Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:34 pm

Hawktawk wrote:https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/quinnipiac-poll-half-of-warrens-supporters-have-abandoned-her-in-one-month/
Excellent news for democrats unless her former supporters flock to Sanders. I heard a pundit say a while back that either of those 2 lose in a landslide. I would agree.


What I'm hoping for is that the closer we get to the nomination, the more that Dems will realize that they aren't going to win unless they nominate a moderate. Mayor Pete seems to have gotten that message as he's begun to tact that direction and has been rewarded by getting a bump in a couple early states.

But the person I'm intrigued about is Bloomberg. He's been advertising pretty heavily since announcing his candidacy, and he seems to be courting the liberal wing of the party by touting his record on the environment. Having been so closely connected to Wall Street, I would trust him to do what's best for our economy than some of these other knuckleheads like Sanders and Warren, who have been attacking him based on his personal fortune, but Bloomberg has announced that he intends to spend $100M in four battleground states (AZ, PA, MI, and WI) between now and next November in ads that don't even mention him and are intended to help the Democratic Party in general, which might take some of the sting out of accusations that he's trying to buy the nomination.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:32 pm

RiverDog wrote:What I'm hoping for is that the closer we get to the nomination, the more that Dems will realize that they aren't going to win unless they nominate a moderate. Mayor Pete seems to have gotten that message as he's begun to tact that direction and has been rewarded by getting a bump in a couple early states.

But the person I'm intrigued about is Bloomberg. He's been advertising pretty heavily since announcing his candidacy, and he seems to be courting the liberal wing of the party by touting his record on the environment. Having been so closely connected to Wall Street, I would trust him to do what's best for our economy than some of these other knuckleheads like Sanders and Warren, who have been attacking him based on his personal fortune, but Bloomberg has announced that he intends to spend $100M in four battleground states (AZ, PA, MI, and WI) between now and next November in ads that don't even mention him and are intended to help the Democratic Party in general, which might take some of the sting out of accusations that he's trying to buy the nomination.
.

Bloomberg is interesting. He the anti trump. A true self made man, former doorman worth 55 billion. A former republican, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.A successful 3 term mayor of a city larger than many countries. Measured, soft spoken, intelligent.

He's everything Trump will never be. He could buy Trump out for less than he's spent on social issues, philanthropy and charity. Trump ripped off his own charity. I hear people dont want MB "buying the election". Id say hes a man that loves this country enough to spend a couple billion for the chance to be in charge of this dumpster fire. Much as the dems on impeachment I think he's doing it for the right reason,love of country, because he thinks Biden is slipping, running a wasteful disorganized campaign and may not even be the nominee.He had shelved plans to run when Biden declared btw.
Bloomberg realizes the clear and present danger the increasingly erratic POTUS and his soulless bobblehead sycophants pose to this nation and really the world in many ways. He understands a Trump re-election would be a disaster.

Why would any 77 year old guy worth 55 billion want to potentially spend the rest of his life with all this responsibility? I say love of country. Id love him to have a chance but I dont think hes got enough time. Also skipping the early states and focusing on super tuesday with a blitz of ads although his ads are really good. Hes polling at 3% which is actually ahead of some sitting senators who have been campaigning for months so we shall see.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:36 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Bloomberg is interesting. He the anti trump. A true self made man, former doorman worth 55 billion. A former republican, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.A successful 3 term mayor of a city larger than many countries. Measured, soft spoken, intelligent.

He's everything Trump will never be. He could buy Trump out for less than he's spent on social issues, philanthropy and charity. Trump ripped off his own charity. I hear people dont want MB "buying the election". Id say hes a man that loves this country enough to spend a couple billion for the chance to be in charge of this dumpster fire. Much as the dems on impeachment I think he's doing it for the right reason,love of country, because he thinks Biden is slipping, running a wasteful disorganized campaign and may not even be the nominee.He had shelved plans to run when Biden declared btw.

Bloomberg realizes the clear and present danger the increasingly erratic POTUS and his soulless bobblehead sycophants pose to this nation and really the world in many ways. He understands a Trump re-election would be a disaster.

Why would any 77 year old guy worth 55 billion want to potentially spend the rest of his life with all this responsibility? I say love of country. Id love him to have a chance but I dont think hes got enough time. Also skipping the early states and focusing on super tuesday with a blitz of ads although his ads are really good. Hes polling at 3% which is actually ahead of some sitting senators who have been campaigning for months so we shall see.


I hear people dont want MB "buying the election"

That's the narrative coming out of the Warren/Sanders camp, and he's the antithesis of the liberal wing of the party for no other reason than because he's from the hated upper class of American society. Here's Sanders reaction, and it represents very clearly why I'll never vote for that mad scientist:

“I’m disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy elections,” Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders, a Vermont senator, wrote Friday on Twitter. “If you can’t build grassroots support for your candidacy, you have no business running for president.”

What process is it that Bloomberg is circumventing? Who says he 'can't' build grass roots support for his campaign?

But Bloomberg's retort is that at least no one is buying him as he's refusing donations to his campaign.

Bloomberg wouldn't have jumped in if it wasn't for Biden sinking in the polls. With the way the primaries are front loaded, with Super Tuesday coming in early March, it might be too late. He's already said that he's bypassing the first four primaries and is putting all of his chips on Super Tuesday. We'll see how that strategy works.

He's only 3% now, but we haven't seen the results from his advertising campaign. Every time I turn around, I'm seeing another Bloomberg ad on the TV.

I like Bloomberg a lot, and might be voting for him even if it wasn't for Trump being his opponent.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:54 am

Id vote for Bloomberg or Biden against Pence if it came to that. Some of the others like Warren or Bernie,no. If it's the orange Baboon Id vote for daffy duck.

No republican for the rest of my life will ever be able to take my vote for granted like they could for 4 decades.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:10 am

Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:47 am

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... e-n1123806 :o :o

Can we talk? I've felt all along if trump has a chance its this socialist Sanders or Sanders lite Warren. Their plans are unreasonable, would destroy the budget far beyond where it is. Sanders would double the debt while taking away the health care of 160 million people. The weird thing is Warren revealed her medicare for all plan and dropped like a stone. meanwhile the 78 year old gnome with the only hair worse than trump, grumpy frumpy angry little do nothing senator gets a pass?. Sanders plan costs more, is more radically implemented along with many other socialist style programs. He refused to say what his health care plan would cost except to say it would be cheaper for average americans in the long run. In many ways Bernie is the left wing mirror opposite of Trump. Hes an outlier, he speaks to the grievances of the middle class. His ceiling is low but his base is radical and with still quite a few people splitting the vote in early states he could conceivably get a great lead like trump 4 years ago forcing the party to hold their nose and support him. Its a loser IMO :shock: :shock:
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:27 am

Hawktawk wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/oh-my-god-sanders-can-win-democrats-grapple-bernie-surge-n1123806 :o :o

Can we talk? I've felt all along if trump has a chance its this socialist Sanders or Sanders lite Warren. Their plans are unreasonable, would destroy the budget far beyond where it is. Sanders would double the debt while taking away the health care of 160 million people. The weird thing is Warren revealed her medicare for all plan and dropped like a stone. meanwhile the 78 year old gnome with the only hair worse than trump, grumpy frumpy angry little do nothing senator gets a pass?. Sanders plan costs more, is more radically implemented along with many other socialist style programs. He refused to say what his health care plan would cost except to say it would be cheaper for average americans in the long run. In many ways Bernie is the left wing mirror opposite of Trump. Hes an outlier, he speaks to the grievances of the middle class. His ceiling is low but his base is radical and with still quite a few people splitting the vote in early states he could conceivably get a great lead like trump 4 years ago forcing the party to hold their nose and support him. Its a loser IMO :shock: :shock:


Agreed 100%. Sanders might have gotten a bump from Warren's approaching him with a live mike and accusing him of lying about her on national TV. The media seemed to take Warren's side even though she has a lot more credibility issues than Bernie does. It certainly pissed me off even though I'm about as far from being a Sanders supporter as I am a Trumpie.

Part of the problem with both Sanders and Warren's plans is that they want to create a wealth tax to fund their ambitious health care proposals. Not only would such a proposal create chaos on Wall Street with investors finding loopholes and shelters to avoid the tax, and torpedo the stock market, it would almost certainly get shot down by a conservative SCOTUS as being unconstitutional.

That's exactly why I've been against the impeachment, and my worst fears are coming through. It's is hurting Joe Biden big time and is going to leave us with a choice between Sanders and Trump, a worse choice than we had when it was Hillary and Trump, and is likely to result in another 4 years of that babbling buffoon.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:15 pm

I’m not sure how this is hurting Biden or if it really is. He’s never been dynamic and he’s sharing the moderate vote with basically everyone including Buttigieg , Klobuchar who has been rising and now Bloomberg who is polling incredibly well for not debating yet although he’s dumping the dough . Basically Biden is competing with everyone but Bernie and Warren who has collapsed leading directly to his surge . As for hurting Dems or Biden I think doing the right thing , the only remedy available will help Democrats and hurt stonewalling republicans in Nov. Far more people than not believe Trump was in the wrong here. Depending on the poll Biden leads nationally and he’s actually in better shape in Iowa and New Hampshire than he was a while back . Sanders will almost certainly win NH but Iowa is a crapshoot . Biden has a huge advantage in the Carolinas with blacks . We will know soon enough . My guess is the media will start paying attention and subject Sanders to some scrutiny . He hasn’t had much . They have gone pretty soft on him to not anger his base but it’s getting away from them . Imo Buttigieg and Klobuchar should drop out immediately along with Yang , Gabbard and sho the hell else.

If not say hello to a worse general election nightmare than HRC.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:12 pm

Hawktawk wrote:I’m not sure how this is hurting Biden or if it really is. He’s never been dynamic and he’s sharing the moderate vote with basically everyone including Buttigieg , Klobuchar who has been rising and now Bloomberg who is polling incredibly well for not debating yet although he’s dumping the dough . Basically Biden is competing with everyone but Bernie and Warren who has collapsed leading directly to his surge . As for hurting Dems or Biden I think doing the right thing , the only remedy available will help Democrats and hurt stonewalling republicans in Nov. Far more people than not believe Trump was in the wrong here. Depending on the poll Biden leads nationally and he’s actually in better shape in Iowa and New Hampshire than he was a while back . Sanders will almost certainly win NH but Iowa is a crapshoot . Biden has a huge advantage in the Carolinas with blacks . We will know soon enough . My guess is the media will start paying attention and subject Sanders to some scrutiny . He hasn’t had much . They have gone pretty soft on him to not anger his base but it’s getting away from them . Imo Buttigieg and Klobuchar should drop out immediately along with Yang , Gabbard and sho the hell else.

If not say hello to a worse general election nightmare than HRC.


The RCP average shows Biden struggling mightily over the past two weeks. In Iowa, he's trailing Sanders Iowa by 3 points. He was up 4 points 10 days ago. In New Hampshire, he was leading Sanders by a point two weeks ago. Now he's down 8. It's clear that the impeachment trial is taking its toll on his campaign.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6276.html

If they get him and/or his son on the witness stand in the impeachment trial, it's going to be an even bigger hit.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:43 am

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... y-n1129431

What in the hell :shock: :shock: The party that couldn't shoot straight. Is this some sort of conspiracy to deny Sanders and Buttigieg their caucus night bump? Throw doubt on the legitimacy of the Iowa result to limp through their mainstream candidates to NH and beyond.Biden did poorer than expected according to exit polling.

This benefits 2 people IMO. Trump and Bloomberg who ignored the first few states and looks like a genius .He may be the strongest potential moderate left running.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:30 am

Hawktawk wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/iowa-caucus-results-much-slower-expected-state-democratic-party-quality-n1129431

What in the hell :shock: :shock: The party that couldn't shoot straight. Is this some sort of conspiracy to deny Sanders and Buttigieg their caucus night bump? Throw doubt on the legitimacy of the Iowa result to limp through their mainstream candidates to NH and beyond.Biden did poorer than expected according to exit polling.

This benefits 2 people IMO. Trump and Bloomberg who ignored the first few states and looks like a genius .He may be the strongest potential moderate left running.


Yea, I saw that. Inexcusable. How long have the Dem operatives had to prepare for this? I don't know why they ever did away with the old fashioned mechanical voting machines. They are virtually tamper proof, easy to verify, and the tabulations are instantaneous. I'm more concerned with electronic balloting than I am Russian interference or voter ID.

One thing that gives me some hope is that voters were asked what issue made the most difference to them, and 6 out of 10 said it was more important to select a candidate that could beat Trump rather than selecting one on philosophical grounds. That would theoretically benefit Biden.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:35 pm

Early results show Buttigieg winning 27%, Sanders just behind 25% , Warren in 3rd 17% , Biden 4th 16% Klobuchar a pretty solid 5 13% and nobody else registered . Not what I expected other then Sanders . Buttigieg is shocking .
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:25 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Early results show Buttigieg winning 27%, Sanders just behind 25% , Warren in 3rd 17% , Biden 4th 16% Klobuchar a pretty solid 5 13% and nobody else registered . Not what I expected other then Sanders . Buttigieg is shocking .


Looks like the winner is Trump, and we have the impeachment hearings to thank for it. Hope you're happy.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:36 pm

I could live with a Buttgieg presidency. He seems fairly centrist and sensible. He has his leftist views, but out of this pack he's closer to Biden than Sanders.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:12 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:I could live with a Buttgieg presidency. He seems fairly centrist and sensible. He has his leftist views, but out of this pack he's closer to Biden than Sanders.


I could live with a Buttigieg presidency, too, but he's not likely to beat Trump. He's a political novice with no experience in running even a state wide campaign let alone a nation wide one. He doesn't poll well with blacks, a constituency that any Dem nominee is going to need big turnout numbers from, numbers that Hillary couldn't get, if they are to beat Trump in the general election. His sexual orientation is likely to hurt him with evangelicals and might hinder him in fundraising, a key component in any Dem campaign not named Bloomberg.
Last edited by RiverDog on Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:16 pm

Iowa's the first stop in a long race. We'll see how Buttgieg sustains. Who knows. People might be tired enough of Trump and all his baggage and might not want Biden and Sanders with all their baggage giving someone like Buttgieg a shot. I think even Americans gotta be thinking business as usual isn't working.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:52 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:Iowa's the first stop in a long race. We'll see how Buttgieg sustains. Who knows. People might be tired enough of Trump and all his baggage and might not want Biden and Sanders with all their baggage giving someone like Buttgieg a shot. I think even Americans gotta be thinking business as usual isn't working.


Oh, I realize that. We won't get a good feel for the frontrunner until after Super Tuesday next month. My main point is that this impeachment business has hurt Biden big time. Up until a few weeks ago, he was leading the Iowa field, and now, if these early results hold true, he'll finish a distant 4th. He's doing better nation wide as neither Iowa or New Hampshire are reflective of the demographics of the rest of the country, but he needs to get the momentum back and get it back soon. If he doesn't take South Carolina, he's in deep trouble.

Buttigieg might have benefited from having everyone but Creepy Joe sitting back in Washington DC during the last couple weeks. The one advantage he does have is that he doesn't have a voting record that can be used against him and he's still a relative unknown, so he has the potential to grow his base.

If I had my Druthers, I'd love to see Bloomberg win the nomination as I think he has the gonads to go up against Trump and win over a lot of moderates that are looking for a reason to vote against Trump.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:44 am

RiverDog wrote:
Looks like the winner is Trump, and we have the impeachment hearings to thank for it. Hope you're happy.


I agree with the lackluster field Trump wins. Time will tell .
Biden did horribly, well underperforming his polls from after the impeachment stuff after blitzing the state, finishing 4th behind a supposedly DOA Warren and barely ahead of Klobuchar who polled in single digits prior to the caucus and pulled 13%. There appears to be no buzz, Biden supporters will say they support him in a poll but not enough to get up off the couch and go caucus for him.His crowds are small. How would the general be any different? He's in trouble from the get go. If this happens in NH he's gone before S Carolina.

I think it helps Bloomberg more than anyone in the D party. He's right in Bidens ideological wheelhouse. He's far more polished and well spoken. Hes already shown he can punch back hard at Trump. After trump told the world and Hannity before the SB Bloomberg was so short he was" looking for a box for the debates" Bloomberg shot back, "Trump lies about everything.he lies about his obesity. He lies about his fake hair, he lies about his spray on tan... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Billionaire Biden backers are looking at backing a flagging guy who is totally dependant on them for survival vs a guy who is worth 60 billion, doesn't need their money but just needs them to quit giving it to Biden...That sounds like an easy choice to me. I'm ready to make it.

As for impeachment Im very happy. He was never going to be removed. Polls for democrats are far better than anyone could have anticipated last September, near 50-50. 75% supported witnesses they didn't get. R senators are scrambling to softly criticize the president to give themselves some credibility after the damage they did to the constitution. As I've said it won't help the President in Nov. If the dems lose to this horribly weak candidate its their own fault and Iowa was a bad start.

Really none of that matters. What are Dems supposed to do when Trump meddled in a foreign country in violation of the impoundment act and in a clear abuse of power and made the call that generated this impeachment a day after mueller's testimony? what should they have done with career public servants having filed complaints of misconduct I get so sick of hearing let the voters decide when one guy is meddling and cheating to win.
Pelosi and the dems did the right thing with polls at the time showing it was a clear loser, over 10 points upside down. That sort of courage is rare in politics, almost no Rs have it, obviously.
As Pelosi says "impeachment is forever" Im super happy this guy was impeached. Most deserving ever, bigly :D :D .
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:38 am

Hawktawk wrote:I agree with the lackluster field Trump wins. Time will tell .
Biden did horribly, well underperforming his polls from after the impeachment stuff after blitzing the state, finishing 4th behind a supposedly DOA Warren and barely ahead of Klobuchar who polled in single digits prior to the caucus and pulled 13%. There appears to be no buzz, Biden supporters will say they support him in a poll but not enough to get up off the couch and go caucus for him.His crowds are small. How would the general be any different? He's in trouble from the get go. If this happens in NH he's gone before S Carolina.


Klobacher likely picked off some Biden supporters. She's from a bordering state and is a semi moderate. IMO New Hampshire isn't critical for Biden to win. It's both Sanders and Warren's backyard. It's a lot like Iowa with very few black voters, a group where Biden has a big advantage. South Carolina is a lot more diverse, and being that it's in the Bible Belt, Buttigieg probably won't attract nearly as many moderates as he did in Iowa. If Biden doesn't win South Carolina, he's in big trouble.

Hawktawk wrote:I think it helps Bloomberg more than anyone in the D party. He's right in Bidens ideological wheelhouse. He's far more polished and well spoken. Hes already shown he can punch back hard at Trump. After trump told the world and Hannity before the SB Bloomberg was so short he was" looking for a box for the debates" Bloomberg shot back, "Trump lies about everything.he lies about his obesity. He lies about his fake hair, he lies about his spray on tan... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Billionaire Biden backers are looking at backing a flagging guy who is totally dependant on them for survival vs a guy who is worth 60 billion, doesn't need their money but just needs them to quit giving it to Biden...That sounds like an easy choice to me. I'm ready to make it.


I like Bloomberg, too, and I loved the retort after Trump mocked his height, but I think it came from Bloomberg's staff and not out of the horse's mouth. But it was still funny to see Trump get dealt some of his own medicine. One thing is for sure: Bloomberg gets under Trump's skin more than any other candidate. Trump appraises everyone by their bank account, and Bloomberg has ten times the money Trump does.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:29 pm

Seems like a lot of non-mainstream DNC sources don't want Biden as the Democratic candidate. I am seeing all types of anti-Biden stories. I wonder if the mainstream DNC can get him back on track.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:01 am

It looks like Sanders won New Hampshire, which isn't too unexpected as he's from neighboring Vermont, but it was a lot closer than expected. He beat HRC by 22 points in 2016. Buttigieg finished a close second, but the real surprise was the strong showing by Klobuchar as she split the moderate vote. When you consider his narrow victory and that the moderate candidates out performed the liberals, it could signal that the rank and file isn't tacking as far to the left as the party seems to be heading.

Warren and Biden finished below 10% of the vote, making South Carolina extremely important for both candidates. The South Carolina primary is quite a bit different from Iowa and New Hampshire as it more closely reflects the demographics of the nation. The previous two contests were conducted in predominantly white states. Biden polls much stronger with blacks.

Biden looks to be in some serious trouble as the impeachment hearings have obviously dinged him up pretty good, which could open the door to Michael Bloomberg, who won't enter the fray until Super Tuesday next month.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:21 am

Its been a while since I've posted - mainly because too many people were directing anger at me and my support for Trump no matter what and if I had continued, there is no way those posters would ever vote for Trump and they still may not.

Here's how I see the democratic field of choices though.

3 more dems called it quits this week. (Yang, Patrick and Bennett with Yang being the most recognized).

There's really only a hand full of those still in the race that have a shot at getting the nomination though. They are:

Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete, Amy Klobachar, Warren and Biden. I actually think that Warren and Biden are toast and they will be gone before March. We also have to give a nod to Bloomberg who thinks he can buy his way to the nominee.

So we have a self avowed socialist leading the way so far with a Mayor from a town the size of Boise who doesn't give a straight answer to anything nipping at his heels. Klobachar is the most formidable opponent for Trump in the general but is too moderate for the Dem party overall (most formidable because Trump would have to be real careful on how he attacks her in order to not alienate women and independents).

With Klobachar, Pete and Bloomberg splitting the "moderate" vote of the party, it leaves the express lane open for Bernie to stay relevant. I can't wait to see Bernie and Bloomberg go after each other on a stage though. That will be popcorn worthy.

I'm not sure who is going to solidify the minority vote in that party either. With Bloomberg's leaked past comments (Leaked by the Biden campaign by the way), Pete's racial divide from his home town and the conservative bent of the black and Hispanic constituents (Bernie), the Dems are not leaving many choices for the minority vote to flock to.

So this is what I see happening to the dem party and their eventual nominee.

1. The mainstream dems steal the nominee from Bernie again alienating the "Bernie Bros" and setting off a violent backlash by the Bros. (See tapes by Project Veritas" as proof of what the Bernie Bros are planning if Bernie isn't elected let alone not nominated)

2. Mayor Pete wins the nomination but can't coalesce the minority voter and loses in a landslide to Trump in the general. I know I've seen a number of posts last year where people here were questioning whether the US was ready for a gay president which will also be a factor among older voters.

3. Bloomberg wins the nomination but can't rally the socialist segment of the dem party because of his money and the thought that he "bought the nomination".

4. Bernie wins the nomination but the US is not ready to go socialist at this time. He would lose drastically in the general election.

5. Amy wins the nomination and the "outrage" over everything Trump says gets blown out of proportion by the media every day all day long.


There is one other "way out there" scenario though. It is a wild conspiracy thought but given the FISA abuse by the DOJ and FBI I wouldn't put it past the dems. This theory is that they allow Bernie to win the nomination but a month or two before the election, Bernie "Mysteriously" dies from a heart attack or some other non-suspect "accident". Since it would be too late to change the ballots, the election is postponed long enough for the dems to bring someone else along that is more mainstream to run against Trump. This also buys more time for something to go wrong with the economy or another hoax to gain a toe hold against Trump. I could see the postponement only being 12 months which would be better than 48 more months in the eyes of the dems. I acknowledge this is far fetched but keep in mind you read it here first.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:11 am

idhawkman wrote:Its been a while since I've posted - mainly because too many people were directing anger at me and my support for Trump no matter what and if I had continued, there is no way those posters would ever vote for Trump and they still may not.


No doubt it gets a little rough in here from time to time, but you're not the only one that's had anger directed at him. IMO Hawktalk has taken ten times the amount of grief that anyone in this forum has. And as far as you or anybody else influencing how anyone's going to vote, that seems rather unlikely. Nevertheless, it's good to see you back again.

idhawkman wrote:Here's how I see the democratic field of choices though.

3 more dems called it quits this week. (Yang, Patrick and Bennett with Yang being the most recognized).

There's really only a hand full of those still in the race that have a shot at getting the nomination though. They are:

Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete, Amy Klobachar, Warren and Biden. I actually think that Warren and Biden are toast and they will be gone before March. We also have to give a nod to Bloomberg who thinks he can buy his way to the nominee.


I agree with that analysis. I'm surprised there's as many toughing it out as there are.

idhawkman wrote:So we have a self avowed socialist leading the way so far with a Mayor from a town the size of Boise who doesn't give a straight answer to anything nipping at his heels. Klobachar is the most formidable opponent for Trump in the general but is too moderate for the Dem party overall (most formidable because Trump would have to be real careful on how he attacks her in order to not alienate women and independents).

With Klobachar, Pete and Bloomberg splitting the "moderate" vote of the party, it leaves the express lane open for Bernie to stay relevant. I can't wait to see Bernie and Bloomberg go after each other on a stage though. That will be popcorn worthy.

I'm not sure who is going to solidify the minority vote in that party either. With Bloomberg's leaked past comments (Leaked by the Biden campaign by the way), Pete's racial divide from his home town and the conservative bent of the black and Hispanic constituents (Bernie), the Dems are not leaving many choices for the minority vote to flock to.


Bloomberg had problems with the minority vote since his time as NYC mayor when they instituted a "stop and frisk" policy to which he later apologized for. He's been hitting the air waves with ads showing him and Obama so he's obviously trying to improve his image with blacks. Not sure how effective that will be.

idhawkman wrote:So this is what I see happening to the dem party and their eventual nominee.

1. The mainstream dems steal the nominee from Bernie again alienating the "Bernie Bros" and setting off a violent backlash by the Bros. (See tapes by Project Veritas" as proof of what the Bernie Bros are planning if Bernie isn't elected let alone not nominated)

2. Mayor Pete wins the nomination but can't coalesce the minority voter and loses in a landslide to Trump in the general. I know I've seen a number of posts last year where people here were questioning whether the US was ready for a gay president which will also be a factor among older voters.

3. Bloomberg wins the nomination but can't rally the socialist segment of the dem party because of his money and the thought that he "bought the nomination".

4. Bernie wins the nomination but the US is not ready to go socialist at this time. He would lose drastically in the general election.

5. Amy wins the nomination and the "outrage" over everything Trump says gets blown out of proportion by the media every day all day long.


Back to your predictions again.

I honestly don't know how it's all going to play out, but it's likely that we're going to have another close election. The 3 elections that the Republicans have won in this century have all been razor close, with two of the three losing the popular vote, which rarely happened prior to 2000.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:08 pm

Trump's information release may have helped sink Biden. Dems may see how he will use it during the election and decided to back him less. Hunter Biden is a huge problem for Biden.

Dems overall seem like a bunch of poor candidates. Not sure any of them can go head to head with Trump, which would mean four more years of Dem whining, general freak outs, and stupid tweets and comments by the president.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:46 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump's information release may have helped sink Biden. Dems may see how he will use it during the election and decided to back him less. Hunter Biden is a huge problem for Biden.

Dems overall seem like a bunch of poor candidates. Not sure any of them can go head to head with Trump, which would mean four more years of Dem whining, general freak outs, and stupid tweets and commentus by the president.


You can bet on that
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:53 am

RiverDog wrote:I honestly don't know how it's all going to play out, but it's likely that we're going to have another close election. The 3 elections that the Republicans have won in this century have all been razor close, with two of the three losing the popular vote, which rarely happened prior to 2000.

It may be close but if (huge "IF") the polls ar correct about the support from black and Hispanic voters Trump is getting it will be a landslide rivaling Reagan's second election.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:38 am

RiverDog wrote:I honestly don't know how it's all going to play out, but it's likely that we're going to have another close election. The 3 elections that the Republicans have won in this century have all been razor close, with two of the three losing the popular vote, which rarely happened prior to 2000.


idhawkman wrote:It may be close but if (huge "IF") the polls are correct about the support from black and Hispanic voters Trump is getting it will be a landslide rivaling Reagan's second election.


Oh, for crissakes! Do you realize what you just said? In 1984, Ronald Reagan won 49 states, .2% short in Mondale's home state of Minnesota of winning a 50 state sweep and the largest electoral landslide in the history of the nation with 59% of the popular vote, just 2% short of the largest popular vote ever. Now you're going on record as saying that Donald Trump, after winning the 2016 election by 100k votes in 3 states, losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million, and never posting an approval rating over 50% in the 3.5 years since he was elected, is going to come anywhere near an election night performance that "rivals Reagan's second election"?

I strongly suggest that you reconsider your thinking as IF the polls are correct as you are assuming they are, which is what you have admitted to basing your wishful thinking on, Bernie Sanders, the candidate the Trump team most wants to face, is leading in a head-to-head matchup anywhere from 2-8% nationwide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6250.html

What does that say about Donald Trump if he can't even out-poll a damn communist?
Last edited by RiverDog on Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:51 am

IDhawkman is back in form bringing balance to the forum. At least he gives us the viewpoint of the Pro-Trump crowd we were missing.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:11 pm

RiverDog wrote:[/u].

Oh, for crissakes! Do you realize what you just said? In 1984, Ronald Reagan won 49 states, .2% short in Mondale's home state of Minnesota of winning a 50 state sweep and the largest electoral landslide in the history of the nation with 59% of the popular vote, just 2% short of the largest popular vote ever. Now you're going on record as saying that Donald Trump, after winning the 2016 election by 100k votes in 3 states, losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million, and never posting an approval rating over 50% in the 3.5 years since he was elected, is going to come anywhere near an election night performance that "rivals Reagan's second election"?

I strongly suggest that you reconsider your thinking as IF the polls are correct as you are assuming they are, which is what you have admitted to basing your wishful thinking on, Bernie Sanders, the candidate the Trump team most wants to face, is leading in a head-to-head matchup anywhere from 2-8% nationwide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6250.html

What does that say about Donald Trump if he can't even out-poll a damn communist?


Would you agree that if Trump wins 40 states that would rival Reagan's second election?
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:02 am

RiverDog wrote:Oh, for crissakes! Do you realize what you just said? In 1984, Ronald Reagan won 49 states, .2% short in Mondale's home state of Minnesota of winning a 50 state sweep and the largest electoral landslide in the history of the nation with 59% of the popular vote, just 2% short of the largest popular vote ever. Now you're going on record as saying that Donald Trump, after winning the 2016 election by 100k votes in 3 states, losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million, and never posting an approval rating over 50% in the 3.5 years since he was elected, is going to come anywhere near an election night performance that "rivals Reagan's second election"?

I strongly suggest that you reconsider your thinking as IF the polls are correct as you are assuming they are, which is what you have admitted to basing your wishful thinking on, Bernie Sanders, the candidate the Trump team most wants to face, is leading in a head-to-head matchup anywhere from 2-8% nationwide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6250.html

What does that say about Donald Trump if he can't even out-poll a damn communist?


idhawkman wrote:Would you agree that if Trump wins 40 states that would rival Reagan's second election?


No, of course, not. Losing 10 states doesn't come close to equating losing one (and DC) by .2%. It would be more accurate to compare a 40 state win to what Bush 41 did in 1988, and no one equated his win to Reagan's '84 victory. Besides, the number of states won is just one criteria of an election landslide ala Reagan in '84. There's also the percentage of popular vote and the most important measure, the number of electoral votes.

There's too many states, specifically CA, OR, WA, HI, NY, IL, MD, MA, VT, DC, and NJ, all states that Trump lost by double digits in 2016, that are off the table for him to claim an electoral vote landslide. I'd bet some major money that Trump won't get to 400 electoral votes except I wouldn't be able to find anyone stupid enough to take me up on it.

You're truly living in a fantasy world, ignoring or rationalizing all the facts and events of the past 4 years if you think that Trump is going to win the election by as much as you are claiming that he might. I don't doubt that he might cobble together enough electoral votes to get re-elected, but the fact is that he's by far the most unpopular POTUS in at least the past 70 years. It's the Democrats election to lose, not Trump's to win.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:31 pm

This is shaping up to be a repeat of 2016 where in a crowded field the absolutely worst least qualified candidate, the biggest disaster for the party gets nominated. Bloomberg makes it an easier path for Sanders as he directly takes votes from Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigeig, all polling in double digits. Sanders only faces the fading Warren whose support has collapsed and clearly migrated to Bernie.If she drops out he becomes almost unstoppable unless the moderates boost 1 candidate immediately .
In total the "progressive" polling is well under 50% just too many in the moderate lane and nobody want to drop out and take one for the team. If I had a favorite to win Id say Klobuchar but I doubt she really has a chance.Bidens done. As asea says the Trump hit job worked. Oh well Trump didn't make Hunter work for Burisma. Politics aint beanbag.

Bloomberg needs to knock it outta the park in this debate, counterpunch trump style to the planned attacks from his competitors. His candidacy and IMO the hope of the democratic party on Nov relies on crushing it super tuesday. If he just winds up splitting the moderate vote and helping Sanders we might be looking at candidate Sanders in the general. I hope for a serious winnowing in the next 2 contests.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:22 pm

Hawktawk wrote:This is shaping up to be a repeat of 2016 where in a crowded field the absolutely worst least qualified candidate, the biggest disaster for the party gets nominated. Bloomberg makes it an easier path for Sanders as he directly takes votes from Biden...


Bloomberg's rise is a straight line relationship to Biden's fall, which is the direct result of this ill fated impeachment process that so many were hell bent on pursuing.

My worst fears are coming true. Because there are so many people that posses this ideological purity and decided that they HAD to push an impeachment charge or else their souls would burn in hell, Trump has eliminated from the race the candidate with the best chance of beating him. Say hello to another 4 years of the Orange Haired Witch.

You reap what you sow.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:47 pm

The only thing I wonder at this point is if Trump played a high risk move to sink Trump or he just dumbluck it all worked out as it did. I know RD and most on here think Trump is dumb, but I'm not sure. He's not educated in the way we all prefer for a president that sees to know what he's doing, but Trump seems smart in his ability to read how a situation will go. It's hard to tell. It was a high risk move to get impeached to attack a political enemy so the public receives the information that the Democrats and mainstream/left wing press wasn't interested in broadcasting until it led to your impeachment. Very high risk move that seems to have paid off sinking Biden.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:55 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:The only thing I wonder at this point is if Trump played a high risk move to sink Biden or he just dumbluck it all worked out as it did. I know RD and most on here think Trump is dumb, but I'm not sure. He's not educated in the way we all prefer for a president that sees to know what he's doing, but Trump seems smart in his ability to read how a situation will go. It's hard to tell. It was a high risk move to get impeached to attack a political enemy so the public receives the information that the Democrats and mainstream/left wing press wasn't interested in broadcasting until it led to your impeachment. Very high risk move that seems to have paid off sinking Biden.


Probably a little of both. I don't think Trmp made a calculation like "this is wrong, sure to leak out, and the idiot Democrats are going to impeach me but no matter what, there's nothing that will cause 20 Republican Senators to turn on me." I think was more simplistic, that it went something like "I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by shaking down the Ukrainians."

Personally I don't think Trump saw a thing wrong with his ploy. It's how he did business all his life and he's never been able to understand that running an elective office is different than running a Fortune 500 business. What's common sense to you and me is not readily apparent to him.

Presidents don't have as much power relative to their organization as do CEO's or business owners, something that Trump has never been able to figure out. I'm reminded of a comment about Dwight Eisenhower's years in office: Poor Ike. He's used to being a general and when he said something, things happened. Now he's President of the United States and when he says something, nothing happens."

As far as Trump's intelligence goes, yes, he's dumb, and I don't think there's any question about it. I don't think he was born that way, but his laziness and spoiled rich kid syndrome that has defined his life has led to his not mentally exercising his mind. Two things lead me to this conclusion: The vocabulary he uses in his unprepared remarks is extremely limited and simplistic, on a level of a grade schooler, and his 'facts' are often times grossly misstated and obviously false.

The other thing is his incredibly thin skinned defensiveness and explosive temper, which is typical of a mentally challenged individual. Although smart, rational people are human and get mad like anyone else, they don't often exhibit the type of explosive, uncontrollable rage and vengeance filled hate to the same degree that Trump has shown. He can't laugh off his gaffes or use any kind of self deprecating humor like Reagan or Kennedy could and joke his way out of a situation like his Alabama hurricane. Trump gets so mad that he can't see straight. He's not smart enough to formulate an intelligent or humorous response so he lashes out in the only way he knows how.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:10 pm

RiverDog wrote:Probably a little of both. I don't think Trmp made a calculation like "this is wrong, sure to leak out, and the idiot Democrats are going to impeach me but no matter what, there's nothing that will cause 20 Republican Senators to turn on me." I think was more simplistic, that it went something like "I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by shaking down the Ukrainians."

Personally I don't think Trump saw a thing wrong with his ploy. It's how he did business all his life and he's never been able to understand that running an elective office is different than running a Fortune 500 business. What's common sense to you and me is not readily apparent to him.

Presidents don't have as much power relative to their organization as do CEO's or business owners, something that Trump has never been able to figure out. I'm reminded of a comment about Dwight Eisenhower's years in office: Poor Ike. He's used to being a general and when he said something, things happened. Now he's President of the United States and when he says something, nothing happens."

As far as Trump's intelligence goes, yes, he's dumb, and I don't think there's any question about it. I don't think he was born that way, but his laziness and spoiled rich kid syndrome that has defined his life has led to his not mentally exercising his mind. Two things lead me to this conclusion: The vocabulary he uses in his unprepared remarks is extremely limited and simplistic, on a level of a grade schooler, and his 'facts' are often times grossly misstated and obviously false.

The other thing is his incredibly thin skinned defensiveness and explosive temper, which is typical of a mentally challenged individual. Although smart, rational people are human and get mad like anyone else, they don't often exhibit the type of explosive, uncontrollable rage and vengeance filled hate to the same degree that Trump has shown. He can't laugh off his gaffes or use any kind of self deprecating humor like Reagan or Kennedy could and joke his way out of a situation like his Alabama hurricane. Trump gets so mad that he can't see straight. He's not smart enough to formulate an intelligent or humorous response so he lashes out in the only way he knows how.


Being thin-skinned doesn't necessarily mean you're dumb.

Like I said, I don't know if I agree with you. He's under constant attack as president by a left wing media that hates him and he seems able to turn it into power to his followers. He seems smart enough to dismantle the most dangerous political candidate, while turning his whole impeachment into witch hunt point of empowerment for his followers.

I'll agree that he's likely ignorant of history and other factual elements of the office and world due to as you say laziness than pure low IQ. As far as managing public situations and crowds, I would say he's up there with some of the best. That dude knows how to work crowds and push things in his favor. No other person I can think of could withstand the withering attacks upon him by the left (attacks that weren't even this bad under Bush) and somehow empower himself.

Even now he is further empowering himself by using the entire Ukrainian impeachment fiasco by the Dems to purge the White House of anyone perceived as disloyal. That is some seriously intelligent power counter-intelligence moves by Trump and whoever his Republican backers are. If the Dems don't take the Senate or White House this year holy crap he will be empowered. If the Republicans take back the House, he will do what he wants.

From a purely political perspective absent moral or academic arguments, Trump is really politically cunning. He has a cult of personality I haven't seen in years. I don't think large groups will kill for him or anything stupid like that, but he is tapping into the built up hatred towards the left and the liberalization of America unlike any president I've seen before.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:49 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:Being thin-skinned doesn't necessarily mean you're dumb.


Of course, it doesn't. But it is a piece of the puzzle that makes up a person's state of mind. Add that piece to his very primitive vocabulary, his laughable recollections of 'facts, his avoidance of reading things like his morning briefing, and picture begins to take shape.' And like I said, I don't necessarily think he's always been this stupid, he's just so lazy that he doesn't bother taxing his mind with what he regards as menial labor.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Like I said, I don't know if I agree with you. He's under constant attack as president by a left wing media that hates him and he seems able to turn it into power to his followers. He seems smart enough to dismantle the most dangerous political candidate, while turning his whole impeachment into witch hunt point of empowerment for his followers.


He's no different than any other POTUS of the modern era. The 'left wing media' went after Slick Willy like a pack of jackals. If there's one thing that transcends political ideology, it's sex. It's the one subject that everyone understands. Are you old enough to remember Gary Hart? Additionally, there's a very large conservative media out there to counteract a good portion of the left wing agenda that for the most part didn't exist before the mid 80's. Richard Nixon never had Fox or Rush Limbaugh to defend him. Additionally, Trump has an advantage over all of his predecessors in the form of his Twitter account where he can bypass the media altogether and get his version of events directly to his 55 million followers without going through their filter.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'll agree that he's likely ignorant of history and other factual elements of the office and world due to as you say laziness than pure low IQ. As far as managing public situations and crowds, I would say he's up there with some of the best. That dude knows how to work crowds and push things in his favor. No other person I can think of could withstand the withering attacks upon him by the left (attacks that weren't even this bad under Bush) and somehow empower himself.


Well, we can agree that Trump's ignorance is more due to his laziness than it is his IQ. As far as working crowds, keep in mind that what we see is all highly orchestrated. Those are all red hat wearing MAGA folks that are screened before they are admitted. Do you ever see any hecklers in those crowds? There would be if they were selected at random. And as far as the attacks being worse than Bush 43, I agree, but then again, W didn't have a Twitter account with 55 million followers. It's truly a different ball game.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Even now he is further empowering himself by using the entire Ukrainian impeachment fiasco by the Dems to purge the White House of anyone perceived as disloyal. That is some seriously intelligent power counter-intelligence moves by Trump and whoever his Republican backers are. If the Dems don't take the Senate or White House this year holy crap he will be empowered. If the Republicans take back the House, he will do what he wants.

From a purely political perspective absent moral or academic arguments, Trump is really politically cunning. He has a cult of personality I haven't seen in years. I don't think large groups will kill for him or anything stupid like that, but he is tapping into the built up hatred towards the left and the liberalization of America unlike any president I've seen before.


I'm not going to necessarily disagree with that summation. I do think that Trump has some good political instincts. You can't just argue like our friend HT would and say that he doesn't have any redeeming qualities AT ALL. He had to have done something right to have gotten himself elected POTUS, especially if what we're saying is true, ie that he's lazy and stupid.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:43 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Bloomberg is interesting. He the anti trump. A true self made man, former doorman worth 55 billion. A former republican, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.A successful 3 term mayor of a city larger than many countries. Measured, soft spoken, intelligent.

He's everything Trump will never be. He could buy Trump out for less than he's spent on social issues, philanthropy and charity. Trump ripped off his own charity. I hear people dont want MB "buying the election". Id say hes a man that loves this country enough to spend a couple billion for the chance to be in charge of this dumpster fire. Much as the dems on impeachment I think he's doing it for the right reason,love of country, because he thinks Biden is slipping, running a wasteful disorganized campaign and may not even be the nominee.He had shelved plans to run when Biden declared btw.
Bloomberg realizes the clear and present danger the increasingly erratic POTUS and his soulless bobblehead sycophants pose to this nation and really the world in many ways. He understands a Trump re-election would be a disaster.

Why would any 77 year old guy worth 55 billion want to potentially spend the rest of his life with all this responsibility? I say love of country. Id love him to have a chance but I dont think hes got enough time. Also skipping the early states and focusing on super tuesday with a blitz of ads although his ads are really good. Hes polling at 3% which is actually ahead of some sitting senators who have been campaigning for months so we shall see.


Bloomberg's stance on the 2nd Amendment will have the Republicans and pro-gun groups out in droves. Bloomberg is right there with Beto O'rourke for 2nd Amendment attacks. He spent billions to attack the 2nd Amendment in nearly every state. You think Bloomberg looks ok right now, but if he gets the nomination he has so many chinks in the armor that Trump will easily rile up the right and many independents in this nation against him. He is one of the worst politicians in extreme attacks on the 2nd Amendment. I think that will rile up many states against him if he comes close to getting the nomination including borderline states like Texas and Florida.

Bloomberg may look good to you right now, but I guarantee if he wins the nomination Trump will beat him. Bloomberg is a major threat to many of the important issues on the right and has a lot of problems in his background even for the left as he's another billionaire out of touch with the extreme left of his party.

So if you want Trump to win, then push Bloomberg. Trump will welcome it. Bloomberg will set the right on fire if he gets the nomination and he will send 2nd Amendment activists to polls in droves in many key states, many of them independents.

Trump wants Bloomberg to win the nomination. Read on Bloomberg quotes for the 2nd Amendment. Then imagine how that will play in key states like Florida and Texas. Also, you think the working class in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are going to buy into some billionaire looking to take their guns and tell them how life should be? I'm doubtful. Very doubtful.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:06 pm

Here's the latest head-to-head polls of Trump vs. the leading Dem candidates:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6250.html

Bloomberg (4.6), Sanders (4.6), and Biden (4.8) are all up by virtually the same. Likewise, Buttigieg(2.2), Klobuchar (2.0), and Warren (2.0) trail the 3 old men by about the same margin. Those don't mean a lot as it will come down to which candidate can do better in the swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and so on.

As far as Bloomberg's pro gun control agenda, that doesn't scare me near as much as Sanders and Warren's agenda that if implemented, could ruin our economy.

Admittedly Bloomberg has been sounding more like a liberal than he has a moderate on a lot of issues with gun control being one of them. This could be a strategy just to get the nomination as it appeals to both the Dem core as well as moderates within the Democratic party. The 2nd Amendment crowd is going to come out in droves for Trump no matter who the Dems nominate. The real question will be which Dems can get their voters to the polls in a way that Hillary could not.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:35 pm

RiverDog wrote:Here's the latest head-to-head polls of Trump vs. the leading Dem candidates:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6250.html

Bloomberg (4.6), Sanders (4.6), and Biden (4.8) are all up by virtually the same. Likewise, Buttigieg(2.2), Klobuchar (2.0), and Warren (2.0) trail the 3 old men by about the same margin. Those don't mean a lot as it will come down to which candidate can do better in the swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and so on.

As far as Bloomberg's pro gun control agenda, that doesn't scare me near as much as Sanders and Warren's agenda that if implemented, could ruin our economy.

Admittedly Bloomberg has been sounding more like a liberal than he has a moderate on a lot of issues with gun control being one of them. This could be a strategy just to get the nomination as it appeals to both the Dem core as well as moderates within the Democratic party. The 2nd Amendment crowd is going to come out in droves for Trump no matter who the Dems nominate. The real question will be which Dems can get their voters to the polls in a way that Hillary could not.


If Bloomberg wins the nomination, we will make a gentleman's bet he will lose big with the 2nd Amendment record being a big reason why. The only reason I know about him is because of the extreme nature of his attacks on the 2nd Amendment and quotes about the 2nd Amendment such as saying "Average citizens shouldn't own weapons" and supporting only the military and police should be able to own guns. He has spent millions on anti-gun campaigns across the nation. All of this will be highlighted heavily should be run against Trump in a way that none of the other candidates can equal due to their lack of funds. Bloomberg is a strongly pro-Federal government Democrat who has put his money where his mouth is by spending hundreds of millions to take rights from citizens with his 2nd Amendment stance and things like the stop and frisk you've seen even his fellow Democrats bring up. He will fire up the right like 2016 big time, worse than Biden and won't galvanize the left in the same way say a Sanders could because he's business as usual to the Democrats that won't galvanize or fire up the young vote or the minority vote.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:34 pm

RiverDog wrote:Here's the latest head-to-head polls of Trump vs. the leading Dem candidates:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6250.html

Bloomberg (4.6), Sanders (4.6), and Biden (4.8) are all up by virtually the same. Likewise, Buttigieg(2.2), Klobuchar (2.0), and Warren (2.0) trail the 3 old men by about the same margin. Those don't mean a lot as it will come down to which candidate can do better in the swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and so on.

As far as Bloomberg's pro gun control agenda, that doesn't scare me near as much as Sanders and Warren's agenda that if implemented, could ruin our economy.

Admittedly Bloomberg has been sounding more like a liberal than he has a moderate on a lot of issues with gun control being one of them. This could be a strategy just to get the nomination as it appeals to both the Dem core as well as moderates within the Democratic party. The 2nd Amendment crowd is going to come out in droves for Trump no matter who the Dems nominate. The real question will be which Dems can get their voters to the polls in a way that Hillary could not.


Aseahawkfan wrote:If Bloomberg wins the nomination, we will make a gentleman's bet he will lose big with the 2nd Amendment record being a big reason why. The only reason I know about him is because of the extreme nature of his attacks on the 2nd Amendment and quotes about the 2nd Amendment such as saying "Average citizens shouldn't own weapons" and supporting only the military and police should be able to own guns. He has spent millions on anti-gun campaigns across the nation. All of this will be highlighted heavily should be run against Trump in a way that none of the other candidates can equal due to their lack of funds. Bloomberg is a strongly pro-Federal government Democrat who has put his money where his mouth is by spending hundreds of millions to take rights from citizens with his 2nd Amendment stance and things like the stop and frisk you've seen even his fellow Democrats bring up. He will fire up the right like 2016 big time, worse than Biden and won't galvanize the left in the same way say a Sanders could because he's business as usual to the Democrats that won't galvanize or fire up the young vote or the minority vote.


I'm good for the bet. :D

I got the feeling in 2016 that a lot of Dem voters got blindsided by the media's outrageous reports on election day of Hillary having a 95% chance of winning and stayed home. I don't think they'll get caught by surprise this time around.

And as I told Idahawkman, Trump's not winning by a landslide. If he does win, it will be similar to his victory in 2016 were he lost the popular vote by a large margin but won the electoral college by 100k votes in 3 states. Trump's approval rating is the flattest in history. Nothing about his popularity has changed in 3.5 years so it's extremely unlikely that he'll suddenly surge this November to the degree where he wins easily.

One of the biggest group to stay home in 2016 was the black vote. Like a lot of people, blacks don't trust Hillary, ironic because they were one of Slick Willy's biggest constituencies. Biden does better with blacks than the others, mainly because of his time as Obama's VP. Bloomberg has a weak spot with blacks in the form of his "stop and frisk" policy and has been trying to address it. Bloomberg also has a bit of a problem with the #Metoo crowd as he's made some pretty insensitive remarks over the years, but once they get into the general election, they'll look like he was blowing kisses when compared to the "grab 'em by the p#$$y" Trump.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests