2020 Presidential Election

[OldPhiKap]

Dear Joe:

Please fish or cut bait.

Sincerely,

— The Moderate Lane



Meanwhile, inquiring minds want to know — will Fox give William Weld a town hall? And if so, will anyone watch? (I think Bernie showed some moxie going on Fox. Not sure it changes anything, but kudos for not being a coward).

[JasonEvans]

Dear Joe:

Please fish or cut bait.

Sincerely,

— The Moderate Lane

I think the "he invades my personal space in a creepy way" thing set back Biden's plans. He wants to let that whole thing blow over a bit more before announcing. He also may be having second thoughts as getting in and struggling would tarnish his legacy. If he is not going to win it, he should stay out and just remain one of our nation's beloved elder statesmen.

-Jason "Uncle Joe is probably pouring over internal polls to see if he still has a path now that he seems embroiled in the #MeToo world" Evans

[luburch]

Dear Joe:

Please fish or cut bait.

Sincerely,

— The Moderate Lane



Meanwhile, inquiring minds want to know — will Fox give William Weld a town hall? And if so, will anyone watch? (I think Bernie showed some moxie going on Fox. Not sure it changes anything, but kudos for not being a coward).

Buttitieg is also in talks for a Fox town hall, per Twitter.

[Nick]

I think the "he invades my personal space in a creepy way" thing set back Biden's plans. He wants to let that whole thing blow over a bit more before announcing. He also may be having second thoughts as getting in and struggling would tarnish his legacy. If he is not going to win it, he should stay out and just remain one of our nation's beloved elder statesmen.

Maybe he already knew that the personal space thing was going to be an issue, and that's why he was hesitant to begin with? The "Creepy Uncle Joe" memes have been out there for years. Heck, maybe he's aware of other things opposition research is holding back unless he runs?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Buttitieg is also in talks for a Fox town hall, per Twitter.

That sounds like must watch pay per view stuff.

[OldPhiKap]

Buttitieg is also in talks for a Fox town hall, per Twitter.

I think the "he invades my personal space in a creepy way" thing set back Biden's plans. He wants to let that whole thing blow over a bit more before announcing. He also may be having second thoughts as getting in and struggling would tarnish his legacy. If he is not going to win it, he should stay out and just remain one of our nation's beloved elder statesmen.

-Jason "Uncle Joe is probably pouring over internal polls to see if he still has a path now that he seems embroiled in the #MeToo world" Evans

What do you think is his outside date to announce? I could be wrong, but I don't think he has any infrastructure set up yet and the fundraising race is already going strong. Memorial Day weekend, maybe? That still seems awfully late to me, even with the name recognition he brings if he runs.

I'll lower my odds of Uncle Joe running from about 75% to about 55% and falling. There are few visible signs of mounting a campaign and the push-back against the Creepy Joe meme was pretty muted. But like I suggested, if I was in the moderate camp as a candidate, a potential candidate (like Bloomberg), or most importantly a donor I would want some clarity on the issue much sooner than later. Fish or cut bait time should be approaching.

[JasonEvans]

Adding to the pressure on Biden to make up his mind (if he does not run, I think Bloomberg will) is a growing sense of unease among some Democrats that Bernie Sanders is starting to look like the front-runner. NYTimes has a great article up about it today which says the nature of the way the Dems pick delegates could easily lead to a brokered convention.

“If I had to bet today, we’ll get to Milwaukee and not have a nominee,” said Ms. Daughtry, who was neutral in the 2016 primary.

The reason, she theorized, is simple: Super Tuesday, when at least 10 states vote, comes just three days after the last of four early states. After that, nearly 40 percent of the delegates will have been distributed — and, she suspects, carved up among candidates so that nobody can emerge with a majority.

Unlike Republicans, who used a winner-take-all primary format, Democrats use a proportional system, so candidates only need to garner 15 percent of the vote in a primary or caucus to pick up delegates. And even if a candidate fails to capture 15 percent statewide, he or she could still win delegates by meeting that vote threshold in individual congressional districts.

-Jason "after Bernie's screaming about the Superdelegates in 2016, the Dem Superdelegates no longer have the right to vote on the first ballot... so a brokered convention looks decently likely" Evans

[bundabergdevil]

What do you think is his outside date to announce? I could be wrong, but I don't think he has any infrastructure set up yet and the fundraising race is already going strong. Memorial Day weekend, maybe? That still seems awfully late to me, even with the name recognition he brings if he runs.

I'll lower my odds of Uncle Joe running from about 75% to about 55% and falling. There are few visible signs of mounting a campaign and the push-back against the Creepy Joe meme was pretty muted. But like I suggested, if I was in the moderate camp as a candidate, a potential candidate (like Bloomberg), or most importantly a donor I would want some clarity on the issue much sooner than later. Fish or cut bait time should be approaching.

FiveThirtyEight has an article up on what might happen if Joe Biden ultimately decides not to run --- or does run and falters. Not a whole lot that surprises me. Polls that run w/o the Biden option suggest voter preference helping all candidates and shifting to the next big names. The author interprets this as Democratic voters not differentiating a whole lot between the liberal and more moderate wings of the party...or differentiating candidate policy positions. Of those announced, I really only have a good sense of the policy bona fides of Sanders and Warren, which isn't a surprise, they've both got historically strong chops in the area (even if you disagree with them) and are talking policy the most so far.

In other news, Trump makes his prediction that he'll either face "Crazy Bernie Sanders" or "Sleepy Joe Biden". Couple thoughts here --- 1) "Crazy Bernie Sanders" could easily be coopted in a positive way, and 2) "Sleepy"? That must have been a typo for "Creepy", right? One of Trump's political strengths is name-calling and these both strike me as less effective than "Crooked Hillary" or "Disappointed Bundaberg"...as in, I'm disappointed I actually have an opinion on this.

[dudog84]

FiveThirtyEight has an article up on what might happen if Joe Biden ultimately decides not to run --- or does run and falters. Not a whole lot that surprises me. Polls that run w/o the Biden option suggest voter preference helping all candidates and shifting to the next big names. The author interprets this as Democratic voters not differentiating a whole lot between the liberal and more moderate wings of the party...or differentiating candidate policy positions. Of those announced, I really only have a good sense of the policy bona fides of Sanders and Warren, which isn't a surprise, they've both got historically strong chops in the area (even if you disagree with them) and are talking policy the most so far.

In other news, Trump makes his prediction that he'll either face "Crazy Bernie Sanders" or "Sleepy Joe Biden". Couple thoughts here --- 1) "Crazy Bernie Sanders" could easily be coopted in a positive way, and 2) "Sleepy"? That must have been a typo for "Creepy", right? One of Trump's political strengths is name-calling and these both strike me as less effective than "Crooked Hillary" or "Disappointed Bundaberg"...as in, I'm disappointed I actually have an opinion on this.

Really? I find it incredibly childish (I don't think that's over the line for the forum, I mean, c'mon). I think I get what you mean about it working a few years ago, but I'm really hoping America is growing tired of it. Is this really where we want our political discourse to go?

Politics is extremely frustrating and a pain in the rear, but it is important.

[PackMan97]

Really? I find it incredibly childish (I don't think that's over the line for the forum, I mean, c'mon). I think I get what you mean about it working a few years ago, but I'm really hoping America is growing tired of it. Is this really where we want our political discourse to go?

Repeated and obnoxious name calling is over the line for the forum. I've gotten an infraction for doing it to some of UNC's "student"-athletes. At the end of the day, the only thing name calling does is undermine ones own credibility with anyone who has a brain.

[Jeffrey]

I think the "he invades my personal space in a creepy way" thing set back Biden's plans. He wants to let that whole thing blow over a bit more before announcing. He also may be having second thoughts as getting in and struggling would tarnish his legacy. If he is not going to win it, he should stay out and just remain one of our nation's beloved elder statesmen.

Today's amazing political world. The man who invades personal space, in a creepy way, might need to sit this one out. The man who brags about grabbing private parts, and says he can because he is a rich celebrity, gets elected POTUS.

[OldPhiKap]

Today's amazing political world. The man who invades personal space, in a creepy way, might need to sit this one out. The man who brags about grabbing private parts, and says he can because he is a rich celebrity, gets elected POTUS.

I did find it somewhat ironic that DT was tweeting this morning about Bernie's tax returns when DT refuses to release his.

But to put it in the most neutral terms possible, it is fair to note that DT is not really known for logical consistency of pronouncements.

[Jeffrey]

At the end of the day, the only thing name calling does is undermine ones own credibility with anyone who has a brain.

What percentage of U.S. voters qualify?

[luvdahops]

Really? I find it incredibly childish (I don't think that's over the line for the forum, I mean, c'mon). I think I get what you mean about it working a few years ago, but I'm really hoping America is growing tired of it. Is this really where we want our political discourse to go?

Politics is extremely frustrating and a pain in the rear, but it is important.

I hope America grows tired of it, too. But no way is Trump going to stop name calling - it's in his DNA and quite central to his political identity.

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...ander-in-chief

[bundabergdevil]

Really? I find it incredibly childish (I don't think that's over the line for the forum, I mean, c'mon). I think I get what you mean about it working a few years ago, but I'm really hoping America is growing tired of it. Is this really where we want our political discourse to go?

Politics is extremely frustrating and a pain in the rear, but it is important.

I thought my "disappointed bundaberg" comment was tongue in cheek enough to let folks know how I personally feel about Trump's nick-naming habits. But, as it relates to the bounds of this thread, I do think it's important insofar as it's his primary device for defining his opponents...and defining your opponent in unfavorable terms is part of the game. Expect his nickname choice for his opponent to be repeated ad nauseum at rallies, on certain media outlets, on yard signs,etc...same as Crooked Hillary. I was pointing out that I don't think either will be as effective.

Is that the political system I personally prefer? No. But, as they say, you can wish in one hand and s*** in the other and see which gets filled faster. If mods feel this sets off a firestorm, they can certainly delete but I do think the topic is germane to the horse race.

[Jeffrey]

I did find it somewhat ironic that DT was tweeting this morning about Bernie's tax returns when DT refuses to release his.

Agreed! I also find it somewhat ironic that Sanders and Warren are One Percenters!

[OldPhiKap]

I thought my "disappointed bundaberg" comment was tongue in cheek enough to let folks know how I personally feel about Trump's nick-naming habits. But, as it relates to the bounds of this thread, I do think it's important insofar as it's his primary device for defining his opponents...and defining your opponent in unfavorable terms is part of the game. Expect his nickname choice for his opponent to be repeated ad nauseum at rallies, on certain media outlets, on yard signs,etc...same as Crooked Hillary. I was pointing out that I don't think either will be as effective.

Is that the political system I personally prefer? No. But, as they say, you can wish in one hand and s*** in the other and see which gets filled faster. If mods feel this sets off a firestorm, they can certainly delete but I do think the topic is germane to the horse race.

I agree with this.

Trump uses the nicknames to brand his opponents. It is an old marketing gimmick. Putting aside my personal dislike of such tactics as fifth-grade bully stuff, there is no doubt that monikers such as "Crooked Hillary," "Pocahontas," "Low Energy Jeb" and ""Lyin' Ted Cruz" were/are very effective whether they are true or not.

[OldPhiKap]

Agreed! I also find it somewhat ironic that Sanders and Warren are One Percenters!

i noticed that Bernie has switched from railing on "millionaires and billionaires" to railing on "multi-millionaires and billionaires."

[Jeffrey]

i noticed that Bernie has switched from railing on "millionaires and billionaires" to railing on "multi-millionaires and billionaires."

Exactly! My problem is I notice which makes it hard for me to respect almost any politician.

[OldPhiKap]

Exactly! My problem is I notice which makes it hard for me to respect almost any politician.

"OPK in 2020: Honey Badger Don't Care"

Join the team, I'll name you to the Fed or whatever cabinet spot you want. Maybe a nice ambassadorship?