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

[Remarkableriots]

4 hours ago, legend said:

 

Please do not abstain from voting or vote for a third party that has no chance of winning. I'm not keen on Biden winning either but he's light years beyond Trump. 

All 6 electoral votes in Nevada went to Hillary Clinton and with more Californians moving to Nevada they will continue to go to the Democrats. Seems pointless to vote.

[legend]

38 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

All 6 electoral votes in Nevada went to Hillary Clinton and with more Californians moving to Nevada they will continue to go to the Democrats. Seems pointless to vote.

 

Not worth the risk. Some people are in harder situations that make voting more difficult than it ought to be, but not being enamored with the dem candidate is not a good reason to abstain. 

[Jason]

The people leaving California for places like Arizona and Texas are less likely to be Democrats. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

[PaladinSolo]

9 hours ago, Jason said:

The people leaving California for places like Arizona and Texas are less likely to be Democrats. 

I'd wager its pretty even, especially as both states have been shifting to purple. 

[legend]

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I must concede that I love this completely absurd 404 page  

[legend]

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Warren should be the front-runner if only based on her ability to articulate actual policy and not just spout feel-good babble (Mayo Pete).

[Massdriver]

18 hours ago, legend said:

 

 

I completely agree that it's a lot of money, and that's why I'm skeptical of it myself. It's also why I'm interested in hearing good breakdowns on it. I don't think that article really stepped up though. Instead they presented a bunch of fairly uncompelling counter-arguments.

 

 

I guess the reason I'm partly responding is because I'm annoyed that there isn't a lot of good rebuttals when I think there should be. When she first announced it I immediately raised an eye-brow and started looking for counter points and instead got horrible sentiment-based reactions. The article you shared is better than those but still disappointingly bad.

Despite her best intentions and her description of the plan as progressive, a quick analysis finds the Warren proposal to be regressive, expensive, and full of uncertainties.

More evidence from the Brookings Institution 

[legend]

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

Despite her best intentions and her description of the plan as progressive, a quick analysis finds the Warren proposal to be regressive, expensive, and full of uncertainties.

More evidence from the Brookings Institution 

 

Thanks, I'll take a look at this one later today!

[PaladinSolo]

lol, Gabbard says shes against inmates being allowed to vote cause wardens and officers will coax them to vote how they want, 

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

USA Today getting into the parody game

[Massdriver]

Sorry, stoners, but when it comes to marijuana legalization, Biden is basically the worst candidate in the race

 

Not only is he old, but he is worse on marijuana than Trump!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

[PaladinSolo]

ABC/WAPO poll about Trump's reelection issues.  His best is the economy to no surprise at 42%, but 60% believe its broken with only the GOP believing the system works for everyone but by a much smaller margin than democrats belief it only benefits the powerful.  Hes deep underwater on Healthcare, and his favorite issue Immigration, with only 25% saying healthcare was a reason to support him, and only 34% saying his immigration policies are a reason to reelect him.  His trade policies are split at 34 approve/36 disapprove.  Overall 52% of people polled said they would definitely not support him.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/populist-economic-frustration-threatens-trumps-strongest-reelection-issue-post-abc-poll-finds/2019/04/28/44f64cbc-6a02-11e9-9d56-1c0cf2c7ac04_story.html?utm_term=.2f53f53e2e2d

 

 

[SaysWho?]

Beto O'Rourke releases $5 trillion plan to combat climate crisis and get net carbon emissions down to zero by 2050.

 

Quote

The plan begins with proposed executive actions, including rejoining the Paris climate agreement on day one of an O’Rourke administration and moving quickly to raise efficiency standards for buildings, cars and appliances. Longer term executive actions include setting a net-zero emissions carbon budget for federal lands by 2030 and adding more national parks and monuments to protect land and seascapes.

 

The meat of the O’Rourke plan is a promise to send congress, as his first piece of legislation, a $5 trillion, ten-year bill to upgrade infrastructure and spur innovation — including more than a trillion dollars in tax incentives to reduce emissions, and $250 billion dedicated directly to research and development.

 

O’Rourke proposes to pay for the first $1.5 trillion infusion with "revenues generated by structural changes to the tax code that ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies,” according to his campaign’s release.
 

The O’Rourke plan also has an ambitious long range goal — in line with the Green New Deal, which O’Rourke supports — to guarantee the United States becomes a net-zero emissions country by 2050. The framework proposes to work with congress to set a “legally enforceable standard” in the administrations first 100 days, with a goal to be halfway to net-zero by 2030.

 

The plan’s fourth pillar focuses on fighting the most immediate impacts of climate change, in the form of severe weather. O’Rourke proposes to expand federal crop insurance programs, increase spending on pre-disaster mitigation grants, and develop legislation to make sure communities affected by disasters build back stronger after storms.

 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, PaladinSolo said:

ABC/WAPO poll about Trump's reelection issues.  His best is the economy to no surprise at 42%, but 60% believe its broken with only the GOP believing the system works for everyone but by a much smaller margin than democrats belief it only benefits the powerful.  Hes deep underwater on Healthcare, and his favorite issue Immigration, with only 25% saying healthcare was a reason to support him, and only 34% saying his immigration policies are a reason to reelect him.  His trade policies are split at 34 approve/36 disapprove.  Overall 52% of people polled said they would definitely not support him.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/populist-economic-frustration-threatens-trumps-strongest-reelection-issue-post-abc-poll-finds/2019/04/28/44f64cbc-6a02-11e9-9d56-1c0cf2c7ac04_story.html?utm_term=.2f53f53e2e2d

 

 

This is super interesting. 

[CayceG]

Fuckin' Republicans....

[SaysWho?]

Joaquin Castro to announce this week whether or not he'll run against Senator Cornyn.

 

Quote

From the nation’s capitol to the state capitol, the scuttlebutt was that Democratic U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro would announce within days — if not hours — his campaign for U.S. Senate.

 

That was four weeks ago.

 

Back then, practically everyone in politics assumed his challenge to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn was inevitable. More than a handful of political allies rushed to publicly and privately add their political clout to his potential campaign, with the belief that a long-pined-for statewide Castro campaign would be unstoppable.

 

Now, over a dozen Texas and national Democrats say they are increasingly skeptical that Castro will run at all.

 

Quote

But an announcement is nigh. Castro will announce his decision by Wednesday, according to his top political aide, Matthew Jones.

 

Yet the decision will follow weeks of frustration that dates back to March and has come amid a succession of mixed signals from the four-term congressman.

 

For those who don't know: he is 2020 candidate Julian Castro's twin brother.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Very good, Robert Francis O'Rourke!  That's the right direction - actual policy ideas!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Speaking of Robert Francis

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441111-poll-trump-in-dead-heats-with-six-dems-in-head-to-head-texas-matchups

Quote

President Trump is in a dead heat with four Democratic presidential candidates in GOP-leaning Texas, according to a new Emerson College poll.

The poll, released Monday, shows Trump in close races in hypothetical general election matchups in Texas with former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Biden has the best results against Trump, garnering the support of 50 percent of voters compared to Trump's 49 percent, the poll shows. O'Rourke's results are similar, with him and Trump each getting the support of 50 percent of voters in a hypothetical matchup.

Meanwhile, the poll shows Sanders losing by 2 percent and Warren trailing by 6 percent. Both of those differences are within the poll's margin of error.

So 4 leading Dems within the margin of error of Trump in Texas right now, and virtually the only thing they have in common is they're democrats.

[SaysWho?]

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Speaking of Robert Francis

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441111-poll-trump-in-dead-heats-with-six-dems-in-head-to-head-texas-matchups

So 4 leading Dems within the margin of error of Trump in Texas right now, and virtually the only thing they have in common is they're democrats.

 

I really want the talking heads who say "Biden can win but not Warren or Sanders" to explain the reasoning besides got instinct about "moderates."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

34 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I really want the talking heads who say "Biden can win but not Warren or Sanders" to explain the reasoning besides got instinct about "moderates."

I'd like to know about how much being able to identify the candidate is a factor. 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'd like to know about how much being able to identify the candidate is a factor. 

 

You shall likely learn the more people get to know the people running!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

You shall likely learn the more people get to know the people running!

True. Especially considering we're 18 months away from the general election and also this is Texas and not one of the early primary states.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

True. Especially considering we're 18 months away from the general election and also this is Texas and not one of the early primary states.

 

I'm still a big believer that Texas will be competitive within the next decade, if not next year (depending on the candidate and circumstance). I enjoy it, and I get why many wouldn't, but if you ever watch video of old election nights, it's amazing what states are surprises or historic wins.

 

"Holy shit, Bill Clinton won NEW JERSEY AND VERMONT HOLY SHIT WHEN'S THE LAST TIME THEY DID THAT?!"

[SilentWorld]

If Texas goes purple could that signify the beginning of the end of the Republican Party? 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

12 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

If Texas goes purple could that signify the beginning of the end of the Republican Party? 

In it's current form? Not really. They'd make some changes at the margins, but a wholesale different party just isn't happening

[Jwheel86]

12 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

If Texas goes purple could that signify the beginning of the end of the Republican Party? 

 

Close, but I'm not cool putting the fate of the republic in the hands of the state that gave us Ted Cruz. Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona are nice pick ups, but not states to count on to get you to 270. Odds are if you get those states you wouldn't need them to win (landslide election). Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is the entire game, anything else is just for post election jerk off value. 

[SaysWho?]

If Hillary won Texas, she probably would have won Arizona as well (similar to Trump being competitive in a state like Michigan meant he was also competitive in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Minnesota).

 

I think the big thing is that the idea some Democrats had that the west was ripe for expanding the electorate was true. New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon (which used to be more competitive), Washington and Arizona either trended Democratic or are trending Democratic. Underappreciated now, but California used to be either solidly Republican or a Republican-leaning swing state. And Texas, based on its demographics (more than Hispanics, there are also many young liberals who have moved there) and proximity to the west, continues to be a target with tangible gains already felt this decade. 

 

To give an idea of the west in general and how Republican it used to be, these are the maps from 1952 onward:

 

52:

 

 

56:

 

 

60:

 

 

64:

 

 

68:

 

 

72:

 

 

76:

 

 

80:

 

 

84:

 

 

88:

 

 

 

There were some cracks in 1988, but gee zuz, it used to be so freaking Republican.

 

tl;dr:

 

Texas is trending Democratic, and many gains/much progress has been made trying to turn it blue.

It's still a state that favors Republicans plenty with a very conservative Republican base there.

Turning Texas doesn't mean the GOP is ending, but it does give Democrats a big advantage with the big states. They have to maintain a broad coalition and not lose the upper midwest as well.

[thewhyteboar]

The clown of crime strikes again.

[Jason]

Huh, I knew Reagan won his reelection in an absurdly huge landslide, but I hadn't realized Nixon did too. 

[RedSoxFan9]