Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 178019 times)

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1850 on: January 09, 2020, 12:40:34 PM »
I am pro peace and I don't care who gets the credit for it. If this leads to peace with Iran I will be happy.

Killing someone isn’t peace.

Missile strikes are not peace.

You’ve already got less peace than you had before.

There hasn't been peace in the area for eons. I'm not happy with the strikes. I'm also not happy with the past two presidents who used force in multiple countries without proper foresight either. Not to mention the US involvement in Iran since the 1950s.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1851 on: January 09, 2020, 12:47:22 PM »
You have to look at who got killed, Kris.  Solemeni has killed many others.  He wasn't an innocent lamb.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/08/why-administration-claims-that-soleimani-killed-hundreds-americans/

There wasn't peace beforehand.  We might be moving towards peace after.  Of course, it's always complicated.

As a pro-peace with Iran type of person, what did you think about Trump pulling out of the nuclear arms deal that Iran was abiding by, and then instituting illegal sanctions on the country?

Very few agreements are perfect, but I believe the old agreement prevented a new player in the countries with nuclear arms.  The sanctions probably didn't win him any friends in Iran.  Now that he killed one of their own via an assassination making himself judge, jury and ordering the execution.  Just kinda sorta seems like a big step backwards.

However, I don't have the big picture details.  Seems like we'd be better off being friends with a country that can sell us oil if possible.

He didn't appear weak whch is important to some.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1852 on: January 09, 2020, 01:21:00 PM »
You have to look at who got killed, Kris.  Solemeni has killed many others.  He wasn't an innocent lamb.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/08/why-administration-claims-that-soleimani-killed-hundreds-americans/

There wasn't peace beforehand.  We might be moving towards peace after.  Of course, it's always complicated.

Yeah, this is why it is good and even morally right to murder a doctor at church because he provides abortion services.

/s

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1853 on: January 10, 2020, 02:31:22 PM »
What the Rebirth of This Old Steel Center Means for Trump
https://nyti.ms/30eq1AB

"He does not care for Mr. Trump’s personal style, but he said, “As far as the economy, I would keep riding the horse that works.”
Recent polling by The New York Times/Siena College found that in Pennsylvania and five other battleground states, nearly two-thirds of voters with a similar pattern — supporting Mr. Trump in 2016 and a Democrat in the midterms — said they intended to back the president.

Among the more than 30 business owners, professionals and employees interviewed in the two counties, many said their votes were still up for grabs. But “Medicare for all,” free public college tuition and other left-leaning proposals championed by candidates like Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont aroused more skepticism than enthusiasm.
The Democrats named as possibilities were all moderates, like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.; or the latest entrant, the billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg.

“I think there’s going to be a strong pull for Democrats in the county to come home if they can,” said John Kincaid, a government professor at Lafayette College in Easton. But the Democrats will need to offer more than someone-who-is-not-Trump.

“If Warren or Sanders is the candidate,” he said, “it’s going to be harder to bring those Democrats who voted for Trump over.”

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14813
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1854 on: January 10, 2020, 02:45:14 PM »
You don't want to change horses mid-stream.  Man, we've gone full on Wag the Dog.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qABA0X6IzxU

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1855 on: January 10, 2020, 02:51:51 PM »
Ha that's funny.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1856 on: January 11, 2020, 07:29:16 AM »
This is currently the order of my vote:

Yang
Biden
Bloomberg
Trump
Sanders
Warren (essentially everyone else would have had to drop out and she was running uncontested)

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1857 on: January 12, 2020, 07:59:47 PM »
Interesting ordering. So why Sanders over Warren?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1858 on: January 12, 2020, 08:40:03 PM »
Interesting ordering. So why Sanders over Warren?

I guess his order of preference is:

1. Neoconservatives
2. Democratic Socialists
3. Neoliberals

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2714
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1859 on: January 13, 2020, 01:00:09 AM »
What the Rebirth of This Old Steel Center Means for Trump
https://nyti.ms/30eq1AB

"He does not care for Mr. Trump’s personal style, but he said, “As far as the economy, I would keep riding the horse that works.”
Recent polling by The New York Times/Siena College found that in Pennsylvania and five other battleground states, nearly two-thirds of voters with a similar pattern — supporting Mr. Trump in 2016 and a Democrat in the midterms — said they intended to back the president.

Among the more than 30 business owners, professionals and employees interviewed in the two counties, many said their votes were still up for grabs. But “Medicare for all,” free public college tuition and other left-leaning proposals championed by candidates like Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont aroused more skepticism than enthusiasm.
The Democrats named as possibilities were all moderates, like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.; or the latest entrant, the billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg.

“I think there’s going to be a strong pull for Democrats in the county to come home if they can,” said John Kincaid, a government professor at Lafayette College in Easton. But the Democrats will need to offer more than someone-who-is-not-Trump.

“If Warren or Sanders is the candidate,” he said, “it’s going to be harder to bring those Democrats who voted for Trump over.”

Bloomberg doesn't get 'former mayor of the largest city in the United States?'  I don't know enough about him to have a valid opinion, but that's a pretty big slight as far as reporting goes.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1860 on: January 13, 2020, 04:44:55 AM »
They say people don't vote in their own interests, but a dumb thought finally occurred to me.  The folks who like the more conservative Democrats like Mayor Pete and Biden are the same folks who probably don't need the public health care, college education and a living minimum wage.  These things will raise taxes and the price of a hamburger.  Well, the health care may go down in price, but if what they have is good, they probably just don't want to mess with it.

There are a lot of well off people here who are probably a subset of those unnamed people in the paragraph above.  I guess I actually fit too, but still want to see those things change.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1861 on: January 13, 2020, 05:11:34 AM »
Interesting ordering. So why Sanders over Warren?

I guess his order of preference is:

1. Neoconservatives
2. Democratic Socialists
3. Neoliberals

Then Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar should be on the bottom of the list? Also not sure why Bloomberg made the list but Buttigieg and Klobuchar didn't?

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2631
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1862 on: January 13, 2020, 09:52:40 AM »
Just as a bookmark (pun not intended), Senator Cory Booker has suspended his campaign.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2955
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1863 on: January 13, 2020, 11:26:02 AM »
I think the Senate removal trial ramping up is going to make a lot of the Senators suddenly become realistic about their chances of securing the nomination.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1864 on: January 13, 2020, 02:10:23 PM »
I think the Senate removal trial ramping up is going to make a lot of the Senators suddenly become realistic about their chances of securing the nomination.

Yeah. It will be hard even for the ones that do have a realistic shot (Sanders and Warren). The won't want to miss the trial, but then they are missing out on prime campaigning time right before the Iowa caucuses.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2631
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1865 on: January 13, 2020, 02:23:23 PM »
I think the Senate removal trial ramping up is going to make a lot of the Senators suddenly become realistic about their chances of securing the nomination.

Yeah. It will be hard even for the ones that do have a realistic shot (Sanders and Warren). The won't want to miss the trial, but then they are missing out on prime campaigning time right before the Iowa caucuses.

Are the even allowed to miss the trial?

If they miss attending part of the trial, I can't imagine that the Senate rules would let them cast a vote.

I also can't imagine that any Democratic Senator would excuse themselves from the trial (if that's even permitted) and miss the opportunity to vote for conviction.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1866 on: January 13, 2020, 02:40:41 PM »
I don't know one way or another, but knowing the senate I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was no rule preventing a senator from missing part of the trial and still voting on the result.

That said I imagine the optics of missing would be very bad, so having the trial start a couple of weeks before Iowa and New Hampshire is likely to hurt Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar, and may help Biden, Buttigieg, and Yang. How much I don't know.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1867 on: January 13, 2020, 02:41:38 PM »
I think the Senate removal trial ramping up is going to make a lot of the Senators suddenly become realistic about their chances of securing the nomination.

Yeah. It will be hard even for the ones that do have a realistic shot (Sanders and Warren). The won't want to miss the trial, but then they are missing out on prime campaigning time right before the Iowa caucuses.

Are the even allowed to miss the trial?

If they miss attending part of the trial, I can't imagine that the Senate rules would let them cast a vote.

I also can't imagine that any Democratic Senator would excuse themselves from the trial (if that's even permitted) and miss the opportunity to vote for conviction.

Don't hold me to it but I think congresspeople are "allowed" to miss anything they want to. Statements like "Congress shall" or "the Senate shall" just mean that the organization is required to do it, not that every individual congressperson / senator is required to participate. The "fix" is supposed to be that their constituents get mad if they're not doing their job and vote them out.

But yeah I don't think any Dem candidate would miss the trial / vote.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1868 on: January 13, 2020, 02:45:51 PM »
I don't know one way or another, but knowing the senate I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was no rule preventing a senator from missing part of the trial and still voting on the result.

Well the trial rules are made up and voted on at the beginning of every trial. In this case I guess it'll depend on whether the Republicans think it's better for them to force Warren / Sanders from missing a week or two of campaigning, or if they'd rather give them the option of not showing up and hoping they take it so they can try a "see they voted without even hearing the case, proving it's all a witch hunt!" line.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1869 on: January 13, 2020, 02:46:52 PM »
According to a recent discussion on the NPR Politics Podcast (recommended, BTW) sitting Senators are required to be there for an impeachment trial.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1870 on: January 13, 2020, 05:18:07 PM »
According to a recent discussion on the NPR Politics Podcast (recommended, BTW) sitting Senators are required to be there for an impeachment trial.

Yeh!  They wouldn't want to miss anything the witnesses have to say. (if any are allowed)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1871 on: January 13, 2020, 08:16:12 PM »
there's another debate on Tuesday night, right ?

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1872 on: January 13, 2020, 08:45:14 PM »
According to a recent discussion on the NPR Politics Podcast (recommended, BTW) sitting Senators are required to be there for an impeachment trial.

What is the penalty if they aren't? Do they lose their vote or does the trial stop? Could Lindsay Graham stop the whole impeachment process by just staying in South Carolina?

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2631
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1873 on: January 13, 2020, 11:07:37 PM »
According to a recent discussion on the NPR Politics Podcast (recommended, BTW) sitting Senators are required to be there for an impeachment trial.

What is the penalty if they aren't? Do they lose their vote or does the trial stop? Could Lindsay Graham stop the whole impeachment process by just staying in South Carolina?

I doubt there is a penalty, other than "bad optics" as someone mentioned.  I doubt they lose their vote, and I doubt the trial would stop.

I read the Senate rules for the Clinton impeachment trial (which have been proposed to be adopted for the Trump impeachment trial...we'll see), and all it says is that the trial shall be conducted six days a week (excepting Sundays), and that the removal vote is 2/3 of Members who are present, so they certainly would want to show up for the vote.

I have heard media reports that say Senators "have to" be in Washington for the trial.  But I don't know of any law or rule requiring it; I think this phrasing is meant to say that Senators (in particular the Democrat Senators running for the Democratic nomination) really don't have any reasonable alternative to doing so.

Chris Pascale

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1874 on: January 14, 2020, 09:10:16 PM »
there's another debate on Tuesday night, right ?

Wrapped up a bit ago, but Yang got screwed*. The Democratic Party refused to run sponsored polls after the December debate until weeks after all the news outlets reported that Yang wouldn't be in it, essentially advertising that, for all intents and purposes, he's out of the race.

How he polls lower than Klobuchar while raising about 40% more money than her while not taking PAC money is a mystery.


*obviously, I'm biased given that I re-registered so I could vote for the guy

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1875 on: January 15, 2020, 08:45:28 AM »
there's another debate on Tuesday night, right ?

Wrapped up a bit ago, but Yang got screwed*. The Democratic Party refused to run sponsored polls after the December debate until weeks after all the news outlets reported that Yang wouldn't be in it, essentially advertising that, for all intents and purposes, he's out of the race.

How he polls lower than Klobuchar while raising about 40% more money than her while not taking PAC money is a mystery.


*obviously, I'm biased given that I re-registered so I could vote for the guy

That's not how it works. The DNC doesn't run polls themselves, they "blessed" 16 different pollsters at the beginning of the primary process as the ones who's polls they'd use. It just so happened that none of them wanted to be running large polling efforts over Christmas.

I agree Yang got screwed, just not that there's some DNC conspiracy against him. Yang requested that the DNC commission their own polls to make up for the lack of polling from the regular pollsters, but the DNC declined, saying:

Quote
The DNC will not sponsor its own debate-qualifying polls of presidential candidates during a primary. This would break with a long standing practice of both parties using independent polling for debate qualification, and it would be an inappropriate use of DNC resources that should be directed at beating Donald Trump.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1876 on: January 15, 2020, 08:56:49 AM »
Yang polls higher than Klobuchar nationally. Klobuchar polls higher than him (sometimes) in Iowa. Iowa and national polls count equally for the DNC’s debate rules (actually early states have an advantage because of the 7% rule), but national support is going to have a much bigger impact on fundraising.

I am still hoping for a surprise outcome in the caucuses. It has happened before, but it would have been easier/more likely if yang had been on the stage last night.

Tried watching the debate anyway, but it was just a mix of boring and depressing. We really needed an argument about he-said/she-said disagreements over what was said in a private meeting or whether winning an election about a republican incumbent 29 years and 2 months ago should be rounded up to 30 years ago or not? Gave up after that exchange and went off to do more fun things away from screens.

Life is too short.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1877 on: January 15, 2020, 10:13:48 AM »
Warren did well I think. Though saying that she's a better candidate cause she beat an incumbent Rep. that won on a special election during the peak of tea party madness. It's... a compelling narrative, but I think Sanders bringing up that his initial election into congress was winning over a Rep. was warranted. Her using this as a wedge issue I think is a good thing. Much of the electorate is nervous about nominating a woman, and forcing everyone on stage to say a woman can do it I think may see some points swing her way.

The moderator was ugh.

Steyer did much better than previous debates. He had great answers and is very much looking to curry favor. I think he's aiming for California Senate or maybe Warren's VP.

Klobuchar looked a bit defeated/tired. Though brought some serious points

Pete again only states problems, and is short on actual solutions. I think his answers are like 80% restate the problem the wrap up with generic as possible solution.

It took Biden a little bit to get into it, but did ok.

Bernie had a good night. Solid answers, I think handled the whole Warren thing as best as he could have.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1878 on: January 15, 2020, 10:55:51 AM »
Is anyone really learning anything from the debates anyway? There may be engaged yet low info voters who tune in, but I'm guessing the bulk of eventual primary voters are either relatively low engaged, or are high info, and I can't see these tuning in or learning anything new, respectively. I'm beginning to doubt the whole point of a primary system, at least as it's currently playing out in both parties (huge, muddled mess lasting way too long and hasn't even begun! on the Democratic side, and the banana-republic rubber-stamping process that the Republican one has become).

I think what I'm really dissatisfied about is the reality of our presidential republic, it's making less sense to me to ask a nation of 350M people to choose ONE PERSON. I think we need to move in one of two directions, either back to a weaker and limited executive, or a more parliamentary style system.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1879 on: January 15, 2020, 11:01:12 AM »
Is anyone really learning anything from the debates anyway? There may be engaged yet low info voters who tune in, but I'm guessing the bulk of eventual primary voters are either relatively low engaged, or are high info, and I can't see these tuning in or learning anything new, respectively. I'm beginning to doubt the whole point of a primary system, at least as it's currently playing out in both parties (huge, muddled mess lasting way too long and hasn't even begun! on the Democratic side, and the banana-republic rubber-stamping process that the Republican one has become).

I think what I'm really dissatisfied about is the reality of our presidential republic, it's making less sense to me to ask a nation of 350M people to choose ONE PERSON. I think we need to move in one of two directions, either back to a weaker and limited executive, or a more parliamentary style system.

I agree with you there. A parliament would be the best solution for our country. Though that change would be a difficult to pull off. Much easier would be to force the primary start to be in June. Hopefully that would reduce the timeframe from a 2-year process to more like a 1.5 year process.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1880 on: January 17, 2020, 09:30:03 AM »
Is anyone really learning anything from the debates anyway? There may be engaged yet low info voters who tune in, but I'm guessing the bulk of eventual primary voters are either relatively low engaged, or are high info, and I can't see these tuning in or learning anything new, respectively. I'm beginning to doubt the whole point of a primary system, at least as it's currently playing out in both parties (huge, muddled mess lasting way too long and hasn't even begun! on the Democratic side, and the banana-republic rubber-stamping process that the Republican one has become).

Plus the Democrats will end up spending hundreds of millions of dollars bickering among themselves while the incumbent stockpiles donations for the general election. Great system.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1881 on: January 17, 2020, 10:23:01 AM »
Let's wait and see what Iowa and New Hampshire do. If we end up with Biden as the nominee, I'll agree that in this case we could have skipped the whole multi-year process of campaigning and debates and just had a national primary (because, based on polling, that would have been the outcome of a national primary held anytime from last spring until now).

The argument for the long process starting off with a few lead states (all relatively small states) is that it allows candidates who don't already have national name recognition to make the case for their candidacy based on policies, priorities, and leadership personalities in a retail politics setting where the disadvantages of not already being a national political figure with a huge war chest aren't so daunting.

That's how we got Obama in 2008, an inspirational candidate with limited experience and a smaller political network who voters were excited to vote for and who won elections, rather than Clinton, a candidate with strong political connections and a long resume who turned out to be someone voters were NOT excited to vote for in 2016. If we'd had a national primary in 2008, based  on polling it is a near certainty that Clinton would have been the nominee.

Personally I'm convinced that -- based on what happened in 2016 -- if that happened we would likely have ended up with a President McCain ... and potentially at some point during the term a president Palin.

That's the theory ... now whether the system still works in practice or not... well let's see over the next month or so.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1882 on: January 17, 2020, 10:34:40 AM »
We could still have a staggered primary.

All primaries happen June-July
Party conventions in August
General Campaign Sept-Oct.

90% of the vote happens now in March-April, so nothing much different just push it closer to the actual election date.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1883 on: January 17, 2020, 11:42:50 AM »
Yes, agreed it's silly that most states vote in February - April, and then we have a few months of last straggling primaries that either don't matter because all but one candidate have been mathematically eliminated (most primaries) OR drag out the process of selecting nominee and let the battle lines between supporters of different candidates harden (Clinton/Obama in '08, Clinton/Sanders in '16).

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1884 on: January 17, 2020, 01:47:19 PM »

- SNIP -

Plus the Democrats will end up spending hundreds of millions of dollars bickering among themselves while the incumbent stockpiles donations for the general election. Great system.

That's for sure.  take this latest tiff between Warren and Sanders.  Did he say a women couldn't win the presidency 2 years ago?  Who Cares?  Even if he said it, it could have been out of context.  Do you remember what you may have said in a private conversation two years ago?  Much ado about nothing.  Time is wasted with this rather than discussing "real" issues.

I'll bet Trump is falling over laughing.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1885 on: January 18, 2020, 08:27:19 AM »
So Biden wants to revoke Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. This is a piece of US law that states that what users post on websites may expose them to legal liability, the website that just accepts user submissions isn't legally liable for what users upload (subject to various restrictions and requirements).

So, for example, if I chose to post a copyrighted article or story to this forum, I could be personally sued, but Mr. Money Mustache himself wouldn't be.* More seriously, if a troll created an account and used it to harass users or even post death threats, Mr. Money Mustache (or the forum moderators) may need to take the posts down, but the forum owners themselves aren't legally considered to be the people who MADE those death threats.

Completely repealing Section 230 -- as Biden appears to be advocating -- would basically make it impossible to run a social media site (from facebook or twitter right down to this forum; any site that posts user submissions without detailed human review), as each new post would potentially expose the site operator to near unlimited amounts of civil or criminal liability.

I'm trying really hard to make my peace with who ever might end up as the democratic nominee, but, while the internet isn't the single most important issue for me, this is ridiculous.

*Assuming he took it down once the rights holder wrote to him to make him aware I'd posted something copywrited to his site.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14813
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1886 on: January 18, 2020, 01:05:39 PM »
Yeah.  That's stupid.  But hating/not understanding technology is pretty common in octogenarians.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2631
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1887 on: January 18, 2020, 01:59:11 PM »
OK, my prediction is that the next President will be one of:

Trump
Harris
Warren
Buttigieg

For various reasons, I don't think anyone else is going to make it.

Long way to go, and stuff could happen, of course.

Updating my prediction from last June, when about 25-30 candidates were running.

Obviously Harris dropped out.  I no longer thing she will become our next President.

When I included Warren in the list above, I didn't really think much of her candidacy for various reasons, but I couldn't fully convince myself she couldn't win.  After the most recent debate, I don't think she can win the Presidency.

So my list of last names of our next President is down to:

Trump
Buttigieg

I know 538.com currently has Biden and Sanders as the most likely to get the nomination.  So by my list above, I'm predicting that if either of them wins the primary nomination, they will lose to Trump in the general.

I'm not necessarily a Buttigieg acolyte.  I just think everyone else can't win the general.

I note that Buttigieg is a male under 50.  You have to go back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 before you get a winning Democrat who didn't meet that criteria when becoming elected to the Presidency for the first time.

I could easily be wrong.  I've been wrong about other predictions I've made in this thread (like Harris being a stronger candidate and Williamson dropping out first, among others).

Probably the biggest risk to my prediction is the 15% chance that 538.com currently assigns to no candidate accumulating a majority of delegates by the convention.  If that happens, I think it is pretty hard to predict who the nominee ends up being.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1888 on: January 18, 2020, 02:08:42 PM »
Trump, maybe, that guy could get away with murder and people would still like him.  In fact, he just did.

Trump and the GOP would swallow Buttigieg in one bite.  Not a chance for him.


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4861
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1889 on: January 18, 2020, 03:19:58 PM »
Trump, maybe, that guy could get away with murder and people would still like him.  In fact, he just did.

Trump and the GOP would swallow Buttigieg in one bite.  Not a chance for him.
Buttigieg is the one leading candidate that Trump doesn't have an obvious "hook" to use against - he's not socialist, he's not the subject of (fake but very persistent) corruption allegations and he's not the subject of claims over his ancestry.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1890 on: January 18, 2020, 03:54:04 PM »
I could envision Buttigieg winning more easily than I can picture a favorable general election outcome for Warren, Sanders, or Biden.

More quantitatively:

-PredictIt: The implied odds of winning the general election against Trump if a candidate were to become the nominee for the democratic party are 50/50 for Warren and Bloomberg, 52% odds of winning against Trump for Biden, 57% for Buttigieg, ~70% for Sanders and Yang (based on PredictIt prices for bets on who will be the democratic nominee and the next president).

-BetOnline: Odds for head to head matchups imply Warren would have a 38% chance of winning in a head to head matchup with Trump , Biden 42%, Sanders 50%, and Yang 58%. (I couldn't find the odds for a Buttigieg/Trump head to head posted).

So my "gut feeling" may underestimate how well Sanders would potentially do in a head to head matchup with Trump (if you put any weight in the accuracy of prediction markets).

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1891 on: January 18, 2020, 10:13:55 PM »
^I am also surprised at the implied conditional odds of a Sanders presidential victory. I am confident enough to put money on Sanders being less likely to win than that, but too lazy to bother figuring out how to do so on a betting site. Of course, the main problem with prediction markets is they tend to suffer in fidelity due to low trading volume because of lazy people like me (and who knows, maybe gambling laws also get in the way?). The other candidates' odds seem reasonable to me on first glance; however, busting out my copy of Tetlock's Superforecasting, when I consider the base case for an incumbent president to win an election held when the economy is very strong, I have doubts on those as well. Maybe all of the Dem candidates are a bit over-estimated?.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1892 on: January 19, 2020, 07:53:29 AM »
Trump, maybe, that guy could get away with murder and people would still like him.  In fact, he just did.

Trump and the GOP would swallow Buttigieg in one bite.  Not a chance for him.
Buttigieg is the one leading candidate that Trump doesn't have an obvious "hook" to use against - he's not socialist, he's not the subject of (fake but very persistent) corruption allegations and he's not the subject of claims over his ancestry.

Well... he does have one...

And given how many Republicans I have heard/seen refer to him as Buttplug, I would imagine that’s the direction Trump would/will go.

Not pretty. Disgusting, actually. But when has that ever stopped 45 before?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1893 on: January 19, 2020, 10:05:25 AM »
He doesn't even have to say a word.  It's already there, the info. is availalble and while people may not say anything, it can affect how the votes come out.  Even if people are OK with things like gay marriage, it doesn't mean that they are going to feel comfortable with a homosexual couple in the White House.   He can show off Melania, who is a beautiful first lady, and the point is practically made.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 10:06:58 AM by KBecks »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1894 on: January 19, 2020, 10:25:41 AM »
He doesn't even have to say a word.  It's already there, the info. is availalble and while people may not say anything, it can affect how the votes come out.  Even if people are OK with things like gay marriage, it doesn't mean that they are going to feel comfortable with a homosexual couple in the White House.   He can show off Melania, who is a beautiful first lady, and the point is practically made.

Ironically, I think if he were single, he would have a better chance...b/c even religious voters who normally vote Dem are likely to be made extremely uneasy at having his homosexuality constantly made 'visible' by his marriage partner on the public stage.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1895 on: January 19, 2020, 10:44:20 AM »
If anything I think Trump's makes me less worried about Buttigieg facing any headwinds for being both gay and married to another man. Say what you will about the guy, he clearly has effective instincts about what his base do and don't respond to, and he hasn't been pushing the gay card all that much. I remember in 2008 when California voted against legalizing gay marriage (same year Iowa did legalize it, first state outside of New England). But by 2016 Trump was already saying national wide legal gay marriage was settled law, and he was personally fine with it.

I haven't heard anyone say they'd consider voting for one or more democratic candidates but not Buttigieg because he was gay. I've heard some people say they wouldn't vote for him because in their view he wasn't liberal enough, but these tend to be Sanders supporters who have some version of the same response to any candidate who isn't their guy (except maybe sometimes Warren). It is, of course, possible that people are uncomfortable and would vote against him for that reason but are unwilling to say so aloud because they realize it's not a socially acceptable position to take. I remember hearing the same argument for how McCain was going to win even with Obama leading in most of the polls ("people don't want to admit they aren't willing to vote for a black candidate"/Bradley effect), and it turned out to be a non-issue.

While obviously we won't know for sure unless Buttigieg wins the nomination, which seems quite unlikely right now, I think the political effectiveness of propping up gay people as some sort of electoral bugaboo may have run its course.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1896 on: January 19, 2020, 11:00:53 AM »
If anything I think Trump's makes me less worried about Buttigieg facing any headwinds for being both gay and married to another man. Say what you will about the guy, he clearly has effective instincts about what his base do and don't respond to, and he hasn't been pushing the gay card all that much. I remember in 2008 when California voted against legalizing gay marriage (same year Iowa did legalize it, first state outside of New England). But by 2016 Trump was already saying national wide legal gay marriage was settled law, and he was personally fine with it.

I haven't heard anyone say they'd consider voting for one or more democratic candidates but not Buttigieg because he was gay. I've heard some people say they wouldn't vote for him because in their view he wasn't liberal enough, but these tend to be Sanders supporters who have some version of the same response to any candidate who isn't their guy (except maybe sometimes Warren). It is, of course, possible that people are uncomfortable and would vote against him for that reason but are unwilling to say so aloud because they realize it's not a socially acceptable position to take. I remember hearing the same argument for how McCain was going to win even with Obama leading in most of the polls ("people don't want to admit they aren't willing to vote for a black candidate"/Bradley effect), and it turned out to be a non-issue.

While obviously we won't know for sure unless Buttigieg wins the nomination, which seems quite unlikely right now, I think the political effectiveness of propping up gay people as some sort of electoral bugaboo may have run its course.

What Trump actually thinks about gay marriage is essentially irrelevant. He wants to win, and he will do whatever it takes. Which in his playbook, means character assassination, cheap shots, and denigration of anyone who gets in his way.

If Buttigieg gets the nomination (and I agree it is not likely), I would bet some serious coin that Trump would refer to him as “Buttplug” or some similar slur at some point in a campaign rally. And that will be all it will take for his base to go full-on homophobe... including, I would imagine, a marked increase of homophobic assault, vandalism, and other related events.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1897 on: January 19, 2020, 11:10:41 AM »
I think we may have failed to communicate somehow. I don't care what Trump thinks about gay people personally either. My point is that if Trump thought/felt homophobia was still a winning move with his base, he'd have been playing it up for the past four years, instead of mostly dropping the issue and he certainly wouldn't have given a quote like that (regardless of his actual personal views, if he even has any).

I have no doubt that if Buttigieg were the nominee Trump would still try to go after him on his sexual orientation, funny name, etc (and throw everything else he can come up with against the wall to see what sticks). If Buttigieg wins the nomination and loses the general, I think it'll be because a straight version of Buttigieg (someone with the same background, policies, and last name) would also have lost.


secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2631
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1898 on: January 19, 2020, 11:18:47 AM »
OK, my prediction is that the next President will be one of:

Trump
Harris
Warren
Buttigieg

For various reasons, I don't think anyone else is going to make it.

Long way to go, and stuff could happen, of course.

Updating my prediction from last June, when about 25-30 candidates were running.

Obviously Harris dropped out.  I no longer think she will become our next President.

When I included Warren in the list above, I didn't really think much of her candidacy for various reasons, but I couldn't fully convince myself she couldn't win.  After the most recent debate, I don't think she can win the Presidency.

So my list of last names of our next President is down to:

Trump
Buttigieg

I know 538.com currently has Biden and Sanders as the most likely to get the nomination.  So by my list above, I'm predicting that if either of them wins the primary nomination, they will lose to Trump in the general.

I'm not necessarily a Buttigieg acolyte.  I just think everyone else can't win the general.

I note that Buttigieg is a male under 50.  You have to go back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 before you get a winning Democrat who didn't meet that criteria when becoming elected to the Presidency for the first time.

I could easily be wrong.  I've been wrong about other predictions I've made in this thread (like Harris being a stronger candidate and Williamson dropping out first, among others).

Probably the biggest risk to my prediction is the 15% chance that 538.com currently assigns to no candidate accumulating a majority of delegates by the convention.  If that happens, I think it is pretty hard to predict who the nominee ends up being.

Fixed small typo in the above.

I forgot about the billionaires, who entered the race after my initial 4-person prediction.  I don't think either Bloomberg or Steyer will win the nomination.  I do think it will be interesting if either of them decides to run independently in the general election.  I don't know what would happen in that scenario.  I think it is far more likely that Bloomberg would run independently; I think Steyer would just support the Democrat nominee.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1899 on: January 19, 2020, 11:26:12 AM »
I think we may have failed to communicate somehow. I don't care what Trump thinks about gay people personally either. My point is that if Trump thought/felt homophobia was still a winning move with his base, he'd have been playing it up for the past four years, instead of mostly dropping the issue and he certainly wouldn't have given a quote like that (regardless of his actual personal views, if he even has any).

I have no doubt that if Buttigieg were the nominee Trump would still try to go after him on his sexual orientation, funny name, etc (and throw everything else he can come up with against the wall to see what sticks). If Buttigieg wins the nomination and loses the general, I think it'll be because a straight version of Buttigieg (someone with the same background, policies, and last name) would also have lost.

I agree with most of this. I was merely stating that Trump hasn’t pulled out the homophobia yet because he hasn’t seen the need to. He’s got plenty of other racism and right-wing scare tactics and conspiracy theories to draw from. But if Buttegieg were the nominee, he would certainly pull the anti-gay arrow from his quiver — to keep any stray members of Trump’s base from seeing B as anything but the comical butt of a cheap joke, and therefore stop them from looking any closer at him. And also to firm up his most fervent support, including Evangelicals. And also just run of the mill hateful people who will say, “Trump ain’t perfect, but at least he ain’t a ...(insert your choice of homophobic slur here).”

If a nominee Buttegieg loses, I agree it will mostly be because he didn’t sway enough people on the left. But, I also don’t completely discount the slow but persistent drip-drip influence of homophobia and derision in waning enthusiasm for that candidate, consciously or unconsciously, across the board. And given how close the election could be, that might end up mattering a fair amount.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 11:31:44 AM by Kris »