Biden maintains lead over 2020 contenders as Warren passes Sanders: poll

[Chomsky]

Trying to explain that to an obsessed Trumpkin is like strewing grass seed on a busy airport runway.

That's a valid point, I think. They seem to think we care what they are trying to propagate, which is a pretty ludicrous thought on their part. It's kinda like,

"If we only believe hard enough & loud enough, they will too!"

 

[Perotista]

How does a Bullock/Duckworth ticket sound to you?

Excellent. I highly doubt that Bullock stands a chance though. I'm more of a realist when it comes to these things. I've been a big fan of Tammy Duckworth. I'd vote for Joe if he wins the nomination, he's another one I've always liked. But I'm not sure he would win the independent vote. His favorable/unfavorable's almost mirror Trump's. Of course there has been no debates and no campaigning worth a plug nickle as of yet.

I think one of the reasons besides name recognition that Biden is leading the pack is he is seen as a safe bet to beat Trump by quite a lot of Democrats. Not that Biden is their first choice, perhaps not even their second, but if he can beat Trump, he'll do. That thinking I'm sure will change once the debates begin and the primary season moves closer. Time will tell.

 

[Linc]

Excellent. I highly doubt that Bullock stands a chance though. I'm more of a realist when it comes to these things. I've been a big fan of Tammy Duckworth. I'd vote for Joe if he wins the nomination, he's another one I've always liked. But I'm not sure he would win the independent vote. His favorable/unfavorable's almost mirror Trump's. Of course there has been no debates and no campaigning worth a plug nickle as of yet.

I think one of the reasons besides name recognition that Biden is leading the pack is he is seen as a safe bet to beat Trump by quite a lot of Democrats. Not that Biden is their first choice, perhaps not even their second, but if he can beat Trump, he'll do. That thinking I'm sure will change once the debates begin and the primary season moves closer. Time will tell.

Gov. Bullock is excellent on the issues for me. Obviously, my Sen. Duckworth is also. Right now, it’s #45 shooting fish in a barrel with his insane, childish name-calling that his cult falls for, along with millions of butthurt Demwits.

I continue to watch Parscale and Fabrizio every day, along with the Trafalgar Group. These people know what they’re doing going after the 94 million Americans who didn’t vote at all in 2016. They don’t need no stinking swing voters.

 

[MTAtech]

Beto's a wimp. He is the exact reason people won't vote for Democrats. They genuinely believe that in liberal land, you can live on failures. That's Beto's existence. Being a loser who has overcome nothing, yet still feels he should decided what all of us do. He is the epitome of liberal academista becoming a somebody by doing nothing of note other than complain about right wing politics.

We need someone who has actually gotten victories and is well regarded for their efforts by local conservatives. We aren't going to win with guys like Beto because nobody thinks guys like him deserve to be where they are.

Beto is an empty suit whose claim to fame is that he lost to Ted Cruz, closely. He's not experienced nor does he have seasoning.

 

[tres borrachos]

Warren has a plan for literally everything she's been asked about. Intelligence counts for a lot on our side of the aisle, and I think that's what's attracting people to her.

Don't get me wrong. I don't care for her at all. I'll vote for her against Trump if she's the candidate, but I don't want to.

That said, she's pretty much the only one who actually articulates her ideas and plans.

 

[Surrealistik]

Beto is an empty suit whose claim to fame is that he lost to Ted Cruz, closely. He's not experienced nor does he have seasoning.

To be fair, Biden miserably lost two presidential primaries (not even remotely close) and a vice president primary (where he was soundly beaten by multiple write ins), and only by the grace of Obama's charity did he land the position he is most known for.

 

[Chomsky]

I think a Biden/Warren ticket would be strong.

Biden has a connection with working people. Warren is smart and has many good ideas. Both are real populists, as opposed to the phony populist in the WH.

Strong in ways, but O-L-D! Sadly.

 

[MTAtech]

Strong in ways, but O-L-D! Sadly.

The guy we have now is old too.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Well there's certainly no JFK in that group! But as we're living far longer and healthier these days, I think Warren might be sneaking-in while in her sixties. Not optimal, but reasonable enough I suppose.

I haven't looked into her earth shattering plans for the future of this country. Welfare and government handouts are not the American dream. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. But when almost half the country cannot help themselves and we are importing millions more put a fork in us we are done. So far what I know about Warren is we are headed down the road of socialism. I am sorry but without incentive to drive us forward we will become extinct.

 

[pamak]

I haven't looked into her earth shattering plans for the future of this country. Welfare and government handouts are not the American dream. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. But when almost half the country cannot help themselves and we are importing millions more put a fork in us we are done. So far what I know about Warren is we are headed down the road of socialism. I am sorry but without incentive to drive us forward we will become extinct.

In other words, you arrive at conclusions without even knowing her plans.

 

[Chomsky]

As I said before, I don't think Biden will be the Democratic nominee. Even if he is, having a VP from the same region, northeast as Warren would be doesn't give the ticket regional balance. Delaware and Massachusetts are locks for whomever the Democrats nominate. Why not someone from a swing state as VP? At least a different region of the country.

I would say with Biden, his VP should be someone much younger. Warren is 69, Biden 76, talk about an old foggie ticket. Although I like Joe, always have. I'd rather see a fresh young face win the nomination instead of Joe or Warren, Sanders also. I'm not a democrat so my druthers mean nothing. I'd like to point out some history, tired old political faces from the northeast haven done so good for the democrats. Dukakis Massachusetts, Johns Kerry, Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton New York. Young faces from other regions have, Jimmy Carter Georgia, Bill Clinton Arkansas, Obama Illinois.

JFK is the last Democrat from the northeast to win, 1960. Back then the northeast was liberal Rockefeller Republican country and JFK was a fresh young face. Just something to think about.

Actually, I am having growing concerns with Biden too. In fact, I'm beginning to move from my position of having a moderate Dem candidate, to thinking they might be best served by a younger progressive that can stimulate the base and increase turn-out.

We are in a period of division and hard lines, with little movement. A lot of things very luckily came together for Trump in 2016, but he on by strictly appealing to and motivating his base. He seems to have doubled-down on that strategy for 2020. And now, with only half the country voting during national elections, I'm thinking the Dems might be best served by focusing on invigorating their base and increasing turn-out. With 3-6 pts differentiating most national elections, I'm thinking it might be easier to increase turn-out a few points, rather than trying to grab votes from across the middle. Then again, I might be wrong. But I'm begin to lean that way.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

In other words, you arrive at conclusions without even knowing her plans.

I have listened to a lot of her talks and so far I am not impressed.

 

[haymarket]

That's a valid point, I think. They seem to think we care what they are trying to propagate, which is a pretty ludicrous thought on their part. It's kinda like,

"If we only believe hard enough & loud enough, they will too!"

Closing you eyes and clicking your heels together while repeating some magic words makes as much sense.

 

[Chomsky]

Don't underestimate that Democrat party machine. It controls the money. It controls the super delegates. Whoever THEY decide should get the nomination will get the nomination. And don't make any bets that they don't prefer Biden to anybody else running. The only reason they won't choose him is if they decide somebody else will both be more competitive against President Trump AND obedient to the goals, self-serving purposes, and orders of the DNC.

There's a lot of truth to that.

Just thought I'd mention, if you guys weren't aware:

The DNC recently instated some rule changes in a reform effort, where now the super delegates will not vote in the first round voting. Only the pledged delegates can vote, disallowing super delegates to interfere with the wishes of the pledged delegates.

Reference: (CNN) DNC changes superdelegate rules in presidential nomination process

 

[Perotista]

Gov. Bullock is excellent on the issues for me. Obviously, my Sen. Duckworth is also. Right now, it’s #45 shooting fish in a barrel with his insane, childish name-calling that his cult falls for, along with millions of butthurt Demwits.

I continue to watch Parscale and Fabrizio every day, along with the Trafalgar Group. These people know what they’re doing going after the 94 million Americans who didn’t vote at all in 2016. They don’t need no stinking swing voters.

Right now, swing voters, ala independents, the non-affiliated, less to non-partisan with quite a lot of them not in either the pro or anti Trump camps are leaning heavily toward the democrats for 2020. Like they did in 2018 when independents went democratic 54-42 for the Democratic congressional candidates. This doesn't mean independents will continue to remain more or less in the Democratic camp. It's no secret they don't care much for Trump. The polls show this all the time in his job approval and in Trump's favorable/unfavorable's.

I think 2020 boils down as to whom the democrats nominate. Much like 2016, 2016 was an election for the Democrats to lose, so too is 2020. With the right candidate you could see a 15 point win in the presidential race and the Democrats retake the senate. With the wrong candidate, a repeat of 2016 is possible. It's up to the democrats to figure out who is the right candidate and who is the wrong candidate. I have my suspicions, but nothing that shows up in the numbers yet.

 

[Perotista]

Actually, I am having growing concerns with Biden too. In fact, I'm beginning to move from my position of having a moderate Dem candidate, to thinking they might be best served by a younger progressive that can stimulate the base and increase turn-out.

We are in a period of division and hard lines, with little movement. A lot of things very luckily came together for Trump in 2016, but he on by strictly appealing to and motivating his base. He seems to have doubled-down on that strategy for 2020. And now, with only half the country voting during national elections, I'm thinking the Dems might be best served by focusing on invigorating their base and increasing turn-out. With 3-6 pts differentiating most national elections, I'm thinking it might be easier to increase turn-out a few points, rather than trying to grab votes from across the middle. Then again, I might be wrong. But I'm begin to lean that way.

It's way too early to throw names at you. Way too many announced candidates. I do think independents are the most important block of voters. They usually decide national elections. Can a fresh young progressive attract independents? I think that depends on whom that fresh young progressive is. It's true that ideological wise, most independents are somewhere in between the two ideologies of the Republicans and Democrats. Nominating someone whom independents think can work with the other side trumps ideology with them. Someone indies can trust and put faith into that will better this country. They know Trump, roughly half don't trust him or have much faith in him.

In 2016, independents didn't trust Hillary Clinton to lead this country. Hence their vote for an unknown. I think the trust factor that whomever is the nominee regardless of ideology to lead this country to bigger and better things is the key. I don't think the old foggies qualify. Of course that is just my opinion. I think they're looking for a young JFK who installs confidence that he is the one to take over the leadership and do this country right. Political philosophy and ideology be danged. Who that is as I said, is up to the democrats to decide.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You forgot to mention that the RNC prevented anyone from running against #45.

I don't think you can support that with any credible evidence, but one thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just thought I'd mention, if you guys weren't aware:

The DNC recently instated some rule changes in a reform effort, where now the super delegates will not vote in the first round voting. Only the pledged delegates can vote, disallowing super delegates to interfere with the wishes of the pledged delegates.

Reference: (CNN) DNC changes superdelegate rules in presidential nomination process

That is interesting. If accurate, it does remove one issue of controversy. And maybe they have reformed themselves to let the people decide. But I will be surprised if the candidate that wins the nomination is not the candidate that the DNC designates to win though.

 

[uptower]

I think 2020 boils down as to whom the democrats nominate. Much like 2016, 2016 was an election for the Democrats to lose, so too is 2020. With the right candidate you could see a 15 point win in the presidential race and the Democrats retake the senate. With the wrong candidate, a repeat of 2016 is possible. It's up to the democrats to figure out who is the right candidate and who is the wrong candidate. I have my suspicions, but nothing that shows up in the numbers yet.

My take as well

 

[Moderate Right]

Having a plan doesn’t mean intelligence, a stupid plan is still stupid

Warrren's only got one plan, basically the same one Bernie has, tax the rich more and redistribute wealth. That's their solution to everything.

 

[Phys251]

I haven't looked into her earth shattering plans for the future of this country. Welfare and government handouts are not the American dream. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. But when almost half the country cannot help themselves and we are importing millions more put a fork in us we are done. So far what I know about Warren is we are headed down the road of socialism. I am sorry but without incentive to drive us forward we will become extinct.

Maybe you should listen to what she has to say before jumping to right-wing conclusions.

 

[MTAtech]

I haven't looked into her earth shattering plans for the future of this country. Welfare and government handouts are not the American dream. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. But when almost half the country cannot help themselves and we are importing millions more put a fork in us we are done. So far what I know about Warren is we are headed down the road of socialism. I am sorry but without incentive to drive us forward we will become extinct.

You've bought the propaganda created by the billionaires who don't want to pay higher taxes.

Throwing loaded words out like "welfare" and "government handouts" are merely BS rationalizations to get ordinary Americans to fall in line with policies that the plutocrats favor -- namely, lower taxes on wealth paid by cutting programs for everyone else.

Social Security has no link at all to these "government handouts," since one has to have had to work in order to be eligible. Yet, Social Security is on the GOP chopping block list. Moreover, the best available research done by ( An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States ) show that the programs conservatives most wants to slash, Medicaid and food stamps, don’t have large negative effects on work effort either.


[FONT=&quot]The greatest growth in the middle class came as a result of the New Deal policies, that taxed wealth heavily, encouraged labor unions, promoted a high minimum wage. What have conservatives done since then? They've reversed all of those policies and we witness a shrinking middle class and wider income inequality. [/FONT]

 

[Linc]

I don't think you can support that with any credible evidence, but one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Quotes from R. Romney McDaniel are fake news.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Warrren's only got one plan, basically the same one Bernie has, tax the rich more and redistribute wealth. That's their solution to everything.

I'm okay with that.

 

[Linc]

That is interesting. If accurate, it does remove one issue of controversy. And maybe they have reformed themselves to let the people decide. But I will be surprised if the candidate that wins the nomination is not the candidate that the DNC designates to win though.

Representative DNC apportionment of delegates is PROPORTIONAL in ALL 58 primaries and caucuses. Unrepresentative gops in their 56 are mostly winner-take-all and winner-take-most. Both-sidesing doesn’t work here either.