Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I can't imagine Biden even getting close to the nom. Just my personal impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing Biden has going for him is that a lot of the big donors like him, which means if he runs he'll have the funding to go the distance. Many of the other candidates don't have that luxury. Small donors are more important than ever in the Democratic party, but there aren't enough to go around for everyone who is running. And there aren't enough potential "pocket Democratic billionaires" to keep afloat candidates who lack popular support, unlike on the Republican side, which kept a lot of names in 2016 going for longer than they should have.

Some of the other candidates running right now will be dropping out before Iowa (or immediately afterwards) because their fundraising dries up. I've no idea who yet, it could be almost any of them depending on how campaigning this year shakes out. Biden doesn't have that concern. And the longer Biden (or anyone) is running, the more opportunity there is for something to shake up the race and cause things to break their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Some of the other candidates running right now will be dropping out before Iowa (or immediately afterwards) because their fundraising dries up. I've no idea who yet, it could be almost any of them depending on how campaigning this year shakes out. Biden doesn't have that concern. And the longer Biden (or anyone) is running, the more opportunity there is for something to shake up the race and cause things to break their way.

I feel like Biden's problem is that as the field winnows, he becomes a less compelling candidate.  Being a party insider with great name recognition and plenty of funding will help you survive the first couple of rounds, yes.  But if after Super Tuesday, the field is reduced to say Biden+ Harris + Beto or Harris + Sanders or Warren + Booker, how does Biden convince people that he's the choice?  He's an old white man in a party that is angry about old white men making decisions.  He has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth.  He isn't particularly charismatic, and has relatively few die hard supporters.  I think that unless he gets really lucky where the remaining 2-3 other candidates really screw up somehow, he's the one that's going to get dropped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention his wildly inappropriate interactions with very young girls. When my mum first mentioned this to me, I thought it was just another heap of Breitbart bollocks. However, having watched countless incidents on youtube, I have to say the bloke looks like a straight up paedophile.

 

 

 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I feel like Biden's problem is that as the field winnows, he becomes a less compelling candidate.  Being a party insider with great name recognition and plenty of funding will help you survive the first couple of rounds, yes.  But if after Super Tuesday, the field is reduced to say Biden+ Harris + Beto or Harris + Sanders or Warren + Booker, how does Biden convince people that he's the choice?  He's an old white man in a party that is angry about old white men making decisions.  He has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth.  He isn't particularly charismatic, and has relatively few die hard supporters.  I think that unless he gets really lucky where the remaining 2-3 other candidates really screw up somehow, he's the one that's going to get dropped. 

He's definitely not a shoe-in. I think his main argument, and I don't know if it will be convincing (or even if it is correct) is that, as a moderate, old, white, man, he's the one best positioned to beat Trump. Because that's the kind of person that Obama-Trump voters would be most comfortable coming back to the Democratic party for and because, as a moderate, he's the one the newly flipped suburbs would be most comfortable voting for. Polling has already shown that electability is the biggest concern for primary voters this cycle, and if Biden can tap into that, he's got a huge advantage.

Of course, there's also lots of arguments to make that he's not the most electable, that he has a huge amount of baggage that'll drag him down. I think some of the other candidates are in a better position than others to make those arguments, so it'll depend on who's left standing. But you've got still be standing in the final rounds to have any chance and Biden will still be standing then; if he runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DMC said:

Then...what does it mean?  Measurably?

People who wear denim to the symphony or opera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's way too early to say for sure, but right now Harris looks like the person to beat for the nomination.  She has a strong resume, she's youngish, she consistently walks the line between being tough and being charismatic, and she showed political acumen by not shrinking away from her record as a prosecutor.  I've no doubt a few people on the left won't like a prosecutor being the nominee, but I doubt it could possibly dampen enthusiasm for her in the general.  The only real downside I'm seeing is that she's from California, and while that isn't ideal, it's hardly a crippling deficiency.  She's had to navigate some bruising Democratic primaries in the past too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Contra Sgt. Shultz:

Anyone who says they don’t see color isn’t worth listening to. They literally deny people their lived experiences by doing so.

Also, to pick up on a theme from another thread, why is this guy not getting punished for being the El Chapo of legal drugs? Oh wait, society, and its inconsistencies on what counts as a drug….

Share this post


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

And there aren't enough potential "pocket Democratic billionaires" to keep afloat candidates who lack popular support, unlike on the Republican side, which kept a lot of names in 2016 going for longer than they should have.

Oh yes there is. Four of the five richest Americans are Democrats, as are a majority of the ten richest Americans. They’re just cheap, which is why I support Maher’s crusade to shame these people.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh yes there is. Four of the five richest Americans are Democrats, as are a majority of the ten richest Americans. They’re just cheap, which is why I support Maher’s crusade to shame these people.   

That's my point though. Sure there are Democratic billionaires, but they don't get involved in politics the way Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Joe Ricketts, Paul Singer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langon, the Mercers, the Kochs, etc. all do. Each of them had their own favorite 2016 candidate (some also had their own favorite 2012 candidate) who they bankrolled long past the point of viability among the GOP primary electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I know it's way too early to say for sure, but right now Harris looks like the person to beat for the nomination.  She has a strong resume, she's youngish, she consistently walks the line between being tough and being charismatic, and she showed political acumen by not shrinking away from her record as a prosecutor.  I've no doubt a few people on the left won't like a prosecutor being the nominee, but I doubt it could possibly dampen enthusiasm for her in the general.  The only real downside I'm seeing is that she's from California, and while that isn't ideal, it's hardly a crippling deficiency.  She's had to navigate some bruising Democratic primaries in the past too. 

I’ve been saying for months that she should be the obvious favorite. She literally checks off all the boxes one should want in a dynamic candidate. She’s smart, articulate, telegenic, quick on her feet, appeals to numerous demographics, and probably most importantly, she’s new. I’m sure you’re right that some liberals won’t like that she’s a former prosecutor, but the obvious counter to that is who is better suited to debate Trump, a career criminal, than an accomplished prosecutor? She’s clearly demonstrated that this is an asset of hers during committee hearings. Also, I find it odd that she gets knocked for this when nobody seems to mention it as a negative for Klobuchar.

Also, being from California isn’t a bad thing. She’s fund raising like crazy because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m sure you’re right that some liberals won’t like that she’s a former prosecutor, but the obvious counter to that is who is better suited to debate Trump, a career criminal, than an accomplished prosecutor?

Perhaps they should be reminded that a liberal icon, or used to be a liberal icon,  at least, that was a former prosecutor was Earl Warren. He was also a Republican, back in the day, when there was somewhat sane ones.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Fez said:

That's my point though. Sure there are Democratic billionaires, but they don't get involved in politics the way Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Joe Ricketts, Paul Singer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langon, the Mercers, the Kochs, etc. all do. Each of them had their own favorite 2016 candidate (some also had their own favorite 2012 candidate) who they bankrolled long past the point of viability among the GOP primary electorate.

And that’s why they need to be shamed and/or encouraged to put some skin in the game. It’s embarrassing how little they give. I’m sure they’re afraid that it will hurt their businesses, but that doesn’t stop the conservatives from doing so and there’s data to give them to prove that it won’t. Take the NFL for example. They feared Kaepernick’s kneeling would hurt their bottom line so they blackballed him, but the data shows that while viewership went down, profits went up during that infamous season. Using your wealth to take principle stand is something people on the left should be encouraged to do, and even if it hurts them financially, so what? Oh no, I’m only worth $35 billion now, it’s so painful to know that I used to be worth $38 billion. Give me a break….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m sure you’re right that some liberals won’t like that she’s a former prosecutor, but the obvious counter to that is who is better suited to debate Trump, a career criminal, than an accomplished prosecutor?

I think I've said this before, but I think Trump won the one one one debates with Hillary. She didn't play to her strength (competency) and he did play to his. She basically just keep repeating 'can you believe this guy?' when IMO she should have been demonstrating that she knew some shit about policy and Trump abso-fucking-lutely did not. So yeah, Harris would be stellar in a one on one with Trump and I would pay to see that smack-down.

That's not an endorsement, it's way too early for me to get caught up in this shit except for general impressions. Why the fuck don't we limit campaign season in this country? We're going to have people campaigning for two years instead of doing their actual jobs. 

Also I'm actually really bothered by the lack of attention Gabbard is getting from the media. There is more talk and speculation about Bernie, Biden and Beto than a candidate who has actually declared. Gillibrand has dropped off the map too as far as coverage and talk as far as I can tell. I know there's no obligation to give equal coverage, but I'm uncomfortable with the Kingmaker status they have. It's not new, I know, but it seems more pronounced this time, maybe because I'm paying more attention or maybe because there are so many candidates or who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps they should be reminded that a liberal icon, or used to be a liberal icon,  at least, that was a former prosecutor was Earl Warren. He was also a Republican, back in the day, when there was somewhat sane ones.

I think you’re asking a lot of the average person. Like I’ve said before, the polling on if people know what the three branches of government are is pretty atrocious. Most people won’t even have heard Earl Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I think you’re asking a lot of the average person. Like I’ve said before, the polling on if people know what the three branches of government are is pretty atrocious. Most people won’t even have heard Earl Warren.

You're probably right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

That's not an endorsement, it's way too early for me to get caught up in this shit except for general impressions. Why the fuck don't we limit campaign season in this country? We're going to have people campaigning for two years instead of doing their actual jobs. 

You’re preaching to the choir here. I’d prefer a six to eight week primary followed by an eight to twelve week general, or something to the effect.

Quote

Also I'm actually really bothered by the lack of attention Gabbard is getting from the media. There is more talk and speculation about Bernie, Biden and Beto than a candidate who has actually declared. Gillibrand has dropped off the map too as far as coverage and talk as far as I can tell. I know there's no obligation to give equal coverage, but I'm uncomfortable with the Kingmaker status they have. It's not new, I know, but it seems more pronounced this time, maybe because I'm paying more attention or maybe because there are so many candidates or who knows.

Gabbard and Gillibrand don’t have paths to victory at the moment, so they’re less likely to get free airtime. It’s the nature of the beast, fair or not. Plus they’re also hurt by the fact that they don’t have anything that distinguishes them from the crowd.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Rep. Ilhan Omar Spars With Elliott Abrams Over His Links To War Crimes
The Minnesota Democrat’s tangle with Trump’s new special envoy to Venezuela shed light on Abrams’ controversial career.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ilhan-omar-elliot-abrams-clash-war-crimes_n_5c6480e6e4b0018ed01b5501

I see that Elliot Abrams is just as willing now as he was 30 years ago to mislead and lie to Congress. I'm happy to see Omar go after him about it.

Share this post


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

 

Also I'm actually really bothered by the lack of attention Gabbard is getting from the media. 

She sucks, the media knows it, and her campaign is a shambles. She ain't going anywhere other than RT-financed Jill Stein limbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×