2020 Democrat hopefuls
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Yeah, but they can't beat trump. Biden pointed out the fact that 150 million americans have been killed by gun violence since 2007, and FC insists that it's just right wing extremists that kill Democrats with guns. How are there any Democrats left to vote? Wait, are we still allowing dead people to vote?
Very serious when you get around a 50% death rate by gun violence. It would be safer walking the streets of Afghanistan in the Taliban region.
I'd be in favor of a gun ban if 150 million people had been killed in 13 years. Well, unless I was a mortician. Then I'd be cool with it.
We shall see. I just don't think you can win the Democratic primary not being extreme right now. None of Bernie's plans are sustainable and would lead to economic collapse. Bloomberg is trying to be reasonable but I don't think it will work with voters that want free stuff. We shall see
I think people understand now more than ever that it isnt free, its just that someone else will pay for it. That's the most disturbing part of bernies support. "I want something and you're going to pay for it".
Bernie's people are severely loyal to him and engaged in the process. Most democratic (like most people) are just tuning into the candidates now. Bernie has a ceiling and they (DNC & Bloomberg) haven't even dropped the hammer on him yet (wanting to primary Obama in 2012, approval of rape comments, praising Castro and Noreiga). Bernie will be back below 30% very soon and then the moderate Democratic alternative will be at 50-60% from Super Tuesday on. Bloomberg can offset the Bernie Bros with moderate Republicans that aren't loyal to Trump.
Moderate Democrats have been trying to say this without offending Bernie Bros.
I think you view Bloomberg as being the generic Democrat candidate that always wins the election, when in reality he's every bit as flawed as the rest that end up losing. He lacks the charisma that a successful democrat candidate needs to win. Part of me wishes that he was that guy because I dont think he's nearly as dangerous, but it's just not the case.
This democrat field is very reminiscent of the republican field in 2008.
2008 had a financial collapse, Iraq war and 8 years of a Republican president, any Democrat (Gore, Kerry, HRC) would have won. Obama and Bill Clinton had charisma but Clinton didn't win the majority of the vote either time. Carter won in 1976 so it's hard to compare that to today. The performances of Gore, Kerry and HRC were all pretty strong, just not enough to get over the hump where it matters in the margins. Trump and most Republicans (McCain, Romney) have had weak performances. Romney outperformed Trump, it's just that he was up against a tougher opponent. Romney beats HRC easily in 2012 and Obama beats Trump easily in 2012 or 2016 if eligible.
I'm just saying that democrats only win when they have a charismatic candidate. Go back to 1992. Would Paul Tsongas have beat Bush? In 1976, would jerry brown have beaten Ford? Not likely. Bloomberg, personality wise, fits the bill of a republican winner much more than he does as a democrat. That's not a recipe for success.
In 1992 any Dem would have beaten Bush because Perot got 19% of the vote. 1976 is hard to give you an answer.
Walter Williams had an interesting post today about the stop, question, and frisk policy that Bloomberg supported but is now trying to run away from. An excerpt:
"The stop, question and frisk policy has taken on racial overtones because most of the people stopped are black men. Let's look at the numbers. Last year, NYPD data showed that 93% of suspects arrested for murder were black or Hispanic. Ninety-six percent of those nabbed in shootings were also minorities. Eighty-eight percent of New York City's homicide victims were black or Hispanic as were 96% of shooting victims. While these percentages have been roughly the same for decades, New York police have brought the absolute number of crimes, including homicides, way down from its 1990 peak at 2,245 to 289 homicides in 2018. Since blacks and Hispanics are the major victims of homicide, as a result of the NYPD's proactive response to crime, possibly tens of thousands of blacks are living today who would otherwise be dead.
For a law-abiding black person to be stopped, questioned and frisked -- in a word or two, be racially profiled -- is truly insulting. However, to analyze the policy, let's look at the origins of racial profiling or any other kind of profiling. First of all, policemen are neither mind readers nor are they equipped with X-ray vision. That means good policing requires learning how to use an easily observed physical characteristic as a guess or proxy for some other difficult-to-observe characteristic. Thus, the reason people profile is that information is costly and they seek methods to economize on information costs. One way to do that is through profiling."
It is horrible for police officers to hassle people for racist or bigoted purpose. Likewise, it is tragic for people to be killed because a policy prevented a police officer from looking a little deeper into a situation that set off warning bells but fell a bit short of probably cause. Since it is a balance, it is important for police to take every measure they can to ensure that they aren't abusing the public trust just as it is for the community to set clear lines as to what is acceptable and then not use public forums to punish police for doing their jobs according to those lines.
Maybe rather than run from the issue, we should require our politicians to talk about how they came to the policy decisions they made, how they would revise them given new information, and how they could create more balanced policy going forward. I think that would tell far more about the candidates leadership potential than the binary positions that we force them all into.
"The stop, question and frisk policy has taken on racial overtones because most of the people stopped are black men. Let's look at the numbers. Last year, NYPD data showed that 93% of suspects arrested for murder were black or Hispanic. Ninety-six percent of those nabbed in shootings were also minorities. Eighty-eight percent of New York City's homicide victims were black or Hispanic as were 96% of shooting victims. While these percentages have been roughly the same for decades, New York police have brought the absolute number of crimes, including homicides, way down from its 1990 peak at 2,245 to 289 homicides in 2018. Since blacks and Hispanics are the major victims of homicide, as a result of the NYPD's proactive response to crime, possibly tens of thousands of blacks are living today who would otherwise be dead.
For a law-abiding black person to be stopped, questioned and frisked -- in a word or two, be racially profiled -- is truly insulting. However, to analyze the policy, let's look at the origins of racial profiling or any other kind of profiling. First of all, policemen are neither mind readers nor are they equipped with X-ray vision. That means good policing requires learning how to use an easily observed physical characteristic as a guess or proxy for some other difficult-to-observe characteristic. Thus, the reason people profile is that information is costly and they seek methods to economize on information costs. One way to do that is through profiling."
It is horrible for police officers to hassle people for racist or bigoted purpose. Likewise, it is tragic for people to be killed because a policy prevented a police officer from looking a little deeper into a situation that set off warning bells but fell a bit short of probably cause. Since it is a balance, it is important for police to take every measure they can to ensure that they aren't abusing the public trust just as it is for the community to set clear lines as to what is acceptable and then not use public forums to punish police for doing their jobs according to those lines.
Maybe rather than run from the issue, we should require our politicians to talk about how they came to the policy decisions they made, how they would revise them given new information, and how they could create more balanced policy going forward. I think that would tell far more about the candidates leadership potential than the binary positions that we force them all into.
Just steal it from Bernie and tell him that you're practicing socialism. Taking votes from Bernie to support others.
People don't want socialism, not even democrats. Either Bloomberg performs on Tuesday and we have a 3 way race or Biden performs Tuesday and it's a 2 man race.
Trump would eat Bernie alive in a debate and he’s not even that good at debates. Trump would have American’s absolutely frightened at the thought of a socialist as president. It would actually be a comical debate
Democrats want socialism so little that a socialist leads the national DNC polling and has the highest odds to have the most delegates by the convention
Bernie will win big on Super Tuesday. And the Corona Virus will take off in Oct, along with the damage it is doing to economy, Bernie will win and we will be well on our way to becoming Venezuela.
As long as Trump can stick to his talking points and not get rattled, yes. I have a feeling the RNC will be filling the airwaves with clips of Bernies comments on communism so if trump can stick to that messaging it'll be a blowout. The house could flip back as well.
The big South Carolina win by Biden is a potential game changer. If the momentum from this win carries over to bumps in California and various states on Super Tuesday, it will become a two-man race and Biden is the most likeliest to come out of the Convention as the party's nominee.
Biden was supposed to win SC and had to just to remain viable. As of 2 days ago Sanders had a huge 20 point lead over Warren in California and Biden was barely polling at 11%
Biden won SC pretty big so that'll change the polling/voting in the super tuesday states. He will overperform in all of those states compared to polling that was done prior to yesterday.
The D electorate in SC is nothing like the CA electorate. Totally different. The SC Democrats are more moderate than the far left shucksters out west.
If Sanders doesn’t win CA by at least 8% I’ll be shocked and I think Biden could be 4th in the end.
If Biden gets his California numbers up past the 15% threshold (which is doable given the boost that South Carolina has given him), he'll come out of Super Tuesday in a decent situation in the delegate count with the more moderate-leaning States still to come.
If Bernie doesn't win the number of delegates he needs prior the convention, there's little chance he leaves the convention as the party's nominee.
LOL. This gem is priceless coming from a Trump supporter!
The Democratic race is still to be determined but anyone who believes a debate between Trump and Biden would give us all some keen policy insights is off his rocker.
Biden would win the debates with Trump simply by being himself. #keepingitclassy
Last edited:
QUOTE="DaShuckster, post: 1822608, member: 27802"]LOL. This gem is priceless comes from a Trump supporter!
The Democratic race is still to be determined but anyone who believes a debate between Trump and Biden would give us all some keen policy insights is off his rocker.
Biden would win the debates with Trump simply by being himself. #keepingitclassy[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to the guy who just totally invented being “arrested” in South Africa? The guy who mumbled about children touching his hairy legs?
The guy who claimed half the US population has been killed by firearm homicide since 2007?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
The Democratic race is still to be determined but anyone who believes a debate between Trump and Biden would give us all some keen policy insights is off his rocker.
Biden would win the debates with Trump simply by being himself. #keepingitclassy[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to the guy who just totally invented being “arrested” in South Africa? The guy who mumbled about children touching his hairy legs?
The guy who claimed half the US population has been killed by firearm homicide since 2007?
LOL. This gem is priceless comes from a Trump supporter!
The Democratic race is still to be determined but anyone who believes a debate between Trump and Biden would give us all some keen policy insights is off his rocker.
Biden would win the debates with Trump simply by being himself. #keepingitclassy
You may not like Trump due to politics but it isn't even close on who can perform in a debate. Biden is completely lost in debates. At any point he will go off the deep end and challenge to a push up competition. Lol
Trump just needs to remember one line:
If you have all of the answers, why didnt you tell Obama in the 8 years you were VP?
Debates have NEVER been about 'who performs the best and gives the killer answers?' If it was, Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016 in a landslide. It's simply an opportunity for a large percentage of the country's voters to pay attention the Presidential race long enough to decide which person they like better.
After each debate the two sides will claim, as they always do, their candidate was the big winner but ultimately it'll be all about the two candidates and their personalities.
Four years ago, enough people didn't like Hillary that Trump won. This year, enough voters don't like Trump that if they feel the Democrat candidate is a good, decent person with enough wisdom and experience to maturely guide our country over the next four years, Trump, like Hillary in 2016, goes down to defeat.
Some of the Democrat candidates -- like Bernie -- might scare away the moderate middle. Joe Biden will not. At this point, I see him as the best (and quite frankly, the safest) choice.
Holy crap! That was unexpected. Have to wonder if Biden offered him a cabinet position.
