Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

It's over.

5 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Biden probably won this debate honestly. That aggressive ending capped it 

 

Get your ass up people, let’s do this 

What.

 

No way.  That aggressive end can't overcome most of his debate performance.  Trump won.

 

Amy, Pete, Andrew did better than Joe.  Lizzie did better than Joe, despite her moments of weaknesses.

Bernie did better than Joe.

Edited by Rdskns2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, visionary said:

How many more will follow, I wonder.  Why now?

Why is this suprising?  They are all left of Warren; so there's no way they were endorsing her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, visionary said:

She will endorse him officially at the rally.  We’ll see if this shakes things up and moves the left back solidly in his camp.

 
I don’t think she’s remotely that big of a player to influence votes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 
I don’t think she’s remotely that big of a player to influence votes 

She's one of if not the most popular politician among the left, isn't she?   But I'm not sure how much endorsements matter these days.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their endorsements reflect the failing fortunes of his campaign. It’s a hope for juice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Pete came off like an asshole. I don’t really understand what’s he’s doing lately. He’s almost solely relying on moderates, never trumpers and independents and that won’t be enough. 

 

But he’s going to bring down the everyone else with him 

 

he is going for the opening lane to the right of warren, only realistic chance he has vs warren/sanders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JCB said:

I think their endorsements reflect the failing fortunes of his campaign. It’s a hope for juice.


AOC fans stan for Bernie anyways. I’m sure he’ll pull a few percentage points but Warren overtook Biden by winning moderate Dems/Hillary primary voters. 
 

There is nothing Bernie can do to win over center-left voters. People know his brand and you’re either already supporting him or you’re not looking his way. I doubt there’s a large portion of Bernie-curious voters. 

Share this post


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

She's one of if not the most popular politician among the left, isn't she?   But I'm not sure how much endorsements matter these days.

Endorsements matter, but not much. Not unless they are unexpected or bring some kind of machine behind them, a la unions. There is some buzz out there that Harry Reid will endorse Warren before Nevada, which would be kind of big. It would give her real establishment cred and put the fabled "Reid turnout operation" behind her in a caucus state. That would be an endorsement that meant something. 

 

The squad endorsing Bernie, not so much. The area where these women have influence (the left, young voters, Twitter) are already on Bernie's side or won't be. There's really no reason to believe this is going to boost him, or do anything to reverse the reality that he's fading and pretty much done in this race. They've pretty much just ensured that they will be tied to a losing campaign. And the only real impact this could have is to make Warren look a little worse for not having gotten these endorsements, So if they wanted to hurt her a little and thus help Biden, then they've done the best job of that they could. 

 

And AOC and Tlaib's states won't vote until it is very possible (one could say very likely) Sanders is effectively out of the race, maybe literally out. At that point, these two ladies could have made an endorsement that could have helped steer some votes in their home area. At that point, it could be a Warren vs Biden race, or a Warren vs Harris race, or even a Harris vs Biden race. In any case, it'd be pretty clear who the squad would prefer. But, as much as endorsements may or may not matter, they sure don't matter all when they're the "I know I endorsed someone else before, but now I'm backing someone different" type. They will have essentially defanged themselves by that point. 

 

These women, and AOC in particular, seem really politically savvy, so it's surprising they've done something so wrongheaded. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, visionary said:

She's one of if not the most popular politician among the left, isn't she?   But I'm not sure how much endorsements matter these days.

 

She's very popular, but I don't think she is the type of person that lends credibility to Sanders campaign and thus doesn't really move votes. Remember when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama? That was significant given his stature compared to Obama at the time. I think a lesser candidate might get a boost from AOC, but not an already established candidate like Bernie. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

It's over.

What.

 

No way.  That aggressive end can't overcome most of his debate performance.  Trump won.

 

Amy, Pete, Andrew did better than Joe.  Lizzie did better than Joe, despite her moments of weaknesses.

Bernie did better than Joe.

 

Biden was better than he has been previously and showed some passion. He handled himself well imo. I think for the #2/1 candidate in every poll biden did well because he did nothing to hurt himself like he has previously. Holding ground and solidifying confidence in those that support him is important at this stage since he’s been bleeding in the polls lately 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor Pete flashed a little fire.  I liked it.  If the world was a fair and logical place, he would be the nominee. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Mayor Pete flashed a little fire.  I liked it.  If the world was a fair and logical place, he would be the nominee. 

 

Certainly better than the top three. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Mayor Pete flashed a little fire.  I liked it.  If the world was a fair and logical place, he would be the nominee. 

He's my favorite of the group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti Semitic Ilhan Omar joins two of The Squad in endorsing the Jewish and sexist Bernie Sanders.

 

 

 

Am I doing it right?

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Somalia reference, dude. But, as Bruce Allen might say, you're close!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t even know there was a debate until I saw coverage of it on my coworker’s tv tuned to Fox News this morning.

 

Glad to hear that my boys Biden and Buttigueg did well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting take on the wealth tax that I had not considered before (though I'm also not sure of all of the details of Warren's plan):

 

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/taxing-financial-transactions-is-more-strategic-than-taxing-high-wealth

 

"Since the bulk of the money comes from a very small group of people, this small group of people has the option to announce that they will not pay the tax, by renouncing their citizenship. If that sounds strange to people, they have not been following the political behavior of the very rich in recent years. Can anyone say it’s worth $5 billion a year to Jeff Bezos to be a U.S. citizen?

 

Suppose 1,000 very rich people, representing $10 trillion in wealth, sent a letter to Congress proclaiming their plan to renounce their citizenship if lawmakers moved ahead with President Warren’s wealth tax? My guess is that Congress would not move forward (even if it otherwise were inclined to endorse such a measure). If Congress did move forward, and a substantial share of these billionaires carried through with their threat, the Warren administration would face a major embarrassment.

 

It’s great to see leading presidential contenders proposing measures to seriously address the rise in inequality over the last four decades. However, the implications of these policies have to be considered carefully. A financial transactions tax is likely to prove far more effective than a wealth tax."

 

Another piece on the effects of marriage on a wealth tax:

 

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trophy-wife-tax-credit.html

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If American Citizens renounce their citizenship to avoid fractions of a percent increase in their taxes as is being proposed to help pay for MFA, that says more about them then any plan to address these issues.  

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Springfield said:

I didn’t even know there was a debate until I saw coverage of it on my coworker’s tv tuned to Fox News this morning.

 

Glad to hear that my boys Biden and Buttigueg did well.

You heard wrong on Biden. He had a couple of strong moments but for the most part,  looked like the dottering old man he is.

 

Every review I've seen, Biden was clear loser.

 

If the Dems don't want Warren; they need to find an alternative  to Biden.

Biden will be worse than Hillary.

Edited by Rdskns2000
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expected to hear more about him yelling at Warren by now, that was such a bad look that I would've said the same if she was yelling at him like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone help me with the public option vs. medicare for all.   I keep hearing from the public option candidates that people should have the choice etc etc etc....but in reality what I think they are referring to is all the people who have employer-based health insurance.  However, let's say a public option becomes reality, right?  How long before most companies start cancelling their health insurance plans and referring their employees to the public option anyway?

 

It seems like when the public option idea was first being proposed by Obama (before he took it out of Obamacare) there was at least some honesty about it that it was basically a transition towards medicare for all/national healthcare because most insurance is not going to be able to compete, and the plans that can compete are most likely going to be only be afforded by the very wealthy anyway. 

 

It just feels like those arguing for a public option instead of medicare for all are making a dishonest argument because their campaign managers feel that "give people a choice" polls better. Instead their argument should be more along the lines of "going from our current system to medicare for all in one big swoop would be too big a shock to the system, a public option will allow the gradual transition over time and allow us to tie up loose ends and make improvements in real time" etc etc etc etc

 

I could be wrong in my understanding, please chime in and tell me where I am wrong here.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.