2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm slowly coming to the realization that Biden is going to be the nominee. I think Harris's dropping out of the race and Booker struggling to even get on the stage in December, combined with Warren's and Buttigieg's complete inability to gain African-American support, made me realize just how rock solid Biden's support among African-American voters is. Even if he struggles in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't see the older African-American voters in South Carolina (or the Latino voters in Nevada) jumping ship.

The only one who may be able to get some of those voters is Sanders - but he generally does well with younger African-American and Latino voters, not the older ones who come out and vote.

It's just a slow dawning realization that Biden's Teflon was much stronger than I figured.

Which is probably why Trump has been targeting him since he entered the race early in the this year.

[GrantDawg]

I am going to correct myself. Stacey Abrams did say in August that she would be open to be VP. I thought I remembered a denial closer to when she met with Biden before he officially announced.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm slowly coming to the realization that Biden is going to be the nominee. I think Harris's dropping out of the race and Booker struggling to even get on the stage in December, combined with Warren's and Buttigieg's complete inability to gain African-American support, made me realize just how rock solid Biden's support among African-American voters is. Even if he struggles in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't see the older African-American voters in South Carolina (or the Latino voters in Nevada) jumping ship.

The only one who may be able to get some of those voters is Sanders - but he generally does well with younger African-American and Latino voters, not the older ones who come out and vote.

It's just a slow dawning realization that Biden's Teflon was much stronger than I figured.

It is the open question. Obama's support among the older African-Americans jumped up once he won Iowa. They needed to see him win to believe he could. If Joe has a really bad Iowa and New Hampshire, will that change?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It is the open question. Obama's support among the older African-Americans jumped up once he won Iowa. They needed to see him win to believe he could. If Joe has a really bad Iowa and New Hampshire, will that change?

But who's going to take that mantle? Obama was able to jump because African-American voters WANTED Obama to win, but didn't think he could. Winning Iowa helped convince them.

Harris and Booker, I think, were hoping for the same thing. But they've both seen their Iowa numbers not move.

African-American voters aren't going for Buttigieg or Warrren. They maaay go Sanders, but I think older AA voters are turned off by him (or his fans rather) from 2016.

[tarcone]

Biden vs. Trump. Ugh

[ISiddiqui]

This is a fascinating article about Biden and his history as a stutterer:

Joe Biden's Stutter, and Mine - The Atlantic

The author makes a compelling case that a lot of times when people think Biden make mental lapses, it seems to him (a stutterer as well) that Biden is trying to deal with stuttering, either through circumlocution or other means.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The faithful of the Catholic church should probably study the Bible a little more closely. Catholic dogma may currently hold that life begins at conception and all that jazz and that babies are super precious in the sight of the Lord, but, uh...

I'm going to stop you right there. I don't know what your particular axe to grind is with the Catholic Church but right there alone in that statement shows that you have no interest in what the Catholic Church truly is about - only in mocking it. The Catholic Church does not have a "current" stance on abortion. If you want to read about it I will refer you to the following.

Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church's Constant Teaching

well, the Old Testament talks about God wiping out EVERYONE in "Jerusalem and all the towns of Judah" - including infants and children - because adults were worshiping other gods.

Hosea 9 talks about God punishing idolaters by making the women barren and killing any children they DO happen to conceive.

Hosea 13 says "welp, the unfaithful are going to have their infants' brains dashed against the stones and their pregnant women eviscerated."

You do realize that God does punish, right? That's why Catholics believe hell exists - it is an eternal punishment. Its not a lottery that determines whether you end up there - its an eternal punishment handed down by God just as heaven is the eternal reward and purgatory a place of cleansing for entrance to heaven.

That's a difficult concept for some people to reconcile. If God is supposed to be the source of all that is good then how could He wipe out people? What about "thou shall not kill"? Doesn't that make this whole thing a sham???

Well, it was always as a punishment and as a last resort. Look at the words you quoted "worshiping other gods", "idolaters", "unfaithful"....these were people that turned away from God so wouldn't it make sense that God as the supreme being would then punish them for doing so?

If you want biblical verses look at Genesis, chapter 18. "Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" and Abraham begins bargaining for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Every time he asks if he can find only X number of righteous people the Lord responds that He will not destroy it and of course not even ten such people exist and it is destroyed.

God destroying cities as a punishment has nothing to do with abortion or murder or anything else.

Now you can think all of that is a bunch of nonsense and I respect that and I'm not going to debate each quote you dug up and try and convince you otherwise. The only reason I bothered to reply at all is to point out that the issue of abortion is not a fly by night thing the Church just worked up so that it could become part of the GOP machine and oppose Democrats nor is it somehow an invalid belief of the Church because the Bible talks about God punishing people - even babies. The Church has been opposed to abortion since way before our country was republican vs democrat - it wasn't just a ploy to make sure Hillary didn't get elected.

[tarcone]

Just saw a commercial for Bloomberg. It was a Bloomberg for President 2020.

Bloomberg vs. Biden vs Trump? Ugh

When are the baby boomers going to fade away?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I'm going to stop you right there. I don't know what your particular axe to grind is with the Catholic Church but right there alone in that statement shows that you have no interest in what the Catholic Church truly is about - only in mocking it. The Catholic Church does not have a "current" stance on abortion. If you want to read about it I will refer you to the following.

Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church's Constant Teaching



You do realize that God does punish, right? That's why Catholics believe hell exists - it is an eternal punishment. Its not a lottery that determines whether you end up there - its an eternal punishment handed down by God just as heaven is the eternal reward and purgatory a place of cleansing for entrance to heaven.

That's a difficult concept for some people to reconcile. If God is supposed to be the source of all that is good then how could He wipe out people? What about "thou shall not kill"? Doesn't that make this whole thing a sham???

Well, it was always as a punishment and as a last resort. Look at the words you quoted "worshiping other gods", "idolaters", "unfaithful"....these were people that turned away from God so wouldn't it make sense that God as the supreme being would then punish them for doing so?

If you want biblical verses look at Genesis, chapter 18. "Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" and Abraham begins bargaining for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Every time he asks if he can find only X number of righteous people the Lord responds that He will not destroy it and of course not even ten such people exist and it is destroyed.

God destroying cities as a punishment has nothing to do with abortion or murder or anything else.

Now you can think all of that is a bunch of nonsense and I respect that and I'm not going to debate each quote you dug up and try and convince you otherwise. The only reason I bothered to reply at all is to point out that the issue of abortion is not a fly by night thing the Church just worked up so that it could become part of the GOP machine and oppose Democrats nor is it somehow an invalid belief of the Church because the Bible talks about God punishing people - even babies. The Church has been opposed to abortion since way before our country was republican vs democrat - it wasn't just a ploy to make sure Hillary didn't get elected.

That's true of the Catholic church, although I would argue about how much priority it was given, but that isn't true about evangelical protestants. After Roe there were plenty of statements from evangelicals rejecting the idea of life beginning at conception. Even the head of the Southern Baptists was far from a current pro-life position.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Just saw a commercial for Bloomberg. It was a Bloomberg for President 2020.

Bloomberg vs. Biden vs Trump? Ugh

When are the baby boomers going to fade away?

Biden and Bloomberg are Silent Generation. Trump is a Baby Boomer (but just).

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Biden and Bloomberg are Silent Generation. Trump is a Baby Boomer (but just).

But who votes? Who are these candidates targeted for?

Baby boomers.

And they are old. At the rate we are going we will have a sitting president diw of natural causes while in office.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

But who votes? Who are these candidates targeted for?

Baby boomers.

And they are old. At the rate we are going we will have a sitting president diw of natural causes while in office.

If Trump is re-elected it's more likely to happen than not.

Bloomberg has absolutely zero chance of winning, but between Sanders, Trump, Biden, and Warren we're certain to have someone over 70 as President in 2021.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Atocep

between Sanders, Trump, Biden, and Warren we're certain to have someone over 70 as President in 2021.

yay?

[tarcone]

So Im watching a Christmas movie on Fox. Commercial break. A presidential commercial again. But this time it is Tom Steyer. Who the hell is Tom Steyer? All I know is he said he is another billionaire running for president.

[tarcone]

Did a little research on Steyer.

I want your opinion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Did a little research on Steyer.

I want your opinion.

He could be a hero in a number of different ways, but he'd rather spend his money on a no chance presidential run. And his platform is full of stupid and unworkable ideas.

[Carman Bulldog]

Also did some research on Tom Steyer...

He gets high on you
And the space he invades, he gets by on you.

A modern-day warrior.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Did a little research on Steyer.

I want your opinion.

A less like-able Ross Perot.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Just saw a commercial for Bloomberg. It was a Bloomberg for President 2020.

Bloomberg vs. Biden vs Trump? Ugh

When are the baby boomers going to fade away?

I saw a Bloomberg ad yesterday as well. It was about as bland as you can get.

[tarcone]

Biden called a voter in Iowa a damn liar and challenged him to a push up contest.

This whole new reality is getting hard to grasp.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Biden called a voter in Iowa a damn liar and challenged him to a push up contest.

This whole new reality is getting hard to grasp.

Next challenge up- I can fit more girls into a telephone booth than you can!

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not a Biden fan, but I don't think Biden comes across bad in it. The questioner is parroting Fox News stuff (the damned liar part) and then says he's too old (the push up, to a run, IQ context part). Like if Bernie said it, half the internet would be cheering.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not a Biden fan, but I don't think Biden comes across bad in it. The questioner is parroting Fox News stuff (the damned liar part) and then says he's too old (the push up, to a run, IQ context part). Like if Bernie said it, half the internet would be cheering.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

It is obvious the guy was trying to get a rise out of Biden, and while it is easy to say he should have taken the high road, I think it is absolutely laughable the MAGA crown is skewering him for it. Trump literally treats almost every person he talks to like shot and his base spins it as him "telling it like it is" but when Biden does it he's unhinged. The hypocrisy with these people never ceases to amaze me.

[GrantDawg]

I was listening to David Plouffe today interview the head of the Bloomberg campaign. Their plan is very interesting. They are concentrating on the states that come after the early 4, and in all the battleground states. They (rightly) point out that the states following the early weeks are more populous, and mean a lot more delegate wise. Also, these states along with the battleground states are where Trump is already spending millions of dollars. Trump has a huge advantage over whoever comes out the winner of the Democratic primaries, because he has been running a general campaign ever since he was elected. He is dropping general election spending levels in those targeted battleground states, which is why his poll numbers there are still strong.

I don't like Bloomberg, but I think his plan has some merit. His manager pointed out that the DNC should change the order of the primaries so the likely battleground states are rotated as the early primaries. How much better would it be if the money and attention being spent in Iowa and New Hampshire was being spent instead in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I was listening to David Plouffe today interview the head of the Bloomberg campaign. Their plan is very interesting. They are concentrating on the states that come after the early 4, and in all the battleground states. They (rightly) point out that the states following the early weeks are more populous, and mean a lot more delegate wise. Also, these states along with the battleground states are where Trump is already spending millions of dollars. Trump has a huge advantage over whoever comes out the winner of the Democratic primaries, because he has been running a general campaign ever since he was elected. He is dropping general election spending levels in those targeted battleground states, which is why his poll numbers there are still strong.

I don't like Bloomberg, but I think his plan has some merit. His manager pointed out that the DNC should change the order of the primaries so the likely battleground states are rotated as the early primaries. How much better would it be if the money and attention being spent in Iowa and New Hampshire was being spent instead in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Didn't Guliani try to ignore the early states too in his ill-fated campaign run?

[Carman Bulldog]

So I'm curious as to why the Democrats thinks a septuagenarian is their best bet at winning the election? The following are the average ages of the last 14 president's at the start of their presidency. Seven are Democrats and seven are Republicans.

Democrats - 50.6 years old (median 51)
Republicans - 62.3 years old (median 62)

Is there some evidence that suggests an older candidate will bring Democrats success?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Biden called a voter in Iowa a damn liar and challenged him to a push up contest.

This whole new reality is getting hard to grasp.

WTF??? Can we get sanity back?

Tulsi 2020!!!

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

So I'm curious as to why the Democrats thinks a septuagenarian is their best bet at winning the election? The following are the average ages of the last 14 president's at the start of their presidency. Seven are Democrats and seven are Republicans.

Democrats - 50.6 years old (median 51)
Republicans - 62.3 years old (median 62)

Is there some evidence that suggests an older candidate will bring Democrats success?

Who were the last 2 to win? I'll tell you 2 young-ish, dynamic candidates. I cant understand why the dems go for the young and the people of color. Its worked for their last 2 two term presidents. I dont even know when the last 2 term dem. Was it FDR?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

So I'm curious as to why the Democrats thinks a septuagenarian is their best bet at winning the election? The following are the average ages of the last 14 president's at the start of their presidency. Seven are Democrats and seven are Republicans.

Democrats - 50.6 years old (median 51)
Republicans - 62.3 years old (median 62)

Is there some evidence that suggests an older candidate will bring Democrats success?

Because of Trump, this election has become about electability and that usually comes down to a combination of name power and being a moderate. The Progressives want a more progressive candidate so they're keeping Sanders/Warren afloat, but it's becoming clear Biden isn't going to just lose his support.

I think in a more normal election cycle Booker would be doing much better and Buttigieg would really need to be taken seriously as a threat for the nomination.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Who were the last 2 to win? I'll tell you 2 young-ish, dynamic candidates. I cant understand why the dems go for the young and the people of color. Its worked for their last 2 two term presidents. I dont even know when the last 2 term dem. Was it FDR?

I'm assuming you mean before Clinton.

So sort of... Kennedy/LBJ should be looked at as 2 terms, but no neither was elected twice. The same goes with Truman, who almost served two full terms, but started in April of 45 after Roosevelt's death.

I think the better point is that almost all the post-WW2 presidents/parties have been two terms which gives Trump a big advantage heading into 2020.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I was listening to David Plouffe today interview the head of the Bloomberg campaign. Their plan is very interesting. They are concentrating on the states that come after the early 4, and in all the battleground states. They (rightly) point out that the states following the early weeks are more populous, and mean a lot more delegate wise. Also, these states along with the battleground states are where Trump is already spending millions of dollars. Trump has a huge advantage over whoever comes out the winner of the Democratic primaries, because he has been running a general campaign ever since he was elected. He is dropping general election spending levels in those targeted battleground states, which is why his poll numbers there are still strong.

I don't like Bloomberg, but I think his plan has some merit. His manager pointed out that the DNC should change the order of the primaries so the likely battleground states are rotated as the early primaries. How much better would it be if the money and attention being spent in Iowa and New Hampshire was being spent instead in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

He's advertising like crazy already here in NY. That can't be cheap.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm assuming you mean before Clinton.

So sort of... Kennedy/LBJ should be looked at as 2 terms, but no neither was elected twice. The same goes with Truman, who almost served two full terms, but started in April of 45 after Roosevelt's death.

I think the better point is that almost all the post-WW2 presidents/parties have been two terms which gives Trump a big advantage heading into 2020.

What there have been a number of one term presidents since world war 2 Carter,Ford,Nixon, and George H Bush.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by Galaril

What there have been a number of one term presidents since world war 2 Carter,Ford,Nixon, and George H Bush.

I don't think one can count Nixon/Ford, although Nixon was elected to serve two terms (and Ford not at all).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Didn't Guliani try to ignore the early states too in his ill-fated campaign run?

But Guliani didn't have a tenth of the money Bloomberg is spending. That is not just advertising, either. He is setting up offices all across the states. Guilani was "Florida or die." He died.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaril

What there have been a number of one term presidents since world war 2 Carter,Ford,Nixon, and George H Bush.

I'm looking at party control, so FDR/Truman, Kennedy/LBJ, and Nixon/Ford all count as two terms for me. The only time a party hasn't served 8 years are Carter and Bush1.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Biden called a voter in Iowa a damn liar and challenged him to a push up contest.

This whole new reality is getting hard to grasp.

I saw the video and good for Biden standing up to the guy! We need a fighter and for those saying Trump will kick his ass in debates this to me is a small sign he can handle himself. The ageist jokes a side from far left and moderate Republicans aside he is our only hope to get Trump out.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm looking at party control, so FDR/Truman, Kennedy/LBJ, and Nixon/Ford all count as two terms for me. The only time a party hasn't served 8 years are Carter and Bush1.

Ah got it and thanks.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I saw the video and good for Biden standing up to the guy! We need a fighter and for those saying Trump will kick his ass in debates this to me is a small sign he can handle himself. The ageist jokes a side from far left and moderate Republicans aside he is our only hope to get Trump out.

I'm not sure it was planned, but his team has to know that Trump and the GOP media are going to portray Biden as feeble and near death, so a little feistiness is good, IMO.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not sure it was planned, but his team has to know that Trump and the GOP media are going to portray Biden as feeble and near death, so a little feistiness is good, IMO.

Agreed.

[molson]

That was Biden's best moment of the campaign I think.

[spleen1015]

Not putting up with the bullshit makes Biden look stronger in my mind. It was one of the things I liked about Trump early on, calling it like it is.

The other side not taking any shit is a good thing, IMO.

[Lathum]

I think Biden and his camp are smart enough to know he is going to have to stoop to Trumps level at times otherwise he will just get drowned out. It is pitiful where we have gotten to. The days of John McCain telling his supporters what a great guy Obama is are gone for good.

[JediKooter]

And now that we have empirical evidence that, 'calling it like it is', is an abject failure in regards to whether or not someone would be a good president, lets not make the same mistake twice please. To be fair though, a label on a pack of frozen hot dogs, 'calling it like it is', would be infinitely better than trump.

[spleen1015]

Believing Trump would be a good option as President was one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had.

I'm someone who can't stand politics because I believe all politicians are dirty. So, having someone outside the norm was appealing at first. I'm able to recognize I was pretty ignorant about Trump and the rest of it. Not many people are.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Believing Trump would be a good option as President was one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had.

I'm someone who can't stand politics because I believe all politicians are dirty. So, having someone outside the norm was appealing at first. I'm able to recognize I was pretty ignorant about Trump and the rest of it. Not many people are.

As I said at the time, I feel most mechanics are dirty as hell. I'm still taking my car to a mechanic when it has problems.

[ISiddiqui]

Biden is going to have to not take shit from Trump, because otherwise Trump is going to portray him as weak even while Trump is talking bullshit. I think Biden saying "you are a damned liar" to Trump's face would be amazing good for Biden. It'd also be good for Bernie or Warren to do as well.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Biden is going to have to not take shit from Trump, because otherwise Trump is going to portray him as weak even while Trump is talking bullshit. I think Biden saying "you are a damned liar" to Trump's face would be amazing good for Biden. It'd also be good for Bernie or Warren to do as well.

I think he will. Last time around Hillary wasn't prepared to handle Trumps approach. Biden, or any other Dem will be ready. I also think in large part Hillary though the American people would see through Trumps antics and underestimated just how stupid close to 50% of Americans really are.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Believing Trump would be a good option as President was one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had.

I'm someone who can't stand politics because I believe all politicians are dirty. So, having someone outside the norm was appealing at first. I'm able to recognize I was pretty ignorant about Trump and the rest of it. Not many people are.

I'm not a huge fan of politics either. Mostly turned away by their antics and grandstanding and well, the voters not holding candidates to higher standards is to blame as well. I am thankful for one thing when it comes to trump though, it has revealed the weaknesses in our laws and constitution and what needs to be fixed.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm looking at party control, so FDR/Truman, Kennedy/LBJ, and Nixon/Ford all count as two terms for me. The only time a party hasn't served 8 years are Carter and Bush1.

And probably a big part of that is that the economy went into recession in 1980 and 1990-1991, with recessions both having their resulting peak unemployment occur within 6 months prior to the election. Both peaked at 7.8%, in July 1980 and in June 1992.

[ISiddiqui]

I guess this kind of intersects the primary and baseball, but WTH?

Bernie Sanders is on a crusade to save 42 minor league teams - Los Angeles Times

I was very distressed to hear that major league baseball wants to eliminate baseball in 42 communities, including Burlington, Vermont, where we now have a lower-level team associated with the Oakland A’s. I think what we have to appreciate is that major league baseball is not just a business. It is called the national pastime for a reason.

I get that MLB has an anti-trust exemption, but Congress wants to try to force MLB to elevate money losing extraneous minor league teams because.... "it is called the national pastime for a reason"?