Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheCid

2020 Election

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I never said I have confidence they would vote,  only that their turning out is key to defeating Trump.

Predicting if someone with a spotty record of voting is going to vote in a future election is something I try not to do since I'm not very good at it.

 

Wasn't really saying you were confident they would vote, but that I wasn't confident.  My prediction is based on what they did in 2016, which resulted in Trump carrying the battleground states and the EC.

4 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Bogie does have a point, TheCid...are you willing to vote for whoever the eventual candidate is, even if it's Warren or Sanders? You've previously hinted at not being willing to vote for them. If not, does that mean you are spoiled and pouting? Somehow I doubt you'd think so. 

That will be a conundrum for me, sort of.  I really think Warren, Sanders or any other extreme liberal will hurt the Dem party  in the long run even if most of their platforms are not passed or are substantially altered toward a more centrist context.  So, I really don't want to vote for them, but don't want Trump to stay in office.

In S.C., it doesn't matter though as Trump will win easily.  If I lived in a battleground state, I would hold my nose and vote for the Dem. - for the good of America and the world.  While hoping someone reigns in the liberal/socialist.

3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Yes, but could there not be others with The Cid's point of view residing in those battleground states? Those who will only vote for Biden or Klobuchar, but if they aren't the candidate, then they will "go home and pout"? The point being that the party's divisions go both ways.

See above.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the situation of the Sanders supporters of 2016 not coming out to vote for the party is exactly congruous with 2020.  For reasons of their own (not mine) they detested Hillary Clinton.   While they may prefer a progressive candidate I don't see them having the same disdain for the moderate candidates like Biden as they did for Clinton.  So I hope everyone comes together to beat Trump in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

I don't think the situation of the Sanders supporters of 2016 not coming out to vote for the party is exactly congruous with 2020.  For reasons of their own (not mine) they detested Hillary Clinton.   While they may prefer a progressive candidate I don't see them having the same disdain for the moderate candidates like Biden as they did for Clinton.  So I hope everyone comes together to beat Trump in 2020.

Did you read what A.O.C. said about being a purist (a knock on Obama's comment about being pragmatic instead of a purist),  as well as her comment the other day of "Dem party can be too big of a tent".

Of course if her candidate of choice,  Sanders,   doesn't get the nomination A.O.C.  will provide token support for the Dem nominee,   but that will ring hollow to progressives after all her attacks on moderates as being no better than members of the GOP (e.g. what she said about Mayor Pete and his stance on free-college-for-all etc..).          I don't think purist type pols like A.O.C. are good at motivating like-minded Dem voters to hold-your-nose-and-vote-Dem.       Thus my hope is she doesn't have as much influence as CNN is claiming with articles like "Is this her Democratic Party now?".

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden/index.html

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Did you read what A.O.C. said about being a purist (a knock on Obama's comment about being pragmatic instead of a purist),  as well as her comment the other day of "Dem party can be too big of a tent".

Of course if her candidate of choice,  Sanders,   doesn't get the nomination A.O.C.  will provide token support for the Dem nominee,   but that will ring hollow to progressives after all her attacks on moderates as being no better than members of the GOP (e.g. what she said about Mayor Pete and his stance on free-college-for-all etc..).          I don't think purist type pols like A.O.C. are good at motivating like-minded Dem voters to hold-your-nose-and-vote-Dem.       Thus my hope is she doesn't have as much influence as CNN is claiming with articles like "Is this her Democratic Party now?".

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden/index.html

 

That article pretty well sums up the situation.

One point is that the Dem senators and house members who took over GOP seats in 2016 would lose as liberals in the Sanders, Warren, AOC, etc. mold.  That's a fact Jack.

I don't think AOC has as much influence as her publicity would indicate.  BUT she does give the GOP lots and lots of reasons to publicize why people should vote GOP in 2020 - and beyond.

As we have said, the key is the battleground states and counties in those states.  If Dem party is perceived as being too liberal, this will gin up the GOP voters.  If some Dem voters don't vote because Sanders or Warren didn't get the nomination and lots of independents and GOPers do show up to vote, Trump wins - and takes a lot of House and Senate candidates with him.

In 2016 Sanders did endorse Clinton and told his people to vote for Clinton.  They didn't.

 

Share this post


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

That article pretty well sums up the situation.

One point is that the Dem senators and house members who took over GOP seats in 2016 would lose as liberals in the Sanders, Warren, AOC, etc. mold.  That's a fact Jack.

I don't think AOC has as much influence as her publicity would indicate.  BUT she does give the GOP lots and lots of reasons to publicize why people should vote GOP in 2020 - and beyond.

As we have said, the key is the battleground states and counties in those states.  If Dem party is perceived as being too liberal, this will gin up the GOP voters.  If some Dem voters don't vote because Sanders or Warren didn't get the nomination and lots of independents and GOPers do show up to vote, Trump wins - and takes a lot of House and Senate candidates with him.

In 2016 Sanders did endorse Clinton and told his people to vote for Clinton.  They didn't.

 

Good summary;  as it relates to House seats in 2020:      I voted for the Dem Katy Porter in 2018,  and she won the seat,  the first Dem to do so for decades. 

I did this as a protest-Trump vote;  i.e. to help ensure the GOP didn't have a House majority.    BUT,  if I believe Trump is NOT going to win AND a progressive Dems was,  I would likely vote for the GOP candidate for the inverse-reason;  to ensure the Dems don't have a House majority with a progressive Dem President.

This is an example of where those battleground states and how they stand with regards to Trump in 2020 may impact my House vote in true-blue CA.    I.e.  I'll be checking the polls in late October related to those states.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good summary;  as it relates to House seats in 2020:      I voted for the Dem Katy Porter in 2018,  and she won the seat,  the first Dem to do so for decades. 

I did this as a protest-Trump vote;  i.e. to help ensure the GOP didn't have a House majority.    BUT,  if I believe Trump is going to win AND a progressive Dems was,  I would likely vote for the GOP candidate for the inverse-reason;  to ensure the Dems don't have a House majority with a progressive Dem President.

This is an example of where those battleground states and how they stand with regards to Trump in 2020 may impact my House vote in true-blue CA.    I.e.  I'll be checking the polls in late October related to those states.

 

Just remember the polls blew it in 2016.  But I understand your thinking.

Share this post


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

Good summary;  as it relates to House seats in 2020:      I voted for the Dem Katy Porter in 2018,  and she won the seat,  the first Dem to do so for decades. 

I did this as a protest-Trump vote;  i.e. to help ensure the GOP didn't have a House majority.    BUT,  if I believe Trump is NOT going to win AND a progressive Dems was,  I would likely vote for the GOP candidate for the inverse-reason;  to ensure the Dems don't have a House majority with a progressive Dem President.

This is an example of where those battleground states and how they stand with regards to Trump in 2020 may impact my House vote in true-blue CA.    I.e.  I'll be checking the polls in late October related to those states.

 

You don't think that there would be enough moderates in the democrat party in Congress  combined with the Republicans to run check on any "crazy bat ****" idea or proposal by a progressive President?    Unless you are fond of the things the Republicans are doing to the environment and lack of gun control and foreign affairs and the proliferation of right wing fake propaganda why vote for any of them?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

You don't think that there would be enough moderates in the democrat party in Congress  combined with the Republicans to run check on any "crazy bat ****" idea or proposal by a progressive President?    Unless you are fond of the things the Republicans are doing to the environment and lack of gun control and foreign affairs and the proliferation of right wing fake propaganda why vote for any of them?

While I'm not for the GOP stance on those items you mention (well gun-control I don't care about too much since CA has the nations strongest gun-control laws),   there are items I don't support the Dems on.

Thus I prefer a divided Federal government,  where the House majority doesn't align with that of the President.       (the Senate, by design,  limits "radical" changes by either side).

If there was a Dem President (even a moderate Dem),    most of the policy changes a GOP majority House would try to put in place wouldn't get passed by the Senate and if they did ,  would be vetoed by the President.       

One of my concerns is the budget and I'm hoping the sequester is put back in place since neither side can check reckless spending.     (this is an example of an outcome of a divided Fed government and I prefer this to any partisan type budget drafted by either party.

 

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

While I'm not for the GOP stance on those items you mention (well gun-control I don't care about too much since CA has the nations strongest gun-control laws),   there are items I don't support the Dems on.

Thus I prefer a divided Federal government,  where the House majority doesn't align with that of the President.       (the Senate, by design,  limits "radical" changes by either side).

If there was a Dem President (even a moderate Dem),    most of the policy changes a GOP majority House would try to put in place wouldn't get passed by the Senate and if they did ,  would be vetoed by the President.       

One of my concerns is the budget and I'm hoping the sequester is put back in place since neither side can check reckless spending.     (this is an example of an outcome of a divided Fed government and I prefer this to any partisan type budget drafted by either party.

 

  

In this scenario they wouldn't even have the votes to reverse the Trump tax cuts which has ballooned the deficit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

In this scenario they wouldn't even have the votes to reverse the Trump tax cuts which has ballooned the deficit.

Correct;  to undo what a same party Majority-House and President are able to pass in a term,   often requires the other party to have a Majority-House and President in a future term.

I would like a revised Fed Tax structure and as the debt continues to grow maybe the moderates in both parties can make that happen.

 

 

Share this post


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

Correct;  to undo what a same party Majority-House and President are able to pass in a term,   often requires the other party to have a Majority-House and President in a future term.

I would like a revised Fed Tax structure and as the debt continues to grow maybe the moderates in both parties can make that happen.

 

 

It take it that the democrat you elected in your area is a moderate?  But you may not vote for them again if the presidential candidate is a progressive?

I know what you are driving at wishing a check on a progressive but my point is that you already have one and you don't have a sycophant republican to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

It take it that the democrat you elected in your area is a moderate?  But you may not vote for them again if the presidential candidate is a progressive?

I know what you are driving at wishing a check on a progressive but my point is that you already have one and you don't have a sycophant republican to deal with.

There are no moderate Dems in CA!   (ha ha).    But I'm only slightly joking.     Both sides are progressive on social-issues.   The moderates on fiscal issues in my area are GOP candidates .      Dems in CA fall along the lines of tax and spend (and spend unwisely).      Thus for local \ state positions I vote for fiscal moderates and even conservatives when the Dem is a fiscal "progressive".     E.g. I pay over 10% just for state income taxes.     

As for the House Seat held by Katy Porter:    She doesn't have much of a voting record since she has only been a politician for 18 months.     That being said,  I doubt she would buck Dem party establishment and if the Dems retain a majority in the House,   the next House speaker is highly likely to be much more progressive than Pelosi (I.e. from the A.O.C. wing of the party especially if Warren or Sanders was the President).       Thus a newbie like Porter is much more likely to be a sycophant politician.

Thus I'm sticking to what I desire;  If the President is a progressive Dem,   a GOP House.      If the President is a moderate Dem,  then a House with a slight Dem majority.

If the President is Trump;    moving to Italy to live with my in-laws!

 

 

 

  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article on CNN about A.O.C.  asking if she should leave the Dem party since she doesn't support it.     Of course CNN covers A.O.C more than any other Dem NOT running for President,   but lately most of the article have been negative. 

The funny she-is-so-full-of-herself paragraph is this one:

when asked by New York magazine what her role in Congress might look like in a Biden administration, AOC groaned, followed by "Oh, God." That is not a response one would expect to the prospective election of a member of her own party. Without betraying her beliefs, AOC could have graciously said, "I look forward to working with a Democratic president."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/opinions/aoc-biden-democratic-party-harrop/index.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in her home state NY we don't hear anything about her, she is not on the local nightly news. She's under the radar, It sounds from here like you are obsessing over nothing, 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Here in her home state NY we don't hear anything about her, she is not on the local nightly news. She's under the radar, It sounds from here like you are obsessing over nothing, 

News sources have learned that featuring certain people will drive up views and "hate" clicks. Hilary Clinton was a reliable source for accruing "hate clicks", and AOC has since become the prime subject. Greta Thunberg is also a predictable bait for "hate clicks". It's marketing firms manipulating easily-triggered and weak-willed people who react predictably like Pavlov's dogs to the same stimuli over and over again. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Here in her home state NY we don't hear anything about her, she is not on the local nightly news. She's under the radar, It sounds from here like you are obsessing over nothing, 

CNN is obsessing over her since they have at least 3 - 4 articles per week about here.     I'm just posting those articles.

As for obsessing;   A.O.C.  is obsessed with herself.      

Anyhow,   did you even read any of those CNN articles?       I curious what you think about the POV  that A.O.C.  is assisting Trump's re-election.    (something Obama thinks).

 

 

Share this post


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

News sources have learned that featuring certain people will drive up views and "hate" clicks. Hilary Clinton was a reliable source for accruing "hate clicks", and AOC has since become the prime subject. Greta Thunberg is also a predictable bait for "hate clicks". It's marketing firms manipulating easily-triggered and weak-willed people who react predictably like Pavlov's dogs to the same stimuli over and over again. 

Are you saying CNN is featuring A.O.C. to drive people to their website for "hate clicks"?       After A.O.C.  won the NY primary I said at this forum that CNN was featuring her as the new-face-of-the-Dem-party to get "love clicks".       Yea,  I guess CNN may now be showcasing her in a negative light to get "hate clicks" but I find that hard to believe.      

Of course Fox News' website features A.O.C.  (as well as Pelosi and others they feel are "evil" Dems) to accrue "hate clicks" from their highly partisan users.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Are you saying CNN is featuring A.O.C. to drive people to their website for "hate clicks"?       After A.O.C.  won the NY primary I said at this forum that CNN was featuring her as the new-face-of-the-Dem-party to get "love clicks".       Yea,  I guess CNN may now be showcasing her in a negative light to get "hate clicks" but I find that hard to believe.      

Of course Fox News' website features A.O.C.  (as well as Pelosi and others they feel are "evil" Dems) to accrue "hate clicks" from their highly partisan users.    

CNN doesn't care if you love or hate her, they just want the clicks, and she's one of the people who seem to generate the most (along with Pelosi, Thunberg, and of course Trump).

I've also noticed the "Hillary Effect" at play, too. That refers to how the people around here who hated Hillary Clinton the most were the ones who also spent the most time talking about her. AOC seems to have the same effect. I suppose one could call it AOC-DS, but that would be a bit too reductive and oversimplified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

CNN doesn't care if you love or hate her, they just want the clicks, and she's one of the people who seem to generate the most (along with Pelosi, Thunberg, and of course Trump).

I've also noticed the "Hillary Effect" at play, too. That refers to how the people around here who hated Hillary Clinton the most were the ones who also spent the most time talking about her. AOC seems to have the same effect. I suppose one could call it AOC-DS, but that would be a bit too reductive and oversimplified. 

I admit to having  a degree of AOC-DS.   (ha ha).      The main reason is that I'm an anyone-but-Trump voter and her purist messaging,   mocking of moderate Dems candidates,   trying to primary-out non-progressives Dem incumbents in purple-House-districts,   and her overall negative stance towards the Dem establishment only helps the GOP retain power.

Dems need "full" voter turnout to defeat Trump and that means progressives will have to hold-their-noses and vote for moderate (or vise versa),   instead of sulking and staying home on election day,  because the Dems didn't select the "right" candidate.      (because, again,  any candidate is the right-one,  when compared to Trump).

In those House districts replacing a moderate Dem with a progressive Dem in a purple district just increases the odds the GOP candidate prevails in the General election.    Many fans of A.O.C. appear to have forgotten she won in a very blue district.         Her success (which was a major feat that showed she has merit as a politician),    isn't likely to be repeated in purple districts.

 

Share this post


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

Anyhow,   did you even read any of those CNN articles?   

No

Share this post


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

CNN doesn't care if you love or hate her, they just want the clicks, and she's one of the people who seem to generate the most (along with Pelosi, Thunberg, and of course Trump).

I've also noticed the "Hillary Effect" at play, too. That refers to how the people around here who hated Hillary Clinton the most were the ones who also spent the most time talking about her. AOC seems to have the same effect. I suppose one could call it AOC-DS, but that would be a bit too reductive and oversimplified. 

The CNN network itself does not feature AOC very much at all.  Maybe their web site does, but not the news.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/10/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-should-concern-democrats-column/2848611001/

Democrats need to face facts about Bernie Sanders, his heart attack and his health

What if Democrats nominate Sanders and he has another heart attack? What if it happens in public or in a TV debate? Would we hand Trump another term?

Three months after suffering a heart attack, the Democrats’ oldest candidate for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, released a statement from his doctor declaring that “he has the mental and physical stamina to fully undertake the rigors of the presidency.”

By all accounts, this is the most important election of our lifetime. Poll after poll shows that for Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, the priority is on selecting a nominee who has “the best chance of beating President Donald Trump.”

Given that, I am moved to ask this simple question: Do Democrats really believe that the best chance to defeat Trump lies with a 78-year-old who has already suffered a heart attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 3:44 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Correct;  to undo what a same party Majority-House and President are able to pass in a term,   often requires the other party to have a Majority-House and President in a future term.

I would like a revised Fed Tax structure and as the debt continues to grow maybe the moderates in both parties can make that happen.

 

 

"I would like a revised Fed Tax structure and as the debt continues to grow maybe the moderates in both parties can make that happen."

That won't happen under your preferred system with no party controlling House, Senate and presidency.  To revise tax structure to where it should be would require the Dems have a substantial majority in the House and Senate, to allow for defections.

Also, more importantly the Dems must take over all three parts in order to reverse the horrendous actions Trump and the GOPers have accomplished.  The Federal Judiciary is the most serious area, but only one of many.

On 1/9/2020 at 5:51 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

E.g. I pay over 10% just for state income taxes.     

Thus I'm sticking to what I desire;  If the President is a progressive Dem,   a GOP House.      If the President is a moderate Dem,  then a House with a slight Dem majority.

If the President is Trump;    moving to Italy to live with my in-laws!  

Do you actually pay 10% state income tax on ALL your income?  In S.C., the Republicans and business community constantly harp on the states "very high" 7% income tax rate.  BUT, the experts from both sides admit that the EFFECTIVE tax rate is about 3%.  The state has multiple exclusions, exemptions, exceptions, etc. for all kinds of income.

One mistake people make is they do not consider all their sources of income, just what shows up on the IRS 1040 form.

12 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/10/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-should-concern-democrats-column/2848611001/

Democrats need to face facts about Bernie Sanders, his heart attack and his health

What if Democrats nominate Sanders and he has another heart attack? What if it happens in public or in a TV debate? Would we hand Trump another term?

Three months after suffering a heart attack, the Democrats’ oldest candidate for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, released a statement from his doctor declaring that “he has the mental and physical stamina to fully undertake the rigors of the presidency.”

By all accounts, this is the most important election of our lifetime. Poll after poll shows that for Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, the priority is on selecting a nominee who has “the best chance of beating President Donald Trump.”

Given that, I am moved to ask this simple question: Do Democrats really believe that the best chance to defeat Trump lies with a 78-year-old who has already suffered a heart attack?

While this is a valid issue, but of course we really don't know what Trump's physical condition is.  His mental one is pretty obvious.   If we rule out Sanders, then people will say Biden is too old or in less than perfect health, etc.

At this point, the Democrats have NOT decided that Sanders is the best chance to defeat Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of South Carolina professors who have been analyzing voting trends, state and national politics and so forth for a long time reached an interesting conclusion.  The South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary (Feb.29) is probably more indicative of who will win than either Iowa or New Hampshire.  John Kerry is the only candidate to lose in S.C. and then win the party's nomination.  The winner that year was John Edwards from neighboring N.C. 

Another factor in S.C. is that the voters in the primary are predominantly black.  One factor this year is that the state GOP cancelled the GOP primary and S.C. is an open primary state.  So, possible for many GOPers to vote in the Dem primary for a change.

Share this post


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

"I would like a revised Fed Tax structure and as the debt continues to grow maybe the moderates in both parties can make that happen."

That won't happen under your preferred system with no party controlling House, Senate and presidency.  To revise tax structure to where it should be would require the Dems have a substantial majority in the House and Senate, to allow for defections.

Also, more importantly the Dems must take over all three parts in order to reverse the horrendous actions Trump and the GOPers have accomplished.  The Federal Judiciary is the most serious area, but only one of many.

Do you actually pay 10% state income tax on ALL your income?  In S.C., the Republicans and business community constantly harp on the states "very high" 7% income tax rate.  BUT, the experts from both sides admit that the EFFECTIVE tax rate is about 3%.  The state has multiple exclusions, exemptions, exceptions, etc. for all kinds of income.

One mistake people make is they do not consider all their sources of income, just what shows up on the IRS 1040 form.

While this is a valid issue, but of course we really don't know what Trump's physical condition is.  His mental one is pretty obvious.   If we rule out Sanders, then people will say Biden is too old or in less than perfect health, etc.

At this point, the Democrats have NOT decided that Sanders is the best chance to defeat Trump.

The rate is progressive so only the top rate is > 10%.     The overall rate I paid in 2018 was  7.2%.     (i.e. total CA income tax paid \ adjusted gross income).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...