• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For those that think Biden is a shoo-in.

noonereal said:
Michelle? As in Obama?

This women is right there with Hillary as most hated by the right and middle.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes.

Our next president if she runs.
 
SoCal said:
I agree with your opinion of most Republican voters, but the adage about using your head doesn't refer to their ability to think, if at all. Rather it originates from the way each group approaches politics and how they decide who to vote for.

Voting with your heart refers to voting for candidates and policies that represent your ultimate goals, more aspirational, sending a signal of your support of these particular policies.

Voting with your head refers to voting for candidates and policies that comes closest to yours and has the best chance of actually winning, i.e. more practical. The best example of this are the 80-90% of Republicans who support Trump. They consciously choose to ignore his racism, ignorance, childish behavior and attraction to our enemies in exchange for many judges, gutting health, welfare and environmental regulations, etc.

It comes down to character traits. Because conservative authoritarians are overwhelmingly one race, they think and act more in lockstep. Conservatives blindly accept their leaders claims about who they should fear and hate. While liberals are more independent, more diversified, originate from more places, come in more colors and tend to question authority and their leaders. Conservatives fall in line while liberals fall in love.

There's another adage that sums this up. Getting liberals to agree is like herding cats, getting conservatives to agree is like herding sheep...
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
OscarLevant said:
Incompetent response.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you don't like the answer you attack the poster.

Only two candidates are socialist. The rest are moderates.

It is what it is like it or not.
 
MovingPictures said:
For all who think that Biden has the nomination in the bag because he's 12+ over Warren-Sanders, take a little look at history, specifically the 2007 primary.

In the CNN poll of October 14th, Clinton held a 29+ lead. People were ready to give the nomination to her and were ready to pop open the champagne - something Clinton does regularly. But two weeks later her lead was down to 19+ and by December it was down to 10+. When the year flipped over Obama was within single digits and by the first week of February, he had overtaken Clinton in the polls and he never looked back.


RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Democratic Presidential Nomination

Obama achieved that incredible drive by painting Clinton as a bad Democrat, who's policies harmed minorities, looked out for special interests, and who voted with Republicans on an unacceptably frequent basis. He made her connection to her husband a liability, which was brilliant in hindsight. I remember at the time pundits saying "he's attacking the Clinton legacy!" and how that would turn off the base, just like they say candidates are (ironically) attacking Obama's legacy when they confront Biden about his record.
Click to expand...

Look sir, I don't want you to be disappointed here. You have to embrace what is the inevitable.

Your Clinton example is quite odd to make. Lets review:

1. Pretty much every single VP which ran for President has won the nomination.
2. Biden is viewed heavily favorably by the black community. This is one of the largest segments of the Democratic base, and essentially a must win. The fact that he worked so well with Obama, helped him score points with black voters.
3. He's a left-of-center candidate. This is precisely the type of Dem which wins the nomination.

Using the Clinton-Obama race is decent, but it fails to comprehend the point that neither candidates were former VPs and voters were more intrigued by having the first "black President" over the first woman president.

I am not saying Sanders or Warren or whoever rises up from left field cannot win, but you would be foolish not to see the yellow sign in front of your face.
 
BrotherFease said:
Look sir, I don't want you to be disappointed here. You have to embrace what is the inevitable.

Your Clinton example is quite odd to make. Lets review:

1. Pretty much every single VP which ran for President has won the nomination.
2. Biden is viewed heavily favorably by the black community. This is one of the largest segments of the Democratic base, and essentially a must win. The fact that he worked so well with Obama, helped him score points with black voters.
3. He's a left-of-center candidate. This is precisely the type of Dem which wins the nomination.

Using the Clinton-Obama race is decent, but it fails to comprehend the point that neither candidates were former VPs and voters were more intrigued by having the first "black President" over the first woman president.

I am not saying Sanders or Warren or whoever rises up from left field cannot win, but you would be foolish not to see the yellow sign in front of your face.
Click to expand...
Let me respond.

1. Being a former VP is big, but the rules of politics have changed. Having a connection to a former popular president doesn't guarantee you the win, or else Gore and Clinton would have gotten the WH. But what's more, almost every candidate who previously failed to win the primary of their party ended up losing the general election, if and when they did win it down the road. Doyle, Gore, Clinton, Romney, and McCain all attest to that history.

2. Clinton was also popular with the black community because of her legacy with Big Bill, until somebody else sounded better. Yes, Obama had the concept of being the first black president, but people knew that for a long time before they ditched Clinton, so that's not all there was to it. It was her flawed record and being out of step with where the base was.

3. Biden leans liberal at best, and conservative worst. He is by no means center-left. I agree that those kinds of candidates typically get the nod, but these are new times.

Biden can indeed win and the cards are in his hands, but the games has changed a lot, and his platform of "I'm the most electable, because I'm the most electable!" and his wife basically conceding he doesn't inspire anybody, really speaks to the reality of how shaky the foundation on which his house is built.
 
bongsaway said:
I disagree. To say conservatives vote with their heads would mean they have to pull them out of the sand. Most republicans vote to try to keep a democrat out of office. To me, most republicans are low information voters. They vote on their fears not their heads.
Click to expand...

Opinions are like butts, everyone has one. But yours seems to be broken.
 
OscarLevant said:
It's too soon to tell. After Iowa, we'll know a lot more.


The polls that show Biden best to win Trump, if the survey question was "who do you believe will beat Trump?" if that is the question, it's the wrong question and the result won't be accurate
The right question is to ask whom would they vote for in the general, if it were Biden Vs Trump, Sanders Vs Trump, etc

So, I"m wondering what the survey question was
Click to expand...

It's too soon to tell. After Iowa, we'll know a lot more.
Click to expand...

Iowa means nothing


Ron Paul won in Iowa(LOL)?
 
MovingPictures said:
Let me respond.

1. Being a former VP is big, but the rules of politics have changed. Having a connection to a former popular president doesn't guarantee you the win, or else Gore and Clinton would have gotten the WH. But what's more, almost every candidate who previously failed to win the primary of their party ended up losing the general election, if and when they did win it down the road. Doyle, Gore, Clinton, Romney, and McCain all attest to that history.

2. Clinton was also popular with the black community because of her legacy with Big Bill, until somebody else sounded better. Yes, Obama had the concept of being the first black president, but people knew that for a long time before they ditched Clinton, so that's not all there was to it. It was her flawed record and being out of step with where the base was.

3. Biden leans liberal at best, and conservative worst. He is by no means center-left. I agree that those kinds of candidates typically get the nod, but these are new times.

Biden can indeed win and the cards are in his hands, but the games has changed a lot, and his platform of "I'm the most electable, because I'm the most electable!" and his wife basically conceding he doesn't inspire anybody, really speaks to the reality of how shaky the foundation on which his house is built.
Click to expand...

1. I am not arguing that Biden is going to be our next President, #46, just the heavy favorite to win the nomination. Citing Al Gore makes my point. I am only talking about NOMINATION process. Former VPs have a long record of winning their party's nomination. This is an obvious indicator for Biden.

2. Not a fan of Hillary Clinton one bit for the record. Unless we're going to argue that Booker or Harris will win the nomination, I do not see how this impacts Biden. Clinton was seen as "stiff" and "elitist", Biden is seen as your "average Joe".

3. Every cycle we can argue "new times", "new trends", but that still doesn't dispute the concept that most Democratic voters are not "justice progressives" or "social justice warriors", wanting everything to be free and arguing we have more genders than cereal boxes. Conversely on the GOP side, most Republicans primary voters are on the center-right side. You need to factor into the consideration that older voters and black voters are the ones who come to the polls.

I believe Biden's wife is simply arguing that Trump is the #1 issue, and her husband is the best person for the job. And as I have also pointed out on here: a sign of a strong candidate is somebody who is immune to media criticism. With Biden, first it was the touchy with women thing, then it was "back in the 70s and 80s, he opposed busing", and then it was "he does too many gaffes". Polls have consistently shown the "I don't give a [fill in the blank]" principle.
 
BrotherFease said:
1. I am not arguing that Biden is going to be our next President, #46, just the heavy favorite to win the nomination. Citing Al Gore makes my point. I am only talking about NOMINATION process. Former VPs have a long record of winning their party's nomination. This is an obvious indicator for Biden.

2. Not a fan of Hillary Clinton one bit for the record. Unless we're going to argue that Booker or Harris will win the nomination, I do not see how this impacts Biden. Clinton was seen as "stiff" and "elitist", Biden is seen as your "average Joe".

3. Every cycle we can argue "new times", "new trends", but that still doesn't dispute the concept that most Democratic voters are not "justice progressives" or "social justice warriors", wanting everything to be free and arguing we have more genders than cereal boxes. Conversely on the GOP side, most Republicans primary voters are on the center-right side. You need to factor into the consideration that older voters and black voters are the ones who come to the polls.

I believe Biden's wife is simply arguing that Trump is the #1 issue, and her husband is the best person for the job. And as I have also pointed out on here: a sign of a strong candidate is somebody who is immune to media criticism. With Biden, first it was the touchy with women thing, then it was "back in the 70s and 80s, he opposed busing", and then it was "he does too many gaffes". Polls have consistently shown the "I don't give a [fill in the blank]" principle.
Click to expand...

If you actually look at the polls Biden hasn't moved the needle much past 30%. That sounds like a lot, until one realizes that the support for Warren, Sanders, Booker, Castro, O'Rourke, Styer, and Gabbard adds up to over 40% when put together. Biden's saving grace is that the progressive wing is heavily split, or else he'd be 10% behind right now. What's more, Biden will need to get into the 40's to win the nomination, but all of the moderates except Klobuchar are polling 0-1%, and don't get him there. He'll either need to somehow win over some progressives, or win over the supporters of Harris and Buttigieg to win, but even they are to the left of Biden, so it's not out of the question that support share could go to a progressive like Warren if Biden really falls apart.

Precedents are not everything. This is a numbers game. Biden can absolutely win, but there is a clear lane where he loses.
 
nitroexpress said:
Opinions are like butts, everyone has one. But yours seems to be broken.
Click to expand...

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink, like yours. Hope you learned a little something.
 
MovingPictures said:
For all who think that Biden has the nomination in the bag because he's 12+ over Warren-Sanders, take a little look at history, specifically the 2007 primary.

In the CNN poll of October 14th, Clinton held a 29+ lead. People were ready to give the nomination to her and were ready to pop open the champagne - something Clinton does regularly. But two weeks later her lead was down to 19+ and by December it was down to 10+. When the year flipped over Obama was within single digits and by the first week of February, he had overtaken Clinton in the polls and he never looked back.


RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Democratic Presidential Nomination

Obama achieved that incredible drive by painting Clinton as a bad Democrat, who's policies harmed minorities, looked out for special interests, and who voted with Republicans on an unacceptably frequent basis. He made her connection to her husband a liability, which was brilliant in hindsight. I remember at the time pundits saying "he's attacking the Clinton legacy!" and how that would turn off the base, just like they say candidates are (ironically) attacking Obama's legacy when they confront Biden about his record.
Click to expand...

Well whatever. At this point any of the Dem candidates could beat Trump. So it really is just an academic point which one gets to do it.

Make America Sane Again.
 
BrotherFease said:
1. I am not arguing that Biden is going to be our next President, #46, just the heavy favorite to win the nomination. Citing Al Gore makes my point. I am only talking about NOMINATION process. Former VPs have a long record of winning their party's nomination. This is an obvious indicator for Biden.

2. Not a fan of Hillary Clinton one bit for the record. Unless we're going to argue that Booker or Harris will win the nomination, I do not see how this impacts Biden. Clinton was seen as "stiff" and "elitist", Biden is seen as your "average Joe".

3. Every cycle we can argue "new times", "new trends", but that still doesn't dispute the concept that most Democratic voters are not "justice progressives" or "social justice warriors", wanting everything to be free and arguing we have more genders than cereal boxes. Conversely on the GOP side, most Republicans primary voters are on the center-right side. You need to factor into the consideration that older voters and black voters are the ones who come to the polls.

I believe Biden's wife is simply arguing that Trump is the #1 issue, and her husband is the best person for the job. And as I have also pointed out on here: a sign of a strong candidate is somebody who is immune to media criticism. With Biden, first it was the touchy with women thing, then it was "back in the 70s and 80s, he opposed busing", and then it was "he does too many gaffes". Polls have consistently shown the "I don't give a [fill in the blank]" principle.
Click to expand...

Other than two, I agree with all your other points.

No one is demanding everything be free and it seems you can't count very high.

On your claim that, "most Republicans primary voters are on the center-right side", I had believed the exact same thing! But welcome to reality. Don's winning the last Republican primary and his continued 80-90% slavish support, blows our preconceived understanding out of the water.

After Don, I don't think the Republicans will ever be looked at the same and rightfully so. I can't see old fashioned, moderate Republicans winning many primaries for many years. For a conservative, you sound so refreshing, it'so sad you're such a rarity...
 
MovingPictures said:
If you actually look at the polls Biden hasn't moved the needle much past 30%. That sounds like a lot, until one realizes that the support for Warren, Sanders, Booker, Castro, O'Rourke, Styer, and Gabbard adds up to over 40% when put together. Biden's saving grace is that the progressive wing is heavily split, or else he'd be 10% behind right now. What's more, Biden will need to get into the 40's to win the nomination, but all of the moderates except Klobuchar are polling 0-1%, and don't get him there. He'll either need to somehow win over some progressives, or win over the supporters of Harris and Buttigieg to win, but even they are to the left of Biden, so it's not out of the question that support share could go to a progressive like Warren if Biden really falls apart.

Precedents are not everything. This is a numbers game. Biden can absolutely win, but there is a clear lane where he loses.
Click to expand...

For the June, July, and August polls (I don't look at what happened in January through May, and I only count DNC approved polls), Biden has registered between 28% to 31% on average. Everybody else has registered at least below 20%.

Sanders and Warren fighting over the same lane -- the progressives -- means that Biden has the liberal lane all to himself. We have not really seen anybody really challenge that lane Biden rides in. Harris and Buttigieg have tried to go into that lane, but so far, they are back to being in single digits.

To me, it's a bit silly to argue Biden must get to 40%, when the others struggle to hit 20%. The issue here is can a progressive break the trend of nominating liberal candidates.

Think about it: The progressive wing of the Democratic party does not traditionally win nomination elections. The more liberal-to-moderate ones do, due to the views of the primary voters. The fact that both Warren AND Sanders are clogging up the minority wing of the party, is a gift for BIDEN.

The real question can Sanders or Warren chip away at Biden's liberal base. This means winning over minorities, winning on Democrats/liberals who reject the "everything should be free" mindset.
 
BrotherFease said:
For the June, July, and August polls (I don't look at what happened in January through May, and I only count DNC approved polls), Biden has registered between 28% to 31% on average. Everybody else has registered at least below 20%.

Sanders and Warren fighting over the same lane -- the progressives -- means that Biden has the liberal lane all to himself. We have not really seen anybody really challenge that lane Biden rides in. Harris and Buttigieg have tried to go into that lane, but so far, they are back to being in single digits.

To me, it's a bit silly to argue Biden must get to 40%, when the others struggle to hit 20%. The issue here is can a progressive break the trend of nominating liberal candidates.

Think about it: The progressive wing of the Democratic party does not traditionally win nomination elections. The more liberal-to-moderate ones do, due to the views of the primary voters. The fact that both Warren AND Sanders are clogging up the minority wing of the party, is a gift for BIDEN.

The real question can Sanders or Warren chip away at Biden's liberal base. This means winning over minorities, winning on Democrats/liberals who reject the "everything should be free" mindset.
Click to expand...
In every primary I remember, the eventual winner was in the 40's regularly. Trump, Romney, Obama, McCain, and Clinton all had to get there at some point, and there's no reason to think this time will be any different, even if there are still over a dozen candidates running.

Let's see how Uncle Joe is hanging by November, after he's had to sell himself on nationally broadcast debates, where he's the furthest right candidate on the stage, during a time of Trump's right-wing extremism. ;)
 
bongsaway said:
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink, like yours. Hope you learned a little something.
Click to expand...

Your hope is dashed. Still waiting for your enlightenment. We will pray for you.:lol:
 
The hard left vote is split now. What happens to the Sanders voters when he eventually drops out?

SoCal said:
I don't give a **** what time of the day he takes a shower, or how deep his blue collar roots are, he's polling the best now and unless something dramatic happens, he's likely to be polling the best when the Democrats vote in their primary.

So do you want to ignore the current polls because they got it wrong in 16', or is it your gut telling you that Biden would lose?...
Click to expand...
 
SDET said:
The hard left vote is split now. What happens to the Sanders voters when he eventually drops out?
Click to expand...

A few will have a snit and stay home, but unlike 16', the vast majority of our progressives will vote for whoever's running against Numnuts...
 
I'm talking six months from now, not November. If either Sanders or Warren drops out, the remaining one will get a higher primary vote share than Biden.

SoCal said:
A few will have a snit and stay home, but unlike 16', the vast majority of our progressives will vote for whoever's running against Numnuts...
Click to expand...
 
SoCal said:
A few will have a snit and stay home, but unlike 16', the vast majority of our progressives will vote for whoever's running against Numnuts...
Click to expand...

Yeah but will independents? I fear a Biden candidacy because Biden will promise a “return to normalcy” campaign. Much like Warren Harding did against the wicked Woodrow Wilson (May he burn in hell). And I think this will be very appealing to many people. Crazy Bernie or Pocahontas have to run on pulling the rug out from everyone’s healthcare and making massive structural changes to the economy and lying about honorable police officers like Darren Wilson, which I think will seriously create a backlash
 
SoCal said:
I don't give a **** what time of the day he takes a shower, or how deep his blue collar roots are, he's polling the best now and unless something dramatic happens, he's likely to be polling the best when the Democrats vote in their primary.

So do you want to ignore the current polls because they got it wrong in 16', or is it your gut telling you that Biden would lose?...
Click to expand...

Polls are only one of many factors the sports books use when formulating the odds for the nomination
5dimes.eu current odds have Warren as the current favorite to win.
Don't 'erect a cathedral' around the polls as the determinent factor

Mon 7/13 501 E Warren is Democratic Nominee +190
Mon 7/13 503 Joe Biden is Democratic Nominee +250
Mon 7/13 505 B Sanders is Democratic Nominee +600
Mon 7/13 507 K Harris is Democratic Nominee +700
Mon 7/13 509 P Buttigieg is Democratic Nominee +1550
Mon 7/13 511 A Yang is Democratic Nominee +1600
 
SDET said:
I'm talking six months from now, not November. If either Sanders or Warren drops out, the remaining one will get a higher primary vote share than Biden.
Click to expand...

You could be right, it sounds like a great theory, although I don't think it's so cut and dried. However it works out, I'll lay odds that Sanders won't be the Democratic candidate and might not make it to the primary. It's so early, but right now it looks like it's coming down to Biden and Warren. After Sanders is out, I believe most Democrats will be practical, do the right thing and vote for whoever's polling the best against Numnuts...
 
SoCal said:
You could be right, it sounds like a great theory, although I don't think it's so cut and dried. However it works out, I'll lay odds that Sanders won't be the Democratic candidate and might not make it to the primary. It's so early, but right now it looks like it's coming down to Biden and Warren. After Sanders is out, I believe most Democrats will be practical, do the right thing and vote for whoever's polling the best against Numnuts...
Click to expand...

Is Avenatti still planning on running? :giggle:

i-award-you-no-points-and-may-god-have-mercy-on-your-soul_new.jpg
 
nitroexpress said:
Is Avenatti still planning on running? :giggle:

View attachment 67262391
Click to expand...

If he did, Don would make him look like a choir boy, a choir boy at the same mental age. Their both might be corrupt, unscrupulous and unethical, but one reads, the other watches TV, one has a attention span of 15 minutes on a good day and one's a racist.

One has the ability to string a coherence sentence together, the other sounds like the obvious moron he is. They both might be nefarious, but I'll take heinous President with some knowledge and a functioning brain over a Numnut yesterday...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom