Jump to content
tygersongbird

2020 U.S. Presidential Race

Recommended Posts

Knight of Cydonia
On 1/9/2020 at 9:09 PM, AspieAlly613 said:

Leading up to the 2016 election, people who were asked to rate Donald Trump on a moderate-to-extreme scale.  He was considered more moderate than most presidential candidates.  He has not maintained that perception.  One could say "Mr. Trump was moderatePresident Trump is a typical conservative."

(bolded for emphasis)

 

12 hours ago, AspieAlly613 said:

Here's an article that references the "How conservative do you think Mr. Trump would be if elected President?" poll

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-think-trump-has-moved-to-the-right/

Saying he was seen as more moderate than most other candidates is one thing. Saying "Mr. Trump was moderate" is another. They are very different things.

 

In that link, his Nov. 2016 OnTheIssues score was a +42.5 on a scale of -100 (liberal) to +100 (conservative). According to their scoring I believe that still places him in the "conservative" camp, not "moderate."

 

As for voters, the Jan 2017 poll had "conservative or very conservative" as the most common category (42.5%) compared to moderate (22.0%) and liberal/very liberal (11.0%), so again, I wouldn't say most people saw early Trump as "moderate"... not to mention that conservative was still a more common response than both moderate and liberal combined.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
2 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

(bolded for emphasis)

 

Saying he was seen as more moderate than most other candidates is one thing. Saying "Mr. Trump was moderate" is another. They are very different things.

 

In that link, his Nov. 2016 OnTheIssues score was a +42.5 on a scale of -100 (liberal) to +100 (conservative). According to their scoring I believe that still places him in the "conservative" camp, not "moderate."

 

As for voters, the Jan 2017 poll had "conservative or very conservative" as the most common category (42.5%) compared to moderate (22.0%) and liberal/very liberal (11.0%), so again, I wouldn't say most people saw early Trump as "moderate"... not to mention that conservative was still a more common response than both moderate and liberal combined.

True.  I was using a very lenient definition of "moderate".  Still, the point that he's seen as more conservative now suggets that he is more likely to lose support (among those who might change their minds) than to gain support.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
natsume

Trump wasn't only seen as more conservative, it was his appeal. He even criticized his primary competition for not being as conservative as himself. His appeal was that moderates won't be different enough from the Democrats. If you followed that election you would have seen his constant mocking of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for being moderates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick2

Well, Russia is back in the game (if they ever left).  They have hacked into the gas company in Ukraine for info on Biden's son.  Expect it to be leaked (true or not) at appropriate times to help the Great Orange One.  Has he ever played fair at any point in his life?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R_1

And now, there's even more reasons to vote out Trump. A mob hit was ordered on a UK leader and US ambassador. Parnas docs confirms this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

Any remaining respect I had for Warren has disappeared. 😐 Wish it wasn't so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R_1
10 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

Any remaining respect I had for Warren has disappeared. 😐 Wish it wasn't so.

Why? She's still a better pick than Biden. Biden is my last choice after Sanders and Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatto
Gatto
AspieAlly613

CBS news has been taking about the fact that all six debate candidates (essentially, the six most popular candidates among Democratic voters) are white.  I haven't heard them ask "Do we think that Democratic voters have more subconscious racism than they'd like to admit?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka

The whole "Bernie is sexist" smear from Warren is unfortunate, they were pretty good friends until last week, I guess. But Bernie has been consistent for decades in his progressive campaigning, and it just won't stick. Every poll I've seen after the debate is staying with Bernie. The only thing the kerfuffle does is strengthen Biden, and distract from Trump's whole murdering people thing. It is a pointless feud now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka
2 hours ago, R_1 said:

Why? She's still a better pick than Biden. Biden is my last choice after Sanders and Warren.

She is indeed a better pick than Biden, but a lot of progressives were more enthusiastic about supporting her before the smear. Now, my heart just won't really be in the campaign against Trump if it is Warren.

 

I'm pretty sick of voting for Lesser Evil. The last time I was excited about an election was Obama in 2008, when he had a lot of promise. Every other election in my lifetime has been for Lesser Evil. I want to be excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
1 hour ago, Zagadka said:

I'm pretty sick of voting for Lesser Evil. The last time I was excited about an election was Obama in 2008, when he had a lot of promise. Every other election in my lifetime has been for Lesser Evil. I want to be excited.

I understand you feeling that way -- many others do also.  However, we're not voting for an entertainer; we're voting to get this disgusting con man/mafia don out of the White House.  Everything else is meaningless.  Whoever gets the nomination will need our votes.  Vote for who you like best in your state's primary; then vote for the Dem in November, period.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain
6 hours ago, R_1 said:

And now, there's even more reasons to vote out Trump. A mob hit was ordered on a UK leader and US ambassador. Parnas docs confirms this.

I think a typo has crept in here. A Ukrainian leader :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia
18 hours ago, R_1 said:

Why? She's still a better pick than Biden. Biden is my last choice after Sanders and Warren.

I have no respect for Biden either. And honestly, I think Biden would fare better against Trump than Warren, so I don't even know if I could say she's a better pick. She's also not nearly as progressive as she seems.

 

But anyways, what I'm referring to is her sexism smear on Bernie that has erupted over the past few days, and her doubling down on it on debate night. Claiming Sanders doesn't think a woman can win is so ludicrous, I didn't need to hear him firmly say "I didn't say that" to know it was false. I mean, who am I going to believe - the person who's known for his unshakably honest consistency, who said in a video over 30 years ago "In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States", who has pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment for decades, who encouraged Elizabeth Warren to run back in 2015, who supported and campaigned for Hillary Clinton after dropping out of the 2016 race... or the person whose supporters have been leaving to Sanders and others for months, who is in desperate need of votes, and who actually has a pattern of lying (such as falsely claiming to be Native American, falsely claiming her kids go to public schools, falsely claiming she was fired for being pregnant, plagiarizing recipes that she entered as a "Cherokee" for a Pow Wow Chow cookbook...)

 

This was so obviously a desperate ploy to attack her fellow progressive and win supporters back - conveniently timed a few days before the final debate, and a few weeks before the first primary, despite lots of friendliness and civility between the two for the past year with nothing apparently amiss - and I think it really looks weak to try and play the gender card to do it. And then she had to escalate it by refusing to shake Sanders' hand after the debate and accuse him of calling her a liar - while still on camera (and micced up).

 

This doesn't just look badly on her. It will likely hurt both progressive candidates and lift the moderates (Biden/Buttigieg), and is a distraction from the real issues and the real enemy. As Michael Moore put it, "I love them both. Why Elizabeth chose to stick a knife in Bernie’s back is beyond me. At a time when job #1 is to remove Trump, how did this help?"

 

At least there is a bit of good to come out of this. People are starting to see the extent of CNN's bias. Viewers and media outlets all over the political spectrum (Fox News, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, The Nation, Common Dreams...) have all been highly critical of them over their treatment of this issue and Bernie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gatto
tygersongbird
21 hours ago, Zagadka said:

She is indeed a better pick than Biden, but a lot of progressives were more enthusiastic about supporting her before the smear. Now, my heart just won't really be in the campaign against Trump if it is Warren.

 

I'm pretty sick of voting for Lesser Evil. The last time I was excited about an election was Obama in 2008, when he had a lot of promise. Every other election in my lifetime has been for Lesser Evil. I want to be excited.

I see what you mean. I mean, she completely pivoted against her stances of USMCA, which affects climate change and negates it, and then M4a as well. It's amazing. When she went to the sexist smear that Bernie squad was out to kill her campaign, it's so cringey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
22 hours ago, AspieAlly613 said:

CBS news has been taking about the fact that all six debate candidates (essentially, the six most popular candidates among Democratic voters) are white.  I haven't heard them ask "Do we think that Democratic voters have more subconscious racism than they'd like to admit?"

I think the question should be honestly, "Why are issues that predominantly affect people of color always pushed to the side to win elite white people's favor"? Why are issues around reparations, environmental justice, criminal justice reform, educational racism, and school segregation always pushed to the fringes? Is the Democratic party willing to get uncomfortable with themselves and advocating for sweeping reform that benefits a race and class not unto themselves? That's the question.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
56 minutes ago, tygersongbird said:

I think the question should be honestly, "Why are issues that predominantly affect people of color always pushed to the side to win elite white people's favor"? Why are issues around reparations, environmental justice, criminal justice reform, educational racism, and school segregation always pushed to the fringes? Is the Democratic party willing to get uncomfortable with themselves and advocating for sweeping reform that benefits a race and class not unto themselves? That's the question.

I like your version of the question better.  It not only points out the problem, but does so in a way that has suggested solutions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
2 minutes ago, AspieAlly613 said:

I like your version of the question better.  It not only points out the problem, but does so in a way that has suggested solutions.

Well, thank you. This is why I was upset with Marianne Williamson not gaining traction--not because I wanted her to win, per se. However, out of all the candidates (black or white), she was in my opinion the best player on racism in the politisphere. She had a plan for Children & Youth, a plan for reparations, and a plan for helping schooling in low-income often black areas. Her environmental plan went right to the heart of it all. I have her book, and I've been reading it for a while. I see many of the points that she presents, and I just don't get how she wasn't a more palpable candidate. I know the flaws people in the media presented of her--crazy wackoo with crystals (though crystals have nothing to do with spiritual, new-age yoga). I just saw her as the best one with these issues that affect poor people. It's crazy to see how many of the candidates that are still in the running are currying favor to the elites now, trying to score big points with celebrities, big business, and SuperPac money. It's maddening to know that they are helping continue the cycle that hurts us regular people (especially we people who have melanin).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
natsume

Nancy Pelosi waited as long as possible and timed the impeachment perfectly to take Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren out of campaigning at a time which is effectively their campaigns' death sentences. Isn't it funny how that worked out? I'm sure it's a coincidence that the party leadership endorses Joe Biden. Or that's what we're supposed to believe at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yatogami

The DNC and Democratic party know they cannot compete against Trump, nor can they beat him at his own game in playing political chess. They have essentially gone mad. Taking shots in the dark, and exposing their own incompetence, and corruption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
On 1/17/2020 at 7:17 AM, natsume said:

Nancy Pelosi waited as long as possible and timed the impeachment perfectly to take Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren out of campaigning at a time which is effectively their campaigns' death sentences. Isn't it funny how that worked out? I'm sure it's a coincidence that the party leadership endorses Joe Biden. Or that's what we're supposed to believe at least.

No, she was waiting for more awful stuff to come out about Trump.  And it did.  And the party leadership will endorse whoever wins the primaries, because the DNCC doesn't vote in the primaries, we citizens do.   Wait to see who gets nominated; it could very well be either Warren or Sanders.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob
12 hours ago, Sally said:

the DNCC doesn't vote in the primaries, we citizens do. 

ok, so there has been some reform to how the dnc uses superdelegates, but they are not abolished outright and how do you feel about the electoral college again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613

FiveThirtyEight recently published this article that tried to come up with a more accurate indicator of how popular President Trump is.  Rather than asking the simple yes/no question (which would lead to partisan bias) they asked people whom they liked better out of a randomly chosen pair of six prominent Republicans:

 

President Trump

Vice President Pence

President George W Bush

President Reagan

Governor Palin

Senator McCain.

 

I don't think this solves the issue.  I think that the partisan bias also includes a recency bias.  That is, Democrats like to think that the current Republican leadership is worse than prior Republican leadership and Republicans like to think that current Republican leadership is better than prior Republican leadership.  I think a better fix would be to ask people to compare the following political figures:

 

President Trump

Vice President Pence

Senator McConnell

Attorney General Barr

Justice Kavanaugh

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R_1

Bribery is now legal. Thanks to Trump. (I don't plan to do anything with this, but it had to be said.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to Avalon
1 hour ago, R_1 said:

Bribery is now legal.

Only for Republican presidents who have a Republican Congress that will say no crime was committed and you're a partisan hack if you say otherwise. The above-stated rule does not apply to Democrats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613

What did I miss?  The only thing that comes to mind on the topic was that story about the Federal Elections Commission not having new members nominated when sitting members retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...