Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1161719212240

Comments

  • hehe, even though I hate that it's a kick at Warren.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    hehe, even though I hate that it's a kick at Warren.

    I don't think it's a kick to point out when a candidate adopts someone else's good ideas, particularly if they're someone who's already dropped out of the race. Stubbornly refusing to adopt anyone else's ideas because they're someone else's ideas is actually a negative quality in a leader.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    hehe, even though I hate that it's a kick at Warren.

    I don't think it's a kick to point out when a candidate adopts someone else's good ideas, particularly if they're someone who's already dropped out of the race. Stubbornly refusing to adopt anyone else's ideas because they're someone else's ideas is actually a negative quality in a leader.

    As amply demonstrated by our current Dear Leader.
  • Booker is now saying if he cannot raise $1.5 mil by the end of the month, he will have to reassess his run for the high office. I have mixed reactions to this. I like what he has done while in the Senate. I think he could be a good president, but he is just up against stronger--or at least, more popular people.
  • The more people have invested in a particular candidate, the more likely Trump will win.
    It is all well and good to prefer one over the other, but there will be a time when all that over and full support must be give to whoever the Democrats choose.
    Otherwise, the candidate will get Sandered as Clinton did.
  • Another month has passed since my last state of the Democratic Primary assessment so here's an update. There's been a debate since my last assessment and we've now gotten enough post-debate national polls to figure out how much each candidate has moved. Not much, it turns out. Everyone's more or less where they were a month ago.

    The Front Runner
    • Joe Biden

    Biden still polls around 30% support among Democratic primary voters, with individual polls ranging from 26% to 33%.

    The Second Tier
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren

    Every time I post one of these updates Elizabeth Warren is on an upward trend while Sanders is mostly holding steady, only to have Warren revert to a statistical tie with Sanders a week or two later. Nonetheless, Warren is currently on an upward trend. Warren rates about 20% of the Democratic primary vote while Sanders is around 17%.

    The Long Shots
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Kamala Harris

    Harris and Buttigieg are pretty much tied now with upper single-digit support among likely Democratic primary/caucus voters.

    No Chance/Running for Cabinet
    • Michael Bennet
    • Cory Booker
    • Steve Bullock
    • Julián Castro
    • John Delaney
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Wayne Messam
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Tom Steyer
    • Marianne Williamson
    • Andrew Yang

    All the candidates on the above list are polling below 5% support. This list is shorter than last time since five candidates have migrated to the list below. Cory Booker says that he needs $1.7 million in contributions by the end of the third quarter (30 Sept 2019) or he'll have to end his run.

    The Dropouts
    • Bill de Blasio
    • Kirsten Gillibrand
    • Mike Gravel
    • John Hickenlooper
    • Jay Inslee
    • Seth Moulton
    • Richard Ojeda
    • Eric Swalwell

    These candidates have ended their run for the nomination.

    The Democrats still seem to have the same five plausible choices, ranked in pretty much the same order of preference as a month ago.

    We also have a few state-level polls for early states that can refine this picture.

    Iowa: [3 Feb, 41 delegates] Elizabeth Warren is either tied with Joe Biden (i.e. within the margin of error) or in first place in this first caucus state. Every post-debate poll (there are three of them at 538) has Sanders finishing third, which has got to sting since he came within 0.2 percentage points of winning the state in 2016.

    New Hampshire: [11 Feb, 24 delegates] No post-third-debate polls exist for this state yet. Pre-debate polling has more or less a three way Biden/Sanders/Warren split.

    Nevada: [22 Feb, 36 delegates] No post-third-debate polls exist for this state yet. The one pre-debate poll that's recent enough to be relevant shows a Biden/Sanders tie for first with Warren in third place.

    South Carolina: [29 Feb, 54 delegates] No post-third-debate polls exist for this state yet. Virtually every pre-debate poll (though there aren't that many) has Biden way out front in this state.

    So this is the current "state of play", more than four months before anyone will be casting a vote anywhere.
  • Antisocial AltoAntisocial Alto Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Another month has passed since my last state of the Democratic Primary assessment so here's an update. There's been a debate since my last assessment and we've now gotten enough post-debate national polls to figure out how much each candidate has moved. Not much, it turns out. Everyone's more or less where they were a month ago.

    The Front Runner
    • Joe Biden

    Biden still polls around 30% support among Democratic primary voters, with individual polls ranging from 26% to 33%.

    The Second Tier
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren

    NPR has been reporting that Biden supporters' most popular second-choice candidate is Sanders, and vice versa (Sanders supporters' second choice is Biden). It certainly seems to indicate that people aren't picking candidates based on their policy. Biden and Sanders are about the two farthest apart on the issues.
  • They both have penises and they both are straight.
  • Well, if true, that's just plain stupid. Sanders is my top choice but Warren is infinitely preferable to Biden. I really don't understand how anyone can get enthusiastic about Biden.
  • Well, if true, that's just plain stupid. Sanders is my top choice but Warren is infinitely preferable to Biden. I really don't understand how anyone can get enthusiastic about Biden.
    If that is true? IF?! Of course it is true. And of course it is stupid.
    Biden has at least one characteristic in common with Trump and that is the lack of filter. Or at least the appearance of that. And that is a characteristic that some find attractive in a politician.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    NPR has been reporting that Biden supporters' most popular second-choice candidate is Sanders, and vice versa (Sanders supporters' second choice is Biden). It certainly seems to indicate that people aren't picking candidates based on their policy. Biden and Sanders are about the two farthest apart on the issues.

    It's fairly close though. In both cases Warren is right behind, and only by a point or two. Here's the second choice ratings listed by Democratic voter's first choice.

    Biden Supporters:
    • Sanders 28%
    • Warren 26%
    • Harris 10%

    Sanders Supporters:
    • Biden 29%
    • Warren 28%
    • Harris 7%

    Warren Supporters:
    • Sanders 23%
    • Biden 22%
    • Harris 16%

    Harris Supporters:
    • Warren 28%
    • Biden 18%
    • Sanders 12%

    Buttigieg Supporters:
    • Warren 25%
    • Biden 23%
    • Harris 13%

    Warren is the only candidate to draw more than 20% support as a second choice candidate from supporters of all her rivals. Pete Buttigieg seems to be no one's (statistically significant) second choice.
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    And only Harris supporters strongly prefer Warren over the other candidates. (And I'm pretty sure I can guess why.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    W Hyatt wrote: »
    And only Harris supporters strongly prefer Warren over the other candidates, and I'm pretty sure I can guess why.

    Buttigieg supporters prefer Warren over other candidates as well, though the fact that they prefer her by only two percentage points over Biden is a statistical tie (i.e. within the margin of error for most polls).

    Given the narrow margins among other candidate's supporter's second choices, Harris supporters seem to be the only ones with a single clear second choice.
  • I've been wondering lately about the likelihood of this scenario: Trump is impeached, is removed from office, and then successfully runs for re-election. Other than the fact that the current Senate would never vote to remove Trump, is there any reason it couldn't happen?
  • Disqualification from office is something mentioned together with removal in the bit in the Constitution about impeachment. However it has been interpreted that these are two separate acts that aren't necessarily done together. Of course in this fantasy Senate that votes for one, it seems likely they would also vote for the other.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    W Hyatt wrote: »
    I've been wondering lately about the likelihood of this scenario: Trump is impeached, is removed from office, and then successfully runs for re-election. Other than the fact that the current Senate would never vote to remove Trump, is there any reason it couldn't happen?

    Possibly. The U.S. Constitution allows two possible penalties to be applied upon conviction following impeachment. Those are "removal from Office" and "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" (Art. I, §3, cl. 7). Removal is required (Art. II, §4) but disqualification is an optional add-on. The Framers anticipated a situation where the legislature impeached and removed someone and the President just turned around and re-appointed them (impeachment isn't just for presidents!), perhaps to a position that didn't require Congressional approval. So if a sentence includes disqualification that would prevent Trump from running for president again. If it doesn't there's no bar.
  • An additional bar might be the third clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    This would depend on exactly what Trump would be hypothetically convicted of and how closely one parses terms like "aid and comfort" and "enemies". Those terms generally refer to actions during an armed conflict. This clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment by Unionists who resented it when Confederate traitors tried to return to their pre-Civil War seats in Congress (and other offices) like nothing had happened.
  • And Tulsi makes twelve. Rep. Gabbard got her fourth qualifying poll meaning that she'll be on stage for the fourth Democratic primary debate in mid-October. The fact that there are now twelve participants means that the debate will almost certainly be held over two nights.

    The only not-yet-qualified candidate with enough donors to qualify for October's debates is Marianne Williamson but she'd need to draw at least 2% support in three polls between now and October 1 to complete the other part of the qualifications, which seems unlikely at this point.

    Relatedly the DNC has now announced the standards to qualify for the fifth debate, now scheduled for sometime in November. Candidates are required to have 165,000 individual donors, drawing at least 600 donors each from at least 20 different states. Additionally candidates must draw at least 3% support in four recognized national or early-state polls or draw at least 5% support in two recognized early-state polls. Early states are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. To count a poll must be released sometime between September 13 and seven days before the as-yet unannounced debate day.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Relatedly the DNC has now announced the standards to qualify for the fifth debate, now scheduled for sometime in November. Candidates are required to have 165,000 individual donors, drawing at least 600 donors each from at least 20 different states. Additionally candidates must draw at least 3% support in four recognized national or early-state polls or draw at least 5% support in two recognized early-state polls. Early states are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. To count a poll must be released sometime between September 13 and seven days before the as-yet unannounced debate day.
    "And may the odds be ever in your favor!"
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    A question which intrigues me and I haven’t seen discussed anywhere…

    Am I right that Trump’s apparent efforts to dig up dirt on Biden would suggest that he expects to end up facing him (Biden) in a presidential election? Or do you think he is trying to dig up dirt on other candidates as well? I saw a comment that suggests that Biden is still the candidate that afears him the most, and this is why he has targeted his dirt-digging campaign in this direction.

    Does this make Biden less electable, either in a primary or in the presidential election?

    Also, if Trump ends up facing not Joe Biden, but Elizabeth Warren (say), how does that play out?

    I would be interested in your views on this.
  • We’ll be hearing, “Pocahontas, Pocahontas” day in and out. And unfortunately Warren fed that nonsense earlier this year.
  • The Sanders-Venezuela talking point is also well in place.
  • I'm sure everybody is doing research on everybody else. I'm sure the cashed up Trump campaign will be researching all the Democratic candidates, even Wilkinson. They will be devoting more resources to certain candidates, but everyone will be on the list.

    Personally, I don't like this scandal. Maybe its because I'm not American, but as I understand it Hunter Biden was a cock-up in the Navy and got discharged. Then he turns up with a $50K a month job for a company in the Ukraine. That's smelly to me. I don't like it. How can Biden go Trump on corruption and nepotism when he is not a cleanskin himself? Sure, the necessary connections aren't there, but the smell is. Kick the bastard to the kerb. Let Harris be the centrist candidate.
  • Hunter Biden’s kind of corruption is very common and very routine in American politics. If he’d made it in the Navy he could be rotating between military procurement boards and executive positions at Boeing or Lockheed. But yeah, this is one more reason why Joe Biden should not be the nominee.
  • It's not like there's a shortage of reasons. The fact that such corruption is common is nothing to crow about. I hate to wish ill on a guy everybody seems to like, but the best thing that could happen (and soon) is some medical complication that sidelines his campaign for a decent stretch.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Hunter Biden’s kind of corruption is very common and very routine in American politics. If he’d made it in the Navy he could be rotating between military procurement boards and executive positions at Boeing or Lockheed. But yeah, this is one more reason why Joe Biden should not be the nominee.
    What corruption? This article gives a different perspective.
    As Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state under Obama, recalled this week, “All of us working on Ukraine wanted this prosecutor gone, because he was NOT prosecuting corruption. So did the Europeans. So did the IMF. This didn't come from Joe Biden—he just delivered our message.”

    From an Atlantic article that isn't exactly pro Hunter Biden:
    Joe Biden did pressure Ukraine’s fledgling post-Yanukovych president to remove a public prosecutor—as part of concerted U.S. policy. So did every other Western government and dozens of Ukrainian and international pro-democracy activists. The problem was not that the prosecutor was too aggressive with corrupt businessman-politicians like Hunter Biden’s boss; it was that he was too lenient.
  • Hunter Biden’s kind of corruption is very common and very routine in American politics. If he’d made it in the Navy he could be rotating between military procurement boards and executive positions at Boeing or Lockheed. But yeah, this is one more reason why Joe Biden should not be the nominee.

    Not sure the fact that Hunter Biden took the kind of well-compensated make-work job that are often offered to the kids of the well-connected has any bearing on whether or not Joe Biden has a future in politics. It only seems relevant if Joe Biden misused his position in aid of his son, something no one has been able to provide any plausible evidence of.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Unfortunately this shows the efficacy of smears, even from those one distrusts.
  • The idea that “chocolate king” Poroshenko would be relied upon to crack down on corrupt oligarchs is funny as hell.

    As for Joe Biden, I see no reason to take his word for it any more than Trump’s.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    tha fuck? EVERYBODY pro democracy wanted the bloke gone.
  • Ah, yes, “pro democracy”. Cute.
  • The idea that “chocolate king” Poroshenko would be relied upon to crack down on corrupt oligarchs is funny as hell.

    As for Joe Biden, I see no reason to take his word for it any more than Trump’s.

    That seems like slack-jawed credulity masquerading as cynicism. For most people the fact that Biden's word on this matter seems to be congruent with reality, including your own assessment of the Poroshenko regime, would be considered a reason to believe him when he says he didn't use the awesome power of the vice presidency :open_mouth: to knuckle the president, the State Department, the IMF, and a whole lot of other countries into pressing for Shokin's removal because Viktor Shokin was some kind of anti-corruption crusader. The fact that this is an implausibly banana-pants conspiracy theory (just read the last bit or the previous sentence starting with "the awesome power of the vice presidency . . . ") would seem to be another reason to take Biden's word.

    But go ahead and feel free to explain why there was a worldwide conspiracy to take down noble, anti-corruption prosecutor Viktor Shokin in order to line the pockets of Hunter Biden.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    The Maidan revolution, which all those lovely “pro democracy” people supported, was really a matter of one set of oligarchs and mobsters conducting a coup against another- with key help from the neo-Nazis who now enjoy an influence in Ukrainian political discourse quite disproportionate to their actual support base. In this sort of context “anti-corruption” initiatives have a tendency to be rather selective. Do you guys have any idea how factionalized and, well, corrupt Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau is?

    It’s like when MbS was imprisoning his extended family in that hotel to shake them down for money and calling it “anti-corruption.” What does “anti-corruption” mean in a system built top to bottom on corruption? The point isn’t that Shokin was some model of integrity or that Joe Biden was specifically trying to benefit his son. It’s that any talk of any of these people- Biden, Obama, the IMF, or Trump for that matter- caring about corruption in Ukraine is laughable.

    Does it not bother any of you that a US leader- whether Biden or Trump- can coerce another country into firing its own officials, regardless of how corrupt said official may be? Or do you think the US has some special entitlement to do such things?
  • The point isn’t that Shokin was some model of integrity or that Joe Biden was specifically trying to benefit his son.

    If you argue that Joe Biden shouldn't be in politics because he used his past position to benefit his son then the question of whether Joe Bide was actually trying to benefit his son would seem to very much be the point, particularly on a thread devoted to the 2020 election.
  • Cool strawman, bro. I said he shouldn’t be the Dem nominee. My reasoning being that, in Simon’s words, “the smell is there” even if the actual case is flimsy. It’s one more talking point for the GOP and since Biden’s politics are centrist mediocrity his personality will be center stage.
  • Cool strawman, bro. I said he shouldn’t be the Dem nominee. My reasoning being that, in Simon’s words, “the smell is there” even if the actual case is flimsy. It’s one more talking point for the GOP and since Biden’s politics are centrist mediocrity his personality will be center stage.

    Right. Cokie's law: it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's out there. I'm pretty sure that regarding made-up scandals as disqualifying is just a way to encourage the fabrication of more fake scandal. Plus it's a pretty big contributor to how we got here in the first place. Remember how security best-practices with executive branch electronic documents was the most important issue of the 2016 election? Ah, good times!
  • Just to be clear, in the American idea of corruption:

    Using foreign aid to coerce another government into firing an official= not corruption.

    Using foreign aid to coerce another government into digging up dirt for use in domestic politics= corruption.
  • Well, yes. The latter is an abuse of government authority for private benefit, while the former is not (at least in this case, so far as public reports go.)
  • Kinda stupid thing to hang one's hat on. If the Democrats cannot pull support cleanly, Trump is going to be renominated.
    Whinging because one's preferred candidate didn't get the nod is part of why he got the White house the first time.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    .
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Hunter Biden’s kind of corruption is very common and very routine in American politics. If he’d made it in the Navy he could be rotating between military procurement boards and executive positions at Boeing or Lockheed. But yeah, this is one more reason why Joe Biden should not be the nominee.

    Not sure the fact that Hunter Biden took the kind of well-compensated make-work job that are often offered to the kids of the well-connected has any bearing on whether or not Joe Biden has a future in politics. It only seems relevant if Joe Biden misused his position in aid of his son, something no one has been able to provide any plausible evidence of.

    Plausible evidence is irrelevant if what we are deciding is who is going to be the best Democratic candidate to run against Trump. The standard of proof is whether it smells and looks like dinosaur shit. Of course, it is the whole candidate that matters, not just the smear. And how likely the smear is to be believed is the key question. If there was plausible evidence that Hunter got the job because Joe was Veep, or whatever (don't care about the timing enough to look it up) he should have withdrawn his candidacy already.

    As things stand, Joe should have stood in the way of his son taking that job. If he is a screw up, why isn't he running the family basket-weaving business? Why put a screw-up into Ukraine?

    Biden can't be the candidate. He stinks of old, tired, corruption. Mothballs and stale piss.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Kinda stupid thing to hang one's hat on. If the Democrats cannot pull support cleanly, Trump is going to be renominated.
    Whinging because one's preferred candidate didn't get the nod is part of why he got the White house the first time.

    Not sure this analysis holds water. Yes, the Bernie Bros seem to have stayed home (or voted for The Thug) on election day 2016. But given that Hillary won more votes despite this, how would a Bernie candidacy have swung the electoral college over to a democrat win?

  • true enough, but it feels good to kick the bastards.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Kinda stupid thing to hang one's hat on. If the Democrats cannot pull support cleanly, Trump is going to be renominated.

    Pretty sure Trump is going to be renominated no matter what the Democrats do (other than removal following impeachment). What the Democratic presidential candidate should focus on is preventing Trump from being reelected.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Plausible evidence is irrelevant if what we are deciding is who is going to be the best Democratic candidate to run against Trump. The standard of proof is whether it smells and looks like dinosaur shit.

    If the standard is that the Democrats shouldn't nominate anyone who the Republican could manufacture a fake scandal about then the Democrats shouldn't nominate anyone. Let's review, shall we?

    Hillary Clinton: murdered Vince Foster and something something emails.

    Barack Obama: secret Kenyan Muslim atheist

    John Kerry: faked his service in Vietnam

    Al Gore: claimed to have invented the internet, serial fabulist

    Bill Clinton: drug runner and mass murderer.

    Santa Claus: Socialist!

    I threw that last one in to make a point. Trying to find a candidate Republicans won't invent some fake scandal about is a fool's errand.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    ...I threw that last one in to make a point. Trying to find a candidate Republicans won't invent some fake scandal about is a fool's errand.

    I've read several times over the years why Jesus could never be elected because of all of His scandalous behavior. Talk about a Socialist!
    :wink:

  • Ohher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Kinda stupid thing to hang one's hat on. If the Democrats cannot pull support cleanly, Trump is going to be renominated.
    Whinging because one's preferred candidate didn't get the nod is part of why he got the White house the first time.

    Not sure this analysis holds water. Yes, the Bernie Bros seem to have stayed home (or voted for The Thug) on election day 2016. But given that Hillary won more votes despite this, how would a Bernie candidacy have swung the electoral college over to a democrat win?
    I did say part, if you will notice.
    This is not horseshoes or hand-grenades, Hillary LOST. This is important because who sits in Oval Office is more important than conciliatory rhetoric about winning the popular vote.
    Unless you want a repeat, enough people have to vote for whoever runs against Trump to make a difference. And anyone not voting for whoever that might be is directly supporting Trump.


  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I did say part, if you will notice.
    This is not horseshoes or hand-grenades, Hillary LOST. This is important because who sits in Oval Office is more important than conciliatory rhetoric about winning the popular vote.
    Unless you want a repeat, enough people have to vote for whoever runs against Trump to make a difference. And anyone not voting for whoever that might be is directly supporting Trump.

    The number of people voting, and for whom, plainly was not the deciding factor in 2016. As you point out, Hillary lost. She lost despite winning the popular vote by some 3 million ballots. It's the electoral college which decided that outcome. Based on your comment here . . .
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Kinda stupid thing to hang one's hat on. If the Democrats cannot pull support cleanly, Trump is going to be renominated.
    Whinging because one's preferred candidate didn't get the nod is part of why he got the White house the first time.
    . . . I understood you to be claiming that Bernie Bros' defections are somehow to blame for the 2016 Democratic lose. If a candidate can lose by a 3-million vote majority, then what majority -- if any -- can guarantee victory? I'm not sure there's evidence for your claim about turnout unless it can be shown that a major shift in the electoral college vote would have followed on from a Bernie / Donald matchup with a huge Bernie turnout. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.

  • My problem with Biden is that Hunter took that job and Joe let him take that job. That puts it in a different category to that other bullshit. It puts it in the category of 'the appearance of corruption'. That should be enough to exclude people from public life.

    I'm not walking it back here. I still think the whole thing stinks. I'm just trying to make it easier for everyone to admit that I'm right.
  • Simon Toad--

    LOL! ;)

    I don't know the truth of the situation; but if this happened after the death of the other son, Bo(?), Joe and Hunter might not have been thinking straight all the time. Joe did focus on pushing for a cancer cure, 'cause Bo. He also promised Bo that he'd run for president; but, later, he decided he shouldn't. Yet, now, he's running.
  • Most American parents will let their kids make their own bed when it comes to career choice. We do not want to get involved. Hunter was an adult. He made his choice. Probably did not consult his dad at all.

    The Ukrainians did look at the allegations prior to Trump coming in office. Their conclusion was that Hunter did nothing wrong.

    Why are we parroting Trump's arguments?

    We still have a long way to go before the Democrats make their nomination. I personally do not think Biden is going to get it.
Sign In or Register to comment.