Jump to content
Lionator

US Presidential Election 2020

Recommended Posts

On 11/03/2020 at 01:30, leicsmac said:

I hope you're wrong about that last part, man. Too much at stake.

 

Perhaps the current viral epidemic may end up having a part to play.

 

On 12/03/2020 at 06:58, MattP said:

Democrats now the favourites to win the election on Betfair.

 

Amazing turnaround - Republicans were being backed at 1.60ish just three weeks ago.

You'd have thought that the current virus problems would bring people towards voting for a centrist safe pair of hands.

 

Both the left and right, as here in the UK, have a chasm between them these days but surely in a time of crisis people stop voting for change/anger/sticking it up the political class and look for safety?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

 

You'd have thought that the current virus problems would bring people towards voting for a centrist safe pair of hands.

 

Both the left and right, as here in the UK, have a chasm between them these days but surely in a time of crisis people stop voting for change/anger/sticking it up the political class and look for safety?

I think it can also actually go the other way round. When people are in crisis/start dying embracing radical change tends to come easier rather than harder...but that's just my take.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think it can also actually go the other way round. When people are in crisis/start dying embracing radical change tends to come easier rather than harder...but that's just my take.

I suppose we'll find out in a few months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

 

You'd have thought that the current virus problems would bring people towards voting for a centrist safe pair of hands.

 

Both the left and right, as here in the UK, have a chasm between them these days but surely in a time of crisis people stop voting for change/anger/sticking it up the political class and look for safety?

 

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think it can also actually go the other way round. When people are in crisis/start dying embracing radical change tends to come easier rather than harder...but that's just my take.

 

Arguably, the 2 most radical UK govts elected in the last 100 years were those of Attlee and Thatcher - both elected at the end of times of great turbulence (though at the end, not during the turbulence).

 

If US voters do want a "safe" option, it's also questionable who that is. Is it the calm centrist with MOR policies or is it the incumbent, as the "devil we know"?

 

Who knows?! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last debate going on right now.

 

Link responses to coronavirus to the response necessary for climate change. Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden and Sanders are both pretty poor debaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shame the election isn't much sooner. the current crisis shows that Trump is a massive danger to the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Desabafar said:

shame the election isn't much sooner. the current crisis shows that Trump is a massive danger to the world

It's fair to say coronavirus is a much bigger threat to the world than Trump.

 

Maybe you want to elaborate on the "massive danger to the world" part, because I don't see it. We've had three years of Trump already and we're all still here, doing pretty fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

It's fair to say coronavirus is a much bigger threat to the world than Trump.

 

Maybe you want to elaborate on the "massive danger to the world" part, because I don't see it. We've had three years of Trump already and we're all still here, doing pretty fine.

coronavirus is a big threat made by Trump's blase attitude towards it. see also him trying to buy the vaccine company in Germany for exclusive US use

 

but also he has been a big diplomatic problem and that will have lasting consequences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If there was a little question about who would win the nomination before today, now I think there is likely none at all.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51939611

 

A lot is likely going to change between now and November, though.

Even I'm surprised at just how pathetic the Sanders campaign turned out to be. Even if Biden died Bernie wouldn't pick up the nomination now.

 

That result in Florida lol - he won't be giving us the positives of Castro rule again. In terms of political gaffes that's right up there.

 

Anyhow it's Trump v Biden. Florida surely goes Democrat and that leaves then fighting the rust belt. It's going to be close but it's hard to see the GOP holding everything.

 

Early prediction is Biden by about 30. Not impossible Covid could take the election apart either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Even I'm surprised at just how pathetic the Sanders campaign turned out to be. Even if Biden died Bernie wouldn't pick up the nomination now.

 

That result in Florida lol - he won't be giving us the positives of Castro rule again. In terms of political gaffes that's right up there.

 

Anyhow it's Trump v Biden. Florida surely goes Democrat and that leaves then fighting the rust belt. It's going to be close but it's hard to see the GOP holding everything.

 

Early prediction is Biden by about 30. Not impossible Covid could take the election apart either way.

They do need to hold three out of Ohio, Michigan, Penn and Florida - a difficult ask.

 

282-252 as you suggest (there will likely be a few college votes for others) isn't a bad call, but I honestly wouldn't want to make any predictions on how it will pan out now...or even, perhaps, if the election will go ahead as advertised at all, given all that is going on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 is he trying to say "remdesivir". I mean, if you arent a science guy i could see you screwing that up a bit. 

Edited by Jattdogg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump actually improving in the approval ratings.

 

I didn't think you could win an election in these circumstances but you might just be able to buy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MattP said:

Trump actually improving in the approval ratings.

 

I didn't think you could win an election in these circumstances but you might just be able to buy one.

As of a couple of days ago, yeah. Like you said, throwing $2 trillion into the mix helps there most often.

 

However as the death and unemployment rates keep climbing, we'll see how the public react in a few months time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

As of a couple of days ago, yeah. Like you said, throwing $2 trillion into the mix helps there most often.

 

However as the death and unemployment rates keep climbing, we'll see how the public react in a few months time.

Most of the deaths are in Democrat states which is another plus for him electorally - you can bet all those rust belt states will get the amount of ventilators they need.

 

Would be irony of all ironies if a temporary UBI secures another four years though lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Most of the deaths are in Democrat states which is another plus for him electorally - you can bet all those rust belt states will get the amount of ventilators they need.

 

Would be irony of all ironies if a temporary UBI secures another four years though lol

Yep and yep - and how morally bankrupt is that?

 

All going to come down to the independents/swing voters, though. Might need an awful lot of ventilators to bribe all of Penn, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin to go for him in spite of a massive body count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep and yep - and how morally bankrupt is that?

 

All going to come down to the independents/swing voters, though. Might need an awful lot of ventilators to bribe all of Penn, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin to go for him in spite of a massive body count.

Wouldn't be any different with any other President in charge - politicians look after their own or potential voters, always have and always will.

 

Pennsylvania might be a problem but I doubt the others states will on the current figures.

 

The bribery is going to be more the cash drops into the bank accounts, I told you he was an economic leftie didn't i? lol

Edited by MattP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Wouldn't be any different with any other President in charge - politicians look after their own or potential voters, always have and always will.

 

Pennsylvania might be a problem but I doubt the others states will on the current figures.

 

The bribery is going to be more the cash drops into the bank accounts, I told you he was an economic leftie didn't i? lol

...not sure this is a situation equivalent to other times since 1918 to be honest though, and I'm pretty sure Woodrow Wilson wasn't limiting treatments and management for the Spanish Flu pandemic just to his voter base on account of political whims. There is no justification for biased distribution of potentially life-saving equipment apart from triage based on very limited supply, and I don't think we should pretend that there is.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Wouldn't be any different with any other President in charge - politicians look after their own or potential voters, always have and always will.

 

Pennsylvania might be a problem but I doubt the others states will on the current figures.

 

The bribery is going to be more the cash drops into the bank accounts, I told you he was an economic leftie didn't i? lol

2 days ago he was quoted as saying 

Quote

"I don't believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators. You know, at a major hospital sometimes they'll have two ventilators. All of a sudden they're saying, 'Can we order 30,000 ventilators?'"

TWO days ago he said that (to be clear in case anybody feels the knee-jerk impulse to defend the man it's utter bullshit that a major hospital would only have 2 ventilators available and the requests are for entire states, not individual facilities, conflating the two is utter lunacy).  Two days ago he still refused to accept the severity of the situation.

 

The very next day somebody's clearly had a word and explained the need for the ventilators, so he's now trying use the high demand as political leverage against any State governor who isn't being 'nice enough' to him.

 

Meanwhile the previous administration had set up a global pandemic response unit as a proactive measure which would have gone a long way to improving our early understanding of the outbreak and initial response to it.  Sadly that unit fell victim to Donald's petty crusade against anything Obama related.

 

But do go on about how this would all be the same under any other president. lol 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


im sorry but he’s so funny, the guy is absolutely barking mad. The whole thread/conference is cataclysmically hilarious (in a terrifying way).

Edited by Lionator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

He basically Wikipedia’d it and memorised the wrong ****ing bit!

 

B2775631-2D71-40B6-93FD-9652C5F5BD14.jpeg.8987711d507f71e5b611ec3e13a6dfe9.jpeg

 

LMFAO lol

I mean, Seoul's population density is high...but not that high. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...