his time is running out the orange cnut.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I think PA may be a bit closer than the polls are indicating.
Why? And is this a PA phenomenon for you, or indicative of the entire rust belt?
Depends on your metric. They’ve had presidents who have basically genocided native Americans, personally kept slaves, and engaged in rampant corruption while in office. But if you measure it by their actions relative to the standards of their time then Trump is by far the worst.
Last edited:
Yeah, but if Biden does win, even if he is a bit of a letdown of a candidate, he is also a pretty perfect opponent to face Trump. Yes, he may not energize people or he may not be the most charismatic person, but he also presents himself as a humble politician who, whether or not it is true, actually seems to care about people
He is an white guy so Trump can build into people's racism. He is an old man so Trump can ramp up the misogyny. He is as centrist as someone can be in American politics so Trump can't attack him for being a radical leftist, even though he has tried and even claimed Harris is a radical leftist, which is kind of hilarious (he kind of did the same with Clinton and that actually worked somehow, because people are stupid). Biden has few skeletons in his closest and he has been kind of difficult for Trump to attack. He has made fun of him for being old without realizing he is also old and without recognizing that his party relies on older voters who may not be too impressed with some of those comments. He has also tried to attack Hunter Biden and nepotism, again, without a shred of awareness of the hypocrisy but people don't seem to be buying it this time around.
I think there was an interesting moment in the debate where Biden gave a cookie cutter response to some issue and Trump said something like "look at the politician there." Four years ago that was his strongest attack. Now, it just seems to full flat because, in a way, that is exactly what people want again; a boring politician.
I would have been far more interested and invested in Bernie Sanders, but part of me also feels that Trump would have done better against him. Sanders is far more of a fighter but he also has a number of political views that scare Americans to no end.
I don't think so, maybe an Order in Council but it's usually a bad look. Usually
The really stupid thing is that Biden has a couple of areas where he’s really vulnerable, especially with working class and black voters. But Trump defined the battle lines based on his own idiotic preferences and he’s attacking Biden mostly on nonsense.
Completely agree with this.
Bernie Sanders has views that match up with my own much more than Bidens views and beliefs. If it's a choice between Sanders and Biden I'd be choosing Sanders everytime.
But I think in terms of beating Trump Biden is the better option. There's just nothing about Biden for Trump to really latch onto and target. Sanders is much more left wing and Jewish which I'm sure Trump would have gone after.
He continues to take increasingly unpopular stands on some issues that only seem to hurt him. I also think Biden benefits from the fact that many of his and Trump's skeletons are exactly the same.
Biden's issue with black voters is an interesting one. I agree he is vulnerable with black voters, based on his continued flubs, his history of support for harsh criminal justice legislation, and his comments on busing in the past (I am sure there is much more in his past), but it is also difficult for Trump to make headway, though it does seem like he has done this even if Biden still has a 70+ point lead with black voters, when he has a similar history of his own, even before being President, and a number of examples of real questionable views of race. His presidency has only amplified those fairly obvious racist tendencies. I think there are issues that he could easily shift his views on and become more popular with undecided or independent voters without hurting his popularity with his base, but for whatever reason, he refuses. However, I wonder how his base would respond if Trump started speaking positively about Black Lives Matter and the need for reform with policing instead of say, tear gassing a group of protestors so that he could have a photo-op or seemingly refusing to acknowledge that there is any issue at all with policing. Very little seems to turn off his base, or Republicans in general, but I wonder if he would actually lose voters if he spoke in a more nuanced way with issues like race, income inequality and policing. I do think there has been more chatter lately, or at least more then I remember, about how the Democratic Party has taken black voters for granted and maybe a Republican can eventually expose that, I just don't think Trump is ever going to be that candidate
Agreed for the most part, which is why I listed the ones I did.
Any centrist, white male, empathetic candidate would do basically.I suspect a large section of the electorate would find the likes of AOC and Omar just as scary as trump; and lets face it, they would have been the surrogates in a Sanders administration. (Perhaps myself included, I find some of the DSA's activities rather disturbing.)
It's interesting that the black vote of the South is such an important moderator for the candidate. Although their votes don't matter in the GE, they essentially pick the candidate in the primaries. In this election, their vote really mattered.
All of this makes sense and is borne out by polling. Another factor you missed is the IPCC report of catastrophic problems starting off there isn't drastic action by 2030.
However, the last paragraph didn't follow from the first. A massive change in public opinion is no guarantee of policy change.
There have been massive shifts in US public opinion about gay rights, minimum wage, universal healthcare, and climate change, and only the first one has made a policy difference. Both parties openly and repeatedly oppose the last 2.
True. I suppose the link between the change in attitudes and the potential change in policy I was speculating about was contingent on things reaching a tipping point, and a "revolution"-style vote, which you could argue is just a little further down the line. Is it genuinely possible that someone like Trump can "radicalise" enough people about climate change that the opposing reaction ends up doing more to combat the problem overall, and within the timeframes needed, than the slow-and-steady support from his opposition?
It seems plausible to me, but then this election seems to suggest there's one fundamental flaw in that scenario. If something does become important enough, then someone like Biden "moves left" in his policy messaging just enough to reassure the climate change voters that he'll make a difference, beating the revolution candidate. Not enough of a difference to solve the problem, or to appease the majority of that voting bloc, but enough to get in there. And then as he showed on the stage, as soon as a step towards that leads to a backlash, his desire to make deals across the aisle and heal the nation and all that jazz will stop him from even delivering on the watered down approach.
I know that this is one of the central arguments between progressives and centrists on broader policy, but I just thought this particular one felt a bit more tangible so I was keen to hear the different sides' takes on how the scenario would play out.
While it's obviously a very friendly interview, I was pleasantly surprised by two aspects of this (https://crooked.com/podcast/joe-biden-pod-save-america-interview/). Firstly, Biden sounds totally fine and is whipping out stats and plans like a fully functional human being, which is nice. Secondly that the climate change agenda really does seem to be his number two priority after the coronavirus. He talks in a pretty significant amount of detail about specific policies and plans - it's certainly more than lip service.
Obviously what he'll get done is unknowable, but it's a decent listen regardless.
Obviously what he'll get done is unknowable, but it's a decent listen regardless.
The shift in Biden's policy list on climate change happened after he beat Bernie. (around june, due to the results of a "unity commission" which included AOC). Of course, he has since reversed his own words in the primary about oil, but i can safely say i never believed that. He didn't really talk about plans on climate change, he contradicated himself on his healthcare plan (that is what Booker brought up when accusing him of having memory problems), his primary campaign and IMO his general election campaign aren't policy-driven.
Again, it's a nice theory and it would be great if a left challenger can produce a left shift, but I don't think it works. Looking at the GOP example, they shifted right after their fringe *won* their primaries, and mostly bottom-up (Gingrich 1994, Tea Party 2010-14, unseating representatives and senators not the presidential candidate).
Yep, I never thought of it that way, but it is a good reminder of where Biden stood in the primaries before South Carolina. I don't think he seriously campaigned for the primaries before SC, but the entire conversation changed pre and post SC. After SC, he really picked up momentum and he started winning states, like Minnesota if I remember correctly, where he didn't really even campaign and where he had little to no ground game.Agreed for the most part, which is why I listed the ones I did.
I suspect a large section of the electorate would find the likes of AOC and Omar just as scary as trump; and lets face it, they would have been the surrogates in a Sanders administration. (Perhaps myself included, I find some of the DSA's activities rather disturbing.)
It's interesting that the black vote of the South is such an important moderator for the candidate. Although their votes don't matter in the GE, they essentially pick the candidate in the primaries. In this election, their vote really mattered.
It is amazing that a Jim Clyburn endorsement in the 2020 primaries is likely going to be one of the key moments in Biden potentially becoming president. It obviously helped that a number of his centrist opponents dropped out of the race, but if he doesn't win SC, I think that would have been a disaster
And potentially a key moment in a democratic landslide. It's less likely a left/progressive candidate wouldn't have carried them to control of the senate.(Most independents/Republicans that cant stand trump can 'tolerate' biden as the lesser of two evils)
He's a really lackluster campaigner and all round mediocre candidate. But he ticks the boxes vs Trump. Progressives will cry and cry about it, but essentially their system worked for the democrats at the end of the day. (I still feel a bit sorry for Warren, but it was for the best)
Black voters in the South did that. Their voice really mattered.
The polling in PA has lagged in having Biden up as some of the other swing states. Not by much, but Trump does seem to have decent support there.
Iirc the trackers have been dragged down by a single outlier.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
Sort by B+ or more to dismisss the trash. There's just the Emerson poll. Looks A-ok to me. (Compare to say Minnesnowta or Michigan)
she did her job spectacularly well.
Hah, touché.
The thing is, Trump doesn't just have support of white nationalist or closet racists/homophobes. He does have support of 30-35% of Hispanic and Asian citizens and at least 10% Black support. While those aren't majorities, they are significant enough to have helped swing the EC to Trump last time and pose a continued problem to "demographic determinism". Over the last few years, I've had discussions with maybe two dozen minority supporters of Trump (including two Black Trump supporters) and people should understand his appeal to the non-racists. In large part those minorities are die-hard believers in either 1) laissez-faire market fundamentalism or 2) hardcore Christian.
Listened to that this morning. Really like crooked media podcasts.
@WI_Red @Beachryan Listening to that podcast and how cogent Biden is, you kinda get the feeling he's intimidated/bullied by president trump at the debates and just doesn't know how to engage without losing it. Does sound like Climate Change is gonna be their thing, though I really hope it's not.
First time in months I have time to watch a full man utd game today \o/
First time in months I have time to watch a full man utd game today \o/
Looks like Trump is going to milk the hell out of Biden's Oil comments in the debate as expected. It's was a really rookie mistake by Biden to take on the issue either way because of the way single issue voters vote.
I can’t speak about black or Latino, but just from personal experience here in a country decidedly less racist than the US, the Asian minority is perfectly capable of racism as well. Besides the reasons you mentioned, I’d imagine his law and order/build that wall rhetorics struck a cord with a fair few of them.
I remembered afterwards that Harper did dabble in voter suppression a little with his Fair Elections law (or whatever Orwellian name it had). I don't remember the exact details, but I think there were ID requirements that would've been hard to meet for e.g. Indigenous Peoples, which aren't CPC voters? Similarly, Ford here in Ontario just banned any kind of voting that's not first-past-the-post - obviously because, if any of that would become popular at a municipal level, it could go provincial, and that would wipe out the Ontario Progressive-Conservatives. Pretty tame stuff though, and Harper's law is already undone.I don't think so, maybe an Order in Council but it's usually a bad look. Usually
It helps a lot that Elections Canada and their P/T colleagues are independent; can't do gerrymandering, for example. That could all be broken down by law changes and partisan appointments, of course, but nothing is infallible, and there is no public acceptance for any of that right now.
Because...?
Is statehood for DC and Puerto Rico something being discussed in the upper echelons of the Democratic party or is it more of a wet dream? I guess if the dems are serious about structural change they should do that in addition to expand the SCOTUS and try to get rid of the EC (impossible..?).
I'm not sure. I think some are taking it as a given, and others aren't even considering it. Biden has categorically said that DC should be a state though. I personally think they'll go for it. The SCOTUS fight is more opaque; they'll probably sit on that for the first year wielding the threat over SCOTUS and see how much they interfere with their legislative agenda. EC changes would require a constitutional amendment wouldn't they? If so, I don't see that happening.
Edit: Schumer and Pelosi want DC statehood too.
According to wiki:
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oh absolutely. Minorities can be racist. Han Chinese can be racist against other Asians. Koreans and Japanese have long called the other barbarians, savages, and worse and they all tend to look down on Pacific Islanders let alone Africans. Mexicans in America can be really racist and discriminatory towards Central Americans, and some of the worst racist remarks I've ever heard were from Turks about Armenians.
It's that Trump's white ethno-nationalism isn't intuitively appealing to minorities, but I think you're absolutely right about the wall and law and order being appealing to that almost 40% minority of ethnic minorities.
If you listened to the podcast he says why CC will be the top priority. He says, and I agree, that addressing climate change is a moral imperative that should transcend politics. No other issue matter if the planets moves closer and closer to (or past) the point of no return.
Edit: cleaned up some stupid grammar errors.
Last edited:
Epic
One can argue that climate change will cause more pandemics like COVID to occur. It really is the root cause of many challenges ahead of us.
Also a lot of Hindu Indian americans vote for Trump because of his rhetoric against muslims.
Specifically Modi bhakts, they really are the Indian version of MAGA.
Who had zombies in the 2020 sweeps? Cos they're here.
He seems to be visibly decomposing.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He seems to be visibly decomposing.
The feck is wrong with him?
- Status