TheCid

2020 Election

293 posts in this topic

The SC Dem Party limited live broadcasting of their convention to MSNBC partially because most black Dems in S.C. watch Joy Reid and Al Sharpton.  They have relented and let the state's public TV network live broadcast.

SC is home to the first in the South Dem primary.  Lots of candidates are coming here and I think many will be at the convention.  Doesn't matter who wins the Dem primary because the state will vote overwhelmingly for Trump.  

On a side note all the state-wide elected officials in S.C. have endorsed Lindsay Graham for re-election to the US Senate.  There are no Dem state-wide elected officials.  Last time, he had very few at this time and eventually had seven opponents in the primary.  He now has only two announced opponents, neither has a chance.

Graham's strategy of supporting Trump in everything has worked!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TheCid said:

SC is home to the first in the South Dem primary.  Lots of candidates are coming here and I think many will be at the convention.  Doesn't matter who wins the Dem primary because the state will vote overwhelmingly for Trump.  

As it relates to which Dem wins the Dem primary it does matter who wins the SC Dem primary,  especially since it is the first in the South.    That is why lots of candidates are going there.     E.g.  Harris and Booker could get a major boost in the other Southern states if they first win in SC.     (assuming either one is still one of the top 3 by then).

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

As it relates to which Dem wins the Dem primary it does matter who wins the SC Dem primary,  especially since it is the first in the South.    That is why lots of candidates are going there.     E.g.  Harris and Booker could get a major boost in the other Southern states if they first win in SC.     (assuming either one is still one of the top 3 by then).

 

 

My error in saying it doesn't matter as far as the Dem national primary system goes.  It is unfortunate that it has such a huge impact on selecting the Dem candidate when it does not represent the national demographics.  Of course that is the whole problem with the current primary/caucus system.  We get Trump on one side and Hillary on the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

My error in saying it doesn't matter as far as the Dem national primary system goes.  It is unfortunate that it has such a huge impact on selecting the Dem candidate when it does not represent the national demographics.  Of course that is the whole problem with the current primary/caucus system.  We get Trump on one side and Hillary on the other.

Might add that it does not even reflect the state demographics.  Of course, neither does the GOP state primary.   S.C. GOPers are considering cancelling their presidential primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw an interview with Roy Moore, future senator from Alabama.  Hopefully NOT.

Apparently all the Republicans have come out against him, except the ones who vote for him.  Apparently it will be a tougher fight for him this time because the GOP primary opponents are better than before, so hopefully two will beat him for the runoff.  I can see him winning the election if he is the nominee.  All the stuff about him is "old news" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

Saw an interview with Roy Moore, future senator from Alabama.  Hopefully NOT.

Apparently all the Republicans have come out against him, except the ones who vote for him.  Apparently it will be a tougher fight for him this time because the GOP primary opponents are better than before, so hopefully two will beat him for the runoff.  I can see him winning the election if he is the nominee.  All the stuff about him is "old news" now.

The GOP candidate will win in Alabama in 2020 because GOP leaning voters in the state will not wish to concede any additional power to the Dems, (2018 still stings),  especially if there is a Dem president.

So yea,  hopefully Moore loses in the primary.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22(?) Dem candidates are in Columbia, S.C. today (June 22) for the state's Dem convention and a Planned Parenthood function.  Buttigig is at home trying to subdue a police involved incident.  Below is link to The State newspaper with an ongoing report of "activities."

Bottom line is that the candidates will be making a pitch for those likely to vote in Dem primary.  As the "party" in S.C. is mostly black, the pitches will be focused in that arena.  So this will  not really be a reflection of what they will say in Miami later or in other states later on.

One irony is that a recent census report (estimate) shows that the ratio of blacks to whites in S.C. is the same as it was in 1960. White-67%; Black-27%; 5.7% Hispanic.

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article231831578.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Columbia S.C. Joe Biden took one minute to clearly state what the Dems must do.  It doesn't matter who is running for the Dem nomination, but who occupies the White House.  The Dems can make up for four years of Trump's damage to America, but they CANNOT make up for eight years.  Whoever the Dems nominate, the people must get behind him or her to elect a Dem president.

I totally agree.  When Ruth Badder Ginsberg leaves the Supreme Court within the next 6 years, a new justice will be appointed (assuming McConnell lets it).  If Trump (or Pence) appoints that person, the SC will be extreme conservative for the next 30+ years.  In addition, the other federal courts will tilt further and further to the extreme right.  70 years of progress will be eliminated for the next 30+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

Here’s What Voters Have Been Asking The 2020 Democrats

Ahead of the debates, a progressive group is showing what voters do — and don’t — want to know from the candidates.

"....The most frequently posed questions were about health care policy, which accounted for nearly 10% of all questions asked by voters. Within that group, 40% of questions were about “Medicare for All.” Questions about the environment made up 7.5% of all the questions, with a two-thirds majority of those focused on climate change. Voters also frequently asked about candidates’ backgrounds, as well as immigration, foreign policy, and higher and public education.

Other topics were far less popular.

Fewer than 1% of questions were about the possibility of a female president or about the national debt. How to pay for the candidates’ different plans was a focus of just 1% of all questions, as were queries about impeaching Trump or how to appeal to his voters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are now 25, count 'em, 25 people running for the Democratic nomination.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 10:01 AM, TheCid said:

In Columbia S.C. Joe Biden took one minute to clearly state what the Dems must do.  It doesn't matter who is running for the Dem nomination, but who occupies the White House.  The Dems can make up for four years of Trump's damage to America, but they CANNOT make up for eight years.  Whoever the Dems nominate, the people must get behind him or her to elect a Dem president.

I totally agree.  When Ruth Badder Ginsberg leaves the Supreme Court within the next 6 years, a new justice will be appointed (assuming McConnell lets it).  If Trump (or Pence) appoints that person, the SC will be extreme conservative for the next 30+ years.  In addition, the other federal courts will tilt further and further to the extreme right.  70 years of progress will be eliminated for the next 30+ years.

I'll be surprised if RBG lasts until the end of this year.

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

& HERE WE GO............ <_<

Fake Biden Campaign Website Being Run Secretly By Trump Campaign Operative: Report

 

"The New York Times tracked down the owner of a site with the URL JoeBiden.info, a "parody" campaign website featuring out-of-context quotes from the former vice president and leading 2020 Democratic candidate. The site also includes GIFs of him touching women in ways that others alleged made them uncomfortable.

Patrick Mauldin is a digital media specialist who worked on messaging for Trump's 2016 campaign and, according to the Times, has been working on the president's re-election campaign. Along with his brother, Mauldin runs Vici Media Group, a Republican consulting firm based in Austin, Texas. Mauldin acknowledged to the paper his role in creating the website,

which he has used to spread disparaging and sometimes misleading content about Biden.......

https://www.newsweek.com/fake-biden-campaign-website-being-run-secretly-trump-campaign-operative-report-1446693?utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&amp;utm_source=Twitter

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a link to an article on Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and his Empower America Project.  It is a project to attract more minority candidates to run as Republicans.  Tim Scott was a Republican Congressman from the Charleston SC district until Gov. Nikki Haley appointed him to the US Senate.  He later ran for reelection and won. 

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article232051162.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that Kamala Harris said she was opposed to federally imposed mandatory busing.  That was Biden's position for which she attacked him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

I heard that Kamala Harris said she was opposed to federally imposed mandatory busing.  That was Biden's position for which she attacked him.

If she changed her position it is due to results from a focus group.    She is Captain Renault and blows with the wind.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

If she changed her position it is due to results from a focus group.    She is Captain Renault and blows with the wind.

 

Aren't all politicians like that?

I've seen a lot of criticism of her that has to do with her being too ambitious, too concerned about getting ahead. I can't help but think that that is oriented in a sexist attitude.

 You wouldn't be a politician if you didn't have some kind of ego and you didn't have a lot of ambition and confidence in yourself.

This country has a long way to go before they can accept a woman in a top leadership position-- which we've already seen decades ago in the United Kingdom and in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Aren't all politicians like that?

I've seen a lot of criticism of her that has to do with her being too ambitious, too concerned about getting ahead. I can't help but think that that is oriented in a sexist attitude.

 You wouldn't be a politician if you didn't have some kind of ego and you didn't have a lot of ambition and confidence in yourself.

This country has a long way to go before they can accept a woman in a top leadership position-- which we've already seen decades ago in the United Kingdom and in France.

Of course you have to use the classic Harris defensive strategy;  any criticism is 'oriented in a sexist attitude' or of course in a racist attitude.     So Princess you're doing to me what Harris did to Joe Biden;  you're not a sexist,,,, BUT.

Unlike Warren,   Harris is rather empty.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Of course you have to use the classic Harris defensive strategy;  any criticism is 'oriented in a sexist attitude' or of course in a racist attitude.     So Princess you're doing to me what Harris did to Joe Biden;  you're not a sexist,,,, BUT.

Unlike Warren,   Harris is rather empty.    

I know that you've known Senator Harris much longer than I have. And I'm sure you have some credible criticism to give from her past record. But all I'm saying is that she's being criticized superficially for her approach and for her attitude. And I think in a man the same characteristics would be praised.

But I sincerely would like to hear more of your opinions about her past performance and her record as a prosecutor, because I value your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Princess of Tap said:

I know that you've known Senator Harris much longer than I have. And I'm sure you have some credible criticism to give from her past record. But all I'm saying is that she's being criticized superficially for her approach and for her attitude. And I think in a man the same characteristics would be praised.

But I sincerely would like to hear more of your opinions about her past performance and her record as a prosecutor, because I value your opinion.

Harris is being criticized for her approach and her attitude because she isn't offering much substance.   E.g. when asked if conflicted felons should be allowed to vote.   All the other candidates, of both genders,  provided an answer; Harris,,,  she needs to review that.     There are many more of these which is why I made the 'focus group' crack.    

Harris was a good San Fran DA and latter on CA AG,   but as a Presidential candidate she has to deal with national issues that she just isn't prepared for like Warren or Klobuchar;  women with a lot more experience as Senators dealing with national issues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Harris is being criticized for her approach and her attitude because she isn't offering much substance.   E.g. when asked if conflicted felons should be allowed to vote.   All the other candidates, of both genders,  provided an answer; Harris,,,  she needs to review that.     There are many more of these which is why I made the 'focus group' crack.    

Harris was a good San Fran DA and latter on CA AG,   but as a Presidential candidate she has to deal with national issues that she just isn't prepared for like Warren or Klobuchar;  women with a lot more experience as Senators dealing with national issues.

 

Well, I think that Barack Obama had about the same amount of experience as she did if not less. And he did okay.

But, I've got to be frank with you. I felt that Obama did not have enough experience to be president, at the time he was running in 2008. But there  often are other factors and characteristics in a person that can make up for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Aren't all politicians like that?

I've seen a lot of criticism of her that has to do with her being too ambitious, too concerned about getting ahead. I can't help but think that that is oriented in a sexist attitude.

 You wouldn't be a politician if you didn't have some kind of ego and you didn't have a lot of ambition and confidence in yourself.

This country has a long way to go before they can accept a woman in a top leadership position-- which we've already seen decades ago in the United Kingdom and in France.

All politicians do not change positions based on which way the wind is blowing - and I have known a lot of them, myself included.  Not to say they do not change positions based on new information and even input from the populace.

Harris' problem is that she made an uncalled for and determined attack on Joe Biden just to get herself more media coverage and a rise in the polls.  Then she states she agrees with what she attacked Biden for.  Has nothing to do with sex or race.  

The majority of voters in 2016 preferred a woman for president.   If the Sanders and Stein people had voted for Clinton, she would have won.

4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Harris is being criticized for her approach and her attitude because she isn't offering much substance.   E.g. when asked if conflicted felons should be allowed to vote.   All the other candidates, of both genders,  provided an answer; Harris,,,  she needs to review that.     There are many more of these which is why I made the 'focus group' crack.    

Harris was a good San Fran DA and latter on CA AG,   but as a Presidential candidate she has to deal with national issues that she just isn't prepared for like Warren or Klobuchar;  women with a lot more experience as Senators dealing with national issues.

 

I thought there were questions about Harris performance as AG.  Didn't she cherry pick the most favorable activities?  Of course, all DA's have to decide on whether they have a substantial case or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheCid said:

All politicians do not change positions based on which way the wind is blowing - and I have known a lot of them, myself included.  Not to say they do not change positions based on new information and even input from the populace.

Harris' problem is that she made an uncalled for and determined attack on Joe Biden just to get herself more media coverage and a rise in the polls.  Then she states she agrees with what she attacked Biden for.  Has nothing to do with sex or race.  

The majority of voters in 2016 preferred a woman for president.   If the Sanders and Stein people had voted for Clinton, she would have won.

I thought there were questions about Harris performance as AG.  Didn't she cherry pick the most favorable activities?  Of course, all DA's have to decide on whether they have a substantial case or not.

Well I voted for Hillary Clinton not because I wanted a woman to be president, simply because I had no choice. I really was not thrilled about voting for her but I felt she was more qualified than the Republican nominee. And I don't think that I was alone in my feelings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Princess of Tap said:

Well I voted for Hillary Clinton not because I wanted a woman to be president, simply because I had no choice. I really was not thrilled about voting for her but I felt she was more qualified then the Republican nominee. And I don't think that I was alone in my feelings.

 

I assumed as much.

I was responding to your comment that you don't think America is ready for a woman president.  As I noted, a majority of voters voted for Hillary, so  a majority is ready.

She was not a good candidate, but she was better than Trump in every category.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us