Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Beto and Cornyn are tied in the new QU poll. Who were those dipshits arguing that Cornyn would be much harder to defeat than Cruz?

https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2602

Surely Beto's play is to run for president then, if he doesn't get the nomination, run for Senate. Right?

A Presidential campaign is huge publicity (for Beto, at least, not necessarily for others). No other Dem candidate against Cornyn will pull the same water. I could see it getting awkward if you have a minority or a woman running against Cornyn, Beto loses, then pushes him/her out so he can run for Senate. Rich white guy comes in with his toothy smile and executive hair to make yet another grab at power.

The ideal scenario, really, is him losing the Dem 2020 primary to Sanders/Warren/Buttigieg and then winning Cornyn's seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Beto gives the democrats the best chance to win Texas against Trump.  If the Dems can win Texas in the presidential election, that’s ballgame.  No more concerning over Florida and the Midwest.  

No thanks.

Texas: -800k (38EV)
VS:
Blue Wall: -75k (46EV)

Wisconsin: -20k (10EV)
Michigan: -11k (16EV)
Pennsylvania: -44k (20EV)

Retaking the Blue Wall and holding on to 2016 blues gets you to 278. (8 more than necessary to win)
Taking Texas and not getting the Blue Wall and holding on to 2016 blues gets you to 270. (exactly what you need to win)

FAR easier to take back the Blue Wall. Of course we should go HARD in Texas and ALSO get those 38EVs, but as a baseline strategy it's pretty clear what we need to do. Way more bang for your buck there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,085

Posted
Posted (edited)

Still don't think 2020 is the year.  Just focus on getting back the Blue Wall. 

Could someone come in and lose it by 6 or less? You betcha.  But 2024 seems to be when Texas will really be in play. 

By 2024, Democrats are swapping out spending time and money in Ohio, Florida and Iowa (projected 2024 votes: 41) for Texas and Georgia and North Carolina and Arizona (projected 2024 votes: 85). 

2020 victory goes through taking back the Blue Wall.  2024 starts making gains in the Sun Belt and Arizona falling as the last of the southwest states to not vote D. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,356

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

No thanks.

Texas: -800k (38EV)
VS:
Blue Wall: -75k (46EV)

Wisconsin: -20k (10EV)
Michigan: -11k (16EV)
Pennsylvania: -44k (20EV)

Retaking the Blue Wall and holding on to 2016 blues gets you to 278. (8 more than necessary to win)
Taking Texas and not getting the Blue Wall and holding on to 2016 blues gets you to 270. (exactly what you need to win)

FAR easier to take back the Blue Wall. Of course we should go HARD in Texas and ALSO get those 38EVs, but as a baseline strategy it's pretty clear what we need to do. Way more bang for your buck there.

The Republicans electoral strategy revolves around Texas as their anchor.  It was literally the difference between Trump and Hillary as far as EC votes.

If the Dems can win Texas, the blue wall will likely follow.  Cut the GOP’s heart out in Texas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted

Given those numbers, the candidate who stands out as the most "uh... what's your map??" is Harris. I don't know which states that either her identity or her message is intended to win back. Are we thinking she gets us Southern states? We've already got Virginia and Maryland. I'm genuinely curious.

Georgia: -200k (16EV)
South Carolina: -300k (9EV)
North Carolina: -180k (15EV)

Florida? Does she have a natural constituency there?
If so: -110k (29EV)

Is there anyone for the Dems who is a Florida player?

Also, Buttigieg home Indiana is LOL: -520k (11EV)

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Republicans electoral strategy revolves around Texas as their anchor.  It was literally the difference between Trump and Hillary as far as EC votes.

If the Dems can win Texas, the blue wall will likely follow.  Cut the GOP’s heart out in Texas. 

That sounds very poetic, but let's not chase the bouncing ball into traffic. Secure the win, then go deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,085

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've fucking given up on Florida - fuck it,.

Rockstar Senate candidates in NC, Georgia and Texas would actually help put those states in play for the D candidate.  But they are the kinda places where the Democrat presidential candidate in 2020 shouldn't spend too much time there, let the Senate nominee do the heavy lifting. Especially if we're talking Abrams and Beto.

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,356

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I've fucking given up on Florida - fuck it,.

Yep.  They are a toss up state turning red, sadly.  

Democrats aren’t used to playing offense but some focus should be on reddish states turning blue.  There are several to choose from. 

The Republican Party is as weak as I’ve ever seen and there is a huge opportunity for the democrats to exploit their weaknesses.  

The democrats could play dirty AF too with the GOP tax cut deception.  The tax scam hurt people like Joe the Plummer the most because they did away with exempting un-reimbursed business expenses.   That can add up to tens of thousands in lost revenue for those blue collar folks that work on the road out of a truck. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is a rather obvious point, and one that somehow eludes The Blob in spite of The Blob's obsession with the idea that the US must behave in certain ways in order to condition the behavior of other states.  

 

If we can't abide by international law and/or the agreements we make with other states, what recourse do they have but the blackmail that nuclear weapons provide?

Edited by Fozzz
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,646

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This is a rather obvious point, and one that somehow eludes The Blob in spite of The Blob's obsession with the idea that the US must behave in certain ways in order to condition the behavior of other states.  

 

If we can't abide by international law and/or the agreements we make with other states, what recourse do they have but the blackmail that nuclear weapons provide?

I guess we'll find out when another nation state is capable of enforcing international law against the United States. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonahorn

Zonahorn 8,079

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

If he wants to be sincere about what he is campaigning on he could start by giving 70% of his campaign funding to other Democratic candidates who have raised less in political donations than he has.

Does it hurt to be this stupid?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

This is a rather obvious point, and one that somehow eludes The Blob in spite of The Blob's obsession with the idea that the US must behave in certain ways in order to condition the behavior of other states.  

 

If we can't abide by international law and/or the agreements we make with other states, what recourse do they have but the blackmail that nuclear weapons provide?

She's absolutely right. Our current foreign policy incentivizes everyone to get nukes. Nukes are the only thing that will keep the US from interfering in your elections, governance, and economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,356

Posted
Posted (edited)

Like a true academic, Elizabeth Warren coming out with her foreign policy platform in Foreign Affairs:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-11-29/foreign-policy-all

A new approach should begin with a simple principle: U.S. foreign policy should not prioritize corporate profits over American families. To make sure that globalization benefits middle-class Americans, trade negotiations should be used to curtail the power of multinational monopolies and crack down on tax havens. Workers should be meaningfully represented at the negotiating table, and the resulting agreements should be used to raise and enforce labor standards. Washington should also work with like-minded allies to hold countries that cheat to account.

The United States’ economic policies must also reflect the realities of the twenty-first century. To address corruption, it is critical to work closely with allies to require transparency about the movement of assets across borders. If we are serious about privacy, we must protect data rights from global technology companies and countries that seek to exploit technology as a means to control their populations. To make progress on climate change, we should leverage foreign countries’ desire for access to U.S. markets as an opportunity to insist on meaningful environmental protections. 

None of this requires sacrificing the interests of American businesses—although it will require some of them to take a longer view. U.S. businesses can compete with the best in the world when given a level playing field, and they are stronger when the American middle class is strong. If our trade and economic policies work for all Americans, shareholders and corporate executives will profit as well.

ENDING ENDLESS WAR

A foreign policy that works for all Americans must also be driven by honest assessments of the full costs and risks associated with going to war. All three of my brothers served in the military, and I know our service members and their families are smart, tough, and resourceful. But having a strong military doesn’t mean we need to constantly use it. An effective deterrent also means showing the good judgment to exercise appropriate restraint. 

Over the past two decades, the United States has been mired in a series of wars that have sapped its strength. The human cost of these wars has been staggering: more than 6,900 killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, another 52,000 wounded, and many more who live every day with the invisible scars of war. By financing these conflicts while cutting taxes, the country has essentially charged the costs of war to a collective credit card for future generations to pay, diverting money that could have been invested in critical domestic priorities. This burden will create a drag on the economy that will last for generations. 

The costs have been extraordinarily high, but these wars have not succeeded even on their own terms. We’ve “turned the corner” in Afghanistan so many times that it seems we’re now going in circles. After years of constant war, Afghanistan hardly resembles a functioning state, and both poppy production and the Taliban are again on the rise. The invasion of Iraq destabilized and fragmented the Middle East, creating enormous suffering and precipitating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The region remains a tangled mess—the promise of the Arab Spring crushed, Iran emboldened, Syria devastated, the Islamic State (or ISIS) and its offshoots stubbornly resilient, and a massive refugee crisis threatening to destabilize Europe. Neither military nor civilian policymakers seem capable of defining success, but surely this is not it.

 

A singular focus on counterterrorism, meanwhile, has dangerously distorted U.S. policies. Here at home, we have allowed an imperial presidency to stretch the Constitution beyond recognition to justify the use of force, with little oversight from Congress. The government has at times defended tactics, such as torture, that are antithetical to American values. Washington has partnered with countries that share neither its goals nor its ideals. Counterterrorism efforts have often undermined other foreign policy priorities, such as reinforcing civilian governance, the rule of law, and human rights abroad. And in some cases, as with U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s proxy war in Yemen, U.S. policies risk generating even more extremism.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen up close how 17 years of conflict have degraded equipment, sapped forces’ readiness, and forced the postponement of investment in critical military capabilities. It has distracted Washington from growing dangers in other parts of the world: a long-term struggle for power in Asia, a revanchist Russia that threatens Europe, and looming unrest in the Western Hemisphere, including a collapsing state in Venezuela that threatens to disrupt its neighbors. Would-be rivals, for their part, have watched and learned, and they are hard at work developing technologies and tactics to leapfrog the United States, investing heavily in such areas as robotics, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and quantum computing. China is making massive bets in these and other areas in an effort to surpass the United States as a global technological power. Whether the United States will maintain its edge and harness these technologies for good remains an open question. 

It is the job of the U.S. government to do what is necessary to protect Americans, but it is long past time to start asking what truly makes the country safer—and what does not. Military efforts alone will never fully succeed at ending terrorism, because it is not possible to fight one’s way out of extremism. Some challenges, such as cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation, require much more than a strong military to combat. And other dangers, such as climate change and the spread of infectious diseases, cannot be solved through military action at all. The United States will spend more than $700 billion on defense in the 2018–19 fiscal year alone. That is more in real terms than was spent under President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War and more than all the rest of the country’s discretionary budget put together. But even as Washington spends more and more, U.S. military leaders point out that funding a muscular military without robust diplomacy, economic statecraft, support for civil society, and development assistance only hamstrings American national power and undercuts any military gains. 

As a candidate, Trump promised to bring U.S. troops home. As president, he has sent more troops into Afghanistan. On the campaign trail, Trump claimed he did not want to police the world. As president, he has expanded the United States’ military footprint around the globe, from doubling the number of U.S. air strikes in Somalia to establishing a drone base in Niger. As a candidate, Trump promised to rebuild the military, but as president, he has gutted the diplomatic corps on which the Pentagon relies. He promised to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, but he has undermined a successful nuclear deal with Iran, has failed to roll back the North Korean nuclear program, and seems intent on spurring a new nuclear arms race with Russia. 

These actions do not make Americans safer. It’s time to seriously review the country’s military commitments overseas, and that includes bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. They have fought with honor, but additional American blood spilled will not halt the violence or result in a functioning democratic government in either place. 

Defense spending should be set at sustainable levels, and the money saved should be used to fund other forms of international engagement and critical domestic programs. The Pentagon’s budget has been too large for too long. It is long overdue for an audit that would allow Congress to identify which programs actually benefit American security and which merely line the pockets of defense contractors. Rather than mindlessly buying more of yesterday’s equipment and allowing foreign countries to dominate the development of critical new technologies, we should recommit to investing in cutting-edge science and technology capabilities at home. When it comes to nonproliferation, we should replace the current bluster and hostility toward nuclear diplomacy with a reinvestment in multilateral arms control and nonproliferation efforts for the twenty-first century, recommitting the United States to being a leader in the fight to create a world without nuclear weapons. 

To achieve all these goals, it will be essential to reprioritize diplomacy and reinvest in the State Department and the development agencies; foreign policy should not be run out of the Pentagon alone. The United States spends only about one percent of its federal budget on foreign aid. Some Americans struggling to make ends meet understandably question the value of U.S. commitments and contributions abroad, and certainly we should expect our partners to pay their fair share. But diplomacy is not about charity; it is about advancing U.S. interests and preventing problems from morphing into costly wars. Similarly, alliances are not exclusively about principles; they are about safety in numbers. The world is a big, complicated place, and not even the strongest nation can solve everything on its own. As we face down antidemocratic forces around the world, we will need our allies on our side.

FOREIGN POLICY STARTS AT HOME

President John F. Kennedy, whose seat in the U.S. Senate I now hold, once wrote that “a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home.” With American power increasingly challenged from within and without, we can no longer afford to think of our domestic agenda as separate from our foreign policy. A stronger economy, a healthier democracy, and a united people—these are the engines that power the nation and will project American strength and values throughout the world. 

Every day, shortsighted domestic policies weaken American national strength. The United States is in the midst of a reverse-Sputnik moment, reducing investments in education and scientific research even as potential adversaries expand them. At a time when growing inequality stifles economic growth, Congress’ response has been a $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. Life expectancy in the United States is falling as overdose deaths skyrocket, and the country’s health-care system remains ill equipped to respond. Climate change poses a threat to our survival, but the government is gutting environmental regulations and subsidizing fossil fuels at the bidding of wealthy campaign donors. The educational opportunity gap is widening, while politicians starve schools of resources and saddle an entire generation with crippling student debt. And in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable reckoning, the president seems bent on keeping Americans frightened and divided. 

Investments at home strengthen the economy, but they also serve national security. A twenty-first-century industrial policy, for example, would produce good jobs that provide dignity, respect, and a living wage, and it would reinforce U.S. international economic might. When workers and families are more secure in their livelihoods, the country is stronger on the world stage. 

The needs for investment are many: Infrastructure projects to increase connectivity and expand opportunity across the United States. Educational and job-training policies to produce skilled workers, encourage entrepreneurship, and grow the talent base. Immigration policies to yield a more robust economy and a more diversified work force. Higher education to equip the coming generations for the future without crushing them with debt. High-quality, affordable health care to ensure security and productivity for every person. An economy that is fair and open to entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes. A progressive tax system that requires the wealthy to pay their fair share. A government that is not for sale to the highest bidder. 

Underlying it all, we need to remain vigilant against threats to American democratic norms and processes. The 2016 election raised the alarm, reminding us that democracy is not a self-sustaining machine. We must fight for it every single day. That means protecting the electoral process and making clear that there will be severe consequences for anyone, foreign or domestic, who meddles with it. 

Our democratic norms also require us to renew our commitment to justice. Fractures in society—racial injustice, political polarization, economic inequality—damage us from within, leaving us vulnerable to a toxic stew of hatred and fear. Hateful rhetoric fuels domestic terrorism of all kinds, whether in Charleston or Orlando, Charlottesville or Pittsburgh. And we must strengthen our determination to ensure that every American has equal access to opportunity in society and equal justice and protection under the law. We must do that because it is morally right—and because it is essential to our national strength. 

WHAT’S AT STAKE

The need to get our house in order is not theoretical. Whether our leaders recognize it or not, after years as the world’s lone superpower, the United States is entering a new period of competition. Democracy is running headlong into the ideologies of nationalism, authoritarianism, and corruption. China is on the rise, using its economic might to bludgeon its way onto the world stage and offering a model in which economic gains legitimize oppression. To mask its decline, Russia is provoking the international community with opportunistic harassment and covert attacks. Both nations invest heavily in their militaries and other tools of national power. Both hope to shape spheres of influence in their own image and ultimately remake the global order to suit their own priorities. If we cannot make our government work for all Americans, they will almost certainly succeed. 

The dictators who run those countries stay in power not simply because they hold unwilling populations under brutal control; they also maintain control through corrupt economic policies that favor the wealthy elites who keep them in power. In China, President Xi Jinping consolidates his power and talks of a “great rejuvenation,” while corporations that answer to the state make billionaires out of Communist Party elites. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin attacks free speech and fans nationalism, but his real power derives from the careful intertwining of his government with state-run corporations conveniently overseen by friendly oligarchs.

Other countries have learned from this approach. From Hungary to Turkey, from the Philippines to Brazil, wealthy elites work together to grow the state’s power, while the state works to grow the wealth of those who remain loyal to the leader. This marriage of authoritarianism and corrupt capitalism is a direct threat to the United States, because it undermines the very concept of democracy. It enables corruption to spread across borders and allows authoritarian leaders to foment a global crisis of confidence in democracy. Free and democratic societies, the United States’ included, risk sliding toward corruption and kleptocracy, becoming democracies in name only. 

Despite these growing threats, President Trump seems all too comfortable with this rising authoritarianism. He shamefully kowtows to Putin, even in the face of Russian attacks on American democracy. His trade policies toward China are hardly stopping Chinese economic malfeasance. Instead of strengthening crucial alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Europe, he is actively undermining them. And the president has displayed an unsettling enthusiasm for replicating authoritarian language and tactics at home, while autocrats abroad return the compliment by using the president’s words to justify their own misdeeds.

The United States has lived through devastating wars in the past, and no sane person wishes to invite conflict between great powers in the future. In fact, many of the trials of our time will require cooperation. But it is essential that we are honest and clear-eyed about the challenges the United States faces. Our democratic allies share our values, and we should join forces to protect not only our collective security but also our shared ideals. In Europe, we should work with our allies to impose strong, targeted penalties on Russia for its attempts to subvert elections, and we should work to help our European allies develop energy independence. In Asia, we should encourage our allies to enhance their multilateral cooperation and build alternatives to China’s coercive diplomacy. We should also respond to China’s efforts to force foreign companies to hand over sensitive technology in order to gain access to the Chinese market and penalize its theft of U.S. intellectual property. Around the world, we should aggressively promote transparency, call out kleptocracy, and combat the creeping influence of corruption. And we should stand with those who bravely fight for openness and pluralism in Moscow, Beijing, and beyond.

AFTER TRUMP

The world was changing before President Trump took office, and it will continue to change after he has gone. There is no going back, but we can shape the world we inherit.

We can adopt a foreign policy that works for all Americans, not just wealthy elites. We can protect American interests first and foremost, while recognizing that those interests are best served when we leverage the support of allies and partners. We can reform international institutions to make them more flexible and inclusive, while still preserving the United States’ global leadership role. We can make smart investments to deter adversaries and defend the country, while balancing our ambitions with our resources. We can adapt to the technological demands and challenges of the twenty-first century, designing policies that reflect the world not as it once was but as it will be. And we can recognize that global power is generated here at home, recapitalizing the American economy and reinvesting in American democracy at its roots. 

None of this will be easy, but we persist. “America is not a country which can be confounded by the appeasers, the defeatists, the backstairs manufacturers of panic,” President Franklin Roosevelt declared in 1941. He continued: “This will of the American people will not be frustrated, either by threats from powerful enemies abroad or by small, selfish groups or individuals at home.” His words ring true today. Despite the threats on the horizon, I am confident that we can pursue a foreign policy that works for all Americans—one that, for generations to come, safeguards government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,356

Posted
Posted

Her finish

AFTER TRUMP

The world was changing before President Trump took office, and it will continue to change after he has gone. There is no going back, but we can shape the world we inherit.

We can adopt a foreign policy that works for all Americans, not just wealthy elites. We can protect American interests first and foremost, while recognizing that those interests are best served when we leverage the support of allies and partners. We can reform international institutions to make them more flexible and inclusive, while still preserving the United States’ global leadership role. We can make smart investments to deter adversaries and defend the country, while balancing our ambitions with our resources. We can adapt to the technological demands and challenges of the twenty-first century, designing policies that reflect the world not as it once was but as it will be. And we can recognize that global power is generated here at home, recapitalizing the American economy and reinvesting in American democracy at its roots. 

None of this will be easy, but we persist. “America is not a country which can be confounded by the appeasers, the defeatists, the backstairs manufacturers of panic,” President Franklin Roosevelt declared in 1941. He continued: “This will of the American people will not be frustrated, either by threats from powerful enemies abroad or by small, selfish groups or individuals at home.” His words ring true today. Despite the threats on the horizon, I am confident that we can pursue a foreign policy that works for all Americans—one that, for generations to come, safeguards government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

No thanks.

Texas: -800k (38EV)
VS:
Blue Wall: -75k (46EV)

Wisconsin: -20k (10EV)
Michigan: -11k (16EV)
Pennsylvania: -44k (20EV)

Retaking the Blue Wall and holding on to 2016 blues gets you to 278. (8 more than necessary to win)
Taking Texas and not getting the Blue Wall and holding on to 2016 blues gets you to 270. (exactly what you need to win)

FAR easier to take back the Blue Wall. Of course we should go HARD in Texas and ALSO get those 38EVs, but as a baseline strategy it's pretty clear what we need to do. Way more bang for your buck there.

While you’re right as far as EV votes go, if the republicans were to somehow lose Texas then they also lose all of Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in a landslide. Maybe they keep Ohio but I doubt it. Florida will be close to 50-50 no matter what anyone else does. But a Texas win for the dems means they win Florida as well.  

There is no scenario for the republicans to lose Texas and keep the presidency, or the house and senate for that matter. And they know it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS DO

Sure. Things change. Poll numbers go up, they go down. But I’m specifically talking about poll numbers of dem candidates in comparison to president shitstain’s numbers. 

If you start showing me that in comparison to president shitstain, that Kamala, or Bernie, or Warren, or my gigantic dick’s numbers start having a better chance of winning, then let’s talk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28,596

Posted
Posted
You keep saying this, and while I agree, what makes you think they will eventually change?

 

Because right now Biden is just Fantasy Uncle Joe Biden.

 

Candidate Biden has not been subject to any kind of modern, social media driven inspection.

 

His senate record and past public statements are going to be picked apart and seen through the eyes of 2020, he’s going to look like everything the majority of Democratic primary voters do not want.

 

And that’s not even adding in his penchant for saying monumentally ridiculous shit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,356

Posted
Posted

Look, we haven’t seen a Democratic primary this wide open in my lifetime.

 Would you have been cool with Hillary getting the nomination in 2008 knowing she gives you the best chance to win while knowing you’d be passing up Obama? 

It’s the same deal with writing Biden in now.  

Just let democracy work itself out for the love of god.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Look, we haven’t seen a Democratic primary this wide open in my lifetime.

 Would you have been cool with Hillary getting the nomination in 2008 knowing she gives you the best chance to win while knowing you’d be passing up Obama? 

It’s the same deal with writing Biden in now.  

Just let democracy work itself out for the love of god.

I’m not writing in anybody. All I’m saying is I want the best candidate to take out the cancer in the White House. At the current moment in time, the polls say that is Biden.

If the polls change, then in all likelihood my support will as well. The only caveat is I won’t support a corrupt trump like dem, which isn’t gonna happen anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Because right now Biden is just Fantasy Uncle Joe Biden.

 

Candidate Biden has not been subject to any kind of modern, social media driven inspection.

 

His senate record and past public statements are going to be picked apart and seen through the eyes of 2020, he’s going to look like everything the majority of Democratic primary voters do not want.

 

And that’s not even adding in his penchant for saying monumentally ridiculous shit.

 

 

See now there’s an answer. I don’t necessarily agree but time will tell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,356

Posted
Posted (edited)

There is nothing of unique substance Biden brings to the table except experience and Obama’s shadow. 

It’s not going to be enough to win the nomination when you look at the STIFF competition of Harris, Sanders, Beto, and Warren.  And there could always be the inspirational outsider like Buttigieg that catches fire. 

However, if Biden wins the nomination, he will have my full support.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Wasn’t Trump polling at like 3-5% at this point in the last Republican primary?

Opinions change at lightning speed these days. Biden is a dead man walking if you’re paying attention to the current landscape.

The first paragraph, even if accurate, is comparing trump to republicans. Totally irrelevant.

The second paragraph, is a statement that has no backing. The polls show Biden has the best chance of beating trump. At least currently.

Maybe Biden is a dead man walking in the dem primary if they want to decrease the chance of beating trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...