2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[varwoche]

<abject crap snipped for brevity>

It's surprising and disappointing that you're foisting this abject crap, scraped from a source so abysmal that it's arguably the worst data source on the internet. Describing your post as fact-challenged would be generous in the extreme.

Obligatory, preemptive disclosure: I wish Biden wouldn't run, and I hope he isn't nominated if he does.

 

[Zambo]

Yes I have seen many of those clips, most memorable being the one with Ashton Carter's wife.

You have a very loose standard of "molested".

Biden has no chance, too old and will be challenged over videos and photos showing he touches women and children. Trump has a very good chance because many of the electorate don't care about his character, they just care about abortion law, the wall and unfair practices by foreigners.

 

[angrysoba]

Biden has no chance, too old and will be challenged over videos and photos showing he touches women and children. Trump has a very good chance because many of the electorate don't care about his character, they just care about abortion law, the wall and unfair practices by foreigners.

Indeed, it is an important point that needs to be reiterated - when talking about elections between Trump and anyone else, the Anyone Else has to be appear much cleaner and less compromised than Trump, because potential Anyone Else supporters actually care about the character of Anyone Else, whereas Trump has shown that almost nothing of his past, or his behaviour seems to put off his supporters except failing to build a wall or softening up.

There is literally no point saying, "Aha, I found something Trump said that could be interpreted as racist, or mocking the disabled, or a reference to him groping someone's wife or a female journalist, or barging into Miss Teen's dressing room while she was changing, or telling people to punch reporters or that he could shoot someone on Main Street!"

All that's been done and it made no difference.

As I've said before, Trump can call him "Old Man Biden" at the debates, while being literally only a couple of years Trump's senior, and somehow it will stick as a vote-loser for Biden, while Trump's "ageism" and "hypocrisy" will not be of any issue at all. Similarly, he could and would, run "Creepy Uncle Joe" ads and even bring these up in the debates, and it would make no difference how creepy some of the stuff Trump has been accused of, such as the montage of him and his daughter in Michael Moore's film. It would stick to Biden, but not to Trump because potential Biden voters would expect better, and Trump's supporters would not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is literally no point saying, "Aha, I found something Trump said that could be interpreted as racist, or mocking the disabled, or a reference to him groping someone's wife or a female journalist, or barging into Miss Teen's dressing room while she was changing, or telling people to punch reporters or that he could shoot someone on Main Street!"

Okay but have you seen politics of the last generation?

Whataboutism is the only level it operates on. Telling the political talking heads "Hey just pointing out that the other side does it worse isn't going to work because the other side doesn't care" doesn't matter because it's literally all they know how to do.

The voter base doesn't care about hypocrisy anywhere near the level political talking heads do but it's all they know how to react to.

 

[Zambo]

Telling the political talking heads "Hey just pointing out that the other side does it worse isn't going to work because the other side doesn't care" doesn't matter because it's literally all they know how to do.

What does this mean?

 

[angrysoba]

Okay but have you seen politics of the last generation?

Whataboutism is the only level it operates on. Telling the political talking heads "Hey just pointing out that the other side does it worse isn't going to work because the other side doesn't care" doesn't matter because it's literally all they know how to do.

The voter base doesn't care about hypocrisy anywhere near the level political talking heads do but it's all they know how to react to.

The tl;dr of what I am saying is, "Don't run Biden because he's too compromised".

I'm not sure what the tl;dr of what you are saying is.

 

[The Atheist]

More feathers ruffled than your average chook house.

Even the Republicans will admit that the Dems are ahead of them in the use of data analyses to target voters.

Robert Mercer is the unquestioned king of data and if the Dems think they're ahead of him, they might be unpleasantly surprised.

There is, in fact, no huge divide in the USA.

Mea culpa.

I blame the fake MSM news companies for not covering the protests and street battles when Obama was president. I naively expected that if white nationalists & other fascists were out fighting now they might have done something when there was an actual ****** in the White House, but it's clear I just missed it all.

Still, at least Obama is as dumb as me.

However, I don't pontificate about Australian politics; you should consider the same.

I only ever get involved in Aussie politics for the lulz. Much like American politics. I'm off to the Aussie thread after this one. I prefer NZ politics myself, but it's always fun to get into US/UK/Aussie pollies.

I'll back my record of being right about US politics at this stage. I was right about Hillary all the way, and the fact that anyone else would have beaten her was shown by post-electoral polling.

I've got the crow-eating thread sitting and waiting for a second helping for those who need is, should that come to pass again.

Oh for gawd's sake, TA. What a pant load. You've gone from uninformed to just plain silly.

So, the videos are fake?

Sorry, this is a skeptic's website...

Where it came from is completely irrelevant. If the videos are real, they're real and it doesn't matter if Alex Jones, David Icke and the ghost of Sylvia Browne, through Tyler Henry posted it.

Are they real?

Of course, we've seen these videos before and they are not a good look.

Why, yes they are real videos.

Describing your post as fact-challenged would be generous in the extreme.

Yet the videos, which are the only thing that matters, are real.

I'll just go and check my calendar for what year it is that so many people are speaking out in support of a bloke whose verified behaviour would draw prosecution in many parts of the world. I'm picking about 1953.

I'll just leave this here: https://klewtv.com/news/nation-worl...llegedly-kissing-girl-he-was-hired-to-babysit

That is one of many cases where a man has been charged with a crime for forcibly kissing a young girl. Crikey, one bloke got arrested just for kissing one girl's hand.

My take on that is that you'll be arrested for kissing little girls, but not if you're the Veep.

And people cry about Trump's actions.

You know there's an antidote for hypocrisy these days?

(Did I mention I'm a hard left capital S Socialist? I would love America to develop at least some socialist empathy and let poor people have access to medical care and the other benefits democratic socialism gives, but I think you need an intermediate step to get there.)

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed, it is an important point that needs to be reiterated - when talking about elections between Trump and anyone else, the Anyone Else has to be appear much cleaner and less compromised than Trump, because potential Anyone Else supporters actually care about the character of Anyone Else, whereas Trump has shown that almost nothing of his past, or his behaviour seems to put off his supporters except failing to build a wall or softening up.

There is literally no point saying, "Aha, I found something Trump said that could be interpreted as racist, or mocking the disabled, or a reference to him groping someone's wife or a female journalist, or barging into Miss Teen's dressing room while she was changing, or telling people to punch reporters or that he could shoot someone on Main Street!"

All that's been done and it made no difference.

As I've said before, Trump can call him "Old Man Biden" at the debates, while being literally only a couple of years Trump's senior, and somehow it will stick as a vote-loser for Biden, while Trump's "ageism" and "hypocrisy" will not be of any issue at all. Similarly, he could and would, run "Creepy Uncle Joe" ads and even bring these up in the debates, and it would make no difference how creepy some of the stuff Trump has been accused of, such as the montage of him and his daughter in Michael Moore's film. It would stick to Biden, but not to Trump because potential Biden voters would expect better, and Trump's supporters would not.

I dont buy your analysis at all. Seems more like wishful thinking. As old as Biden is, he has more energy and more spring in his step than Trump did 15 years ago. As for portraying him as "creepy uncle joe", I'm sure they might try something like that.

But in the end, it will be a binary choice. Democrats, Liberals and Independents etc are not going to vote against Biden if he is running against Trump.

Trump has 30 to 35 percent of the voters who will vote for him no matter what he does. But he also has 50 percent plus voters who will vote for ANYONE over him.

 

[Brainster]

Rumor has it that Beto's going to announce tomorrow. Are we all set for Beto-mania?

 

[angrysoba]

I dont buy your analysis at all. Seems more like wishful thinking. As old as Biden is, he has more energy and more spring in his step than Trump did 15 years ago. As for portraying him as "creepy uncle joe", I'm sure they might try something like that.

But in the end, it will be a binary choice. Democrats, Liberals and Independents etc are not going to vote against Biden if he is running against Trump.

Trump has 30 to 35 percent of the voters who will vote for him no matter what he does. But he also has 50 percent plus voters who will vote for ANYONE over him.

It’s less analysis than it is a demonstrable fact that all of the compromising “scandals” regarding Trump didn’t stop him winning the election last time. Now he is an incumbent which usually confers an advantage. Let’s not get carried away with the assurances that half of the electorate are bound to vote against him. Even if that is true, it makes no difference in the case of millions of voters in California. The important states are the rust-belt states where slender differences in votes alter the all-important electoral college maths.

 

[acbytesla]

It’s less analysis than it is a demonstrable fact that all of the compromising “scandals” regarding Trump didn’t stop him winning the election last time. Now he is an incumbent which usually confers an advantage. Let’s not get carried away with the assurances that half of the electorate are bound to vote against him. Even if that is true, it makes no difference in the case of millions of voters in California. The important states are the rust-belt states where slender differences in votes alter the all-important electoral college maths.

You can think lightning will strike twice in the same place, but i find it unlikely.

2016 isn't 2020. People won't take 2020 for granted. Apathy and overconfidence will not be a factor. If you think people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will fall for Trump's BS again where his victories were by the slimmest of threads, be my guest. I think you're dreaming. My bet is that Trump will lose in 2020 and not by 3 million votes, but by 10 million.

 

[The_Animus]

Rumor has it that Beto's going to announce tomorrow. Are we all set for Beto-mania?

Beto was good as an attempted senator for Texas, being better than the alternative and both conservative and charismatic enough to have a shot at winning that seat.

But not for POTUS.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SilERabbit/status/1106015727159410688

I've already seen some comments for a Biden/Beto ticket and while anything is better than Trump there are several other candidates I'd rather win the nomination.

 

[SezMe]

I'll just go and check my calendar for what year it is that so many people are speaking out in support of a bloke whose verified behaviour would draw prosecution in many parts of the world.

Criticizing the absolute crap you've posted here is not in any way, shape or form the same as "speaking out" for Biden. That you'd make such a childish conflation says a lot about your political acumen.

 

[The Atheist]

That you'd make such a childish conflation says a lot about your political acumen.

And it might be your guilty conscience telling you to defend yourself against a remark clearly not aimed at you.

Your call.

 

[The_Animus]

And it might be your guilty conscience telling you to defend yourself against a remark clearly not aimed at you.

Your call.

No

You made a ridiculous claim that Biden was worse than Trump and you got called on it by numerous posters.

Then you try to pass off criticism of your ridiculous assertion as speaking out in support of Biden and you got called out on that too.

And now you're trying to twist that criticism into defending a guilty conscience?

Give it a rest

 

[Brainster]

It’s less analysis than it is a demonstrable fact that all of the compromising “scandals” regarding Trump didn’t stop him winning the election last time. Now he is an incumbent which usually confers an advantage.

The crucial point anybody running against Trump has to understand is that you cannot attack him on his past sins; as you point out those were already factored into the vote in 2016.

This was why the Birther crap was bound to fail after the 2008 election, and I cannot believe anybody wasted time on it in 2012. Hell, I would have told them not to bother with the whole Weather Underground folks again. Once somebody's been president, the election is never about what they did in their earlier life; it's about what they did in the Oval Office. The same applies to the foolishness of the Texas Air National Guard story that got Dan Rather fired from CBS News. In 2000, that (bogus) story might have derailed Bush, but in 2004, nobody cared about what Bush had or hadn't done in the 1970s.

If you want to beat Trump, you'd better be talking about his behavior from 2016-2020.

 

[angrysoba]

The crucial point anybody running against Trump has to understand is that you cannot attack him on his past sins; as you point out those were already factored into the vote in 2016.

This was why the Birther crap was bound to fail after the 2008 election, and I cannot believe anybody wasted time on it in 2012. Hell, I would have told them not to bother with the whole Weather Underground folks again. Once somebody's been president, the election is never about what they did in their earlier life; it's about what they did in the Oval Office. The same applies to the foolishness of the Texas Air National Guard story that got Dan Rather fired from CBS News. In 2000, that (bogus) story might have derailed Bush, but in 2004, nobody cared about what Bush had or hadn't done in the 1970s.

If you want to beat Trump, you'd better be talking about his behavior from 2016-2020.

Absolutely. I would think the Russian interference will also have to be shelved by the Democrats in the campaign unless a clear sign of it appearing in 2020 can be made, and frankly it has always been too esoteric and suggestive for it to stick to Trump.

To the extent that the government shut down had a direct impact on people, it would be worth using as a campaign issue. That said, if people didn’t feel it, then again it isn’t worth anything. The manifest confusion in the White House and his on-the-fly style of operating and his revolving door hiring and firing policy, while it probably should matter, also doesn’t affect people.

Perhaps, there are other ways. Universal healthcare - or Medicare for everyone, universal basic income to supplement employment, as well as to tie people over who worry about losing their jobs to technology. These may be issues that get some traction, if there are any candidates out there to put forward such policies.

 

[The Atheist]

You made a ridiculous claim that Biden was worse than Trump and you got called on it by numerous posters.

Called on, my backside. I stand by the comment.

At least Trump's alleged victims were grown women. Note the alleged in there - he hasn't been charged with any crimes, far less convicted, and I believe there's quite a wealth of history of people not being guilty until found so in a court of law.

Biden's guilt isn't an issue - the actual assaults are there to view.

Funny how fast principles fly out the window when it's one of the chosen ones being attacked.

Then you try to pass off criticism of your ridiculous assertion as speaking out in support of Biden and you got called out on that too.

You also need to read the post - the comment wasn't aimed at that poster, but one who was defending Biden.

And now you're trying to twist that criticism into defending a guilty conscience?

Not twisting, just throwing it out there as a possible explanation of why someone would be personally offended by a comment made to a completely different person.

I always know my kids are in trouble when they start answering questions and assertions not directed towards them. People are funny like that.

 

[Brainster]

Biden's got some interesting issues, although I don't know that his overly affectionate hands are going to be one of them. He should benefit among blacks who associate him with loyalty to Obama, but he's also up against a sitting black male senator and a sitting black female senator. He's taken lots of centrist Dem/moderate Rep positions over the years. I do find it a bit amusing that the one that is currently biting him in the ass is his opposition to reparations 40+ years ago. Reparations was a fringe idea back then.

 

[varwoche]

"Trust me" is not a convincing way for you to make a point.

Belatedly, I acknowledge that Travis' speculation about the specific ways that Bernie would be attacked is hyperbolic.

This too is rather absurd:

How was Hillary the perfect centrist? Her platform was the most left of any Democratic nominee in history.

It's absurd because her foreign policies were more or less inseparable from GOP, including her infamous vote to authorize the Iraq invasion, and her strong support for Israel. There's not an ice cube's chance in hell that George McGovern would have voted for the Iraq fiasco. And her domestic policies were more or less inseparable from Democratic mainstream. I don't see her as to the left of Obama, Kerry, Gore, or Bill Clinton.

Mind you, I'm in vigorous agreement with Trebuchet. I'd vote for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Colonel Sanders, or Gary Coleman (rip) over Trump.