|
mlmp08 posted:Show of hands, who thinks, between bernie and biden, that Biden has better odds of winning the GE than Bernie? Sanders had been betting on turning out new, young voters. Biden bet on increasing black and working class white voter turnout. Right now, Biden isn't looking unlikely.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Campaigning and engaging the poor ones who would most benefit from medicare for all and workers protections and increasing the social safety net via taxing the ultra-wealthy and corporations seems like it could work, but I'm sure that it's safer to run a moderate to get Bill the reluctant Trump voter to switch and not do any of the other stuff
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
The only way anyone could appeal to republican voters is to literally wear Donald Trump's skin as a suit
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Show of hands, who thinks, between bernie and biden, that Biden has better odds of winning the GE than Bernie? With Sanders nearing -50 in Florida and somewhere around -15 in Michigan, I'd put my hand up for Biden, and he is the only one likely to get to the GE. Although I would have much rather seen Warren do to Trump what she did to Bloomberg. (Although I'm sure Sanders will stay in and milk y'all for  long after his shot is gone.
bird cooch fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Mar 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:With Sanders nearing -50 in Florida -50 what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
Biden 61% Bloomberg 14% Sanders 12% Warren 5% Buttigieg 1% Klobuchar 1% Steyer 0% https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/ There's a decent chance with all the drop outs he doesn't even hit viability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:-50 what? St Pete Polls shows Biden with a 49 pt lead over Bernie. EFB
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Do y’all know what the general election is? But I gotta say, if Bernie and Biden are going to face off as the two candidates in the GE, that’s great news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Do y’all know what the general election is? Are you just intentionally misreading things or what? This is the second or third time in the last few pages. bird cooch posted:With Sanders nearing -50 in Florida and somewhere around -15 in Michigan, I'd put my hand up for Biden, and he is the only one likely to get to the GE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Can Florida even be considered a swing state anymore?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Are you just intentionally misreading things or what? This is the second or third time in the last few pages. Bird Cooch did not answer the question that was asked and instead deflected to predicting the democratic primary results rather than talking about the GE. How does that make me the one who’s intentionally misreading things? Godholio posted:Are you just intentionally misreading things or what? This is the second or third time in the last few pages. And what are you referring to? Me saying that Ron Paul supporters are different from Bernie supporters? mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Mar 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Can Florida even be considered a swing state anymore? No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Biden is going to be destroyed by Trump so it makes more sense to go for the Hail Mary of Sanders tbh
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Literally every state that Biden has won so far is going to vote for Trump in the general, except like maybe Virginia. The current state of the primary is an incredibly bad indicator of how the general will play out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
I think there really is a very good chance that Biden would outperform Bernie in the GE, but saying "Biden has the lead in a state that democrats will absolutely not win in 2020," is such a pointlessly stupid statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
We are literally currently in the midst of a primary election to determine who people think would beat Trump. I'm not cryptic or anyting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
They might as well have run Chelsea Clinton. Biden's campaign slogan is going to be "it's her turn", regardless of who the VP is. They are just rerunning the exact same 2016 strategy, it will probably be the exact same outcome. I'm certainly never voting again. What a loving waste of time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I think there really is a very good chance that Biden would outperform Bernie in the GE, but saying "Biden has the lead in a state that democrats will absolutely not win in 2020," is such a pointlessly stupid statement. If Bernie does not win the Democratic primary he won't beat Trump because he won't be the Democratic nominee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:34
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:They might as well have run Chelsea Clinton. Biden's campaign slogan is going to be "it's her turn", regardless of who the VP is. They are just rerunning the exact same 2016 strategy, it will probably be the exact same outcome. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue that Biden would have a better chance. Hell, let's play devil's advocate, why not. Every politician is going to have competing interests and priorities based on their districts, constituents, parties, donors, people they owe favors to, mistresses, mistresses' husbands, etc. The hard, and I mean hard, part of legislating is organizing all of those interests into a semi-coherent body of general policies and proposals. This is why parties were originally founded, but it can be seen within parties as well in the form of caucuses, state parties, advocacy groups, etc. The problem is that parties are not and are never going to be unified wholes. What the constituents of, say, John Jackson (J-Wherever) demand could be the polar opposite of Jack Johnson's constituents want, even if they're both in the same party—so an easy vote for Jackson could mean a primary challenge or general election loss for Johnson. This was very apparent when the Obama Administration was trying to pass the ACA, and a ton of representatives and senators took that vote knowing it would mean they were going to lose. As it turns out, doing the right thing is very rarely rewarded in Washington. So what Presidents and legislative leaders have to do is find out how to get all of their members to rally around their agendas—even if those members don't like the agenda and/or fear electoral backlash because of it. Lyndon Johnson was, of course, the master of this: he even had a particular a technique he called "The Treatment," where he'd get in close, I mean real close, back you into a corner while towering over you with his 6'4" frame, and then just let you have it—cursing you, cursing your family, promising hellfire and damnation if you crossed him, promising power and favors if you didn't... I'll quote from Wikipedia here: quote:The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the Johnson Ranch swimming pool, in one of Johnson's offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself—wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach. Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.  Lyndon Johnson was many things, but he was one of the very, very few who could make the Senate work for him. Medicare and Medicaid, the space program, the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65... without Johnson, it's doubtful we would have been able to achieve all of those things. (Of course without Johnson, do we have Vietnam? uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh) So when it comes to Sanders versus Biden, the question is this: Sanders obviously has a better agenda, but can he pass it? He's made lots of amendments to bills, but doesn't have a huge amount of legislation with his name on it, and is relatively lacking in Congressional endorsements. Biden meanwhile was a long-standing member of the Senate and has a ton of inter-personal relationships with Senators, Representatives, major donors, and other key figures across the Democratic Party. If you're a Senator and needed a favor from Sanders, he might be able to offer his vote and his alone—if you needed a vote from Biden, he could offer five. That kind of dealmaking prowess is extremely important in Washington, and it's why Obama chose Biden to be his Vice-President in the first place. Which brings me to... Mr. Nice! posted:What the gently caress is this dumb poo poo? M4A and black interests are not mutually exclusive. When it comes to hard votes, they could be. Every President has to prioritize what they're going to spend their political capital on, when to fight Congress for what they want, and when to let things go. Jimmy Carter, man of immense personal integrity and courage that he was, blew pretty much all of his goodwill with Congress in his first month after getting into a massive fight over pork-barrel water projects. This meant that a plethora of other legislation that could have gotten through congress like universal healthcare, federal job guarantees, universal daycare, etc, were all put on the wayside for what ultimately became Carter and Ted Kennedy's dickwaving competition—one they would ultimately lose to Ronald loving Reagan. So if you're an African-American Congressman, you could very well imagine seeing political capital, media exposure, and Presidential attention being spent on an all-encompassing Medicare for All fight while a new VRA or other legislation assisting African-Americans (Or even just your constituents) is left to languish. (Again, I am not saying a President Sanders would do this: merely that it's clear he hasn't been able to convince the people he needs to convince that he wouldn't.) So ultimately, the case for a President Biden comes down to a simple fact: Even if he doesn't believe in the same kind of radical reform Sanders does, his relatively mild agenda has a much greater chance of passing because Biden knows who to call, who to gladhand, and who needs their palms greased in order to pass it. And it's not just legislation, either—appointments are also a huge deal, and Biden would likely be able to get more Democrats on board with his nominees than Sanders would, which would be very important if the Democrats only have a narrow majority (Or no majority at all) in the Senate. And not just Democrats either—though I am under no delusions that any Republican is going to vote for any major Democratic legislation, Biden could, maybe, be able to make enough calls or slap in enough pork to allow key bills or appointments to go through committee. Sanders? Probably not even that. Now, having power and knowing how to wield power is ultimately less important than how that power is wielded, which is why I'm obviously going to be voting for Sanders. But there's more, much more, to passing legislation than merely having good ideas, and as old and withered as Biden is, I think he'd still have a better chance of navigating his policies through Congress than Bernie would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:They might as well have run Chelsea Clinton. Biden's campaign slogan is going to be "it's her turn", regardless of who the VP is. They are just rerunning the exact same 2016 strategy, it will probably be the exact same outcome. Bernie Bro here. You deserve more Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:We are literally currently in the midst of a primary election to determine who people think would beat Trump. That is untrue. It is an important consideration, but that is objectively not the sentiment of some pretty key players who are democrats but have stated that they would rather sit out or vote Trump than vote for a progressive. (Edit: or, to be fair, it is not the sentiment of Bernie or Bust types who will stay home or vote Trump rather than Biden) Vincent Van Goatse posted:If Bernie does not win the Democratic primary he won't beat Trump because he won't be the Democratic nominee. Congrats, this is why John Kerry was the best possible nominee, and literally no one on Earth could have been performed better because of how time works. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Mar 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Hell, let's play devil's advocate, why not. This is a real good post. Thanks a ton. mlmp08 posted:That is untrue. It is an important consideration, but that is objectively not the sentiment of some pretty key players who are democrats but have stated that they would rather sit out or vote Trump than vote for a progressive. 1: lol, fuckin who? Cite that garbage. 2: Kerry is almost in no way a direct corollary
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Congrats, this is why John Kerry was the best possible nominee, and literally no one on Earth could have been performed better because of how time works. Hey, why did the goalpost move on its own? Oh, wait... Seriously, this isn't a lateral thinking trick question. If Bernie doesn't win the primary he doesn't beat Trump because that means he isn't a candidate. You can't win an election you're not a candidate for barring weird edge cases with no relevance. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Mar 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Literally every state that Biden has won so far is going to vote for Trump in the general, except like maybe Virginia. Ah yes, the long-standing Republican strongholds of Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:This is a real good post. Thanks a ton. Thanks, at least someone appreciates the four years I spent on that political science major 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Modest proposal: anyone who says "I'm never voting again" or words to that effect get their homes handed over to Trump so he's their landlord forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
I love waking up to a circular firing squad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:1: lol, fuckin who? Cite that garbage. 1. Bloomberg, Never Trumpers, Chris Matthews and his ilk, etc. 2. Why? Vincent Van Goatse posted:Seriously, this isn't a lateral thinking trick question. If Bernie doesn't win the primary he doesn't beat Trump because that means he isn't a candidate. You can't win an election you're not a candidate for barring weird edge cases with no relevance. That is true, but not insightful. Saying "Oh ho ho, the only person who can beat Trump is the person who wins the Democratic nomination" is true, but it is pretty pointless when discussing the hypothetical of "which of these two people would fair best against Trump, IF they won the nomination?" Especially when head to head polls exist. Again, I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea that Biden could do better against Trump than Bernie. But saying that the reason Biden will do better is because he will likely make it to the general election, but Bernie will not, is not terribly useful discussion. No poo poo, the person who wins a primary has better odds in a general compared to a write-in or independent. This isn't wild thinking. In sports, we talk all the time about how the team who wins their division might or might not be the team best suited to take on the winner of the other division.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Just like you don't listen to Jennifer Rubin's takes, you shouldn't engage with the thread's Republicans when it comes to the Democrat party
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:1. Bloomberg, Never Trumpers, Chris Matthews and his ilk, etc. Famous bastion of democratic politics Mike loving Bloomberg are you loving kidding me. Hahaha. next you going to cite some mean guy on Twitter? Never trumper's are loving Republicans. Proud Christian Mom posted:Just like you don't listen to Jennifer Rubin's takes, you shouldn't engage with the thread's Republicans when it comes to the Democrat party Hey look at this guy who can't read.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
Serious question. Would you all vote for a Biden warren ticket? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Serious question. Would you all vote for a Biden warren ticket? Edit: The problem with making Liz VP is that Baker is going to fill her seat with some Republican shitbag, and a senate majority is one of the most important priorities we need to have. Casimir Radon fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
I’d vote for that ticket. I don’t have the luxury not to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Serious question. Would you all vote for a Biden warren ticket? They could put Warren's dog on the ticket and I'd vote for it. ...Actually if anything that'd make me even more likely to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
I'd vote for shaken up Natty ice and a warm mayo sandwich if that's what was up against Trump. poo poo Id vote for a vegetarian omelette MRE
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
I'd rather stick my dick in a hornet nest than in a blender, but that doesn't mean that either option is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I'd rather stick my dick in a hornet nest than in a blender, but that doesn't mean that either option is good. Welcome to American politics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Serious question. Would you all vote for a Biden warren ticket? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2020 22:22
|
|