You have to remember, Wikileaks dumped a bunch of emails within hours of that Tapés release. You have to admit the strategy is effective. What will it be this time? And the next?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...X5O/story.html
I agree with the golden opportunity. With #metoo, Trump's perceived misogyny, and HRC winning the popular vote in 2016, it would seem a not-policy-loopy, not-high-negatives-like-HRC woman might win in a cakewalk. Klobuchar might fit the bill the most -- former corporate lawyer, former prosecutor, Midwesterner. In short, to win via the easiest path, I think the Dems should *only* consider nominating a woman, and then do *not* make the historic nature of the first-woman-president a feature of the campaign the way HRC did -- rather, simply address kitchen table issues, and let the gender issue stay ostensibly in the background -- women motivated by such a thing will notice it and turn out in droves given Trump; it need not be touted; and I think some Repubs would get behind the candidacy the way some did the historic nature of BHO's 2008 election in a "it's time" way.
You have to remember, Wikileaks dumped a bunch of emails within hours of that Tapés release. You have to admit the strategy is effective. What will it be this time? And the next?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...X5O/story.html
Add Joe Sestak to the list of Dems running. He’s a former PA Congressman and is retired from the US Navy. He was a 3 star vice admiral.
I kind of thought we were done. I’ll be interested in what he sees as a gap in the current candidate set.
I'm not sure anything has "legs" in today's environment. Re the recent allegations that have been discussed and their impact on the race, on the msn.com homepage there is a button for "Trending Now", which opens this page:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news
Of the 22 items at the top, it is not mentioned. The next subgroup of news is "U.S.", not mentioned in 16 items. The next subgroup is "Politics", and it is not mentioned in these 16 items.
How many days ago was this "blockbuster revelation", 2 days? And it is already off the news. And we have 499 days to the election. OMG, what a depressing thought.
I would say yes, allegations with little corroboration in the past have definitely had impact on a candidate's numbers. I would say that for whatever reason, Trump is immune to allegations, regardless of the level of proof/corroboration. I don't say this as a criticism, but rather that he is as close to "bulletproof" as I can fathom. You like him or you don't, and not much moves the needle.
Article I read mentioned his daughter besting brain cancer for the second time -- gotta give one perspective and also a "I don't really care about the noise and nonsense" type outlook, I'd think. AG Barr adopted the same sort of perspective in an interview I read recently, talking about his daughter's health battle (also cancer, I believe).
I don't think Trump is immune to allegations or his thousands of wild statements and lies, they're just already priced in. He's historically unpopular despite record unemployment and no major war abroad. If you said that about any other president in history, it'd immediately suggest some domestic scandal. The real question I think people wondering if Trump is bulletproof are asking is: what would cause Trump to experience base erosion and send his levels to the lowest of the historical lows?
FiveThirtyEight has an interesting data visualization that compares Trump's approval rating to those of all past Presidents to Truman (scroll to bottom). Through 885 days, Trump carries the lowest average approval rating. A couple President's briefly dipped below his numbers here and there. If you click the '4 or 8 years' timeframe, you can see that Presidential approval ratings that dropped and stayed in the 30s or 20s ---signifying base collapse --- have been EXTREMELY rare. In general (though not exclusively), those extreme lows can be attributed to one or a combination of three factors: recession, war, or severe scandal. (Yeah, I know, way to go out on a limb with that hot take...)
So, Trump is far from bulletproof, there just aren't many people who haven't made up their minds on him based on available information. There's no reason to think that after 20+ women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, 1 more accuser is going to miraculously move the needle for his base. You'd need something new and exceptional that directly impacted them. If history is any guide, that'd have to be war or recession. Given the segmentation in the media, I'm not convinced the weight or severity of any scandal would make its way through the various filters.
It will be interesting to see how Buttigieg holds up with his hometown issue. White cop shooting an (alleged) knife wielding black man. South Bend has body cameras but for some reason the cops was off.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/23/polit...-st=1561333017
Wednesday debate participants:
Elizabeth Warren
Beto O’Rourke
Cory Booker
Amy Klobuchar
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Julian Castro
Tim Ryan
Bill de Blasio
Jay Inslee
My guess is that Warren walks away the winner of this group. She has a chance to dominate, without anyone really going after her too hard.
I think I disagree with you here OPK. She's really the only person in this group worth going after hard. Can they reasonably go after the front runners who are on the next night, it's kinda bad form, the person isn't there to defend his/herself. Plus there is such limited time with such a big field, how many people can you bash, you have to spend at least some of your time promoting yourself and your ideas (I would hope).
I do think she has the chance to dominate, regardless of what anyone thinks of her policies she's pretty sharp. However, with a stage this crowded, and especially our short attention span populace, the one-line zinger is probably what will dominate. Who has it in their quiver?
I think this is going to be a huge non-event. Each person is going to be just giving pre-scripted sound bites and there will be absolutely no debate or dialogue. I will try to watch but I don't expect it to really move the needle. One of the lesser-known candidates might jump out a little bit and one of the better-known candidates would really have to screw up. There just isn't enough time for much to happen. I am most interested to see how much of it is putting forth policy vs. bashing Trump.
Quoting the very first two posts of this thread. Back then, we were surprised that Warren jumped in so early, and several of us were prognosticating her losing effort.
Maybe she knew what she was doing.
Note that Biden still has the lead in the overall polls, but with the younger crowd it appears that Warren and Sanders are the ones to beat.Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders have broken out as frontrunners for young liberal voters, according to a new straw poll conducted by the progressive group NextGen, pulling ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden, who retains his lead in national polls as the first Democratic debates are about to begin here.
The polling results to be released Tuesday afternoon, first viewed and reported by Yahoo News, show Warren with a huge lead among respondents ages 18 to 35, with 39 percent, compared with 26 percent for Sanders, the runner-up.
Of course, this only matters if the younger voters actually get off the couch and vote, which is something they tend not to do.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/warren-ha...133454147.html
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
As a person in the middle of that age group, that is really surprising to me. I don't think I know a single person who prefers Warren against the field.
Edit:
I'm going to suggest this poll is not very representative.Those figures were from a total of 4,418 of participants who had signed on to the email and text-message lists for NextGen, a PAC run by billionaire liberal activist Tom Steyer. The results cannot be extrapolated to the electorate as a whole, or even Democratic primary voters
I'm not sure how broadly her latest policy point (reparations for gay couple forced to file federal taxes single instead of jointly) will appeal. It's not necessarily a horrible idea, but this is not the kind of issue that brings moderates over and wins elections.
In the Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows department, I got to take a private tour of a huge military firing range and training facility today (including a great biathlon facility), and heard copious words of praise for Senator Bernie who evidently procured a bunch of much needed funding for them...had not expected to hear that.
All of Biden's gaffes are crushing him in the polls...not. In the latest weekly tracking poll, his support hasn't budged an inch and nobody else is separating from the pack.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ocrats-1380317
I think Bernie's ceiling is 20%. So if there is to be a challenger, who will it be?
Re the supposed gaffes, I think they are baked in with Biden just as certain things are baked in with Trump. And when you look at the comparison between the two's supposed liabilities, maybe the Ds have learned not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Ds want to beat Trump. That will trump all other considerations. They are not going to go far left in this election.
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."