Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:11 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17540
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that Biden has chosen to 'sit it out' on the Coronavirus, presumably hoping Donald shoots himself in the foot.

I'm not 100% convinced this is the right strategy for Joe, given that shooting himself in the foot is the normal practice for Trump and it hasn't seemed to make a world of difference to his polling.

I think Biden should be out (or at least talking to) those swing states, urging Trump to direct aid to manufacturing, presenting viable-sounding approaches, looking Presidential.

If he doesn't and (as mentioned on the other thread) the nation gets through this relatively OK, then he's going to be coming from behind with a whole bunch of 'well yeah, that's what I was saying...'

Having said that, the Democrats strategic political thinking seems to be governed by hoping very bad things happen. It's cynical at best, and truly disturbing at worst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4098
tiddle wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Biden does need Trump to continue putting his foot in his mouth.


I think when the spotlight is on both, I think Biden will gaff more than Trump. I mean if Hilary at least had the debates over Trump, then what does Biden have?


What is this based on?
Have never seen Trump speak?
Biden had a couple wobbles during the debates but nothing on the scale Trump regularly comes out with



Biden's inability to speak coherently now is worse than any candidate I've seen unfortunately including Trump.

Across the spectrum people are talking about mental decline. This is not what you want going into the campaign. I don't think frailty is a survivable look in this election year.


Last edited by Sonny Blount on Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10990
tiddle wrote:
Bowens wrote:
tiddle wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bernie moved away from his populist economic message and focused more on identity politics stuff which didn’t play well with blue collar voters. That and some of his 2016 support defected to Trump.

Biden isn’t a good candidate at all. My family in Ohio are mostly moderate Democrats and their enthusiasm for him is as low as it was for Hillary. They all seem to like Cuomo though.


That is just not true. His entire platform this year was healthcare and redistributing wealth+worker's rights.

Bernie's problem is that he's not good at compromising.


No. He was criticized for not having a diverse enough staff in 2016 and brought in a bunch of intersectionality activists to compensate. In 2016 he spoke out against identity politics and undocumented immigration. This year that part of his message was gone.

He absolutely compromised. This article talks about his shifting immigration positions.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ni ... ion-record

Quote:
That rhetoric stands in stark contrast to how Bernie Sanders sounds today. Just four years after a contentious presidential primary where his immigration record was a consistent point of attack, Sanders has changed, people who have worked with him closely on immigration issues told BuzzFeed News. Sanders, they said, has spent time closely listening and working with immigrant rights activists, forming new policy and finding new ways to talk about the issue, in line with the more progressive conversations in this primary.


Quote:
This year that part of his message was gone.

That's not him being "focused more on identity politics stuff"
Again, the immigration thing above only indicates he avoided talking about it. That doesn't mean he focused on identity politics.
The only latter candidate that did would have been Warren.

I mean compromise in the way Biden worked with other candidates, Bernie was my way or no way.


He avoided talking about it how? In 2016 he clearly had one position that was in line with the old labor union view and by the 2020 campaign he had shifted to something completely different and embraced by young activists. It was one of the main parts of his stump speech along with his surrogates like AOC. The whole abolish ICE thing. He did focus more on identity politics because of the different crew of advisors around him, there’s no doubt about it. EDF’s reply was spot on.

As far as not working with others - he was and is known for the amount of amendments he has added to bills in the house and senate. He passed more amendments in a Republican held house than any other member. He also co-sponsored lots of bills. Doesn’t seem like a guy unwilling to cooperate nor do the policy shifts he made from 2016 to 2020. His new advisors told him to move in a certain direction on immigration and he listened. It turned out to be terrible advice but he listened.


Last edited by Bowens on Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17896
fonzeee wrote:
DOB wrote:
fonzeee wrote:
The problem the Dems have is getting people out to vote FOR their candidate. It's a matter of turnout, and no one on the fence is going to turn out for Dementia Joe, even if they might prefer that he win. He's an utterly uninspiring choice.

And if Hillary couldn't get the NECESSARY high turnout from blacks, will Joe Biden? I highly, highly doubt it.

(Not shouting, caps just easier on the phone than italics :lol:)


Biden was nowhere in the primaries until they went into the South. The black vote basically won it for him. They will turn up for him in November (providing the Republicans haven't expunged them from the rolls, of course).


All that tells us is that those who turned up voted for him, and that will probably still be mostly true in November. The question is how many are going to actually turn up.

Black turnout regressed back to 2004 levels in 2016. I think you can probably guess why. I don't expect that to change.

A white candidate hasn't won a GE for the Dems since 1996. The way the current political calculus is, I'm not sure one can. Certainly at least among the current crop of leaders.


That's a sample size of 5 elections, and only shows that the WH has alternated from blue to red every 8 years since 1992. I could just as well argue that the GOP are the only party to have an incumbent lose since 1980. It's about as relevant.

Biden has 8 years of photos of him standing next to Obama, and you can bet those images will get played over and over again, probably including footage of Obama's convention speech where he tells everyone how great Joe is. No the black turnout won't be as high as 2008, but it doesn't need to be AS high (Hillary won the PV by several miles, remember), it just needs to be better than 2016 in about 5 states.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
What's in the Bidden sexual assault story? Should the Dems ask him to step down?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9814
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
tiddle wrote:
Bowens wrote:
tiddle wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bernie moved away from his populist economic message and focused more on identity politics stuff which didn’t play well with blue collar voters. That and some of his 2016 support defected to Trump.

Biden isn’t a good candidate at all. My family in Ohio are mostly moderate Democrats and their enthusiasm for him is as low as it was for Hillary. They all seem to like Cuomo though.


That is just not true. His entire platform this year was healthcare and redistributing wealth+worker's rights.

Bernie's problem is that he's not good at compromising.


No. He was criticized for not having a diverse enough staff in 2016 and brought in a bunch of intersectionality activists to compensate. In 2016 he spoke out against identity politics and undocumented immigration. This year that part of his message was gone.

He absolutely compromised. This article talks about his shifting immigration positions.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ni ... ion-record

Quote:
That rhetoric stands in stark contrast to how Bernie Sanders sounds today. Just four years after a contentious presidential primary where his immigration record was a consistent point of attack, Sanders has changed, people who have worked with him closely on immigration issues told BuzzFeed News. Sanders, they said, has spent time closely listening and working with immigrant rights activists, forming new policy and finding new ways to talk about the issue, in line with the more progressive conversations in this primary.


Quote:
This year that part of his message was gone.

That's not him being "focused more on identity politics stuff"
Again, the immigration thing above only indicates he avoided talking about it. That doesn't mean he focused on identity politics.
The only latter candidate that did would have been Warren.

I mean compromise in the way Biden worked with other candidates, Bernie was my way or no way.


He didn’t avoid talking about it. It was one of the main parts of his stump speech along with his surrogates like AOC. The whole abolish ICE thing. He did focus more on identity politics because of the different crew of advisors around him, there’s no doubt about it. EDF’s reply was spot on.

As far as not working with others - he was and is known for the amount of amendments he has added to bills in the house and senate. He passed more amendments in a Republican held house than any other member. He also co-sponsored lots of bills. Doesn’t seem like a guy unwilling to cooperate nor do the policy shifts he made from 2016 to 2020. His new advisors told him to move in a certain direction on immigration and he listened. It turned out to be terrible advice but he listened.


That whole "I won't be a member of the Democratic Party but will run for its nomination" really signals a desire to compromise. That it happened once in 2016, fine. That it happened twice is sheer stupidity. Even Trump who hated the party establishment saw the best way to be an overt entryist was to takeover from the inside. I don't think Sanders supporters get how much that damned him with black voters who are the biggest party loyalists you'll find. Hostorians I think will look back on that decision decades from now and say "well that was stupid".

The only argument for Sanders remaining outside a 2nd time is there's some Progressive/DSA/ Working Families coalition that wants to split and run against Democrats in the general down the road (at least in easily left districts where the GOP doesn't figure).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10990
I don’t know how much that had to do with it. Even if he had joined the party, like Trump in 2016 he still had lots of policies at odds with the establishment. Democrats have a popular ex-president who was able to influence the contest behind the scenes with an unprecedented consolidation and endorsement strategy. Republicans had no such figure in 2016. People like Romney tried but no one really listened. Mainly Bernie failed to connect with older voters who watch a lot of cable news. As the frontrunner Bernie didn’t get anything close to the earned media Trump did in 2016 or Biden did this year after SC. They mostly ignored him to focus on the impeachment farce.

Cuomo is getting a ton of it right now though, interestingly. A lot more than Biden.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 3368
Location: Boston
DOB wrote:
fonzeee wrote:
All that tells us is that those who turned up voted for him, and that will probably still be mostly true in November. The question is how many are going to actually turn up.

Black turnout regressed back to 2004 levels in 2016. I think you can probably guess why. I don't expect that to change.

A white candidate hasn't won a GE for the Dems since 1996. The way the current political calculus is, I'm not sure one can. Certainly at least among the current crop of leaders.


That's a sample size of 5 elections, and only shows that the WH has alternated from blue to red every 8 years since 1992. I could just as well argue that the GOP are the only party to have an incumbent lose since 1980. It's about as relevant.

Biden has 8 years of photos of him standing next to Obama, and you can bet those images will get played over and over again, probably including footage of Obama's convention speech where he tells everyone how great Joe is. No the black turnout won't be as high as 2008, but it doesn't need to be AS high (Hillary won the PV by several miles, remember), it just needs to be better than 2016 in about 5 states.


It may only be five elections, but that's two decades, and it becomes relevant when you consider how the political landscape has changed over that time in such a way as to make high black turnout extremely important for Democratic victory. It was at around 60% (of black citizens, rather than registered voters, per that article) before Obama, and in 2016 it was...59%. For the Obama elections it was 66% and 65%. That may not sound like a meaningful difference, but that's more than 2 million people, many of them in states that went down to the wire: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan could quite conceivably have gone the other way, just as they did for Obama. If you look at the black populations of those states and extrapolate from the math, they would have. Georgia and North Carolina might have been a bridge too far, but when you consider those are some of the black-est states in the union, perhaps not.

But as I said, just look how the political landscape has changed since the end of the Clinton era; there are loads of states that were in play in the 90s and earlier that no longer are, and that's not going to change. It's really quite incredible when you look at it: Clinton won Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Tennessee...TWICE. It's quite possible each of those states will be decided by a margin greater than 20% in favor of the GOP in the coming election. If the Dems don't want to pivot back towards the old "Blue Dog" whites, they sure as hell better be able to maximize votes from the black community, and I don't see that happening. It seems pretty clear that 60% is about as high as it's going to get with the white bois. Even the original First Black President only saw elections with 53% and 57% black turnout, but the thing is, he had other groups to fall back on that a modern Democrat simply doesn't.

After having an actual black president, rolling into a Baptist church and kissing a few black babies and getting a photo op with Lebron while wearing a dashiki ain't gonna cut it. It didn't for Hillary.


Data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l5fpK7ysQhQbZPv9hnZ_-PO1J1zBVPXSSQjNejTXecY/edit#gid=0...article appears to be using the lower set.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9814
Location: Indiana
fonzeee wrote:
DOB wrote:
fonzeee wrote:
All that tells us is that those who turned up voted for him, and that will probably still be mostly true in November. The question is how many are going to actually turn up.

Black turnout regressed back to 2004 levels in 2016. I think you can probably guess why. I don't expect that to change.

A white candidate hasn't won a GE for the Dems since 1996. The way the current political calculus is, I'm not sure one can. Certainly at least among the current crop of leaders.


That's a sample size of 5 elections, and only shows that the WH has alternated from blue to red every 8 years since 1992. I could just as well argue that the GOP are the only party to have an incumbent lose since 1980. It's about as relevant.

Biden has 8 years of photos of him standing next to Obama, and you can bet those images will get played over and over again, probably including footage of Obama's convention speech where he tells everyone how great Joe is. No the black turnout won't be as high as 2008, but it doesn't need to be AS high (Hillary won the PV by several miles, remember), it just needs to be better than 2016 in about 5 states.


It may only be five elections, but that's two decades, and it becomes relevant when you consider how the political landscape has changed over that time in such a way as to make high black turnout extremely important for Democratic victory. It was at around 60% (of black citizens, rather than registered voters, per that article) before Obama, and in 2016 it was...59%. For the Obama elections it was 66% and 65%. That may not sound like a meaningful difference, but that's more than 2 million people, many of them in states that went down to the wire: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan could quite conceivably have gone the other way, just as they did for Obama. If you look at the black populations of those states and extrapolate from the math, they would have. Georgia and North Carolina might have been a bridge too far, but when you consider those are some of the black-est states in the union, perhaps not.

But as I said, just look how the political landscape has changed since the end of the Clinton era; there are loads of states that were in play in the 90s and earlier that no longer are, and that's not going to change. It's really quite incredible when you look at it: Clinton won Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Tennessee...TWICE. It's quite possible each of those states will be decided by a margin greater than 20% in favor of the GOP in the coming election. If the Dems don't want to pivot back towards the old "Blue Dog" whites, they sure as hell better be able to maximize votes from the black community, and I don't see that happening. It seems pretty clear that 60% is about as high as it's going to get with the white bois. Even the original First Black President only saw elections with 53% and 57% black turnout, but the thing is, he had other groups to fall back on that a modern Democrat simply doesn't.

After having an actual black president, rolling into a Baptist church and kissing a few black babies and getting a photo op with Lebron while wearing a dashiki ain't gonna cut it. It didn't for Hillary.


Data here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l5fpK7ysQhQbZPv9hnZ_-PO1J1zBVPXSSQjNejTXecY/edit#gid=0...article appears to be using the lower set.


Some kind of political realignment occurred in the '90s. It just doesn't have the defining presidential election where it is easy to see because of Perot getting a huge 3rd party vote in '92 and '96. (I'd argue it's the '94 midterms.) So to go like to like you're going from Dukakis to Gore, which for me that's ages 6 to 18.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36201
Location: Planet Rock
TheFrog wrote:
What's in the Bidden sexual assault story? Should the Dems ask him to step down?

Na. Republicans are going to talk it up but it won't matter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
tiddle wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Biden does need Trump to continue putting his foot in his mouth.


I think when the spotlight is on both, I think Biden will gaff more than Trump. I mean if Hilary at least had the debates over Trump, then what does Biden have?


What is this based on?
Have never seen Trump speak?
Biden had a couple wobbles during the debates but nothing on the scale Trump regularly comes out with


Trump can at least speak coherently right now. Biden can't and Biden won't be hidden in some massive field where 6 minutes is seen as good time. Trump is also good at getting tags to stick on opponents and sounding good to those he needs to and easily casts off the claims he contradicts himself or talks rubbish. That's what the Dem media and coastal voters will mock him for. Trump isn't ever talking to them, he's taking to his base and bull collar workers/rust belt/people whose jobs ahve gone abroad, who Trump can legitimately say Biden has screwed over the years. And yes Trump si scum but he'll broadly claim he did what he said he'd do in power but was blocked by Dems and the media at ever turn. Biden meanwhile has to win these people over and these groups already don't trust the media. Biden will have Trump throwing everything at him now as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
Flyin Ryan wrote:

That whole "I won't be a member of the Democratic Party but will run for its nomination" really signals a desire to compromise. That it happened once in 2016, fine. That it happened twice is sheer stupidity. Even Trump who hated the party establishment saw the best way to be an overt entryist was to takeover from the inside. I don't think Sanders supporters get how much that damned him with black voters who are the biggest party loyalists you'll find. Hostorians I think will look back on that decision decades from now and say "well that was stupid".


I agree Bernie's weird refusal to join the Dems was a mark against him. I don't think it was particularly the black voters who took umbridge. Most black voters were swinging his way until Biden got the big endorsement from Clyburn.

The fact is Bernie was doing a lot right, what went against him was compromising on the exact issues that even many Dem voters don't exactly but Party elites and woke activists want in metropolitan bubbles, identity politics and borderless immigration. So he went for the youth votes, the latino vote and the black vote as identity politics sees them. Thus dropping his approach at seeing demographs as the working class and middle class vote as a whole. As it happened, the 1st didn't and never have turned out at elections, the 2nd was in the end weak and spooked by Bernie's love of socialism, forgetting many Latino voters moved away and know the downsides to those regimes and the 3rd switched away ever so quickly when the game moved down south. Play by the identity politics game and you'll die by it and that's how Bernie's campaign burned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
I think the Dems have a unique opportunity to remove Bidden now that accusation of sexual assaults have been made against him. It would both make them look consistent after they waged war against Kavanaugh and allow them to adapt to this new environment with a figure that may better represent what voters want now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11855
Location: Europe
Remove how ? Short of him being indicted (unlikely) or withdrawing voluntarily (even more unlikely)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
TheFrog wrote:
I think the Dems have a unique opportunity to remove Bidden now that accusation of sexual assaults have been made against him. It would both make them look consistent after they waged war against Kavanaugh and allow them to adapt to this new environment with a figure that may better represent what voters want now.

More to the point they burned Al Franken. How do they not burn Biden and not look like frauds? Where is the vitriol now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
Akkerman wrote:
Remove how ? Short of him being indicted (unlikely) or withdrawing voluntarily (even more unlikely)

By not voting for him in the convention, but turning it into an election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9994
Location: Texas
6.Jones wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
I think the Dems have a unique opportunity to remove Bidden now that accusation of sexual assaults have been made against him. It would both make them look consistent after they waged war against Kavanaugh and allow them to adapt to this new environment with a figure that may better represent what voters want now.

More to the point they burned Al Franken. How do they not burn Biden and not look like frauds? Where is the vitriol now?

Gillibrand led the charge on Franken.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/politics ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:44 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3775
Or, Jesse Ventura!

Allegedly considering standing for the Greens.
Would he be a decent spanner in the works? More as a vote stealer for undecided and fence sitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2020 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
6.Jones wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
I think the Dems have a unique opportunity to remove Bidden now that accusation of sexual assaults have been made against him. It would both make them look consistent after they waged war against Kavanaugh and allow them to adapt to this new environment with a figure that may better represent what voters want now.

More to the point they burned Al Franken. How do they not burn Biden and not look like frauds? Where is the vitriol now?


Their happy to be frauds. The #metoo movement was sadly corrupted by much political virtue signalling and hypocrisy. It's just about beating Trump and re-establishing the establishment control in Washington and making their establishment friends be well connected with power again and happy. They believe the press will wash the bad memories away.

Meanwhile they are happy to destroy any women who dares get in the way with their genuine victim status and ethics. It's been that way since Clinton was willing to destroy the lives of his accusers with the aid of the press.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2020 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
Mr Mike wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
I think the Dems have a unique opportunity to remove Bidden now that accusation of sexual assaults have been made against him. It would both make them look consistent after they waged war against Kavanaugh and allow them to adapt to this new environment with a figure that may better represent what voters want now.

More to the point they burned Al Franken. How do they not burn Biden and not look like frauds? Where is the vitriol now?

Gillibrand led the charge on Franken.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/politics ... index.html


her ever changing stances on sexual politics and her willingness to sue it or abandon it for power is nicely summed up here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjacXiPyTt4

Let's face it, ethically these people are no better than republicans. Rose McGowen summed it up in a recent tweet. Basically she says they all grow up being drilled that the Democrats are the good guys, but the truth is that they simply are not and the press.

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/ ... 8117572609

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/487364-rose-mc ... eet-metoo/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2020 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27752
How many people are seeing the differences between the two parties:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4098
Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opin ... -vote.html

"So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26743
Location: Queensland
I suspect that this election will be decided by the foreign bot armies.

The Russian bot armies will once again favour Trump. They want him to continue to weaken not just the USA, but all the Western alliances and instruments of power.

But the Chinese bot armies may favour Biden, preferring the stability that he will bring, and the positive impact that this will have on trade and their economy.

Russian bots vs Chinese bots?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9814
Location: Indiana
6.Jones wrote:
Akkerman wrote:
Remove how ? Short of him being indicted (unlikely) or withdrawing voluntarily (even more unlikely)

By not voting for him in the convention, but turning it into an election.


Republicans went through this in 2016. Lots of gnashing of teeth about these nameless delegates wanting to ignore democracy and everyone that voted in the primaries. In the end the people that fought against that system lost. I'd expect the same to be true if certain Democrats tried that.


Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Thu May 07, 2020 11:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15433
Location: South Oxfordshire
Sonny Blount wrote:
Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opin ... -vote.html

"So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it."


The evangelists have shown the way - hold your nose in order to get what you qant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11074
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
eldanielfire wrote:


Trump can at least speak coherently right now.


Wut?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
Trump campaign ad shows his staff are as ignorant and incompetent as he is... :lol: :blush:

[Click on the link in blue for details)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
Now, the campaign strategy is quite clear. Immigration is the enemy. Chinese virus, foreigners taking US jobs. Trump will shield the US from the threats. A shame high tech companies disagree.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/05/07/immigration-review-could-lead-to-new-h-1b-visa-restrictions/#402dfa945130


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17540
Surely, at some point, we're all going to realise two things:

a) in a polling sense, it's about the independents - because everyone else is entrenched
b) in an electoral sense, it's about which base gets more energised - because independents, if they can't be arsed to even form a firm view of the candidates, then they're unlikely to get out and vote for one of them.

In summary?
Throw red meat to the base - and to hell with the Republic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37347
Location: Dublin
Because it's electoral college voting, it will come down to the swing states as usual. Florida, Ohio and North Carolina? Is that correct.

Just takes those to swing to Biden and he's in.


Last edited by iarmhiman on Thu May 07, 2020 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9814
Location: Indiana
Here's a list of all lawsuits currently ongoing related to the Covid-19 health crisis and ballot access or state decisions made about the elections.

https://ballotpedia.org/Lawsuits_about_ ... _(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020#Lawsuits_related_to_election_date_and_procedure_changes

Right now at 63.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9814
Location: Indiana
iarmhiman wrote:
Because it's electoral college voting, it will come down to the swing states as usual. Florida, Ohio and North Carolina? Is that correct.

Just takes those to swing to Biden and he's in.


North Carolina has never been a swing state. Ohio is solid red at this point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2567
Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to Wikipedia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37347
Location: Dublin
That's the thing it's dodgy as fudge . Doesn't matter what the popular vote think. It's what those dodgy electoral college voters in swing states decide to do on the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12000
Very optimistic that this bored will still exist by then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18200
eldanielfire wrote:
tiddle wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Biden does need Trump to continue putting his foot in his mouth.


I think when the spotlight is on both, I think Biden will gaff more than Trump. I mean if Hilary at least had the debates over Trump, then what does Biden have?


What is this based on?
Have never seen Trump speak?
Biden had a couple wobbles during the debates but nothing on the scale Trump regularly comes out with


Trump can at least speak coherently right now. Biden can't and Biden won't be hidden in some massive field where 6 minutes is seen as good time. Trump is also good at getting tags to stick on opponents and sounding good to those he needs to and easily casts off the claims he contradicts himself or talks rubbish. That's what the Dem media and coastal voters will mock him for. Trump isn't ever talking to them, he's taking to his base and bull collar workers/rust belt/people whose jobs ahve gone abroad, who Trump can legitimately say Biden has screwed over the years. And yes Trump si scum but he'll broadly claim he did what he said he'd do in power but was blocked by Dems and the media at ever turn. Biden meanwhile has to win these people over and these groups already don't trust the media. Biden will have Trump throwing everything at him now as well.

He can't. He's as inchoherent and doddery as any old man his age. It's become completely normalized but he often waffles his way into misusung words like "We're looking that very strongly/powerfully" He's shite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18200
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgvTsgNFnYw


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12000
eldanielfire wrote:
tiddle wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Biden does need Trump to continue putting his foot in his mouth.


I think when the spotlight is on both, I think Biden will gaff more than Trump. I mean if Hilary at least had the debates over Trump, then what does Biden have?


What is this based on?
Have never seen Trump speak?
Biden had a couple wobbles during the debates but nothing on the scale Trump regularly comes out with


Trump can at least speak coherently right now. ... and some other bits ....


You what?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9814
Location: Indiana
iarmhiman wrote:
That's the thing it's dodgy as fudge . Doesn't matter what the popular vote think. It's what those dodgy electoral college voters in swing states decide to do on the day.


Well if the popular vote decided things all the time Sinn Fein would be running your country right now wouldn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17540
iarmhiman wrote:
Because it's electoral college voting, it will come down to the swing states as usual. Florida, Ohio and North Carolina? Is that correct.

Just takes those to swing to Biden and he's in.


In principle, I'm not disagreeing at all.

To win the election, you need your base to get out and vote en masse, then hope to pick up some independents

I was just pointing out that Trump is fairly smart in his instincts, politically.

Winning the general popularity contest (by being a good bloke) is less important than getting more people fired up to go to the polls. IMO


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 254 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balls Out!, Caley_Red, dinsdale, goblack, Google Adsense [Bot], Nieghorn, Sards, sonic_attack, Wignu and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group