2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[The Black Forrest]

It feels like we're going to be stuck between two bland choices again. And two senile old men. Its great.

Hmmm? Blame the young ones then. Obviously; they aren’t selling it.

[Corrian]

It feels like we're going to be stuck between two bland choices again. And two senile old men. Its great.

Hmmm? Blame the young ones then. Obviously; they aren’t selling it.

Or Democrats just suck at choosing inspiring candidates.

[Cannot think of a name]

Hmmm? Blame the young ones then. Obviously; they aren’t selling it.

Or Democrats just suck at choosing inspiring candidates.

Or or it's still early, just four years ago at this time the Republicans were on their third or fourth front runner, most people haven't really tuned in yet and the campaign won't really be in full swing for another couple months and all kinds of shit can happen just like how 2008 was McCain vs Obama and not Clinton vs Giuliani the way everyone was exactly as insistent that it would be on these very forums and dear god I've been here too long...

[United States of Devonta]

My interpretation is that Sanders' position is a form of eugenics in effect, but obviously I'm the minority on that.

Obviously you're wrong. Eugenics is the idea that society is improved when only certain people are allowed to reproduce. Sanders is talking about empowering women to control their reproduction themselves.

The reach, the grab, the fail.

[San Lumen]

Hmmm? Blame the young ones then. Obviously; they aren’t selling it.

Or Democrats just suck at choosing inspiring candidates.

Why does a candidate have to be inspiring? This is why Republicans win they get off their butts to vote every election and democrats have to be inspired. With that kind of thinking don't cry when he gets a second term.

[Telconi]

Hmmm? Blame the young ones then. Obviously; they aren’t selling it.

Or Democrats just suck at choosing inspiring candidates.

I think they're generally very inspiring.

[Telconi]

Or Democrats just suck at choosing inspiring candidates.

Why does a candidate have to be inspiring? This is why Republicans win they get off their butts to vote every election and democrats have to be inspired. With that kind of thinking don't cry when he gets a second term.

People generally only do stuff when they have a reason to so it.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Marquette U poll of Wisconsin has Biden leading the Dem field by +8.

Biden also largest lead in the Marquette WI General Election poll.... Biden 51 Trump 42, Sanders 48 Trump 44, Warren 45 Trump 45. Trump has a lead on all others.

Seems Wisconsin voters don't give a fuck 'bout no gaffe bullshit or the bitching.

Nate Silver spins the tomorrows. Today Biden is still WINNING. Since Biden announced in March, through April, May, June, July, August and now into September he is still on top of the Dem field plus topping Trump by the most in swing state after swing state. That's a good trend no matter how much 538 wants to throw cold water on the Biden campaign's enthusiasm. Nate Silver isn't the end all and be all of political wisdom. But sure, he's no slouch either. We'll find later about his statements on further down the road. But right now, this minute it is looking good for Biden, right NOW and that's exactly where the campaign stands in real time. Now.

Thanks to Trump's continued erratic behavior, this election may not be your basic run of the mill presidential election. In Charlie Cooks speak, this cake may be plenty closer to baked than you think. Both sides are entrenched and Donny is stuck at 38-40% with little or no game for breaking past 45%. He's painted himself into a corner with his undignified behavior and silly tweets and he's incapable of stopping. Biden only needs to stay consistent on scripted. The prize is his if he does.

Gaffes aren't automatically bullshit. Reagan opened his mouth and said nonsense. W opened his mouth and said nonsense. Trump opened his mouth and said nonsense. If Joe Biden was a Republican you wouldn't say "gaffe" and "nonsense" in the same sentence. As a matter of substance, nobody speaking that shakily should be in the top tier, and that includes Joe Biden in 2019.

I respect your desire to beat Trump, but I don't respect your sophomoric grasp of the concept that numbers TODAY (circular reasoning) indicating that most people will dispassionately vote for the person who has the BEST numbers means that person will win. Mike Dukakis tried that line about this time 30 years ago. Didn't shoot his mouth off more than once either.

Well, if your point that sometimes everyone opens there mouth and says bullshit, that's true. OTOH, Trump engages in a constant "telling of bullshit" (i.e. lies) as a strategy. As far as Dukakis and the 1988 election, his 17 point lead was immediately after the Dem convention in July and evaporated after the GOP convention. Pre-1988 conventions, the media labeled the Dem contenders as the "seven dwarfs", do you remember that? The 2020 dynamics aren't similar. 1988 is more comparable to 2016. Plus this was before the almighty internet when TV ads and mainstream media hype carried the day. You must remember that Willie Horton Ad? How about Dukakis in the tank? The Dukakis campaign was poorly run and the media was arguably harsh towards him versus their treatment of HW Bush who got a big pass on Iran Contra which we he did not deserve.

Circular reasoning still beats the circular firing squad mentality which Dems engage in this thread among themselves. Let's not just respect my desire to beat Trump. Why not engage in an overall strategy to beat Trump. We should be attacking Trump, not nitpicking our own candidates over incidental gaffes.

Or Democrats just suck at choosing inspiring candidates.

Why does a candidate have to be inspiring? This is why Republicans win they get off their butts to vote every election and democrats have to be inspired. With that kind of thinking don't cry when he gets a second term.

Bingo. They score bc their voters understand what it takes to win as a party.

[The Black Forrest]

Gaffes aren't automatically bullshit. Reagan opened his mouth and said nonsense. W opened his mouth and said nonsense. Trump opened his mouth and said nonsense. If Joe Biden was a Republican you wouldn't say "gaffe" and "nonsense" in the same sentence. As a matter of substance, nobody speaking that shakily should be in the top tier, and that includes Joe Biden in 2019.

I respect your desire to beat Trump, but I don't respect your sophomoric grasp of the concept that numbers TODAY (circular reasoning) indicating that most people will dispassionately vote for the person who has the BEST numbers means that person will win. Mike Dukakis tried that line about this time 30 years ago. Didn't shoot his mouth off more than once either.

Well, if your point that sometimes everyone opens there mouth and says bullshit, that's true. OTOH, Trump engages in a constant "telling of bullshit" (i.e. lies) as a strategy. As far as Dukakis and the 1988 election, his 17 point lead was immediately after the Dem convention in July and evaporated after the GOP convention. Pre-1988 conventions, the media labeled the Dem contenders as the "seven dwarfs", do you remember that? The 2020 dynamics aren't similar. 1988 is more comparable to 2016. Plus this was before the almighty internet when TV ads and mainstream media hype carried the day. You must remember that Willie Horton Ad? How about Dukakis in the tank? The Dukakis campaign was poorly run and the media was arguably harsh towards him versus their treatment of HW Bush who got a big pass on Iran Contra which we he did not deserve.

Circular reasoning still beats the circular firing squad mentality which Dems engage in this thread among themselves. Let's not just respect my desire to beat Trump. Why not engage in an overall strategy to beat Trump. We should be attacking Trump, not nitpicking our own candidates over incidental gaffes.

Why does a candidate have to be inspiring? This is why Republicans win they get off their butts to vote every election and democrats have to be inspired. With that kind of thinking don't cry when he gets a second term.

Bingo. They score bc their voters understand what it takes to win as a party.

I think it was Will Rogers who said “I am not a member of an organized party. I am a democrat”

That has always been their issue. Obama understood the outreach. I remember the warnings of a Michigan minister who said when Obama was running he had the direct lines of several key democrat campaign leaders in Michigan and would report issues. When H ran; he didn’t have any numbers and he couldn’t reach anybody when he found the majority of people were talking about donnie.

One has to wonder if for example the bernie bros are going to sit out again if he doesn’t get the nomination.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Why does a candidate have to be inspiring? This is why Republicans win they get off their butts to vote every election and democrats have to be inspired. With that kind of thinking don't cry when he gets a second term.

People generally only do stuff when they have a reason to so it.

Right. So Dems should get motivated to beat Trump, beat GOP senators, governors and representatives in the 2020 election. They did a good job in 2018, but there was not a person at the top of the ticket to focus one. Dems need to focus like they did in 2018 and keep on the attack. The nominee for POTUS will sort itself out and the party as a whole needs to accept the outcome. Like the republicans generally have the sense to do.

[Telconi]

People generally only do stuff when they have a reason to so it.

Right. So Dems should get motivated to beat Trump, beat GOP senators, governors and representatives in the 2020 election. They did a good job in 2018, but there was not a person at the top of the ticket to focus one. Dems need to focus like they did in 2018 and keep on the attack. The nominee for POTUS will sort itself out and the party as a whole needs to accept the outcome. Like the republicans generally have the sense to do.

I vehemently disagree on all points, but carry on.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Well, if your point that sometimes everyone opens there mouth and says bullshit, that's true. OTOH, Trump engages in a constant "telling of bullshit" (i.e. lies) as a strategy. As far as Dukakis and the 1988 election, his 17 point lead was immediately after the Dem convention in July and evaporated after the GOP convention. Pre-1988 conventions, the media labeled the Dem contenders as the "seven dwarfs", do you remember that? The 2020 dynamics aren't similar. 1988 is more comparable to 2016. Plus this was before the almighty internet when TV ads and mainstream media hype carried the day. You must remember that Willie Horton Ad? How about Dukakis in the tank? The Dukakis campaign was poorly run and the media was arguably harsh towards him versus their treatment of HW Bush who got a big pass on Iran Contra which we he did not deserve.

Circular reasoning still beats the circular firing squad mentality which Dems engage in this thread among themselves. Let's not just respect my desire to beat Trump. Why not engage in an overall strategy to beat Trump. We should be attacking Trump, not nitpicking our own candidates over incidental gaffes.



Bingo. They score bc their voters understand what it takes to win as a party.

I think it was Will Rogers who said “I am not a member of an organized party. I am a democrat”

That has always been their issue. Obama understood the outreach. I remember the warnings of a Michigan minister who said when Obama was running he had the direct lines of several key democrat campain leaders in Michigan and would report issues. When H ran; he didn’t have any numbers and he couldn’t reach anybody when he found the majority of people were talking about donnie.

One has to wonder if for example the bernie bros are going to sit out again if he doesn’t get the nomination.

That makes even more imperative to nominate the Dem with the best polling vs Trump in WI, MI & PA. None of the Dems are bringing the baggage H brought into this general. A potential BB sit out may actually backfire on them in the long run either way. It's an Eric Cartman strategy which doesn't win any friends.

[Ngelmish]

Gaffes aren't automatically bullshit. Reagan opened his mouth and said nonsense. W opened his mouth and said nonsense. Trump opened his mouth and said nonsense. If Joe Biden was a Republican you wouldn't say "gaffe" and "nonsense" in the same sentence. As a matter of substance, nobody speaking that shakily should be in the top tier, and that includes Joe Biden in 2019.

I respect your desire to beat Trump, but I don't respect your sophomoric grasp of the concept that numbers TODAY (circular reasoning) indicating that most people will dispassionately vote for the person who has the BEST numbers means that person will win. Mike Dukakis tried that line about this time 30 years ago. Didn't shoot his mouth off more than once either.

Well, if your point that sometimes everyone opens there mouth and says bullshit, that's true. OTOH, Trump engages in a constant "telling of bullshit" (i.e. lies) as a strategy. As far as Dukakis and the 1988 election, his 17 point lead was immediately after the Dem convention in July and evaporated after the GOP convention. Pre-1988 conventions, the media labeled the Dem contenders as the "seven dwarfs", do you remember that? The 2020 dynamics aren't similar. 1988 is more comparable to 2016. Plus this was before the almighty internet when TV ads and mainstream media hype carried the day. You must remember that Willie Horton Ad? How about Dukakis in the tank? The Dukakis campaign was poorly run and the media was arguably harsh towards him versus their treatment of HW Bush who got a big pass on Iran Contra which we he did not deserve.

Circular reasoning still beats the circular firing squad mentality which Dems engage in this thread among themselves. Let's not just respect my desire to beat Trump. Why not engage in an overall strategy to beat Trump. We should be attacking Trump, not nitpicking our own candidates over incidental gaffes.

Why does a candidate have to be inspiring? This is why Republicans win they get off their butts to vote every election and democrats have to be inspired. With that kind of thinking don't cry when he gets a second term.

Bingo. They score bc their voters understand what it takes to win as a party.

My point is that I really don't think Biden's increasingly speaking in gibberish should be treated as incidental. We've had already had two senile presidents in my lifetime, albeit in the other party. Your so-called circular firing squad is all about swatting the other candidates aside and tamping down criticism of Biden. Interestingly, that didn't work too well for Hillary Clinton in the end -- the race against Trump was consistently closer than it should have been.

Now, your next point will be that Biden consistently leads in state level polls. Fair enough. Granted. But numbers don't exist and in a vacuum and they're not static. If Biden can't coordinate an affirmative message for himself other than, "Look at those polls, I can beat Trump who is absolutely garbage," then Trump's chances of creaking to another infinitesimal win increase dramatically, in my view. You will of course beg to differ.

[USS Monitor]

My point is that I really don't think Biden's increasingly speaking in gibberish should be treated as incidental.

I wouldn't call it "incidental" either. He used to be more with-it. If he is getting senile, it may get more serious as time goes on.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Well, if your point that sometimes everyone opens there mouth and says bullshit, that's true. OTOH, Trump engages in a constant "telling of bullshit" (i.e. lies) as a strategy. As far as Dukakis and the 1988 election, his 17 point lead was immediately after the Dem convention in July and evaporated after the GOP convention. Pre-1988 conventions, the media labeled the Dem contenders as the "seven dwarfs", do you remember that? The 2020 dynamics aren't similar. 1988 is more comparable to 2016. Plus this was before the almighty internet when TV ads and mainstream media hype carried the day. You must remember that Willie Horton Ad? How about Dukakis in the tank? The Dukakis campaign was poorly run and the media was arguably harsh towards him versus their treatment of HW Bush who got a big pass on Iran Contra which we he did not deserve.

Circular reasoning still beats the circular firing squad mentality which Dems engage in this thread among themselves. Let's not just respect my desire to beat Trump. Why not engage in an overall strategy to beat Trump. We should be attacking Trump, not nitpicking our own candidates over incidental gaffes.



Bingo. They score bc their voters understand what it takes to win as a party.

My point is that I really don't think Biden's increasingly speaking in gibberish should be treated as incidental. We've had already had two senile presidents in my lifetime, albeit in the other party. Your so-called circular firing squad is all about swatting the other candidates aside and tamping down criticism of Biden. Interestingly, that didn't work too well for Hillary Clinton in the end -- the race against Trump was consistently closer than it should have been.

Now, your next point will be that Biden consistently leads in state level polls. Fair enough. Granted. But numbers don't exist and in a vacuum and they're not static. If Biden can't coordinate an affirmative message for himself other than, "Look at those polls, I can beat Trump who is absolutely garbage," then Trump's chances of creaking to another infinitesimal win increase dramatically, in my view. You will of course beg to differ.

Biden doesn't speak gibberish, that's over the top. HRC, first woman nominee, was a political outlier whereas Trump is just a liar - first time shame on him, second time shame on voters for continuing his presidency. I did not say numbers are perpetually static, but Biden has had the lead for 6 months despite a few mudslingers best efforts. I think Biden's stance is well understood after 34 years in the US Senate and 8 years as Obama's Veep. BTW, at the nexus of science and political science the perfect vacuum does not exist, so numbers (of particles) can actually exist in what you may think is a vacuum but isn't.

[Cannot think of a name]

My point is that I really don't think Biden's increasingly speaking in gibberish should be treated as incidental.

I wouldn't call it "incidental" either. He used to be more with-it. If he is getting senile, it may get more serious as time goes on.

Eh, Biden has always had a reputation as a bit of a gaffe machine.

[Sidesh0w B0b]

My point is that I really don't think Biden's increasingly speaking in gibberish should be treated as incidental.

I wouldn't call it "incidental" either. He used to be more with-it. If he is getting senile, it may get more serious as time goes on.

Maybe a few of y'all prefer a cut off age in running for POTUS?

Nevertheless, I believe senility did exist back in the 1780s when the US constitution was created. It mandated a candidate must be at least 35 years of age to be POTUS, but set no limit on the upward age. However, there is a vice president in case the president can not continue serving. Eventually the 25th amendment was passed to deal more succinctly with these sorts of scenarios. Let the electorate cast their votes. It would be honorable to hold an election in an environment minus the taint of unskilled determinations from those not edified in the sciences of medicine, particularly geriatric or psychiatric illnesses. Let that judgment fall to a professionals. Assuredly Biden has regular check ups. Hell, the man's son-in-law is actually a doctor.

[Galloism]

I wouldn't call it "incidental" either. He used to be more with-it. If he is getting senile, it may get more serious as time goes on.

Maybe a few of y'all prefer a cut off age in running for POTUS?

Well, given they can serve 8 years and the full retirement age for SSA is now 67, maybe 59?

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Maybe a few of y'all prefer a cut off age in running for POTUS?

Well, given they can serve 8 years and the full retirement age for SSA is now 67, maybe 59?

George Washington would have been POTUS for less than 2 years. Jefferson would have had one year, so no Louisiana purchase. FDR would have been out before Pearl Harbor. We'd have been totally spared Andrew Jackson.

Interesting, but no. 59 knocks out Joe, Bernie and Liz right off the bat. And the Donald... except he'd produce a fake birth certificate showing his age to be 54.

[Ngelmish]

I wouldn't call it "incidental" either. He used to be more with-it. If he is getting senile, it may get more serious as time goes on.

Eh, Biden has always had a reputation as a bit of a gaffe machine.

If Biden were just speaking clumsily and being a bit inarticulate, I wouldn't bat an eye, he's always been like that. But in most of his major public appearances he's had multiple instances of struggling to speak coherently. Now I don't want to blow that out of proportion -- unlike the way Trump often speaks, even when Biden's word choice is incoherent, there's a clearly discernible point that is still getting across -- but a general lack of coherence has ticked upwards, and it's not an encouraging development. I'll put it like this. In a hypothetical Biden versus Sanders as the last two standing, I'm now starting to consider that the smartest play might be to run Bernie. And my visceral dislike of Bernie Sanders, is, I believe, common knowledge on these boards.

I wouldn't call it "incidental" either. He used to be more with-it. If he is getting senile, it may get more serious as time goes on.

Maybe a few of y'all prefer a cut off age in running for POTUS?

Nevertheless, I believe senility did exist back in the 1780s when the US constitution was created. It mandated a candidate must be at least 35 years of age to be POTUS, but set no limit on the upward age. However, there is a vice president in case the president can not continue serving. Eventually the 25th amendment was passed to deal more succinctly with these sorts of scenarios. Let the electorate cast their votes. It would be honorable to hold an election in an environment minus the taint of unskilled determinations from those not edified in the sciences of medicine, particularly geriatric or psychiatric illnesses. Let that judgment fall to a professionals. Assuredly Biden has regular check ups. Hell, the man's son-in-law is actually a doctor.

I wouldn't favor a hard or legal limit, no, but I do think that age is a reasonable criteria to consider as it applies to stamina, cognitive functions and so on. And I agree, I would prefer not to get over the top with armchair diagnoses, but I don't think it's something we can responsibly ignore either.

And in regard to your earlier point about Biden's status as a known quantity, are you sure that's why his numbers have been stable thus far? I think the likelier culprit has been the size of the primary field. There are a lot of plausible, strong candidates out there who can't break through at all, not because they're not coming across as attractive, but because there are so many of them. That freezes Biden's plurality in place as the largest standing bloc, just like Trump did in 2016. Now, if his numbers are still the same once the field is down to 8 to 10 people, then I'll concede that point.

[Galloism]

Well, given they can serve 8 years and the full retirement age for SSA is now 67, maybe 59?

George Washington would have been POTUS for less than 2 years. Jefferson would have had one year, so no Louisiana purchase. FDR would have been out before Pearl Harbor. We'd have been totally spared Andrew Jackson.

Interesting, but no. 59 knocks out Joe, Bernie and Liz right off the bat. And the Donald... except he'd produce a fake birth certificate showing his age to be 54.

Wouldn't that just make room for younger people though?

[United States of Devonta]

Right. So Dems should get motivated to beat Trump, beat GOP senators, governors and representatives in the 2020 election. They did a good job in 2018, but there was not a person at the top of the ticket to focus one. Dems need to focus like they did in 2018 and keep on the attack. The nominee for POTUS will sort itself out and the party as a whole needs to accept the outcome. Like the republicans generally have the sense to do.

I vehemently disagree on all points, but carry on.

Not much to disagree with.

[Cannot think of a name]

That thing you forgot about quietly goes away.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz won't run for president in 2020, ending his exploration of an independent run against President Donald Trump.
"My belief in the need to reform our two-party system has not wavered, but I have concluded that an independent campaign for the White House is not how I can best serve our country at this time," Schultz said in a letter posted to his website on Friday.

[Telconi]

I vehemently disagree on all points, but carry on.

Not much to disagree with.

Except for his entire post...

[Valrifell]

That thing you forgot about quietly goes away.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz won't run for president in 2020, ending his exploration of an independent run against President Donald Trump.
"My belief in the need to reform our two-party system has not wavered, but I have concluded that an independent campaign for the White House is not how I can best serve our country at this time," Schultz said in a letter posted to his website on Friday.

I was actually recently wondering whatever happened to him, but then he slipped back into the background of my mind.