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

[Alpha1Cowboy]

I think Bernie should reach out to Klobuchar.......I feel that a Bernie Klobuchar ticket would have the best chance to pull the midwest.  Pull Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa back in and keep Minnesota....she understands how to approach a divided liberal/conservative voter base in those regions.  

 

 

That said...I'll vote for Democrat on the ticket....no matter what.   

[Scott]

Hardcore trump voters will never vote for anyone but trump. They’re beyond help. But there are a ton of people who don’t love trump, who will never vote for a perceived socialist, and who would be open to a more moderate candidate. I know a ton of people in the medical community who don’t love trump but would never vote for Bernie due to a concern about being taxed to oblivion. They’d be open to Bloomberg. It’s fine not to start out in a defensive position - just make sure your starting position is one that appeals to enough voters that you can win the election. I don’t know that Bernies platform accomplishes that. The question is this: do you go with a moderate liberal and assume the extreme liberals and some disaffected conservatives will come along, or do you go with an extreme liberal and hope you’ll win the election without any conservatives and without some moderate liberals? Do you bet that the extreme platform is appealing enough to turn out new and previously uninspired voters?

[Jwheel86]

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Hardcore trump voters will never vote for anyone but trump. They’re beyond help. But there are a ton of people who don’t love trump, who will never vote for a perceived socialist, and who would be open to a more moderate candidate. I know a ton of people in the medical community who don’t love trump but would never vote for Bernie due to a concern about being taxed to oblivion. They’d be open to Bloomberg. It’s fine not to start out in a defensive position - just make sure your starting position is one that appeals to enough voters that you can win the election. I don’t know that Bernies platform accomplishes that. The question is this: do you go with a moderate liberal and assume the extreme liberals and some disaffected conservatives will come along, or do you go with an extreme liberal and hope you’ll win the election without any conservatives and without some moderate liberals? Do you bet that the extreme platform is appealing enough to turn out new and previously uninspired voters?

 

Counting on moderates to support a moderate is foolish. Fox News is going to have at least four months to turn that moderate into a socialist. We've already got ads running saying M4A and the Public Option are the same thing. 

[Jwheel86]

24 minutes ago, Alpha1Cowboy said:

I think Bernie should reach out to Klobuchar.......I feel that a Bernie Klobuchar ticket would have the best chance to pull the midwest.  Pull Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa back in and keep Minnesota....she understands how to approach a divided liberal/conservative voter base in those regions.  

 

 

That said...I'll vote for Democrat on the ticket....no matter what.   

 

Bernie needs to keep his eye on the long term. Anti Bernieism isn't just going to go away and she'd undermine him for her own gain, maybe even Primary Challenge in '24.

[Alpha1Cowboy]

7 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Counting on moderates to support a moderate is foolish. Fox News is going to have at least four months to turn that moderate into a socialist. We've already got ads running saying M4A and the Public Option are the same thing. 

I have to disagree.   I've lived in a lot of different areas of the country and Conservatives vastly differ.....even as to what they consider liberal or conservative.  There are a lot of moderates out there who just don'y vote...but can be compelled to if the right approaches are taken.

 

 

[MarSolo]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

None of that will matter in the least to the hardcore Trump supporters at all.  They'll shrug their shoulders and say "So what?  Who cares?"

 

And once again, this feeds into the complex that liberals have where they are compelled to "take away talking points" from the right instead of correctly ignoring them and actually defining their ideology on its own merits rather than allowing the right to shape the contours of the political battlefield and therefore immediately starting on the defensive.

 

Until liberals learn the value of the "So what?  Who cares?" approach, they will always start from the losing position.

EXACTLY.

 

The average person knows Trump sucks. So tell them why YOU ARE BETTER THAN HIM.

 

That’s where Kerry screwed up with Bush, and that’s a lot of why Hillary screwed up with Trump. The narrative of Hillary was “Trump is awful” and not “here’s why I’m better”.

[MarSolo]

And also, guys, we should be supporting Tulsi Gabbard. She goes on Fox News and Tucker Carlson loves her. 

[atom631]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

None of that will matter in the least to the hardcore Trump supporters at all.  They'll shrug their shoulders and say "So what?  Who cares?"

 

And once again, this feeds into the complex that liberals have where they are compelled to "take away talking points" from the right instead of correctly ignoring them and actually defining their ideology on its own merits rather than allowing the right to shape the contours of the political battlefield and therefore immediately starting on the defensive.

 

Until liberals learn the value of the "So what?  Who cares?" approach, they will always start from the losing position.

Hardcore trump supporters are lost, we all agree on that. However, the ones I mentioned that state “he’s a businessman”....they aren’t. They are the moderate conservatives that put up with trump because Hillary was a worse option in their eyes. I work with a ton of conservatives who voted for trump and said they would consider Bloomberg and only Bloomberg if he ran against him. 

 

my own dad despises trump. Would never vote for him. But also won’t vote for Bernie. He’d vote for Bloomberg. There are a lot of moderates that feel this way. As i said, this country is not ready for a full a far-left candidate. 

 

42 minutes ago, Scott said:

Hardcore trump voters will never vote for anyone but trump. They’re beyond help. But there are a ton of people who don’t love trump, who will never vote for a perceived socialist, and who would be open to a more moderate candidate. I know a ton of people in the medical community who don’t love trump but would never vote for Bernie due to a concern about being taxed to oblivion. They’d be open to Bloomberg. It’s fine not to start out in a defensive position - just make sure your starting position is one that appeals to enough voters that you can win the election. I don’t know that Bernies platform accomplishes that. The question is this: do you go with a moderate liberal and assume the extreme liberals and some disaffected conservatives will come along, or do you go with an extreme liberal and hope you’ll win the election without any conservatives and without some moderate liberals? Do you bet that the extreme platform is appealing enough to turn out new and previously uninspired voters?

My thoughts exactly. I love Bernie - i voted for him in the 16 primaries but he won’t win against trump.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

9 minutes ago, atom631 said:

Hardcore trump supporters are lost, we all agree on that. However, the ones I mentioned that state “he’s a businessman”....they aren’t. They are the moderate conservatives that put up with trump because Hillary was a worse option in their eyes. I work with a ton of conservatives who voted for trump and said they would consider Bloomberg and only Bloomberg if he ran against him. 

I don't "trust" those individuals to vote for any of the other moderate Democrats anyway, so why should anyone pay the least bit of attention to who they're willing to support?

[atom631]

18 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I don't "trust" those individuals to vote for any of the other moderate Democrats anyway, so why should anyone pay the least bit of attention to who they're willing to support?

Because Anyone On the dem ticket is a better option than trump. 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Hardcore trump voters will never vote for anyone but trump. They’re beyond help. But there are a ton of people who don’t love trump, who will never vote for a perceived socialist, and who would be open to a more moderate candidate. I know a ton of people in the medical community who don’t love trump but would never vote for Bernie due to a concern about being taxed to oblivion. They’d be open to Bloomberg. It’s fine not to start out in a defensive position - just make sure your starting position is one that appeals to enough voters that you can win the election. I don’t know that Bernies platform accomplishes that. The question is this: do you go with a moderate liberal and assume the extreme liberals and some disaffected conservatives will come along, or do you go with an extreme liberal and hope you’ll win the election without any conservatives and without some moderate liberals? Do you bet that the extreme platform is appealing enough to turn out new and previously uninspired voters?

I go back and forth on this, because I know lots of upper-middle-class centrists who dislike Trump but are also turned off by Sanders.

 

However, there also isn’t a centrist candidate who excites people like Bernie does, who can raise money like he can, and who is perceived as ‘authentic’ the way he is.  We don’t have an Obama on the menu this time around.

 

If I thought voters voted with their heads, I’d be more confident in saying that those things don’t matter—that policies are the most important factor, and in particular having a candidate’s policies be the most broadly appealing from a cross-demographic point-of-view.

 

But I’m not sure they do vote with their heads.  At least not in this super-polarized political climate.  And if they don’t, then the most competitive candidate would be the one that generates the most excitement, that appeals to people’s gut—not their intellect—on the largest scale.  

 

I’m also not totally sure they *don’t* vote with their heads either, though.  Basically Trump has so totally overthrown the conventional wisdom on these matters it’s hard to know what to think, so I go back and forth on thinking Sanders would be an electoral disaster, to thinking he’s the only candidate that can drive the kind of turnout the Dems need to beat Trump.

[Massdriver]

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I go back and forth on this, because I know lots of upper-middle-class centrists who dislike Trump but are also turned off by Sanders.

 

However, there also isn’t a centrist candidate who excites people like Bernie does, who can raise money like he can, and who is perceived as ‘authentic’ the way he is.  We don’t have an Obama on the menu this time around.

 

If I thought voters voted with their heads, I’d be more confident in saying that those things don’t matter—that policies are the most important factor, and in particular having a candidate’s policies be the most broadly appealing from a cross-demographic point-of-view.

 

But I’m not sure they do vote with their heads.  At least not in this super-polarized political climate.  And if they don’t, then the most competitive candidate would be the one that generates the most excitement, that appeals to people’s gut—not their intellect—on the largest scale.  

 

I’m also not totally sure they *don’t* vote with their heads either, though.  Basically Trump has so totally overthrown the conventional wisdom on these matters it’s hard to know what to think, so I go back and forth on thinking Sanders would be an electoral disaster, to thinking he’s the only candidate that can drive the kind of turnout the Dems need to beat Trump.

Same here. I'm torn on what would happen. Since there aren't any centrist candidates that are exciting the base, it seems like Bernie's chances are just as good as theirs. 

[Jason]

The Democrats aren't going to win this election without getting their base excited to go vote.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Any "moderate conservative" who claims that they voted for the Imbecile because he's a "businessman" is lying.

 

No one in their right mind should have voted for him based on his business acumen.

 

They voted for him because he had an R next to his name, nothing more/nothing less.  And they will do that again in November.

[Jwheel86]

 

Fuck this guy.

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

The Democrats aren't going to win this election without getting their base excited to go vote.

 

There was a good article I read recently that proposed the theory that there is no such thing as a real swing voter. The main thing that determines elections is turnout. I believe it. So yes, some people claim they may switch votes, but in reality the excited base matters more.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Fuck this guy.

He is right that we collectively need to spend less money on keeping old people alive. It’s why I’ve always been in favor of the “death panels” the GOP would bring up during the ACA debate.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

27 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Fuck this guy.

I mean, it's callous, but it's not wrong. You're not going to fix people at that age with devastating diseases. Most won't want the treatment anyway.

 

I think it should be an option, but it's not realistic. I see it every day.

[Uaarkson]

My grandfather spent hundreds of thousands of our family’s collective wealth on medical treatment that would require a change in lifestyle, and he had to have one procedure done after another because he refused to change. It eventually claimed his life. Should this care not have been available to him?

[Remarkableriots]

Why stop at just elderly people? We could save hundreds of millions if we stopped helping homeless people. Should we also eliminate anybody else that's considered a burden on society? 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

6 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Why stop at just elderly people? We could save hundreds of millions if we stopped helping homeless people. Should we also eliminate anybody else that's considered a burden on society? 

This is a really ridiculous comparison.

 

You're talking about someone at the tail end of their life, trying to what? Extend it for another year or two with a lot of suffering involved?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

My grandfather spent hundreds of thousands of our family’s collective wealth on medical treatment that would require a change in lifestyle, and he had to have one procedure done after another because he refused to change. It eventually claimed his life. Should this care not have been available to him?

I wouldn’t let my family spend that kind of money on me if I were an old man. 34 year old me, that has young kids at home? Sure. But we need to move beyond our western fears of death. We literally talk about 90 year old people dying like it’s a tragedy. It’s not, that’s an exceptional life lived in the history of human civilization. That doesn’t mean those close to that person can’t be sad about it.
 

7 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Why stop at just elderly people? We could save hundreds of millions if we stopped helping homeless people. Should we also eliminate anybody else that's considered a burden on society? 

 

Homelessness is itself a policy failure that further burdens society. Fixing it is a net benefit to society. And there are societies where the elderly understand they shouldn’t burden the younger generations with their unproductive selves  

[ThreePi]

I don't care for Bloomberg, but are hospitals actually doing anything other that EOL care for 95 year old cancer patients?

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, ThreePi said:

I don't care for Bloomberg, but are hospitals actually doing anything other that EOL care for 95 year old cancer patients?

Generally not. I mean, if the person or their family really, really wants the treatment, then we're obliged to give it. But with a terminal diagnosis at that point in a life, we push for palliative care and that's typically what most people want.

[CayceG]

 

39 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

He is right that we collectively need to spend less money on keeping old people alive. It’s why I’ve always been in favor of the “death panels” the GOP would bring up during the ACA debate.

 

26 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I mean, it's callous, but it's not wrong. You're not going to fix people at that age with devastating diseases. Most won't want the treatment anyway.

 

I think it should be an option, but it's not realistic. I see it every day.

 

14 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Why stop at just elderly people? We could save hundreds of millions if we stopped helping homeless people. Should we also eliminate anybody else that's considered a burden on society? 

 

 

Y'all are fucking psychopaths. You should be ashamed. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, CayceG said:

 

 

 

 

 

Y'all are fucking psychopaths. You should be ashamed. 

I work with this stuff every single day. Either you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying or you just really don't get it.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, CayceG said:

Y'all are fucking psychopaths. You should be ashamed. 

You totally misinterpreted what @Remarkableriots said

[CastlevaniaNut18]

^^^ that too

[Jwheel86]

18 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

This is a really ridiculous comparison.

Where is the line? I agree this is and the 95 year old is a stupid example but this is going to become a huge issue as more rare disease treatments get approved. Who should be able to receive it? The bigger issue is why do these treatments cost what they cost. Biogen's stock is way up despite them giving half the patients Spinraza for free. 

[johnny]

Lets focus on getting everybody insured by voting for Bernie! 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

As someone whose 98 year old father just passed away, I will admit that I am not nearly as unsympathetic to Bloomberg's position as you would imagine.

 

There is no way my father should ever have been given anything more than palliative care for the last few years of his life, even if my family wished it (which we sure as hell did not!)

[Scott]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

Any "moderate conservative" who claims that they voted for the Imbecile because he's a "businessman" is lying.

 

No one in their right mind should have voted for him based on his business acumen.

 

They voted for him because he had an R next to his name, nothing more/nothing less.  And they will do that again in November.

Not entirely true. People started rabidly supporting him in the primary, when there were plenty of (R)s to vote for. 
 

It’s astounding how many people support him on nothing but the fact that he is unfiltered. He “tells it like it.” He “talks like me.” Etc. At least a dozen people in my personal life have given this as their reason for supporting him. 

 

We know he’s a bad businessman. But most lay people don’t. They know he’s a gold-plated billionaire who was on that show for all those years and has his name on all those buildings. And beyond that, moderates don’t give a shit about his specific business record - they know that he’s a greedy capitalist from the corporate world. They know he’ll slash tax rates, regulations, etc.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

5 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Where is the line? I agree this is and the 95 year old is a stupid example but this is going to become a huge issue as more rare disease treatments get approved. Who should be able to receive it? The bigger issue is why do these treatments cost what they cost. Biogen's stock is way up despite them giving half the patients it for free. 

There's no hard line, but after years of dealing with this stuff, I put quality of life as my top priority. If there's no meaningful chance for recovery and a decent life after that, then the treatment should stop. I've seen way too many people wanna keep 80 year old grandpa breathing, even if it means he's going to spend the rest of his "life" bedbound, with pressure ulcers getting worse, going septic, being fed through a tube, constantly shitting in those grotesque wounds on the backside.

 

Far too many times, I've felt like I was doing more harm, abiding by a family's naive wish to keep someone breathing than just peacefully letting them go.

[Scott]

27 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Why stop at just elderly people? We could save hundreds of millions if we stopped helping homeless people. Should we also eliminate anybody else that's considered a burden on society? 

That’s a terrible fucking example and I’m sure you know it. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I say all of this as my family had gone through two losses in the past week. My widowed grandmother's long time companion died in hospice last week at 85. He'd had a pretty active lifestyle until he broke his hip in November. First surgery, the rod wasn't placed correctly, second surgery, the incision became infected and the antibiotics he received put him in renal failure. Thankfully, he was able to speak for himself and elected hospice. Today, my great aunt died in hospice at age 91. She was in a nursing home, gotten a UTI, became septic. Things were improving, but she took another downturn and her grandchildren(both her children died years ago) chose to put her in hospice, rather than have her endure more suffering with no real recovery.

 

And last Spring, we lost my 87 year old grandfather. He'd been doing quite well, living independently, until flu and pneumonia sent him spiraling. My family agreed to stop pushing treatment and we let him go. It's also what he had decided before he was unable to speak for himself.