. - NO NO NO Liz Warren!

 I think he should pick someone who is popular in the south or in the midwest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×