|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Mar 11, 2020 19:42:45 GMT
I am interested to know how conservative members of this site would vote in the USA, as it is common for Conservative politicians/supporters in the UK to have been supporters of the Democrats in the past/present. Republican. Always Republican. The first election I can remember is the one in 1992. I recall my elder brothers predicting a Bush win, having seen what the Conservatives here in the UK had pulled off in the April. I did have some reservations about the mental capacities of Dubya and Trump, and credited Bill Clinton over his successful handling of the economy and foreign affairs (notwithstanding his extra marital affairs). His handling of the economy? He repealed Glass-Steagall FFS! The single worst political decision of the 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Mar 11, 2020 19:45:18 GMT
I am interested to know how conservative members of this site would vote in the USA, as it is common for Conservative politicians/supporters in the UK to have been supporters of the Democrats in the past/present. I'd be an independent in the US, and who I'd vote for (if anyone)* would depend on the choice of candidates. * Addendum Same here. We don't even know Biden's VP pick yet. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,393
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 11, 2020 20:04:38 GMT
What would be the point? He was an independent for years and there would be very little point in taking on this role. Best bet is to continue to damage Biden so he loses and then look towards the next generation. What on earth are you blithering on about. He has caucused with the Democrats for the whole of his time in the Senate. He was Chairman the Veterans Affairs Committee from 2013-2015* and has been Ranking Member (that is the lead member of the minority party) of the Budget Committee since 2015. If the Democrats take the Senate he will of course take the Chairmanship of that committee. * He was widely considered to have done a good job in that position. Covering for Biden isn't something he should do or want to do - if he actually does believe what he says, where his critique has been more than convincing |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,393
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 11, 2020 20:07:44 GMT
I'd be an independent in the US, and who I'd vote for (if anyone)* would depend on the choice of candidates. * Addendum Same here. We don't even know Biden's VP pick yet. Which may be quite important if he is in the early stages of senility.... |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Mar 11, 2020 20:15:14 GMT
Likewise, the US Democratic Party will have to go through another 1984 (and 1988) at some point. I'm modestly encouraged that they have managed to avoid it this year. Is it possible to have another 1984 (or 1972 - or in reverse 1964 or 1936) any time soon? The US seems to much more polarised these days that a near clean sweep seems impossible now. California surely isn't voting for Trump under any circumstance this year. That's over 50 electoral votes for the Democrats right there, i.e. well above what the likes of McGovern, Landon and Mondale got. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2020 20:20:27 GMT
Bernie statement: "We fight on!" A 1-on-1 debate will be good for Biden to sharpen up, so that's cool by me. It was rich with "We won the argument (but lost the elections)" guff they obviously learned from Corbyn though, lol.  I'm sure there was a point where Bernie was your 2nd preference after Pete |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,645
|
Post by mboy on Mar 11, 2020 20:27:38 GMT
Bernie statement: "We fight on!" A 1-on-1 debate will be good for Biden to sharpen up, so that's cool by me. It was rich with "We won the argument (but lost the elections)" guff they obviously learned from Corbyn though, lol. I'm sure there was a point where Bernie was your 2nd preference after Pete No I was always a Biden fan to start, but then went to Pete and then back. Bernie crashed and 'Berned' for me when he appointed the Linda Sarsour fanclub as advisers. In fact the whole AOC entourage - while energising his campaign at a critical moment just after he had his heart attack - was ultimately the death of his campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Mar 11, 2020 20:34:10 GMT
Is it possible to have another 1984 (or 1972 - or in reverse 1964 or 1936) any time soon? The US seems to much more polarised these days that a near clean sweep seems impossible now. California surely isn't voting for Trump under any circumstance this year. That's over 50 electoral votes for the Democrats right there, i.e. well above what the likes of McGovern, Landon and Mondale got. Could any Republican win there in a Presidential contest, though? It's difficult to imagine - some rather safe states could flip either by virtue of having a moderate and/or swingy electorate (Rhode Island or Delaware) or a large demographic split (Oregon). But California doesn't have a particularly moderate majority, nor are there enough suburban and rural conservatives to outweigh the deeply liberal cities. The only way I could see it ever going red is if they were able to win over culturally conservative Hispanic voters together with huge turnout in the rural parts of the state, and I can't see both ever happening simultaneously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2020 20:36:50 GMT
California surely isn't voting for Trump under any circumstance this year. That's over 50 electoral votes for the Democrats right there, i.e. well above what the likes of McGovern, Landon and Mondale got. Could any Republican win there in a Presidential contest, though? It's difficult to imagine - some rather safe states could flip either by virtue of having a moderate and/or swingy electorate (Rhode Island or Delaware) or a large demographic split (Oregon). But California doesn't have a particularly moderate majority, nor are there enough suburban and rural conservatives to outweigh the deeply liberal cities. The only way I could see it ever going red is if they were able to win over culturally conservative Hispanic voters together with huge turnout in the rural parts of the state, and I can't see both ever happening simultaneously. Maine went from Obama +16 to Clinton +3 so we have a state that was safe not so long ago that Trump may win. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Mar 11, 2020 20:38:28 GMT
Could any Republican win there in a Presidential contest, though? It's difficult to imagine - some rather safe states could flip either by virtue of having a moderate and/or swingy electorate (Rhode Island or Delaware) or a large demographic split (Oregon). But California doesn't have a particularly moderate majority, nor are there enough suburban and rural conservatives to outweigh the deeply liberal cities. The only way I could see it ever going red is if they were able to win over culturally conservative Hispanic voters together with huge turnout in the rural parts of the state, and I can't see both ever happening simultaneously. Maine went from Obama +16 to Clinton +3 so we have a state that was safe not so long ago that Trump may win. But Maine would probably fall under both of my categories (like most of New England it's not known for its extremism, and there are a lot of rural voters in ME-02 and not many urban liberals). California is a very different kettle of fish. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Mar 11, 2020 20:55:33 GMT
I am interested to know how conservative members of this site would vote in the USA, as it is common for Conservative politicians/supporters in the UK to have been supporters of the Democrats in the past/present. At the moment probably third party (libertarian). But do lean more democrat, they would be totally fine if they tempered their enthusiasm for identity politics. Would not vote Republican in a presidential election and probably would not have done so for the last 3 decades, and it is not trump-specific. Barry Goldwater's denunciation of the religious right in politics is spot on, and it is their attachment to the Republican party that prevents me from voting for them. Local contests are a different matter. The last gubernatorial election in Vermont, for example, had Republican and Democrat candidates I could happily vote for. The Republican was a social liberal and fiscal conservative and the Democrat candidate was a transwomen who cared a lot more about infrastructure than identity politics |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 11, 2020 20:56:06 GMT
Do you think Tulsi is hanging on because she thinks the Wu Flu will do for the last two?
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Mar 11, 2020 21:02:50 GMT
Do you think Tulsi is hanging on because she thinks the Wu Flu will do for the last two? Or she's disgusted at the way she's been treated. I don't blame her. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 11, 2020 21:05:01 GMT
Do you think Tulsi is hanging on because she thinks the Wu Flu will do for the last two? Or she's disgusted at the way she's been treated. I don't blame her. Well, she's a grifter. A hot grifter, but a grifter. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Mar 11, 2020 21:06:36 GMT
This. We are ignoring the fact that large numbers of conservative white suburban women cannot stomach Donald Trump and they will be the key to the next election, insomuch that their turnout will swing close elections. Joe Biden has more hope of attracting them to vote for him than just sitting on their hands. To get a failed VP who appears to be heading towards senility? Not sure if thats a good thing. What happens if he gets elected and then isn;t capable of doing the job? Does he resign and the Veep take over? Is there any mechanism for ensuring this?Broadly yes. That's covered by the 25th Amendment. Its use has been speculated on during Trump's term (and perhaps on other occasions).
As to Biden's (or indeed Starmer's) electability only a fool would give confident predictions. It depends, as always, on the economy and how voters feel they have benefitted from that economy, on the government's broad competence, to a lesser extent on the opposition's ability to produce a coherent, plausible alternative narrative delivered capably and consistently. And the mystery factor of "events" - the unknown unknowns. Having a competent Presidential candidate, or Oppostion Leader, certainly helps, and an incompetent one makes delivering the narrative near impossible.
In the Trump/Biden contest it seems pretty clear that Trump isn't widening his coalition and that that coalition is demographically challenged. The Democrats have a large "Never Trump" coalition induced by Trump's extreme behaviour. There's evidence that Clinton both ran a poor campaign in terms of resource distribution and prompted some nose-holding backing for Trump or, more often, abstentions. I'd be amazed if the Democrats repeated the first error. I'm not sure that Biden prompts the same negatives as Clinton did (rightly or wrongly) and probably has more appeal in some of the key states. But there's plenty that can happen between now and November.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 11, 2020 21:20:15 GMT
Maine went from Obama +16 to Clinton +3 so we have a state that was safe not so long ago that Trump may win. But Maine would probably fall under both of my categories (like most of New England it's not known for its extremism, and there are a lot of rural voters in ME-02 and not many urban liberals). California is a very different kettle of fish. Maine, like New Hampshire has never really totally shed its Republican inclinations either - technically it hasn’t elected a Democratic Senator since George Mitchell in 1988, twice elected a very Trumpian Governor prior to 2018. It’s worth remembering when you include Vermont as well there are very rural, sparsely populated areas that don’t conform with the Boston liberal image of New England - during his tenure in the House Sanders used to earn high scores from the NRA purportedly because he was defending the large number of gun owning hunters in the State. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 11, 2020 23:09:32 GMT
What on earth are you blithering on about. He has caucused with the Democrats for the whole of his time in the Senate. He was Chairman the Veterans Affairs Committee from 2013-2015* and has been Ranking Member (that is the lead member of the minority party) of the Budget Committee since 2015. If the Democrats take the Senate he will of course take the Chairmanship of that committee. * He was widely considered to have done a good job in that position. Covering for Biden isn't something he should do or want to do - if he actually does believe what he says, where his critique has been more than convincing Do you have a clue what you are talking about? The US have separation of powers. Taking a senior position in the legislature is in no way “covering” for the head of the executive. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,393
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 11, 2020 23:14:17 GMT
Covering for Biden isn't something he should do or want to do - if he actually does believe what he says, where his critique has been more than convincing Do you have a clue what you are talking about? The US have separation of powers. Taking a senior position in the legislature is in no way “covering” for the head of the executive. If he wants to waste his time, up to him.... |
|
|
|
Post by dizz on Mar 11, 2020 23:35:13 GMT
Decision Desk/Dave Leip are both reporting Biden as 8k or 0.7% ahead in Washington State.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 11, 2020 23:38:38 GMT
The results of the Democrats Abroad primary won't be in until March 23 (despite voting ending on March 10), but Biden is barely above viability and may not remain there (the provisional results are not necessarily the earliest of the votes which were taken).
|
|
