2020 Election - Catch-all Thread

53,960 Views | 1582 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by sycasey
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Was trying to catch some videos of Kamala Harris speaking during her campaign to better educate myself on her, but as of yet not much is out there since she declared (it seems the people with the lowest profiles are the ones making the most TV appearances). I found the one below, and I came away thinking that she can do really well on the coasts, but in the upper great lakes I don't see her connecting with voters. I don't believe Criminal Justice Reform as a winning issue in those states (I don't mean to dismiss it as unimportant, just that in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, I don't see that messaage recapturing the voters that went for both Obama and Trump).

The catch is that, my logic says the easiest way to a Democratic White House is through the industrial midwest, which means flipping a few states that Trump narrowly won and where he has a net approval rating of -5. Perhaps, Harris' message of Criminal Justice Reform plays better in the southern states, and gives her the opportunity to turn states like Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. Taking those states would allow her to loose the industrial midwest.




I've said from the beginning that I think Harris is gojng to surprise some people and win the nomination just because the primary schedule sets up so perfectly for her. And nothing I've seen so far has altered my view. In fact, the most recent cnn poll shows Harris as the one candidate with the most momentum. Yes she's currently in third, but it's typical this early in the race that those with name recognition will have initial leads.

But I do agree with you. While she's a good primary candidate, I don't like her chances in a general (for the reasons you touched on). Which is why I've been very hesitant to throw my support behind her.

Unfortunately, of all the top tier candidates, I think Biden has the best chance of beating trump (for the sole reason that he can take the Midwest). So I may end up voting for him even though he's one of my least favorite candidates.

This just shows the flaw in the current electoral process. The state's like the Midwest have way too much power. Rather than voting for the best candidate, or the candidate that I agree with policy wise, I'm forced to vote for the candidate whose only strength is that he appeals to midwesteners.

If we got rid of the electoral system, Harris would clean trump's clock.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

golden sloth said:

Was trying to catch some videos of Kamala Harris speaking during her campaign to better educate myself on her, but as of yet not much is out there since she declared (it seems the people with the lowest profiles are the ones making the most TV appearances). I found the one below, and I came away thinking that she can do really well on the coasts, but in the upper great lakes I don't see her connecting with voters. I don't believe Criminal Justice Reform as a winning issue in those states (I don't mean to dismiss it as unimportant, just that in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, I don't see that messaage recapturing the voters that went for both Obama and Trump).

The catch is that, my logic says the easiest way to a Democratic White House is through the industrial midwest, which means flipping a few states that Trump narrowly won and where he has a net approval rating of -5. Perhaps, Harris' message of Criminal Justice Reform plays better in the southern states, and gives her the opportunity to turn states like Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. Taking those states would allow her to loose the industrial midwest.




I've said from the beginning that I think Harris is gojng to surprise some people and win the nomination just because the primary schedule sets up so perfectly for her. And nothing I've seen so far has altered my view. In fact, the most recent cnn poll shows Harris as the one candidate with the most momentum. Yes she's currently in third, but it's typical this early in the race that those with name recognition will have initial leads.

But I do agree with you. While she's a good primary candidate, I don't like her chances in a general (for the reasons you touched on). Which is why I've been very hesitant to throw my support behind her.

Unfortunately, of all the top tier candidates, I think Biden has the best chance of beating trump (for the sole reason that he can take the Midwest). So I may end up voting for him even though he's one of my least favorite candidates.

This just shows the flaw in the current electoral process. The state's like the Midwest have way too much power. Rather than voting for the best candidate, or the candidate that I agree with policy wise, I'm forced to vote for the candidate whose only strength is that he appeals to midwesteners.

If we got rid of the electoral system, Harris would clean trump's clock.
It's really hard to say how much Harris will or won't appeal to Midwesterners. Right now I'd wager most of them don't even know who she is. The primaries will tell the tale here.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

ducky23 said:

golden sloth said:

Was trying to catch some videos of Kamala Harris speaking during her campaign to better educate myself on her, but as of yet not much is out there since she declared (it seems the people with the lowest profiles are the ones making the most TV appearances). I found the one below, and I came away thinking that she can do really well on the coasts, but in the upper great lakes I don't see her connecting with voters. I don't believe Criminal Justice Reform as a winning issue in those states (I don't mean to dismiss it as unimportant, just that in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, I don't see that messaage recapturing the voters that went for both Obama and Trump).

The catch is that, my logic says the easiest way to a Democratic White House is through the industrial midwest, which means flipping a few states that Trump narrowly won and where he has a net approval rating of -5. Perhaps, Harris' message of Criminal Justice Reform plays better in the southern states, and gives her the opportunity to turn states like Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. Taking those states would allow her to loose the industrial midwest.




I've said from the beginning that I think Harris is gojng to surprise some people and win the nomination just because the primary schedule sets up so perfectly for her. And nothing I've seen so far has altered my view. In fact, the most recent cnn poll shows Harris as the one candidate with the most momentum. Yes she's currently in third, but it's typical this early in the race that those with name recognition will have initial leads.

But I do agree with you. While she's a good primary candidate, I don't like her chances in a general (for the reasons you touched on). Which is why I've been very hesitant to throw my support behind her.

Unfortunately, of all the top tier candidates, I think Biden has the best chance of beating trump (for the sole reason that he can take the Midwest). So I may end up voting for him even though he's one of my least favorite candidates.

This just shows the flaw in the current electoral process. The state's like the Midwest have way too much power. Rather than voting for the best candidate, or the candidate that I agree with policy wise, I'm forced to vote for the candidate whose only strength is that he appeals to midwesteners.

If we got rid of the electoral system, Harris would clean trump's clock.
It's really hard to say how much Harris will or won't appeal to Midwesterners. Right now I'd wager most of them don't even know who she is. The primaries will tell the tale here.


You see the good in people.

For me, I don't see a world in which the Midwest chooses any black woman (no matter her policies or character) over someone who looks like Biden. The only exception is maybe Oprah.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:


You see the good in people.

For me, I don't see a world in which the Midwest chooses any black woman (no matter her policies or character) over someone who looks like Biden. The only exception is maybe Oprah.
Obama took the most delegates in Iowa, so at least the black portion of it doesn't seem to be an issue.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
This.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.

Obama, whose descendants are from Kansas? That Obama?

I think Obama being mixed-race played helped a lot in his election. He could be a lot of things to a lot of people. And he could champion his Midwestern roots on the campaign trail in Iowa. I'm not sure, however, if Kamala's mixed-race-ness can benefit her.



sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.

Obama, whose descendants are from Kansas? That Obama?

I think Obama being mixed-race played helped a lot in his election. He could be a lot of things to a lot of people. And he could champion his Midwestern roots on the campaign trail in Iowa. I'm not sure, however, if Kamala's mixed-race-ness can benefit her.
The point is that it's an open question. We shouldn't assume anything about how Midwestern people will vote. There's enough history to suggest that they are open to more than you might think.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You guys have to remember the context of the 2008 race, 8 years of utter sh*t show: 9/11 and the fall out of incompetence, two unwinnable wars costing $3 trillion at that point, horrible economy headed to recession, massive banking fraud, Dubya and Dick war criminals. I guess it's understandable we forget given the current times but Obama had all of Dubya's and the GOP errors as wind to their backs. Everyone wanted change.
YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

You guys have to remember the context of the 2008 race, 8 years of utter sh*t show: 9/11 and the fall out of incompetence, two unwinnable wars costing $3 trillion at that point, horrible economy headed to recession, massive banking fraud, Dubya and Dick war criminals. I guess it's understandable we forget given the current times but Obama had all of Dubya's and the GOP errors as wind to their backs. Everyone wanted change.
And 2020 will be different?

Those states also reelected Obama in 2012.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

You guys have to remember the context of the 2008 race, 8 years of utter sh*t show: 9/11 and the fall out of incompetence, two unwinnable wars costing $3 trillion at that point, horrible economy headed to recession, massive banking fraud, Dubya and Dick war criminals. I guess it's understandable we forget given the current times but Obama had all of Dubya's and the GOP errors as wind to their backs. Everyone wanted change.
And 2020 will be different?

Those states also reelected Obama in 2012.
2020 will be worse in this regard. Same general attitude - toss the ******ed bum out. On that note, I think Iowa understands this, and do the other midwestern states that went for Trump.

The difference...how many Democrat candidates running this time arouind, and foreign interference via the internet. So many similaries but different game.
YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
This.


Obama only had to overcome being black. Not being both a woman and black.

I'll beljeve some parts of the country are ready for a woman president (let alone a black woman president) the second they actually vote for a woman president.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But all things being equal, Biden is going to be more electable in the Midwest (in a general election) cause he's male, white and from that part of the country (or close enough). Those are all huge advantages for him in that part of the country.

Yes I get Hillary was apparently not a great candidate. But cmon. Compared to trump? You can't tell me the fact Hillary was a woman had at least some effect on her losing the Midwest.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

sycasey said:

golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
This.


Obama only had to overcome being black. Not being both a woman and black.

I'll beljeve some parts of the country are ready for a woman president (let alone a black woman president) the second they actually vote for a woman president.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But all things being equal, Biden is going to be more electable in the Midwest (in a general election) cause he's male, white and from that part of the country (or close enough). Those are all huge advantages for him in that part of the country.

Yes I get Hillary was apparently not a great candidate. But cmon. Compared to trump? You can't tell me the fact Hillary was a woman had at least some effect on her losing the Midwest.
I always viewed it as more being something other than a 'white male'. Therefore, I don't see being both a minority and a woman as somehow compounding her non-white-maleness.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

sycasey said:

golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
This.


Obama only had to overcome being black. Not being both a woman and black.

I'll beljeve some parts of the country are ready for a woman president (let alone a black woman president) the second they actually vote for a woman president.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But all things being equal, Biden is going to be more electable in the Midwest (in a general election) cause he's male, white and from that part of the country (or close enough). Those are all huge advantages for him in that part of the country.

Yes I get Hillary was apparently not a great candidate. But cmon. Compared to trump? You can't tell me the fact Hillary was a woman had at least some effect on her losing the Midwest.

Sexism did have some effect, but Hillary also had a lot of specific baggage. A lot of these states also have women Senators and Governors, so again it's hard to say that's the obvious deal-breaker with Harris.

Look, I get that race and gender could be a problem for her. But absent actual results this is also starting to feel like coastal stereotyping of Midwesterners to say that a black woman can't win there.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

ducky23 said:

sycasey said:

golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
This.


Obama only had to overcome being black. Not being both a woman and black.

I'll beljeve some parts of the country are ready for a woman president (let alone a black woman president) the second they actually vote for a woman president.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But all things being equal, Biden is going to be more electable in the Midwest (in a general election) cause he's male, white and from that part of the country (or close enough). Those are all huge advantages for him in that part of the country.

Yes I get Hillary was apparently not a great candidate. But cmon. Compared to trump? You can't tell me the fact Hillary was a woman had at least some effect on her losing the Midwest.

Sexism did have some effect, but Hillary also had a lot of specific baggage. A lot of these states also have women Senators and Governors, so again it's hard to say that's the obvious deal-breaker with Harris.

Look, I get that race and gender could be a problem for her. But absent actual results this is also starting to feel like coastal stereotyping of Midwesterners to say that a black woman can't win there.



Sure I get that. And I hate stereotyping. And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump and not Hillary. But it's just very very difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to any state that voted for trump.

Being a red state is fine (such as a state who may have voted for a McCain or Romney or even bush), but to be a trump state? I have zero confidence that such a state can vote for a trump one year and then a black woman 4 years later.

I'd love to be wrong though
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:


And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump
There was never a valid reason to vote Trump
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

sycasey said:

ducky23 said:

sycasey said:

golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
This.


Obama only had to overcome being black. Not being both a woman and black.

I'll beljeve some parts of the country are ready for a woman president (let alone a black woman president) the second they actually vote for a woman president.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But all things being equal, Biden is going to be more electable in the Midwest (in a general election) cause he's male, white and from that part of the country (or close enough). Those are all huge advantages for him in that part of the country.

Yes I get Hillary was apparently not a great candidate. But cmon. Compared to trump? You can't tell me the fact Hillary was a woman had at least some effect on her losing the Midwest.

Sexism did have some effect, but Hillary also had a lot of specific baggage. A lot of these states also have women Senators and Governors, so again it's hard to say that's the obvious deal-breaker with Harris.

Look, I get that race and gender could be a problem for her. But absent actual results this is also starting to feel like coastal stereotyping of Midwesterners to say that a black woman can't win there.



Sure I get that. And I hate stereotyping. And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump and not Hillary. But it's just very very difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to any state that voted for trump.

Being a red state is fine (such as a state who may have voted for a McCain or Romney or even bush), but to be a trump state? I have zero confidence that such a state can vote for a trump one year and then a black woman 4 years later.

I'd love to be wrong though

They voted for Obama twice and then Trump four years after. No assumptions.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

ducky23 said:

sycasey said:

ducky23 said:

sycasey said:

golden sloth said:

It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
This.


Obama only had to overcome being black. Not being both a woman and black.

I'll beljeve some parts of the country are ready for a woman president (let alone a black woman president) the second they actually vote for a woman president.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But all things being equal, Biden is going to be more electable in the Midwest (in a general election) cause he's male, white and from that part of the country (or close enough). Those are all huge advantages for him in that part of the country.

Yes I get Hillary was apparently not a great candidate. But cmon. Compared to trump? You can't tell me the fact Hillary was a woman had at least some effect on her losing the Midwest.

Sexism did have some effect, but Hillary also had a lot of specific baggage. A lot of these states also have women Senators and Governors, so again it's hard to say that's the obvious deal-breaker with Harris.

Look, I get that race and gender could be a problem for her. But absent actual results this is also starting to feel like coastal stereotyping of Midwesterners to say that a black woman can't win there.



Sure I get that. And I hate stereotyping. And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump and not Hillary. But it's just very very difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to any state that voted for trump.

Being a red state is fine (such as a state who may have voted for a McCain or Romney or even bush), but to be a trump state? I have zero confidence that such a state can vote for a trump one year and then a black woman 4 years later.

I'd love to be wrong though

They voted for Obama twice and then Trump four years after. No assumptions.


Fair enough.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if this country can find its way back to normal
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

sycasey said:


They voted for Obama twice and then Trump four years after. No assumptions.


Fair enough.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if this country can find its way back to normal
We have to take it back from the stupids and the racists and the wealthy people who prioritize their investment portfolio over morality.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:



Sure I get that. And I hate stereotyping. And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump and not Hillary. But it's just very very difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to any state that voted for trump.

Being a red state is fine (such as a state who may have voted for a McCain or Romney or even bush), but to be a trump state? I have zero confidence that such a state can vote for a trump one year and then a black woman 4 years later.

I'd love to be wrong though
agree strongly with all, except the first bold. There are NO valid reasons for having voted for trump.
When he announced, I said it was a joke, and nothing during his campaign or presidency has contradicted that.

If you voted for trump, you should forever hang your head in shame.
Don't tell your grandchildren. You will go down in the family history book as that idiot who did so, similar to those who shamefully have ancestors who had slaves, or Germans who were nazis.

Shame, shame!
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hickenlooper should just drop out now. He needs to have "it" to have a chance and he doesn't. I don't know much about him, except white male/Colorado/67. The longest I've listened to him is this exchange at the CNN townhall where he explains taking his mom to see Deep Throat. This exchange was good for laughs, but damn, he had some bad judgement at 18 and wasn't so great or endearing enough in explaining how he could be so dumb.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/21/john-hickenlooper-cnn-town-hall-mom-awkward-moment-movie-sot-vpx.cnn
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Haha, it was awkward watching racy TV with mom...can't imagine full porn. When things got tense, mom would break the ice by saying stuff like, "Well look at that.". Totally different meaning with porn.

In any case, Hickenlooper should run for the GOP senate seat, held by Gardner a GOP in 2020. Perhaps that's the plan.
YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Punk-rock-skateboards-and-self-importance-Beto-13708524.php
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gillibrand picked a lovely day to announce.

She also needs a new speechwriter.

Just based on her rollout, it's hard to see her being any sort of factor.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

Gillibrand picked a lovely day to announce.

She also needs a new speechwriter.

Just based on her rollout, it's hard to see her being any sort of factor.

I don't really dislike her or anything, but in the realm of Presidential candidates I'm not seeing it with her. She seems inauthentic (in a way that other female candidates like Harris, Warren, or Kloubchar do not). That may not be fair to her - perhaps she is 100% genuine and just seems stiff while on the stump - but not everyone can be President.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New Poll on the Iowa Democratic Caucus.

Biden and Bernie lead (in the mid to low 20's), Buttigeig takes third and is clearly in the second tier with Harris and Warren (around 10%). Beto and Booker make up the current third tier (with around 5%), and everyone else (including Gillibrand) is at 0 - 1%. Two notes, there is a very large margin for error, and it is really early still.


Quote:

In Emerson's second poll of the Iowa caucus, former Vice President Joe Biden narrowly leads the Democratic field with 25%, followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders at 24%. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana has surged to 11%. Senator Kamala Harris of California follows with 10% the only other candidate to clear double digits in Iowa. Data was collected between March 21-24, and the Democratic caucus ballot test had a margin of error +/- 6.2%
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/03/24/iowa-2020-biden-and-sanders-neck-and-neck-in-democratic-field-mayor-pete-jumps-to-double-digits/

Also buried in the article is the nugget that the person Dem's should most fear is Howard Schultz.

Quote:

When Howard Schultz was added to a general election matchup between Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump in Iowa, both President Trump and Senator Warren dropped 3% Schultz received 7%, Trump 48%, and Warren 45%. When asked if respondents would support Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, or Howard Schultz, Sanders loses his lead in the general with 47% supporting President Trump, 45% supporting Senator Sanders, and 8% supporting Howard Schultz.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Schultz is polling well because nobody has heard him. The "white knight" who will rescue us.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It appears Conservatives are trying to use the idea of 'White Privilege' to divide and conquer the Democratic Party. I can't imagine they are trying to win voters with this, rather their objective is to disillusion voters that would typically vote against Republicans with the hopes of having them not vote.

Quote:


"Beto's bizarre campaign rollout drips with white male privilege, the kind of navel-gazing, self-involved behaviour a woman or person of colour could never get away with," intones a recent advertisement by The Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax group that supports President Trump's re-election.

The Club for Growth is not alone is accusing Beto of benefiting from having been "born with a blue-blood pedigree, the scion of a prominent family," and having a nigh-on billionaire father-in-law, Bill Sanders (so successful he became known as the "Warren Buffet of real estate").
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47712096
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And then there's this... It's a long way to 2020 but Dotard still has a bug up his ass and his attempts to kill the ACA helped in the historic House take back. The thing is, Trump is so incompetent and stupid, he doesn't see the politics, so good.

Trump is trying to kill Obamacare again and Democrats couldn't be happier

Trump's health care agenda is a legal disaster

Quote:

The federal courts are slamming the Trump administration for pursuing unlawful health care policies.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:



concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:


And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump
There was never a valid reason to vote Trump
Preach!
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow, 2 of the candidates have a University of California connections.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Probably even more if you consider that some may know people who at one time attended a UC campus. I'm fairly confident everyone is within a few degrees of separation from UC.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.