|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Sanders is the only one of the apparent bunch that I would like to see nominated. I have my problems with him, age certainly being one of them, but his policy goals are a significant enough shift from what we have now that I think it’s reasonable to accept that.
As far as the others go:
Biden seems like a solid “meh, ok” option. His baggage is a lot less unfortunate than Clinton’s even if the policy direction is really not that different. I would say that he’s pretty clearly not what people “want” in a candidate, but most everyone seems to be willing to accept him for lack of a clear better option at this point.
I kinda like Gabbard. I think her chances of being picked, much less being a good president, are slim, but her various antics over the years are amusing. I think she makes a better non-presidential influential figure than president. Still, interested in seeing how she does.
The party-approved set of “up and comers” really doesn’t impress me much. Each has good surface level appeal, generally scores some useful “identity politics points” some way or other, but lacks any real depth in terms of being meaningful candidates.
Looking at this lot, I’d say I give Trump a better than even (maybe 60%) shot at winning re-election. Despite polling not particularly well in terms of approval, his head to head is reasonably solid and I don’t immediately see what is going to shift the momentum solidly against that. Still far from a lock because of sheer unpopularity, but I don’t see what the path forward is at this point.
|
On June 06 2019 16:06 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 15:39 gotchaman wrote:On June 06 2019 14:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. You tell dems to not understand trump's chances and then advocate for a worse Hillary Clinton but without the money and name recognition? Your post is an excellent example of Tulsi Gabbard's most vicious opposition coming from her own side. Seeing as Hillary Clinton was particularly hawkish and regime changey, the comparison to Gabbard makes no sense. Also, Gabbard sided with Sanders over Clinton in the last primary go around. Gabbard represents a departure from the losing Clinton way, a departure needed to have a chance at beating Trump. I've never seen anything from her. Care to select a video where she shines and represents her point of view? I'm not really interested in a campaign page but an interview/debate sort of thing If you want to see something short and sweet about Tulsi Gabbard, focusing on her non-interventionism, then I recommend her appearance on the The View, in which both left and right hacks go at her aggressively as if Code Pink never existed.
I also recommend Tulsi's appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience (episode #1295). For about the first half hour she gives a breakdown of the typical mainstream media attacks on her, of which The View interview is a prime example. The next hour of the Joe Rogan interview I found less interesting with Joe doing a bit too much talking. At around one hour and forty minutes, things pick up again with a discussion of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Throughout the interview, Gabbard demonstrates that she is fluent in woke/red pill, giving answers that are reminiscent of the likes of Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel.
|
On June 07 2019 02:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. Wut. She has no chance whatsoever. She's so far behind the pack that she will never catch up. She's boring, she's being promoted artificially on many websites and subreddits I've seen by posters who speak questionable English (she keeps saying it's "fake news" that she's getting pushed on us by foreign actors but you can see it plain as day), and I have heard absolutely nothing groundbreaking from her policy-wise. She seems like a pretty good person with good intentions, but she has fuckall chance of getting double digit support, let alone winning the election. The old everything I don't like is a Russian bot defense, does that include the 27May poll in this thread that she is winning?
I agree that Gabbard's chances are slim because the same forces that worked for Clinton against Sanders will work against Gabbard, but it's a shame because Trump is going to eat the establishment Dem pick alive. Gabbard would make things way more interesting.
|
For me (not that I get a chance to vote) Sanders, Warren, Gabbard and Yang are all great candidates. I kind of wish there was a way they could all campaign together as one ticket. Sanders is just right on everything and has been consistent for an incredibly long time. Warren has similar economic views but is more detailed and thorough in her policy proposals. Gabbard has the same anti-war views as Bernie but focuses on them more strongly. And, although Yang, comes at economic policy from a different angle, at heart he has the same views of fairness and helping the working class as the others and his alternative proposals deserve a hearing as well.
Everyone else significant in the race seems like just different shades of Clintonesque neolib pro-big corporates/Wall Street and pro-war/intervention with little care for the working class.
|
On June 07 2019 13:09 gotchaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 02:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. Wut. She has no chance whatsoever. She's so far behind the pack that she will never catch up. She's boring, she's being promoted artificially on many websites and subreddits I've seen by posters who speak questionable English (she keeps saying it's "fake news" that she's getting pushed on us by foreign actors but you can see it plain as day), and I have heard absolutely nothing groundbreaking from her policy-wise. She seems like a pretty good person with good intentions, but she has fuckall chance of getting double digit support, let alone winning the election. The old everything I don't like is a Russian bot defense, does that include the 27May poll in this thread that she is winning? I agree that Gabbard's chances are slim because the same forces that worked for Clinton against Sanders will work against Gabbard, but it's a shame because Trump is going to eat the establishment Dem pick alive. Gabbard would make things way more interesting.
I didn't say Russia. I don't know who it is, but it's not organic and it's not American. Beyond that, I'm no expert. Also, a poll in this thread that a whopping 27 people (with an Earth-shattering 9 people supporting her) replied to means nothing. I do agree with an establishment Dem being the absolute worst choice however. Biden is like the worst fucking candidate I can think of, yet everyone is all over his dick. They are going to fuck around and lose the election because they haven't learned a damn thing from 2016.
|
|
|
On June 06 2019 15:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 14:39 Sermokala wrote:On June 06 2019 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2019 04:31 Sermokala wrote:
Amy Klobuchar is the easy win that the coastal Democrats are ignoring because they hate the midwest, yet need it to actually win against trump. Trump can't touch her, she sweeps the midwestern states and comes from a state with a successful history of immigration, Huge stake in healthcare, and a public utility whos well ahead on their renewable goals.
Warren is not going to win shes an easier target then Hillary Clinton and provides even less of a benefit for the Dems.
Beto O'Rourke Isn't a winner has nothing about him to make him win in the midwest and is no JFK on the mic.
Buttigieg is as much of a dark horse as yang, He doesn't have anything that makes him different from the pack of other young candidates this cycle.
I guess democrats just enjoy loseing elections I don't know. Would you vote for Klobuchar? Why or why not? I would. She slots right into what everyone wants and promises to deliver good times for the future. People I have to believe don't like living in a nation that hates itself so much. They need health care and immigration to be settled positively and to move onto the next thing. She doesn't have the headaches or baggage so many other canidates have and has a record of winning her race in a landslide in the only state in the union currently with a mixed political house. Fair enough. How do you identify yourself politically again? Conservative, libertarian, etc?
Conservative but like Minnesota conservative so we're pretty reasonable still about things.
|
On June 06 2019 18:03 KorvspaD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 14:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. You tell dems to not understand trump's chances and then advocate for a worse Hillary Clinton but without the money and name recognition? Being the most anti-establishment candidate in the field, taking only single donor donations, putting an end to the endless wars etc. Yeah that sounds exactly like Hillary...
Shes a female senator from New york. Not nearly as anti-establishment as literal Bernie sanders or Elizabeth "how about not likeing the big banks maybe?" warren.
|
On June 08 2019 01:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2019 13:09 gotchaman wrote:On June 07 2019 02:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. Wut. She has no chance whatsoever. She's so far behind the pack that she will never catch up. She's boring, she's being promoted artificially on many websites and subreddits I've seen by posters who speak questionable English (she keeps saying it's "fake news" that she's getting pushed on us by foreign actors but you can see it plain as day), and I have heard absolutely nothing groundbreaking from her policy-wise. She seems like a pretty good person with good intentions, but she has fuckall chance of getting double digit support, let alone winning the election. The old everything I don't like is a Russian bot defense, does that include the 27May poll in this thread that she is winning? I agree that Gabbard's chances are slim because the same forces that worked for Clinton against Sanders will work against Gabbard, but it's a shame because Trump is going to eat the establishment Dem pick alive. Gabbard would make things way more interesting. I didn't say Russia. I don't know who it is, but it's not organic and it's not American. Beyond that, I'm no expert. Also, a poll in this thread that a whopping 27 people (with an Earth-shattering 9 people supporting her) replied to means nothing. I do agree with an establishment Dem being the absolute worst choice however. Biden is like the worst fucking candidate I can think of, yet everyone is all over his dick. They are going to fuck around and lose the election because they haven't learned a damn thing from 2016. We agree that Trump is going to eat the establishment Dem pick alive.
Now, imagine Trump debating Gabbard on the American relationships with Saudia Arabia and Yemen, and arrive at agreement with me that this would be way more interesting.
|
I mean the only comparison you can make with democrats is between him and bush. But even then the differences are spectacular. When Bush got shoes thrown at him in Iraq (probably the most symbolic low point of his presidency) he might not have known the cultural insult but he continued the press conference and made it seem like it wasn't a big deal. On the flip side Trump is never going to be able to live down the petty shit hes done, even after Twitter is long and dead. His feud with Mccain after hes dead is unmatchable by any president.
I mean the guy doesn't smile for pictures what kind of maniac is he?
|
On June 08 2019 02:42 gotchaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 01:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 07 2019 13:09 gotchaman wrote:On June 07 2019 02:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote:
The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side. Wut. She has no chance whatsoever. She's so far behind the pack that she will never catch up. She's boring, she's being promoted artificially on many websites and subreddits I've seen by posters who speak questionable English (she keeps saying it's "fake news" that she's getting pushed on us by foreign actors but you can see it plain as day), and I have heard absolutely nothing groundbreaking from her policy-wise. She seems like a pretty good person with good intentions, but she has fuckall chance of getting double digit support, let alone winning the election. The old everything I don't like is a Russian bot defense, does that include the 27May poll in this thread that she is winning? I agree that Gabbard's chances are slim because the same forces that worked for Clinton against Sanders will work against Gabbard, but it's a shame because Trump is going to eat the establishment Dem pick alive. Gabbard would make things way more interesting. I didn't say Russia. I don't know who it is, but it's not organic and it's not American. Beyond that, I'm no expert. Also, a poll in this thread that a whopping 27 people (with an Earth-shattering 9 people supporting her) replied to means nothing. I do agree with an establishment Dem being the absolute worst choice however. Biden is like the worst fucking candidate I can think of, yet everyone is all over his dick. They are going to fuck around and lose the election because they haven't learned a damn thing from 2016. We agree that Trump is going to eat the establishment Dem pick alive. Now, imagine Trump debating Gabbard on the American relationships with Saudia Arabia and Yemen, and arrive at agreement with me that this would be way more interesting.
We can absolutely agree on that. She would wreck him in a debate.
|
It's interesting how differently people are reading things right now.
Trump's approval rating is underwater in 8 major 2020 battleground states, and it's a troubling sign for his reelection prospects
"Trump had a net approval rating of -19 in New Hampshire, with 39% approving of his job performance and 58% disapproving.
He had a net approval rating of -13 in Wisconsin, with 42% approval and 55% disapproval.
In Michigan, Trump had a -12 net approval rating, with 42% approval and 54% disapproval.
Trump also had a -12 net approval rating in Iowa, with 42% approval and 54% disapproval.
He had a -7 net approval rating in Pennsylvania, with 45% approval and 52% disapproval.
In Arizona, Trump had a -6 net approval rating, with 45% approval and 51% disapproval.
Trump held a -4 net approval rating in Ohio, with 46% approval and 50% disapproval.
His net approval was also -4 in North Carolina, also with 46% approval and 50% disapproval.
And Trump had a net approval rating of zero in Florida, with 48% approval and 48% disapproval (the margin of error for the state was plus or minus 1 percentage point)."
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-underwater-approval-rating-battleground-states-2019-6
|
Eric Swalwell seems to be a good speaker like Buttigieg but without the baggage of being gay. While pretending that he cares about gun control and the poor families who are victims of it, he is betting his presidential chances on a mass shooting occurring sometime during the campaign, which is a safe bet actually.
|
What the f did i just read?
80% to be reelected how did you come up with that number? You mean he's an 80%-20% favorite at the bookies?
I would bet a large sum right now, if that was the case.
The very long link you provided gives him 5/4 odds, which are super impressive, but correct me if i'm wrong, that's somewhere below 45%.
80% chance to win would be absolutely crazy at this point, and no self-respecting bookie would offer you or me anything in that ballpark. If we're sticking with odds, that would mean a 1/4.
Or am i misreading the system here?
I dont even want to comment on the rest. Some positive things can be said about Trump (having good chance for reelection is among those), but the prediction that he's gonna be held in high esteem in a few decades is just about the unlikeliest prediction I have ever heard.
|
Sooooo real talk, fellow Bernie Sanders + Liz Warren fans: How do we play this wisely? Because I have a ton of progressive friends, and while their top two picks for the Democratic primary tend to be both Bernie and Warren, about half are planning on voting for Bernie and about half are planning on voting for Warren. This greatly dilutes the progressive vote and literally guarantees that Joe Biden will win, unless he utterly implodes (and I think that even his name recognition would be enough to keep him mathematically relevant, no matter how badly he may misspeak or misstep). Quite frankly, from a game theory and probability perspective, I'm hoping that Bernie and Warren come to an agreement and one of them literally drops out of the primary early, and they run together as a P+VP team, so that a vote for the remaining candidate is a vote for both (and I think that both Bernie and Warren are honest enough actors to make this work). Because I really, really, really don't want to have to convince my fellow progressives after the primary about how we need to go out and vote for Joe Biden in the general election as the lesser of two evils because he's less idiotic, less conservative, and a little less touchy-feely when it comes to creeping on women.
|
|
|
On June 08 2019 09:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sooooo real talk, fellow Bernie Sanders + Liz Warren fans: How do we play this wisely? Because I have a ton of progressive friends, and while their top two picks for the Democratic primary tend to be both Bernie and Warren, about half are planning on voting for Bernie and about half are planning on voting for Warren. This greatly dilutes the progressive vote and literally guarantees that Joe Biden will win, unless he utterly implodes (and I think that even his name recognition would be enough to keep him mathematically relevant, no matter how badly he may misspeak or misstep). Quite frankly, from a game theory and probability perspective, I'm hoping that Bernie and Warren come to an agreement and one of them literally drops out of the primary early, and they run together as a P+VP team, so that a vote for the remaining candidate is a vote for both (and I think that both Bernie and Warren are honest enough actors to make this work). Because I really, really, really don't want to have to convince my fellow progressives after the primary about how we need to go out and vote for Joe Biden in the general election as the lesser of two evils because he's less idiotic, less conservative, and a little less touchy-feely when it comes to creeping on women.
Easy, all bernie/ew votes go to yang instead. America wins
|
On June 08 2019 11:09 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 09:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sooooo real talk, fellow Bernie Sanders + Liz Warren fans: How do we play this wisely? Because I have a ton of progressive friends, and while their top two picks for the Democratic primary tend to be both Bernie and Warren, about half are planning on voting for Bernie and about half are planning on voting for Warren. This greatly dilutes the progressive vote and literally guarantees that Joe Biden will win, unless he utterly implodes (and I think that even his name recognition would be enough to keep him mathematically relevant, no matter how badly he may misspeak or misstep). Quite frankly, from a game theory and probability perspective, I'm hoping that Bernie and Warren come to an agreement and one of them literally drops out of the primary early, and they run together as a P+VP team, so that a vote for the remaining candidate is a vote for both (and I think that both Bernie and Warren are honest enough actors to make this work). Because I really, really, really don't want to have to convince my fellow progressives after the primary about how we need to go out and vote for Joe Biden in the general election as the lesser of two evils because he's less idiotic, less conservative, and a little less touchy-feely when it comes to creeping on women. Easy, all bernie/ew votes go to yang instead. America wins
I'm being serious though 
|
On June 08 2019 11:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 11:09 Cricketer12 wrote:On June 08 2019 09:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sooooo real talk, fellow Bernie Sanders + Liz Warren fans: How do we play this wisely? Because I have a ton of progressive friends, and while their top two picks for the Democratic primary tend to be both Bernie and Warren, about half are planning on voting for Bernie and about half are planning on voting for Warren. This greatly dilutes the progressive vote and literally guarantees that Joe Biden will win, unless he utterly implodes (and I think that even his name recognition would be enough to keep him mathematically relevant, no matter how badly he may misspeak or misstep). Quite frankly, from a game theory and probability perspective, I'm hoping that Bernie and Warren come to an agreement and one of them literally drops out of the primary early, and they run together as a P+VP team, so that a vote for the remaining candidate is a vote for both (and I think that both Bernie and Warren are honest enough actors to make this work). Because I really, really, really don't want to have to convince my fellow progressives after the primary about how we need to go out and vote for Joe Biden in the general election as the lesser of two evils because he's less idiotic, less conservative, and a little less touchy-feely when it comes to creeping on women. Easy, all bernie/ew votes go to yang instead. America wins I'm being serious though
I mean...personally that's the dream, but I don't really know. The problem is 25-30% of the base only wants bernie and won't go for anyone else. His choice to run screwed the dems.
|
Expand Worker Ownership, Wall Street Speculation Tax, End Predatory Lending, Public Education Bernie's got ideas out for all of them and they aren't entirely terrible. Yang's one of the few candidates that also has ideas, but much worse ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
