Joe Biden Steadies the Ship, Increasing His Lead Over the Democratic Field in New Poll as Kamala Harris Loses Steam

Kamala needs more than one debate to show how fierce she is. We'll see what the polls are like in early August, after the next one.

FINE. Let's go with Biden then, Jesus.

Politico: Home-state Senator Kamala Harris has seized the top spot from Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren is fast gaining traction in delegate-rich California.

The latest Quinnipiac California poll shows Harris leading among 2020 presidential hopefuls, with 23 percent of California Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters now behind her — surging six points since the last Quinnipiac survey in April. Biden, at 21 percent, has lost five points in that same period.

His kumbaya with the Republicans nonsense looks even more ridiculous after the events of the last few days.

Kamala's problem is she flip flops on the big issues.

What Joe didn’t say was that the Republicans will be first beaten into submission by another blue wave, R4. Then he’ll be able to work with them.

Kamala Harris was for busing before she was against it. Let's see her bus her Brentwood-raised kids to Compton for school. She was also for single-payer health insurance before she was against it.

To go along with her "I was a poor black child" T-shirts, she should sell flip-flops.

[QUOTE]The latest Quinnipiac California poll shows Harris leading among 2020 presidential hopefuls, with 23 percent of California Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters now behind her — surging six points since the last Quinnipiac survey in April. Biden, at 21 percent, has lost five points in that same period.

[QUOTE]Much like many other Democratic primary states, California is not a “winner-take-all” system, so several candidates could theoretically each get a fraction of the 495 delegates. In order to be eligible for getting any delegates, however, a candidate needs to obtain at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.

Kamala needs something besides being black.

r4 I agree with this, but from the opposite direction. Trump's latest "episode" has shown how all the fuss over "OMG Biden said he would WORK with people he didn't agree with!!!! He MUST apologize and then the guillotine!!!" is just 100% "woke" nonsense. In contrast with ACTUAL racism by an ACTUAL racist who ACTUALLY harms minorities, the "Biden Must Go!!!" narrative is revealed for the contrived nonsense that it was.

Almost the entire Republican party has sided with Trump's racism which doesn't bode well for Biden's tagline of them being decent people who have just lost their way under the current leadership.

Are they going to get a pass for their complicit behavior should Biden get elected? And doesn't that negate the message democrats have had for the last two years? Just doesn't make any sense to say one thing and then do the complete opposite.

So what’s your plan, R11? You think the Democrats are going to have such massive numbers in the House and Senate that Republican votes won’t be necessary?

Biden's the best candidate to win against Trump.

I just wish he wasn’t quite so OLD.

I just wish this country wasn't so ageist.

It’s not ‘ageist,’ R15. The guy’s almost 80 and comes across as feeble and a bit addled. Plus he has old man voice.

Yup, found the ageist.

FINE. Biden's great. Harris is great. Warren is great. I'll take any of them. I'll take two!

Don't care, doesn't matter, not interested in attacks on Democratic candidates. They're all good and all of them are a thousand times better than the Billion Dollar Loser.

It is a fact of life that after a certain point, one's faculties diminish with age and one's health can turn on a dime. It's no more "ageist" to want a president who's under 80 years old than it is to want a president who's over18. It's simply realistic. If we can specify right in the Constitution that the president must be at least 35 years of age, because someone younger may be too immature and inexperienced for the job, we should be able to consider the notion that someone over, say, 70 or 75 is too far past his his/her prime and too highly at risk for dementia and physical infirmity.

^ That was for r17, but hell yeah, if I have to vote for an octogenarian Democrat, I will.

R19, so? Experience makes up for those diminishing faculties.

What Uncle Joe will do, if he is smart and if he wins, is allow his VP to set the agenda and carry much of the workload. He can sit back in the oval office and enjoy his one term. Maybe you forgot that Reagan was more than half gaga with dementia thru most of his second term.

[quote] Experience makes up for those diminishing faculties.

All the experience in the world cannot make up for dementia. It also won't protect you from developing debilitating physical health issues.

[quote] Maybe you forgot that Reagan was more than half gaga with dementia thru most of his second term.

Yeah, and that was not a good thing.

Biden looks as decrepit as Cryptkeeper Nancy.

We need The Squad to bring some fresh hormones into Washington.

So you guys really believe this crap don’t you?

Which crap did you have in mind, Charm School Graduate @ R26?

Kamala was good in the first debate, even though she was way too liberal in her positions, but she's been terrible on the campaign trail. She makes Biden look good by comparison. I don't like the way she keep flip-flopping on the issues. It shows that she would be a mess as president.

We all owe Hillary a big apology. In hindsight, she ran a better campaign than all 50 of these Democratic candidates combined. The press did her so dirty.

Let's all apologize to Hillary.

There’s no need to apologize to her. We all supported and voted for her. It’s the mainstream media who needs to apologize. And they’re doing the same thing to Joe that they did to her.

I apologize to the mainstream media, who I've accused of abrogating their public watchdog responsibility in favor of political agenda. With their exposure/coverage of the Gang of Cunts and the current Dem candidates, they do indeed still watch and inform.

Polls, shmolls.

Voting for the Democratic primary in my state in on June 2 of next year.

Ask me then.

Biden / Harris 2020 is my prediction.

It may not be over by June 2, unfortunately. In which case we’ve got a big problem on our hands.

[quote]All the experience in the world cannot make up for dementia. It also won't protect you from developing debilitating physical health issues.

And yet he has neither and may never come down with either, Dr. Phil at r23.

[quote] And yet he has neither and may never come down with either, Dr. Phil at [R23].

He has neither as far as we know, and yes, he may not come down with either during the next 9 years, but the statistical likelihood that he will is much greater than for a person 10, 20, or 30 years younger. If elected next November, he'll turn 78 a few days later. If he served two terms, he'd be 86 by the time he left office. Even the sharpest , healthiest and most independent 86-year-old person I know is not somebody I could ever imagine coping with the duties of being POTUS.

And yes, even a decrepit and demented Joe Biden would be better than what we've got now and I will vote for him if he gets the nom, but I don't think it's just crazy, bigoted "ageism" to consider whether people over a certain age are too old to be POTUS.

[quote]Kamala needs something besides being black.

She’s also “tough on crime”... which plays well in the Midwest.

She’s just pushing “being black” right now because she needs the black vote to get ahead of Biden.

She’s smart and strategic and knows her audience.

[quote]We all owe Hillary a big apology. In hindsight, she ran a better campaign than all 50 of these Democratic candidates combined. The press did her so dirty.

Let’s be clear. Almost everybody hated Hillary, except for a few die-hards.

Voters just held their noses and pulled the lever for her anyway. The problem was that too many voters in PA, WI, and MI were so nauseated by her that they couldn’t leave the house on Election Day.

Bingo R37.

They hated her in 2008, which opened the door for Obama. They hated her in 2016 which gave us Trump.

I often wonder what history will make of this giant blind spot, that pointing out that the reasons why people hated her were not valid resaons (e.g. decades of GOP propaganda) or wrong ("she actually very funny in person") somehow made the fact that there were millions of people who would otherwise have happily voted for a Democrat decide that they're rather vote for an insane reality TV show host instead of her, okay.

Why did no one say "look, it sucks, you are very smart and caring and would make a great president, only given the sizable number of our voters the GOP have convinced to hate you, we just can't take that risk. What? No, not even if you're running against Donald Trump. Can you imagine what would happen if he won???"

As for Harris, it seemed obvious that she was trying to cut into Biden's lead with blacks with her busing lines, but I don't think she expected the blowback she got from it, and the flipflopping did her no good--that plus Free Houses probably eliminated her from VP consideration. Klobucher is looking like a good pick for Biden (Midwestern and Protestant-- Uncle Joe is Catholic, which is still an issue in the South)

R38: Klobucher is a HORRIBLE person based on the stories of her abusing her staff. Anyone picking her is going to loose votes from suburban women who don't like mean girls. She's a disaster.

We have to beat Trump. The progressive agenda can wait.

They’re not mutually exclusive, R40. Beating Trump will be an advancement of the progressive agenda when the next Democratic President puts at least two more liberal Justices on the Supreme Court. If Joe accomplished nothing but that, it would be plenty.

Think about what you just said R39 "Suburban women won't vote for Amy K because she is sometimes a bitch to her staff, so instead they will vote for the Pussy Grabber in Chief, the nation's ultimate bully who is an ass to anyone and everyone who comes into contact with him."

R38 No Dem candidate should be chosen or should run based on how well they will do in the South. Except in FLA, NC and Virginia. In none of those states is being Roman Catholic an issue anymore. In fact in FLA, it's an asset. I think if Biden is nominated (still very unclear) and pics Abrams as his VP (as was rumored months ago - that there was a "deal") then GA could very likely be in play.

I'm fine with him winning the nomination as long as he can beat Trump. And there will be a vice president to step in if necessary. I prefer him to Harris anyway. But I do have some concerns about his age. An eighty-year-old president sounds like a terrible idea. Something like 40% of people have dementia by 85. He seems pretty sharp still, but that can change more quickly than you expect, and Republicans are going to use his age against him as much as possible. (Even though Trump is the oldest president ever. But they still played up the whole thing about Hillary having "no stamina" and Parkinson's or whatever their rumor was. They will be sure to paint Biden as weak and feeble too.)

If Biden is the nominee, then his running mate is going to be very important considering his age. I doubt he would even run for a second term. His VP has to be someone who has the credentials and gravitas to step into the presidency at a moment's notice, or can actually win the presidency should Joe decide not to run again.

Everybody thinks he'll chose a woman, but I don't think any of the current female candidates could win a general election. If he picks a man, I think Sherrod Brown or Deval Patrick would be excellent choices. I know that picking Brown would cause us to lose a Senate seat, but it would ensure an electoral college victory for us.

There should be an age limit for presidents. We do not need 70+ year old candidates.

Dunno R43.

I am a born and bred NYer, but seems like something the GOP could make an issue.

To expand though, Klobucher's midwestern-ness would outweigh her Protestant-ness, and that would help in WI, MI and OH, possibly even PA. (Though Biden was born in PA)

Let's get past the primaries and the second round of debates though first.

My gut says the candidates all read the reviews of Round 1, which were pretty uniformly "why were they all focusing on unpopular tangential issues like free health care for illegal immigrants and not on the actual 'kitchen table' issues people care about, thus allowing Trump to paint them as older versions of AOC and only concerned with their pet minorities"

So there will be a lot more discussion of those kitchen table issues this time and pouncing on anybody who steer too far niche or left.

R35, you are being ageist. The media did the same shit to Clinton about her health and didn't blink twice about Trump and his age. He's healthy now and there's no reason to think he won't be in four years. But, please, do carry on with statistics and ageism.

I'd take an elder statesperson over 1000 younger politicians any day.

Don't discount the optics either: Biden has always been an athletic man and he looks reasonably fit and in shape, especially for his age.

Trump is a fat fuck who's only getting fatter.

When they are standing side by side, voters will be hard pressed to tell which one of them is older.

I think only Biden can pull those few Republicans who may have hated Drump.

[QUOTE]Trump is a fat fuck who's only getting fatter.

A heavily obese man in his 70’s, and the media says nothing about his health even today.

Right R51?

Like they don't even challenge his claiming to weigh 235.

I looked at that and thought "is that kilograms?"

I like Biden and I think his main purpose in 2020 is to defeat Trump. I also think it's likely that he would be a one-term president, but Democrats would never admit that before getting him elected.

I also think it would be really cool if Donald Trump got defeated in 2020, but kept his base of loyal followers going so he could run again in 2024 ... and get defeated again. And then maybe do it again in 2028, just to make sure that the Republican party that stands for the white patriarchy is thoroughly destroyed.

In the debates, Amy Klobuchar seemed like the only candidate who actively tried to present herself as a centrist and stay away from the far-left issues. Maybe she is the best VP choice.

R42: Why don't you think about the false zero-sum framing you are using. Being turned off by Klobucher can result in votes for Trump, or votes for third parties or not voting at all. It's not a two-way back and forth.

R47: No, the reviews of Round 1 were not uniformly complaining about candidates talking about illegal immigrants. I don't know where you're coming up with that.

Is the two-term limit for presidents absolute or do they have to be in sequence? Could Trump be defeated next year and then be elected in 2024 and then reelected in 2028?

No. Two terms max.

R56: No. Two and done.

R56, no. Two terms is the limit.

He could be defeated in 2020 and reelected in 2024, but that would be that.

Don't put it past the GOP to change that law, though. They introduced it in the first place because they were sore that FDR was elected for so many terms, and they'll take the law away if they think it'll benefit them.

[quote]He's healthy now and there's no reason to think he won't be in four years.

People die eventually, dear, no matter how healthy they are. And aging itself is a health risk. Not only is there reason to think an 80 year old won’t be healthy in 4 years, there’s also reason to think an 80 year old will be dead in 4 years. You’re being willfully ignorant.

If he dies, so what? A 37 year old President can die in office. That’s what Vice Presidents are for.

R60 An amendment, not a law. Much more difficult to pass.

I see literally no difference between Trump in 2016 and Trump today. The pig doesn't appear to be aging at all, which is super disconcerting when you put him next to Biden.

r63 Sure, but both Harry Reid and Barney Frank supported its repeal, so it's not like it would be only the GOP voting for it.

OMG, R62. You really are an idiot. Yes, a 37 year old could die in office. But it’s highly unlikely, while an 80 year old dying in office is very likely.

R65 Democrats would support a constitutional amendment to give Trump another term?

[QUOTE]Yes, a 37 year old could die in office. But it’s highly unlikely, while an 80 year old dying in office is very likely.

You never answered my question. What is so wrong with Joe Biden dying in office? So long as he wins the election, what’s the big deal?

r67 No, I'm saying [italic]in general,[/italic] this isn't just a GOP thing. Even Bill Clinton was arguing back in the day that the limit should only apply to consecutive terms because of the longer life expectancy.

The way people talk about the possibility of Joe Biden dying in office, it’s like they believe that the presidency automatically reverts to the opposite party. The Dems will still be in control of the White House and Donald Trump will still be far, far away from it. That’s the only thing that matters. If Joe dies two years into his term, then so be it.

R65: Except Harry Reid retired in 2016 and Barney Frank retired in 2012. They're both long gone. So what they want doesn't matter in the halls of Congress anymore.

r71 It doesn't matter but it demonstrates that this is not exclusively a GOP thing. Some Democrats obviously have the same opinion on this issue, it's just not something that comes up often so we don't know how strong the support is for such a repeal today.

R33 deadlocked convention will turn to Hillary.

R73 Kellyanne Conway posts on DL.

The “Hillary will become the nominee due to a deadlocked convention” troll ...needs to be sent back.

I’d take Hillary over 80% of these candidates.

Well, she's not running, so get over it.

It's crazy the way some people talk about a president dying in office as no big deal. Can you name one time when a president died and it was no big deal? Even Zachary Taylor's innocuous death lead to massive conspiracy theories that helped increase tensions between the north and south.

It's not something to just shrug off.

R41 not just putting 2 more liberal justices on the court but Justice Thomas and Alito will be over 70 and not every justice lives to 99. But to do 2 or more, we need control of the Senate.

You don’t need control of the Senate to put Justices on the court.

Burntard should not even have tried a re-run how humiliating.

[quote]I see literally no difference between Trump in 2016 and Trump today. The pig doesn't appear to be aging at all, which is super disconcerting when you put him next to Biden.

Because he's not really the president. He's not waking up at 3 AM to be the president, he waking up at 3 AM to post on Twitter and Postmates McDonald's. All of the socially conservative judges and agenda items is straight up Pence. Everyone else is doing his work for them. Basically he is a republican dream come true. For McConnell, the Senatrix, and all the other anti-regulation republicans in the legislature and the K street bunch, and the religious conservatives, all Trump has been is a rubberstamp to codify their evil into policy. Basically they wind him up and send him out to get the base going.

Trump has completely shown that all the standards that other Presidents were held to were a bunch of nonsense. You don't have to show your taxes. You don't have to have press briefings. You don't have to explain yourself to the American people, you can ignore the other branches, and you don't have reveal the true results of your annual physical to the public.

Trump has shown what a sham it all is. The man gropes women, is a racist, and a xenophobe, and and lies to their faces and everyone just shrugs and moves on and pretends that it's all normal. Of course the son of bitch hasn't aged a day. He's not doing shit.

I disagree: this man has aged many, many days. His health is absolutely suffering.

And less than four years later:

r82 I know exactly why he hasn't aged and I still hate it. He should be falling apart by now!

r84 That's probably because of the harsh sun that would make anyone's skin appear shitty. I'll wait to see how he looks in HD during the debates, if he even wants to do them.

[quote] You don’t need control of the Senate to put Justices on the court.

In this political climate, you absolutely do need control of the Senate to put on the justices of your choice. Do you think the Merrick Garland nomination would have stonewalled if Dems controlled the Senate? Would Republicans have been able to get Kavanaugh through if they didn't control the Senate?

He's definitely fatter, r85, and never was as slim as the 230 pounds he claims to weigh. His face and hair have looked like freaky shit since long before he was elected; hard to say if they've gotten worse. Possibly not, for exactly the reasons r82 states.

[quote] They hated her in 2008, which opened the door for Obama. They hated her in 2016 which gave us Trump.

R38 = BernieBot

She won the popular vote in 2008 and 2016 (one primary, one general election)

Russia stole the election in 2016.

Harris has this one in the bag if she wins California. Biden started slipping among Californians when he famously ghosted us at the Ca. Democratic convention a month ago. Californians quickly realized he doesn't prioritize us. Not the best approach to court the Golden State.

R80 Again, yes you do need control of the Senate to put justices on the Supreme Court. Most recent example is Obama's selection of Garland, a moderate hoped to gain Senate Republicans' possible support, and McConnell trash canned the nomination.

This was one of greatest frustrations with the myopic, onanistic response to the opposition to Clinton by Bernie Bros and other leftists. The lack of strategic understanding about justices, their age, and assuring the court didn't continue to drift to the Far Right. Two justices nominated by Trump and approved by the Republican-controlled Senate - gerrymandering is safe for decades, assuring right wing manipulation of election results. Trump is reelected, Ginsberg goes, and all the marriages to our same-sex partners could become voided. Choice gone. Imperial Presidency approved.

Comparing how Trump has aged compared to other Presidents? He's a TV "star" and he wears full makeup, gets his hair "done" weekly, at the least. Even given that his hair (especially the back) is getting thinner and "old man straggly" and his weight is up with rolls of fat covering his shirt collars. Yes, he's looking worse. And that's the least I care about.... what he is doing to the country is more problematic than how he looks under his key light.

r91 I guess we're all just desperately looking for some indication that this evil will end one day.

I only posted the pictures because I took exception to the idea that his looks haven't changed because he's so evil he's got almost supernatural powers to avoid aging and stress because he doesn't do anything except work the puppet strings. This idea that he's Teflon, can't be stopped, will never be stopped even by time or death is just ludicrous. Stop assigning powers to him he doesn't have.

He's a human being like the rest of us, an ugly and terrible one, but still human. The reason he hasn't been stopped is because too many people with money and power won't let it happen. That can change but too many regular Americans are unwilling to protest, vote, campaign, educate others, stop watching biased media, or anything that would take work and might get a little scary.

Trump isn't supremely evil, he's just a greedy conman motherfucker who was lucky enough to have parents illegally immigrate to America, the most complacent country in the world.

[quote]This was one of greatest frustrations with the myopic, onanistic response to the opposition to Clinton by Bernie Bros and other leftists. The lack of strategic understanding about justices, their age, and assuring the court didn't continue to drift to the Far Right

It’s already been explained multiple times that people just hated her. People understood all that about the justices and the courts... and still found her too vomit-inducing to vote for. 🤮

Nominate a candidate who doesn’t have unfavorable ratings of 60+ percent.

[QUOTE]Harris has this one in the bag if she wins California.

California isn’t winner take all. So long as Joe comes in second or third, he can get a significant portion of delegates even if Kamala wins it. She’s going to need a lot more than Cali to have anything in the bag.

As many people were disenchanted with Clinton as they are now with Biden. The only difference is that Clinton didn't have the luxury of coming off of Trump. Biden does, and that's his only strong point.

There is no great love affair with Biden regardless of what the polls say. He's winning in electability, but a majority would prefer and would rather have Elizabeth Warren in the White House come 2020. She is the one who is most connecting with the public. Biden is just getting a lucky break at this point.

[QUOTE]As many people were disenchanted with Clinton as they are now with Biden.

I'd rather play it safe and nominate Gillibrand, who is guaranteed to carry electoral-rich New York.

Too fucking old. Go away already.

How ironic that these former Never Trust Anybody Over 30s now never want to lose power and expect youth to vote for them.

I really want to like Kamala Harris more, but I just can't latch on to her "Why" for her campaign.

What exactly is the hook? Why is she running? What policies is she extending other than the traditional Democratic platform?

I feel bad feeling that her campaign and presence just isn't growing on me much. Could she really inspire the public and take on Trump? I'm not feeling that so much.

R101 Some folks had that issue with Clinton

[quote]He's winning in electability, but a majority would prefer and would rather have Elizabeth Warren in the White House come 2020.

Wrong! The average voter is not going to vote for someone who is for raising taxes, ending private insurance, open borders, and plans to decimate the stock market and everyone's IRA and 401k. Even if she were lucky enough to get elected, she would only get one term because the economy would be in the shitter. Good luck getting another Democrat in the WH for another decade. Does Jimmy Carter ring a bell?

Thanks to Obama, we still have a strong economy and people want it to continue, but without all the drama and the racism. That's why we need to run a centrist and not a socialist.

According to polls, Biden is leading amongst millennial voters. What BS. I don't know of any young person who is excited for this Ancient Mummy.

Don’t believe the polls. People lie when they are polled.

[quote] a majority would prefer and would rather have Elizabeth Warren in the White House come 2020. She is the one who is most connecting with the public.

Hilarious.

R103 People want Warren. The polls say so.

Biden will just cave in to the Republicans in the guise of bipartisanship. That's not centrism.

Warren is going to need one hell of an AA VP, because she's struggling with that segment right now. Also non-college educated people.

Here we go with the insistence that black voters are one unilateral block to be appealed to as a single unit. She actually does pretty well with them.

She really doesn't right now - percentage-wise, she's just slightly above Pete. Unilateral block or no unilateral block.

"Winning in electability" is good enough for me. Why waste my vote on someone who can't beat Trump in the general election?

There’s no evidence that Biden can beat Trump. He’s Hillary 2.0, and it’s his turn.

There is plenty of evidence that Biden can beat Trump, particularly in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Biden wins in rust belt states, dumbass.

This is just me personally...

If the world were perfect - I'd want Pete to be the nominee (I would wake up happy everyday knowing that Pete and Chasten are in the WH. Pete is smart and thoughtful and wise beyond his years. Even though it would be weird to have a president 10 years younger than me)

I know the world isn't perfect and we have to get Trump out of office - So I am happily supporting Biden (who I believe is a fine man, knows how DC works, and will surround himself with the best and brightest to fix the messes of the Trump administration)

I would be perfectly fine with - Warren (even though I don't think she appeals to the voters we need to remove Trump. She's smart, she's on the ball and she's likable. I think that ancestry business is going to haunt her in the general.)

If Harris and Saunders get the nomination, I will vote for them, but I don't respect either one of them. Saunders won't call himself a democrat and lives to fuck shit up and Kamala just doesn't seem genuine. She panders and lies. Would love her as AG, not as President.

you know, dying in office isn't such a bad thing for the party in power. Boosts popularity as we all rally together... no matter which party is in power--so don't worry about Uncle Joe's age.

r104 Two things:

1. Millennials--of which I am a member, having been born in 88--largely don't vote. I've always been plugged in politically and therefore always vote, but most people my age do not. And I'm not judging them for it either, politicians always seem out of touch and 'in it for themselves,' and every generation has to figure out that yes, while that is true, you still have to vote to get any little say at all. Millennials haven't gotten to that point yet, so any politician relying on millenials voting, or any person watching the polls on e.g. DL saying "but millennials like/dislike this person! you must consider them!" is fundamentally wrong in their logic--millennials aren't reliable voters!

2. I doubt any democrat this time around is supporting someone who gets them excited, they're supporting someone they think can beat trump. I'm not 'jump up and down' excited for biden, but I like him based on his VP performance with obama and his gay marriage take, and I think he can beat the shit out of trump.

[quote] having been born in 88

Sure, you just happen to be the one Datalounge poster who is under 40.

I'm supporting Biden as the one I think can get us out of this nightmare, but I would suggest he take some voice training to strengthen his voice. Sometimes he sounds wobbly.

But Kamala makes a better T-shirt

Kamala will make a better President.

Nobody knows anything about Kamala. She’s an enigma. She’s not even fully committed to the plans she claims to support, nor can she explain her positions on anything.

Harris has so many vulnerabilities and comes off as inauthentic, e.g., she says things she doesn't believe just to score points and she'll do anything/say anything to get elected, even if it means walking it back the next day. That was Hillary's big problem too. (Well, one of them.)

Warren, OTOH, comes off as very authentic and that will be a big plus for her.

I'd love to see Biden/Warren, with the idea that Good Old Uncle Joe-- who, let's face it, comes off like everyone's favorite high school football coach (a concept that admittedly may be alien to many "sportsball" hadting DLers, so trust me.)

It will be a return to normalcy, we're all on the same time, stop the divisions, we can be so much more when we're not spending all our time hating on each other. And Warren will be the brainy debate team captain she once was who will figure out how to make things better for everyone once we all stop fighting and that asshole Donald Trump gets kicked out and sent to military school (Guantanamo)

Kampala seems to inherited Hillary's diva-attraction factor. 🙄

It doesn't take much to make Biden's head spin and to cause him to sputter and lose track of his thoughts. With more debates and the other candidates challenging him, he will become less realistic.

[quote] It will be a return to normalcy

Which was when, exactly? When was the last time Republicans played nice with democrats?

Will be the streets be paved in gold as well? Will money start growing on trees!

Our good old Uncle will save everyone! Just click your heels and believe!

Pixie dust and unicorns, y'all!

Well I would be happy if the price of pixie dust would go down in my neighborhood for starters.

That's the thing about Warren versus Kamala. Warren has clearly thought out every single thing. She's been preparing for this. Her policy team hasn't come up with anything that Warren hasn't personally thought through on her own and she explain it backwards and forwards. That sets Warren, and even Pete, apart from everyone else. Joe Biden says things off the cuff, but what he says is based on the experience and knowing the way DC power players think. He gets the Senate. He gets K Street. Kamala says whatever shit pops into her head and then she either finds some way to back off it to back off it or just changed the subject to some other pie in the sky nonsense . Nothing has been thought through and she hasn't thought about the what the impact of what she's promising is going to be in the general.

Pretty much R127 and she forgets that politics is not a courtroom and voters are not jurors, that you can't order your out of line comments struck from the record.

And as others have mentioned, her only ties to the American African-American community is skin color. Obama had that issue too, but his magic bullet was Michelle. She's married to a white Jewish guy with adult kids.

And R125 "normalcy" for most will be the world before Trump. We don't need to win BernieBros in Brooklyn-- New York isn't going red. We need to win suburban fraus in Flyoverstan. And not a whole lot of them either

Harris has flip flopped on most of the major issues.

[quote] We need to win suburban fraus in Flyoverstan.

I get what you're saying and somewhat agree, but this only highlights why this country never progresses, or does so at a snail's pace compared to the rest of the western world -- we're in a constant pursuit of appeasing these lowest common denominator voters. Republicans move their goalposts farther and farther to the right, voting in these increasingly fringe, far right lunatics and we're forever stuck pandering to these Ginny in Billing nobodies.

[quote]this only highlights why this country never progresses, or does so at a snail's pace compared to the rest of the western world

There are ways to solve this, a constitutional amendment that makes it illegal to not vote if you are a qualified voter. A little harsh, but representative democracy only works when everyone votes. We could also find ways to make it easier to vote like a whole week to vote instead of just one day. But you are not going to get any kind of voting reform because republicans vote in every election and control many state legislatures who control voting laws and republicans want to limit voting. So it's a nasty cycle. Democrats need to vote. It's the one thing that could fix everything. There are more of us than them, but many of us can't be bothered.

I don’t like Biden. He’s way too old.

Do you really want ignoramuses voting for President?

Would you vote for the Christmas Moose for President if he ran? I’m trying to gage interest. TIA!

[quote]but this only highlights why this country never progresses, or does so at a snail's pace compared to the rest of the western world

I take it that you are unfamiliar with what's happening in the western world.

R135, not at all. And by progress, I mean simple things like sensible gun control and a healthcare system which doesn't consistently bankrupt people.

[quote]a healthcare system which doesn't consistently bankrupt people.

You know that doesn't work on people who have had a catastrophic health condition, or have a family member who did, and had their current health insurance pay for it. I'm in that group.

There's not that may uninsured people either. Posters like r136 only want to point out the benefits and tend to overlook the fact that these countries tax EVERYONE -- rich, poor and middle class. They also have VAT taxes, taxes on fuel etc. A tax structure similar to Europe or Scandinavia would seriously hurt the poor in this country.

These countries also have tighter immigration controls to prevent the very poor from benefit shopping by country.

And let's not even bring up that the NHS is having some major issues -- underfunding that has lead to rationing of services and doctor/nurse shortages. And how quickly we have forgotten the Yellow Vest Riots in France and the reason they rioted -- high taxes.

Yeah, sure.

R138, so which country is it where not everyone is taxed? Taxes are 'higher' becauase there are more services that are funded by general taxation I.e. a state pension, the NHS (which includes free dental care for children as well as caps for adults), fuel allowances, reduced university fees and grants for less advantaged young adults, travel allowances, home care etc.

VAT is a sales tax, which you most definityly have I the US. And its not on essentials, like most food and children's clothes.

The point is, no one is dying or going bankrupt because they can't afford healthcare. So please do bring up the NHS. That, and 28 days paid holiday a year.

None of these are perfect, but underfunding happens because Britain has its own Conservatives who vandalize and underfund as much as they can.

And what on Earth do you mean the poor can't shop around?

Kamala does well when she's up on a panel reading sassy hearing questions. But I've watched her closely and she gets wobbly when she's not in control. Wait til the numbers shrink and competitors start 'reading' her about the scandals that have rocked her career; she'll burst into tears and wish she never decided to run for POTUS.

R140 your entire post is just off. Case in point -- you really don't understand how regressive a VAT tax is and it doesn't replace a sales tax. You also don't understand that in the U.S. Poor people get a tax refund, which wouldn't happen if we adopted the tax systems of Europe or Scandinavia. You also don't seem to address the issues the NHS faces. As I said in my post in r138, it's funny how people with an agenda never want to address negatives. Get back to me when you're able to discuss the issue as a whole and not just push an agenda.

R140 your entire post is just off. Case in point -- you really don't understand how regressive a VAT tax is and it doesn't replace a sales tax. You also don't understand that in the U.S. Poor people get a tax refund, which wouldn't happen if we adopted the tax systems of Europe or Scandinavia. You also don't seem to address the issues the NHS faces. As I said in my post in r138, it's funny how people with an agenda never want to address negatives. Get back to me when you're able to discuss the issue as a whole and not just push an agenda.

[quote]There’s no evidence that Biden can beat Trump. He’s Hillary 2.0, and it’s his turn.

R112, how can Biden be Hillary 2.0 if you just said he can't beat Trump.

Hillary won against Trump, despite being a stolen election.

[quote]here’s no evidence that Biden can beat Trump. He’s Hillary 2.0, and it’s his turn.

There's no "evidence" that any of these candidates can beat Trump -- until, the universe willing, it actually happens. Everything until then is just supposition and posturing.

[quote]There’s no evidence that Biden can beat Trump. He’s Hillary 2.0, and it’s his turn.

It's still very early, but all we have to go on right now is polls and what we're hearing on the ground. You might be hearing and seeing something different and that's fine too. I live in Virginia. It is a purple state that has gone blue in the last three presidential elections. And what I'm hearing is Biden is the one most moderate democrats and independents (the reliable voters) are going with right now. And that seems to gel with the polling and reports from other places.

Is that the way it will eventually play out? Who knows? But you have to start somewhere.

R145 Recent projection that Trump could lose the popular vote by more than 5mil this time and still win the Electoral College. All the other candidates could positively impact the popular vote. Biden's plausibility is that he is the one most likely to impact the Electoral College. Personally I support Warren and Pete (in that order), but I do buy the Biden electoral college argument.

I wish Cory Booker would gather some momentum. He's the candidate we wish we had.

I wish Cory Booker would get some momentum. He's the candidate we wish we had.

There's no such thing as Hillary 2.0

Her issues had little to do with her moderate politics and everything to do with the fact that so many otherwise faithful Democrats didn't like her and that nobody ever sat her down and said "look Hillary, you're a smart capable woman, but justified or not, something about you rubs far too many people the wrong way for you to ever be a viable candidate, we'd much rather have you involved behind the scenes."

But reading voter's rejection of Hillary as a rejection of moderate policies would be a huge mistake

r117 Don't feel bad, there are people (claiming to be) younger than me on DL. Also, I have to get braces again and possibly have my skull cracked open to widen my upper jaw, so like I said, don't feel bad.

The 2018 Midterms disagree with you, R116. As long as you leave it up to these over 50s to decide policy, they're going to continue to wreck and destroy things. They've been a complete and total disaster in office and there is no reason to think they're going to improve anything any time soon.

R152 I assume you are talking about voter turnout. The midterms saw a significant increase in the voter turnout of younger voters. But that's relative to previous elections, not to other demographic groups. Younger voters are turning out at half the rate of older voters. It's a real issue (although there was also a recent report that younger white voters are not much more progressive than their white elders - the greater percentage of younger voters of color contributes to more progressive outcomes if younger voters turnout in bigger numbers.

So who appeals to younger voters? Well, Bernie has the most support. A woke, hip dotard?

Well R153, like it or not, that much larger youth turnout helped push a lot of districts to the Dems. Who is going to appeal to younger voters? I can tell you it's not Biden who promises to 'work with Republicans' on issues like climate change. What the fuck does that even mean?

R153 See other comments about popular vote and Electoral College. The states where voter turnout skew younger are the states whose Electoral College votes will already go blue. There is a real possibility that the Dems figure out how to increase their advantage in the popular vote, and in doing so weaken their position in the Electoral College. Surely hope not.

What's irrefutable, if you are inclined to agree with progressive goals you'll want to get rid of the electoral college, make DC a state, etc etc. That's not happening by 2020.

Biden is the one who can most beat Trump, but he didn’t do himself any favors by raising his hand to support giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants. He knows good and damn well he doesn’t believe in that. He should’ve stood his ground and kept his hand down. You can’t win a general election by being soft on immigration. Joe really disappointed me and many of his supporters with that one. He was supposed to be the one sane Democratic candidate remaining.

R156 Giving those who are living here healthcare is not "soft" on immigration - at least not by many standards. Where do you draw the line at what those who are living here do or do not get? Don't let them into emergency rooms! Don't let them use public transportation! Don't respond to their calls to report crimes! Don't let their children go to schools! Don't let them pay taxes! Don't let them pay into social security (for benefits they will never receive)!

Being reasonable and compassionate about those who are already here can, and should, be divided from immigration reform that makes our borders more secure, resolves the backlog of asylum requests, addresses the labor needs of US industries... it's been our partisan, knee jerk emotional reactions to the issues which have resulted in no reform... to a system that currently is broken.

Being “reasonable and compassionate” about illegal immigration is not the way to defeat Donald Trump.

We're being “reasonable and compassionate” about children in cages, not about illegal immigration.

Those children are here ILLEGALLY! The American people blame their parents for bringing them here, not Donald Trump.

Is Biden the one who is in favor of immigrants raping our children? I’ve lost track.

Ask Trump, R161. He would know. He and his pal Epstein are in favor of raping underage girls, including Trump's daughter.

[quote]You know that doesn't work on people who have had a catastrophic health condition, or have a family member who did, and had their current health insurance pay for it. I'm in that group.

If basic human compassion for the people it does screw over "doesn't work," I don't know what to tell you.

We need to start explaining to people WHY the Guatemalans are leaving their country and risking their lives to come to the US, and how those reasons are not any different from the reasons why their grandparents and great-grandparents left Ireland and Poland and Italy and Russia and Germany, and how the US has always been a refuge for people fleeing oppressive governments and oppressive poverty.

We've allowed Trump to convince voters that these refugees are drug dealers who are coming here to make an easy profit, or temporary migrants who will work here illegally so they can have babies who are US citizens.

We need to change the narrative so that people like R160 get it.

People like R160 will never "get it." They need to tie their outraged, blowhard sensibility to an anchor and go jump off the nearest cliff.

If Steyer wants to do any good, he'd fund ads and a documentary on the situation in Central America and why these people are coming here so as to create sympathy for them. It reminds me in many ways of the US turning back German Jews in the era just before WW 2

[QUOTE]We need to start explaining to people WHY the Guatemalans are leaving their country and risking their lives to come to the US

Good luck with that. And then you’ll have to hope that the American people won’t say “I don’t give a shit; go somewhere else!” despite all your lengthy explanations about the socioeconomic history of South America.

Meanwhile Donald Trump will be there as a white knight with one simple bumper sticker solution: “KEEP THEM OUT!” The Democrat is not only forced to beg for empathy, but also to come up with a plan for what he/she will do with the hundreds of thousands of South Americans pouring into this country during their presidency. Trump won’t have that problem.

[quote] R160: Those children are here ILLEGALLY! The American people blame their parents for bringing them here, not Donald Trump.

My Deplorable brother in law feels the same way. He’s mad that they (somehow) are spending all his tax dollars. He forgets that he hasn’t filed an honest tax return in his life. Oh, heck, he doesn’t forget, he’s a sociopath and doesn’t want other people’s tax dollars used either.

There’s plenty of non-Deplorables who also feel the same way. America isn’t the comment section of the New York Times.

FWIW, R160 is also the OP, and R167 and R169

They are responsible for half the posts on this thread mostly dissing the range of candidates.

Draw your own conclusions. I have.

You’re a sharp one, R170.

Put your pencils down, kiddies, you won’t have to draw anything: I’m a Joe Biden supporter because most of the rest of these candidates SUCK and they’re too liberal to win a general election against a strong incumbent President with a good economy. There.

Given your comments OP, you also find Biden far too liberal but feel he is the candidate closest to your conservative views.

R163 Only rich people can afford "human compassion". And frankly I think those rich people can exercise it privately instead of whining and ask the unwilling taxpayers to feed their virtue-signalling.

Yet you can afford Trump and all of the Mitch McConnell Republitard excesses., R163

YUCK. Your Fox News shit generation can't die soon enough.

Yet you can afford Trump and all of the Mitch McConnell Republitard excesses., R163

YUCK. Your Fox News shit generation can't die soon enough.

Right thought, wrong poster, R175

Thank you for messages, R174 and R175.

Sorry R163. I meant the stupid cunt at R173 , naturally.

[quote] [R160]: Those children are here ILLEGALLY! The American people blame their parents for bringing them here, not Donald Trump

It’s statements like this that convince me that we must decriminalize unauthorized entry into the US. Make it a civil offense, instead of criminal one. Then we can eliminate this hysteria about ILLEGALLY. You just know the cunts who harp on this either don’t pay their taxes, or drive drunk, or break other laws.

Entering the US to work for a better life for yourself and your kids - how is this a crime, like. And robbery, or she abuse of minors, or kidnapping, and so forth. It’s the most normal thing in the world for a non-American to seek. It shouldn’t be a crime.

Good god almighty, if the Democratic candidate has to spend this general election talking about the virtue of decriminalizing illegal immigration and welcoming millions of South Americans into our country scot free, we are truly fucked. You people have lost your minds.

Nobody said anything about “welcoming millions of South Americans”. Are you that stupid, or are you a troll? I wrote that it should be a civil offense, not criminal. It would prevent another sadist like Trump from building concentration camps.

Because of these assholes who demand these poor people be forced to suffer in some way or another for wanting a bette life, maybe the Dems shouldn’t talk about it, and then just implement it anyway, after the election.

FFS, people like R180 make me think that Trump supporters all ought to be shot on sight.

What the hell do you think will happen when word gets back to South America that entering the US is no longer a criminal offense? That there’s a new American president who’s receptive to declarations of asylum by migrant families? That the border patrol has changed its mission and taken a more passive posture? That ICE no longer exists? These are the things that your candidate wants to do. And you think that’s going to deter immigration? The fucking caravans will be endless.

No. Immigration is coming primarily from the very small countries in Central America - Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua - that have become fairly violent and unstable. If the US were to use diplomacy to try to improve conditions in those countries (as so many diplomats and Democrats are advocating), the number of people there who want to leave and come to the US would drop significantly.

People from elsewhere in Central and South America aren't interested. Mexico's economy is booming, so is Colombia's (last I heard). They don't need to come here.

We need some immigration to fill jobs and replace our own birth rate, which is declining. People like R182 need to stop thinking of all of Latin America as one big hellhole and get over their fear of brown people.

[quote]It’s statements like this that convince me that we must decriminalize unauthorized entry into the US. Make it a civil offense, instead of criminal one. Then we can eliminate this hysteria about ILLEGALLY.

So you want to make it LEGAL to enter the US UNAUTHORIZED.

That’s also known as “open borders”.

Americans don’t want that.

“Very small countries.” There’s more than 9 million people in Honduras, almost 17 million in Guatemala, and more than 6 million in El Salvador.

And how many are you planning to keep in your home, R183?

Shut up, you Know-it-all-Cunt R184. Who died and made you the expert at who we need to vote for, what Americans want? Your slimy fingertips are concern trolling all over this thread. You deserve a kick in the twat.

Well, in a better universe the question is why we are throwing small children in detention camps apart from their parents, not whether crossing a border for asylum is a criminal or civil offense. In a better world, simply claiming compassion is "virtue signaling" R173 wouldn't dismiss honest reflection on what the virtuous action is. The cluttered language of tribal warfare in the public sphere helps score points in troll fights... I've doubts it makes the world a better place.

[quote]She’s smart and strategic and knows her audience.

Yeah Kamala, reparations, decriminalizing the border, free health care for every illegal migrant, allowing felons to vote from prison - that’s a winning ticket right there. Real smart.

Kamala peaked too soon, she's a red herring and arguably she doesn't have a lot to offer (and what she's offering will drive the flyovers screaming to the ballot box.) Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have a massive block of votes between them and in polls where they're not better than Kamala they're not far behind.

Once Warren knocks off Bernie, the contest comes down to Biden and Warren. Kamala Harris can't get the numbers. She's the story right now, but she's not the story. Warren is the story.

[quote]We need to start explaining to people WHY the Guatemalans are leaving their country and risking their lives to come to the US

It's the same reason people went on the TV show Fear Factor. The love of money is the root of all evil and it also makes people do crazy things. There are people in Central America who aren't satisfied with the money they currently have and they want to get more of it and they're willing to risk the lives of their kids to get it.

[quote] That’s also known as “open borders”...Americans don’t want that.

“Leadership” is what is called for, because the term “open borders” is a phrase used to scare people who think that Mexican rapists want to immigrate so that they can sell drugs and murder white people. This phrase conjures up the idea of no border at all. Nobody wants open borders, if it means no border at all. So, Americans who “don’t want this” don’t have to worry, though they think that they do.

R190, the News tells the story that these people are fleeing because the gangs at home are violent.

The problem seems to have gotten worse since Trump cut back on foreign aid to those Central American countries.

I wonder if anyone can name a single thing Trump has done out of compassion, that seemed real and sincere? I think he’s too consumed with the fear of looking weak, to be compassionate.

R193 Trump's genuine compassion? Well, no photos of him in swim trunks.

Fuck the American poor, who are underqualified for their barely-existent jobs. They're lazy and undeserving anyway. Let's give them a million competitors for low-wage, shit "opportunities." Let's diminish their possibilities even more. This is capitalism at its best. Let's stream everyone and anyone through the borders. Open them up and have a permanent underclass.

(I hate housecleaning, but a flood of low-skilled workers virtually guarantees I will never have to do that for myself.)

R195 There might be policies that lift up the American Poor, that respond to a workplace that is hollowing out middle class jobs, that address class oppression and the corrosion of the dignity of the American Worker... there just might be policies that address those concerns that don't need to demonize immigrants, that have a reformed immigration system. Ya think?

Supply and demand. As long as there are millions of unskilled workers coming across the border willing to work shitting jobs like produce-picking and housekeeping for pennies, then the generations of unskilled poor who were born here have no leverage to ask for more.

We want free stuff! And by we, I mean the upper middle class. And by free stuff, I mean somebody to clean my house for practically nothing.

Guatemala is basically what it would be like if Steven Miller ran a country.

R197, don’t forget chicken processing. It’s another job that pays pennies.

Open borders is the new servitude.

Regarding “open borders”. The Blues ought to try condescending to the Reds, as in “Don’t be afraid, everything will be alright.” and similar.

Who's cheaper and more compliant? Can I get the blacks to clean my house for $25? Because they sometimes get uppwanity. The Mexians don't complain though. They'll clean anything and for only $20 because they're scared. Let's have more Mexians! The more Mexians we have the less I have to deal with the uppity blacks who want respect that I don't want to give. F*ck the blacks! More cheap Mexians!

R202 - For the intellectually challenged, this is a thought exercise. It in no way expresses the opinions of the original poster.

Sure it doesn't, R203, sure.

R204, you're an idiot.

Joe Biden says he didn't think anyone thought Trump 'would be as bad as he is' during the 2016 presidential election

[quote]Joe Biden says he didn't think anyone thought Trump 'would be as bad as he is' during the 2016 presidential election

Joe Biden is a fucking idiot... which becomes more clear every time he opens his mouth.

Please, what Biden said is true. There was frequent talk that he would pivot to being more presidential once he took office. What Biden said very much reflects what was being said at the time.

Exactly. And that sentiment won Trump a lot of votes in those three blue states that were pivotal for his election. I heard from many of them, and they either said that Trump would dial it down or that Mike Pence would be the one really running the country.

Joe’s ability to connect with those voters by showing empathy for their mistake, rather than contempt, is the reason why he’s the most dangerous threat to Donald Trump.

R209 is correct. When Hillary Clinton referred to the "basket of deplorables," I thought that was one of the worst moments of her campaign, as she just denigrated voters who may have been considering her.

I think Joe is smarter than that, as he is showing with this kind of statement.

The problem with the basket of deplorable quote is that it was taken out of context by the media. She actually did say that a large part of his supporters were decent people and a small group were deplorable.

[quote]Joe’s ability to connect with those voters by showing empathy for their mistake, rather than contempt

This! Nobody likes to be scolded. It's so tempting to remind them that they were duped and suckers for voting for him, but all that does is infuriate and alienate them. Then they want to double down just to spite us. The best approach is to welcome them rather than shame them.

Joe had his chance and gave it up to the Clinton agenda. It was her turn, her right and anything else was misogynistic. He caved. She lost. We got trump. He needs to fuck off.

Joe would not have beaten Hillary.

Considering that she lost to Trump... it’s safe to say that anyone could have beaten her.

Biden is still at the top of the polls in swing states especially among independent voters. He’s old. All the others except Sanders can run in the future. Let’s dump Trump now!

Joe gets my vote because I just want this nightmare to end.

Oh my

Trump rage-tweeted at Fox News this morning for having the temerity to mention a Fox News poll showing Biden beating Trump by 10 points.

Go Joe!

[quote] Joe would not have beaten Hillary.

So true.

Ahhhh, okay, r219. Explains all the anti-Biden threads here today. Was wondering what the news was that drove the trolls back to DL.

#yanggang

[quote]is correct. When Hillary Clinton referred to the "basket of deplorables," I thought that was one of the worst moments of her campaign, as she just denigrated voters who may have been considering her.

[bold]Bullshit[/bold] !!

R210, none of those right wingers and BernieBots were going to vote for her no matter what.

She motivated folks who didn't really like either one of them possibly into grudgingly voting for Trump with that comment.

More than that R225

It just confirmed the image so many people had of her as a condescending cunt who thought she was better than everyone else and that the presidency should just be handed to her.

DLers often forget that one of the biggest slams on her was that she was like the CEO's wife who shows up one say and demands to be made head of marketing because she's bored at home.

A lot of were like WTF in the 90s when she showed up and decided she was going to overhaul health care. It was like "we elected your husband bitch, not you and yet you waltz into this like you're co-President and this is your fucking job."

She went from that to being the Senator from a state where she had zero prior connection, just a lot of Democrats who liked her husband and yet again, she was like "I was co-President for 8 years, of course you will make me your Senator."

Once Trump got nominated she kind of put her campaign on autopilot and didn't even try and give voters a reason to elect her other than "I'm not Trump and besides, it's my turn." (I mean that was seriously considered as her campaign slogan.)

So when he hit us with "basket of deplorables" it was like "I knew this bitch thought she was better than everyone, including her husband, whose I like but whose advice she can't be bothered to take, and WTF has she done other than draft off his popularity and make like people are voting for both of them, not just him.. That Trump guy can't be any worse and it would be great to show her up. Plus he's probably just saying all this stuff as a way to rile up voters, but if he gets elected he'll actually settle down and let the moderate Republican senators and old Bush aides run the show."

^^ton of typos in there but you get the gist

R226 is spot on.

[quote]That Trump guy can't be any worse and it would be great to show her up

This was a lot of people’s attitude. They didn’t really like Trump...but they voted for him just to stick it to that entitled bitch and make her lose. People really did hate her that much.

[210] - yes. It was one of the worst stumbles. I wish she had learned that just because it’s a private fundraiser/meeting and phones may be confiscated- you still end up recorded (RE-fucking-CEIPT): Romney and the 47% comment. Name call people behind closed doors if your campaign is based on not calling people names and being respectful. In that one moment, she lost people who thought - at least Hillary doesn’t mock people. In private...say every ** ***** **** *** he is....but no matter how private the stage or event may be, stay true to being above it no matter how messy you talk when the show (rally, interview, debate) is done for the night.

Face it, it's always going to be harder for a women to win because WOMEN HATE other women, and are total bitches to them. Guys are awful, but not like that. They don't tear down other men just to be bitter cunts.

[quote] DLers often forget that one of the biggest slams on her was that she was like the CEO's wife who shows up one say and demands to be made head of marketing because she's bored at home.

She was not like that at all. She was a former US Senator and Secretary of State, not just a former POTUS's wife. Yeah, her campaign was lackluster and the "basket of deplorables" thing, while perfectly accurate, was a huge mistake to say out loud, but the "CEO's wife" criticism is bullshit.

R229, and a lot of people stuck to Hillary by not voting at all. I know of many black millennials who stayed home rather than vote because they really disliked Hillary

They wouldn’t have stayed home if Joe was on the ticket promising four more years of Barack Obama.

Now we have Cory Booker going after Biden. I know they feel they need to make brownie points but geez don’t stoop to Trumpism ways.

No R232. She was 100% like that.

People felt she got her Senate seat because people liked Bill, not because people liked her. And it was clear that she used New York, a state she had zero ties to, as a launch pad for her Presidential ambitions, which stemmed from the fact that she felt she'd been "co-President"

She did jack shit as a Senator but because she was a former First Lady and was in NY, she got a lot of press coverage for showing up at events, etc.

Clinton easily won a second term, r236. She was hardly reviled.

Winning a second term in New York wasn't all that hard R237. The name recognition alone, versus John Spencer, former mayor of Yonkers...

Not sure how that's proof that many, many, many people don't hate her.

I get that DLers love to diva-ize her (not sure if that's an actual word) but for so many people she is everything they hate about the world embodied in a single human.

[quote] People felt she got her Senate seat because people liked Bill, not because people liked her.

Regardless of how and why she was elected to the Senate, once there, she had to do the job just like any other senator. By the time she ran for President, she had 8 years' experience as a senator under her belt and four years' experience as Secretary of State. That's not the same as running for office with no other qualifications than being a former First Lady.

[quote] for so many people she is everything they hate about the world embodied in a single human.

True, and those people are irrational nutjobs. HRC has her flaws, obviously, and I frankly wish she hadn't run for president, but the notion that she's the embodiment of everything wrong about the world is just cuckoo.

R236, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm specifically addressing r236 who, seems to think NYers hated Clinton. We didn't. Her favorability ratings during her time in the senate were over 50%. And, if you do, want to broaden that to "many, many, many people" her favorability grew even higher during her time as SoS. It wasn't until her run in 2016 that things turned.

And anyone saying she didn't do anything as senator obviously isn't from NY. One example is she secured funding to clean up the polluted Long Island Sound.

We're the same person R241 and nowhere did I say New Yorkers hated her or thought she was a horrible Senator.

And her Senate record was pretty middling, she was not a superstar. Which is not to say she did nothing but get her nails done and go to yoga, but she was not a leading light.

FWIW, I voted for her for Senate both times R241. She was no worse than most Senators and her name recognition meant she had a better chance to get things for NYS than others.

But the narrative for many was that she felt that her tenure as co-President entitled her to become Senator from a state she had no connection to, where she spent her time figuring out how to run in 2008.

It doesn't matter what's rational or true--it's what people thought.

None of the current candidates has that kind of baggage. Which is great.

[quote]She was not like that at all. She was a former US Senator and Secretary of State, not just a former POTUS's wife.

She got that Senate seat mostly because she was a former POTUS's wife.

[quote]She did jack shit as a Senator

Well she did bring us the Iraq War.

[quote] She got that Senate seat mostly because she was a former POTUS's wife, who believed she had actually been the co-President for eight years and thus entitled to be Senator. This angered many people who liked him but didn't think they'd also voted for her. Not to mention the man who was actually her husband's Vice President

[quote] R226: A lot of were like WTF in the 90s when she (Hillary) showed up and decided she was going to overhaul health care. It was like "we elected your husband bitch, not you and yet you waltz into this like you're co-President and this is your fucking job."

It was clear as day, before the election, that we were electing a partnership.

Hillary didn’t “decide she was going to overhaul health care.”, she and Bill decided together. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for the failure of Hillarycare, we wouldn’t have had Obamacare.

[quote] R245: Well she did bring us the Iraq War.

False!

She voted to allow force if Bush’s negotiations failed. Firstly, to vote “no” would have chopped Bush’s legs off during negotiations with Iraq. Second, she was lied to, as we all were about Iraqi weapons. Remember? The war was supported by most people. Thirdly, it was hard to imagine Bush would have bungled the war as badly as he did. Fourthly, she was one of 100 Senators voting on the issue.

Dubya brought us the Iraq war. Under the influence of Cheney and others. But it was a Republican war, fully!

([quote] She got that Senate seat mostly because she was a former POTUS's wife,

NY voters weren’t idiots. They elected her twice.

[quote] NY voters weren’t idiots. They elected her twice.

Contradicting.

Her Stans are easily the most tiresome people on Datalounge.

It's crazy too (in all senses of that word) because since DL attracts actual Stans, everything from actors like Luke Evans and Ben Barnes to InstaHos on out, it's easy (and eerie) to see how similar the Hillary stans behavior isl to that of the other stans.

[quote]NY voters weren’t idiots. They elected her twice.

NY voters also brought us Bill deBlasio, Kirsten Gillibrand, and AOC.

They are idiots.

[quote]Please, what Biden said is true. There was frequent talk that he would pivot to being more presidential once he took office. What Biden said very much reflects what was being said at the time.

You're either a liar or a buffoon. Obama and Clinton both gave warnings as to the kind of president he would be.

You want to help the Republican party by pretending it didn't happen to boost your flawed candidate, then go ahead.

[quote]None of the current candidates has that kind of baggage

Biden has a ton of baggage. Iraq War vote, Crime Bill, bankruptcy bill, cozying up to Wall Street and the 1%. Abortion rights and the Hyde Amendment.

More recently: saying there was no Russian collusion. , and contradicting the Mueller report. Having his correspondence with those segregationist senators sealed up during the busing controversy (what have you got to hide?)

.

Like I said R255, none of the 2020 candidates has anywhere close to Hillary's baggage.

And R254, there's this cool site called "Google" -- I bet if you go there it can help you find the numerous articles wherein people speculated that Trump was just acting and would both act presidential and quickly tire of the actual job of running the country.

Dear, I'm not going to help the Republicans by whitewashing their history. Feel free to rationalize the bullshit all you want to make yourself feel better. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

I wonder how many Biden supporters also agree with his sentiment that Mike Pence is a decent guy.

Since the Freeper forgiveness train is in full bloom on this thread.

R252, and it brings out people with derangement syndrome like yourself.

The fact is, Hillary had decades of rumors of her bitchiness and rudeness towards staff, floating around about her. And what kind of message did it send that she hardly did any rallies and never set foot in the midwest? She assumed Trump was such a buffoon, that she didn't need to put forth any effort to connect with voters or even work hard to be elected. She took an entire month off from campaigning in August, the height of the season. And I do believe some Trump votes came from people just wanting to stick it to her. She didn't do what she needed to, to win the presidency. It's her own fault.

R254, it's obvious that you are completely unfamiliar with what was being said at the time. Seriously, totally unfamiliar.

R260, Hillary is reportedly a naturally nice person in private. She does have decades of Fox misinformation “floating around”, and you’ve been Foxwashed. She probably curtailed her campaigning because she had pneumonia, something anyone could have gotten. The fact that she continued appearances until she collapsed just shows what a tough ol’ broad she is. Compare with that baby Trump and His failure to honor the WWI dead, because of some light rain.

I am curious how the Trump team including Fox knew she was sick long before she collapsed. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was infected by the Russians, and they told Trump .

Must be pretty humiliating for shitty little Bernie that he is going to lose two times in a row, how many times will he run till he figures out we don't want his ancient saggy lying ass?

Must be pretty humiliating for shitty little Bernie that he is going to lose two times in a row, how many times will he run till he figures out we don't want his ancient saggy lying ass?

Believe me, this is Bernie’s last run.

[quote]it's obvious that you are completely unfamiliar with what was being said at the time. Seriously, totally unfamiliar.

From New York Times April 23, 2016

[quote] "Well you know what?" she added. "If we buy that shame on us. Because he's already showed us what he believes and he's already said what he wants to do, and he wants to go after every one of the rights we have."

May 5, 2016 - Hillary Clinton warns Hispanic voters about Trump

Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump wants to create a "deportation force to round up millions of people," warning a largely Hispanic audience about the presumptive Republican nominee.

who is gonna be his VP?

A Biden/Harris ticket would be pretty much unbeatable. But, I would prefer Harris be President.

If the ticket is Biden / Harris, I think they would get elected and then I think eventually Harris would be president.

[QUOTE]who is gonna be his VP?

Michelle Obama.

Biden/Gillibrand

R269, I don't know how it's even humanly possible to be this delusional.

I don't think Biden and Harris particularly like each other all that much. His asking her to go easy on him at the beginning of the debate was a stunt, not a friendly gesture.

Michelle hates politics. She’s not running, no how.

I did not want to vote for old Joe but the other candidates are being so nasty, I feel like voting for Joe. The stupid fuckers all have Trump to attack, why attack Joe? And the more liberal pundits all just push them to be mean. These liberal pundits will put Trump in the White House again. I hate them.

OP's post was almost 3 weeks ago and it still holds today. Nothing has changed, even after two more debates.

Mayor Pete/ Cory Booker would have something for everyone.

[quote]Mayor Pete/ Cory Booker would have something for everyone.

Mayor Pete / Cory Booker would have another four years of Trump for everyone.

How is anyone actually supporting Bernie Shamders??

Nobody in their right state of mind could think that ancient Communist is electable, let alone would be a good President?

Most of Bernie’s support is younger Millennials (and Russians). Are these people just stoned on weed 24/7??

[quote] Are these people just stoned on weed 24/7??

Harris coming across as aggressive, angry, frowning, and flipping on positions, gains her little. Don't play prosecutor in trying to be likeable. Smile, show some humor, be gracious, and not show an off-putting attitude, will get her further.

Bernie, Jane, and Weaver ain't getting a donation from me.

[quote]Harris coming across as aggressive, angry, frowning, and flipping on positions, gains her little. Don't play prosecutor in trying to be likeable. Smile, show some humor, be gracious, and not show an off-putting attitude, will get her further

The people who are supporting her are doing so because she’s a bitch, and that’s what we want to see. If you want someone gracious and humorous, you can vote for Gillibrand, Klobuchar, or Yang.

BernBros won't enjoy their assigned flats at their placed work camps in Nebraska cultivating the fields for10 hours a day in exchange for community college tuition.

R284 Harris is dropping in the polls. She'll linger a few more months. An Indian-American trying to sound ghetto and southern black evangelical isn't cutting it.

Biden/Yang please

While Biden is ahead, Warren is 8 points behind - that is not an insurmountable lead. I can't wait to see Biden and Warren at a debate together because my hunch is Warren will win that debate.

Here's the pros and cons for both. Biden pro is that polls currently having him beat Trump easily. For many Democrats simply beating Trump is the main priority. His con is that he really has no vision and there is a serious lack of actual enthusiasm around his campaign. Go online, talk to your Democratic friends or family, listen to democratic talking heads on TV, no one actually seems excited to vote for Joe. It's more of a "meh but he could beat Trump." This lack of excitement is what could cost him the nomination or even the election. Trump's base, perhaps smaller, is just as energized if not more so then they were in 2016. Joe has to give swing voters a reasons to vote for him and right now I don't see what he's offering them. I feel that there was far more enthusiasm among democrats for Hillary in 2016 than there is currently for Joe.

Warren's pro is that she's got a clear vision and she engaging. Like Hillary she is strong on policy and has a real plan for America BUT I think she is far better at articulating it with regular Americans than Hillary was. Her vision is different than what every candidate is offering, except Bernie, and it's specifically targeted at swing voters who want something different. Warren's con - and I hate to say this - but as a woman and and as frequent target of Trump's racist attacks I think it will be easier for Trump to rally his base. I think there would be some concern that putting another woman up during the Trump era will draw too many comparsions to Hillary.

I'll vote for whomever the nominee is, but in all honesty I'd prefer Warren over Biden.

[quote]She motivated folks who didn't really like either one of them possibly into grudgingly voting for Trump with that comment.

lol

I am always surprised of the lengths that people will go to excuse the Deplorable vote.

"They didn't vote for a known racist because they wanted to harm people of color! Hillary made them do it!!! "

Sure, sure it was bad Hillary...

[quote]The people who are supporting her are doing so because she’s a bitch, and that’s what we want to see.

Have no fear, swing state voters who aren't thrilled with Trump right now would see her as that, too.

[quote]Mayor Pete/ Cory Booker would have something for everyone.

Mayor Pete/ Cory Booker would have nothing for everyone.

I know I am called a troll or Russian, but I wish people would at least consider the idea that the liberal immigration policies. such as making illegal crossing only a civil matter, are a turn off for some Dems and radioactive in the general. Biden was the only top 5 candidate to go against the tide on that issue. Now, couple that stance with the attack on Obama's 3 million deportation numbers and the optics become really bad. We saw what Rep and the media could do with Hillary's emails, wait until they use the words from the last 2 debates against our nominee.

Biden solidified some of his base with immigration. He was able to distinguish between asylum seekers, legal immigrants, and illegal border crossings, while vowing to end family separation. Biden has passed bills that would help South American countries and wants to increase the number of judges and staff to review asylum requests. His plans sound measured and align with the general public.

I think if more candidates will change their mind on their immigration stance they can avoid an unnecessary hurdle in the general election and chip away at Biden's lead.

[quote] I wish people would at least consider the idea that the liberal immigration policies. such as making illegal crossing only a civil matter, are a turn off for some Dems and radioactive in the general.

Since that's not what the data show and since you have no data to back up your claims, why, exactly, should we consider it? Trump and the Republican Party went all in on immigration in 2018: MS-13!!! Open borders!!!! Invading caravans!!!! Crime!!!! Disease!!!! It didn't work and we had record-breaking turnout and a strong blue wave.

There is no real reason at this point to believe that these issues will favor Trump or Republicans in 2020, particularly since the polls aren't turning towards Trump despite what you claim about the recent debates. People have heard these words, either directly or indirectly, and they still don't like Trump.

Is it "turning off" some people? Probably, but those people who are more "turned off" by decriminalization of border entry (a non-issue) than they are by putting children into concentration camps weren't going to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway.

Most legal immigrants hate the idea. This is pandering to very liberal white voters.

Tell me, does randomly making up shit work on those other forums you frequent, R294? Because it really doesn't work here.

Here, r295. The article says to me that the Obama/Biden immigration stance is popular, which is why Obama could deport 3 million people without many issues from the Left or the Right. He and Joe call for a measured approach to get those that commit crimes while giving a pass to people just living their lives.

[quote]However, survey data suggests that public attitudes toward immigration may be somewhat more in line with Democrats’ positions than Republicans’, so Democrats might do well in 2020 if they campaign on their vision for overhauling the immigration system. Yet this move still carries risks. Some views held by members in the left wing of the party — like abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency — don’t poll well with voters and could be particularly alienating among Americans who are worried about border security.

So it appears that r293 and r295 were the real trolls. Once presented with facts they disappear. They want data but oddly, didn't link any stats in their rebuttals. I'm seeing a lot of pro-liberal immigration hard liners all over DL. Maybe Russian's are trying to push another unpopular Democratic stereotype, like ANTIFA in 2016 or that small segment of the BLM movement that protested Democratic Town Halls.

Richard Palmer who has correctly predicted every US election for nearly 40 years, now says Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump.

R298, your post makes zero sense. First of all, the name you linked to is Richard "Painter" not "Palmer". Second, nowhere anywhere, even on his wiki page, is there any mention that he "correctly predicted every US election for nearly 40 years". And lastly, your link to him has him saying BIDEN is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, not Warren.

[quote]So it appears that [R293] and [R295] were the real trolls. Once presented with facts they disappear. They want data but oddly, didn't link any stats in their rebuttals

Unlike you, apparently, I have a life. I strongly suggest you get one. This is what was written:

[quote]radioactive in the general.

and

[quote]Most legal immigrants hate the idea.

You have no data to back this up. And your own link says:

[quote]However, survey data suggests that public attitudes toward immigration may be somewhat more in line with Democrats’ positions than Republicans’.

As for my own data, I already provided that:

[quote] Trump and the Republican Party went all in on immigration in 2018: MS-13!!! Open borders!!!! Invading caravans!!!! Crime!!!! Disease!!!! It didn't work and we had record-breaking turnout and a strong blue wave.

You do remember, 2018, don't you? I had assumed that I didn't need to post the election results, nor the news stories and campaign ads that Republicans ran in that election.

[quote]There is no real reason at this point to believe that these issues will favor Trump or Republicans in 2020, particularly since the polls aren't turning towards Trump despite what you claim about the recent debates.

Similarly, I saw no reason to post the polling data that is readily available on RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight.

Look, R297, the simple fact is that you, personally, don't like what you're hearing from some of the Democratic candidates. That's fine. It's an arguable position and you're welcome to argue for your own position on the merits. What you're being taken to task for is pretending that your personal opinion is universally shared, that the Democrats who dare to disagree with you are "radioactive poison."

If you want to have a discussion about immigration policies, minus the hyperbole and radical claims, go for it. If you want to pretend that Democrats are doomed (doomed, I say!!!) if they don't agree with you, then you will, as a matter of course, be called a troll.