Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Anathema-]

Bernie's "movement" means nothing if he can't translate it to votes. And historically, he hasn't.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

26 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

But I’m wondering if that’s not to some degree also kind of a ‘rorschach’ term; like if the specifics were made clearer, and middle-to-upper-middle suburban democrats realized they’d be losing their nice private healthcare plans under M4A, would support for it drop?

Since it's open enrollment season, I'm soon gonna write up a good piece on my health insurance options, as I work at a large insurance company who has a lot of options for health (and other) insurance, and a lot of transparency. Not just transparency on the costs that the employee pays, but what the company will pay for as well, and also disclosure on salary bands that exist for each functional group and "experience" level.

 

I'll get started on that tomorrow at work, but won't be able to finish until just into November. This is something I've been thinking about for some time, as it is quite informative, and really I just want to do it.

[Jwheel86]

2 hours ago, Massdriver said:

I would be curious to hear from the Bernie supporters here why they support Bernie over Warren at this point.

 

This election is all Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. I'm fine with Warren personally, but I think Bernie has more credibility under fire in those 3 states verse someone who's going to be painted as a New England liberal college professor. Plus I'm not sure we can rule out sexism playing there too unfortunately. Combine those factors with Warren taking the DNA bait, I worry what other stupid shit she'll do. Bernie is the safest bet in the states that matter, he's got what everyone assumed Biden had.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

5 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

This election is all Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. I'm fine with Warren personally, but I think Bernie has more credibility under fire in those 3 states verse someone who's going to be painted as a New England liberal college professor. Plus I'm not sure we can rule out sexism playing there too unfortunately. Combine those factors with Warren taking the DNA bait, I worry what other stupid shit she'll do. Bernie is the safest bet in the states that matter, he's got what everyone assumed Biden had.

Rather than a self-declared socialist from Vermont? I don't see much separation there.

 

If you're just worried about winning the election, with actual policy being negotiable, and your focus is Midwestern math, Buttigieg makes way more sense than Bernie as the alternative to Warren.

 

And I think everyone's still underestimating just how debilitating the 'socialist' label will become in the general, when the Dems will need left-leaning boomers who came of age during the Cold War along with moderate voters to come out for them--for both of those groups, 'socialism' is still a scary word with a lot of cultural baggage, regardless of what you really mean by it.

 

Keep in mind you won't be dealing with 2016 Trump this time.  He'll have a formidable campaign machine in place and most Republicans are still going to fall in line with his base, especially if he's running against an out-and-out socialist.

[Jwheel86]

9 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Rather than a self-declared socialist from Vermont? I don't see much separation there.

 

If you're just worried about winning the election, with actual policy being negotiable, and your focus is Midwestern math, Buttigieg makes way more sense than Bernie as the alternative to Warren.

 

And I think everyone's still underestimating just how debilitating the 'socialist' label will become in the general, when the Dems will need left-leaning boomers who came of age during the Cold War along with moderate voters to come out for them--for both of those groups, 'socialism' is still a scary word with a lot of cultural baggage, regardless of what you really mean by it.

 

Keep in mind you won't be dealing with 2016 Trump this time.  He'll have a formidable campaign machine in place and most Republicans are still going to fall in line with his base, especially if he's running against an out-and-out socialist.

 

Midwestern states with huge African American populations, Buttigieg doesn't have a pulse with African Americans. 

[mclumber1]

20 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Midwestern states with huge African American populations, Buttigieg doesn't have a pulse with African Americans. 

 

If he were to win the nomination, I really doubt that African Americans would vote for Trump come November 2020.

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

2016 election was all Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. 

 

Fixed that for you.

 

This election will probably be decided by something we havent really discussed yet. 

[Jwheel86]

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

Fixed that for you.

 

This election will probably be decided by something we havent really discussed yet. 

 

What other states are seriously in play that aren't pipe dreams?

 

8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

If he were to win the nomination, I really doubt that African Americans would vote for Trump come November 2020.

 

Turn out. 

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

What other states are seriously in play that aren't pipe dreams?

 

 

Turn out. 

 

North Caroline has Trump within the MoE on all the candidates.

[Joe]

At the very least, there is a 0% chance in my opinion that Trump takes Michigan again.  He took advantage of a once in a lifetime political climate that wont repeat itself there. 

[Jwheel86]

8 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

North Caroline has Trump within the MoE on all the candidates.

 

We still lose. 

[Jwheel86]

2 minutes ago, Jose said:

At the very least, there is a 0% chance in my opinion that Trump takes Michigan again.  He took advantage of a once in a lifetime political climate that wont repeat itself there. 

 

Michigan and North Carolina still leaves you 7 short. 

[Joe]

Assuming they dont get Iowa back? Or make gains with Arizona? They probably re-take PA, too. Seems overly pessimistic. 

[Joe]

You're judging 2020 as if 2016 was the only election to ever exist. Weird.

[Jwheel86]

3 minutes ago, Jose said:

Assuming they dont get Iowa back? Or make gains with Arizona? They probably re-take PA, too. Seems overly pessimistic. 

 

Iowa gets you a tie with the House breaking the tie for Trump because of how they have to vote in that situation. 

[Joe]

Also Maine's 2nd is going for Trump again? Why? Do you have any reasoning other than he won it in 2016?

[PaladinSolo]

Trump can't win MI, WI, or PA without 3rd party help, hell if you get 2012 level of turnout in the major cities in those states and Clinton in president.

[Anathema-]

Bernie isn't the best candidate on stage for the Midwest and he doesn't pull enough of the minority vote to say he's got an advantage over anyone, especially Joe Biden. That's terrible reasoning.

[SaysWho?]

On 1/16/2019 at 1:03 AM, Jason said:

She was last reelected in 2018:

 

 

 

She wasn't lying.

[SaysWho?]

 

On 1/11/2019 at 9:14 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

 

I’m not sure who would support her.  Maybe horny atheists?

 

12 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

👑

 

Sanders is a horny atheist, confirmed.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Voter suppression against poc and lack of enthusiasm (relative to Obama) had more do you with the Democrats losses in the four Midwest states (also see Ohio) in 2016 than some handful of Obama to Trump voters.

 

Outside of PA, Trump did just about as well at Romney in the Midwest when you look at the number and distribution of R votes.

 

Then to say nothing of the election that happened last year that went historically bad for the incumbent president's party. And also the precarious position that Senate Republicans like Joni Ernst in Iowa (demographically and ideologically similar to WI)  are having.

 

The forces at play in 2016 for candidate Trump are largely not there for president Trump.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

Trump’s improved ground game will mean he will be able to turn out more ‘retail’ Republicans this time, though.

 

I don’t know whether he’ll get the manufacturing labor votes (the ‘Trump Democrats’) again, because manufacturing is in recession in this country, but I think he’ll have better turnout from the conventional GOP base.

 

For all their bitching about Trump’s sophomoric and rather unconservative behavior, for all their kvetching about his corruption, they’ll still rationalize casting a vote for him because they know one more Supreme Court appointment is in the cards with a sick RBG, and that could tip the scale to vanquish Roe v Wade and various other white whales.

[Joe]

2 hours ago, PaladinSolo said:

Trump can't win MI, WI, or PA without 3rd party help, hell if you get 2012 level of turnout in the major cities in those states and Clinton in president.

 

Yep. 2016 was an aberration. Doesn't mean the Democrats should take those states lightly by any means, but to project them as swing states is absurdity. 

[SaysWho?]

FYI: it's very hard to look at many states individually. I see there was a conversation about North Carolina and Michigan still not being enough.

 

The fact of the matter is if the Democrat or Republican is winning both states, then they're likely stronger in many other states. It's why, when I hear some Democrats thinking, "Just forget about Florida. Not worth it," it misses the point that winning Florida means you're likely performing stronger the midwest. Democrats saw early warning signs on Election Night 2016 when they were looking at Florida places with high midwestern retirees and saw huge percentages for Trump. Trump didn't just win Michigan: he won Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and also came close to winning Minnesota (some of this can be chalked up to voter suppression, indeed, but there was still a swing in the midwest). I firmly believe if Hillary had a better showing in the midwest, similar to Obama's 2008/2012 showings, she'd have won Florida in conjunction with the higher Hispanic turnout in Florida. 

 

North Carolina: if a Democrat is competing well there, then they may also be seeing higher black American turnout in Philly, Cleveland and Detroit.

 

Just now, Jose said:

 

Yep. 2016 was an aberration. Doesn't mean the Democrats should take those states lightly by any means, but to project them as swing states is absurdity. 

 

I'd actually quibble with this. I agree with what some of you guys are saying about the midwest: Obama won more votes in those states than Trump, so even with some of the Trump Dems, Hillary's problem was a lack of turnout and lack of trying in most of the midwest (and voter suppression).

 

But while Obama did well, people forget Wisconsin and Minnesota were EXTREMELY close in 2000 and 2004 (Wisconsin was actually the closest state in the nation in 2004), and Kerry and Gore actually visited those places a lot. Michigan went from under 4 points for Kerry to 16 and 10 points for Obama in 2008 and 2012 to two-tenths of a point for Trump. Those states can really swing from election to election.

[Joe]

I would put them as lean democratic over swing states, though. If we count them as swing states, then surely Arizona, North Carolina, and Iowa are as well.

[SaysWho?]

25 minutes ago, Jose said:

I would put them as lean democratic over swing states, though. If we count them as swing states, then surely Arizona, North Carolina, and Iowa are as well.

 

They are.  

 

I don't get why anyone would view the midwest as something that can't be swept by a Dem (2012 wasn't that long ago, and they did quite well in the midterms) and are strongly for Trump while North Carolina and Arizona are considered unattainable for Dems. Many of those states were stronger for Dems in 2012 than North Carolina/Arizona and even Texas were for Trump in 2016, so the idea that they're pipe dreams is weird. 

 

I do think the weakness in midwest turnout and black Americans had ripples into North Carolina and Florida.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

37 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

don't get why anyone would view the midwest as something that can't be swept by a Dem (2012 wasn't that long ago, and they did quite well in the midterms

It's easy to see when your conception of the Midwest is centric to the idea of it being white working class (that is to say, wealthy whites with a high school degree, a group that used to be swing-y but is now solidly conservative. Think your car dealership and "small business" owners)

[Remarkableriots]

Quote

When the grand vacation homes of Newport Beach were empty on a beautiful Memorial Day weekend, Molly Munger decided it was time for the U.S. to consider taxing wealth.

As her family's boat moved through the harbor a few years ago, Munger, whose father is a billionaire investor, saw that many of her neighbors' houses were sitting dark and vacant. She knew why: The owners now controlled enough money to holiday at one of their several other luxury homes. It didn't sit right, she said.

"It's just too much to watch that happen at the top and see what is happening at the bottom," said Munger, 71, a California civil rights lawyer whose father, Charlie, built his fortune as vice chairman of Warren Buffett's firm Berkshire Hathaway. "Isn't it a waste when beautiful homes on the beach are empty for most of the summer?"

Munger is now among a handful of billionaires and multimillionaires making a renewed push for the government to raise their taxes and siphon away some of their holdings. As Democratic presidential candidates debate a new tax on wealth rather than on incomes, this group of uber-rich people is urging them on.

"I believe in free markets. I'm the daughter of a capitalist. But not Darwin-like free, unregulated and red in tooth and claw," Munger said

The chief argument from these tycoons, financiers and scions is that the government could spend their money more effectively than they could on their own by improving schools, upgrading infrastructure and protecting the environment. It challenges a long-standing belief among many politicians and economists that lower taxes on corporations and investment incomes are the most efficient way to deliver growth and spread wealth down the income ladder.

The idea also is a direct challenge to the reputed billionaire in the White House, Donald Trump, who once backed a wealth tax but in 2017 enacted a dramatic tax cut that favored the rich.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/meet-the-superrich-who-want-a-wealth-tax/ar-AAJ8OZl?ocid=AMZN

[Remarkableriots]

Quote

Some Democrats are putting up caution signs for Hillary Clinton as she wades back into presidential politics by casting 2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard as a "Russian asset," mocking President Donald Trump's dealings with a foreign leader and drawing counterattacks from both.

Bernie Sanders, who lost the 2016 nomination to Clinton and is running again in 2020, took to Twitter with implicit criticisms of his erstwhile rival. "People can disagree on issues," Sanders wrote Monday, "but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset."

Larry Cohen, one of Sanders' top supporters, was more conciliatory but warned in an interview that Clinton could harm the eventual 2020 nominee by weighing in against specific candidates, even a longshot like Gabbard.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-2020-race-has-a-new-shadow-hillary-clinton/ar-AAJ9vOd?ocid=AMZN

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

3 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/meet-the-superrich-who-want-a-wealth-tax/ar-AAJ8OZl?ocid=AMZN

I think the smartest wealth tax pitch would combine it with a reduction in income taxes.

 

I.e., pitch it as a way to shift the tax burden off of labor productivity and onto economic rent.  That would boost productivity and also lower the overall cost structure of the economy, making the country's exports more competitive, and ultimately leading to higher growth.

 

But I don't think that idea would go down well with the Democratic Socialists.

[mclumber1]

3 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

 

My plan would allow employer based health insurance, but it would remove the beneficial tax implications if employers offer it.  Basically, there would be no write-off for this benefit, but there would be a write-off if you simply give your employees a stipend that they could pay for medical services directly, private insurance on the open market, or the public option. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

27 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I think the smartest wealth tax pitch would combine it with a reduction in income taxes.

 

I.e., pitch it as a way to shift the tax burden off of labor productivity and onto economic rent.  That would boost productivity and also lower the overall cost structure of the economy, making the country's exports more competitive, and ultimately leading to higher growth.

 

But I don't think that idea would go down well with the Democratic Socialists.

It wouldn't go down well with anyone not in the donor class. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It wouldn't go down well with anyone not in the donor class. 

 

A wealth tax is unconstitutional.  Unless you pass an amendment that allows it, of course.  Still a dumb idea that doesn't actually address the issue of income inequality.  It's not even a good tool to fund government.