Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Forehead]

9 hours ago, Springfield said:

I’ve not seen a single person claim they favor Bloomberg.  Who the **** is his actual target audience?  What’s his demo?

 

I don’t get how he could be polling above 2%

 

This was his plan all along.  He skipped Iowa and NH while the others were fighting over it, and instead has been flooding Super Tuesday states with ads.  A lot of these voters, if they don't watch debates, he's the only candidate they've seen anything for.

 

I just saw my first Klobuchar ad on TV this morning.  Between TV and Internet, I've probably seen 100 Bloomberg ads.

[Llevron]

35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Yeah, how dumb of the Democrats not to come up with a system to avoid their party being taken over by an outsider that heavily appeals to people based on low value talking points.

 

Oh wait, they did.  The super delegate, which have been clearly written into the rules for winning the Democratic nomination for decades now (not something created just to prevent Sanders from taking control).  But somehow if they do their job, that'll be awful.

 

But somehow even though they've been written into the rules for decades if they do their job, it isn't fair.

 

So you dont think there was a smarter way to avoid the problem than them using super delegates to stop a guy thats getting more of the vote than anyone else? All that sarcasm makes me feel like you are capable of seeing the negatives that are going to be associated with that and probably could have used the last 4 years to figure out something else. 

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, Forehead said:

 

This was his plan all along.  He skipped Iowa and NH while the others were fighting over it, and instead has been flooding Super Tuesday states with ads.  A lot of these voters, if they don't watch debates, he's the only candidate they've seen anything for.

 

I just saw my first Klobuchar ad on TV this morning.  Between TV and Internet, I've probably seen 100 Bloomberg ads.

 

And the impression I get is that his ads pretty much say "I'm not Donald Trump".  

 

Which a lot of people approve of.  

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

So you dont think there was a smarter way to avoid the problem than them using super delegates to stop a guy thats getting more of the vote than anyone else? All that sarcasm makes me feel like you are capable of seeing the negatives that are going to be associated with that and probably could have used the last 4 years to figure out something else. 

 

I don't think there's really a better way, especially that they could have implemented in the last 4 years, that wouldn't have made people equally upset and been even more patently unfair.

 

Because any thing they could have done in the last 4 years would have been almost  specifically done to target Sanders.

 

Any thing the Democratic party had done to block Sanders from getting the nomination would have been declared as unfair and not right by Sanders and his supporters.

 

Sanders even had a hand in writing the rules he's running for the Democratic party nomination now after 2016.   He got into the process knowing the rules.

 

If he can't win the greater then 50% that he needs to win the nomination and loses on subsequent ballots because of the super delegates, that's the rules he agreed to abide to when he started running.  The unfair thing to do would be now to change the rules on everybody else.

 

(I'll point out that the founding fathers essentially came up with same idea in the electoral college.  Have a group of people that are supposed to be the grown ups and stand up and do the right thing when the people mess up with the popular vote.

 

There is no easy fix to this problem.)

[Riggo-toni]

10 hours ago, Springfield said:

I’ve not seen a single person claim they favor Bloomberg.  Who the **** is his actual target audience?  What’s his demo?

 

I don’t get how he could be polling above 2%

Despite his flaws, there are a number of policy positions I agree with him on - free trade, climate change, raising upper income taxes but not corporate, and a solid record of non-partisan pragmatic efficiency. Stop and frisk is obviously a black mark (no pun intended). The surveillance of mosques looks bad in hindsight, but in the context of the post-911 hysteria where over 3000 New Yorkers were murdered is understandable.

[LadySkinsFan]

Here on my Austin TV channels (network and Hulu) it's Bloomberg and Steyer with a bit of Sanders thrown in. The more I hear about Bloomberg the more I want him defeated next week. I like Steyer's message and his background of starting a non-profit community bank to help people. And he goes after Trump. He needs more government experience besides going for the top spot right off.

[Destino]

49 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Despite his flaws, there are a number of policy positions I agree with him on - free trade, climate change, raising upper income taxes but not corporate, and a solid record of non-partisan pragmatic efficiency. Stop and frisk is obviously a black mark (no pun intended). The surveillance of mosques looks bad in hindsight, but in the context of the post-911 hysteria where over 3000 New Yorkers were murdered is understandable.

On free trade?  Seems like he’s the last hold out on continuing to negotiate free trade in a way that ignores the effects on American workers.  His arguments that trade isn’t “entirely” to blame for the steady loss of middle class job losses is unconvincing. The major selling point of free trade, other than lower prices, is greater efficiency.  That was supposed to result in higher paying jobs, but economic numbers seem to consistently show efficiency gains are not resulting in rising wages as they should. 
 

I’m open to supporting old thinking on free trade, but right now negotiating trade deals that take environment and workers into account seems like a better idea for most Americans.  
 

Going beyond my personal concerns, I don’t see his positions winning over the working class.  Beating Trump without them seems unlikely. 

[Springfield]

55 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And the impression I get is that his ads pretty much say "I'm not Donald Trump".  

 

Which a lot of people approve of.  

Maybe it’s because I’m a higher information voter than the ads targeting the people he wants, but I feel like simply being “I’m not Donald Trump” is an overall losing strategy.

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, Destino said:

On free trade?  Seems like he’s the last hold out on continuing to negotiate free trade in a way that ignores the effects on American workers.  His arguments that trade isn’t “entirely” to blame for the steady loss of middle class job losses is unconvincing. The major selling point of free trade, other than lower prices, is greater efficiency.  That was supposed to result in higher paying jobs, but economic numbers seem to consistently show efficiency gains are not resulting in rising wages as they should. 
 

I’m open to supporting old thinking on free trade, but right now negotiating trade deals that take environment and workers into account seems like a better idea for most Americans.  
 

I don’t see his positions winning over the working class, without them democrats will not reclaim the White House.  

I think given the number of low information voters, people won't really understand or even hear about the nuances of international trade policy.

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think given the number of low information voters, people won't really understand or even hear about the nuances of international trade policy.

 

Heard a comment made by Paul Krugman in an interview a few days ago.  

 

He pointed out that international trade is actually a very small part of the US economy.  That most of the economy is services, for Americans.  That frankly, the total amount of money represented by international trade, both imports and exports, is about the same amount of money as . . . health care.  

 

And his point was that which part of the economy is both more broken, and therefore easier to fix?  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

 

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

Maybe it’s because I’m a higher information voter than the ads targeting the people he wants, but I feel like simply being “I’m not Donald Trump” is an overall losing strategy.

 

It's a winning strategy at the start because while other primary candidates are battling each other, his ads are battling Trump so he is positioning himself as the guy to do that before others have really had a chance to take Trump on. He's just ignored the other candidates. It worked in propping up his poll numbers but he's going to lose the primary and just siphon votes away from others that need them

[88Comrade2000]

The Dem convention is going to get huge ratings. Everyone, even Trump, will be watching the ****show.

 

Do they accept the will of the voters? Do they give it to someone else..? 

 

Can't wait. Cable news will get the highest ratings ever.

[Larry]

Admiring how many people are swallowing (and repeating) the line that the DNC darned well better change the rules that they've had for decades, or else they're "denying the will of the voters".  

 

Did the US "deny the will of the voters", when they used the Electoral College to pick a President, instead of the popular vote, based on nothing other than the fact that that pesky constitution says that's the rules?  

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

Admiring how many people are swallowing (and repeating) the line that the DNC darned well better change the rules that they've had for decades, or else they're "denying the will of the voters".  

 

Did the US "deny the will of the voters", when they used the Electoral College to pick a President, instead of the popular vote, based on nothing other than the fact that that pesky constitution says that's the rules?  

 

Not sure that is an apples to apples comparison. I say im not sure - cause im not sure lol. I feel like the delegate thing is .... optional? Is that correct? Basically that they can decide who the delegates go to. Not that its constitutionally mandated. But honestly im not sure now that you bring it up 

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Not sure that is an apples to apples comparison. I say im not sure - cause im not sure lol. I feel like the delegate thing is .... optional? Is that correct? Basically that they can decide who the delegates go to. Not that its constitutionally mandated. But honestly im not sure now that you bring it up 

"They" don't decide who the delegates go to, the delegates decide who they go to.  At least in theory, they are picked as delegates for that reason.

 

Edit:  And let's not ignore the wonderful irony in the position of Bernie in the past regarding those rules.

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Edit:  And let's not ignore the wonderful irony in the position of Bernie in the past regarding those rules.

 

That's why Bernie is the perfect candidate, you know.  His ironclad consistency.  Never flip flops or changes his position on anything.  

[88Comrade2000]

Bernie is probably going to be the only one who wins delegates in California.  That 400+ delegates that no one will makeup.

Bernie is leading in many delegate rich states that he can pad his lead; even if he has to split delegates with other candidates in other states.

 

It's over. I think after Super Tuesday, Bernie is going to roll the way Trump did in 2016. He will win a majority of the remaining states.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

Did the US "deny the will of the voters", when they used the Electoral College to pick a President, instead of the popular vote, based on nothing other than the fact that that pesky constitution says that's the rules?  

 

Yes, and it's why people want to remove the electoral college, among other reasons. 

.

 

[NoCalMike]

Rules vs. Norms.  In the past when the highest delegate candidate goes to the convention, hasn't the candidate with the next highest amount, pledged theirs to the other person to give them the majority?

 

What will the masses respond to more, the rules or the norms?

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[Forehead]

Despite being an Amy supporter, it would probably be best at this point if she and Buttegieg saw the writing on the wall, dropped out Sunday/Monday, and implored their voters to back Biden to make sure he grabs some of California.  I'd say the same of Bloomberg but he has the money to play as long as he wants, no matter who it hurts.

[Larry]

Quote

California: 
Sanders 35%
Warren 14%
Biden 13%
Bloomberg 12%
Buttigieg 7%
Klobuchar 6%

 

If the state happens that way, what happens?  Does Bernie get all the delegates, despite only getting 35% of the vote?  Do 65% of the delegates just become uncommitted?  

 

(Yes, I'm aware it's more complicated than that.  For example, Lix might get 14% statewide, but might be over 15% in some CDs.)  

 

If 35% gets all the delegates, then I'm thinking somebody needs to drop out, or yeah, we can call it for Bernie right now.  No, he won't be a mathematical lock.  But when you factor in the lead he'll have, with the voter's tendency to vote for whoever's leading, he's pretty much a lock.  

 

[RedskinsFan44]

Quote

Polls

Uggghhhh. God help us if we have a Trump Sanders election with a pandemic going on.

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

"They" don't decide who the delegates go to, the delegates decide who they go to.  At least in theory, they are picked as delegates for that reason.

 

Thats a distinction without a difference though isnt it? The delegates are picked without regards to who gets the votes was my question. I know you knew that. I wasn’t calling it a conspiracy. 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Edit:  And let's not ignore the wonderful irony in the position of Bernie in the past regarding those rules.

 

Bernie didn’t exactly argue for what the current rules are. The current rules were the compromise he was given. That’s like saying what we ended up getting called Obama Care was the plan from the start. We all know it wasn’t. I’m not sure if you knew that or not. 

[88Comrade2000]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

If the state happens that way, what happens?  Does Bernie get all the delegates, despite only getting 35% of the vote?  Do 65% of the delegates just become uncommitted?  

 

(Yes, I'm aware it's more complicated than that.  For example, Lix might get 14% statewide, but might be over 15% in some CDs.)  

 

If 35% gets all the delegates, then I'm thinking somebody needs to drop out, or yeah, we can call it for Bernie right now.  No, he won't be a mathematical lock.  But when you factor in the lead he'll have, with the voter's tendency to vote for whoever's leading, he's pretty much a lock.  

 

Bernie is going to get the lions share. Even someone else wins a congressional district; it won’t be that many delegates.