2020 Democratic Nominee

[happyfunball 481]

Biden is so far ahead right now simply because of name recognition. In other words, most of the country knows who he is because he was Vice President, while most of the other candidates are only known to people who follow politics, and in their own home states. Once the primaries heat up and Biden shows his senility at the same time the others get their names out there to the masses, his lead will shrink. Will it disappear? I hope so.
My question is, does anyone know where to find historical polling data from this far ahead of the primaries? I'd be curious to see where other candidates were polling the year before the election vs where they ended up.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

There really is a Twitter account for everydamnthing.

[Patrick Bateman 3,972]

1 hour ago, texastough said:

Biden is so far ahead right now simply because of name recognition. In other words, most of the country knows who he is because he was Vice President, while most of the other candidates are only known to people who follow politics, and in their own home states. Once the primaries heat up and Biden shows his senility at the same time the others get their names out there to the masses, his lead will shrink. Will it disappear? I hope so.

My question is, does anyone know where to find historical polling data from this far ahead of the primaries? I'd be curious to see where other candidates were polling the year before the election vs where they ended up.

The last 4 races for nominations, all the nominees were in the top 3 by this time of the race.  The outlier would be John Kerry, who sank nationally to as low as 6th despite polling top 3 in Iowa.  The press will talk a lot about the January favorite not ending up being the eventual nominee (with nothing to say Jan the year before) but they're usually in the top 3 by now.

These are all Democrats BTW.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[TDunk 590]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

The last 4 races for nominations, all the nominees were in the top 3 by this time of the race.  The outlier would be John Kerry, who sank nationally to as low as 6th despite polling top 3 in Iowa.  The press will talk a lot about the January favorite not ending up being the eventual nominee (with nothing to say Jan the year before) but they're usually in the top 3 by now.

These are all Democrats BTW.

With social media and 24 hr news channels, shit can change quickly.  Add on the secure.actblue.com for donations,  it's a long way away from knowing who is in it for the long run.  Top 7 candidates should feel in for awhile (as long as their campaigns have money).  

[Zonahorn 8,079]

11 hours ago, 2005 said:

Elizabeth Warren should be president. She's right about everything. 

She's filibustering by reading the Mueller report aloud. ZOmg, She Reads!

She's the smart one the Idiocracy president was looking for to save the doomed by stupid.

And her instincts are ahead of the game. I said yesterday somebody should just read the report to America. And she's doing it. This is Mrs Smith goes to Washington.

Pocahontas?! How many federal prosecutors think that is a crime. Zero. Point zero. Believing her family's tall tales is the worst thing that women has ever done in her life. We've all done that. 

She has never committed a crime. And she never will. She's literally "unimpeachable". You can tell that lady has rock ridge ethics.

Why can't Pocahontas be president? Queen Elizabeth met Pocahontas and considered her the Queen of The New World. The Queens discovered America. They sent and guided the explorers. 

Not electing a woman, or at least not elevating a feminine mind, will by why America perishes. Lincoln was gay and FDR's moral touchstone was his arranged marriage with Eleanor. The Civil War and WW2 is America when it, rarely, did the right thing.

Elizabeth.

Kamala.

Pete.

These are the deserving Democrats. 

If Biden is what it takes to depose Trump, here is what I hope he does. I hope he resigns half way though his first term, for amorphous "health reasons", allowing his Vice President to assume the Presidency.

Elizabeth or Kamala. Or Pete.

Oprah/Big Bang Theory 2020.

Alec Baldwin should also run for president in the Republican primary, in full costume, as Trump. 

Oh hey Sugar is back.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

The last 4 races for nominations, all the nominees were in the top 3 by this time of the race.  The outlier would be John Kerry, who sank nationally to as low as 6th despite polling top 3 in Iowa.  The press will talk a lot about the January favorite not ending up being the eventual nominee (with nothing to say Jan the year before) but they're usually in the top 3 by now.
These are all Democrats BTW.

Well, placing in the top three out of 3-6 total candidates is a bit different than top three out of 25-30 candidates.

[Hank Kingsley 21,784]

I also think we can't predict 2020 using past poll results when we are currently in a timeline of clown fuckery that this country has never faced before. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,784]

13 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think you might be overvaluing the presidency as far as bringing about meaningful change.  

The Roosevelts aren’t walking through that door but the future of the Democratic Party has never looked better in my lifetime then it does right now,  regardless of who wins in 2020.  

There’s a movement going on that not even the Joe Bidens can afford to ignore.  We’re not getting a savior of the republic in 2020 and if we’re counting on a savior, we’re really fucked. 

Still, Joe Biden sucks. 

I agree that state and local elections are extremely important, and that's something Democrats haven't taken as seriously as Republicans over the last 30 years. 

2018 mid-terms were a positive sign. People who wanted change stepped up and made it happen. I don't think you can expect the same enthusiasm with Joe Biden leading the ticket.  If anything, those mid-terms proved we want significant change. 

I think you might be overvaluing the desire for an "anyone but Trump" nominee.  The one almost guaranteed way to defeat Trump will be a huge voter turnout. IMO a Biden nomination will create anger and apathy with a significant portion of the left.  I'll say it again: Nothing gets better for Biden once the debates start. He'll be terrible and more dirt will continue to  come out.  Hopefully it's enough to unseat him as the D candidate. I think Ds can generally unite for most other top tier contenders (not sure about Bernie though). 

 

 

 

 

[F250 29,201]

21 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I agree that state and local elections are extremely important, and that's something Democrats haven't taken as seriously as Republicans over the last 30 years.  

Conservatives do seem to take the idea that voting is a civic duty to heart. They are pretty good about showing up for even the most mundane elections. As you said, the Republicans also take this seriously, it gives them control over school boards, state legislatures, judges, and key offices that have influence over federal elections. Democrats like to bitch about gerrymandering but if they keep rolling over in local elections there is nothing they can really do to prevent it.

 

[Patrick Bateman 3,972]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Well, placing in the top three out of 3-6 total candidates is a bit different than top three out of 25-30 candidates.

 

This pool of candidates is pretty big, but there's basically 8-9 candidates of any consequence which makes it look only a little bigger than a usual pool of half dozen.  2004 was a big pool for those that are holding out hope for someone like Gillabrand, I guess, and that's when Kerry went from top 3 in the spring to 6th in the summer/fall back to top 3 in winter and then on to the nomination.  He was also considered a weak candidate.  The Tulsi Gabbards and Eric Swalwell's of the world don't matter in this election.  They have very little path to the nomination.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Only one 2020 Democrat fully grasps the threat Trump poses

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/08/only-one-democrat-fully-grasps-threat-trump-poses/

Is President Trump an aberration whose defeat in 2020 would allow the nation to begin rebounding toward normalcy? Or does his ascendance reflect long-running national pathologies and deeply ingrained structural economic and political problems that will intractably endure long after he’s gone?

The answer to this question — which has been thrust to the forefront by the Democratic presidential primaries — is, in a sense, both. Trump represents both a continuation of and a dramatic exacerbation of those long running pathologies and problems.

As of now, Elizabeth Warren appears to be the Democratic candidate who most fully grasps the need to take both of those aspects of the Trump threat seriously. The Massachusetts senator is, I think, offering what amounts to the most fully rounded and multidimensional response to that threat.

In recent days, Warren has addressed the deeper issues raised by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report — and the reaction to it from Trump and Republicans — in by far the most comprehensive way.

Warren takes on the GOP

In an important moment on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Warren took strong issue with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s profoundly cynical effort to treat this all as a closed matter. “Case closed,” McConnell said, speaking not just about Mueller’s extensive findings of likely criminal obstruction of justice by Trump but also about Trump’s eagerness to reap gain from Russia’s sabotage of our elections, which McConnell blamed on Barack Obama.

In response, Warren again called for an impeachment inquiry, but she did more than that: She indicted the Republican Party as a whole for shrugging off Trump’s epic misconduct and wrongdoing.

Warren has also pointed out more forcefully than any rival has that Trump tried to derail an investigation not just into his own campaign’s conduct, but also into the Russian attack on our democracy — which Trump has refused to acknowledge happened at all, hamstringing preparations for the next attack.

As McConnell’s speech showed, the GOP is all in with that as well. And the GOP appears all in with Trump’s escalating efforts to treat House oversight of the administration as fundamentally illegitimate.

We are now learning that the Justice Department asked Trump to exert executive privilege to keep Mueller’s full findings concealed.

Meanwhile, Trump may try to block former White House counsel Donald McGahn, who witnessed multiple Trump efforts to obstruct justice, and possibly even Mueller from testifying to Congress. The administration won’t releaseTrump’s tax returns, violating the law. And Trump has vowed to resist “all” subpoenas.

Legal experts tell Adam Liptak at the New York Times that such wholesale resistance to oversight threatens the constitutional order, placing Trump, as one puts it, “above the law.” Few, if any, Republicans are raising an eyebrow about any of this.

Thus, Warren’s call for an impeachment inquiry is linked to a big argument — one broader than that of any other candidate — about how the GOP has actively enabled Trump’s authoritarianism, lawlessness, shredding of governing norms and embrace of the corruption of our political system on his behalf.

Warren is comprehensively treating Trump both as a severe threat to the rule of law in his own right, and as inextricably linked to a deeper pathology — the GOP’s drift into comfort with authoritarianism.

Trump’s authoritarianism and his corruption are two sides of the same coin. Trump’s tax returns, which he rebuffed a House request for — something his government participated in, with dubious legality — may conceal untold levels of corruption, from possible emoluments-clause violations to financial conflicts to compromising foreign financial entanglements.

Warren has responded to all this — and the GOP’s near-total comfort with it — by rolling out a sweeping anti-corruption measure that requires presidential candidates to release tax returns and requires divestment to avoid such corrupting situations in the future.

Thus, Warren is treating this two-sided coin of authoritarianism and corruption as a systemic problem in need of reform, one linked to the broader imperative of actually “draining the swamp,” as Trump vowed, only to plunge into full-scale corruption himself.

Which brings us to the plutocracy.

Plutocracy and populism

It’s strange that pundits take it on faith that Joe Biden would best win back blue-collar whites who overwhelmingly backed Trump in 2016. We’re constantly told Trump won them by campaigning against an economy “rigged” by plutocrats, getting left of Hillary Clinton, who hailed from the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and thus was vulnerable against Trump’s (fraudulent) populist attacks.

But Biden hails from the same precincts. Indeed, as Jamelle Bouie points out, Biden is implicated in many great elite failures that supposedly fueled Trump’s rise, including bipartisan neoliberal laxity toward Wall Street and the Iraq War.

By contrast, Warren has offered the most detailed populist prescriptions in response to the “rigged” economy of any candidate, including policies to tax extreme wealth and reconfigure corporate power.

If Warren proves unable to appeal to blue-collar whites, we’ll perhaps have to revise our story of 2016. But here again, Warren is the one with the biggest actual argument.

Trump exploited populist discontent and then embarked on a near-total betrayal via an embrace of GOP plutocracy, in the form of a massive corporate tax giveaway and a deregulation spree that further enabled elite corruption. These things, too, show Trump as both continuation and exacerbation — and Warren has offered the most systematic and comprehensive response to all of that, as well.

None of this is to say the other candidates don’t have great policies and virtues. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has in some ways offered a bigger response to inequality. Biden has said good things on Trump’s racism and on impeachment. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) has taken onTrump’s lawlessness.

But only Warren has done all of these things, and only Warren has woven them all into a big story — one that treats Trump as both a unique threat and a symptom of so much of what’s gone so horribly wrong.

[Guest Lobo]

I like how y'all lump in "name recognition" with regard to Biden and other candidates.  People know his name because he was the fucking Vice President of the United States for 8 fucking years.  Congressman O'Rourke and Harris have name recognition because they're good at exploitation of digital media.  Big fucking difference.  

[bad_teammate 13,523]

If Bernie wins NH and either wins or places in Iowa, then Joe's path to victory gets VERY complicated and might rely completely on the good will of black voters in the South.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

As much as I shit on him, Chuck Todd’s MTP show killed it today and I hate Chuck Todd. 

[Patrick Bateman 3,972]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If Bernie wins NH and either wins or places in Iowa, then Joe's path to victory gets VERY complicated and might rely completely on the good will of black voters in the South.

 

 

If Biden is top 2 in Iowa, top 2 in NH, and then wins Nevada,  and then South Carolina, well Super Tuesday sets up well for him based on today's information (which isn't much).  But based on today's information, it would be the margins which would probably be more impactful.

 

[henrygandorf 29,225]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Only one 2020 Democrat fully grasps the threat Trump poses

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/08/only-one-democrat-fully-grasps-threat-trump-poses/

Is President Trump an aberration whose defeat in 2020 would allow the nation to begin rebounding toward normalcy? Or does his ascendance reflect long-running national pathologies and deeply ingrained structural economic and political problems that will intractably endure long after he’s gone?

The answer to this question — which has been thrust to the forefront by the Democratic presidential primaries — is, in a sense, both. Trump represents both a continuation of and a dramatic exacerbation of those long running pathologies and problems.

 

 

i like warren a lot - probably my #2 behind pete - but this article is a little narrow.  several of the candidates (including pete obviously) have acknowledged the deeper issue and referred to trump specifically as "a symptom" of bigger structural problems created by establishment types over decades.  2018 showed us that there are a lot of young voices preaching progressive reform and coming at it hard from multiple angles.  that shit didn't start on january 20th, 2017.

[Patrick Bateman 3,972]

Since there seems to be some Harris supporters here without really being able to verbalize why.  She feels the stagnation in here campaign so she's changing strategies.

 

Quote

But when Ms. Harris swept into Detroit to address an N.A.A.C.P. banquet on Sunday night, she added something new. After her signature windup of “let’s speak truth,” she replaced her usual recitation of Democratic policies with an attack on President Trump, accusing him of enabling bigotry and divisiveness and refusing “to call neo-Nazi violence what it is: domestic terrorism.”

“This president isn’t trying to make America great,” she said, “he’s trying to make America hate.”

With that, Ms. Harris was nodding to a political truth: She is attempting to reset her campaign after stagnating in Democratic primary polls, using her strengths as a prosecutor — which were on display during a recent face-off with Attorney General William Barr — to mount a sharp indictment of Mr. Trump.

Ms. Harris entered the 2020 race in January seeking to make history as the first black female president, and drew 20,000 people to her campaign kickoff in Oakland and a burst of donations that helped her emerge as the No. 2 fund-raiser in the Democratic field through March. But from the start, she has found herself in a political vise, squeezed by competing factions in her party and even in her own campaign, which has led to some stumbles.

Also goes in depth to a huge influence on her..... her sister, who is her campaign chair.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[Pancho 46,309]

On 5/7/2019 at 10:57 AM, F250 said:

How much of this is due to her being a former prosecutor? Just curious if the fact that she thrived off of an unjust justice system turns off the black vote.

I can't speak for the black community but personally I don't like cops and I fucking hate prosecutors. So I really dislike Harris. Curious if others feel the same way.

Not much.  She was just doing her job. (There's been an increase in Black prosecutors lately, so the job itself isn't a turnoff for Harris imo)

I don't think this has to do with a lack of endorsements by Blacks.  What I do think has an influence is the fact that Blacks want trump out and want to win.  Right now, the data is saying that's Biden.  

 

 

[henrygandorf 29,225]

if kamala can parlay this run into attorney general in 2020 then it's a win for her and for us.

[texastough 1,142]

Nvmd 

Edited May 9, 2019 by texastough

[Js1 87,182]

14 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Since there seems to be some Harris supporters here without really being able to verbalize why.  She feels the stagnation in here campaign so she's changing strategies.

 

Also goes in depth to a huge influence on her..... her sister, who is her campaign chair.

Her NAACP speech was really good.  If that's the direction she's going with her campaign, I am all for it.  She didn't shy away from much in that speech. 

[Fozzz 152]

This is a good interview.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,523]

She's going to make the debate stage, right? We need anti-imperialist voices.

[GSU&UT 1,799]

17 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

Not much.  She was just doing her job. (There's been an increase in Black prosecutors lately, so the job itself isn't a turnoff for Harris imo)

I don't think this has to do with a lack of endorsements by Blacks.  What I do think has an influence is the fact that Blacks want trump out and want to win.  Right now, the data is saying that's Biden.  

 

 

I know it's just twitter, but a lot of people I've seen that attack her are black, mostly because of her being a prosecutor and championing policies that jail mothers/parents for their kids being chronic truants and other remarks she's made. I really don't like her either because I really don't get the feeling that she's a true progressive like Warren or Bernie.

[Message Board User 12,405]

 

[henrygandorf 29,225]

i can't find a link, but pelosi came out today saying the women candidates aren't getting the proper attention - and she's right.

the danger in a field this big is that voters, by nature, start mentally grouping people together, like regions in an ncaa tourney.

there's the "young fresh faced but may not be ready" crew.  the "old establishment" crew.  and unfortunately, the "women" are likely getting grouped together.  and much like pete and beto are very different, and bernie and biden are very different, the women are very very different from each other.  but her point - and i agree - is that it's almost as if the voters can only handle one woman candidate at a time.

the upside, is that it's likely warren who'll come out of that bracket, because she's head and shoulders (in my opinion) above kamala and klobuchar (and the rest).

[Pancho 46,309]

2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

I know it's just twitter, but a lot of people I've seen that attack her are black, mostly because of her being a prosecutor and championing policies that jail mothers/parents for their kids being chronic truants and other remarks she's made. I really don't like her either because I really don't get the feeling that she's a true progressive like Warren or Bernie.

 

Are these actual Black people or Black people on twitter via Russia?  Ha!

[JimmyJames 12,271]

43 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

Are these actual Black people or Black people on twitter via Russia?  Ha!

Actual black people only post on twitter if they’re famous or they happen to be shopping at a Whole Foods. 

Otherwise it’s just a bunch of Russian bots. 

Duh. 

[Hank Scorpio 17,924]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[bad_teammate 13,523]

we need a president who says wild shit like this

This rules

[bad_teammate 13,523]

VIBES! VIBES! VIBES!

She's not wrong.

That's the craziest thing about the healing crystals lady.

I love it.

[GSU&UT 1,799]

3 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

Are these actual Black people or Black people on twitter via Russia?  Ha!

No they aren't obvious MAGA bots, they generally are more DSA or Warren kind of users.

[Js1 87,182]

If she doesn’t do well in SC NV and can’t win CA on Super Tuesday, she’s done but should be anyone’s top Veep candidate 

[6th Street 6,692]

Kamala Harris as Biden's running mate would make a formidable duo, locking down the working class white vote, black vote and women vote. No way Trump could beat that ticket.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

If she doesn’t do well in SC NV and can’t win CA on Super Tuesday, she’s done but should be anyone’s top Veep candidate 

warren?

it's always so funny to see male candidates get asked if they'd be willing to put a woman on their ticket.

like when your wife asks you a question, and you're like, "is this a trap?  this feels like a trap."

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

24 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Kamala Harris as Biden's running mate would make a formidable duo, locking down the working class white vote, black vote and women vote. No way Trump could beat that ticket.

I want Kamala Harris as the nominee and Biden coming back for an unprecedented second go as VP. That's an unbeatable ticket. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[6th Street 6,692]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I want Kamala Harris as the nominee and Biden coming back for an unprecedented second go as VP. That's an unbeatable ticket. 

That's a good idea in theory but Rust Belt whites won't vote for a black woman for president. Those votes probably go to Trump instead.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I want Kamala Harris as the nominee and Biden coming back for an unprecedented second go as VP. That's an unbeatable ticket. 

can biden just be our forever veep?  like when you had an odd number playing in the yard and someone was all-time qb or all-time pitcher?  remember ghost men?

[Js1 87,182]

35 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

warren?

it's always so funny to see male candidates get asked if they'd be willing to put a woman on their ticket.

like when your wife asks you a question, and you're like, "is this a trap?  this feels like a trap."

Harris not Warren 

5 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

That's a good idea in theory but Rust Belt whites won't vote for a black woman for president. Those votes probably go to Trump instead.

Don’t need rust belt WWC if she juices turnout in Milkwaukee, Detroit and Philly. 

[David Dennison 19,540]

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by David Dennison
Just saw the tweet above.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

These are the two Trump probably wants most.

[UTDD 362]

10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

 

I think the most interesting thing from that poll is the 68% of voters who would vote for a candidate just to beat Trump even if they disagreed with them on multiple issues.  (i.e. voting for beating Trump over the candidate the best represents their specific issues)  I wonder if that kind of attitude will hold in a lot of other states.

 

The overwhelming majority (68%) of likely Democratic voters prefer to have a nominee who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues.

Edited May 10, 2019 by UTDD
update

[tantric superman 4,668]

Beto should cut a licensing deal and start building hotels under the "Beto" brand now, before it's too late.

[bad_teammate 13,523]

First Indiana poll I've seen.

 

[RDCanecutter 26,886]

Y'know, Hillary's just one vodka bottle away for Rosanne comic cantankerousness.

I could see her doing well if she jumped back in, AND stayed publicly, belligerently, spit-raving drunk.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

4 hours ago, UTDD said:

I think the most interesting thing from that poll is the 68% of voters who would vote for a candidate just to beat Trump even if they disagreed with them on multiple issues.  (i.e. voting for beating Trump over the candidate the best represents their specific issues)  I wonder if that kind of attitude will hold in a lot of other states.

 

The overwhelming majority (68%) of likely Democratic voters prefer to have a nominee who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues.

i've said it over and over.  like it or not, it's a huge issue for voters.

i think my actual statement was if there was a pro/con list with 25 cons and the only pro is "will beat trump" then that will be enough for people.  i may believe that more today than when i originally said it.  and after impeachment hearings, it may become even more true.

my new fantasyland/fanfic hope is a biden/warren ticket where he steps down the day after inauguration, and then they nominate pete to be the new vp.  boom make it happen.  make kamala ag.  make bernie party elder, power broker, and permanent trump troll.

a man can dream, right?

[henrygandorf 29,225]

in one of those lame group interviews they show on cnn with 8 pennsylvania voters, they asked everyone about biden.  a couple of men said they have no real ties to biden, they don't "claim" him as a native son or anything, even though he's from penn. 

one woman (who worked on the obama campaign or something) said, "when you're nervous and scared, you want to go home.  and joe biden is home."

trump has given half the country battered wife syndrome or ptsd or whatever you wanna call it.  people talk like they want change, new thoughts, progressive ideas.  but then they really need something familiar that makes them feel like the long national nightmare is over.  if biden was smart (?) he would play this angle fucking hard til the end. 

it's literally all he has.

[Js1 87,182]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

in one of those lame group interviews they show on cnn with 8 pennsylvania voters, they asked everyone about biden.  a couple of men said they have no real ties to biden, they don't "claim" him as a native son or anything, even though he's from penn. 

one woman (who worked on the obama campaign or something) said, "when you're nervous and scared, you want to go home.  and joe biden is home." 

trump has given half the country battered wife syndrome or ptsd or whatever you wanna call it.  people talk like they want change, new thoughts, progressive ideas.  but then they really need something familiar that makes them feel like the long national nightmare is over.  if biden was smart (?) he would play this angle fucking hard til the end. 

it's literally all he has.

"Scranton" Joe, who represented...*checks notes* Delaware for 36 fucking years and went to school in *checks notes* Delaware and New York (and back to Delaware after Syracuse Law). 

So "Scranton" Joe hasn't lived in Pennsylvania since JFK was president. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Js1

[Red Five 41,738]

Certainly a “Scranton Strangler” joke has been made by now right?