2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[HooDat]

It is very likely to be close no matter who the democratic candidate is.

because the country is not anywhere near as divided as the parties or the media would have us believe. And yet, because we are sheep, we do as we are told and scream at each other and get elections where we have to choose between HRC and Trump.

I want better choices next time. The problem is the process is self-selecting for A-holes and narcissists.....

[ggait]

Ding-ding, ding-ding, you win the grand prize. Trump and the clown show were phukt, no way he was winning...I listened to the polls, ggait, and DocB...

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Some of the stats guys (who you know I dig) totally biffed the call -- some saying Trump had a 2% chance or less. Which was Tyson/Buster Douglas territory -- had they been right.

To his credit, though, 538's Nate Silver gave Trump a 29% chance of winning at the end. An upset for sure, but nowhere near a 42-1 Tyson/Douglas scenario.

Silver correctly identified the race at the end as moving strongly Trump's way (Comey?, Russia?, Hillary sucking?) and he also saw a significant chance of Trump losing the PV but winning the EV if he threaded the needle. Bullseye!

For this go round, please ignore me and just go vote.

[jhu72]

What evidence do you have that the DNC is not going to let Tulsi get the nomination?

since I specifically wrote "it seems to me" and "I do not know why" I would have thought you might understand that I have no evidence. I thought my words made it very clear that I was stating an opinion.

What evidence do you have that they will? ....... see other people can ask stupid questions too!

I am being asked to disprove a conspiracy theory. Maybe they are trying to hold her back but I will need to be shown evidence. Gabbard's problem is the same as so many of these candidates - there are TOO Fing MANY OF THEM. Frankly I see a handful of candidates that would look better if they weren't competing in a large group, with limited opportunity. This is a much better group of candidates than in the democratic race in 2016. IMO

I don't know who the democrats will end up with and don't really at this time have a favorite. I am hoping the process will sort it out. They all have strengths and weaknesses. If Biden were in better shape in terms of age related issues, he would be my favorite. By the same token, he is in no worse shape than Reagan when he ran the second time and Trump's gaffes are far more numerous, he is just held to a lower (no) standard by his supporters.

[jhu72]

It is very likely to be close no matter who the democratic candidate is.

because the country is not anywhere near as divided as the parties or the media would have us believe. And yet, because we are sheep, we do as we are told and scream at each other and get elections where we have to choose between HRC and Trump.

I want better choices next time. The problem is the process is self-selecting for A-holes and narcissists.....

This I agree with. The problem is I can't think of a better process and I have seen no suggestions I think are better. The reality is the problem is less the process than the population. We want it fast and easy and aren't willing to do the work - for the most part.

[runrussellrun]

What evidence do you have that the DNC is not going to let Tulsi get the nomination?

since I specifically wrote "it seems to me" and "I do not know why" I would have thought you might understand that I have no evidence. I thought my words made it very clear that I was stating an opinion.

What evidence do you have that they will? ....... see other people can ask stupid questions too!

I have evidence.

DNC ....debate rules.

Something having to do with polls, dates, rules changes, dates and the irrelevance of the 2nd debate.

What, it's NOT obvious to you what is going on?

[jhu72]

What evidence do you have that the DNC is not going to let Tulsi get the nomination?

since I specifically wrote "it seems to me" and "I do not know why" I would have thought you might understand that I have no evidence. I thought my words made it very clear that I was stating an opinion.

What evidence do you have that they will? ....... see other people can ask stupid questions too!

I have evidence.

DNC ....debate rules.

Something having to do with polls, dates, rules changes, dates and the irrelevance of the 2nd debate.

What, it's NOT obvious to you what is going on?

It's all about keeping Tulsi down. Don't think so. There is an advantage to candidates that already have national exposure.

[runrussellrun]

What evidence do you have that the DNC is not going to let Tulsi get the nomination?

since I specifically wrote "it seems to me" and "I do not know why" I would have thought you might understand that I have no evidence. I thought my words made it very clear that I was stating an opinion.

What evidence do you have that they will? ....... see other people can ask stupid questions too!

I have evidence.

DNC ....debate rules.

Something having to do with polls, dates, rules changes, dates and the irrelevance of the 2nd debate.

What, it's NOT obvious to you what is going on?

It's all about keeping Tulsi down. Don't think so. There is an advantage to candidates that already have national exposure.

No, not specifically her, but anyone that doesn't get national exposure above and beyond. Biden announces his run and suddenly he has a commanding lead in the polls? Umm....ok. Name recognition. What, did the polls go in alphabetical order, or placed the way the pollster wanted. You KNOW it's the latter.

Sure, the list went this way. )
Joe Biden (D)
Bill de Blasio (D)
Cory Booker (D)
Steve Bullock (D)
Pete Buttigieg (D)
Julián Castro (D)
John Delaney (D)
Tulsi Gabbard (D)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
Kamala Harris (D)
John Hickenlooper (D)
Jay Inslee (D)
Amy Klobuchar (D)
Wayne Messam (D)
Seth Moulton (D)
Beto O'Rourke (D)
Tim Ryan (D)
Bernie Sanders (I)[1]
Joe Sestak (D)
Tom Steyer (D)
Elizabeth Warren (D)
Marianne Williamson (D)
Andrew Yang (D)

Tough to be included in a poll when your not included in a poll question, don't ya think. Reality is this was the pollster questions list:
Biden, Harris, Pete B., Warren & Sanders (just to prove ),
But, you did ignore my knowledge.

Question for you 72, which government agency verifies Polling data? With a litany of follow up questions, like : who chooses which polls are used to qualify candidates?

[jhu72]

You are making a case that the DNC could put their thumbs on the scale - not that they are.

[RedFromMI]

The government has no say in the debate process because it is put on by the Democratic Party - as it should, since it will help determine their candidate. Specifically the DNC is the rule maker.

The link to the DNC site and explanation: https://democrats.org/news/third-debate/

Approved polls are:

Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Des Moines Register, Fox News, Monmouth University, NBC News, New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Quinnipiac University, University of New Hampshire, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, and Winthrop University. Any candidate’s four qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas. The DNC and its media partners reserve the right to add a Nevada-specific poll sponsor to this list in the near future.

The rest of the link explains the rest of the qualifications.

[HooDat]

Gabbard's problem is the same as so many of these candidates - there are TOO Fing MANY OF THEM. Frankly I see a handful of candidates that would look better if they weren't competing in a large group, with limited opportunity. This is a much better group of candidates than in the democratic race in 2016. IMO

agree with all this. The GOP had too many in the 2016 primaries too, and look how that turned out...


and this is why....

The reality is the problem is less the process than the population. We want it fast and easy and aren't willing to do the work - for the most part.

the media simply gives people what they want. And boy are we getting it!... Good and hard!

[runrussellrun]

And none of them really pass the “Beer Test” with flying colors ... that is, Americans usually elect as president the candidate with whom they most prefer to share a beer.

Having said that, I think women, millennials, Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans, urbanites, suburbanites, and educated Americans will prefer having a beer with Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. That’s a winning coalition.

My take is that when all is said and done Trump ends up edging Kamala on the beer test. She get's 100% of the millenials but fewer of the suburbanites and educated Americans than most of us would like to think. The really interesting part would be the Latino and black communities. Those are the people she has a public track record of putting in jail for their kids skipping school and forcing into labor once she has them in jail.... She is very, very vulnerable.

But, those people don't talk to each other, let alone politics. They're just not that interested and will vote who we tell them to vote for.
Dmac is spot on with his assessment.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

I don't know why, but it seems to me that the DNC is NOT going to let Tulsi get the nomination.

I qualified my comments on Bernie for a reason, and I think his time is past - he had a window of popular support that is gone - and it is gone because the DNC did not want him.


I think you are joking, but I bet you she is plotting to make this happen.....

Hillaryous is waiting in the wings. October surprise.

[6ftstick]

So Uncle Joe Biden thinks "Poor kids" are every bit as smart as "White kids"

Thats not racist is it?

It d*mn sure would be if a republican said it.

[MDlaxfan76]

So Uncle Joe Biden thinks "Poor kids" are every bit as smart as "White kids"

Thats not racist is it?

It d*mn sure would be if a republican said it.

Gee, I wonder why the R's don't get the benefit of the doubt on this any more?

Seems to me like another 'want some cheese with that whine?" sort of complaint.

But listen, not every R would be roasted on a spit for this sort of gaffe, though they'd certainly need to scramble quickly to explain they'd merely misspoken...like Joe. For many though, it would be further evidence of where their head is. And they would deserve that critique.

Of course, Joe's not being given a pass, either. It may have been just another gaffe, but he's definitely never been very good at expressing himself around race issues. It's a problem for him in the primaries.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So Uncle Joe Biden thinks "Poor kids" are every bit as smart as "White kids"

Thats not racist is it?

It d*mn sure would be if a republican said it.

What is racist is assuming poor kids are all minorities. Old Joe just left off the adjective “rich”....

[thatsmell]

It’s also bad perpetuating the idea that all white kids are rich.

Divisive language like this that dog whistles, perpetuates stereotypes, and animosity in this country should be criticized, just like the president’s recent comments.

[MDlaxfan76]

It’s also bad perpetuating the idea that all white kids are rich.

Divisive language like this that dog whistles, perpetuates stereotypes, and animosity in this country should be criticized, just like the president’s recent comments.

And indeed it is.
On the other hand, do we really think that's what Joe meant?
Or was he trying to say that poor kids are as smart, have the same level of potential, as rich kids?

Alternatively, that minority kids are as smart, have the same level of potential, as white kids?

Seems to me that Joe, being Joe, just got himself tangled up. Which is somewhat understandable as minority kids (excluding asian kids) are disproportionately from less well off families.

Which doesn't really make it ok, as we will surely hear from others on the campaign trail and in the punditry. We'd certainly prefer a President who could articulate a thought on this topic without stumbling around.

But ain't it a whole other matter when Trump gets 'himself tangled up'? Do we really think that Trump just mangles the language when he claims not to even know who David Duke is, when he says that Mexican immigrants are rapists?

So, here's how to tell the difference: Joe tries to explain himself, Trump just doubles down to the cheers.

[DMac]

...and when you hear the whole thing rather than the bite the media/social media gives you, it's quite different, whereas when you listen to the whole clip of Trump's trash it isn't different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If2q-pO95k0

[MDlaxfan76]

...and when you hear the whole thing rather than the bite the media/social media gives you, it's quite different, whereas when you listen to the whole clip of Trump's trash it isn't different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If2q-pO95k0

Exactly. Just a bungling of the words, though, in context, only for a heart beat, as he quickly found his way to saying what he actually meant.

Trump, by contrast, though-out his ramblings, is clearly intending racist views to be heard; And even when confronted with that meaning directly, waves his hands a bit, then doubles down again.

[wahoomurf]

...and when you hear the whole thing rather than the bite the media/social media gives you, it's quite different, whereas when you listen to the whole clip of Trump's trash it isn't different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If2q-pO95k0

Exactly. Just a bungling of the words, though, in context, only for a heart beat, as he quickly found his way to saying what he actually meant.

Trump, by contrast, though-out his ramblings, is clearly intending racist views to be heard; And even when confronted with that meaning directly, waves his hands a bit, then doubles down again.

"Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet 2,2.

Or, if one prefers "you say potato I say potahto".

Opinions are like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

[6ftstick]

It’s also bad perpetuating the idea that all white kids are rich.

Divisive language like this that dog whistles, perpetuates stereotypes, and animosity in this country should be criticized, just like the president’s recent comments.

And indeed it is.
On the other hand, do we really think that's what Joe meant?

But that is what JOE said though isn't it?

Like Joe saying about Barry Obamav"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said!