going4roses said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

The two most recent polls:

Quinnipiac:

Biden 32%, Warren 19%, Sanders 15%

U.S. Today/Suffolk:

Biden: 32%, Warren 14%, Sanders 12%

Seems like Monmouth was an outlier.

---

Trump in a landslide with enough political capitol to reboot slavery

---

If Trump wins it will be in another squeaker, not a landslide. Presidents with sub-50% approval don't get landslides.

W/ mr "grab the ______" anything is possible

going4roses said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

The two most recent polls:

Quinnipiac:

Biden 32%, Warren 19%, Sanders 15%

U.S. Today/Suffolk:

Biden: 32%, Warren 14%, Sanders 12%

Seems like Monmouth was an outlier.

---

Trump in a landslide with enough political capitol to reboot slavery

---

+1000

Per Quinnipiac Poll: Dems vs. Trump in General Election:

Biden 54% Trump 38%
Sanders 53% Trump 39%
Warren 52% Trump 40%
Harris 51% Trump 40%
Buttigieg 49% Trump 40%

going4roses said:

---

W/ mr "grab the ______" anything is possible

---

He didn't win that election in a landslide either (much as he'd like to claim it is).

Another GOP Congressman has decided to retire. Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson has announced that he will retire due to health reasons. This leaves the GOP to defend two seats in Georgia. Hard state for Dems to win in but a senate seat up for grabs is pretty enticing.

I'd vote for Buttgieg out of those 5...

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

That guy is actually a senator. Senate now fully in play.

I just listened to one of tRump's Jazz like riffs on the topic of Hurricane Dorian and it dawned on me that the Ron Burgundy character was making fun of people like tRump. You know, guys you encountered in school, socially, and in the business world that appear to have a lot of confidence and do lots of talking and it soon becomes clear that they are delivering gibberish spontaneously as it comes to them and the more they talk the deeper down the moron rabbit hole their tale spins. The problem is, this moron is POTUS.

September 12, one night only.

Poor Tom Steyer.

sycasey said:

---

Poor Tom Steyer.

---

Well that is an oxymoron on the level of jumbo shrimp.

bearister said:

---

I just listened to one of tRump's Jazz like riffs on the topic of Hurricane Dorian and it dawned on me that the Ron Burgundy character was making fun of people like tRump. You know, guys you encountered in school, socially, and in the business world that appear to have a lot of confidence and do lots of talking and it soon becomes clear that they are delivering gibberish spontaneously as it comes to them and the more they talk the deeper down the moron rabbit hole their tale spins. The problem is, this moron is POTUS.

---

Absolutely. I think one of the reasons higher educated voters fled from Trump is they mostly have the benefit of knowing plenty of guys like him. They live on bullshyting their way through every social situation and then leaving before people catch up to them. Guys who change jobs every year or two before everything catches up to them. You just look at Trump's business record and it is just a long like of broken promises and burned bridges.

Problem is that as president you have to go 4 years. I think that a lot of people are starting to see what is what. Problem is, a lot of people don't want to admit to themselves or to others that they got conned.

going4roses said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

The two most recent polls:

Quinnipiac:

Biden 32%, Warren 19%, Sanders 15%

U.S. Today/Suffolk:

Biden: 32%, Warren 14%, Sanders 12%

Seems like Monmouth was an outlier.

---

Trump in a landslide with enough political capitol to reboot slavery

---

Trump will never win in a landslide.

Trump would have lost to almost literally any other Democrat that could have run in 2016. There has been an overreaction to the result as it was more about Clinton than Trump. She was an incompetent candidate that was deeply unpopular in the midwest. Think about it. In 2008 with much of her support coming from the African American community, she failed to see that the only Black candidate was the major threat in the democratic field. She then couldn't squash a cooky independent from Vermont who proudly proclaimed he was a socialist. Then she ignored the Midwestern states to try to run up the score elsewhere when a simple click on FiveThirtyEight would have told her campaign what states were likely tipping point states. Worst campaigner ever.


The danger is that the democrats have given Trump 4 years to prove himself and make his case for a second term. That and they are looking at a scenario where they may need to win the popular vote by 5M to win the electoral college.

However, this should be (emphasize SHOULD BE) an easy case for them. Read the article on "Trump voters". Low education/Low income White voters are socially conservative, but economically are looking for justice and think the little guy gets screwed. That is why they swing democrat and republican. Trump was attractive to many because he promised both.

However, farmers have gotten royally effed by Trump. (we actually are now running a trade deficit in agriculture which is a catastrophe) Coal miners are losing jobs. Manufacturing is down. Trump's tax cuts were deeply unpopular and seen as a gift to the rich and not doing much at all for the "Trump voter". Make no mistake. These voters are not stupid. They have heard the promises before. They've fallen for the promises before. But they know when they aren't kept. Trump barely won the three Midwestern states that turned the election. The democrats do not need to win back the low education/low income white voters. They just need to win a fraction of them back to turn the election around. Democrats hammering the Midwest with an economic message should be low hanging fruit. And that isn't the only path to success.

I think you would find also, there are a few people on this board who voted for Trump because they thought his racist bluster was just to get elected and they wanted to shake up Washington and a different economic strategy. I know a couple who have been clearly pretty disappointed.

Democrats may well lose this, but if they do, they will have done so by blowing it. This is still the country that easily reelected Obama 7 years ago and who would have easily done so again if he had been eligible to run in 2016.

OaktownBear said:

---

... Then she ignored the Midwestern states to try to run up the score elsewhere when a simple click on FiveThirtyEight would have told her campaign what states were likely tipping point states. Worst campaigner ever.....

---

Do you really think if HRC had been a smarter campaigner in the flyovers that the discerning citizenry there would have voted for a woman for POTUS?

If Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination she is going to lose in the flyovers regardless of how much she grovels there......unless tRump has hit them over the head with a 2 x 4 with his policies so many times that by Election Day they are so concussed that they vote for a woman.

BTW, although I am a moderate Democrat, I refuse to be forced into the arms of another moron by tRump so I intend to vote for EW in the Primary and, hopefully in the General Election and just hope she has to move a little more towards the center if she becomes POTUS.

Warren is by all measures a leftist's wet dream and qualified for the presidency. I think in many respects, she's what we need. But she won't win because she's annoying AF.

GBear4Life said:

---

Warren is by all measures a leftist's wet dream and qualified for the presidency. I think in many respects, she's what we need. But she won't win because she's annoying AF.

---

...and ironically her policies would greatly benefit many of tRump's most ardent supporters. Hasn't tRump and his Crime Family removed "annoying AF" as a disqualifier?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. Hillary could have won some of the flyovers merely by showing them she wasn't taking them for granted. Had she done more to motivate her base, she easily would have made up that crucial 85K votes in the three rust belt states she narrowly lost (and cost her the election). The Comey stuff was like a bad ref call in the closing minutes of a close game that she should have been winning by four TDs.

Also keep in mind that the divide is more between urban and rural areas, not just coastal and flyover states. California's Central Valley is more conservative than Saint Louis.

If Warren crafts her message well (and I've been pleasantly surprised so far), I like to think that she could motivate more of the base in what you call the flyovers. If she picks Pete for her VP, he could help too, since he's been harping on values and helping midwest manufacturing jobs, etc. (I'd expect her to pick Julian Castro, though, since he could help her swing a purplish Texas firmly blue, which would turn the election almost by itself).

FWIW Warren's people just delivered to me another two shirts, a lawn sign, and a pack of stickers ("Choose the Path of Most Persistence" is a great line).

BearsWiin said:

---

If she picks Pete for her VP

---

Not happening. His 15 minutes are just about up.

bearister said:

---

If Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination she is going to lose in the flyovers regardless of how much she grovels there......unless tRump has hit them over the head with a 2 x 4 with his policies so many times that by Election Day they are so concussed that they vote for a woman.

---

I'm not sure why you are so convinced of this. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have all voted for Democratic women to the Senate (and in Michigan's case, for governor). Just being a woman isn't a deal-breaker.

My opinion on Warren: I think she has the potential to pick up midwestern voters. She hasn't had to make a big play yet since we're still in the early stages of the primary, but she has a background that could appeal to that demographic: she grew up a conservative in Oklahoma, in a family that had to scrape for money. When she wants to, she can code-switch and talk like a folksy Midwestern grandma with an economically populist message.

That doesn't mean she'd definitely win, but I don't know why anyone is writing off the possibility. The material is there.

Yes HRC campaign screwed the pooch not setting up campaigns in the rust belt battle ground states. Just stupid.

But how Trump won those is far worse...Russkies steal HRC email that they're not setting up in rust belt, then shift the vast majority of the Trump campaign to those states.

Without the Russkie intel, Trump doesn't send the whole campaign there.

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination she is going to lose in the flyovers regardless of how much she grovels there......unless tRump has hit them over the head with a 2 x 4 with his policies so many times that by Election Day they are so concussed that they vote for a woman.

---

I'm not sure why you are so convinced of this. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have all voted for Democratic women to the Senate (and in Michigan's case, for governor). Just being a woman isn't a deal-breaker.

---

It's the provincialism of this board. Wisconsin also has a lesbian Senator.

There is this other group called African Americans- that make up 12% of both Pennsylvania and Michigan. African Americans failed to support Clinton. If they come out for the Dems they will win back these two states easily which is why they have held them for a long time.

I actually think Warren can be more electable than Biden who I expect to be wrapped in a blanket eating pudding out of a spoon on Election Day- but she is weak among African Americans and has to improve there. Sanders is actually stronger head to head with Trump in these states

Anarchistbear said:

---

.... more electable than Biden who I expect to be wrapped in a blanket eating pudding out of a spoon on Election Day....

---

....and tRump, who every day is getting fatter, sweatier, shakier and more of that Chris Farley "I could drop dead within the next 10 seconds look," could have his heart explode like putting a cherry bomb in a coffee can full of chicken grease by Election Day. Perhaps a Bing Crosby face plant after walking from the 18th green at Mar a Lago after taking a 75 foot putt for a par.

Of course this is the issue that is before us and rarely examined. Why do we have to choose between people we hate and/or people who are demented and then are shocked and pissed when one of them wins

If you hate them, don't vote...but then don't ***** about it later.

Democracy isn't perfect. It's slow, cumbersome and messy but it beats the others.

In any case, the polls show Trump getting hammered in the key battleground states. Of course, polls...yeah, kinda got hosed believing those in '16.

My worry isn't so much the candidates but Russia and now Iran and China are at it.

Because of the Electoral College, we really don't have a Democracy...which is why we currently have a Clownocracy.

Question: Do you believe the Joint Chiefs have issued a stand down order with regard to any directives from the Orange Tub of Guts to launch nukes? I still have enough faith left where I believe that to be the case. A stand down order was clearly in place when Reagan was in his bath robe looking for Bonzo in the Lincoln bedroom everyday during the last 3 years of his 2nd term.

Yes I believe there's a stand down order in place. If not at the very beginning, certainly now, certainly after the public BJ in Helsinki given to Putin.

the EC is an instrument to protect against the "tyranny of the majority"...

That being said, I don't like it either.

When you win 57% to 42% that's pretty much a landslide.

bearnation93 said:

---

When you win 57% to 42% that's pretty much a landslide.

---

And who won by that margin?

President Donald Trump. He received 57% of the 538 Electoral College votes and Hillary received 42% of the Electoral College votes.

No, I'm laughing out loud at all you Far Left nuts!!!! Hahahaha!