WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » Political Discussion » Dem Debate Group 2

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Dem Debate Group 2
Crimson Mask from FL
Administrator
Member # 10449

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Crimson Mask from FL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clearly the stronger field. Nobody really damaged themselves.

--------------------
So long from the Sunshine State!

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
of the health care options talked about, I prefer adding the option for working people to go thru the exchange at this time..

I do like the health care for all.. but Im not sure we as a country are ready for that change yet.

Biden is still my choice as president. who to team him up with is important for pulling the younger/progressive voters...

just me thoughts

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Bcleah
Member
Member # 5397

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bcleah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Biden seemed too passive. Determined not to make any mistakes. Hurricane Harris has peaked I think. I was a little disappointed to not see Buttigieg step up to the next level. From what I have seen in the last couple of days, it is going to be Warren who edges Bernie to challenge Biden for the nomination.
IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-tomi-lahren-apologizes-135610063.html

even the women in the Repubs have the class of a jackass

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Biden did all right -- and a decent argument could be made that he "won" last night's debate -- I don't think he really did anything to move himself forward.

The Booker-Biden exchange over each other's resumes I thought was pretty good: Spirited, factual, spotlighted deficiencies but also gave both an opportunity to defend themselves in a manner that spoke well for both of them. I'm hoping Booker might make up a point or three in the post-debate polling.

Castro also did well, I think. He hit his big issues -- immigration and criminal justice -- and then slammed McConnell using "Moscow Mitch" as a hammer in a very public performance that we normally don't see out of a major Democrat.

Gillibrand's performance was bad enoough that I'm thinking she's going to be the next one to bow out. And that's even with Inslee and Bennet's lack-luster showing.


At the moment, only 7 of the candidates have crossed the threshold for Debate #3: Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Harris, O’Rourke, Sanders and Warren. Yang's numbers are such that he might make it yet, but Castro is going to have to work at it to make the grade. The rest will be lucky to pass muster.

And in the end, I'm not convinced that the current state of the debates or the format are really giving the candidates a real chance at presenting themselves or in changing people's minds much. Kyle Kondik at Sabato's Crystal Ball looked at the RealClearPolitcs averaged poll figures and saw that, the day before the first debate we had:
Biden 32%
Bernie 17%
Warren 13%
Harris 7%
Buttigieg 7%
Beto 3%
Booker at 2%.

The day before the second debates the figures were:
Biden 32%
Bernie 16%
Warren 14%
Harris 11%
Buttigieg 6%
Beto 3%
Booker 2%
Yang 2%

That's not a lot of movement, is it?

And as Kondik notes in his analysis, "To our eyes, we didn’t see much from the debates that seems likely to fundamentally alter the race."

I don't think any of us spotted anything, either.

[ 08-01-2019, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didnt have a problem with him not going on the attack.. if he gets the nomination, there will be enough between him and Trump.

and I hope he doesn't adapt the same strategy as the Cadet.. show that you are above the petty bs and act like it

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortunately, this was the last of the debates where we have to deal with so many candidates that they need to spread them out over two nights.

The criteria for the September ABC debate (singular) is a minimum of 2% in 4 different major polls AND at least 130,000 unique donors and at least 400 unique donors per state in all 50 states. That not only doubles the number for each criteria, it requires that both of them are met (the first two debates only required 1% in 3 major polls OR 65,000 unique donors and at least 200 unique donors per state in 20 states).

As of this moment, only 7 candidates have met by both requirements:

Joe Biden
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Kamala Harris
Beto O'Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

Amy Klobuchar has met the polling criteria, but is still 10,000 unique donors short of the requirement, and Julian Castro and Andrew Yang have both met the donor requirement, but each still need to hit 2% in at least one major poll.

No other candidate has met either requirement yet. My guess is those ten listed above will be the entire slate for the next debate (assuming none of them drop out first, which I won't rule out for everyone on the bottom tier of that group).

Now it's just a question of who drops out next, and how many drop out after they pass the deadline to make the cut for the next debate. I'm pretty sure we'll be down to no more than 10-12 candidates by the end of the year.

IP: Logged
Dirko
Member
Member # 125609

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dirko     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the outside, I just can't see what makes Biden such a good choice. Anything other than name value? He seems like a safe hand, but not much more.

Harris is very impressive and very scary, which says a lot about my biases, so it would be good for my personal evolution if she got the nomination.


Buttigieg is incredibly impressive, but might be too young and intelligent to be chosen this time. Would probably be a fab Secretary of the Interior, Labour or something where competence would be useful.

Booker would have been the perfect VP candidate, because he is very inspiring and has good policy ideas. His personal issues will hurt him, though. If he is proactive and apologizes, he might be a great candidate in 4 or 8 years time.

Sanders is too unlikeable for my taste, but an angry old man might be a good candidate this time round.

According to certain polls, Beto could deliver Texas which would be very valuable in a VP.

Personal preference would be Warren though, as she seems the most trustworthy and seems to have a well-thought out policy for just about any issue.

--------------------
"Evil is just a measure of how much YOUR choices take away other people's."
(Simon Spurrier)

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The ticket will likely be Biden and Harris. I'd like to see Beto in the VP spot, but I can't see the Dems running two white Irish guys as their ticket. Perhaps Beto gets a cabinet post to pick up additional experience for a run in 2024. I think Joe will be one and done as POTUS, choosing not to run for a second term due to age.

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dirko:
From the outside, I just can't see what makes Biden such a good choice. Anything other than name value? He seems like a safe hand, but not much more.


He was Vice President for eight years under a President that is still very popular among Democrats. Former Vice Presidents always have a huge inside track toward a party's nomination.

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OSJ from NM by way of WA:
The ticket will likely be Biden and Harris. I'd like to see Beto in the VP spot, but I can't see the Dems running two white Irish guys as their ticket. Perhaps Beto gets a cabinet post to pick up additional experience for a run in 2024. I think Joe will be one and done as POTUS, choosing not to run for a second term due to age.

To me, I have thought Beto has been a lot of hype but not a lot of substance thus far. I guess I was expecting more after all the press about his amazing charisma and nearly doing the impossible by winning a Senate seat as a Dem in Texas. I think he has been a big letdown thus far -- polling under five percent.

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
quote:
Originally posted by Dirko:
From the outside, I just can't see what makes Biden such a good choice. Anything other than name value? He seems like a safe hand, but not much more.


He was Vice President for eight years under a President that is still very popular among Democrats. Former Vice Presidents always have a huge inside track toward a party's nomination.
Former VPs have a pretty terrible record of actually getting elected president.

In the last 180 years, only two men have ever ascended to the presidency via election after serving as VP: Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Every other former VP to become president since Martin Van Buren did so because his immediate predecessor died, was assassinated, or resigned from office.

Here's the recent history for former VPs running for the presidency (excluding incumbent presidents)...

2000:
Dan Quayle (R) ran, didn't win nomination
Al Gore (D) ran, won nomination, lost general election

1988:
George H.W. Bush (R) ran, won nomination, won general election

1984:
Walter Mondale (D) ran, won nomination, lost general election

1968:
Hubert Humphrey (D) ran, won nomination, lost general election
Richard Nixon (R) ran, won nomination, won general election

1960:
Richard Nixon (R) ran, won nomination, lost general election

1952:
Alben Barkley (D) ran, didn't win nomination

1916:
Charles Fairbanks (R) ran, didn't win nomination (but was chosen as VP nominee)

So in the last 103 years, there have been 9 attempts by former VPs (who were not already incumbent presidents) to run for the presidency, and only twice did the former VP wind up winning the presidency in that attempt. In all of American history, only 5 former vice-presidents ran for the presidency and won in their own right, and three of them were before the Civil War (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren).

[ 08-01-2019, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
wanderingwalker
Member
Member # 29059

Icon 1 posted      Profile for wanderingwalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask from FL:
Clearly the stronger field. Nobody really damaged themselves.

You must have missed what happened to Harris. Withholding evidence against someone on death row? My god! And she had no response, all she did was briefly ramble about reform.
IP: Logged
The Fake J.D. McKay
Member
Member # 24269

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Fake J.D. McKay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OSJ from NM by way of WA:
The ticket will likely be Biden and Harris. I'd like to see Beto in the VP spot, but I can't see the Dems running two white Irish guys as their ticket. Perhaps Beto gets a cabinet post to pick up additional experience for a run in 2024. I think Joe will be one and done as POTUS, choosing not to run for a second term due to age.

That could be a serious mistake. He’s going to carry California. He needs someone that can bring electoral votes. Julian Castro might well be the key to that. He’s liberal and Hispanic. Trump is not very popular here in Texas and Biden is polling ahead of him by several points. If Biden wins Texas, it’s over. Biden knows this.
IP: Logged
wanderingwalker
Member
Member # 29059

Icon 1 posted      Profile for wanderingwalker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Fake J.D. McKay:
quote:
Originally posted by OSJ from NM by way of WA:
The ticket will likely be Biden and Harris. I'd like to see Beto in the VP spot, but I can't see the Dems running two white Irish guys as their ticket. Perhaps Beto gets a cabinet post to pick up additional experience for a run in 2024. I think Joe will be one and done as POTUS, choosing not to run for a second term due to age.

That could be a serious mistake. He’s going to carry California. He needs someone that can bring electoral votes. Julian Castro might well be the key to that. He’s liberal and Hispanic. Trump is not very popular here in Texas and Biden is polling ahead of him by several points. If Biden wins Texas, it’s over. Biden knows this.
Yeah, but if Biden gets the nomination, he will pick a woman as his running mate. Maybe Stacy Abrams. Not Harris, she is now toxic.
IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Fake J.D. McKay:
quote:
Originally posted by OSJ from NM by way of WA:
The ticket will likely be Biden and Harris. I'd like to see Beto in the VP spot, but I can't see the Dems running two white Irish guys as their ticket. Perhaps Beto gets a cabinet post to pick up additional experience for a run in 2024. I think Joe will be one and done as POTUS, choosing not to run for a second term due to age.

That could be a serious mistake. He’s going to carry California. He needs someone that can bring electoral votes. Julian Castro might well be the key to that. He’s liberal and Hispanic. Trump is not very popular here in Texas and Biden is polling ahead of him by several points. If Biden wins Texas, it’s over. Biden knows this.
The idea that any state has ever gone to a particular candidate specifically because their running mate was from that state is just plain silly. I know it's considered "conventional wisdom" or whatever, but if you actually look back at the history, it just doesn't actually mean much of anything.

Here's how the home states of non-incumbent VP candidates went over the past several elections...

2016: Indiana went red and Virginia went blue, but that was pretty expected in both cases even before running mates were chosen.

2012: Wisconsin went blue (as it always does), even though the Republican VP nominee was from that state.

2008: Delaware went blue (as it always does), and Alaska went red (as it always does)

2004: North Carolina went red (as it always does), even though the Democratic VP nominee was from that state.

2000: Wyoming went red (as it almost always does), and Connecticut went blue (as it always does).

1996: New York went blue (as it always does), even though the Republican VP nominee was from that state.

1992: Tennessee went blue - this might be the one instance in recent history where the VP's home state may have played a factor in how that state went. But you also have to take into consideration that the top of the ticket was also from a southern state, and they won 5 southern states overall that year (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Alabama) as well as West Virginia and Montana, both solid red states for several cycles now.

1988: Indiana went red (as it always does), and Texas also went red (as it always does), even though the Democratic VP nominee was from that state.

1984: New York went red (as it occasionally did at that time), even though the Democratic VP nominee was from that state.

1980: Texas went red (as it always does).

1976: Minnesota went blue (as it always does), and Kansas went red (as it always does)

So basically, in the last eleven elections, there has only been one instance in which the VP's home state MIGHT have had an effect on how that state voted, but even that example isn't completely certain.

I think what matters a lot more than which state the person comes from is which voting bloc they appeal to most. Biden was a perfect choice for Obama because he appealed to a group of voters who were more skeptical of Obama. If Biden is the nominee this time, he'll want to pick someone who appeals to voters who are skeptical of him as the presidential nominee. I think it will probably need to be a woman, or a person of color. Two white guys on the ticket is a set up for disaster in terms of turning out the people the Democrats need to turn out the most (African-Americans and women).

[ 08-01-2019, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
quote:
Originally posted by Dirko:
From the outside, I just can't see what makes Biden such a good choice. Anything other than name value? He seems like a safe hand, but not much more.


He was Vice President for eight years under a President that is still very popular among Democrats. Former Vice Presidents always have a huge inside track toward a party's nomination.
Former VPs have a pretty terrible record of actually getting elected president.

In the last 180 years, only two men have ever ascended to the presidency via election after serving as VP: Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Every other former VP to become president since Martin Van Buren did so because his immediate predecessor died, was assassinated, or resigned from office.

Here's the recent history for former VPs running for the presidency (excluding incumbent presidents)...

2000:
Dan Quayle (R) ran, didn't win nomination
Al Gore (D) ran, won nomination, lost general election

1988:
George H.W. Bush (R) ran, won nomination, won general election

1984:
Walter Mondale (D) ran, won nomination, lost general election

1968:
Hubert Humphrey (D) ran, won nomination, lost general election
Richard Nixon (R) ran, won nomination, won general election

1960:
Richard Nixon (R) ran, won nomination, lost general election

1952:
Alben Barkley (D) ran, didn't win nomination

1916:
Charles Fairbanks (R) ran, didn't win nomination (but was chosen as VP nominee)

So in the last 103 years, there have been 9 attempts by former VPs (who were not already incumbent presidents) to run for the presidency, and only twice did the former VP wind up winning the presidency in that attempt. In all of American history, only 5 former vice-presidents ran for the presidency and won in their own right, and three of them were before the Civil War (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren).

I didn't say the history of winning the Presidency. I said history of winning the party nomination. [Smile]

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
Crimson Mask from FL
Administrator
Member # 10449

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Crimson Mask from FL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wanderingwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask from FL:
Clearly the stronger field. Nobody really damaged themselves.

You must have missed what happened to Harris. Withholding evidence against someone on death row? My god! And she had no response, all she did was briefly ramble about reform.
You must have missed third grade English the day they taught reading all the words.

--------------------
So long from the Sunshine State!

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trump...

Moscow Mitch...

Tulsi Gabbard?!?!?!?

So now she's an agent of Russia simply for owning Harris in their exchange with facts I guess or something?

Okay...

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
Liz Hunter's Boyfriend
Member
Member # 7919

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Liz Hunter's Boyfriend     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wanderingwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask from FL:
Clearly the stronger field. Nobody really damaged themselves.

You must have missed what happened to Harris. Withholding evidence against someone on death row? My god! And she had no response, all she did was briefly ramble about reform.
yer a dope [Roll Eyes]
IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSem:
Trump...

Moscow Mitch...

Tulsi Gabbard?!?!?!?

So now she's an agent of Russia simply for owning Harris in their exchange with facts I guess or something?

Okay...

How about when she decided to spread the "Mueller report said no collusion" lies? Is that good enough? It has been proven repeatedly that the report never said that, Mueller never said that and that only Trump sycophants keep spreading that line.

I am not saying she is a Russian asset but spreading falsehoods like that is slightly telling in regards to her.

IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I mean seriously... she was on Tucker Carlson's show and he cut away from Trump's rally to allow her to trash Harris. I will repeat that.

Tucker Carlson had her on the show and even cut away from Trump to allow her to do it. Name one time that has happened for another Dem on his show.

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cory:
I mean seriously... she was on Tucker Carlson's show and he cut away from Trump's rally to allow her to trash Harris. I will repeat that.

Tucker Carlson had her on the show and even cut away from Trump to allow her to do it. Name one time that has happened for another Dem on his show.

You are right Cory.

Our country needs to have a ANOTHER 2 year investigation into her I believe and continue to not really address any real issues or pass anything meaningful.

She's probably a racist too right?

I mean just because Kamala is black, or is she Indian? I'm sort of confused on that too. I know she's mixed heritage but it's sort of funny how when it was convenient to be the first Indian congresswoman elected she was, but now she's identifying as African-American because that suits her better politically.

All things like this do is lend some credibility to Moscow Mitch when he states the Dems are active in neo-McCarthyism.

[Smile]

Tulsi used facts and Harris had no retort and looked bad. She's not irreparably damaged, but it was damned funny. Harris will easily make the cut and this might have been enough to help get Gabbard in. It certainly won't hurt her concerning polling or donors. Not sure how far off she is but she's pretty close. Closer than Yang.

[ 08-01-2019, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: PsychoSem ]

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did not mention any of the things you stated here. Literally nothing you posted had anything to do with anything I wrote.

Did you skip the part where I specifically said I don't think she is a Russian asset? Kinda looks like you did. All I said was the fact she is spouting the proven false no collusion lie and the fact the Republicans are going out of their way to promote a supposed Democratic candidate is very telling. I did not say a thing about Russian anything except to say I did not think she was.

But hey, feel free to show me where anything you just posted, anything at all has one thing to do with anything I posted here.

[ 08-01-2019, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Cory ]

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cory,

I'm not debating you on it. I was being somewhat sarcastic based on how the left has acted about the previous "Russian Witch Hunt".

I'm simply commenting on it because of how asinine the whole thing is.

I will say that you do seem to be implying that she is somehow now 'in on something' with the way you comment about what happened on Tucker.

I see nothing conspiratorial about it. She had to have a big moment to even have a shot at advancing. She had nothing to lose and pulled something out.

Mad props to her for doing so and I am sure Tucker loved what she said and, lets face it, Trump has been attacking everyone and everything recently so I'm sure getting him off the screen given the recent negativity he has mostly brought on himself against talking to Tulsi about what she had done was probably welcomed by whoever made that decision.

It remains to be seen if it will work in the long run for Gabbard as far as advancing goes but she did what she needed to do to have a chance.

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSem:
Not sure how far off she is but she's pretty close. Closer than Yang.

Actually, she's not.

Yang has already met the minimum donor threshold to make the next debate, and he only needs to hit 2% in one more unique poll by August 28th to get in.

Gabbard is just shy on the donor threshold (less than 2,000 donors away from qualifying), but she's only hit 2% in one poll, and still needs to hit that benchmark in three more separate polls by the end of the month. Not likely to happen.

As of right now the odds of Yang being on the stage in September's debate are a lot higher than the odds of Gabbard making the cut.

But it's all pretty moot, since neither one of them has any chance in hell of actually winning the nomination.

[ 08-02-2019, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
The Fake J.D. McKay
Member
Member # 24269

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Fake J.D. McKay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by The Fake J.D. McKay:
quote:
Originally posted by OSJ from NM by way of WA:
The ticket will likely be Biden and Harris. I'd like to see Beto in the VP spot, but I can't see the Dems running two white Irish guys as their ticket. Perhaps Beto gets a cabinet post to pick up additional experience for a run in 2024. I think Joe will be one and done as POTUS, choosing not to run for a second term due to age.

That could be a serious mistake. He’s going to carry California. He needs someone that can bring electoral votes. Julian Castro might well be the key to that. He’s liberal and Hispanic. Trump is not very popular here in Texas and Biden is polling ahead of him by several points. If Biden wins Texas, it’s over. Biden knows this.
The idea that any state has ever gone to a particular candidate specifically because their running mate was from that state is just plain silly. I know it's considered "conventional wisdom" or whatever, but if you actually look back at the history, it just doesn't actually mean much of anything.

Here's how the home states of non-incumbent VP candidates went over the past several elections...

2016: Indiana went red and Virginia went blue, but that was pretty expected in both cases even before running mates were chosen.

2012: Wisconsin went blue (as it always does), even though the Republican VP nominee was from that state.

2008: Delaware went blue (as it always does), and Alaska went red (as it always does)

2004: North Carolina went red (as it always does), even though the Democratic VP nominee was from that state.

2000: Wyoming went red (as it almost always does), and Connecticut went blue (as it always does).

1996: New York went blue (as it always does), even though the Republican VP nominee was from that state.

1992: Tennessee went blue - this might be the one instance in recent history where the VP's home state may have played a factor in how that state went. But you also have to take into consideration that the top of the ticket was also from a southern state, and they won 5 southern states overall that year (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Alabama) as well as West Virginia and Montana, both solid red states for several cycles now.

1988: Indiana went red (as it always does), and Texas also went red (as it always does), even though the Democratic VP nominee was from that state.

1984: New York went red (as it occasionally did at that time), even though the Democratic VP nominee was from that state.

1980: Texas went red (as it always does).

1976: Minnesota went blue (as it always does), and Kansas went red (as it always does)

So basically, in the last eleven elections, there has only been one instance in which the VP's home state MIGHT have had an effect on how that state voted, but even that example isn't completely certain.

I think what matters a lot more than which state the person comes from is which voting bloc they appeal to most. Biden was a perfect choice for Obama because he appealed to a group of voters who were more skeptical of Obama. If Biden is the nominee this time, he'll want to pick someone who appeals to voters who are skeptical of him as the presidential nominee. I think it will probably need to be a woman, or a person of color. Two white guys on the ticket is a set up for disaster in terms of turning out the people the Democrats need to turn out the most (African-Americans and women).

Fair enough, but Castro is Hispanic. The D's are going to carry the AA vote in massive numbers, as Trump has an approval rating of near zero with that group. If he wants the liberals, Castro makes up for that deficiency. If he wants the Hispanics, Castro pulls from that group too. The point about the women votes are that he owns the women vote at this point. He does have a chance of his conservative background hurting him in some quarters, but that will really help him in the rust belt. When it comes down to it, he needs a young person to give confidence in the ticket that, should he pass in office, we are left in good hands. Of this field, the most seemingly qualified candidate for veep would be Harris. Gabbard dinged her really well on Wednesday. She needs to pull herself together and forget this mess, move on. Gabbard likely is gone now, since she will have trouble qualifying for the debates. Her Syria and Mueller statements are not going to sit well with that base.
IP: Logged
Cory
Member
Member # 6097

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cory     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like I said, name one other Dem that spreads the no collusion lie and that Carlson will cut from Trump to air. Just one. You can't say that is not suspicious at all.
IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*************************************************
I think what matters a lot more than which state the person comes from is which voting bloc they appeal to most. Biden was a perfect choice for Obama because he appealed to a group of voters who were more skeptical of Obama. If Biden is the nominee this time, he'll want to pick someone who appeals to voters who are skeptical of him as the presidential nominee. I think it will probably need to be a woman, or a person of color. Two white guys on the ticket is a set up for disaster in terms of turning out the people the Democrats need to turn out the most (African-Americans and women).
**************************************************
that's the game plan I see that can win the election.. someone mentioned Biden being a safe pick, that right and what the country needs right now.. IMO

[ 08-02-2019, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: King Francis ]

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NBC News reports that Klobuchar has met the donor threshold for Debate #3.

I can see Yang maybe making the cut if he gets a good poll showing, but that's about it. I'm kinda expecting two or even three of the current crop to drop out before then, and I wouldn't be surprised if the line-up is announced for #3 to see another two or three pack it in.

I'd like to see either Hickenlooper or Bullock -- or both -- decide to run for the Colorado and Montana Senate seats that are up this cycle. Both would have good chances at nabbing them. No slam-dunks, obviously, but that would put some serious pressure on them and force the RNC and the Super PACs to spend dollars and resources in what would otherwise be forgettable races.

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
I'd like to see either Hickenlooper or Bullock -- or both -- decide to run for the Colorado and Montana Senate seats that are up this cycle. Both would have good chances at nabbing them. No slam-dunks, obviously, but that would put some serious pressure on them and force the RNC and the Super PACs to spend dollars and resources in what would otherwise be forgettable races.

Absolutely. It's incomprehensively moronic for either one of them to continue these pointless vanity presidential campaigns that neither one has any hope of winning, and if they really wanted to do their party a favor, they would drop out and both announce Senate runs.

I think to a lesser extent this could also apply to either O'Rourke or Castro as well, although admittedly a Senate run by a prominent Democrat in Texas would be a much bigger challenge than a Senate run in either Colorado or Montana right now.

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
questions:

are the seats that they would run for ones they can win?

Will their brief run for president help or hurt their chances if they ran?

getting them in the Senate helps the Dems in many ways and might prepare them for actually being ready for being the president.

Hopefully Cadet B.S. has shown that no knowledge/experience of how anything works isnt a plus for the job..

[ 08-02-2019, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: King Francis ]

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King Francis:
questions:

are the seats that they would run for ones they can win?

Will their brief run for president help or hurt their chances if they ran?

Yes, absolutely.

Hickenlooper is a very popular former governor and former mayor of Denver, and Colorado has been trending pretty blue for the past few cycles - a Republican hasn't won the presidency there since 2004. They already have one Democratic U.S. senator, and had two as recently as 2014.

Bullock's race would possibly be a little tougher because Montana is a redder state than Colorado, but he's a very popular two-term governor, and the state has had a Democrat in the governor's mansion for the past 15 years now. The state already has one Democratic senator, who was re-elected in one of the closest races in the country last November.

In any event, both of them have far, far, far, far better chances of being elected to the U.S. Senate than either one has of winning the Democratic presidential nomination, much less actually being elected president. Neither one of them is going to qualify for the next debate.

As for how their brief runs for president would impact their chances of winning senate races, I don't think it would have much impact at all, assuming they don't wait too much longer to withdraw from the presidential race and file for senate runs. It needs to happen before the end of the year, preferably before Thanksgiving.

[ 08-02-2019, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSem:
Not sure how far off she is but she's pretty close. Closer than Yang.

Actually, she's not.

Yang has already met the minimum donor threshold to make the next debate, and he only needs to hit 2% in one more unique poll by August 28th to get in.

Gabbard is just shy on the donor threshold (less than 2,000 donors away from qualifying), but she's only hit 2% in one poll, and still needs to hit that benchmark in three more separate polls by the end of the month. Not likely to happen.

As of right now the odds of Yang being on the stage in September's debate are a lot higher than the odds of Gabbard making the cut.

But it's all pretty moot, since neither one of them has any chance in hell of actually winning the nomination.

Interesting.

I had heard Yang was still short donors and in one of the polls as of a couple of days ago.

I agree there. I like him but he doesn't stand a chance.

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
Originally posted by King Francis:
questions:

are the seats that they would run for ones they can win?

Will their brief run for president help or hurt their chances if they ran?

Yes, absolutely.

Hickenlooper is a very popular former governor and former mayor of Denver, and Colorado has been trending pretty blue for the past few cycles - a Republican hasn't won the presidency there since 2004. They already have one Democratic U.S. senator, and had two as recently as 2014.

Bullock's race would possibly be a little tougher because Montana is a redder state than Colorado, but he's a very popular two-term governor, and the state has had a Democrat in the governor's mansion for the past 15 years now. The state already has one Democratic senator, who was re-elected in one of the closest races in the country last November.

In any event, both of them have far, far, far, far better chances of being elected to the U.S. Senate than either one has of winning the Democratic presidential nomination, much less actually being elected president. Neither one of them is going to qualify for the next debate.

As for how their brief runs for president would impact their chances of winning senate races, I don't think it would have much impact at all, assuming they don't wait too much longer to withdraw from the presidential race and file for senate runs. It needs to happen before the end of the year, preferably before Thanksgiving.

Might be more than likely for Hickenlooper, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette’s politics page. According to them,
quote:
Curtis Hubbard, a principle at OnSight Public Affairs — a Colorado firm that has played key roles in Hickenlooper’s two successful runs for governor — told Colorado Politics he secured the domain names after Hickenlooper failed to make a splash on the first night of the second round of the debates.

Hubbard stresses that although he wants Hickenlooper to switch races, he took the step without any encouragement from Hickenlooper or his presidential campaign...

So, who knows? Maybe some prep work in the works, or maybe just wishful thinking.


Was thinking about Bullock and Montana the other day, and was reminded about the State's somewhat iconoclastic political stances. Kinda the New Hampshire of the West, y'know? They've voted Republican for President for years, but prefer Democrats for Governor, have a 30-20 R/D split in their State Senate, 58/42 R/D State House, A US Senator from each Party and their single House Rep is a Republican. And they have a 51-33 R/D voter Registration. Which makes people wonder why they have sided with the Dems in the Governor's mansion for a couple of decades now, and Jon Tester has been their Democratic Senator since 2006, and is on his third term.

Steve Daines, the current Republican Senator is up for re-election and he hasn't exactly set the world on fire, so far as the voters are concerned. They like him well enough, but his numbers are kinda soft around the edges, and in a State like Montana, that isn't where you wanna be with an electorate that, well, doesn't quite play by the same rules as the rest of the country...except maybe New Hampshire. Which that alone should worry any Pol seeking re-election.

Bullock, who was quite popular (but maybe not quite as much as his predecessor, Brian Schweitzer) could make Daine's re-election a real race, instead of the "check the box" on that it currently looks to be.

I'd like to watch that one....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
thanks guys.. appreciate ur insights

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3