It's just one poll, but the latest Quinnipiac poll has it almost a two person race, Biden and Warren.

As I mature as an individual and realize my lot in life with my medical condition and a girl in college and another about to go in and a teacher, man I see my self trending towards liberalism and Warren.

Man what a strange life i lead.

I still prefer a multi-party system. But shoot, the crap this country is in right now, I see myself leaning towards making life easier ofr the youth of America and not for the corporations (bastards).

HAHA. I know a lot on this board are going to laugh at me, but shoot, lets spend our money where it helps the people.

No one should laugh at someone changing their views to better fit their family and where they are in life. It's far more mature than staying the course to the detriment of yourself and those around you.

The day we stop changing is the day we start dying.

Looks like Yang has qualified for the next debates.

Only 5 candidates are averaging over 3% according to RCP. Can we please move on to the ones that might actually win the nomination?

Yeah no kidding we are quickly getting to a 2 person race.

They should cut it down to 10 and move on slicing 2-4 more for the next debate after this one. We all daily see the danger of allowing a plurality candidate to hijack a nomination.

Don't think I would vote for him but I'm rooting for him to do well and land on some cabinet post. I like his "folksy" (?) style, its somewhat refreshing.

Well Yang has picked up a big name endorsement

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesl...esident-2019-8

I don't know why I like Yang at the moment. On the plus side he does seem to have the most detailed policies at this point. On the negative his solutions for dealing with problems just seems to be "throw more money at it".

Wow, his stock just went up a couple notches.

At this point, it seems fair to question whether Biden still has the mental faculty for this.


Biden Says He Was Vice President During Parkland Shooting

General election is going to be a battle of who's brain is more mush.

I love this headline.


Iowa State Fair swarmed by 2020 Democrats - USA Today


I'm thinking everyone is running from the over 2000 democrats who are just swarming like bees everywhere and it's just pandemonium. And then I want to know, who counted them all to get exactly 2020?

This and the "poor kids vs white kids" thing are examples of why, regardless of what polls say right now, Trump would probably beat or at leaat have his best chance against Biden. He's right in Trump's wheelhouse of politicians he attacks really well.

Biden is a tool. I'm still not in Warren's camp, I think her generation needs to move on, but she's heading in the right direction. Buttigieg (sp) is never going to carry enough momentum, or carry the black vote. Harris has a lot going for her, I think she can really bring it to trump.

The Hill on Twitter: "JUST IN: John Hickenlooper considering ending presidential bid to run for Senate: report https://t.co/XmnrTGNhJd… "

Hickenlooper is thinking of dropping out to run for Senate in Colorado (where he has a far, far, far better shot).

I liked him in the debates.

538 called this yesterday. He was the first pick in their Dem Droput Draft.

I am glad. Now if Beto would follow suit.

Beto is still polling decently enough. The more national attention he gets will help him immensely when he finally drops and declares for the Texas Senate race.

Beto is up 3% or so. Not worth withdrawing.

He has no shot, but could make a run at Cornyn.

The Loop is officially out:

John Hickenlooper quits the 2020 presidential race | PBS NewsHour

By the issues, Hickenlooper was probably the closest candidate to how I feel about things. He was for some reasonable gun control measures, progressive on social issues, but also pro-business and somewhat nuanced on health care (in favor of expanding medicaid to cover more people, but against single payer). Granted, he wasn't the most charismatic candidate - but it is still a shame he couldn't garner more support.

The silent majority of us who are progressive on social issues but pro-business seem destined to be left in the cold by both parties.

Have you not noticed who the front runner in the Democratic primary polls is?

I'm not really sure how "pro-business" Biden is. He's just not as anti-business as Sanders or Warren. Hillary was much more pro-business (IMO). I was also sold that the democratic party would support a more moderate candidate like Hillary and all the democrats didn't show up because she wasn't far left enough.

The hope with Biden is enough aggravated Republicans switch over if he can survive the primary. Still, I'm not sure I would put him above 50% to win the primary as a lot of left-leaning democrats (where the money is) are pretty adamant against him. But Hickenlooper was a very different candidate than Biden. Biden still wants to do something similar to the Green New deal, forgive student loan debt, tax the rich and give free college. He just is a little more nuanced with his rhetoric and tries to come off as more of a "middle class guy" than someone like Sanders.

Define "pro-business". Because I think this country has bent over for a long time for business. At what point do we get a President who is "pro-citizen"?

Not increasing taxes and regulations on small to moderate businesses. Trying to drive job growth by getting out of the way of businesses, instead of nickel and diming them to death to pay for other programs/health care changes. Now, this isn't being in favor of full corporate welfare - I do think some of that has gone a little overboard. But, if the option is to give welfare to businesses or individuals, my preference would be businesses as there is a better chance of that impacting more down the road. Still, I would almost classify it more pro-market than pro-business.

We've been pro-business for almost 40 fucking years, and that has gotten the lower and middle class absolutely nowhere.

Trump just handed out the biggest tax cut of all time that was supposed to be reinvested, and many companies just ended up investing back in their stock or paying down debt.

All of this shit that is supposed to be pro-business that will then be pro-worker, is just money hoarding. We've had enough.

Whaaaa?

Biden is basically a slightly more conservative Hillary Clinton and running as Obama 2.0.

Indeed. It appears to me that investing in our people (including increased welfare benefits) gets better results than handouts for companies.

Interesting theory/postulation. I would be interested in reading any analysis where this has shown to be true.

Oh, let me say I'm sure it won't change any minds because there'll be the "not equivalent because of X, Y, Z" and all the whatabouts, but would still be interesting to read the argument for this ...

Isn't this what we have? Businesses don't pay taxes and are above the law. How much more can you give them?

And why should my tax dollars continue to go toward funding Amazon's business?

Most of Europe.

Heck, Canada. You don't even have to go that far.

Poor people get money and spend it on goods and services which directly stimulate jobs/businesses.

Businesses get tax cuts, buy back their own stocks and pay out bonuses. This impacts virtually nothing other than padding the accounts of stockholders.

I am all for corporate welfare for a select group such as incubation companies/technologies, helping companies in our trade war, smaller businesses etc. but you are right, don't see why Amazon needs any tax breaks or subsidies.

Yeah, I would say it is what we have. It's also why we have less than 4% unemployment and very strong GDP growth over the past 6-7 years. That doesn't mean everyone is doing great, but it does mean we have a strong economy.

Over 50% of Americans are "stockholders" in some fashion. So, the market increasing helps their bottom line. Also, increase money to businesses means more job creation, more spending on R&D and eventually more competition in the marketplace. Both of your examples above help the economy.

I guess it depends on how one defines "better results".

Little late, but while I love Joe, there's a reason I'm done with that generation. No Trump, no Biden, no Warren. No Sanders. Electing a septuagenarian (or older!) to the highest office in the land is just begging for either a 25th Amendment crisis or a senile President if nobody wants to be the one who pushes that button.

Gimme somebody in their 40s-50s (preferably 40s; they're more likely to understand the issues facing people who are going to, in theory, still be alive 20 years from now).

Higher median income, better quality of life, better education, longer life expectancy, lower poverty rates, etc.

We do beat them all in shootings and incarcerations though. So that's something.

You ageist bastard.... then again I tend to think the same way.

Its admirable how European countries tend to do better in those listed. There's something also about how vast majority of people wanting to immigrate would pick the US over any other country; and I don't see a rush of Americans wanting to immigrate elsewhere. So somethings are likely missing from your list.

On a related note, thought this was interesting to help explain US vs Europe take on redistribution (e.g. welfare).

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...ea_alesina.pdf

I think I agree. I'm okay with them in cabinet posts but you have to believe some mental faculties are degrading.

Net immigration rate is higher in most of those European countries.

We also don't know the emigration rate of US citizens because the government keeps that secret. But it is harder to emigrate from the United States because of our restrictive tax system that will continue to tax you out of the country unless you renounce citizenship. Other countries provide their citizens with more freedom in that regard.

Let me re-emphasize - by far.

158 million migrants want to move to the US, world’s top pick

Majority? Polling doesn't at all agree with that. That's basically the NYTimes op-ed page, and there isn't a lot of support for that. There's a faction of that in the Dem party, but certainly not a majority. There's some of that in the Never Trumpers, but there are about seven of them. There's almost none of that left in the socially conservative, handouts for me version of the Trump GOP.

Don't take this as a critique of the idea, but in terms of popularity, I don't see any evidence for your claim.

By silent majority I meant that most of the people that feel that way (social liberal, fiscal conservative) tend to not be very active in political discussions. They aren't rabid enough on the left or right side of the scale to spend all day arguing on twitter, donating to parties or watching 24/7 cable news. For that reason, they tend to be under represented in either political party.

I probably should have said "a majority who is silent" instead of a silent majority. I honestly have no idea how many people feel that way, they just struggle to find a home in either party (one reason why I've voted for 3 democrats and 3 republicans in my 6 presidential elections).

We're a giant country. Look at per capita rates.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency