Nope, people just like to blame the greens or the libertarian to deflect from clinton losing.Was there a credible third party candidate last time around?
Last edited:
Nope, people just like to blame the greens or the libertarian to deflect from clinton losing.Was there a credible third party candidate last time around?
Credible, as in it receives a degree of media coverage. There are many very small, unknown parties who run for President each cycle, who no one knows about, so last cycle the only "known" third parties were the Greens and Liberatrians.Was there a credible third party candidate last time around?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
On its face, the entire episode is bizarre. How could a letter asking Democrats to oppose annexation, which almost all of them ostensibly do, and pledging consequences no more severe than a decline in American public support for Israel—which AIPAC’s own Democratic front group has warned of publicly—still win so little support? The answer, it seems, is that the letter became a test of power. By criticizing annexation themselves but warning other Democrats not to, Cardin and DMFI sent a message about who is entitled to publicly challenge the Israeli government and who is not. They asserted that, even among Democrats, the old rules governing the Israel debate in Washington—set by AIPAC and its allies—still apply.On May 1st, with the support of the pro-Israel, anti-occupation lobbying group J Street, three Democratic senators—Chris Murphy from Connecticut, Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, and Tim Kaine from Virginia—drafted a letter opposing annexation, which they asked their colleagues to sign. Murphy, Van Hollen, and Kaine are not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s toughest critics in the Senate[...]
If the identity of the letter’s authors signalled conciliation, so did its content. During the presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders had called for conditioning US military aid to Israel on its treatment of the Palestinians. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg had suggested that they might restrict US assistance as well, especially if Israel annexed parts of the West Bank. But Murphy, Van Hollen, and Kaine did not ask their colleagues to go as far as these former presidential hopefuls.
It was so tame, a Sanders staffer told me, that the Vermont senator initially held off on signing it out of concern that he might be seen as retreating from the tougher line he had advocated [...]
By the following Monday, its advocates got word that AIPAC was lobbying against it. On Tuesday, May 5th, Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI)—a pro-Israel advocacy group with close AIPAC ties—sent senators a memo outlining its own opposition. It claimed that the annexation letter “strongly implies that support for U.S. security assistance to Israel would be held hostage to the decisions of the current Israeli government on annexation.” Such an implication, it warned senators, “would put you at odds with our presidential nominee, Joe Biden, who called the idea of conditioning security assistance ‘outrageous’ and a ‘gigantic mistake.’”
[...]
But on May 10th, Jewish Insider reported that the letter had indeed been watered down. Instead of warning that annexation might erode public support for “security assistance,” the new version merely warned it might erode support for the “special relationship” between the US and Israel. The letter was now so toothless that it resembled statements on annexation made by DMFI. Yet, remarkably, DMFI—along with AIPAC—opposed the revised Senate letter anyway.
Health care and economy seem to have a similar percentage as the primary issue (23% vs 25%), however the difference Biden has in healthcare (+11) is much higher than the advantage Trump has on the economy (+3 for Trump).
https://morningconsult.com/form/coronavirus-outbreak-tracker/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RBMVlUSTROakUwTVdNNCIsInQiOiIyeDk2aHh5MTBBVTdXZFNSaTVQQ3lFR3lTa3V4b2xPVGhDT0dCS0E0YzM3NjV5QUxcL2w5YTZVdjJOZGdJWTdzNkwrbkdidU5uS0FDQnBwNlk2SGpzM1hRQ1NEVHpBNTh0VEF3NVwvaEdaYnZpdmQyeWh5QmFkZ0FWSHVsOGdUTFhjIn0=
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-health-tracking-poll-may-2020/
Obviously polls are to be taken with a grain of salt, but if these numbers are somewhat correct, I would say Trump will have a slight advantage in November as by then most of corona will be overcome (except the virus takes a sudden turn and goes full mutagenic) and the top priority will be rebuilding the economy.
What the poll doesn't take into consideration is how much people don't vote on issues and instead on culture, likeability, chance of winning etc.Health care and economy seem to have a similar percentage as the primary issue (23% vs 25%), however the difference Biden has in healthcare (+11) is much higher than the advantage Trump has on the economy (+3 for Trump).
And there is no way that coronavirus crisis is gonna be over in November. Quite likely, it is gonna be worse than it is now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Let's go SC!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'd say the opposite is much more likely. Of course, that might still mean another hundred thousand dead, so it's not great for Trump.Health care and economy seem to have a similar percentage as the primary issue (23% vs 25%), however the difference Biden has in healthcare (+11) is much higher than the advantage Trump has on the economy (+3 for Trump).
And there is no way that coronavirus crisis is gonna be over in November. Quite likely, it is gonna be worse than it is now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Nonsense. The worst people possible are already working for the current administration.This dude is courting the worst people possibleTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That’s too good.I fecking hate Joe Rogan. Someone on Reddit (or probably someone who had their idea stolen by someone on Reddit) said it best: Joe Rogan is goop for guys.
These polls would obviously need to hold relatively stable until November, which isn't likely. Once the virus dissipates, Trump and his goons will go on full assault against anything they can find to lower his numbers.I keep seeing polls that claim that Biden is doing great, is clearly ahead of Trump, is doing better than Hillary was, etc...
I don’t buy it. We’ll see in November...
he's doing fine. but hillary was also doing ok.I keep seeing polls that claim that Biden is doing great, is clearly ahead of Trump, is doing better than Hillary was, etc...
I don’t buy it. We’ll see in November...
Don't think it's a wise move to listen to the ramblings of a disgraced creep...wasnt he obamas chief of staff?
seems a fairly logical person to strategise with?
Yes. He and Biden are probably close given their time in the WH. It would be a bit like Hillary working with Podesta after knowing him while he was chief of staff in Bill's administration.wasnt he obamas chief of staff?
seems a fairly logical person to strategise with?
Would be hilarious if Twitter starts flagging these as false.ALL CAPSTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It must be true
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You haven't been around politics for long? If you compare his policies to conservative policies ~30 years ago, then he is very moderate. It's all a matter of the times and perspectiveTrump has swung that pendulum so far to the right, anyone on the left trying to beat him has to go to some truly awful places.
That’s a very punchy statement with very few qualifiers.You haven't been around politics for long? If you compare his policies to conservative policies ~30 years ago, then he is very moderate. It's all a matter of the times and perspective
A moderate conservative. Not a moderate moderate. And 30 years ago he would've been. Today not anymore. As I said. A matter of the times and perspective.That’s a very punchy statement with very few qualifiers.
Trump is not moderate.
So you’re saying you think that Trump‘s policies are to the left of Reagan and GHW Bush?You haven't been around politics for long? If you compare his policies to conservative policies ~30 years ago, then he is very moderate. It's all a matter of the times and perspective
Come on then. No sarcasm at all. How moderate does he look compared to Bush Snr?A moderate conservative. Not a moderate moderate. And 30 years ago he would've been. Today not anymore. As I said. A matter of the times and perspective.
Reagan had just as much a focus on improving economy including through tax cuts and deregulating laws for businesses. He also was involved in the Immigration Reform that definitely was a step against immigration. Unlike Trump, Reagan wanted to ban abortions and was pretty much against gay rights. I wouldn't say that that is more moderate than Trumps policies.So you’re saying you think that Trump‘s policies are to the left of Reagan and GHW Bush?