US Presidential Race

DoC's post certainly puts things in context for how things are going here. It's a reminder of how much gets taken for granted in this country and just how dangerous an aspiring autocrat like Trump really is. He has mentioned more than once about feeling like he should run beyond the customary 2nd term (if he even wins one). That is dangerous language in this country and the precedent for it is very flimsy.

Very happy for you, DoC. Everyone deserves to decide who should lead and govern their country democratically. I think there are things we Americans can learn from Tunisia in that regard as we have very much lost our way democratically.

McLewis wrote:DoC's post certainly puts things in context for how things are going here. It's a reminder of how much gets taken for granted in this country and just how dangerous an aspiring autocrat like Trump really is. He has mentioned more than once about feeling like he should run beyond the customary 2nd term (if he even wins one). That is dangerous language in this country and the precedent for it is very flimsy.

Very happy for you, DoC. Everyone deserves to decide who should lead and govern their country democratically. I think there are things we Americans can learn from Tunisia in that regard as we have very much lost our way democratically.

To add to this,
Tunisia is absolutely a democracy with a western style government. They are just a small country.. but don't let that fool you. They are going down the right path and I couldn't be more proud of them as my brothers.

AS the USA, some of trumps supporters are just blinded by his stupid and childish antics to see what him and more importantly, what the modern-day republican party are doing. They are normalizing corruption and totalitarian style governing. Obviously early stages, but if we get Trump for a second term..

@McLewis, how's Andrew Yang polling right now? I saw a poll in the NY Times where he was ranked seventh at just 3 percent, and I was a little surprised because I thought he would be polling a little higher than that.

Exactly how popular is he among the American people and do you think he has a chance of winning the 2020 Democratic primary?

The Demon of Carthage wrote:@McLewis, how's Andrew Yang polling right now? I saw a poll in the NY Times where he was ranked seventh at just 3 percent, and I was a little surprised because I thought he would be polling a little higher than that.

Exactly how popular is he among the American people and do you think he has a chance of winning the 2020 Democratic primary?

how's Andrew Yang polling right now?

So accordingy to FiveThirtyEight, Yang met the 3% threshold, but this is only for 1 poll. This next debate requires all candidates meet at least 3% polling threshold in 4 different polls. 3 have been released so far.

Additionally, he has to hit the 160K donor threshold, which he already has. This is pretty impressive given this threshold requires at least 600 donors to come from at least 20 different states, that way a candidate isn't getting all of their donations from a single source.

The only other path is for him to hit 5% or better in specific DNC-approved polls. That combined with meeting the donor threshold would be enough for him to qualify for the next debate.

As it stands right now, he won't be making it.

Exactly how popular is he among the American people?

To be perfectly honest, Andrew Yang is very much a niche candidate. His following is largest among older millennials and younger Gen-Xers as a non-political alternative to the more established candidates. In some ways, his appeal as a businessman and not a politician isn't all that dissimilar to how early Trump supporters saw Trump when he was a candidate during the GOP primary. Unlike Trump though, Yang is not at all well known by the general Democratic base and those who do know of him do not take him seriously enough, which is why he continues to poll so low. The other reason for him not being taken seriously is that he's not getting the same screentime as the other candidates by the media as well as talk-time in the debates. So he's become very practiced in using what little time he's given to speak effectively. That only increases his appeal with his base, but not much beyond that.

Do you think he has a chance of winning the 2020 Democratic primary?

4 years ago, I didn't think Trump had a chance of winning the GOP primary at all and yet he did. Despite all of the above going against Yang, I've learned not to underestimate candidates like him. He may not be a politician and business may definitely be his world, but he's a significantly better presidential candidate than Trump ever was. I personally don't see him winning the nomination as there are just too many forces against him, as I highlighted above. But if he does, somehow, end up pulling it off, it will less of a surprise given how fractured the Democratic voting base still is. He's running out of time though. I just don't see it happening.

Plus, he wants to tax the Big Four tech companies to be able to pay for his $1,000-per-month UBI plan. Sounds great for the people, but not so much for those companies. They'll make sure to do everything in their power to prevent him from getting elected to avoid paying for anything.

I wouldn't cast him aside if I were you though, because out of all the democratic candidates, he's by far the most likable. I even heard some Trump supporters claim that they wouldn't mind voting for him if it all comes to that.

Clearly, the average working American can relate to him, mostly because his ideas are not divisive and succinct. You need a candidate like that to beat Trump.

Well sure, I'm quite reluctant to dismiss him entirely. I personally think all of these candidates would handily beat Trump in a general election. Especially given the revelations that have just come out over the last couple of days (I'll post about it in the Trump thread in a bit).

As for Yang though, his biggest obstacle is getting the mainstream media to take him seriously. Large majorities of the democratic base get their news for major news sources like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC etc. None of the networks appear to want to give Yang the screentime that Biden, Warren, and Sanders are getting. Without that, he remains a niche candidate. It's not at all fair to him and his supporters, but that's his reality right now.

I'd love to see him get an equal platform to the other candidates. I think he'd really shine.

I hope Trump gets re-elected.

Whoever is elected isn't really going to change anything, at least Trump is interesting. Scandals everywhere, people trying to impeach him left and right A reality show, but a deserved one as well.

America is a joke of a country, probably the single worst place in the world morally, and it's culture is so widespread that it dictates the trends around the globe, so everyone is contaminated by their feces. Unfortunately their life standard shits on us all, so all we can do is cry.

He is the Hitchhiker's Zephod Bebblbox or however you spelt that.

But unfortunately he does have real power.

Does he really though?

He’s evil. But luckily he’s too dumb to be a complete menace

Biden is senile too, I don't see how he'd improve anything. Bernie? lol. Warren — a wamen? Nah.

Do you realize Haliburton is a vacation area in Canada?

pic.twitter.com/dOta1Z9gtZ

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2019

I don't understand how he still has supporters.

The supporters he still has are low information voters. They are ignorant and he has gaslighted them so much that they'll believe literally anything he says and everything else is fake news.

VivaStPauli wrote:

McLewis wrote:The supporters he still has are low information voters. They are ignorant and he has gaslighted them so much that they'll believe literally anything he says and everything else is fake news.

That's why this has always been about motivating non-voters, if you look at the statistics, voter participation was low AF the last go-around, if the selfish idiots who wanted to teach Clinton a lesson (and boy did they do that) turn out this time to vote against the orange rapist, it's a done deal.

I don't think they will, though. He'll get re-elected. Right-wingers are too good at gaslighting.

I think had Bernie lost the 2016 Dem primary on his own terms and not because the DNC decided to play kingmaker for Hillary, his supporters would not have stayed home or even (for a small portion) voted for Trump.

The DNC have been (almost painstakingly at times) accommodating to all challengers and have held Biden at arms length unlike with Hillary. I think they've learned that lesson at least from 2016. Between the older generations of Democrats who make up his base and enough of the younger generations who are terrified enough of a 2nd Trump term to hold their noses and vote for him, if he wins the nomination fairly, I think the Democrats have a great shot at beating Trump.

If there's any indication that Biden unfairly wins the nomination though over Bernie or Warren, we could see a repeat of 2016. I don't believe Trump automatically wins just because Bernie or Warren when the nomination. I think the scenario I mentioned above reverses itself and it will be the older generations of Democrats that may end up having to hold their noses and vote for one of them in order to prevent a 2nd Trump term.

McLewis wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

McLewis wrote:The supporters he still has are low information voters. They are ignorant and he has gaslighted them so much that they'll believe literally anything he says and everything else is fake news.

That's why this has always been about motivating non-voters, if you look at the statistics, voter participation was low AF the last go-around, if the selfish idiots who wanted to teach Clinton a lesson (and boy did they do that) turn out this time to vote against the orange rapist, it's a done deal.

I don't think they will, though. He'll get re-elected. Right-wingers are too good at gaslighting.

I think had Bernie lost the 2016 Dem primary on his own terms and not because the DNC decided to play kingmaker for Hillary, his supporters would not have stayed home or even (for a small portion) voted for Trump.

The DNC have been (almost painstakingly at times) accommodating to all challengers and have held Biden at arms length unlike with Hillary. I think they've learned that lesson at least from 2016. Between the older generations of Democrats who make up his base and enough of the younger generations who are terrified enough of a 2nd Trump term to hold their noses and vote for him, if he wins the nomination fairly, I think the Democrats have a great shot at beating Trump.

If there's any indication that Biden unfairly wins the nomination though over Bernie or Warren, we could see a repeat of 2016. I don't believe Trump automatically wins just because Bernie or Warren when the nomination. I think the scenario I mentioned above reverses itself and it will be the older generations of Democrats that may end up having to hold their noses and vote for one of them in order to prevent a 2nd Trump term.

He did lose on his own. He ignored the south and got outflanked by a candidate(Clinton) who simply wanted it more.

McLewis wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

McLewis wrote:The supporters he still has are low information voters. They are ignorant and he has gaslighted them so much that they'll believe literally anything he says and everything else is fake news.

That's why this has always been about motivating non-voters, if you look at the statistics, voter participation was low AF the last go-around, if the selfish idiots who wanted to teach Clinton a lesson (and boy did they do that) turn out this time to vote against the orange rapist, it's a done deal.

I don't think they will, though. He'll get re-elected. Right-wingers are too good at gaslighting.

I think had Bernie lost the 2016 Dem primary on his own terms and not because the DNC decided to play kingmaker for Hillary, his supporters would not have stayed home or even (for a small portion) voted for Trump.

The DNC have been (almost painstakingly at times) accommodating to all challengers and have held Biden at arms length unlike with Hillary. I think they've learned that lesson at least from 2016. Between the older generations of Democrats who make up his base and enough of the younger generations who are terrified enough of a 2nd Trump term to hold their noses and vote for him, if he wins the nomination fairly, I think the Democrats have a great shot at beating Trump.

If there's any indication that Biden unfairly wins the nomination though over Bernie or Warren, we could see a repeat of 2016. I don't believe Trump automatically wins just because Bernie or Warren when the nomination. I think the scenario I mentioned above reverses itself and it will be the older generations of Democrats that may end up having to hold their noses and vote for one of them in order to prevent a 2nd Trump term.

I wonder how much it comes down to the DNC coronation and how much it is that Hillary was an awful candidate. Let's not forget that she was the most unlikeable democratic nominee ever, that she lost in 2008 to complete unknown Obama, that she lost NH to Bernie by a landslide (now that there's a more crowded field Bernie polls at 16% for NH, comfortably 3rd), etc. She simply wasn't good. People didn't feel a strong desire to go out and vote for her, and more than a few just couldn't bring themselves to vote for her and ended up voting for Trump.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

McLewis wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

That's why this has always been about motivating non-voters, if you look at the statistics, voter participation was low AF the last go-around, if the selfish idiots who wanted to teach Clinton a lesson (and boy did they do that) turn out this time to vote against the orange rapist, it's a done deal.

I don't think they will, though. He'll get re-elected. Right-wingers are too good at gaslighting.

I think had Bernie lost the 2016 Dem primary on his own terms and not because the DNC decided to play kingmaker for Hillary, his supporters would not have stayed home or even (for a small portion) voted for Trump.

The DNC have been (almost painstakingly at times) accommodating to all challengers and have held Biden at arms length unlike with Hillary. I think they've learned that lesson at least from 2016. Between the older generations of Democrats who make up his base and enough of the younger generations who are terrified enough of a 2nd Trump term to hold their noses and vote for him, if he wins the nomination fairly, I think the Democrats have a great shot at beating Trump.

If there's any indication that Biden unfairly wins the nomination though over Bernie or Warren, we could see a repeat of 2016. I don't believe Trump automatically wins just because Bernie or Warren when the nomination. I think the scenario I mentioned above reverses itself and it will be the older generations of Democrats that may end up having to hold their noses and vote for one of them in order to prevent a 2nd Trump term.

I wonder how much it comes down to the DNC coronation and how much it is that Hillary was an awful candidate. Let's not forget that she was the most unlikeable democratic nominee ever, that she lost in 2008 to complete unknown Obama, that she lost NH to Bernie by a landslide (now that there's a more crowded field Bernie polls at 16% for NH, comfortably 3rd), etc. She simply wasn't good. People didn't feel a strong desire to go out and vote for her, and more than a few just couldn't bring themselves to vote for her and ended up voting for Trump.

She was good enough to get millions of more votes than Trump.

We cant legislate the fact that a large section of the country was racist and voted for Trump on that alone. Nobody actually knew how bad it was in certain places because its not places we would ever go.

Young Kaz wrote:

McLewis wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

McLewis wrote:The supporters he still has are low information voters. They are ignorant and he has gaslighted them so much that they'll believe literally anything he says and everything else is fake news.

That's why this has always been about motivating non-voters, if you look at the statistics, voter participation was low AF the last go-around, if the selfish idiots who wanted to teach Clinton a lesson (and boy did they do that) turn out this time to vote against the orange rapist, it's a done deal.

I don't think they will, though. He'll get re-elected. Right-wingers are too good at gaslighting.

I think had Bernie lost the 2016 Dem primary on his own terms and not because the DNC decided to play kingmaker for Hillary, his supporters would not have stayed home or even (for a small portion) voted for Trump.

The DNC have been (almost painstakingly at times) accommodating to all challengers and have held Biden at arms length unlike with Hillary. I think they've learned that lesson at least from 2016. Between the older generations of Democrats who make up his base and enough of the younger generations who are terrified enough of a 2nd Trump term to hold their noses and vote for him, if he wins the nomination fairly, I think the Democrats have a great shot at beating Trump.

If there's any indication that Biden unfairly wins the nomination though over Bernie or Warren, we could see a repeat of 2016. I don't believe Trump automatically wins just because Bernie or Warren when the nomination. I think the scenario I mentioned above reverses itself and it will be the older generations of Democrats that may end up having to hold their noses and vote for one of them in order to prevent a 2nd Trump term.

He did lose on his own. He ignored the south and got outflanked by a candidate(Clinton) who simply wanted it more.

I loathe having to use Wikileaks to prove a point, but per this NYT Piece - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html - the DNC definitely looked to have aligned against Sanders during that primary, which of course favored only Clinton and paved the way to her easliy claiming the nomination.

Bernie never had a chance in the South for a ton of reasons, but the most fatal was that the DNC never really gave him an even playing ground to even try to appeal to those voters because they didn't take his campaign as seriously as they did Hillary's. It's not their place to determine who the Democrat base should be supporting. Their place is to provide resources that help ALL Democratic candidates. They failed to do that in 2016 and the exodus of Bernie supporters from the general election was the consequence.

McLewis wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:

McLewis wrote:


I think had Bernie lost the 2016 Dem primary on his own terms and not because the DNC decided to play kingmaker for Hillary, his supporters would not have stayed home or even (for a small portion) voted for Trump.

The DNC have been (almost painstakingly at times) accommodating to all challengers and have held Biden at arms length unlike with Hillary. I think they've learned that lesson at least from 2016. Between the older generations of Democrats who make up his base and enough of the younger generations who are terrified enough of a 2nd Trump term to hold their noses and vote for him, if he wins the nomination fairly, I think the Democrats have a great shot at beating Trump.

If there's any indication that Biden unfairly wins the nomination though over Bernie or Warren, we could see a repeat of 2016. I don't believe Trump automatically wins just because Bernie or Warren when the nomination. I think the scenario I mentioned above reverses itself and it will be the older generations of Democrats that may end up having to hold their noses and vote for one of them in order to prevent a 2nd Trump term.

He did lose on his own. He ignored the south and got outflanked by a candidate(Clinton) who simply wanted it more.

I loathe having to use Wikileaks to prove a point, but per this NYT Piece - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html - the DNC definitely looked to have aligned against Sanders during that primary, which of course favored only Clinton and paved the way to her easliy claiming the nomination.

Bernie never had a chance in the South for a ton of reasons, but the most fatal was that the DNC never really gave him an even playing ground to even try to appeal to those voters because they didn't take his campaign as seriously as they did Hillary's. It's not their place to determine who the Democrat base should be supporting. Their place is to provide resources that help ALL Democratic candidates. They failed to do that in 2016 and the exodus of Bernie supporters from the general election was the consequence.

The exodus of benie voters still didnt stop her from getting millions of more votes than trump. She lost to trump because of racism.

Also I reject the claim that it isnt their place to determine who the democrat base should be supporting. If the party can decide core values which it represents, then it should also have a hand in saying who should be the nomination within reason. Like it or not Hillary carried water for this party for DECADES, when sanders was running around as an independent. History matters.

Young Kaz wrote:

McLewis wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:

McLewis wrote:


I think had Bernie lost the 2016 Dem primary on his own terms and not because the DNC decided to play kingmaker for Hillary, his supporters would not have stayed home or even (for a small portion) voted for Trump.

The DNC have been (almost painstakingly at times) accommodating to all challengers and have held Biden at arms length unlike with Hillary. I think they've learned that lesson at least from 2016. Between the older generations of Democrats who make up his base and enough of the younger generations who are terrified enough of a 2nd Trump term to hold their noses and vote for him, if he wins the nomination fairly, I think the Democrats have a great shot at beating Trump.

If there's any indication that Biden unfairly wins the nomination though over Bernie or Warren, we could see a repeat of 2016. I don't believe Trump automatically wins just because Bernie or Warren when the nomination. I think the scenario I mentioned above reverses itself and it will be the older generations of Democrats that may end up having to hold their noses and vote for one of them in order to prevent a 2nd Trump term.

He did lose on his own. He ignored the south and got outflanked by a candidate(Clinton) who simply wanted it more.

I loathe having to use Wikileaks to prove a point, but per this NYT Piece - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html - the DNC definitely looked to have aligned against Sanders during that primary, which of course favored only Clinton and paved the way to her easliy claiming the nomination.

Bernie never had a chance in the South for a ton of reasons, but the most fatal was that the DNC never really gave him an even playing ground to even try to appeal to those voters because they didn't take his campaign as seriously as they did Hillary's. It's not their place to determine who the Democrat base should be supporting. Their place is to provide resources that help ALL Democratic candidates. They failed to do that in 2016 and the exodus of Bernie supporters from the general election was the consequence.

The exodus of benie voters still didnt stop her from getting millions of more votes than trump. She lost to trump because of racism.

Also I reject the claim that it isnt their place to determine who the democrat base should be supporting. If the party can decide core values which it represents, then it should also have a hand in saying who should be the nomination within reason. Like it or not Hillary carried water for this party for DECADES, when sanders was running around as an independent. History matters.

Her carrying water for the blue cause should not guarantee her the Presidency. That's not how democracy works. That's quid-pro-quo and putting party over country in my book. That's a Republican trait, not a Democratic one.

And let's be real here. Bernie's been a Democrat everywhere it counts except for the letter beside his name. He's voted on nearly every major piece of Democratic legislation on the Democrats side. It was extremely rare for him to side with the Republicans and I think that was only really guns. So for me, he's not a true Independent any more than Trump is a true Republican. It's a political tactic and nothing more. He did his part even when not a member of the party. He ran an electrifying campaign in the run up to that primary. I'm not saying that meant he was the anointed one. Far from it. All I'm saying is he deserved a fair shake at the nomination and he didn't get one, that's the point of contention here. DNC effectively handed the nomination to Hillary for all of her years of service to the party instead of letting their base voters decide for themselves. They should've remained neutral and impartial, yet they picked sides.