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

[visionary]

 

[Simmsy]

7 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe it has to do with the fact that you represent everyone, not just your supporters.

 

 

No, if you run on a mandate of gun control and the majority that voted you in wants gun control...you give them gun control. If the minority whines and doesn't like it, too bad. Go vote next cycle.

 

Obviously, if its a civil rights issue majority and minority need not apply.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Simmsy said:

If the minority whines and doesn't like it, too bad. Go vote next cycle.

Elections have consequences, huh?  That's the line you want to go with?  Where have I had that before.  You're free to tie yourself to that wagon but I'm not.  Representatives represent everyone, not just the majority.  I'm not saying completely dump the will of the majority but the views of the minority should still be considered, not just telling them to kick rocks.

[Simmsy]

33 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Elections have consequences, huh?  That's the line you want to go with?  Where have I had that before.  You're free to tie yourself to that wagon but I'm not.  Representatives represent everyone, not just the majority.  I'm not saying completely dump the will of the majority but the views of the minority should still be considered, not just telling them to kick rocks.

So you tell the majority that voted for you to kick rocks?

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

So you tell the majority that voted for you to kick rocks?

No.  You meet in the middle.  (I get this doesn't happen.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for it.)

[mistertim]

23 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

No.  You meet in the middle.  (I get this doesn't happen.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for it.)

 

I think it used to many moons ago, but you're right that it certainly doesn't happen anymore. 

[No Excuses]

6 hours ago, visionary said:

 

There are tons of former Republicans voting in the Dem primaries. College-educated right-leaning suburbanites who are first time Dem primary voters. Happening all over the country. In exit polls, the party is LESS liberal than it was in 2016. 
 

Looks like a strong rejection of not only Trump, but a fear of Bernie as well. Rejecting populism in general. After much consideration, I couldn’t bring myself to vote Bernie either even though Joe Biden was my last choice all throughout. Not that it will matter by the time we have the Acela primary....

[@DCGoldPants]

 

If these numbers are accurate + what looks like Biden V Trump in a bunch of swing states. The Biden campaign needs to change their strategy. You don't need him getting into the fray or trying to convince voters on the fence. You need him and his surrogates to do a massive "get out the vote" campaign amongst the already Dem supporters.

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Biden is wiping the floor with Bernie and getting a much better turnout than Hillary. For likely several reasons right or wrong, he's viewed as a better and more electable candidate than she was. Add to that, there is simply a large anti-Trump push that will favor Biden that didn't exist in 2016 without actually having seen this ****face run the country for 3.5 years.

 

It's a long ways still to go but I'm thinking he could smash Trump. 

[Larry]

9 hours ago, Destino said:

You realize that there are states voting last in line currently right?  By your logic we are limiting their agency.  Something you’re apparently ok with that.  Awesome idea!
 

It’s fun arguing absurdities rather than what people actually say. 

 

Kinda like advocating for people being ignored, and then taring to attack somebody because he failed to complain about this other thing.  

[Larry]

9 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I like the idea of starting with a few small to medium states, because the candidates can spend time there and be known by the voters. But it should be rotated and not be dominated by white-heavy states. 

 

Then maybe a couple of bigger states. But it should be one a week for a while, at least five states in. Then we can start grouping them, though maybe not this huge "Super Tuesday" nonsense. 

 

Strongly agree.  

 

I love the idea of having only one state start off.  Another one at least a week later.  (Maybe two.)  

 

It at least gives the "wild card teams" a chance to win their way into the later rounds of the playoffs.  (I think Mayor Pete demonstrated that technique, this year.  Fight your ass off to win the first few states, and hope that the money shows up to back the winner.)  

 

I also like the idea of those first states being either caucus, or ranked choice voting.  (I prefer the later.)  Give voters the choice of voting for their second choice.  Give a nudge to the candidate who might not be everybody's first choice, but he's everybody's second choice.  

 

Just not sure that those early states should be IA-NH every year.  (Although I do think I'd favor a rule that it should be small states.  Again - lower cost of entry for candidates who aren't already rich.)

 

9 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Here's a novel idea. Win the plurality of the popular vote nationwide, get the nom (and also have every vote for the nomination take place on the same date).

 

Candidates who don't have a billion dollars in their campaign, a year before the election, need not apply.  

[Llevron]

18 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

It's a long ways still to go but I'm thinking he could smash Trump. 

 

He definitely can. And with the economy bombing, that takes away Trumps major advantage. I hope Biden wipes the floor with him. We kinda need him to as a nation. 

[Larry]

7 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

What the above author is trying not to say, is that Bernie seems to do better in places where the system suppresses the impact of ordinary voters, and amplifies the effect of voters who are small in numbers, but very enthusiastic.  

 

[goskins10]

So it looks like Biden is the one. I still like Bernie's policies better but clearly the majority do not agree. So team Biden it is. I just hope people are right and he destroys 45. Four more years for this narcissistic despot wannabe will wreak even more havoc on our democracy. 

 

I hope Bernie learned from last time and will not continue well past the time it's clear he is losing. Unlike in 2016 where delivering his base would have made a huge difference, probably enough for a Hillary win, I don't think his base is needed as much this time - to start it's a much smaller base as we are seeing in the primaries. But it sure would not hurt. 

 

He promised to campaign vigorously for whoever does win if it's not him. He needs to keep that promise. If so, I think he can be an instrumental part of a democratic administration.

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Sanders isn't a Democrat, for the second election season, he's hijacked the Democrat Party. Last time, he threw a tantrum and held up the party platform. He's looking to do that this time. The platform needs to stay the same and he needs to butt out and just campaign vigorously for the nominee regardless. 

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Biden is wiping the floor with Bernie and getting a much better turnout than Hillary. For likely several reasons right or wrong, he's viewed as a better and more electable candidate than she was. Add to that, there is simply a large anti-Trump push that will favor Biden that didn't exist in 2016 without actually having seen this ****face run the country for 3.5 years.

 

It's a long ways still to go but I'm thinking he could smash Trump. 

 

At this rate, I'm not willing to believe anything I see until votes go in the box.

[Simmsy]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

No.  You meet in the middle.  (I get this doesn't happen.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for 

That would be fine if one side would actually come to the table. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

At this rate, I'm not willing to believe anything I see until votes go in the box.

 

I've already scheduled time off work on election day and the day after. Going to be an all-day party or an alcohol induced coma. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

37 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

That would be fine if one side would actually come to the table. 

I agree.  But acting the same just perpetuates the status quo.  I don't agree with doing that.

[Hooper]

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Biden is wiping the floor with Bernie and getting a much better turnout than Hillary. For likely several reasons right or wrong, he's viewed as a better and more electable candidate than she was. Add to that, there is simply a large anti-Trump push that will favor Biden that didn't exist in 2016 without actually having seen this ****face run the country for 3.5 years.

 

It's a long ways still to go but I'm thinking he could smash Trump. 

 

The coalition he is putting together is Trump's nightmare, but the worst thing Dems can do is act like they have this.

 

But it's clear the Trump hatred is going to unite much of the party and get people to turn up to vote. Just giving Trump the finger with your vote is going to prove more important than any single issue.

[Riggo-toni]

Trump not only needs to be beaten; he needs to be beaten resoundingly.

Anything less than a clear repudiation, and he and his minions will cry foul. Given that Trump is liable to be indicted once he no longer has the protection of office, he likely will decide he has nothing to lose by contesting even a clear loss.

[nonniey]

11 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

You are a right winger, so of course you will like the Trump judges. Closer to your Iranian Version of the U.S.A.  A Christian theocracy.

The rest of us prefer non right wing judges. 

 

Can you list the damaging decisions that you have heartburn over that the Supreme Court has passed since Gorsuch entered the court? Just curious to see what the damage, as you view it, is.

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Can you list the damaging decisions that you have heartburn over that the Supreme Court has passed since Gorsuch entered the court? Just curious to see what the damage, as you view, is.

 

Just observing, since you seem to want to apply the standard of "only decisions they've actually handed down, in the last few years, count when passing judgement on the SC", and since you started this discussion by announcing your opinion on Trump's impact on the court, could you list the decisions that caused you to come to your conclusion, applying the same standard that you want him to apply?  

 

Edit:  I'll even toss out one for you two to fight over.  In Rucho v Common Cause, the new court ruled 5-4 that the Equal Protection clause does not give citizens the right to vote (even in federal elections) in elections that have not been intentionally rigged to favor one political arty.  

 

Proof that Trump's SC appointments are Right?  Or Wrong?  

[88Comrade2000]

At this moment I still see Joe losing a close EC election because I feel Joe himself will turn off some people.

He's going have to rely on many people to help push him over the hump. He's needs to stop having those bizzare interactions with voters.

 

The coronavirus outbreak and corona recession could tip things in his  favor.

 

I was having fun at 270towin EC map. If things really goes Joe's way, could he have a papa Bush landslide?  Getting over 400 Eve, which would surpass anything Clinton and Obama did. Could Joe equal Reagan's win over Carter.

 

A Trump landslide loss would be so great.

 

Bernie is supposed to give a campaign update at 1. Could he drop out?

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just observing, since you seem to want to apply the standard of "only decisions they've actually handed down, in the last few years, count when passing judgement on the SC", and since you started this discussion by announcing your opinion on Trump's impact on the court, could you list the decisions that caused you to come to your conclusion, applying the same standard that you want him to apply?  

 

Oof. Good one