Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 292333 times)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2150 on: February 08, 2020, 10:42:35 AM »
but not one in the typical shrieking harpy mold

You've described Donald Trump to a T

As Bill Maher often describes him, "whiny little bitch."

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3137
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2151 on: February 08, 2020, 10:54:12 AM »
Not really a POTUS candidate thing (the title of this thread), but I thought most people here might be interested in this 538 update on the Nevada caucus:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nevada-democrats-canceled-their-caucus-app-but-that-poses-its-own-problems/

TLDR:  app canceled (likely due to Iowa mess), not sure what the new plan is quite yet.


wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2657
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2153 on: February 08, 2020, 04:31:20 PM »
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7981421/Former-Clinton-adviser-James-Carville-slams-elite-media-says-Democrats-losing-damn-minds.html

I always liked Carville

Yeah, I always operate under the assumption that if the Dems can possibly find a way to lose, they'll embrace it. 

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2154 on: February 08, 2020, 04:44:41 PM »
I think Clinton's statement there just as valid, if not more so, in 2020 as it was in 2016. In some ways she was prescient that people who turned out to vote for change with Obama in 2008 and 2012 would vote for completely different change from a different source in 2016.

Are these the same people?

What we know from MI is that the state gained adult voters from 2008/2012 to 2016 but fewer people voted for Clinton and Trump combined.

This tells us that neither candidate excited Michigan voters as much as Obama did in 2008/12. To put it another way: Clinton? Blah.

DaMa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2155 on: February 08, 2020, 09:07:45 PM »
I think Clinton's statement there just as valid, if not more so, in 2020 as it was in 2016. In some ways she was prescient that people who turned out to vote for change with Obama in 2008 and 2012 would vote for completely different change from a different source in 2016.

Are these the same people?

What we know from MI is that the state gained adult voters from 2008/2012 to 2016 but fewer people voted for Clinton and Trump combined.

This tells us that neither candidate excited Michigan voters as much as Obama did in 2008/12. To put it another way: Clinton? Blah.

Those extra Michigan voters were mostly blacks who were inspired to vote for Obama.  The were uninspired by Hilary.  I believe (hope) they will be inspired to vote Not Trump in 2020.

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4861
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2156 on: February 08, 2020, 09:58:15 PM »
I don't disagree that people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but just didn't show up to vote in 2016 were another big part of the reason Clinton lost (alongside the Obama-Trump, any-change-is-preferable-to-our-hopeless-status-quo voters).

But the story in Michigan is a bit more complex. Michigan turnout as a percent of registered voters was actually exactly the same in 2012 and 2016 at 63%.

The reason my statement and the statement that fewer people voted for Trump + Clinton combined (2016) vs Romney + Obama combined (2012) can be true at the same time is a big spike in the third party vote.

In 2012 candidates other than the top two captured 1.08% of the total vote.
In 2016 candidates other than the top two captured 5.23% of the vote, with about 2/3rds of those votes going to the libertarian party.

The difference could be because the libertarian party didn't make the ballot in 2012 and did in 2016, or it could represent protest votes by conventional republicans who were unhappy with Trump as the nominee.

DaMa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2157 on: February 08, 2020, 10:37:36 PM »
Two of my sons voted 3rd party in 2016.  One, a staunch Republican, voted libertarian - anti-Trump vote.  The other, a liberal, voted Green party - anti-Hilary vote.  (He was a Bernie supporter.)  They were 24 and 25 yrs old at the time. 

Obviously, that's anecdotal, but I would say it was definitely #2.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3137
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2158 on: February 11, 2020, 07:41:35 PM »
Yang dropped out shortly after the polls closed in NH today.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3137
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2159 on: February 11, 2020, 08:05:23 PM »
And Bennet is out.

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4861
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2160 on: February 11, 2020, 08:08:53 PM »
Yang dropped out shortly after the polls closed in NH today.

Saw that. Damned shame, but it was time. I can imagine lots of what ifs*, but at this point there weren't any realistic game changers left.

I look forward to become redisengaged from the democratic process. Will try remember to vote in November. Realistically I don't think I've missed voting in a presidential election yet.

*Starting with if he'd been given equal time in debates to the candidates he was outpolling and outfundraising for most of the race, or if he'd been taken as seriously by the news media as those same candidates. But it is what it is.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2161 on: February 11, 2020, 09:32:04 PM »
Well the NY Times calls Sanders the winner in New Hampshire, Sanders is around 3,500 votes ahead of Buttigieg at this point.
Still about 20% of the vote is not in.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2162 on: February 12, 2020, 07:05:02 AM »
I'm damn impressed with Pete's performance in New Hampshire, especially with Klob putting on such a strong showing as well! So he got more of my money last night.

Who knows what Nevada polls will show, but I'm willing to guess Biden will be losing his #1 spot. I think Pete (and Klob) talking about inclusion and welcoming everyone who wants to get out Trump is the right take.

I'm anticipating next week's debate will be the nastiest one thus far. Candidates have to make their moves! Knives out for Bloomberg! Biden's last stand? Warren has got to be getting desperate, but will she play nice and aim for VP? Pete and Klob round 3 (Pete has got to develop zingers against her, I think she's actually his biggest threat now.)

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2163 on: February 12, 2020, 07:31:13 AM »
Warren has got to be getting desperate, but will she play nice and aim for VP?

Every primary season it seems like there is speculation that one of the top tier contenders (i.e., one that receives any delegates) is going to be picked for VP, but it rarely seems to happen. From what I can tell, the last time a VP pick received any delegates in the primary was 40 years ago when Reagan chose H.W. Bush.


maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4861
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2164 on: February 12, 2020, 07:49:31 AM »
Every primary season it seems like there is speculation that one of the top tier contenders (i.e., one that receives any delegates) is going to be picked for VP, but it rarely seems to happen. From what I can tell, the last time a VP pick received any delegates in the primary was 40 years ago when Reagan chose H.W. Bush.

I think the most recent example was John Edwards receiving delegates in 2004 and going on to be Kerry's VP pick.

16 years and six competitive primaries (counting democratic and republican primaries where an incumbent wasn't running separately) ago.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2165 on: February 12, 2020, 07:50:12 AM »
Warren has got to be getting desperate, but will she play nice and aim for VP?

Every primary season it seems like there is speculation that one of the top tier contenders (i.e., one that receives any delegates) is going to be picked for VP, but it rarely seems to happen. From what I can tell, the last time a VP pick received any delegates in the primary was 40 years ago when Reagan chose H.W. Bush.

Yeah, I know, and it just seems odd to me. I mean, why not grab someone who has an obvious base of support of their own and reemphasize the whole "We're on the same team" messaging some/most of the candidates have been saying? I guess the nominee wants to make sure that their VP pick doesn't overshadow them, or that crowds don't chant the VP's name instead of the candidate's.

And I know conventional wisdom is that VP choices don't move the needle, but I mean really, Tim Kaine??? Could Hillary have picked a blander choice?

The Dems have such a deep bench in this election, it seems a waste not to take advantage of that.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2166 on: February 12, 2020, 07:56:14 AM »
Warren has got to be getting desperate, but will she play nice and aim for VP?

Every primary season it seems like there is speculation that one of the top tier contenders (i.e., one that receives any delegates) is going to be picked for VP, but it rarely seems to happen. From what I can tell, the last time a VP pick received any delegates in the primary was 40 years ago when Reagan chose H.W. Bush.

Yeah, I know, and it just seems odd to me. I mean, why not grab someone who has an obvious base of support of their own and reemphasize the whole "We're on the same team" messaging some/most of the candidates have been saying? I guess the nominee wants to make sure that their VP pick doesn't overshadow them, or that crowds don't chant the VP's name instead of the candidate's.

And I know conventional wisdom is that VP choices don't move the needle, but I mean really, Tim Kaine??? Could Hillary have picked a blander choice?

The Dems have such a deep bench in this election, it seems a waste not to take advantage of that.

My mom and I were saying Sanders and Warren should just join forces.  Sanders as POTUS, Warren as VP.  Consolidate the progressive base and I think they'd be unstoppable in primary season.

The counter is whether they'd be able to win a general election, but I think they would. 

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2167 on: February 12, 2020, 08:04:41 AM »
I wonder how significant it is that Amy Klobuchar surpassed Elizabeth Warren in New Hampshire. 

Whomever mentioned that Klobuchar would be a VP pick for Bernie made an interesting suggestion.  Having a younger VP is attractive, especially with a much-older candidate (if it goes down that way).


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2168 on: February 12, 2020, 08:08:28 AM »
I like Bernie, but he's too old to be president.  Here's hoping Buttigieg can keep up his showing.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2169 on: February 12, 2020, 08:29:27 AM »

I don't agree the chances of Dems winning in 2020 aren't very good. It will probably be about coin flip odds. Trump had 1/5 odds of winning the first time. As a sitting president he will probably be at at least a 50% odds to win this go around. His base will turn out and Trump is a really strong campaigner. His margin for victory in many of the swings states was narrow the first go around though. All it will take is a candidate on the Dem side who can turn out more voters than Clinton in swing states. Or a weaker than expected turnout for Trump. This could be especially easy if the general hatred for Clinton caused a number of voters, especially in the Midwest, to just not vote.


We'll see. It's still early. In the mean time, I reckon I'll just go with the bookmakers odds.  They have skin and money in the game and can't much allow their personal bias.  Here are the odds as of this morning (best odds per odds checker):

Donald Trump: 8/13
Bernie Saunders: 29/5
Pete Buttgieg; 21/1
Michael Bloomberg 6/1
Joe Biden 33/1
Elizabeth Warren 166/1   

(keep in mind "best" odds mean highest payoff)

Quote

I still think Bernie has the best chance to win because he has strong appeal among a similar portion of the base that broke for Trump. And he will definitely split off those working class people who are not clear conservatives but couldn't stomach Clinton. The rest of the Democrats that hate Bernie for being a wacky old socialist will suck it up and vote for him in blue states because they will have no other choice. The republicans showed us how that plays out last election cycle, when people said Trump could grab the whole Repub base because he was too extreme...

Warren would likely pull a stronger youth vote than Clinton, but the youth vote has never helped win a presidential election I know of. But she is still a change candidate with no negative marks against her. She is likable and popular with a good command of social media.

Buttigieg is a fresh face and a great speaker who would also likely do really if he mounted a solid campaign in the rust belt.

If any of those 3 become the candidate for the Dems they have a good shot. Why? Because they are either fresh faces or people who are perceived to be agents of change. I think the biggest failing of having a candidate like John Kerry run against Bush back the last time the dems were in this position is that he was a bland party loyalist. Fresh faces, agents of change, and charismatic speakers are more likely to gain the momentum they need to put up a good fight for president. And fortunately so far its seem the bland choice, *Biden*, are not doing so hot.

I don't think any of the Democratic faction candidates have a particularly good shot. Incumbency in the Presidential race has great advantage. I found the odds above interesting as they ranked Michael Bloomberg so highly.

Peeling off states will not be greatly easy given that for several months, the candidates will be spending time and resources fighting each other for the nomination.  That chews up resources.  Basically, I think the election is Donald Trumps to lose.     

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2170 on: February 12, 2020, 08:49:25 AM »


If you truly believe that all candidates are equally bad then you should run as an independent and vote for yourself.  When that option is suggested, most people decided that one candidate suddenly becomes more palatable than the many others though - as I've never actually met someone who really believed that all options were equally bad.  Met many who like to say that as a way to brush off their duty of voting though.

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.

As for a “duty” to vote, as required by whom? Nowhere in the Constitution or our laws are private citizens required to vote. It’s strictly voluntary. At least until the political busybodies decide to force us to. For our own good, of course.

A duty is not a requirement, it is an expectation or commitment.

I agree.  Perhaps I should have phrased that better. Whose expectation or commitment is it for me or anyone else to vote? I never committed to vote. No one came up to me and said that in exchange for ____  benefit, I am expected to vote. All I seem to notice are platitudes.   

There were 136 million plus votes cast in 2016.  I've done the math and my voice counts for less that 0.00000000735 of the decision, were I to decide to vote.  Talking about politics is interesting in a darkly humorous way.  However given the time and the odds, I think playing the lottery is more optimal than voting from a cost/benefit perspective.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2171 on: February 12, 2020, 08:52:55 AM »
I think the most recent example was John Edwards receiving delegates in 2004 and going on to be Kerry's VP pick.
16 years and six competitive primaries (counting democratic and republican primaries where an incumbent wasn't running separately) ago.

Ahh, you're right.  So it's happened twice in the last 14 competitive primaries.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2172 on: February 12, 2020, 09:04:33 AM »
I wonder how significant it is that Amy Klobuchar surpassed Elizabeth Warren in New Hampshire.

Considering a good chunk of New Hampshire's population lives in areas that are almost bedroom communities of Boston (Warren's home town), I'd say quite significant.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2173 on: February 12, 2020, 09:09:34 AM »

I believe Buffalo abstains from voting in congressional, primary, and local elections as well.

You're correct. I abstain across the board.

One of the few persuasive arguments I've seen for voting is that it allows you to participate in local elections where the issues are closer to home and where you have a better chance from a mathematical perspective to have an impact. It is one of the better arguments and I think the pro-voting advocates are smart to use it. 

From my perspective, most states I've lived in are Dillon rule states where localities are limited to those very narrow functions that the state allows them to perform.  Frankly, I'm not all that interested in who picks up the trash so long as it gets picked up. Every city I've lived in so far does a very good job of it. Same with fire services. As regards the math, having a one in ten thousand voice versus one in 136 million voice is still pretty meaningless to me.  YMMV.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2174 on: February 12, 2020, 09:25:35 AM »

Do you have any idea how offensive you are being?  And are you being so offensive on purpose?

(Also, have you read the Forum rules lately?  Maybe take a refresher in them?)

Your suggestion to read the rules again is a good one, and yes I did so recently.  I see nothing in my comments that is overtly offensive given that we're in an "off topic" thread talking about politics.  Furniture is going to get tossed around a bit. 

Now something that I do that probably is offensive, at least to the perpetually offended, is that I have the temerity to disagree with prevailing narratives and talking points when it comes to politics. When people say they're tolerant of other political views, what they usually mean is that they're tolerant to opinions that more or less mirror their own. When they say they want to debate, what they usually mean is they want to debate in an ideological echo-chamber within a fairly narrow range of views.   
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 09:35:02 AM by Buffaloski Boris, Russian Bot »

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2175 on: February 12, 2020, 09:30:32 AM »

At this point, what exactly do you suggest that the Democrats should do to drop Trump's approval rating amongst Republicans?

They could go with Trump's playbook . . . Lie constantly, attack gay people, regularly drop ethnic slurs, openly favor Christianity over all other religions, lock kids as young as 3 years old up in cages, rob the poor to give to the rich, gerrymander, praise and embolden nazis, vote suppress, deny climate change, collaborate with foreign governments to win elections, attack transgendered people, make it easier for criminals to buy guns, praise dictators, and remove all impediments for business to destroy the environment.  There are plenty of ways to gain the support of Republicans these days.  Few that aren't morally reprehensible though.

OK. So I’m supposed to assume that I’m king of the Democratic Party for the next 9 months. What do I do?

First off, I recognize that the chances of unseating a sitting President are not very good. The times when that happens are usually a confluence of events. In 1992, the last time it happened it was the result of an unforced error by GHW Bush (“read my lips”) that pissed off the GOP base, combined with extreme hubris, a softening economy, and an extremely politically astute candidate running on the Democratic side. A similar alignment of the stars not likely this year. So with all respect to the posters who are eagerly awaiting the defeat of the incumbent president, I expect that they will be disappointed in the end. Sorry.

Second, I recognize that this “deplorables” crap needs to end. When did the Democratic Party decide that it hated white working-class voters, especially male ones? The long litany of character deficiencies referenced in your your second paragraph is an example of the sort of contempt white working class voters are viewed in. “Vote for me you knuckle-dragging moron” is not persuasive. And suicidal when you consider that at least some of said “knuckle draggers” need to be persuaded to change alliances.

Third, the candidate her or himself needs to be able to split off voters. Unfortunately the way that the candidate selection works ensures that this is unlikely. Pete Buttgieg isn’t going to do it. I think a better bet is a woman, but not one in the typical shrieking harpy mold that  the Democratic Party seems fixated on. There is such a candidate, a veteran no less with some cred on the right. And her chances of winning the nomination are pretty slim. If by some miracle such a candidate were selected, then it becomes a game of splitting off Midwest states using issues they care about. Hint: climate change isn’t one of them.

Finally, I prepare for 2024.  Because the chances of a Democratic win in 2020 aren’t very good.

Stop making so much sense..............your beginning to scare me.

I don't know about making sense, but I sure do seem to scare a lot of folks.  I don't understand why; I'm just a sweet little ol' Russian Bot. Wouldn't hurt anyone.   

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2176 on: February 12, 2020, 09:37:25 AM »

I don't agree the chances of Dems winning in 2020 aren't very good. It will probably be about coin flip odds. Trump had 1/5 odds of winning the first time. As a sitting president he will probably be at at least a 50% odds to win this go around. His base will turn out and Trump is a really strong campaigner. His margin for victory in many of the swings states was narrow the first go around though. All it will take is a candidate on the Dem side who can turn out more voters than Clinton in swing states. Or a weaker than expected turnout for Trump. This could be especially easy if the general hatred for Clinton caused a number of voters, especially in the Midwest, to just not vote.


We'll see. It's still early. In the mean time, I reckon I'll just go with the bookmakers odds.  They have skin and money in the game and can't much allow their personal bias.  Here are the odds as of this morning (best odds per odds checker):

Donald Trump: 8/13
Bernie Saunders: 29/5
Pete Buttgieg; 21/1
Michael Bloomberg 6/1
Joe Biden 33/1
Elizabeth Warren 166/1   

(keep in mind "best" odds mean highest payoff)

<snip>

I don't think any of the Democratic faction candidates have a particularly good shot. Incumbency in the Presidential race has great advantage. I found the odds above interesting as they ranked Michael Bloomberg so highly.


To consider odds this far out is a waste of time.

Also, the bookmaker odds would be a lot more interesting if they weren't so wrong with Hillary.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2177 on: February 12, 2020, 09:52:14 AM »

Oooh fun, taking Clinton's 2016 speech completely out of context.

And? No one remembers or cares what else was said during that speech. Calling groups of Americans “deplorables” was an incredibly stupid political move. Much the same way no one remembers the rest of GHWBush’s “read my lips” speech. Of course quotes are going to be taken out of context. Welcome to politics.

And . . . what you're quoting is a distortion of what was said in the speech, taken so out of context it makes your comment a lie.  If I wanted to play that game, here's an example I could take from Trump's state of the union:

Actually said - "But as we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely."

Totally taken out of context (the way Boris likes it):

"we work to take away your health care, take away your doctor entirely."


How can you support a president who wants to take away your health care and doctor Boris?  That's an incredibly stupid political move.  According to you, it doesn't matter what was actually said - only the lies others pass as the truth matter now.  Welcome to politics?


Quote
Can you list some of the "shrieking harpy" women you're so dissatisfied with?  In your opinon, how should these harpies be made more demure/submissive?  Is this viewpoint why there are virtually no Republican women in either the House or the Senate?

My satisfaction or dissatisfaction is irrelevant; I won’t be showing up.  I don’t know about demure or submissive but I do believe that running candidates that remind people of their mother in law or ex-wife is not likely to be a winning strategy.

Right.  So I'm asking, since this is obviously a big deal with you. . . What exactly should candidates do to be less like mother in laws or ex-wives?  Do they need to shut up and let the men talk more?  Or is the problem simply that women are running in the first place?  As mentioned, Republicans historically do not run or support female candidates who run.  That's why there are almost no elected republican women in office.  In your opinion does the Democratic party also need to abandon women to garner support of the right?

My, my.  So I have a few more things to add to my list of character deficiencies?  Beyond being stupid and a Russian Bot.  Seems that I'm also a troll, sexist, offensive, afraid of strong women, and somehow believe that they should just shut up. And all this insight from strangers who have never met me, know nothing of my life story, and who wouldn't recognize me if we met on a street corner. I find it fascinating. 

 

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2178 on: February 12, 2020, 09:54:55 AM »
How was Biden ever considered the "electable" candidate lmfao

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2179 on: February 12, 2020, 10:04:58 AM »
How was Biden ever considered the "electable" candidate lmfao

There's the nominee and then there's the eventual winner.

Biden is the ultimate establishment candidate. He has the black vote more so than any other candidate. He was expected to get the old, moderate, white vote too.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2180 on: February 12, 2020, 10:12:25 AM »
How was Biden ever considered the "electable" candidate lmfao

I don't know. It was probably an analysis made by the same people who thought Hillary Clinton was the most electable candidate. As it turns out, she was about the only person who could lose to Donald Trump.*

*(not to detract from the efforts of my comrade Russian Bots who struck glorious victory!)     


v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2181 on: February 12, 2020, 10:18:36 AM »
How was Biden ever considered the "electable" candidate lmfao

I'm under the impression that's what the polls say.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2182 on: February 12, 2020, 10:31:28 AM »
Klobuchar seems to have built momentum, surprisingly.

Not because of the abusive boss stories - the media has a short attention span and she did a pretty good job of acknowledging yet downplaying without dwelling on it long enough to stumble.

I'm surprised because of her shaky, almost numb-mouthed delivery of pretty simple and relatively uninspiring statements. Other candidates, most notably her direct opponent Mayor Pete really shines in thinking on his feet, and precise delivery of what seems like perfect, focus group tested rhetoric delivered with casual ease.

But I personally think her basic message of having experience passing bipartisan legislation is pretty compelling, if not inspiring. I think she would probably be a better plug and play base hit president than Mayor Pete given her relationships on capitol hill. But Mayor Pete is playing his youth card pretty well and has almost convinced me he could help modernize our federal bureaucracy, making his Mckinsey background more of a plus than a minus to me.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2183 on: February 12, 2020, 11:19:56 AM »

Oooh fun, taking Clinton's 2016 speech completely out of context.

And? No one remembers or cares what else was said during that speech. Calling groups of Americans “deplorables” was an incredibly stupid political move. Much the same way no one remembers the rest of GHWBush’s “read my lips” speech. Of course quotes are going to be taken out of context. Welcome to politics.

And . . . what you're quoting is a distortion of what was said in the speech, taken so out of context it makes your comment a lie.  If I wanted to play that game, here's an example I could take from Trump's state of the union:

Actually said - "But as we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely."

Totally taken out of context (the way Boris likes it):

"we work to take away your health care, take away your doctor entirely."


How can you support a president who wants to take away your health care and doctor Boris?  That's an incredibly stupid political move.  According to you, it doesn't matter what was actually said - only the lies others pass as the truth matter now.  Welcome to politics?


Quote
Can you list some of the "shrieking harpy" women you're so dissatisfied with?  In your opinon, how should these harpies be made more demure/submissive?  Is this viewpoint why there are virtually no Republican women in either the House or the Senate?

My satisfaction or dissatisfaction is irrelevant; I won’t be showing up.  I don’t know about demure or submissive but I do believe that running candidates that remind people of their mother in law or ex-wife is not likely to be a winning strategy.

Right.  So I'm asking, since this is obviously a big deal with you. . . What exactly should candidates do to be less like mother in laws or ex-wives?  Do they need to shut up and let the men talk more?  Or is the problem simply that women are running in the first place?  As mentioned, Republicans historically do not run or support female candidates who run.  That's why there are almost no elected republican women in office.  In your opinion does the Democratic party also need to abandon women to garner support of the right?

My, my.  So I have a few more things to add to my list of character deficiencies?  Beyond being stupid and a Russian Bot.  Seems that I'm also a troll, sexist, offensive, afraid of strong women, and somehow believe that they should just shut up. And all this insight from strangers who have never met me, know nothing of my life story, and who wouldn't recognize me if we met on a street corner. I find it fascinating. 

I didn't call you any of the things you're listing.  If you're feeling a guilty conscience, maybe you should more carefully choose your language.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2184 on: February 12, 2020, 11:21:29 AM »
How was Biden ever considered the "electable" candidate lmfao
I'm under the impression that's what the polls say.

To be fair, back in November Biden was way out front of the other candidates in terms of name recognition. The ~$100 million a month spent by the other candidates has certainly decreased that advantage.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2185 on: February 12, 2020, 11:31:34 AM »
My, my.  So I have a few more things to add to my list of character deficiencies?  Beyond being stupid and a Russian Bot.  Seems that I'm also a troll, sexist, offensive, afraid of strong women, and somehow believe that they should just shut up. And all this insight from strangers who have never met me, know nothing of my life story, and who wouldn't recognize me if we met on a street corner. I find it fascinating. 

I didn't call you any of the things you're listing.  If you're feeling a guilty conscience, maybe you should more carefully choose your language.

Right, and I said you were "acting like a troll", not that you "are a troll". And you still are.

Hilarious to see someone who changed their name to "Buffaloski Boris, Russian Bot" because one person said someone else's comments were "indistinguishable from those we see put out by troll farms" rant about the "perpetually offended" though.

Gondolin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2186 on: February 12, 2020, 11:38:08 AM »
Quote
I'm surprised because of her shaky, almost numb-mouthed delivery of pretty simple and relatively uninspiring statements. Other candidates, most notably her direct opponent Mayor Pete really shines in thinking on his feet, and precise delivery of what seems like perfect, focus group tested rhetoric delivered with casual ease.

That’s exactly* why she’s gaining momentum. Wall Street Pete is too slick for Boomers. She’s got that Midwestern folksy vibe and she’s sucking up all the moderates that Biden was supposed to have in his pocket.

* for some values of exactitude
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 11:39:47 AM by Gondolin »

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2187 on: February 12, 2020, 11:41:22 AM »
What happened with buttigieg in Iowa?  Was sanders thrown under the dnc bus again?

Gondolin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2188 on: February 12, 2020, 11:53:56 AM »
Quote
but I sure do seem to scare a lot of folks

No one is scared. They're tired. Tired of dealing with people like you.

We get it. You're a hip contrarian iconoclast who doesn't believe what he's told and doesn't follow the rule. You're above it all, perfectly rational, with a semantic dodge ready for every argument. Occasionally you come down from Olympus to rattle the cages of the sheeple and laugh (or condescend) as they futilely struggle against your intellectual greatness.

We've seen your schtick a thousand times in every corner of the internet. It's not impressive, it's just annoying - regardless of the accompanying ideology. At this point I'd rather get in a knife fight with a crazed Nazi than engage with your smug bullshit even one second.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2189 on: February 12, 2020, 12:06:05 PM »
Quote
but I sure do seem to scare a lot of folks

No one is scared. They're tired. Tired of dealing with people like you.

We get it. You're a hip contrarian iconoclast who doesn't believe what he's told and doesn't follow the rule. You're above it all, perfectly rational, with a semantic dodge ready for every argument. Occasionally you come down from Olympus to rattle the cages of the sheeple and laugh (or condescend) as they futilely struggle against your intellectual greatness.

We've seen your schtick a thousand times in every corner of the internet. It's not impressive, it's just annoying - regardless of the accompanying ideology. At this point I'd rather get in a knife fight with a crazed Nazi than engage with your smug bullshit even one second.

This.

Good lord, it gets boring.

Cool Friend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2190 on: February 12, 2020, 12:07:37 PM »
Quote
but I sure do seem to scare a lot of folks

No one is scared. They're tired. Tired of dealing with people like you.

We get it. You're a hip contrarian iconoclast who doesn't believe what he's told and doesn't follow the rule. You're above it all, perfectly rational, with a semantic dodge ready for every argument. Occasionally you come down from Olympus to rattle the cages of the sheeple and laugh (or condescend) as they futilely struggle against your intellectual greatness.

We've seen your schtick a thousand times in every corner of the internet. It's not impressive, it's just annoying - regardless of the accompanying ideology. At this point I'd rather get in a knife fight with a crazed Nazi than engage with your smug bullshit even one second.

hear hear

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2191 on: February 12, 2020, 12:24:29 PM »
My, my.  So I have a few more things to add to my list of character deficiencies?  Beyond being stupid and a Russian Bot.  Seems that I'm also a troll, sexist, offensive, afraid of strong women, and somehow believe that they should just shut up. And all this insight from strangers who have never met me, know nothing of my life story, and who wouldn't recognize me if we met on a street corner. I find it fascinating. 

I didn't call you any of the things you're listing.  If you're feeling a guilty conscience, maybe you should more carefully choose your language.

Right, and I said you were "acting like a troll", not that you "are a troll". And you still are.

Hilarious to see someone who changed their name to "Buffaloski Boris, Russian Bot" because one person said someone else's comments were "indistinguishable from those we see put out by troll farms" rant about the "perpetually offended" though.

Yes, the hypocrisy has gotten rather thick.

It seems like you're is collecting insults, many of which were taken out of context or not even directed at you, and bringing them up again and again to prove that the state of political discourse is hopeless. You are going out of your way to be a victim and even pretending you were the victim when others are attacked.

In another thread you made up a list of insults to show how rude everyone was being to each other due to political differences

Interesting how hell seems to be other people. The other person is rabid, irrational, unwilling to consider facts, deluded, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, foaming at the mouth, hateful, and their mother sure dresses them funny. Too bad they aren’t more, well, more like me.

but upon searching the thread it turned out only 2 out of 9 of the insults you listed had been used. You criticized everyone else for their inflammatory language yet you were the one introducing most of it to the conversation.

What's your endgame here? Feeling like your above everyone else?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2192 on: February 12, 2020, 03:15:43 PM »

There were 136 million plus votes cast in 2016.  I've done the math and my voice counts for less that 0.00000000735 of the decision, were I to decide to vote...  I think playing the lottery is more optimal than voting from a cost/benefit perspective.

In the 2000 election only about 500 Florida votes separated George W. Bush's electoral win over Al Gore.
In the 2016 election, Trump won Michigan by a mere 10,704 votes.

In local elections you have the same issues of close elections that can affect the outcome of the balance of the Senate, the House, governor, state control of the legislature

Your judicial races can also affect insurance rates, criminal justice reform, local pollution issues, etc.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2193 on: February 12, 2020, 03:30:43 PM »

There were 136 million plus votes cast in 2016.  I've done the math and my voice counts for less that 0.00000000735 of the decision, were I to decide to vote...  I think playing the lottery is more optimal than voting from a cost/benefit perspective.

In the 2000 election only about 500 Florida votes separated George W. Bush's electoral win over Al Gore.
In the 2016 election, Trump won Michigan by a mere 10,704 votes.

In local elections you have the same issues of close elections that can affect the outcome of the balance of the Senate, the House, governor, state control of the legislature

Your judicial races can also affect insurance rates, criminal justice reform, local pollution issues, etc.

Or that time the balance of the VA House was determined by a drawing because one of the races ended in a tie.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2194 on: February 12, 2020, 03:39:59 PM »
What happened with buttigieg in Iowa?  Was sanders thrown under the dnc bus again?

Nah, keep in mind Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.[1]

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2195 on: February 12, 2020, 03:51:55 PM »
Historically speaking, you need a top 2 finish in IA and/or NH.  That means Biden and Warren are done.  Klobmentum may be real, but she doesn't have a path to a majority of delegates.

What will be interesting is if any of the 4th-6th place nominees drop out after SC (Biden?) or after Super Tuesday (Warren?).  Bloomberg is just getting read to enter the race and is up near 15% nationally.  He is essentially filling the Biden role in that moderate lane, which will take away support from Pete and Klobuchar.  As much as these billionaires (don't forget Howard Schultz!) threaten to run if a "socialist"/far left candidate wins, as a preventive measure, I'm not sure Bloomberg is better served just dropping out and supporting Pete.  Of course, he's already spent $350+ million on his vanity project, so I suspect he'll stick it out for a bit.  It's not costing him much.

Bernie continues to expand his lead among non-white voters and we're heading into two diverse states.  That was Biden's strength as well, but he's done.  So with Biden tanking and Warren not really figuring much out, it'll be interesting to see where voters go.  Will it really turn into Bernie vs. Pete?  Can The Klob actually turn momentum in super white states into votes/delegates?

Race is fluid.  I think there's about a 50% chance Bernie gets a majority of delegates.  Probably 40% for no one getting to majority (brokered/contested convention).  And maybe 10% one of the other candidates gets there.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2196 on: February 12, 2020, 06:39:45 PM »
What happened with buttigieg in Iowa?  Was sanders thrown under the dnc bus again?

Nah, keep in mind Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.[1]

Wiki:
"Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior. "

Is DNC shenanigans an unlikely explanation?  Who is this Buttigieg guy and why did he suddenly beat Sanders in Iowa?  I read a bit about some donations to the Shadow App company, and the fact that the company didn't exist for very long prior to being used to manage the vote(!).  I read somewhere about a connection to the Clintons who totally didn't conspire to undermine Sanders at any point in recent history...  I can't really be arsed, but I wouldn't use Hanlon's razor in this age of barely veiled political corruption.

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2197 on: February 12, 2020, 06:58:31 PM »
Historically speaking, you need a top 2 finish in IA and/or NH.  That means Biden and Warren are done.  Klobmentum may be real, but she doesn't have a path to a majority of delegates.

What will be interesting is if any of the 4th-6th place nominees drop out after SC (Biden?) or after Super Tuesday (Warren?).  Bloomberg is just getting read to enter the race and is up near 15% nationally.  He is essentially filling the Biden role in that moderate lane, which will take away support from Pete and Klobuchar.  As much as these billionaires (don't forget Howard Schultz!) threaten to run if a "socialist"/far left candidate wins, as a preventive measure, I'm not sure Bloomberg is better served just dropping out and supporting Pete.  Of course, he's already spent $350+ million on his vanity project, so I suspect he'll stick it out for a bit.  It's not costing him much.

Bernie continues to expand his lead among non-white voters and we're heading into two diverse states.  That was Biden's strength as well, but he's done.  So with Biden tanking and Warren not really figuring much out, it'll be interesting to see where voters go.  Will it really turn into Bernie vs. Pete?  Can The Klob actually turn momentum in super white states into votes/delegates?

Race is fluid.  I think there's about a 50% chance Bernie gets a majority of delegates.  Probably 40% for no one getting to majority (brokered/contested convention).  And maybe 10% one of the other candidates gets there.

There are really 2 open questions at this point:

1) How long does Warren stay in the race?, and
2) Does the Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Bloomberg quartet narrow itself down quickly, or do they continue to split the centrist vote for an extended period of time?

In the end, it comes down to the liberal(Sanders/Warren) wing versus the moderates.  If one group dowselects to a single candidate quickly while the other does not, that candidate has a decent chance of winning outright, or at least leading by a large plurality.  If both groups downselect quickly, we'll have a liberal vs. centrist dogfight.  If neither group downselects, Bernie will probably go into the convention with the lead, but it's anyone's guess as to what happens from there.

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4861
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2198 on: February 12, 2020, 07:00:53 PM »
Is DNC shenanigans an unlikely explanation?  Who is this Buttigieg guy and why did he suddenly beat Sanders in Iowa?  I read a bit about some donations to the Shadow App company, and the fact that the company didn't exist for very long prior to being used to manage the vote(!).  I read somewhere about a connection to the Clintons who totally didn't conspire to undermine Sanders at any point in recent history...  I can't really be arsed, but I wouldn't use Hanlon's razor in this age of barely veiled political corruption.

In talking to folks who canvased in Iowa, they ran into an awful lot of Buttigieg supporters. On top of that, both Biden and Klobuchar were not viable in an awful lot of precincts (not from Iowa democratic party reports, from people who were not supporters of any of those three candidates who were live tweeting their experience caucusing). In a precinct where both Klobuchar and Biden were not viable but Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg were, which of those three candidates do you suppose all those Klobuchar and Biden supporters realigned to?

And even if none of that were the case, the problem with falsifying caucus results is that people where there, they remember how many people supported their candidate and what the viability threshold was, and they can and do look up the reported numbers for their specific precinct. Heck the Sanders campaign was able to independently gather and record the results from about 40% of precincts the same night as the Iowa caucuses took place, which is a damned sight better than the Iowa democratic party managed.

Love them or hate them (and most people seem to hate them) it's an awful lot easier to catch any attempt to systematically falsify* the results of a public caucus where everyone sees who everyone else in their precinct is voting for than to catch people who are systematically falsifying the results of an election based on secret ballots.

*You can do all sorts of other unethical things to influence the results of a caucus that would be harder in an election based on secret ballots. Breaking the rules or selectively enforcing them. Doing delegate math wrong. Peer pressure to vote a certain way since your neighbors can see and judge you. But if people vote one way and you decide to report something else, you're going to get caught.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5815
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2199 on: February 12, 2020, 07:02:51 PM »
What happened with buttigieg in Iowa?  Was sanders thrown under the dnc bus again?

Nah, keep in mind Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.[1]

Wiki:
"Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior. "

Is DNC shenanigans an unlikely explanation?  Who is this Buttigieg guy and why did he suddenly beat Sanders in Iowa?  I read a bit about some donations to the Shadow App company, and the fact that the company didn't exist for very long prior to being used to manage the vote(!).  I read somewhere about a connection to the Clintons who totally didn't conspire to undermine Sanders at any point in recent history...  I can't really be arsed, but I wouldn't use Hanlon's razor in this age of barely veiled political corruption.
The thing is, you "read somewhere" a whole lot of unsubstantiated but potentially damaging rumours that you "can't really be arsed" to tell us where you read them or do even the minimum of looking into whether they have any basis in fact but can still be bothered to spread around by posting here.  In this age of substantiated foreign interference in US elections and blatantly stated intention to break election law by the current President you, by doing this, are part of the problem.