2020 US Presidential Election Discussion

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
User was warned for this post.
Ok on Syria, I think that the right move would've been withdrawing entirely and not just from the Northern region and moving our troops. The troops should have been sent home.
Why do you think that? Do you not care about our oil and keep isis in check?

Qualk Qualk this comment was insufferable. You just copied and pasted debunked article the guy above you said and you are an obvious hardcore democrat. There’s literally no point in addressing those points, I’d be talking to a blue brick wall. The bigger question is what is it personally you don’t like about trump?
Also, you democrats have made become more authoritarian minded. On a political scale, I’m about (1,1.5) - this means I lean right on economics while I lean almost center on authoritarianism. It’s a really cool scale. So....
X axis deals with economics. -4,4 scale. -4 being communist. 4 being unregulated capitalism. Bernie is like -2.5.
warren is -2.0. Maybe -1.5. Biden/klobuchar is probably a -.5 if not 0.0/.5
Trump is like 2.5...maybe 3.0. I’m 1.0. So I believe strongly in a free market and I lean more towards trumpian economics. However I do believe in an economy that’s competitive. So a progressive corporate tax rate starting at 20% that goes all the way up to 50%. As well as having strong anti trust laws. Any company that owns more than 50% of market share must be broken up. Plus I’d institute a social healthcare plan that be based on income ranges. So liberal economic plans like this boost me down.

The Y axis is government authority/control.
-4,4 - negative 4 being anarchy while 4 is like Stalinist Lenin or nazi.
And I’m 1.5 about. Most democrats are like automacatically above 0.0 since their leftist policies require more central planning. I’m authoritarian not because much of government control...but government enforcement. Strong laws on such like respect to authorities/leaders. Strong law enforcement. Strong military. Strong but fair drug laws. Ethic laws. Here’s a good one. If a citizen cussed out a president in his/her face. They have the right to Sentence that citizen into jail on spot. I’d also require government sanctioned protest ONLY. Illegal protesting or riots would not be tolerated Etc. SJWs would have no place in my country. Like any sort of leftist movements would be squashed. I know how leftist people operate. A lot of them only listen to fear. Neo liberals would be squashed and sub dued. Idk what the heck progressives would do. On one hand, they’d get their little free healthcare but they’d despise how right wing/conservative my government is.some Centrist, apolitical, some right wingers, conservatives, classical liberals and to some extent technocrats would probably be the only type that could live peaceably in my country.

went on a tangent but yeah.

Sucumbio Sucumbio I’ve made my case for trump numerous of times. You just support dems because of Obama loyal factor. I can’t blame you. I used to admire Obama and to some extent still do....but I’ve seen how the deep state has corrupted him a little.
 
Last edited:

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,307
While I agree the DH of old was far more strict we decided several years ago to loosen the standards and dropped admittance requirements so that we could have more participants who weren't necessarily Uber grammatical or necessarily staunch readers / political scientists / philosophically minded.

But it's been changed back so as it sits this parent forum is more about serious discussion topics. The DH proper which is a sub section does actually require admittance which stems from advocacy from DH members. Given your statement I understand you do not advocate for J.I.L

J.I.L J.I.L the problem isn't your lack of a position it is that your position is Trump is right because he says he is. Just about every point he's brought to us on Twitter (lol seriously? What an ass) is either just wrong (which is why it's constantly being fact checked) or worse, sounds so good that people don't question it. Herd mentality! Basically he drummed up all this support by playing to the bigots of the country and old people while the rest of us are stuck. I am not sure if anyone else has seen this yet but I for one can't just believe everything is okay when dumb **** like that cop shooting a woman through her window happens. Once is enough but it keeps happening over and over and over again. It's not right. America elected a black president and the salt was so deep that now these peoplea can finally act the way they want. Look at the districts that support him. And it is a good thing he's finally being impeached. Should have never been allowed to take office seeing as without Russia's interference he'd have lost (though admittedly Hilary would have been a different kind of suck.)
 
Last edited:

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
While I agree the DH of old was far more strict we decided several years ago to loosen the standards and dropped admittance requirements so that we could have more participants who weren't necessarily Uber grammatical or necessarily staunch readers / political scientists / philosophically minded.

But it's been changed back so as it sits this parent forum is more about serious discussion topics. The DH proper which is a sub section does actually require admittance which stems from advocacy from DH members. Given your statement I understand you do not advocate for J.I.L

J.I.L J.I.L the problem isn't your lack of a position it is that your position is Trump is right because he says he is. Just about every point he's brought to us on Twitter (lol seriously? What an ***) is either just wrong (which is why it's constantly being fact checked) or worse, sounds so good that people don't question it. Herd mentality! Basically he drummed up all this support by playing to the bigots of the country and old people while the rest of us are stuck. I am not sure if anyone else has seen this yet but I for one can't just believe everything is okay when dumb **** like that cop shooting a woman through her window happens. Once is enough but it keeps happening over and over and over again. It's not right. America elected a black president and the salt was so deep that now these crackers can finally act the way they want. Look at the districts that support him. And it is a good thing he's finally being impeached. Should have never been allowed to take office seeing as without Russia's interference he'd have lost (though admittedly Hilary would have been a different kind of suck.)
Did you just call someone a “cracker” looool. Woah. Someone is really upset. Dude, you really got to get your head out of the liberal news’ buttocks. But first of all, I thought you were Asian. I’ve only seen black refer to whites as “cracker”. Most Asian id assume could give a dam about these type of issues. Because they are too busy having heads in the books, studying and getting g themselves in good schools and making good money while having commendable ethics and values.

but anyway, the liberal news is turning you into an esutanched TDS zombie. You need to chill. Also, debate hall proper? What is this? Not like I’m interested in joining a group where I need to be “accepted” by some randoms online who think they are smart. Lol. But I am curious as to what it is.
 
Last edited:

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,307
Heh not to nitpick but Asians aren't all studious bookworms. I was raised by a blue collar father and housewife mother (she's the Asian in the equation I'm half Chinese). Point being yes I condemn white nationalism, I condemn positions of power achieved by standing on the backs of the poor, and on minorities.

I don't read just left leaning news btw. I also attend to Fox, the Washington Examiner and other right leaning news sources. Honestly AJ and BBC are better at balanced news sourcing but that's another discussion methinks.

Um, well at the top of the forum you should see a subforum which is the Debate Hall. It's closed to posts expect from those who are Smash Debaters. If you were to become interested in posting there we can discuss it.
 

Alicorn

The Fighting Dreamer ❤️
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
439
Location
Friendship Castle
Trump barely won the 2016 election, ever since then he had spent almost half a billion dollars on ad campaigns to sway public opinion. Trump approval rating have fallen, his trade war has hurt his base and his failed campaign promises has hurt people's faith in Trump. In 2016 he promised us a wall not a fence, Its one of his central campaign promises, he failed. Trump promised to bring our troops home, he pulled troops out of Syria betraying our allies and sent more to Saudi Arabia betraying his campaign promise of bringing troops home. Our soldiers are no longer fighting for the people or the Constitution but wealthy foreign princes. Trump turned our military into a mercenary company. If that wasn't enough he took money from military families to fund his Wall vanity project.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ecurity-families-foot-bill-column/2325586001/

His trade war is hurting businesses and farmers which make up a good portion of his base.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrar...farmers-banks-and-state-coffers/#554160085140
 

Crooked Crow

drank from lakes of sorrow
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
2,249
Location
Jolly Roger Bay
but anyway, the liberal news is turning you into an esutanched TDS zombie. You need to chill. Also, debate hall proper? What is this? Not like I’m interested in joining a group where I need to be “accepted” by some randoms online who think they are smart. Lol. But I am curious as to what it is.
Are you... okay?
 

link2702

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
2,625
Location
Oklahoma
User was warned for this post.
Ya'll are wasting your time with J.I.L, I've realized that particular user does not want a civilized debate. Everything that isn't praising trump is "leftist propaganda" or "fake news."


I realized in another topic there's just no reasoning with him to have a civilized discussion on any subject, which is why I also realized it's just better to put him on ignore.

Sometimes some people are just too far gone and beyond saving from cult-mentality. J.I.L is one of those people.
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
Ya'll are wasting your time with J.I.L, I've realized that particular user does not want a civilized debate. Everything that isn't praising trump is "leftist propaganda" or "fake news."


I realized in another topic there's just no reasoning with him to have a civilized discussion on any subject, which is why I also realized it's just better to put him on ignore.

Sometimes some people are just too far gone and beyond saving from cult-mentality. J.I.L is one of those people.
Strong Badam Strong Badam Isn't this against the rules? disparing another user?
 

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,307
Just use the report feature in the future and to everyone let's not call each other out pls and ty.
 

link2702

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
2,625
Location
Oklahoma
Strong Badam Strong Badam Isn't this against the rules? disparing another user?
It’s also against the rules to constantly attack and belittle others the way you do in your posts, but that hasn’t stopped you from doing it. Multiple times you’ve belittled and talked down to folks who don’t share your opinion, and now you’re trying to play the victim card.


Anyway I’m done, I’ve given my viewpoint on the matter, mods can delete my posts give out the infractions, delete your responses to em w/e, to get things back on track.
 
Last edited:

Strong Badam

Journey
Administrator
Premium
GRimer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
25,693
Hi,
As Sucumbio noted, if you feel a post has broken the forum rules we'd prefer if users use the Report feature to bring it to our attention. If you call users out inline, it both disrupts the flow of the thread/discussion and depending on the tone can classify as flaming or spam. I've handed out a couple warnings, and I'd like the discussion to go back on track. If I'm not mistaken, a Democratic Debate occurred last evening, so there should be plenty to discuss. I didn't catch it personally or I'd make some attempt at engaging here.
 

Qualk

Smash Cadet
Writing Team
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
69
The bigger question is what is it personally you don’t like about trump?
-His child separation policy at the border. Cruel and unnecessary. It is 100% legal for people to come into the US and apply for asylum and to suggest otherwise is simply unamerican. This policy will create a generation of psychologically damaged people.

-The 10,000 plus lies he's told since getting inaugurated in person and on twitter. Obviously every president has exaggerated or fudged some numbers to make a policy point look better but the extent to which trump lies is unforgivable.

-The mentality that "If the President does it, it's not illegal". It's absolutely ridiculous. There's no question he obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Obstruction of justice is itself a crime, regardless of if there are any underlying crimes (there are).

-The blatant racism. Too many instances to count.

These are just the most egregious offenses but there's so many more.

I'd like to know your opinion on the child separation policy. I'm legitimately curious at how someone would defend that.
 

Alicorn

The Fighting Dreamer ❤️
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
439
Location
Friendship Castle
-His child separation policy at the border. Cruel and unnecessary. It is 100% legal for people to come into the US and apply for asylum and to suggest otherwise is simply unamerican. This policy will create a generation of psychologically damaged people.

-The 10,000 plus lies he's told since getting inaugurated in person and on twitter. Obviously every president has exaggerated or fudged some numbers to make a policy point look better but the extent to which trump lies is unforgivable.

-The mentality that "If the President does it, it's not illegal". It's absolutely ridiculous. There's no question he obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Obstruction of justice is itself a crime, regardless of if there are any underlying crimes (there are).

-The blatant racism. Too many instances to count.

These are just the most egregious offenses but there's so many more.

I'd like to know your opinion on the child separation policy. I'm legitimately curious at how someone would defend that.
Trump also is burning bridges with our allies, he started a trade war with China, Canada, Mexico the EU. He also betrayed the Kurds, sending near double the amount to Saudia Arabia, which is two faced because he said he was "Putting an ending to these endless war" He then said he did it because the Saudis pay well. So he betrayed our ally for money. Then there is the stuff with Russia.

Any well informed American would know that Trump is not fighting for America he is fighting for himself. Trump winning a second term is highly unlikely, because there were many factors that led to Trump's win and he barely beat Hilary. People's feeling for Trump have soured since 2016.

Warren or Biden are pretty much have nothing to worry about, Trump's actions are irredeemable at this point.
 

link2702

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
2,625
Location
Oklahoma
Warren or Biden are pretty much have nothing to worry about, Trump's actions are irredeemable at this point.
while everything you said is true, just remember we all thought this same thing during 2016, which is arguably part of the factor that lead to his win.

Now you’d hope that after the strong showing we had during midterms where we had far more people voting than we’ve seen in decades, (mostly against trump and the GOP), that this energy would bleed off into the actual 2020 election. But if people get the idea that whoever gets the democratic nomination “has nothing to worry about since trump dug his own grave” and decide once again to sit home, we could face another term of this disaster of a president.

So in short, don’t get comfortable assuming that Biden, Sanders, Warren, whoever, has it in the bag just cuz trump keeps shooting himself in the foot.
 

Qualk

Smash Cadet
Writing Team
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
69
while everything you said is true, just remember we all thought this same thing during 2016, which is arguably part of the factor that lead to his win.

Now you’d hope that after the strong showing we had during midterms where we had far more people voting than we’ve seen in decades, (mostly against trump and the GOP), that this energy would bleed off into the actual 2020 election. But if people get the idea that whoever gets the democratic nomination “has nothing to worry about since trump dug his own grave” and decide once again to sit home, we could face another term of this disaster of a president.

So in short, don’t get comfortable assuming that Biden, Sanders, Warren, whoever, has it in the bag just cuz trump keeps shooting himself in the foot.
I think people learned their lesson. It is hilarious though that McConnell called the democrat's efforts to get election day recognized as a national holiday a "power grab". How can you supposedly support democracy yet kill efforts to make it easier to vote? It's just laughably hypocritical. They know the country is shifting Democrat after this disastrous presidency so if more people can vote that means more democrats voting xD!
 
Last edited:

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,307
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55hVhbBfNig
Hillary Clinton calls Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset.
Why do you think she did this? Tulsi's been smeared countless times by nearly every major news outlet and now Hillary's joining in? What's the purpose of this? She's polling at like 1-2% right now.
I'm not sure. Perhaps this is in some fashion an attempt at total transparency showing that Russia not only continues to interfere but that now Trump can't say well the Dems are guilty too and they didn't say anything. That way when it does come out during the impeachment inquiry it won't be able to be used as a defense? Seems thin tho.... I really don't know what Clinton is up to.
 

Ben Holt

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
1,946
Location
USA
3DS FC
5455-9637-6959
NNID
BenHolt
Switch FC
5283 2130 1160
I might as well make my introduction to this subforum here.
Hi, I am Ben. I'm a Leftist in every sense of the word. I am an Anaracho-Syndicalist Stateless Socialist. I am a lifelong Atheist, and an ardent one at that.
If I could describe my overall world philosophy in as few words as possible, it is that the three biggest evils in our modern world are religion, Nationalism, and Capitalism.
By identity, I am a pansexual white male American, but I hold no value in my identity, nor anyone else's. The truest divider in our world is not sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nation, etc, but social class. As long as class exists, we are doomed to be in conflict. And as long as Capitalism exists, there will be class.

That being said, I am #BernieOrBust, not because I believe that Bernie is perfect, but because he is the only presidential candidate running that is even remotely leftist.
 

Qualk

Smash Cadet
Writing Team
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
69
I might as well make my introduction to this subforum here.
Hi, I am Ben. I'm a Leftist in every sense of the word. I am an Anaracho-Syndicalist Stateless Socialist. I am a lifelong Atheist, and an ardent one at that.
If I could describe my overall world philosophy in as few words as possible, it is that the three biggest evils in our modern world are religion, Nationalism, and Capitalism.
By identity, I am a pansexual white male American, but I hold no value in my identity, nor anyone else's. The truest divider in our world is not sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nation, etc, but social class. As long as class exists, we are doomed to be in conflict. And as long as Capitalism exists, there will be class.

That being said, I am #BernieOrBust, not because I believe that Bernie is perfect, but because he is the only presidential candidate running that is even remotely leftist.
So if Warren or Biden or anyone else not named Bernie wins the nomination you're gonna stay home on election day?
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
409
Been a long time, but I've been sick all summer and busy all winter and have had little time or energy for this stuff. That said, I had been wanting to contribute to the discussion for a while and now I have time to do so. I won't reply to posts that are now outdated and it seems our wayward Falco main has gotten the banhammer since I've been gone, so I'll just comment on the current state of the primary and my thoughts on Trump's viability.


A lot has changed, but I think the biggest trends have been Bernie and Biden's steadfast support. Biden has been self-destructing from the word go and while he has been dropping, he still has a huge lead over the other candidates. Probably skewed by the polls favoring old people, but still. Bernie has been pretty consistent and the most consistent overall, but has been rising as of recently. As such, I feel like it's going to come down to these two candidates eventually. Pretty much a repeat of 2016, with Biden filling in for Hildawg.

Warren started off decent, but has been tanking as of late. This isn't surprising, as she's always come off as a bit wishy-washy, but the shenanigans she tried to pull off in her healthcare bill really hurt her I think. Not only was it closer to a public option than she otherwise let on, but she's been dodging inquiries about tax raises and her bill seems designed so that it won't raise taxes on the middle class, at the expense of other things. She needed to be open and honest about it, like Bernie was, and just emphasize that it would do away with private expenses, like copay and premiums.

And I feel like that was always her achillies heel, her inability to sell her policies. She's very reminiscent of Hillary Clinton in that neither of them were very good at selling or defending their policies and honestly aren't very good at politics in general. Warren is very good at drafting policy, but a politician's ability is measured in how good at word games and selling stuff they are. Warren and Hillary had no narrative, while Bernie and Trump are very good at narrative.

Like it or not, narrative is the most important thing. No matter how good of policy you have, if you can't sell it, and especially if you can't defend it from bad faith smears and attacks, you aren't going to be able to energize voters. Make America Great Again is short, sweet, and to the point. America is in a bad place and he'll fix it. Bernie is the same way, as was Obama before him. Warren and Hillary kind of just dump a bunch of policy on people. And aren't particularly great at word crafting or charismatic individuals.

You can have doubts and concerns about MAGA, but if you aren't able to articulate why it's fraudulent and why you have the better idea, then MAGA will run with whatever narrative it wants to. Hillary had no ability to do that and quite frankly doesn't seem to possess any sort of political talent whatsoever. Being incredibly talented at fundraising seems to be what has gotten her where she was, but as we saw in 2016, you can't always win by outspending your opponent.

Warren is better, but still clearly struggles at articulation and controlling the narrative. She's had her moments, but Bernie has still had to step in and defend her positions for her multiple times. She also suffers from letting framing and her opponents trap her in a box. Her desperation to avoid admitting Medicare for all will raise taxes is a good example of that. It's not a death sentence to admit that, provided that you are articulate at explaining why that isn't the end of the world.

There have been bad faith smears and outright lies all over these debates and everyone but Bernie, including the moderators, have been attacking progressive policies. She needs to be smarter about these things and stop being influenced by the traditional ideas of politics, that have been costing the Dems elections. It's only going to get worse in the general.


My feelings on Mayor Pete have gone from skeptical to utter contempt. It's one thing to be opposed to progressive policy and be honest about it like Klobuchar. It's an entirely different thing to claim to support progressive policies and then 180 when it isn't expedient for your career. You need only look back a year and see Mayor Pete boldly support progressive ideas. Now he's done nothing but attack and smear them, while still trying to piggyback off their name, like with his "Medicare for those who want it", which has nothing to do with Medicare for all, but will use the popularity of its name all the same.

He is entirely why there are "purity tests" and why people don't automatically take a politician's word at face value. Establishments Dems have been whining nonstop about "purity tests" and that no one will trust and work with them. Then they try and back someone like Pete. It might be the fact that Democrats are seemingly ok with people that have no integrity and will change positions on a dime, why it's been so difficult for them to get voter support.

Pete has no real path to nomination. Iowa seems to be the only relevant state he has some support in. And given he is clever enough to realize that progressive policy is in and why he still tries to piggyback off it, I think would think he would know that too. Which is why I feel like he is being paid to be a spoiler candidate and ensure Biden wins. It's incredibly close between Biden and Bernie, so all Pete would need to do is siphon off just a little support and Biden will have the points. And given his recent hangouts have been wine caves, I don't think this is a huge stretch.


Warren in her current state and Pete will lose to Trump. Biden doesn't seem to be cognizant of his surroundings half the time. Bernie seems to be the only candidate taking things seriously and Trump seriously as a threat. To the point he had a literal heart attack from too much rallying. The rest of the candidates are irrelevant.



Speaking of Trump, I'm seeing the exact same hubris in this topic as I saw before Trump's victory in 2016.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Do you all see this? That's a consistent and steady approval rating. Yes, it's at 40%. Does it really need to be higher? That's almost half of voters. That means the Democratic candidate needs to get close to half of the total voter population. The population that traditionally is disinclined to participate in democracy. Trump only needs to maintain his current base. Democrats need to increase their base. The former is easy, given how rabid Trump's base is. The latter is extremely difficult, given Democrats are about as inspiring as a mop handle.

The win condition for Democrats isn't Trump losing support, he won't. It's for Democrats to reach new voters. And given how much difficulty they've been having with getting their base to coalesce, that's a tall order. 2016 had the lowest turnout in American election history. Trump's support overwhelmingly comes from old people, who have nothing better to do but vote. Democrats need to rely on young people, who aren't a particularly reliable voting block.

It's not about sheer numbers it's who can consistently get more people to vote for them. It doesn't matter if Trump has a large disapproval rating, if the people who don't approve of him, don't come out to vote. Hillary lost not because Trump was amazing (bigly) but because no one came out to vote. Or if they did, it was for Harambe. And if they did and it was for Hillary, it was the wrong state.

And the idea that Trump is going to lose support because he's a bad man is especially bunk. People do realize he was a bad man in 2016, right? And that his supporters didn't care, right? And that almost his entire platform was about being a bad man, right? And that America has never actually cared about its presidents being bad men, right? Nor will they lift a finger if something doesn't directly affect them, right? Don't believe me?

There have been maybe one or two hundred protesters at the concentration camps by the border. And tens of thousands virtue signaling on social media. In contrast, people flooded town halls for weeks during the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We still have the ACA, despite the Republican super majority. We still have the concentration camps, despite the flood of signaled virtues.

Americans on the whole don't actually care that Trump is a bad man. They'll send thoughts and prayers to the people the government that they vote in, hurts, but actually doing about it has never been on the top of the priority list. And that's what the Trump administration is only doing, is hurting people that aren't them. (white) America hasn't been hurt by Trump's policies, not in any way they can tangibly feel currently. America hasn't caught fire, hasn't turned into Nazi Germany, hasn't really had anything that has been doomsdayed happen to it.

Pissing off allies and the rest of the world isn't going to do it, Americans are convinced America can take on the world by itself and win. Herding children into concentration camps won't do it, they didn't follow the proper procedures after all. Being a whirlwind of corruption won't do it, it's a witch hunt by the fake news media after all. Not having the slightest clue what he's doing won't do it, he was still better than Hillary.

You can't convince people to stop supporting Trump because he is a bad man. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. You can only convince people that his opponent is offering something better. There's currently only one Democratic candidate that is offering something better and has been trying to engage new voters since the beginning. And you already know that's Bernie Sanders. All of the other candidates have either been offering more of the same or are chasing the moderate Republican unicorn or both.

There's a very strong "anybody but Bernie" mentality that plagues the establishment and media. ****ing Bloomberg has been floated as a more viable candidate. He lost due to establishment shenanigans last time, I don't see why that couldn't happen again. Everyone else is running the exact same strategy that made Hillary lose in 2016, so good luck on that front. Even if Bernie wins the nomination, Trump is now normalized and is going to be really difficult to beat. It's hard to scare people from him, when most of what people were afraid of has yet to come to pass (to them anyways).


If you actually care about beating Trump, it would be wise not to underestimate him. He's far stronger now than he was in 2016 and it's going to take just about every voter you can muster to best his base. No other candidate has almost half the voting block right off the bat. And Republicans will always fall in line, even the so-called never Trumpers, still voted for him. Anybody but a Democrat. That's if he doesn't get a wartime boost from the current Iran debacle. Americans love having their war boners stimulated after all. Just make sure you get out and vote, if you care at all about having a future and beating Trump.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
Hey folks, the election inches ever closer.
Lots happening in news too with tensions with Iran going way up. I think this is good to discuss and how it will affect the election.
I also have updated the main post to reflect Julian Castro dropping out of the race.


A lot has changed, but I think the biggest trends have been Bernie and Biden's steadfast support. Biden has been self-destructing from the word go and while he has been dropping, he still has a huge lead over the other candidates. Probably skewed by the polls favoring old people, but still. Bernie has been pretty consistent and the most consistent overall, but has been rising as of recently. As such, I feel like it's going to come down to these two candidates eventually. Pretty much a repeat of 2016, with Biden filling in for Hildawg.
It seems like it's really coming down to Biden and Bernie at this point. Fitting, as it really illustrates the divide in the democratic party between the young, multiracial working class favoring progressive politics and the older democrats who want to return to obama times.

Warren started off decent, but has been tanking as of late. This isn't surprising, as she's always come off as a bit wishy-washy, but the shenanigans she tried to pull off in her healthcare bill really hurt her I think. Not only was it closer to a public option than she otherwise let on, but she's been dodging inquiries about tax raises and her bill seems designed so that it won't raise taxes on the middle class, at the expense of other things. She needed to be open and honest about it, like Bernie was, and just emphasize that it would do away with private expenses, like copay and premiums.
Her poll numbers really started to nosedive after she wavered on M4A. Not only did she waver but she didn't handle herself with poise and confidence when asked about her healthcare plan and she overall just comes off as untrustworthy. I think she's most likely no longer in the running at this point.

As for everything else you've said about Warren, good points. I want to add that another big weakness with her vs. Bernie is she doesn't reach across the isle to the entirety of the working class like Bernie does. She has very low crossover support and not doing well with obama/trump voters. A good emblem of this is her refusing to go on Fox News because she said it was a hate filled organization. Compare this to Bernie who went on, defended his positions, and ended up being very popular with the crowd of his town hall. To win the general, I feel like being a "democrats only" candidate won't be too great.

My feelings on Mayor Pete have gone from skeptical to utter contempt. It's one thing to be opposed to progressive policy and be honest about it like Klobuchar. It's an entirely different thing to claim to support progressive policies and then 180 when it isn't expedient for your career. You need only look back a year and see Mayor Pete boldly support progressive ideas. Now he's done nothing but attack and smear them, while still trying to piggyback off their name, like with his "Medicare for those who want it", which has nothing to do with Medicare for all, but will use the popularity of its name all the same.

He is entirely why there are "purity tests" and why people don't automatically take a politician's word at face value. Establishments Dems have been whining nonstop about "purity tests" and that no one will trust and work with them. Then they try and back someone like Pete. It might be the fact that Democrats are seemingly ok with people that have no integrity and will change positions on a dime, why it's been so difficult for them to get voter support.

Pete has no real path to nomination. Iowa seems to be the only relevant state he has some support in. And given he is clever enough to realize that progressive policy is in and why he still tries to piggyback off it, I think would think he would know that too. Which is why I feel like he is being paid to be a spoiler candidate and ensure Biden wins. It's incredibly close between Biden and Bernie, so all Pete would need to do is siphon off just a little support and Biden will have the points. And given his recent hangouts have been wine caves, I don't think this is a huge stretch.
Wow, this is such a mood. "Utter contempt" is definitely how I feel about Mayor Pete. Good analysis but I feel like he isn't really a spoiler candidate, or if he is, he isn't a good one. His crossover support is shared more with Biden I feel than it is with Bernie. Him being in the race might actually take away enough support from Biden in Iowa for Bernie to clinch it. Which would be sweet revenge for all of us having to deal with him being a candidate in the first place.

Warren in her current state and Pete will lose to Trump. Biden doesn't seem to be cognizant of his surroundings half the time. Bernie seems to be the only candidate taking things seriously and Trump seriously as a threat. To the point he had a literal heart attack from too much rallying. The rest of the candidates are irrelevant.
Agreed. If it's not Bernie, I feel like it's 4 more years of Trump.

The win condition for Democrats isn't Trump losing support, he won't. It's for Democrats to reach new voters. And given how much difficulty they've been having with getting their base to coalesce, that's a tall order. 2016 had the lowest turnout in American election history. Trump's support overwhelmingly comes from old people, who have nothing better to do but vote. Democrats need to rely on young people, who aren't a particularly reliable voting block.
I think this is a strong reason why Bernie has an edge. His strategy is motivating people who normally are apathetic or won't vote and bringing them out with his inspiring ideas and hope.
Really good analysis with the rest of what you said. I didn't quote everything just so I didn't stretch the page so much, but great post.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
I am so scared about Iran. Trump is going to get into WW3. We have to remove him! I don’t want to go into so effing draft!
 

Alicorn

The Fighting Dreamer ❤️
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
439
Location
Friendship Castle
Anyone who believes Trump will win because of his base needs to understand that its not that clear cut. Trump has been ruining relations, the economy and the environment with his bull headed approach to politics. He complains about Obama a lot because he knows that Obama is better than he is. He wants to make America great again but he has done more harm than good for the nation.

His border wall promise is pretty much dead after Congress told him that he wasn't going to get anymore funding. He has to with personal property rights and if he tries to use imminent domain he is going to lose support with his base. Because now Trump is using the government to take away people's property.

His drain the swamp promise is a joke, he is so deep in corruption that he has became the swamp he is suppose to be draining.
 

Ben Holt

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
1,946
Location
USA
3DS FC
5455-9637-6959
NNID
BenHolt
Switch FC
5283 2130 1160
So if Warren or Biden or anyone else not named Bernie wins the nomination you're gonna stay home on election day?
No. But only because I vote in every election.
I know well enough that if I have the choice between sticking my hand in boiling water or sticking my hand in nuclear waste, I will pick boiling water every time.
But do not mistake me for a supporter of Biden or Warren. They are both Capitalists, and until we take steps away from Capitalism, we will continue to circle the drain.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,663
Location
Persona kids, Persona squids.
I also have updated the main post to reflect Julian Castro dropping out of the race.
Marianne Williamson has dropped out as of today, a day or so after laying off her entire staff and announcing she was going volunteer only.

Biden has been self-destructing from the word go and while he has been dropping, he still has a huge lead over the other candidates.
Biden's support is exactly where it was 12 month ago, and he's had the best odds against Trump in basically every poll done since he announced he was running. There was the Announcement Surge in April, but it calmed back down after some time (and possibly Debate #1, the first and last time anyone cared about Harris this election).

Warren started off decent, but has been tanking as of late. This isn't surprising, as she's always come off as a bit wishy-washy, but the shenanigans she tried to pull off in her healthcare bill really hurt her I think. Not only was it closer to a public option than she otherwise let on, but she's been dodging inquiries about tax raises and her bill seems designed so that it won't raise taxes on the middle class, at the expense of other things. She needed to be open and honest about it, like Bernie was, and just emphasize that it would do away with private expenses, like copay and premiums.

And I feel like that was always her achillies heel, her inability to sell her policies. She's very reminiscent of Hillary Clinton in that neither of them were very good at selling or defending their policies and honestly aren't very good at politics in general. Warren is very good at drafting policy, but a politician's ability is measured in how good at word games and selling stuff they are. Warren and Hillary had no narrative, while Bernie and Trump are very good at narrative.
It's amazing how much in this section is so right, followed by things that are so completely and utterly laughable.

Warren has always been two-faced, but accusing her of not being articulate is nonsense. She's an incredibly well spoken politician, excluding when she gets angry on stage. Her entire rise in the polls was by focusing herself as the "Ideas Woman", with an answer for everything. The issue was when she uncharacteristically refused to actually explain what her healthcare plan for entail; as you said, she needed to be open and honest about it, just like Sanders was. The "issue" as it were was her tightrope of a position where she was attempting to effectively be the unity candidate between the progressives (Sander's area) and moderates (Biden's area); a progressive in public who in private would be assuring the establishment that she wasn't going to burn the country to the ground like Sanders will.

That once she released a plan it was torn to shreds by economists also didn't help matters.

And it definitely wasn't because it was closer to a public option, as that's significantly more popular among the Democratic voting pool than M4A. Notable that when given specifics, the plan most Democrats want the most is basically Biden's.

And a failed Warren plan is doubly bad for Sanders, given that if Warren can't sell her plan through Congress, how is Sanders supposed to be able to? Besides sending his "movement" to kick out everyone who disagrees with him out of office, as he's said in the past.

Though honestly I'd argue her losing ground was inevitable given she doesn't have a single bit of foreign policy experience, and Trump's seen fit to repeatedly showcase the significance of that deficit.

Lastly, Trump's "Make America Great Again" and Sander's "Eat the Rich" are slogans, not plans. Clinton ran on plans in 2008 and lost to Obama. Obama in turn ran on a good slogan and on plans into the general where McCain had trouble verbalizing exact numbers. If their answers to many of the debate questions ought be responded to with "But Sir, this is a Dennys", you aren't actually good at describing plans.

My feelings on Mayor Pete have gone from skeptical to utter contempt. It's one thing to be opposed to progressive policy and be honest about it like Klobuchar. It's an entirely different thing to claim to support progressive policies and then 180 when it isn't expedient for your career. You need only look back a year and see Mayor Pete boldly support progressive ideas. Now he's done nothing but attack and smear them, while still trying to piggyback off their name, like with his "Medicare for those who want it", which has nothing to do with Medicare for all, but will use the popularity of its name all the same.
"He's not Sanders, so I hate him" sure is a hot take.

Ya know this is why progressives are increasingly thought of as a fringe left-tea party at best, right? What precisely do you plan on doing with the majority of the population if Mayor Pete fills you with utter contempt?

Speaking of Trump, I'm seeing the exact same hubris in this topic as I saw before Trump's victory in 2016.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Do you all see this? That's a consistent and steady approval rating. Yes, it's at 40%. Does it really need to be higher? That's almost half of voters.
I see Trump has the lowest approval rating of near any President, yeah.

Might help you to contextualize your numbers, yeah?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...r-president-since-ford-to-run-for-reelection/

Do remember that Ford lost reelection, to Carter of all people.

Bernie seems to be the only candidate taking things seriously and Trump seriously as a threat. To the point he had a literal heart attack from too much rallying.
It's almost horrifying how much you had to reach to rationalize away a 79 year old man having a heart attack and argue it shows he's more suited for the most stressful job in the world.

Wow, this is such a mood. "Utter contempt" is definitely how I feel about Mayor Pete. Good analysis but I feel like he isn't really a spoiler candidate, or if he is, he isn't a good one. His crossover support is shared more with Biden I feel than it is with Bernie. Him being in the race might actually take away enough support from Biden in Iowa for Bernie to clinch it. Which would be sweet revenge for all of us having to deal with him being a candidate in the first place.
His crossover support is mostly with Warren than either of the other front runners. Skews heavily suburban, educated, non-minority.

Biden's Iowa odds have never been the best when he announced he was running simply due to the demographic. 538 still has him as the favorite in Iowa, but it's close. The big thing however is once you get to a state that's more diverse such as South Carolina, Biden's a massive frontliner. And South Carolina has typically been considered the indicator of how the rest of the South (and therefore who gets the nomination) votes, as was true for both Clintons and Obama.

It seems like it's really coming down to Biden and Bernie at this point. Fitting, as it really illustrates the divide in the democratic party between the young, multiracial working class favoring progressive politics and the older democrats who want to return to obama times.
While I'll give credit to Sanders for getting multiracial support this election compared to the zilch he had in 2016, Biden still beats him in both diversity and among the working class.

The one descriptor you made that is true though is age. White, Black, Asian, Jew, Catholic, doesn't seem to matter. Middle age and above predominately supports Biden between the two, and the younger they are the more likely it's Sanders. So one out of three.

Even then, and it depends on the poll, but Sanders is the second choice for many Biden supporters, and Biden is the second choice for many Sanders supporters.

I am so scared about Iran. Trump is going to get into WW3. We have to remove him! I don’t want to go into so effing draft!
Friendly reminder that Biden's background is in Foreign Policy and was a big part of the Obama Administration's Iran Nuclear deal, and Buttipieg was an Intelligence Officer in Afghanistan.

Sanders and Warren have no such experience in foreign policy beyond Sander's vague vowing to cut off trade to any country that doesn't meet his standards.
 
Last edited:

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
409
Good analysis but I feel like he isn't really a spoiler candidate, or if he is, he isn't a good one. His crossover support is shared more with Biden I feel than it is with Bernie. Him being in the race might actually take away enough support from Biden in Iowa for Bernie to clinch it. Which would be sweet revenge for all of us having to deal with him being a candidate in the first place
Spoiler candidate in the sense that he's trying to siphon undecideds, not Biden's or Bernie's base. The type of people that know Biden is full of ****, but are hesitant to the whole "socialism" thing. Basically, people who want change but are afraid of it at the same time.

Pete's marketing himself as the compromise candidate between the two. You can have Medicare, but also keep your private insurance. You want government to run your healthcare, but you don't want government to control your healthcare. In other words, you can have your cake and eat it too.

This is a fantasy. If insurance runs on the idea of everyone paying into a risk pool and then taking from that pool when needed, then having the private and public sharing the same pool is naturally going to create competition between them and one is going to eventually eat the other. Private health insurance will market attractive plans that will attract young, healthy people, which is what health insurance relies on to pay the bills, while simultaneously pushing the sick and the old onto the public system. Thereby overburdening it until collapses. Then they can turn around and say "I told you it wouldn't work!" and then we will be right back where we started, with it being even harder to reform healthcare.

That's why Bernie's plan explicitly bans duplicative care, meaning the private industry cannot offer similar plans, like other single-payer systems do. Private health insurance does not have responsibility to public well being like the government does. They can turn away who they please, but the government can't.

This is why a public option will ultimately fail and why Pete is a lying sack of ****. You cannot have both of them sharing the same pool, one will get screwed and that will most likely be the public option. "Medicare for those who want it" is not Medicare for all. It borrows the name, because Pete knows Medicare for all is popular, but twists into a fantasy that those who are afraid of change can believe.

Biden already has the same name recognition boost that Hillary did at the start of 2016. That's part of why he can still maintain his lead. If Pete can sway enough undecideds, then Biden can pull early wins and the media can run with the narrative that Biden is the "most electable" and that Bernie couldn't even win the states he won last time.

That's what I mean by being a spoiler. Not siphoning from those who already support the two, but those who have yet to support anyone at all. If Trump is relying on Democrats to fail to turn out new voters and to coast on his current base, then the Dem establishment is also relying on the same.

Biden's support is exactly where it was 12 month ago, and he's had the best odds against Trump in basically every poll done since he announced he was running. There was the Announcement Surge in April, but it calmed back down after some time (and possibly Debate #1, the first and last time anyone cared about Harris this election).
I'm talking about the primary as a whole, including the individual states. It's been pretty clear that Biden has been dropping while the gap has been closing between his opponents. He doesn't enjoy the huge lead he once had and the media and the Dem establishment that was behind him at the beginning, has since moved onto other candidates. That sounds like tanking to me.

Warren has always been two-faced, but accusing her of not being articulate is nonsense. She's an incredibly well spoken politician, excluding when she gets angry on stage.
The issue was when she uncharacteristically refused to actually explain what her healthcare plan for entail; as you said, she needed to be open and honest about it, just like Sanders was. The "issue" as it were was her tightrope of a position where she was attempting to effectively be the unity candidate between the progressives (Sander's area) and moderates (Biden's area); a progressive in public who in private would be assuring the establishment that she wasn't going to burn the country to the ground like Sanders will.
Yes, she was so articulate she royally flubbed the one thing that was supposed to separate her from the rest, her amazing and detailed plans. It's not like she didn't let Pete get away with dishonestly comparing their fundraising strategies or push back on any of the utter horse**** he was spouting and allow him to completely distract from his walk back from his no billionaire money promises.

Being articulate in politics isn't about knowing words, it's about being clear on your policies and values and not letting your opponents twist them into something else. That video was just straight up embarrassing for her and showed that Pete is more articulate than her. Because she's bad at what she does.

Having a public and private position is literally what cost Hillary the election last time. Voters were so tired of that dual face that they voted in Donald Trump. She's too far left for "moderates" and not as left as Sanders for "progressives", so there is no being a compromise candidate in the first place. Her trying to be Hillary 2.0 is part of why she's tanking in the first place.

Also, lol at Sanders burning the country to the ground. It's not like all of his policies haven't been implemented in many other countries for decades now and have yet to catch fire (except Australia).

That once she released a plan it was torn to shreds by economists also didn't help matters.
Well yeah, when you claim it doesn't raise taxes and then it turns out you are hurting the poor instead, while not being proper Medicare for all, then that's going to happen.

Well
Americans want Medicare for All … who want it

Share of respondents who agreed that these versions of a Medicare for All plan were a good idea
is already an outright lie. "Medicare for those who want it" is not Medicare for All, version or otherwise. Medicare for All is a rebranding of "Single-payer" meaning only one entity pays for healthcare. Private health insurance is banned in these systems from anything but supplemental and cosmetic plans. You can't have both.

Medicare for All, replacing private insurance
Medicare for All who choose it, allowing private insurance
It's really no surprise that support wouldn't be that high, with that horrid of framing. Of course the "Medicare for All" that allows for private insurance would be more popular than the one that doesn't. One's giving you more while the other is giving you less. Setting aside of course, that one isn't actually Medicare for All.

Take a look at this poll instead. Note how when the question is made specifically clear that people will get to keep their doctor and hospital that support significantly increases, compared to simply saying the role of private insurers will diminish. People tend to confuse "private health insurance" with "private healthcare" which is why question framing is so important in this matter.

I'd also stay away from """political analysis""" by fivethirtyeight. They might be considered data kings or whatever, but they are horrid pundits and political hacks.

And a failed Warren plan is doubly bad for Sanders, given that if Warren can't sell her plan through Congress, how is Sanders supposed to be able to? Besides sending his "movement" to kick out everyone who disagrees with him out of office, as he's said in the past.
In contrast, people flooded town halls for weeks during the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We still have the ACA, despite the Republican super majority.
Given that he's explicitly said so before, I imagine he'd attempt to create the movement described in my quote to kick everyone who disagrees with him out of office. Or force them to actually govern the way their constituents want.

"He's not Sanders, so I hate him" sure is a hot take.

Ya know this is why progressives are increasingly thought of as a fringe left-tea party at best, right? What precisely do you plan on doing with the majority of the population if Mayor Pete fills you with utter contempt?
Not really, I already said that I hate him because he pretended to be a progressive and then did a 180 when it was expedient for him. As opposed to Klobuchar, who was honest about her position on progressives upfront. Which you would know if you actually read my post, especially the paragraph you quoted.

You realize this "fringe left-tea party" has in its ranks the most popular politicians in the country like Bernie and AOC, of which the former has been breaking individual contribution records, right? Meanwhile, the other candidates individual contributions at their best, can't match Bernie's at his worst.

Nor does Pete represent the majority of the population, which I don't hold in high regard either.

Might help you to contextualize your numbers, yeah?
According to CNN, Trump got 46.4% and Hillary got 48.5% of the vote. But due to the electoral college, she lost certain states, so she lost the electoral race. According to that graph I linked above, Trump's approval rating was roughly 45% during inauguration. It's now roughly 42%. This is before potential war and impeachment acquittal boosts, mind you.

Hillary however, had every card stacked in her favor. She had a unified Democrat and media support, had her name and record, and had the fear of the unknown Trump bogyman helping her. Everything that could possibly help a candidate coast to victory, except actual political talent, was in her possession.

Of the three main establishment candidates in 2020, one is a snake that's managed to piss off a good chunk of the party base, one is a pompous but irrelevant senator that has consistently polled in the single digits, and the last's entire platform and reason for being is that he stood next to the previous president everyone liked.

Of those candidates, Biden is the only one with a real shot at the nomination. Or "Sleepy Joe Biden" as he will be known in that hypothetical. What exactly has Biden done, that the average uninformed voter would know, that wasn't being a former VP? Hillary had a seemingly impressive record and storied history, would anyone even pay much attention or remember Biden if he wasn't Obama's VP? And who is he supposed to appeal to exactly? These supposedly majority of the country centrists? Where were they in 2016 exactly? Was Hillary not centrist enough for them?

Biden is supposedly the "moderate" candidate that will work (read:fold to) with Republicans and will reject the "far left". There goes the Progressive vote. Biden is going to continue Obama's "legacy". There goes the midwestern voters disgruntled with Obama not living up to his promises. Biden is a Democrat. There goes the Republican vote, including the so-called never Trumpers and the moderate Republican unicorn.

Where exactly is Biden's coalition? And how does that beat someone with almost half of voters?

Well, if you actually read the article
That puts Trump in an unenviable but ambiguous position for reelection. Since Dwight D. Eisenhower, presidents with a FiveThirtyEight average approval rating2 of 48.4 percent or higher on Election Day all won their reelection campaigns, and presidents with a FiveThirtyEight average approval rating of 43.6 percent or lower all lost. If, in 10 months, Trump’s approval rating is still in the same range it has occupied for the past two years (roughly, between 39 percent and 43 percent), he would obviously fit into the latter group. And that would not bode well for his chances of being reelected; he’d have to hope for a Harry S. Truman-caliber upset. (The owner of a 39.6 percent approval rating on Nov. 2, 1948, Truman was widely predicted to lose the election but ended up narrowly defeating Thomas “Your Future Is Still Ahead Of You” Dewey.)

On the other hand, even a modest, Obama-esque improvement would put Trump in the purgatory between the presidents who won and the presidents who lost — between 43.6 percent and 48.4 percent. So in the end, Trump’s current approval rating doesn’t sound a clear signal one way or the other on the question of his reelection — but it does maybe hint that he starts off the new year at a disadvantage.
So in other words, if Trump's approval rating doesn't rise by election day, he likely loses. But if it does, he likely wins. It doesn't take a team of genius data boys to figure that one out. I wonder what happens if the Dem approval tanks when Biden gets elected in a nasty primary like 2016. Does Trump's approval rating really need to rise, if his opponent's is also terrible?

It's almost horrifying how much you had to reach to rationalize away a 79 year old man having a heart attack and argue it shows he's more suited for the most stressful job in the world.
I wasn't trying to rationalize anything in the first place, you completely made that up. I'm saying that while everyone else has been circlejerking about how bad a man Trump is and using the election to boost their careers, Sanders was the only one doing four rallies a day and generally working his ass off, which is what caused the heart attack and prompted him to scale things back to a normal pace.


My post already answered almost all of your replies here, do to take a moment to actually read it next time. And don't link to a site that is doing its best to prove the adage "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Linking directly to their data is fine, but those "articles" are beyond horrible.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
Marianne Williamson has dropped out as of today, a day or so after laying off her entire staff and announcing she was going volunteer only.
Thanks, OP has been updated to reflect her dropping out. I'm honestly a little surprised she didn't drop out earlier.

And it definitely wasn't because it was closer to a public option, as that's significantly more popular among the Democratic voting pool than M4A. Notable that when given specifics, the plan most Democrats want the most is basically Biden's.

And a failed Warren plan is doubly bad for Sanders, given that if Warren can't sell her plan through Congress, how is Sanders supposed to be able to? Besides sending his "movement" to kick out everyone who disagrees with him out of office, as he's said in the past.

Though honestly I'd argue her losing ground was inevitable given she doesn't have a single bit of foreign policy experience, and Trump's seen fit to repeatedly showcase the significance of that deficit.
It really depends on the poll and how you frame the question, but M4A is extremely popular among the democratic electorate and frankly the general populous. Why else would the entire democratic party have to frame their healthcare plan around M4A? Why else is Bernie consistently getting the most grassroots support and donations from people? Why else do people see him as the most trustworthy on healthcare in numerous polls? People want M4A.

I don't really agree with the Warren and Bernie plan thing. First of all, Warren's plan is a lot more complicated both in the specifics and how she choses to implement it. It has a "two tiered" implementation where she attempts to pass different parts at different times.

Also, Bernie and Warren have different theories of change. What you say is "kicking out people who disagree with him" is his theory of change of involving people in the political process. He applies outside pressure from protests and activist efforts so that politicians bend to the will of the people rather than vice versa. His "movement" is incredibly strong, as he's gotten more donations than any other candidate at this point in history. People are excited and energized by him.

"He's not Sanders, so I hate him" sure is a hot take.

Ya know this is why progressives are increasingly thought of as a fringe left-tea party at best, right? What precisely do you plan on doing with the majority of the population if Mayor Pete fills you with utter contempt?
Reread this section because it sounds like you misunderstand what StoicPhantom was trying to say. It's not about his ideology (or lack thereof) but rather his political machinations and disingenousness.

While I'll give credit to Sanders for getting multiracial support this election compared to the zilch he had in 2016, Biden still beats him in both diversity and among the working class.

The one descriptor you made that is true though is age. White, Black, Asian, Jew, Catholic, doesn't seem to matter. Middle age and above predominately supports Biden between the two, and the younger they are the more likely it's Sanders. So one out of three.

Even then, and it depends on the poll, but Sanders is the second choice for many Biden supporters, and Biden is the second choice for many Sanders supporters.
I don't think Biden "beats" him necessarily in his demographics they both have diverse support it's just different. Biden is leading among black voters, Bernie is leading among latino voters. Biden is older votes and Bernie is younger voters. And both have a solid grip on the working class, just different versions of it. Biden is ahead nationally, but Bernie is sure looking poised to possibly take Iowa and New Hampshire (in first in RCP average in both states right now). It'll certainly be close regardless.

The last point compared to their relative steady support (unlike all the others who have been fluctuating wildly) makes me think this is between Biden and Bernie really. Two different theories of change and directions the party could go in. It's fitting.

Friendly reminder that Biden's background is in Foreign Policy and was a big part of the Obama Administration's Iran Nuclear deal, and Buttipieg was an Intelligence Officer in Afghanistan.
Sanders and Warren have no such experience in foreign policy beyond Sander's vague vowing to cut off trade to any country that doesn't meet his standards.
Friendly reminder that Biden was also not only in support of but one of the main architects in gathering support for the war in Iraq. Yikes!
Bernie's voting record shows a much less hawkish foreign policy and while he hasn't been in positions that make him have foreign policy experience, he has principles that would lead foreign policy in a better direction. I trust someone who principles and a good voting reocrd over someone with experience but bad experience.

Mayor Pete was a vet but so was Tulsi, and in their spat in the debate he illustrated a piece of his foreign policy which would be terrible. Where Tulsi was saying she'd meet with anyone to try and engage diplomatically before waging war, he pretty much mocked her and tried to muddy things by comparing her to Trump meeting with Kim. What then, would the alternative be Pete? Destroying North Korea?

Spoiler candidate in the sense that he's trying to siphon undecideds, not Biden's or Bernie's base. The type of people that know Biden is full of ****, but are hesitant to the whole "socialism" thing. Basically, people who want change but are afraid of it at the same time.

Pete's marketing himself as the compromise candidate between the two. You can have Medicare, but also keep your private insurance. You want government to run your healthcare, but you don't want government to control your healthcare. In other words, you can have your cake and eat it too.

This is a fantasy. If insurance runs on the idea of everyone paying into a risk pool and then taking from that pool when needed, then having the private and public sharing the same pool is naturally going to create competition between them and one is going to eventually eat the other. Private health insurance will market attractive plans that will attract young, healthy people, which is what health insurance relies on to pay the bills, while simultaneously pushing the sick and the old onto the public system. Thereby overburdening it until collapses. Then they can turn around and say "I told you it wouldn't work!" and then we will be right back where we started, with it being even harder to reform healthcare.

That's why Bernie's plan explicitly bans duplicative care, meaning the private industry cannot offer similar plans, like other single-payer systems do. Private health insurance does not have responsibility to public well being like the government does. They can turn away who they please, but the government can't.

This is why a public option will ultimately fail and why Pete is a lying sack of ****. You cannot have both of them sharing the same pool, one will get screwed and that will most likely be the public option. "Medicare for those who want it" is not Medicare for all. It borrows the name, because Pete knows Medicare for all is popular, but twists into a fantasy that those who are afraid of change can believe.

Biden already has the same name recognition boost that Hillary did at the start of 2016. That's part of why he can still maintain his lead. If Pete can sway enough undecideds, then Biden can pull early wins and the media can run with the narrative that Biden is the "most electable" and that Bernie couldn't even win the states he won last time.

That's what I mean by being a spoiler. Not siphoning from those who already support the two, but those who have yet to support anyone at all. If Trump is relying on Democrats to fail to turn out new voters and to coast on his current base, then the Dem establishment is also relying on the same.
Pete has the lowest percentage of dedicated voters (%, not raw amount). People who support him aren't really sure about him, whereas people who support Biden and Bernie are pretty sure of their decision, Bernie in particular.
In addition, he really isn't an enthusiastic candidate in terms of his policies not really exciting people. "We can't have nice things" isn't really a mobilizing cry. I don't see the "grabbing undecideds" plan working for him at all. The voters who were flirting with him already seem to be backing away and possibly drifting over to Bloomberg, who is seeing a rise in support nationally at this moment.
I feel like he's trying to occupy Biden's lane rather than being a compromise candidate between Biden and Bernie, but I see why you are saying that. In the end I think people will either go for one or the other rather than a politically milquetoast egoist.

I'm talking about the primary as a whole, including the individual states. It's been pretty clear that Biden has been dropping while the gap has been closing between his opponents. He doesn't enjoy the huge lead he once had and the media and the Dem establishment that was behind him at the beginning, has since moved onto other candidates. That sounds like tanking to me.
Expect the media and establishment to rally around Biden in the days to come as they realize their wine track candidates probably won't take it. While in specific states he has dropped, he is still in a solid position overall and it's going to be really close. I am uncomfortable saying he is tanking at this moment because he still is definitely a frontrunner.

Bernie has momentum right now and polls will underestimate him due to his strategy of getting unexpected voters to turn out, but the one thing that worries me now is the impeachment coming up and how that will affect this crucial time right before Iowa.
 

SnowLucario

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
4
Location
United States
I will be voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I really hope I don't have to vote for Biden in the general election, but if that's what it comes down to, then that's what I'll do.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
409
Pete has the lowest percentage of dedicated voters (%, not raw amount). People who support him aren't really sure about him, whereas people who support Biden and Bernie are pretty sure of their decision, Bernie in particular.
In addition, he really isn't an enthusiastic candidate in terms of his policies not really exciting people. "We can't have nice things" isn't really a mobilizing cry. I don't see the "grabbing undecideds" plan working for him at all. The voters who were flirting with him already seem to be backing away and possibly drifting over to Bloomberg, who is seeing a rise in support nationally at this moment.
I feel like he's trying to occupy Biden's lane rather than being a compromise candidate between Biden and Bernie, but I see why you are saying that. In the end I think people will either go for one or the other rather than a politically milquetoast egoist.
I'm not trying to say he'll be successful at it, just that it is what he's gunning for.

Pete simply has no path to the nomination. As you mentioned, he's tanked his support among Progressives and those who weren't sure about, but didn't dismiss him outright either. So why are billionaires and the like still meeting with him and funding him? They don't just throw their money away, if they are spending it on something, it's because they feel it will benefit them in some way.

Pete also has no political future. He's not going to become president, he's outed himself as a snake on the national stage, and from what I hear, he's not too popular back home either. Even if he picks up the early states, I don't see the likes of New York or California going for him. Nor do I see Progressives coming out to vote for him. Once he exits the race, he'll have to step down from high society and start bagging groceries or something, because politics isn't exactly a skill that easily transfers elsewhere.

So if he wants to maintain his lifestyle, then where does he go from here? Well, how about a cushy lobbyist job in the private sector, like most career politicians end up doing? But he's a lowly mayor from a random irrelevant town. He doesn't exactly have a storied history of being a corporate sellout like a senator would. Then why not show his loyalty by using his skill at being a weasel to try to tank Bernie and progressive policy?

He doesn't actually have to succeed. He just has to convince his donors that he is trying his best. And we already are seeing some tanking in support and a public option rising instead. Hopefully not enough to matter, but enough that he show his donors as getting results.

Otherwise, it makes no sense to enter as a Progressive because you understand that's what is popular now, and then pivot to the exact same strategy and platform people with more name recognition with have and that you are clever enough to know will fail. That's the thing about Pete, he is clever and aware of the political climate, and that's how he's manage to obtain some relevancy despite being a mayor from an irrelevant town nobody probably heard of before this.

Throwing all that out the window and trying to meet with big donors when you clearly don't have a shot, just seems really out of character for someone as clever as him. This strikes me more as him securing his future, rather than trying to win the nomination. Selzer released their Iowa poll and Selzer is generally considered the gold standard among state polls. Pete's now tanking in even his best state. And while things could change, let's all remember that Bernie lost Iowa on a coin toss and still enjoys strong support in the state.

So I'm not trying to imply that he's going to be successful or that he's earnestly still trying to win the nomination. More so, that he's possibly being paid to attempt to spread confusion and disinformation and has had at least mild success in doing so. Not enough to let him win, but possibly enough to give him a nice career shift to the private sector.

Expect the media and establishment to rally around Biden in the days to come as they realize their wine track candidates probably won't take it. While in specific states he has dropped, he is still in a solid position overall and it's going to be really close. I am uncomfortable saying he is tanking at this moment because he still is definitely a frontrunner.

Bernie has momentum right now and polls will underestimate him due to his strategy of getting unexpected voters to turn out, but the one thing that worries me now is the impeachment coming up and how that will affect this crucial time right before Iowa.
Pretty much, yeah.

My thinking on Biden tanking stems not just from the fact that the gap in the polls is shrinking between him and others, but also on the question of what his appeal his exactly? His demeanor of not being cognizant of his surroundings plus his weird moments of tangents and misplaced aggression, and the fact he is literally attempting to run on someone else's legacy. Basically, his numbers aren't at all inline with what we are actually seeing in enthusiasm and pretty much anything you expect from someone that constantly makes a fool of himself.

I think these numbers are inflated by both his name recognition and landline polls skewing towards older voters, who are the only ones that really still use landlines. And I think the trend downwards comes from other candidates becoming more relevant and he's losing that initial edge.

But the biggest contrast I see between 2016 and 2020 is how disorganized the media and the establishment have been. The coordination, precision, narrative, and overall support from the media and establishment behind Hillary Clinton was remarkable. She was pretty much the nominee from the get go. Can anyone even list the Dem candidates not named Bernie in 2016? Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, and some dude whose name I don't remember. These guys pretty much existed to make it some like there was some sort of race and competition, instead of Hillary being the only one. Or at least until the unprecedented happened with Bernie.

I don't see anything near as powerful or organized here in 2020. The establishment and media seem uncertain and pretty divided as to who to throw their support behind. The fact that they've quickly abandoned Biden, despite his numbers still being good, leads me to believe they've got some information or know something that makes them hesitate. They'll have to get behind him eventually, but the fact that they aren't enthused about any of their potential prospects is kind of amazing in and of itself. It's basically the Republican primary all over again, where the establishment cycled through every candidate but Trump. Just replace Jeb! and Lyin' Ted with Biden and John Kasich with Pete or Amy Klobuchar and you basically have the republican primary.

This is why despite feeling like Bernie's chances in the general aren't as good as in 2016, I'm more optimistic about his primary chances. Not much more, but establishment support isn't as strong and by the time they do get fully behind one candidate, Bernie might have already seized the momentum. And given how steady his support has been, he can only really go up.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
Update: Cory Booker has dropped out.

I'm not trying to say he'll be successful at it, just that it is what he's gunning for.

Pete simply has no path to the nomination. As you mentioned, he's tanked his support among Progressives and those who weren't sure about, but didn't dismiss him outright either. So why are billionaires and the like still meeting with him and funding him? They don't just throw their money away, if they are spending it on something, it's because they feel it will benefit them in some way.

Pete also has no political future. He's not going to become president, he's outed himself as a snake on the national stage, and from what I hear, he's not too popular back home either. Even if he picks up the early states, I don't see the likes of New York or California going for him. Nor do I see Progressives coming out to vote for him. Once he exits the race, he'll have to step down from high society and start bagging groceries or something, because politics isn't exactly a skill that easily transfers elsewhere.

So if he wants to maintain his lifestyle, then where does he go from here? Well, how about a cushy lobbyist job in the private sector, like most career politicians end up doing? But he's a lowly mayor from a random irrelevant town. He doesn't exactly have a storied history of being a corporate sellout like a senator would. Then why not show his loyalty by using his skill at being a weasel to try to tank Bernie and progressive policy?

He doesn't actually have to succeed. He just has to convince his donors that he is trying his best. And we already are seeing some tanking in support and a public option rising instead. Hopefully not enough to matter, but enough that he show his donors as getting results.

Otherwise, it makes no sense to enter as a Progressive because you understand that's what is popular now, and then pivot to the exact same strategy and platform people with more name recognition with have and that you are clever enough to know will fail. That's the thing about Pete, he is clever and aware of the political climate, and that's how he's manage to obtain some relevancy despite being a mayor from an irrelevant town nobody probably heard of before this.

Throwing all that out the window and trying to meet with big donors when you clearly don't have a shot, just seems really out of character for someone as clever as him. This strikes me more as him securing his future, rather than trying to win the nomination. Selzer released their Iowa poll and Selzer is generally considered the gold standard among state polls. Pete's now tanking in even his best state. And while things could change, let's all remember that Bernie lost Iowa on a coin toss and still enjoys strong support in the state.

So I'm not trying to imply that he's going to be successful or that he's earnestly still trying to win the nomination. More so, that he's possibly being paid to attempt to spread confusion and disinformation and has had at least mild success in doing so. Not enough to let him win, but possibly enough to give him a nice career shift to the private sector.
Hmmm, I see what you're saying now. Pete is definitely a careerist and him gunning for the private sector is definitely a possibility. Hell, he has been with Mckinsey before which is pretty telling. I just can't wait for him to fade away.


Pretty much, yeah.

My thinking on Biden tanking stems not just from the fact that the gap in the polls is shrinking between him and others, but also on the question of what his appeal his exactly? His demeanor of not being cognizant of his surroundings plus his weird moments of tangents and misplaced aggression, and the fact he is literally attempting to run on someone else's legacy. Basically, his numbers aren't at all inline with what we are actually seeing in enthusiasm and pretty much anything you expect from someone that constantly makes a fool of himself.

I think these numbers are inflated by both his name recognition and landline polls skewing towards older voters, who are the only ones that really still use landlines. And I think the trend downwards comes from other candidates becoming more relevant and he's losing that initial edge.

But the biggest contrast I see between 2016 and 2020 is how disorganized the media and the establishment have been. The coordination, precision, narrative, and overall support from the media and establishment behind Hillary Clinton was remarkable. She was pretty much the nominee from the get go. Can anyone even list the Dem candidates not named Bernie in 2016? Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee, and some dude whose name I don't remember. These guys pretty much existed to make it some like there was some sort of race and competition, instead of Hillary being the only one. Or at least until the unprecedented happened with Bernie.

I don't see anything near as powerful or organized here in 2020. The establishment and media seem uncertain and pretty divided as to who to throw their support behind. The fact that they've quickly abandoned Biden, despite his numbers still being good, leads me to believe they've got some information or know something that makes them hesitate. They'll have to get behind him eventually, but the fact that they aren't enthused about any of their potential prospects is kind of amazing in and of itself. It's basically the Republican primary all over again, where the establishment cycled through every candidate but Trump. Just replace Jeb! and Lyin' Ted with Biden and John Kasich with Pete or Amy Klobuchar and you basically have the republican primary.

This is why despite feeling like Bernie's chances in the general aren't as good as in 2016, I'm more optimistic about his primary chances. Not much more, but establishment support isn't as strong and by the time they do get fully behind one candidate, Bernie might have already seized the momentum. And given how steady his support has been, he can only really go up.
I think Biden's biggest support comes from politically disengaged/uninformed voters who want a return to normalcy and to beat Trump. Biden is a trainwreck but if there's one thing he has going for him it's that (for some reason) he is the candidate that can beat Trump. I think it's vital for this veneer of electability to be shattered in a very consistent and public way for him to start losing his support.
I totally agree, the establishment has been scrambling and not really organized behind Biden (although I suspect that will begin soon as we get closer) compared to Hillary especially.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
Update: Cory Booker has dropped out.


Hmmm, I see what you're saying now. Pete is definitely a careerist and him gunning for the private sector is definitely a possibility. Hell, he has been with Mckinsey before which is pretty telling. I just can't wait for him to fade away.



I think Biden's biggest support comes from politically disengaged/uninformed voters who want a return to normalcy and to beat Trump. Biden is a trainwreck but if there's one thing he has going for him it's that (for some reason) he is the candidate that can beat Trump. I think it's vital for this veneer of electability to be shattered in a very consistent and public way for him to start losing his support.
I totally agree, the establishment has been scrambling and not really organized behind Biden (although I suspect that will begin soon as we get closer) compared to Hillary especially.
Do you think don the con himself can win reelection?
 

Alicorn

The Fighting Dreamer ❤️
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
439
Location
Friendship Castle
Yes, that's definitely a possibility.
I don't think Trump can win reelection. His new car smell wore off months after he took office. He is mirred up to his neck in controversy and most likely will face prison time. People overestimate Trump's base a lot. He thrives off division, rage and fear. He can't pull off the same gamble twice especially with the shackles of impeachment tethered to his name for all of recorded history. Trump now has to work even harder to appeal to people outside his base because his opponents have four years worth of mud they can sling on Trump. Biden can use the impeachment to great effect and incite Obama's name to really get under Trump's skin.

Bernie Sanders to me seems like a bad choice. He doesn't really talk much about foreign policy and after the Trump fumble it makes me worried that we won't have a strong leader when it comes to international affairs. I wouldn't care so much if Trump's foreign policy was just that bad. Second Bernie is going to have a tough year going in due to the Republicans being so bullish, Republicans really gave Obama a hard time and he was moderate. Sanders is basically the GOP's worst nightmare they will do everything in their power to limit Bernie Sanders leading a lot of deadlocking in the house and senate.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
I don't think Trump can win reelection. His new car smell wore off months after he took office. He is mirred up to his neck in controversy and most likely will face prison time. People overestimate Trump's base a lot. He thrives off division, rage and fear. He can't pull off the same gamble twice especially with the shackles of impeachment tethered to his name for all of recorded history. Trump now has to work even harder to appeal to people outside his base because his opponents have four years worth of mud they can sling on Trump. Biden can use the impeachment to great effect and incite Obama's name to really get under Trump's skin.

Bernie Sanders to me seems like a bad choice. He doesn't really talk much about foreign policy and after the Trump fumble it makes me worried that we won't have a strong leader when it comes to international affairs. I wouldn't care so much if Trump's foreign policy was just that bad. Second Bernie is going to have a tough year going in due to the Republicans being so bullish, Republicans really gave Obama a hard time and he was moderate. Sanders is basically the GOP's worst nightmare they will do everything in their power to limit Bernie Sanders leading a lot of deadlocking in the house and senate.
I think a Biden klobuchar ticket can do it. They will be able to eat into trumps base and win back the states that needed to be won. Plus getting high turnout from blue states (sanders and warren) won’t do anything but probably another electoral loss. We can’t throw away the election! Vote blue no matter who, but if the super liberal candidates win nomination and they don’t get it done in the general due to exactly what we thought of them being to liberal which means trump wins re-election. I swear....
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
I don't think Trump can win reelection. His new car smell wore off months after he took office. He is mirred up to his neck in controversy and most likely will face prison time. People overestimate Trump's base a lot. He thrives off division, rage and fear. He can't pull off the same gamble twice especially with the shackles of impeachment tethered to his name for all of recorded history. Trump now has to work even harder to appeal to people outside his base because his opponents have four years worth of mud they can sling on Trump. Biden can use the impeachment to great effect and incite Obama's name to really get under Trump's skin.
I think you are underestimating Trump and his base.
Controversy surrounds him yes, but this is nothing new. He's been controversial longe before he ran and won and he will be long after. The controversies could even be a benefit to him in a way as it gives him more free coverage in the news.
"The shackles of impeachment" ? Impeachment is likely to end in Senate Republicans voting against his impeachment. His base will be riled up and he'll be able to pull the "They tried to get me but couldn't take me down" argument. And over what? A phone call over military aid to Ukraine? The American public by and large just doesn't care about that.
Biden is not really the best person to call on Trump for corruption because he's wrapped up in scandal too. The water is muddy.
I don't think Trump will win, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will lose. Consider that the GOP also has a TON of money and at the moment no outstanding debts and he's an incumbent president with a lot more ground organization.

Bernie Sanders to me seems like a bad choice. He doesn't really talk much about foreign policy and after the Trump fumble it makes me worried that we won't have a strong leader when it comes to international affairs. I wouldn't care so much if Trump's foreign policy was just that bad. Second Bernie is going to have a tough year going in due to the Republicans being so bullish, Republicans really gave Obama a hard time and he was moderate. Sanders is basically the GOP's worst nightmare they will do everything in their power to limit Bernie Sanders leading a lot of deadlocking in the house and senate.
In head to head matchup polls the two candidates that consistently have the best chance of beating Trump are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. While Biden has better matchups more often, Bernie outpaces the rest of the field by quite a bit. Bernie has been bringing foreign policy up more frequently lately and although he hasn't been in as high positions of power with foreign policy he has a more principled view than most of the other candidates.
Consider that Biden was not only in favor of the war in Iraq but also one of the main architects in whipping support for it. Sure he has a record, but it's not a good one.
Also, Republicans will probably give any democrat that gets into office a hard time. It's not just Bernie who is going to be up against that.

I think a Biden klobuchar ticket can do it. They will be able to eat into trumps base and win back the states that needed to be won. Plus getting high turnout from blue states (sanders and warren) won’t do anything but probably another electoral loss. We can’t throw away the election! Vote blue no matter who, but if the super liberal candidates win nomination and they don’t get it done in the general due to exactly what we thought of them being to liberal which means trump wins re-election. I swear....
"Eat into Trump's base" idk about that. The only candidates on the democratic side last I checked who have a significant portion of obama trump voters are Sanders and Yang.
Sanders wouldn't just get high turnout in blue states, I believe he will get high turnout in vital rustbelt states too. He is very pro-labor and a lot of the rural states where trade deals and urbanization have wrecked have a history of being pro-labor and in favor of unions, etc.
Also, the evidence we have right now is against this argument anyways. Hillary, a moderate, ran vs Trump. She lost. Why not put a progressive up to the test? Why would a moderate suddenly win this time around when they didn't last time? Why make the same mistake once again?
Speaking of which- Biden as the candidate will already cause progressives to stay home or be unenthused, but Klobuchar as VP? Clinton/Kaine all over again.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
I think you are underestimating Trump and his base.
Controversy surrounds him yes, but this is nothing new. He's been controversial longe before he ran and won and he will be long after. The controversies could even be a benefit to him in a way as it gives him more free coverage in the news.
"The shackles of impeachment" ? Impeachment is likely to end in Senate Republicans voting against his impeachment. His base will be riled up and he'll be able to pull the "They tried to get me but couldn't take me down" argument. And over what? A phone call over military aid to Ukraine? The American public by and large just doesn't care about that.
Biden is not really the best person to call on Trump for corruption because he's wrapped up in scandal too. The water is muddy.
I don't think Trump will win, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will lose. Consider that the GOP also has a TON of money and at the moment no outstanding debts and he's an incumbent president with a lot more ground organization.


In head to head matchup polls the two candidates that consistently have the best chance of beating Trump are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. While Biden has better matchups more often, Bernie outpaces the rest of the field by quite a bit. Bernie has been bringing foreign policy up more frequently lately and although he hasn't been in as high positions of power with foreign policy he has a more principled view than most of the other candidates.
Consider that Biden was not only in favor of the war in Iraq but also one of the main architects in whipping support for it. Sure he has a record, but it's not a good one.
Also, Republicans will probably give any democrat that gets into office a hard time. It's not just Bernie who is going to be up against that.


"Eat into Trump's base" idk about that. The only candidates on the democratic side last I checked who have a significant portion of obama trump voters are Sanders and Yang.
Sanders wouldn't just get high turnout in blue states, I believe he will get high turnout in vital rustbelt states too. He is very pro-labor and a lot of the rural states where trade deals and urbanization have wrecked have a history of being pro-labor and in favor of unions, etc.
Also, the evidence we have right now is against this argument anyways. Hillary, a moderate, ran vs Trump. She lost. Why not put a progressive up to the test? Why would a moderate suddenly win this time around when they didn't last time? Why make the same mistake once again?
Speaking of which- Biden as the candidate will already cause progressives to stay home or be unenthused, but Klobuchar as VP? Clinton/Kaine all over again.
Yes, they would. People vote trump because they think democrats have become too far left. We have to rectify that. Biden yang could also be a good ticket too, though I don’t know if people would trust the lack of expirence or yang. Where do you get these polls of Obama trump voters going to sanders and yang? As far as I can tell, the country is mostly moderate and moderates like Biden more. The critical components of trump base are moderates.

Bernie claims to be “pro labor” but he’s full of it. Rural workers won’t won’t for a dramatic 15 dollar minimum wage/climate change and huge socialist government. Biden and klobuchar live in the mid west and rust belt and are pro worker. Especially klobuchar. And she’ll actually get things done in Congress unlike Bernie who’s too idealistic and less effectively pragmatic.

Hillary had higher turnout then Obama did in 2012 and she beat trump by 3 million votes. The reason she lost was that she was tooo socially left and didn’t campaign in critical states due to her arrogance (Which even then, she barley lost). Plus all the celebrity endorsements with the vibe of she’s an “elite” also put people off. Biden and klobuchar aren’t that. They day to day political figures who’ll work to heal and better then country. Bernie social left movement will get the same elites enthusiastic about him and then he and his student AOC will be campaigning in Hollywood rather then the important states.



If “progressives” don’t get in line and vote for our nominee and their whiny ness is the reason trump wins, I’ll never forgive them nor vote for them.
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
 
Last edited:
Top