Thread: 2020 US Presidential Race

Originally Posted by raycarey

but again the take away is about enthusiasm on the D side......these figures alone put the ratio at ~ 4-1...and there are another 20 D candidates fundraising.

Yep and as the pack thins the donations to the dems will increase. Drumpf and the reputards are dependent on contributions from oligarchs while dems are getting a mountain of small contributions.

Originally Posted by Humbert

It's going to be a tough battle.

Always was going to be tough. His funding coupled with good economy, jobs data and being the encumbant make it so.

Dems better run on popular policies (health care and environment) and perhaps more important get the vote out.

I don't think either side is going to run out of money.

Rich donors, individuals or companies, hedge their bets.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

If, and I say if ...

... if Trump is re-elected, how much more damage can he do?

Apart from

• appointing another Conservative Judge or two,
• tarnishing the USA global image further (BTW ... we know the USA can recover once he's gone),
• sending the World's economy into a global recession with his Trade Wars and
• starting a war with someone to appease his ego.

So, apart from that ^ how much more damage can he do?

Some variables here.

If Dems control any portion of Congress they can block any further Conservative judges to the Supreme Court that Trump nominates.

If (when) the economy implodes then folks who have not been voting in their best interest may wake up to what Sanders has been warning about for 40 years, Trump remaining in power during the implosion would only highlight the corruption of Rep party and the oligarchs who back them. If the economy crashes on the Dem watch then it won't be so clear to the voters who was at fault. Kinda like Bush 2, the economy went south at the end of his tenure but Obama got the credit for turning things around a few years later.

My point is that shit really has to hit the fan before folks here will back anything that actually favors them. Like the Great Depression led to Social Security, banking reforms, stronger worker protections, fairer tax rates, etc.

If Trump wins again it will only hasten the collapse. If Biden wins we continue on pace toward the cliff's edge. If Sanders or Warren maybe things could be averted, slim chance though - need an entirely Progressive House, Senate, and Presidency plus a lot of 5-4 Supreme court decisions in the progressive's favor to avert disaster. So, pretty doubtful at best.

For the Newsweek it's very clear:



https://www.newsweek.com/2019/08/02/...t-1450351.html

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

If Dems control any portion of Congress they can block any further Conservative judges to the Supreme Court that Trump nominates.

That's not true. They must take the senate.

Newsweek:
...and undermining OUR DEMOCRACY?

What system the "Democracy" has got once it's election can be hacked by anybody? (50 years after landing on Moon)

Originally Posted by bsnub

They must take the senate.

Yes, stand corrected. Thanks

Originally Posted by Klondyke

What system the "Democracy" has got once it's election can be hacked by anybody? (50 years after landing on Moon)

Do you moonlight as a speech writer for Donald Trump?

(CNN)Former Vice President Joe Biden's major selling point to Democratic primary voters is that he is in the best position to beat President Donald Trump in 2020. And while electability is difficult to measure, Biden has one thing going for him for now: the polls.

Biden continuously beats Trump by a wider margin than his Democratic opponents do.
A new Ohio Quinnipiac University poll is just the latest example of this phenomenon. Biden leads Trump by a 50% to 42% margin.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/p...hio/index.html

He also leads Harris Sanders and Warren by double digits. And this is after his mediocre performance in the last debate.
Unless he has a stroke or gets hit by a bus he is probably going to be the chosen one.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Klondyke
What system the "Democracy" has got once it's election can be hacked by anybody? (50 years after landing on Moon)
Do you moonlight as a speech writer for Donald Trump?

Sorry that due to my poor English you did not get the meaning. If the Russians can hack it, there is nobody who can do better?
(e.g. why to bother with counting the votes in Florida?)

Originally Posted by Humbert

(CNN)Former Vice President Joe Biden's major selling point to Democratic primary voters is that he is in the best position to beat President Donald Trump in 2020. And while electability is difficult to measure, Biden has one thing going for him for now: the polls.

Biden continuously beats Trump by a wider margin than his Democratic opponents do.
A new Ohio Quinnipiac University poll is just the latest example of this phenomenon. Biden leads Trump by a 50% to 42% margin.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/p...hio/index.html

He also leads Harris Sanders and Warren by double digits. And this is after his mediocre performance in the last debate.
Unless he has a stroke or gets hit by a bus he is probably going to be the chosen one.

He has a third of the vote. The question is, as candidates drop out, will he pick the votes up or will Warren?

I don't think things are going well for Sanders, he's running out of money already.

you guys are funny, remember the Russians control the US election, and Trump will be elected again, so why bother with hope

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't think things are going well for Sanders, he's running out of money already.

...and adult diapers ain't cheap...

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

will he pick the votes up or will Warren?

OK Harry - your thoughts?

Originally Posted by bowie

OK Harry - your thoughts?

See how he does in the next debate. And then the debates that include the rivals he hasn't faced yet.

He was made to look stupid in the last one.

Where is our beloved Ray when I need him?

Ray, if you are out there ... I warmly apologise ... Ray, you were right!

There, I said it

Elizabeth Warren was much longer legs in this race then I anticipated.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Elizabeth Warren was much longer legs in this race then I anticipated.

If she was an Aussie politician she'd be known as 'Rabbit' Or maybe 'Bunny'.

Perhaps The Avenue to the White House - Debate Topic


https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...plan/23781573/

Kamala Harris releases new details of her health care plan

AP JUANA SUMMERS Jul 29th 2019 7:36AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Kamala Harris is filling in the details of how she would move 330 million Americans onto a single government health insurance system, her fullest statements on an issue that's getting top billing in the Democratic presidential primary.

The issue also has posed some problems for the California senator.

Harris is a supporter of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" legislation, but she still envisions a role for the private system — just as long as it takes its lead from the government. Medicare for All would replace the Affordable Care Act with a single-payer health plan for all Americans.

Harris is splitting with Sanders, a rival for the 2020 Democratic nomination, in slowing the transition to a single-payer system to 10 years instead of the four he has proposed. And Harris is, for the first time, addressing how she would pay for a sweeping health care overhaul that Sanders has estimated could cost as much as $40 trillion over one decade.

The debate over national health care policy has been one of the most animating features of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. And for Harris, it has been one that has put on display the tension between her pragmatic inclinations and a desire to meet the demands of an energized progressive base seeking a liberal agenda to counter President Donald Trump.

In a Medium post published on Monday, she said her focus was on finding a way to lower health care costs.

"Right now, the American health care system is a patchwork of plans, providers and costs that have left people frustrated, powerless and insurance companies in charge," Harris said in the post. "And the bottom line is that health care just costs too much."

Harris has repeatedly been forced to clarify her stance on Medicare for All. During the first set of presidential debates she appeared to suggest that she supported abolishing private insurance, later clarifying that she does not. And prior to releasing her own health care plan, she was criticized for saying that she opposes a middle-class tax hike to pay for Medicare for All without making clear how she would pay for it.

Harris is releasing her plan days before Democrats meet in Detroit for the second set of presidential debates. Harris will appear on stage with former Vice President Joe Biden, the most high-profile candidate in the sprawling field to opposed Medicare for All in favor of a so-called "public option" that would allow people to decide between a government-financed plan or a private one.

Biden, with whom Harris memorably clashed during the first Democratic debates in Miami, has warned that a transition to a Medicare for All system could present coverage risks for Americans who defend on the Affordable Care Act.

Biden also has seized on Harris' recent comments, in an interview with CNN, that she opposes a middle-class tax hike to pay for Medicare for All. Biden said Harris was not being realistic about what it would take to pay for Medicare for All.

"You have a lot of people out there supporting that plan and are running and saying, 'But I'm not for that tax,'" Biden said recently in Las Vegas. "There's no way to pay for it."

Sanders has said as recently as this month that the sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health system he envisions could cost up to $40 trillion over a decade, and he has said that one option for paying for it would be a 4% tax hike on families making more than $29,000 each year.

Harris said that "hits the middle class too hard," and she is calling for exempting households making less than $100,000 each year from that 4% tax, with "a higher income threshold for middle-class families living in high-cost areas."

Sanders estimated that the tax increase he proposed would raise $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Harris did not specify how much revenue would be raised in the scenario she's proposing.

To pay for the difference, Harris wants to tax stock trades at 0.2% of the value of the transaction, 0.1% for bonds and 0.002% for derivatives.

Harris argues that by making the transition period from current policy to Medicare for All 10 years instead of four, the overall cost of Medicare for All will be lower than in Sanders' bill.

Today I watched David Axelrod respond to Anderson Cooper questioning him about how Democratic candidates should respond to Trump's frequent race baiting twitter statements. He said that he was personally exhausted by the constant racist drumbeat coming out of the White House and that he surmised that many Americans were also exhausted by them. This is exactly what's wrong with these party functionaries. I can tell you one thing Trump and his supporters are not exhausted. They have plenty of energy and enthusiasm for the fight. What the dem leaders don't seem to understand is that we are in the fight of our lives and if our leaders are exhausted how are voters going to be energized to get off their asses and come out against Trump?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Today I watched David Axelrod respond to Anderson Cooper questioning him about how Democratic candidates should respond to Trump's frequent race baiting twitter statements. He said that he was personally exhausted by the constant racist drumbeat coming out of the White House and that he surmised that many Americans were also exhausted by them. This is exactly what's wrong with these party functionaries. I can tell you one thing Trump and his supporters are not exhausted. They have plenty of energy and enthusiasm for the fight. What the dem leaders don't seem to understand is that we are in the fight of our lives and if our leaders are exhausted how are voters going to be energized to get off their asses and come out against Trump?

It's not as if they need any more baldy orange cunto material to work with.

If having a racist idiot who gloats about sexual assault and paid off porn stars in violation of the law isn't enough to get people out to vote, then the harsh fact is that America is doomed.

I'll go back to Mencken's scarily accurate 1920 prediction:

All of us, if we are of reflective habit, like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own. But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. … All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

newsflash for Harry: people vote with their emotions, we never saw that one coming

Originally Posted by Humbert

Today I watched David Axelrod respond to Anderson Cooper questioning him about how Democratic candidates should respond to Trump's frequent race baiting twitter statements. He said that he was personally exhausted by the constant racist drumbeat coming out of the White House and that he surmised that many Americans were also exhausted by them. This is exactly what's wrong with these party functionaries. I can tell you one thing Trump and his supporters are not exhausted. They have plenty of energy and enthusiasm for the fight. What the dem leaders don't seem to understand is that we are in the fight of our lives and if our leaders are exhausted how are voters going to be energized to get off their asses and come out against Trump?

finally, you are starting to get it, took you sometimes

people are butthurt, and politicians do not have any solution to their butthurt, so people turn their frustration to leaders who can address emotionally their frustrations, no matter how misguided these frustrations are

I think it's even simpler than that - the people listen to the candidates and vote for the one that energizes them, makes them feel hopeful for the future and excites them. Trump is a cheerleader, he energized his base. And, regardless of the media and the polls, Trumps base is still energized.

If the dems want to win they have to promote a plan that Americans believe will better them and find a candidate capable of energizing a wave of followers.