Who is going to win democrat nominee 2020? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Who is going to win democrat nominee?

Bernie Sanders
21
49%
Joe Biden
15
35%
Elizabeth Warren
4
9%
Other
3
7%
#15061056
@Drlee forgot to mention a few other elements:

If Donald Trump gets another four years in office:

- he will name many more conservative judges to the federal bench.

- he will most probably name at least one more conservative SCOTUS judge.

Those are factors that will last well beyond the four more years.

As for the economy, who knows ? It could go either way.
#15061064
I still believe that the Republican Party will extend to 12 years again.

I don't they will make the same mistakes as the Democrats (Biden should have run in 2016..... Remember when Bush SR won and Al Gore brought things to a Cliffhanger result?). Pence likely will be the 2024 Nominee, or they'll go with a Conservative Woman (fingers crossed Palin!).
#15061116


Tulsi Gabbard (1981 - 2020)

Cause of death: Unexpected Suicide

Seriously now, she's got some guts doesn't she. Even if she doesn't win the nomination I think we all know we'll hear again from Gabbard in a future campaign.

Edit:
Here's the Lawsuit:
https://d3ba7j4nna908t.cloudfront.net/a ... _filed.pdf

Good read, we all knew Clinton was a bitch. This was totally an attempt to push whichever candidate supports the Clintons(Warren most likely).

Jill Stein should join this case.

#15061840


Why the heck was Gabbard excluded from the debate stage? They need young blood up there and everyone knows it.

Gabbard and Yang should be there, Klobuchar should definitely dropout. I'm glad Yang will be at the next one.
#15062145
annatar1914 wrote:Biden will win the Democratic nomination as candidate for US President, because the establishment has designated him as such.

I want to agree with that assertion, because it generally makes the most sense and because super delegates play a role in the Democratic Party. However, the establishment really pissed off a lot of people with the obvious hits on Bernie Sanders, and now he's rallied in the polls. Sanders will probably do well in Iowa and New Hampshire--very possibly winning convincingly. I think we'd all expect him to do worse in the South, but what if that doesn't happen? Remember Jeb Bush bowed out by South Carolina coming in like 5th or something. This impeachment thing was a really stupid idea, because you have three times the size of the FoxNews audience watching people like Pam Bondi completely shred the Bidens on the floor of the United States Senate, while others make much stronger legal cases to acquit Trump than anything the House managers brought. They never should have given Trump that platform, but they seem impervious to the fact that Trump always counterpunches. So right now, the momentum is with Bernie Sanders. Can he sustain it?

annatar1914 wrote:Sanders himself is a fake candidate just as the other two are, because his role is to make Biden and the others look more moderate or centrist liberal as he represents ironically the younger and outlier wackadoodle fringe of the Democratic Party, geriatric establishment shill that he is notwithstanding.

I think the Democratic party establishment is beginning to freak out a bit, because it's "woke" philosophy alienates white working class voters, while simultaneously making true socialists like Bernie Sanders more appealing. Wall Street firms are talking about cutting off funding to the DNC if Warren or Sanders are the nominees. That's a big threat, but it doesn't resonate with primary voters at all.

Zionist Nationalist wrote:CNN appears to be biased against Sanders so now supporters of Sanders are furious with CNN calling it a fake news :lol:

I've been saying for nearly 20 years now that the media has been rigged. People didn't want to believe that was the case, but the Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and DNC email hacks more or less illustrated what many of us knew was going on behind the scenes. So the collateral attack on Bernie Sanders as a sexist was perceived by many as a coordinated hit between CNN and Warren with the blessing of the DNC. If Sanders wins, a lot of centrist Democrats will end up voting for Trump too.

Rich wrote:Doesn't Biden's behaviour in the Ukraine worry you in the slightest. I mean if Biden was willing to engage on such blatant corruption in the Ukraine, God knows what him and his cronies are getting up to in Iowa.

Pam Bondi's presentation today wasn't a mere defense of Trump. It really called into question the judgement of both Bidens. Hunter Biden was hired at Burisma within 30 days of his father taking over the Ukraine portfolio, and it was well known to both of them and the public at large that Burisma was under criminal investigation. The appearance of a conflict of interest did not give either Joe Biden or his son pause at all. Yet, alarm bells went off in the press and in the Obama administration too.

Finfinder wrote:BTW if Biden wins the presidency wouldn't he just get impeached anyway?

Possibly if the Republicans win the House, but he wouldn't be removed from office. It takes two thirds (67), and that's just not going to happen unless someone is selling out US sovereignty or something to that degree.

Drlee wrote:Biden will win on super-delegates.

That's actually the strongest argument for Biden, but I think one of the structural flaws in the Democratic party--they are ultimately nixing the will of their voters as part of the DLC reforms in the 1990s to prevent left leaning candidates (that lose 5 out of 6 presidential races). I understand it, but it really put a lot of people off in 2016 because it was obviously not fair. However, if Sanders does well and persists as he did in 2016, it will weaken Biden as it weakened Hillary.

Drlee wrote:UNLESS the republicans call him as a witness in this absurd impeachment trial and damage him too much.

They already did a pretty good job of that today by noting that Biden was more than aware of the situation and did not recuse himself from the Ukraine portfolio.

Drlee wrote:Then Warren will win on super-delegates.

If the candidate with the most delegates gets replaced by someone else due to super delegates, I think that will fracture the Democrats going into November.

Drlee wrote:I seem to remember the same response just before her husband beat their ass twice.

While he did not 100% deliver on it, he ran on the same sort of foreign policy platform that Trump did. If you recall, they mocked Sarah Palin for her concerns about Russia in 2008 and did the same thing to Mitt Romney in 2012--which makes it bewildering that they would suddenly become so paranoid of Russia after winning two national elections lampooning concerns about Russia.

Rugoz wrote:Sanders could mobilize more voters I think.

I agree. I think the polls are way overrated. I'm much more interested in seeing the size of crowds and their enthusiasm at candidate rallies. The only other politician besides Trump that draws large enthusiastic crowds is Sanders. It's largely how Obama won in 2008 too.

Heisenberg wrote:The only cheap shot that might work is playing on Americans' insane fear of the word "socialism", but even that seems to be losing its power.

It has lost power with young voters, but it is taboo with older voters and with big money donors. So if Sanders can sustain himself without those donors, he will have done the same thing Trump did (and to a lesser degree Obama did)--make the establishment's money irrelevant to deciding who becomes the nominee.

JohnRawls wrote:The funny thing is that, at least on paper, Michelle Obama would wipe the floor with both Biden and Trump.

Once you come out on policies, numbers change very quickly. Having national name recognition and high approval means she can make lots of money in the private sector and have none of the pressure of a presidency. If she ran, her poll numbers would go down almost immediately because then people would focus on policies, not personality.

SaddamHuseinovic wrote:One of them has to leave or the corrupt Biden wins the nomination to loose against Trump.

In recent polls, Sanders is up to 27% with Warren in second and Biden in third.

Sivad wrote:I wish someone would explain to me what exactly is "progressive" about carbon taxes and energy austerity? That fuckwit Sanders somehow got it in his head that highly regressive taxes and artificially induced energy poverty are consistent with socialism, someone should tell him that they are not.

It is in fact a tax on poor people. That's why the Gilets Jaunes became a force in French politics--people cannot afford to live where they work, and there are no jobs where they can afford to live.

late wrote:It's a tax you don't have to pay. You can easily reduce it (with a Prius, for example) but you see people getting off the grid now.

This is precisely the attitude that backfired so badly in France. People were encouraged to purchase diesel cars for their better mileage only to get a carbon tax on top of it. I've got it good. I work at home and I have 30 solar panels ($35k worth). I understand the scam, so it cuts my taxes and my energy bill simultaneously. Poor people who live in apartments, for example, cannot enjoy that tax break. It's immensely unfair to the poor. Again, think Gilets Jaunes...

late wrote:2) Have you tried the new Prius? It's nice, I didn't like the early models, but they have steadily gotten better, earning a place near the top of Consumer Reports recommendations.

In California, Tesla is the thing, because gas taxes are so high here. You should still be North of $4.50 a gallon for that to pencil out, but there are other benefits like access to carpool lanes which is nice on congested California roads. However, Teslas are $40k and up. Again, it's a tax cut for the rich. I would do that too, but I work at home so I'm just going to keep driving the 'ol Bimmer until she wears out.

colliric wrote:Cause of death: Unexpected Suicide

Shoots herself in the head, twice... :lol:

colliric wrote:Why the heck was Gabbard excluded from the debate stage? They need young blood up there and everyone knows it.

She's better looking than the rest of them too.
#15062151
@blackjack21

You saying it as a Trump supporter.... I think a skinster smile is appropriate here :lol:

Trump literally had no coherent policy may be besides building a wall which he hasn't. Most of his talk pre-winning was vague to the Nth degree. So i think that you are over estimating that factor. Same goes for Obama by the way whos policy was basically Obamacare + fix the economy. (Since Bush left him a crysis)
#15062152
I'm voting for Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic primary but I think Bernie Sanders will clench the Democratic nomination.
#15062154
JohnRawls wrote:Trump literally had no coherent policy may be besides building a wall which he hasn't.


Also frustrating China (his actions are coherent in this sense) and (according to some) appeasing Vladimir Putin.
#15062157
Patrickov wrote:Also frustrating China (his actions are coherent in this sense) and (according to some) appeasing Vladimir Putin.


To be honest, he did mention it a couple of times. Once again it was pretty vague. Same goes for Putin.

Also foreign relations is not something that really interests the US people. There is 0 correlation between foreign policy and a candidates popularity to the US electorate. The only 2 states that slightly care is California and Texas who trade with Mexico. So in this sense, I can understand that it wasn't Trumps or Trumps teams focus.
#15062184
blackjack21 wrote:


It is in fact a tax on poor people. That's why the Gilets Jaunes became a force in French politics--people cannot afford to live where they work, and there are no jobs where they can afford to live.


This is precisely the attitude that backfired so badly in France.



You babble.

"The government chose to use most of the tax revenue to pay down the budget deficit. Instead, it should have rebated the money to the public, most generously to those least able to either absorb the tax (the poor) or reduce their carbon emissions (those in suburbs and rural areas).

Additionally, there’s the broader policy context and political framing to consider.

Macron, recall, has backed tax cuts for the rich and safety-net cuts. In a country as égalité-obsessed as France, this combination of policy changes was almost inevitably going to play into an angry narrative that the former investment-banker president disdains the common man."

The option I advocate implements the tax in small, annual, steps; as well as rebating it to low and middle income earners.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/23/rampell-frances-carbon-tax-was-a-disaster-but-there-might-be-a-less-politically-fraught-way/
#15062237
JohnRawls wrote:Trump literally had no coherent policy may be besides building a wall which he hasn't. Most of his talk pre-winning was vague to the Nth degree. So i think that you are over estimating that factor. Same goes for Obama by the way whos policy was basically Obamacare + fix the economy. (Since Bush left him a crysis)

Neither of them would entertain the neocon fantasy of war with Russia, which they want for reasons that makes sense to themselves. The managers literally made the case that we need to fight Russia in Ukraine so that we don't have to fight them in the United States. It's bizarro.

late wrote:The option I advocate implements the tax in small, annual, steps; as well as rebating it to low and middle income earners.

It is a tax on the poor. Why do I pay so little of it? I have solar panels. If I commuted, I would buy an electric car to avoid California's outrageous gas taxes. Wealthier people do not pay it, because as you pointed out it is an excise tax that can be avoided, and rich people are the most able to avoid it. :knife:
Last edited by blackjack21 on 28 Jan 2020 15:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15062246
I think Biden will end up getting it.

Sanders will be hampered by his heart attack and his advanced age. If he were to win the election, he would be the oldest person ever elected to the office.

Elizabeth Warren? No, "Pocohantas" will rightly come back to haunt her.

Personally, if were a Democrat and had to pick someone, I would go with Pete Buttigieg. He's ridiculously well-spoken. He supports almost all policies which are generally considered to be "liberal", and he's young; 38. I also like that he's served in uniform.
#15062250
blackjack21 wrote:Possibly if the Republicans win the House, but he wouldn't be removed from office. It takes two thirds (67), and that's just not going to happen unless someone is selling out US sovereignty or something to that degree.


That would remain to be seen but that is not the point of impeachment anymore is it? The point of impeachment is to cripple your opponent to the point they cannot carry out policy, the insurance policy if they do not win. This impeachment is about the congressional races. Warren and Bootyjudge have a big problem with the black vote and Sanders has a big problem with establishment Democrats. Trump is polling if you believe polls to double his black vote. Honestly I don't how its possible for Sanders too win when he literally wants to completely transform our country. It wouldn't look the same after he was done. That is a hard hard sale. Don't look past Bloomberg who is willing to spend a billion dollars. He too has issues with the black vote with "stop and frisk". Of course it seems like a weekly thing now the "Beast" is on the record dipping her toe praying she gets tapped for the gig. The more I think about it the Democrats realize the don't have a viable presidential candidate for the foreseeable future and they are better off fighting for control of the house and senate than the presidency.
#15062255
Indy wrote:
I think Biden will end up getting it.

Sanders will be hampered by his heart attack and his advanced age. If he were to win the election, he would be the oldest person ever elected to the office.

Elizabeth Warren? No, "Pocohantas" will rightly come back to haunt her.

Personally, if were a Democrat and had to pick someone, I would go with Pete Buttigieg. He's ridiculously well-spoken. He supports almost all policies which are generally considered to be "liberal", and he's young; 38. I also like that he's served in uniform.



It looks like he's not going to do well in NH or Iowa. He'd need to utterly dominate after that, and I don't see that happening.

Sanders bounced back. I expected the heart attack to hurt his standing in the polls, instead his support got stronger.

Pocohontas is a dumb smear. She has two liabilities. The first is that she's female. The second is that few candidates get specific, because you are just handing your opponents a shovel to throw crap at you.

I hope Pete runs again, he's the kinda guy I'd like to see become president. He ought to run for Congress first, get some experience at the national level. In any case, not going to happen this time.

I don't want him, but Bloomberg is going to try and replace Biden, prob after Super Tuesday. The DINOS would love an excuse to support him.
#15062260
late wrote:Pocohontas is a dumb smear.


And she has only herself to thank for it.

I don't want him, but Bloomberg is going to try and replace Biden, prob after Super Tuesday. The DINOS would love an excuse to support him.


Honestly, I don't think Bloomberg really wants to win. I think he's far more interested in doing what he can to ensure Trump doesn't win.
#15062274
Indy wrote:

Honestly, I don't think Bloomberg really wants to win. I think he's far more interested in doing what he can to ensure Trump doesn't win.



That's silly.

He's pulling support from Biden.

The East Coast Establishment used to run the Republican party, now they run the Dem party. Biden is one of his tribe. Weakening an ally, and making it more likely an actual Progressive wins the nomination is the last thing he wants.

But he's willing to weaken Biden if it helps his chances. You are really bad at this stuff.
#15062286
late wrote:That's silly.

He's pulling support from Biden.

The East Coast Establishment used to run the Republican party, now they run the Dem party. Biden is one of his tribe. Weakening an ally, and making it more likely an actual Progressive wins the nomination is the last thing he wants.

But he's willing to weaken Biden if it helps his chances. You are really bad at this stuff.


How foolish.

Bloomberg is actually exhibiting a masterful command of how all of this works, and he's easily fooling people like you who think they know how it works.

Bloomberg has almost no chance. Why? Because once you venture too far away from the New York/Tri-State area, no one really knows anything about him. Maybe they know he was the Mayor of New York, but I've encountered people who believe he was the Governor.

So, how can he go about letting people know who he is, en masse? Well, by taking part in the debates. He could get up there and tell America who he is and what his plans and policies are. He could demonstrate to Democratic voters why he's the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. That's something he won't be able to do with 30 second television commercials. He needs to get on the debate stage and lock horns with others who want the nomination.

But, here's the thing: That's never going to happen. Bloomberg won't be on any debate stage. Why not?

Because, by vowing to use only his own money and decline donations, he's prohibited from taking part in the debates under the DNC qualification rules. Bloomberg knows this. He knows he won't have to debate anyone. He knows that, by not debating anyone he won't be ale to make a case as to why he's the better candidate. Without that, he won't get the nomination and, of course, he can't be elected President if he's not the nominee.

Bloomberg knows and understand all of that. He understands that he could give anyone a run for their money if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to. He just doesn't want Trump to win.

Your problem is that you understand none of that.

Like Trump, Bloomberg doesn't need the job. I believe he doesn't want it. According to Politico, Bloomberg's polling at 6%. Biden's at 30% and Sanders is at 22%.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/democratic-presidential-candidates/polls/

While it's not an insurmountable lead, something drastic would have to happen for Bloomberg to overcome both of those. He knows that.

You don't.
#15062326
@blackjack21 , you replied to me, when I stated Biden would be the Democratic nominee for US President, that;

I want to agree with that assertion, because it generally makes the most sense and because super delegates play a role in the Democratic Party. However, the establishment really pissed off a lot of people with the obvious hits on Bernie Sanders, and now he's rallied in the polls. Sanders will probably do well in Iowa and New Hampshire--very possibly winning convincingly. I think we'd all expect him to do worse in the South, but what if that doesn't happen? Remember Jeb Bush bowed out by South Carolina coming in like 5th or something. This impeachment thing was a really stupid idea, because you have three times the size of the FoxNews audience watching people like Pam Bondi completely shred the Bidens on the floor of the United States Senate, while others make much stronger legal cases to acquit Trump than anything the House managers brought. They never should have given Trump that platform, but they seem impervious to the fact that Trump always counterpunches. So right now, the momentum is with Bernie Sanders. Can he sustain it?


Sanders will choke, probably well before the Convention, because as I intimated elsewhere his role is to make the alleged ''Centrist'' Democrat candidates look more moderate to less radical Democrat voters. He means absolutely nothing else, it's a con.


I think the Democratic party establishment is beginning to freak out a bit, because it's "woke" philosophy alienates white working class voters, while simultaneously making true socialists like Bernie Sanders more appealing. Wall Street firms are talking about cutting off funding to the DNC if Warren or Sanders are the nominees. That's a big threat, but it doesn't resonate with primary voters at all.


I don't think it's the liberal Democratic establishment that is 'freaking out' as such, because you can't freak out people too much further that are already quite unhinged. Magical thinking is a characteristic of such cargo cults as these.
#15062328
Bernie Boo is gonna Shoo in
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 11
Trump and Russiagate

I just heard on the news today that the Deutsche […]

It's worse than you think

This is not true at all I never said the privat[…]

Why We Have The Death Penalty

The death penalty in the USA is disproportionately[…]

Thanks to Indy we have proof of my assertion. He […]