2020 Presidential Election

[PSurprise]

I think that if anyone gets damaged by this, it's Biden and not Trump. As perverse as that result may seem.

I'm not sure if Trump can do anything short of breaking into DNC Headquarters in the middle of the night, that would damage him at this point.

[Bostondevil]

I will admit I am not following the particulars of what Hunter Biden supposedly did in Ukraine, but, if it was merely a business deal - how is it different from what Don Jr and Eric are doing under the current administration? I mean, "let's compare kids!" Is that really a game the Trump Administration wants to play?

[PackMan97]

I will admit I am not following the particulars of what Hunter Biden supposedly did in Ukraine, but, if it was merely a business deal - how is it different from what Don Jr and Eric are doing under the current administration? I mean, "let's compare kids!" Is that really a game the Trump Administration wants to play?

Whataboutery is not really a good defense.

Democrats should worry about finding the best candidate to lead this country for the next 4 to 8 years. Republicans should as well, but it seems they've settles on Trump

I try and talk my boys (6 and 8) all the time that their brother misbehaving does nothing to get them out of the trouble they have gotten into. It's the same here. Whatever Trump has or hasn't done does nothing excuse the actions of what someone else has or hasn't done.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I will admit I am not following the particulars of what Hunter Biden supposedly did in Ukraine, but, if it was merely a business deal - how is it different from what Don Jr and Eric are doing under the current administration? I mean, "let's compare kids!" Is that really a game the Trump Administration wants to play?

Exactly. Biden is far from the perfect candidate, but at the same time, the Democrats need to stop holding their candidates to pre-2016 standards of behavior and start playing by the current rules of the game or they will be left without a viable candidate. The Republicans have clearly been able to grow comfortable with Trump's morally questionable behavior (and if you don't think it is morally questionable, please turn in your UNC degree at the door and use Thomas Cook to book yourself on the next flight to Moscow) Where would the alleged transgressions of the Biden's stack up on this list:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/o...gtype=Homepage

[OldPhiKap]

I'm not sure if Trump can do anything short of breaking into DNC Headquarters in the middle of the night, that would damage him at this point.

Exactly. Biden has a potential popularity downside. Trump has already plumbed the depths of his, and that seems to be at about 38%-41% that will stick with him through thick and thin.

[dudog84]

2 points:
A) As far as I know he's not admitted to asking the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, only that he mentioned them in the call.
B) Most conspiracy theorists I've met, no matter what their conspiracy of choice, are not overwhelmingly interested in facts that don't fit their theory.

I know, it was mostly a rhetorical question. And re A), he pretty much has, and his attorney (Rudy) certainly has.

I will admit I am not following the particulars of what Hunter Biden supposedly did in Ukraine, but, if it was merely a business deal - how is it different from what Don Jr and Eric are doing under the current administration? I mean, "let's compare kids!" Is that really a game the Trump Administration wants to play?

Only if Don Pardo announces.

Whataboutery is not really a good defense.

Democrats should worry about finding the best candidate to lead this country for the next 4 to 8 years. Republicans should as well, but it seems they've settles on Trump

I try and talk my boys (6 and 8) all the time that their brother misbehaving does nothing to get them out of the trouble they have gotten into. It's the same here. Whatever Trump has or hasn't done does nothing excuse the actions of what someone else has or hasn't done.

Unfortunately, explaining things to the electorate in terms an 8-year-old would understand is still over their heads.

[PackMan97]

Unfortunately, explaining things to the electorate in terms an 8-year-old would understand is still over their heads.

Judging by the constant tattle-telling, instigating and provoking that goes in between my 6 and 8 year old...I don't know that I would say they understand the lesson Maybe it's a 9-year old thing?

[golfinesquire]

2 points:
A) As far as I know he's not admitted to asking the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, only that he mentioned them in the call.
B) Most conspiracy theorists I've met, no matter what their conspiracy of choice, are not overwhelmingly interested in facts that don't fit their theory.

As far as I can tell from skimming the discussion is that what is getting lost in all this is that this came out as a result of a whistle blower. There are protocols for what to do in these situations and when a complaint is made to the Inspector General it is supposed to be provided to the House. In this case, Joseph Maguire, who is the acting head of national intelligence blocked the IG from doing so. That may itself be a violation of law. Additionally, good old Rudy has said that he was headed to the Ukraine to get them to investigate the Bidens. So, the deep state in part is what looks like another instance of an administration refusing to follow the law and also violating certain governmental norms by asking for election help from a foreign power. Whether, at the end of the day, any of this is true is another story but, as many have mentioned, for an administration that claims it has nothing to hide, it constantly acts like it has everything to hide.

[Nick]

I think that if anyone gets damaged by this, it's Biden and not Trump. As perverse as that result may seem.

Four-dimensional chess!

ukraine cat.jpg

[bundabergdevil]

2 points:
A) As far as I know he's not admitted to asking the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, only that he mentioned them in the call.
B) Most conspiracy theorists I've met, no matter what their conspiracy of choice, are not overwhelmingly interested in facts that don't fit their theory.

I'd edit out conspiracy theorists and just say "most people". There's a decent body of psychological study that indicates most people simply ignore information presented to them that contradicts their beliefs, even when that information is "fact". Here's an article from Psychology Today on how the phenomenon has been studied with regard to political beliefs.

It's tough to really change a mind against something it's already set on...

[Nick]

[/B]

I'd edit out conspiracy theorists and just say "most people". There's a decent body of psychological study that indicates most people simply ignore information presented to them that contradicts their beliefs, even when that information is "fact". Here's an article from Psychology Today on how the phenomenon has been studied with regard to political beliefs.

It's tough to really change a mind against something it's already set on...

Excellent point! On a related note: cognitive biases are relatively easy to see in others but difficult to see in oneself.

[bundabergdevil]

Excellent point! On a related note: cognitive biases are relatively easy to see in others but difficult to see in oneself.

I do consider myself "most people" if that's what you mean!

[dudog84]

But there's always a tipping point where the paradigm shifts. The evidence just becomes too great. But then I'm a scientist.

I highly recommend The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. I know it sounds boring but it is decidedly not. And it has many applications beyond science. One of the very few textbooks I've kept from my Duke days.

[Nick]

I do consider myself "most people" if that's what you mean!

Just a general observation, not singling anybody out.

[PackMan97]

Excellent point! On a related note: cognitive biases are relatively easy to see in others but difficult to see in oneself.

I know my bias...and I take enjoyment in it!

9f9f9f9f9f9f!!!!

[proelitedota]

No matter which "side" you're on, let's just say that something big might or might not be happening.

[Wander]

Some of the responses here are a bit too dismissive. I think this story is going to have an effect on the election, I just don't know what that effect will be. Maybe it helps Trump because Democrats take up impeachment and enough people dislike the initiation of impeachment proceedings. Maybe it hurts Trump with just enough people to matter in a general election. Maybe it helps Trump by causing Biden to lose the nomination to Warren, or maybe it hurts Trump by causing Biden to lose the nomination to Buttigieg.

If there's credible evidence of the whistleblower accusations (and Giuliani's statement that he "of course" told Ukraine to "look into" Biden is already one piece of evidence), the Democrats may "have to" begin proceedings regardless of the general election consequences. Never mind their actual obligations to do so – a lot of them will be in blue districts and will be scared for their own seats if they don't.

[PackMan97]

Some of the responses here are a bit too dismissive.

I'll tell you what it is for me...I just don't really give a poop anymore. There are serious issues with the economy ($1 trillion deficits, underfunded entitlements running out of money, the feds having to step in and fund the overnight window, etc) , huge issues internationally (Brexit making a mess, Germany on the verge of a recession, Iran attacking oil production/ships in the middle east, China imprisoning millions over their religion, China starting up a Black Mirror style social credit system, China trying to shut down the South China Sea, etc) and good lord who knows what else in the world. THESE ARE THE THINGS WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT EACH CANDIDATE ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM. (note: this is not an invitation to enter into policy debate, only that it's what I'd like to see addressed in this race)

Instead we are dealing with this he said, she said bull**** that at the end of the days is so completely unimportant. I just don't care anymore.

[dudog84]

I'll tell you what it is for me...I just don't really give a poop anymore. There are serious issues with the economy ($1 trillion deficits, underfunded entitlements running out of money, the feds having to step in and fund the overnight window, etc) , huge issues internationally (Brexit making a mess, Germany on the verge of a recession, Iran attacking oil production/ships in the middle east, China imprisoning millions over their religion, China starting up a Black Mirror style social credit system, China trying to shut down the South China Sea, etc) and good lord who knows what else in the world. THESE ARE THE THINGS WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT EACH CANDIDATE ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM. (note: this is not an invitation to enter into policy debate, only that it's what I'd like to see addressed in this race)

Instead we are dealing with this he said, she said bull**** that at the end of the days is so completely unimportant. I just don't care anymore.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you think the president threatening a foreign leader to interfere with our elections is "so completely unimportant". It goes to the very core of who we are and was one of the biggest concerns of the founding fathers. It is no less so now.

Unfortunately, it appears 35% of the country and a certain section of our elected "leaders" feel the same way.

[JasonEvans]

Back to the horse race...

The Dem Natl Comm has again raised the debate criteria for the November debate and it really looks like this time they are going to get a small field of candidates. To get on the stage you will need 165k different donors (a high standard but likely doable for everyone who hits the polling threshold) and you will need to hit 3% of higher in 4 national or early state polls by different polling groups or 5% or higher in 2 polls by the same polling groups. 3% and 5% are numbers that are likely to take out a lot of semi-contenders.

538 says:

The top five — former Vice President Joe Biden; South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — are all but guaranteed to make the stage. They have already met the donor threshold and are just one poll away from qualifying. In addition, Sen. Cory Booker is halfway to the four-poll threshold already, but his campaign says he is still stuck between 130,000 and 165,000 donors. Six other candidates have met the donor threshold, but it looks like the polling threshold may be more of a struggle for them.

538 seems to think at least a couple of Booker, Yang, and Beto will get to the number but it seems like Klobuchar and Steyer may have a struggle on their hands. Anyway if I had to guess, I think we are looking at 7 or 8 candidates on the stage for the October debates. I like this winnowing of the field to a more reasonable number.

-Jason "I'm really starting to think Buttigieg is going to be the nominee... if Beto and/or Booker don't make the stage, I think it helps Buttigieg" Evans