US Presidential Election 2020

[Nicolo Barella]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?cid=rrpromo

 

Not quite. He got a small bump, but recent times shows that is receding.

Fair enough. I just don't think the average supporter cares much at all. They've explained away so many other things for Trump, I'm sure they won't care this time. 

[Facecloth]

On 09/04/2020 at 03:16, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Seattle isn't even close to the Mexican border, it's in Washington where he is for pete's sake! 
 

(Did try to check to see if Seattle had a significant Mexican or Hispanic demographic, but figures varied so much from source to source it was hard to make a firm conclusion. 6.4% Mexican (9,0% Hispanic) according to the 2010 census data (allegedly). 

 

 

Only just seen this. Different Washingtons. He's in DC on the east side of the country, Washington state is on the west. Both miles from Mexico though.

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Amazingly, the Democrats have decided that, instead of trying to fix their image of corrupt kleptocracy (yes, I know the Republicans are worse, but different rules apply for them), they doubled down on it by keeping the faltering campaign of Joe Biden artificially alive. Joe Biden, who has literally no redeeming qualities as a candidate (or as a person, I'd argue), is the perfect guy for Trump to run against. All he has to say at the debate stage is "Goodnight, Sleepy Joe" and he wins 50 states. The Democrats have essentially shot themselves in the foot, and all for the purpose of stopping Sanders. 

Sanders couldn't even make it a contest against Biden among left wing voters, Trump would have massacred his "socialism" in November especially after the financial crash upcoming.

 

Lets be clear as well. Sanders raised more than Biden and spent more than Biden in the campaign and still ****ed it. Blaming the Democrats is ridiculous for how pathetic his campaign petered out.

 

Trump v Biden will be close purely because Biden brings out the black vote in huge numbers and that should mean Florida going Democrat, Florida was staying Republican soon as that daft bugger Bernie decided to start publicly announcing the merits of the Castro regime.

Edited 14 April 2020 by MattP

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52279608

 

Interesting. Wisconsin is a swing state, after all.

[Carl the Llama]

Mandatory reminder that Trump understood the danger all along and everybody else is wrong:

He was the first person to realise how serious this is unlike those idiots who kept comparing it to the flu and complaining about the shut down.

 

[Nicolo Barella]

18 hours ago, MattP said:

Sanders couldn't even make it a contest against Biden among left wing voters, Trump would have massacred his "socialism" in November especially after the financial crash upcoming.

 

Lets be clear as well. Sanders raised more than Biden and spent more than Biden in the campaign and still ****ed it. Blaming the Democrats is ridiculous for how pathetic his campaign petered out.

 

Trump v Biden will be close purely because Biden brings out the black vote in huge numbers and that should mean Florida going Democrat, Florida was staying Republican soon as that daft bugger Bernie decided to start publicly announcing the merits of the Castro regime.

Even if you don't recognise the fact that there was consistent voter suppression against many people who would have voted for Sanders, winning the primary and winning the general are two different things. If Sanders had won the primary, the moderate votes who coalesced behind Biden on the grounds of "electability" would have fallen in line behind him - most of them have no real goals except "stop Trump". Biden has virtually no appeal to a significant sector of Bernie voters, and even less appeal to independents. He is literally Hillary except senile and not even a woman. And you can say Trump would win on account of socialism as much as you like, that doesn't change the fact that Bernie overwhelmingly polled better than Biden against Trump in all swing states. 

 

Again, "Biden brings out the black vote in huge numbers" - the elderly black segment of the population in places like Florida and the Carolinas are, traditionally, consistent voters who tend to vote often as a method of harm reduction, and would have undoubtedly voted again for Bernie in the general if it meant Trump leaving office.

 

And you can say what you like about Bernie's comments about Castro, but he still won the Cuban vote in Florida...

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Even if you don't recognise the fact that there was consistent voter suppression against many people who would have voted for Sanders, winning the primary and winning the general are two different things. If Sanders had won the primary, the moderate votes who coalesced behind Biden on the grounds of "electability" would have fallen in line behind him - most of them have no real goals except "stop Trump". Biden has virtually no appeal to a significant sector of Bernie voters, and even less appeal to independents. He is literally Hillary except senile and not even a woman. And you can say Trump would win on account of socialism as much as you like, that doesn't change the fact that Bernie overwhelmingly polled better than Biden against Trump in all swing states. 

 

Again, "Biden brings out the black vote in huge numbers" - the elderly black segment of the population in places like Florida and the Carolinas are, traditionally, consistent voters who tend to vote often as a method of harm reduction, and would have undoubtedly voted again for Bernie in the general if it meant Trump leaving office.

 

And you can say what you like about Bernie's comments about Castro, but he still won the Cuban vote in Florida...

Where on earth have you got that from? He quite clearly didn't.

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/17/21168323/latino-vote-sanders-florida-primary-cubans

 

Sanders vote was dead among the Latino community in Florida - among them he is even level with Trump! (Biden 20pts ahead!)

 

As for voter suppression, its widely regarded that effects the black community the most and that's Biden's core - also this idea that all Democrats would vote for Sanders to get rid of Trump is spouted by absolutely nobody except Sanders supporters, there is no evidence of it at all.

 

Almost everything you have written in that post is false or potentially false.

Edited 15 April 2020 by MattP

[Nicolo Barella]

18 hours ago, MattP said:

Where on earth have you got that from? He quite clearly didn't.

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/17/21168323/latino-vote-sanders-florida-primary-cubans

 

Sanders vote was dead among the Latino community in Florida - among them he is even level with Trump! (Biden 20pts ahead!)

 

As for voter suppression, its widely regarded that effects the black community the most and that's Biden's core - also this idea that all Democrats would vote for Sanders to get rid of Trump is spouted by absolutely nobody except Sanders supporters, there is no evidence of it at all.

 

Almost everything you have written in that post is false or potentially false.

You're right, I checked, it was with the Cuban youth vote, my bad. Thanks for the correction, can't be going around saying obviously untrue things.

 

I would like to say, voter suppression is broadly a class thing in America, that is why it affects black people disordinately. Many are poorer compared to white people, but it doesn't just affect them. Generally, if you are poorer and have fewer pathways to vote, it is often more difficult to vote - jobs will only give you 1-2 hours off to vote when lines to vote may be longer, there are insufficient numbers of voting booths in poorer areas compared to more affluent suburbs where there are more than necessary, your methods of transport to booths are limited, etc. This is the same for black people as it is for latinos, asians, and even white people, depending on the state and the area.

 

There is no evidence at all? The whole theory of the high propensity voter is that they will vote in almost all elections, from local, to state, to national level. If Biden's support is largely high propensity voters (which they statistically are), it stands to reason that they will support whoever the Democratic candidate was, whether it was Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, or Bernie. It's "spouted by absolutely nobody except Sanders supporters" as you put it, because only Sanders realistically stood to gain from that fact - none of the candidates apart from him and Biden were ever close to the nomination. The others were all spoilers. 

[Stadt]

You coukdnlt satirise the two parties better really. A mentally deficient bloke that is picked because his name is relatively known and will bring out the black vote, then a brash lunatic that is a flagrant, nationalistic liar. 

[Nicolo Barella]

4 hours ago, Stadt said:

You coukdnlt satirise the two parties better really. A mentally deficient bloke that is picked because his name is relatively known and will bring out the black vote, then a brash lunatic that is a flagrant, nationalistic liar. 

The Onion will soon be put out of business

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

You're right, I checked, it was with the Cuban youth vote, my bad. Thanks for the correction, can't be going around saying obviously untrue things.

 

I would like to say, voter suppression is broadly a class thing in America, that is why it affects black people disordinately. Many are poorer compared to white people, but it doesn't just affect them. Generally, if you are poorer and have fewer pathways to vote, it is often more difficult to vote - jobs will only give you 1-2 hours off to vote when lines to vote may be longer, there are insufficient numbers of voting booths in poorer areas compared to more affluent suburbs where there are more than necessary, your methods of transport to booths are limited, etc. This is the same for black people as it is for latinos, asians, and even white people, depending on the state and the area.

 

There is no evidence at all? The whole theory of the high propensity voter is that they will vote in almost all elections, from local, to state, to national level. If Biden's support is largely high propensity voters (which they statistically are), it stands to reason that they will support whoever the Democratic candidate was, whether it was Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, or Bernie. It's "spouted by absolutely nobody except Sanders supporters" as you put it, because only Sanders realistically stood to gain from that fact - none of the candidates apart from him and Biden were ever close to the nomination. The others were all spoilers. 

That was my point. Black folk and more likely to be suppressed and they love Biden.

 

The idea all these Democrats would come out for Bernie is based on opinion not fact, I think many of the well off Democrats would shudder at the economics of Sanders and stay at home - similar to what happened here with Jeremy Corbyn as soon as it was possible he could win.

 

Is there something in the Bernie supporters maybe not turning out for Biden? Yes I'll give you that, possible they will just not turn out to vote like they didn't for Hillary in 2016.

 

But I'll tell you who takes responsibility for that and that's Bernie Sanders - he's ran a campaign that has portrayed Biden as the establishment, as a man of the rich and powerful, he's portrayed him as a man of war, anti-healthcare and as the "no change" candidate.

 

When you do that and then have to come out (again) to say "well, actually you have to vote him...." don't be surprised if a lot of the shit he has thrown himself has stuck in the minds of his supporters and they don't. This is another why these fringe lunatics are so dangerous to their own political side.

[Nicolo Barella]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

That was my point. Black folk and more likely to be suppressed and they love Biden.

I think you missed my point... Poorer people in general, regardless of race, are likely to have their votes suppressed, and this is a class of people that is more likely to vote for Bernie Sanders. There are quite a few black people that are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and some indeed may have voted for Biden, but more still are likely to have voted for Bernie (don't believe me, check out the wealth demographics of Biden's black voterbase, and compare it with the general black population). 

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

The idea all these Democrats would come out for Bernie is based on opinion not fact, I think many of the well off Democrats would shudder at the economics of Sanders and stay at home - similar to what happened here with Jeremy Corbyn as soon as it was possible he could win.

I mean, I guess you can call political theory opinion in that it hasn't been proven, but if you follow voting trends (in pretty much all countries, not just the US) high propensity voters tend to vote for their party candidate regardless of whether they supported him over other candidates originally. Biden's voterbase consists of many "vote blue no matter who" types who tend to do exactly that.

 

In addition, I think you are overlooking just how much vitriol much of the Professional Managerial Class has for Trump in the US... They ascribe to him (sometimes correctly, sometimes wrongly) virtually every ill the country suffers from, ranging from the concentration camps for children on the border, to rising intolerance of LGBT. 4 years of conditioning by the media about how evil he is doesn't just disappear. In that regard, it is not really that comparable to Corbyn's failure, (also because of the added context of Brexit) because Corbyn wasn't running against someone who was extremely widely disliked.

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

But I'll tell you who takes responsibility for that and that's Bernie Sanders - he's ran a campaign that has portrayed Biden as the establishment, as a man of the rich and powerful, he's portrayed him as a man of war, anti-healthcare and as the "no change" candidate.

 

When you do that and then have to come out (again) to say "well, actually you have to vote him...." don't be surprised if a lot of the shit he has thrown himself has stuck in the minds of his supporters and they don't. This is another why these fringe lunatics are so dangerous to their own political side.

This last point I take a bit of issue with. In a primary, isn't the whole point to present yourself and your campaign to your benefit? How would anyone ever win a primary through obsequience to the other people running? If you blame Bernie for presenting Biden as the establishment (which he is, it's not like Bernie was being misleading), you should also equally blame the likes of Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg for derailing Bernie's campaign with misleading attack ads. Bernie ran basically no attack ads and, really, made his campaign as little about other candidates as he could (as evidenced by his refusal to rise to Warren's manufactured bait about him being a sexist, which he could have crushed in spectacular fashion had he wished to do so), with the exception of Bloomberg, who he clearly despises, and really attacked in the debates.

 

And, how is Bernie a "fringe lunatic" for wanting an NHS for his country + wanting proactive action on Climate Change? Genuinely curious. I can understand presenting Corbyn that way, even if I find it distasteful. But Bernie Sanders is the most lukewarm of social democrats. He's on the fringe of the left, you're right - but the fringe directly bordering with liberalism, not the edge with Stalin on it.

Edited 16 April 2020 by Nicolo Barella

[Guest MattP]

When I said "fringe lunatics" I was referring to the base of his supporters, the young, naive and ones who see conflict in politics as a necessity, even towards their own side, the sorts who go around saying "OK boomer" without realising they are rallying up the opposition.

 

You saw the same over here, Labour contained a huge number of people who thought spending the last three years shouting "gammon" at many of their own voting base was acceptable, then acted with surprise when those people went out and voted for somebody else. It is lunatic fringe politics.

 

I've still seen nothing to suggest Sanders wouldn't absolutely bomb at the ballot box - hopefully we'll finally find out in 2024 for sure.

[Nicolo Barella]

16 hours ago, MattP said:

When I said "fringe lunatics" I was referring to the base of his supporters, the young, naive and ones who see conflict in politics as a necessity, even towards their own side, the sorts who go around saying "OK boomer" without realising they are rallying up the opposition.

 

You saw the same over here, Labour contained a huge number of people who thought spending the last three years shouting "gammon" at many of their own voting base was acceptable, then acted with surprise when those people went out and voted for somebody else. It is lunatic fringe politics.

 

I've still seen nothing to suggest Sanders wouldn't absolutely bomb at the ballot box - hopefully we'll finally find out in 2024 for sure.

Lol, I doubt he runs again to be honest. Too old. He'll consolidate his support behind a new candidate early on most likely, perhaps someone like AOC. I see what you mean about fringe politics, even if I respectfully disagree with parts of your interpretation. Obviously needless riling up of potential supporters isn't a great idea, though. 

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Lol, I doubt he runs again to be honest. Too old. He'll consolidate his support behind a new candidate early on most likely, perhaps someone like AOC. I see what you mean about fringe politics, even if I respectfully disagree with parts of your interpretation. Obviously needless riling up of potential supporters isn't a great idea, though. 

I think he will - too much cash in the game not to have another go. 

 

AOC would be absolutely hilarious though, I'll drop a few quid in myself for that to happen. 

[Dahnsouff]

On 16/04/2020 at 10:22, MattP said:

When I said "fringe lunatics" I was referring to the base of his supporters, the young, naive and ones who see conflict in politics as a necessity, even towards their own side, the sorts who go around saying "OK boomer" without realising they are rallying up the opposition.

 

You saw the same over here, Labour contained a huge number of people who thought spending the last three years shouting "gammon" at many of their own voting base was acceptable, then acted with surprise when those people went out and voted for somebody else. It is lunatic fringe politics.

 

I've still seen nothing to suggest Sanders wouldn't absolutely bomb at the ballot box - hopefully we'll finally find out in 2024 for sure.

Isn’t the collective noun for that a “Momentum”? 

[Lionator]

Surely calling people fringe lunatics is the same as a fringe lunatic calling a boomer a boomer, is it not?

 

Anyway, I'd like to think that more people who support left wing politics are rational than fringe lunatics. My own personal situation is that I tend to support socially democratic models and it just so happens that I admire politicians like Sanders and McDonnell (a lot more than Corbyn). However, I'm certainly a pragmatist and gave my vote to Keir Starmer in the leadership election for this reason. I think the more intellectual aspects of the young left wing in the UK will have learnt from 2019 that politics is not idealistic, you have to sacrifice some of your ideals to have more chance of gaining some of your ideals, if that makes sense? 

 

America is a bit different, as it would have been a straight shootout between Bernie and Trump and Bernie could quite easily win that. Bernie is essentially the left wing version of Trump, he is America first and I feel that that may actually be more exciting to a lot of the population than a centrist dullard like Biden. 

 

Steve Bannon's (stay with me) Oxford Union speech is a good example of why Bernie would be a better candidate than Biden. Bannon addresses the problem but I vehemently disagree with his solutions. Biden is part of the problem which led to global economic crashes and many of the problems we see currently. Biden winning is seen as the safe pair of hands, maintaining the status quo so to speak. Trump is a minor threat to that as he's economically driven, Bernie is a major threat to that as he's socially driven. Hence why he never realistically stood a chance.

 

Basically global collaboration is good, centralised globalised systems are bad and why we're in the mess we're in now.

[leicsmac]

Abstract as it may seem to many, scientific policy is going to be crucial over the next few years.

 

Covid-19 is merely the tip of the iceberg of what nature has to throw at us and considering their resources the US have to be in the vanguard.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Abstract as it may seem to many, scientific policy is going to be crucial over the next few years.

 

Covid-19 is merely the tip of the iceberg of what nature has to throw at us and considering their resources the US have to be in the vanguard.

Yep, I saw somebody say that covid is essentially a 6 on the richter scale in terms of pandemics, and that an 8 or 9 'big one' could still be around the corner.

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Abstract as it may seem to many, scientific policy is going to be crucial over the next few years.

 

Covid-19 is merely the tip of the iceberg of what nature has to throw at us and considering their resources the US have to be in the vanguard.

Would be interesting to think how an Obama led democrats would have managed this crisis compared to Donnie.
Suppose same question for Jeremy led Labour rather than a Boris led Conservative party.

 

Actually forget that 2nd one, think it may bring on night sweats. 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Surely calling people fringe lunatics is the same as a fringe lunatic calling a boomer a boomer, is it not?

 

Anyway, I'd like to think that more people who support left wing politics are rational than fringe lunatics. My own personal situation is that I tend to support socially democratic models and it just so happens that I admire politicians like Sanders and McDonnell (a lot more than Corbyn). However, I'm certainly a pragmatist and gave my vote to Keir Starmer in the leadership election for this reason. I think the more intellectual aspects of the young left wing in the UK will have learnt from 2019 that politics is not idealistic, you have to sacrifice some of your ideals to have more chance of gaining some of your ideals, if that makes sense? 

 

America is a bit different, as it would have been a straight shootout between Bernie and Trump and Bernie could quite easily win that. Bernie is essentially the left wing version of Trump, he is America first and I feel that that may actually be more exciting to a lot of the population than a centrist dullard like Biden. 

 

Steve Bannon's (stay with me) Oxford Union speech is a good example of why Bernie would be a better candidate than Biden. Bannon addresses the problem but I vehemently disagree with his solutions. Biden is part of the problem which led to global economic crashes and many of the problems we see currently. Biden winning is seen as the safe pair of hands, maintaining the status quo so to speak. Trump is a minor threat to that as he's economically driven, Bernie is a major threat to that as he's socially driven. Hence why he never realistically stood a chance.

 

Basically global collaboration is good, centralised globalised systems are bad and why we're in the mess we're in now.

Not really as there are a hell of a lot more boomers than fringe lunatics. Piss off boomers and you'll more often than not lose an election.

 

I respect your posts so I'm genuinely surprised you can like someone as malevolent as McDonnell, though I can see why Sanders attracts support as he's genuinely likeable in a Grandpa sort of way in the same way Corbyn is.

 

I'll give the Sanders mob one thing, they have incredible self confidence believing they'll win the big elections that come around when they keep losing all the others. Sadly I don't think we'll ever know if they were right.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Yep, I saw somebody say that covid is essentially a 6 on the richter scale in terms of pandemics, and that an 8 or 9 'big one' could still be around the corner.

Not just about pandemics, either. Other natural disasters are available and pressing.

 

9 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Would be interesting to think how an Obama led democrats would have managed this crisis compared to Donnie.
Suppose same question for Jeremy led Labour rather than a Boris led Conservative party.

 

Actually forget that 2nd one, think it may bring on night sweats. 

Better. Because they would have been better prepared and in all likelihood better led, simply.

Edited 17 April 2020 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

Alright then @MattP, I'm interested to know why the idea of an Obama administration handling this crisis better than the current one is somehow funny (if indeed that is what is being laughed at, and just for the sake of clarity that was what I meant in my own post).

 

Obama didn't fire a pandemic team specifically designed for this kind of thing and gut the CDC budget, after all.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/

Edited 17 April 2020 by leicsmac

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Alright then @MattP, I'm interested to know why the idea of an Obama administration handling this crisis better than the current one is somehow funny (if indeed that is what is being laughed at, and just for the sake of clarity that was what I meant in my own post).

 

Obama didn't fire a pandemic team specifically designed for this kind of thing and gut the CDC budget, after all.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/

To be honest, when I read your response I originally thought you were saying Jeremy would have handled it better, had to read it twice

(And that idea made me smile, maybe @MattP was the same, or maybe he just does not like Obama  )

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Alright then @MattP, I'm interested to know why the idea of an Obama administration handling this crisis better than the current one is somehow funny (if indeed that is what is being laughed at, and just for the sake of clarity that was what I meant in my own post).

 

Obama didn't fire a pandemic team specifically designed for this kind of thing and gut the CDC budget, after all.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/

I was laughing in response to thinking Corbyn and his team would better, not Obama. Jeremy has refused to even isolate against the official guidelines and spent the last PMQ's before he left questioning the PM on train capacity whilst all this was going on

 

I agree Obama would have handled this with far more clarity, care and consideration than Trump.

 

As I said in the other thread, if you want a low tax, state subsidised, job creating economy Donald is your man, for a pandemic or emergency I wouldn't want him near the role.