US Presidential Race 2020

[Merseymike]

Mar 12, 2020 3:21:40 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 12, 2020 0:39:26 GMT Merseymike said:

You're not obliged to. Block me, given your tendency to dislike reading anything which dares to disagree with you.

Did that eons ago but you keep showing up on other people’s quotes. Nothing to do with disagreeing with me, everything to do with eradicating trolls.

Disagreeing with your politics really isn't trolling.....

[timmullen1]

Mar 12, 2020 8:15:39 GMT Merseymike said:

Mar 12, 2020 3:21:40 GMT timmullen1 said:

Did that eons ago but you keep showing up on other people’s quotes. Nothing to do with disagreeing with me, everything to do with eradicating trolls.

Disagreeing with your politics really isn't trolling.....

I refer you to post #3855 by bert yesterday, it sums you up perfectly.

[Merseymike]

Mar 12, 2020 9:27:10 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 12, 2020 8:15:39 GMT Merseymike said:

Disagreeing with your politics really isn't trolling.....

I refer you to post #3855 by bert yesterday, it sums you up perfectly.

Then don't read my posts. I'm not self-censoring to please you or "Bert", who has openly boasted of being a non-Labour entryist into the party. ,,,,

[finsobruce]

Mar 12, 2020 1:18:10 GMT Richard Allen said:

Mar 12, 2020 1:06:15 GMT Merseymike said:

I don't think he would achieve anything at all. Indeed he may just end up compromising himself. But then, I don't think supposedly getting a little of what you want is worthwhile. If I felt like that I wouldn't have resigned from Labour in 2003.
Politicians are by definition careerists, with a strong belief in their own importance so you could be right.

You really are one of the most self absorbed clueless fools I have had the misfortune to come across. You seemingly apply your own position to that of everyone else regardless of circumstances. Taking to its logical conclusion you argument would be that the numerous Democrats in the House of Representative who Chair committees are all compromising themselves and should allow their political opponents to take on those positions of power instead. If you seek election to the legislative branch then you surely want to use that position to advance your beliefs, to suggest that should decline to do so just because the leadership of the executive branch doesn't share all your beliefs is so ridiculous that I can only assume that you, not Joe Biden, must be the one who is mentally ill.

This thread is getting a little feisty and while a good bit of cut an thrust is fine, and even the odd insult is to be expected I'd rather we didn't have insults related to mental health directed at anyone.

thank  you.

[pragmaticidealist]

Mar 12, 2020 3:23:38 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 11, 2020 23:35:13 GMT dizz said:

Decision Desk/Dave Leip are both reporting Biden as 8k or 0.7% ahead in Washington State.

On the New York Times results page it’s 1.7% or 15,293 raw votes with 77% reporting.

Decision Desk is ahead of the rest as far as the speed of the results go, although signing-up is required to view the site.

[timmullen1]

Mar 12, 2020 10:11:30 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

Mar 12, 2020 3:23:38 GMT timmullen1 said:

On the New York Times results page it’s 1.7% or 15,293 raw votes with 77% reporting.

Decision Desk is ahead of the rest as far as the speed of the results go, although signing-up is required to view the site.

It’s currently on 49.74% reporting, the NYT are on 77% but the vote totals are identical.

[matureleft]

Presuming that nothing even more bizarre than normal happens, Trump will be the Republican candidate. I appreciate that many of his supporters both "buy" a load of what would otherwise be damaging behaviour in their support of him and anyway think that he is fighting against a deep establishment using underhand behaviour and "fake news". But the current performance must shake at least some. To first, pooh pooh the virus and explicitly contradict medical and scientific opinion; then blame your opponents; then take it seriously as a nationalist cause and balls up your broadcast (indicating a trade embargo) so that it requires rapid correction as your beloved stockmarket plummets takes a bit of doing.

I'd have thought that the US healthcare system is particularly ill-suited to fighting the virus. Access to tests and medical support isn't straightforward for a significant proportion of the population and the system lacks a robust national crisis command and control. It will be both hard to detect the spread of the virus and, then, harder still to control it and eliminate it. The Trump plan seems to be to blame it on "foreigners" but, even if that narrative works, surely some will want real solutions in addition to tweets?

[Richard Allen]

Mar 12, 2020 1:34:53 GMT Merseymike said:

Mar 12, 2020 1:18:10 GMT Richard Allen said:

You really are one of the most self absorbed clueless fools I have had the misfortune to come across. You seemingly apply your own position to that of everyone else regardless of circumstances. Taking to its logical conclusion you argument would be that the numerous Democrats in the House of Representative who Chair committees are all compromising themselves and should allow their political opponents to take on those positions of power instead. If you seek election to the legislative branch then you surely want to use that position to advance your beliefs, to suggest that should decline to do so just because the leadership of the executive branch doesn't share all your beliefs is so ridiculous that I can only assume that you, not Joe Biden, must be the one who is mentally ill.

I thought you had been warned before about your inability to discuss anything without constant use of personal insults or accusations. Mental illness, this time.

Oh really, do stop being so bloody silly. My reference to mental illness was clearly in the context of you claiming Joe Biden to be senile.

[Merseymike]

Mar 12, 2020 11:23:21 GMT matureleft said:

Presuming that nothing even more bizarre than normal happens, Trump will be the Republican candidate. I appreciate that many of his supporters both "buy" a load of what would otherwise be damaging behaviour in their support of him and anyway think that he is fighting against a deep establishment using underhand behaviour and "fake news". But the current performance must shake at least some. To first, pooh pooh the virus and explicitly contradict medical and scientific opinion; then blame your opponents; then take it seriously as a nationalist cause and balls up your broadcast (indicating a trade embargo) so that it requires rapid correction as your beloved stockmarket plummets takes a bit of doing.

I'd have thought that the US healthcare system is particularly ill-suited to fighting the virus. Access to tests and medical support isn't straightforward for a significant proportion of the population and the system lacks a robust national crisis command and control. It will be both hard to detect the spread of the virus and, then, harder still to control it and eliminate it. The Trump plan seems to be to blame it on "foreigners" but, even if that narrative works, surely some will want real solutions in addition to tweets?

Though the resistance to "socialised medicine" even something as anodyne as Obama's reforms, is huge.
His supporters won't care about any of the other stuff.
As there aren't any real solutions available to anyone that won't make a difference either.

[matureleft]

Mar 12, 2020 13:22:30 GMT Merseymike said:

Mar 12, 2020 11:23:21 GMT matureleft said:

Presuming that nothing even more bizarre than normal happens, Trump will be the Republican candidate. I appreciate that many of his supporters both "buy" a load of what would otherwise be damaging behaviour in their support of him and anyway think that he is fighting against a deep establishment using underhand behaviour and "fake news". But the current performance must shake at least some. To first, pooh pooh the virus and explicitly contradict medical and scientific opinion; then blame your opponents; then take it seriously as a nationalist cause and balls up your broadcast (indicating a trade embargo) so that it requires rapid correction as your beloved stockmarket plummets takes a bit of doing.

I'd have thought that the US healthcare system is particularly ill-suited to fighting the virus. Access to tests and medical support isn't straightforward for a significant proportion of the population and the system lacks a robust national crisis command and control. It will be both hard to detect the spread of the virus and, then, harder still to control it and eliminate it. The Trump plan seems to be to blame it on "foreigners" but, even if that narrative works, surely some will want real solutions in addition to tweets?

Though the resistance to "socialised medicine" even something as anodyne as Obama's reforms, is huge.
His supporters won't care about any of the other stuff.
As there aren't any real solutions available to anyone that won't make a difference either.

I'd agree that most Trumpistas will be loyal through this. However his incoherent approach is having an effect on the markets. The overwhelming majority of the US workforce have pension plans based on investments. That and the potential employment impact of the muddle should have an impact on their vote preferences.

There are solutions (in terms of limiting the spread) available but they carry significant social and economic cost. After the Chinese messed up the initial outbreak their authoritarian approach since seems to have been fairly successful. Knowing your centralist and rather stern preferences I would imagine that you'd be OK with some of their draconian stuff!? You'll note that our own medical leads have specifically touched on the balance in measures between effectiveness and social acceptability.

In the US they wouldn't need "socialised medicine" except in the sense that they require government run (or sponsored through agents) testing in far higher volumes backed with tracing, isolation and treatment of the small minority needing substantial interventions.

[curiousliberal]

Just my two cents, Merseymike , but IMO the quality of your analysis has seriously deteriorated over the last 6 months or so, and it's a shame because there is value in a different perspective here. The trap you seem to have fallen into is one I've seen a couple of socialist friends fall into: over-reliance on so-called "structural analysis"; while this is inevitably going to be important to most socialists, I'm not sure most of its advocates argue that it's the be-all-and-end-all of all politics. Those who do are the sort who argued that Marxist analysis could be used to predict the future, which turned out about as well as other attempts to predict the future by ideology. The sum total of human history, or even just its most recent centuries, does not follow a small set of neat patterns, and even a structure that attempts to self-perpetuate does not necessarily succeed in doing so.

To twist a common phrase, this sort of mistake ensures you do not see the trees from the wood, and it's a shame. I don't know why this has happened, but I do know that in the past, you used to joke about an accelerationist acquaintance who voted for Thatcher instead of advocating their position. W.r.t. the couple of socialist friends I've seen a similar change in, I would hazard a guess that it's something to do with the defeat of Corbyn, but the defeat of Corbyn in 2019 does not mean the eternal defeat of your ideology in this democracy forever. Even with structural forces hypothetically set a certain degree against you, there are variables that can be changed to tilt things back in your favour. 

As for Sanders himself, he can have a valuable role in the Democratic Party without being President or even having an official post; as the most prominent politician of the American left, he'll be able to champion specific causes, fight worrying trends in the progressive movement, and help Democrats get elected to the legislature, which is probably more powerful than the President when both of its chambers are controlled by the same party. Biden loves compromise (beyond mere centrism - see his apparent loath to use executive privilege) and seems to have a good relationship with Sanders, so if the left bloc can cultivate its power, Sanders can get good work done with him.

[timmullen1]

Mar 12, 2020 13:51:59 GMT curiousliberal said:

As for Sanders himself, he can have a valuable role in the Democratic Party without being President or even having an official post; as the most prominent politician of the American left, he'll be able to champion specific causes, fight worrying trends in the progressive movement, and help Democrats get elected to the legislature, which is probably more powerful than the President when both of its chambers are controlled by the same party. Biden loves compromise (beyond mere centrism - see his apparent loath to use executive privilege) and seems to have a good relationship with Sanders, so if the left bloc can cultivate its power, Sanders can get good work done with him.

Realistically Sanders only has another four years of active politics left; if he were to be the Democratic nominee, and should be defeat Trump, it’s unlikely (as with Biden) they would be more than a one term President. Should he lose to Biden it’s unlikely he will be given a free pass by the Democrats should be wish to run for re-election in Vermont in 2024, at around 84 years old. A number of Statewide office holders publicly expressed their unhappiness at him refusing to run as a Democrat in 2018 and mulled a primary, and whilst there’s a distinct possibility Patrick Leahy will have retired in 2022 freeing up one space, there are an awful lot of ambitious Democrats looking to break on the national scene from Vermont, and their patience with Sanders, and perhaps voters patience as evidenced by his underwhelming primary result compared to 2016, is running distinctly thin.

[curiousliberal]

Mar 12, 2020 14:14:06 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 12, 2020 13:51:59 GMT curiousliberal said:

As for Sanders himself, he can have a valuable role in the Democratic Party without being President or even having an official post; as the most prominent politician of the American left, he'll be able to champion specific causes, fight worrying trends in the progressive movement, and help Democrats get elected to the legislature, which is probably more powerful than the President when both of its chambers are controlled by the same party. Biden loves compromise (beyond mere centrism - see his apparent loath to use executive privilege) and seems to have a good relationship with Sanders, so if the left bloc can cultivate its power, Sanders can get good work done with him.

Realistically Sanders only has another four years of active politics left; if he were to be the Democratic nominee, and should be defeat Trump, it’s unlikely (as with Biden) they would be more than a one term President. Should he lose to Biden it’s unlikely he will be given a free pass by the Democrats should be wish to run for re-election in Vermont in 2024, at around 84 years old. A number of Statewide office holders publicly expressed their unhappiness at him refusing to run as a Democrat in 2018 and mulled a primary, and whilst there’s a distinct possibility Patrick Leahy will have retired in 2022 freeing up one space, there are an awful lot of ambitious Democrats looking to break on the national scene from Vermont, and their patience with Sanders, and perhaps voters patience as evidenced by his underwhelming primary result compared to 2016, is running distinctly thin.

One would have to be mad to primary Sanders. His favourability in the party remains sky high and so, presumably, does his rating in Vermont. His margin of victory vs Biden, Bloomberg, Gabbard and Warren was indeed smaller, but four opponents can appeal in more dimensions than one and Biden was less of a bad fit than his previous opponent for reasons that had more to do with Clinton than Sanders. Just last year, he polled as the most popular politician, including all senators, w.r.t. their constituents.

With respect to being a one-term president, it's quite possible he would not go for a second term, but I see him as the type to run himself into the ground as long as he is capable given the packed schedule of his campaign before and after his heart attack; I also expect he'd run for Senate again in 2024 if he felt capable (it's not out of the ordinary for senators who haven't reached 90 to have one more go). One-term presidents surrender a considerable incumbency advantage; presumably, the party will encourage him or Biden to run again should either win in 2020 and not be collapsing by the tail end of their first term.

Statewide office holders may well express unhappiness, but they have less genuine reason to do that than before when he was happier to e.g. advertise his pro-NRA credentials and pitch his brand as more independent of the party. As it stands, he has more support from the Vermont party than he did in 2016, and he can probably afford to ignore any grumblings from those set against him for reasons that are ideological or related to Clintonite patronage.

[Merseymike]

Mar 12, 2020 13:42:50 GMT matureleft said:

Mar 12, 2020 13:22:30 GMT Merseymike said:

Though the resistance to "socialised medicine" even something as anodyne as Obama's reforms, is huge.
His supporters won't care about any of the other stuff.
As there aren't any real solutions available to anyone that won't make a difference either.

I'd agree that most Trumpistas will be loyal through this. However his incoherent approach is having an effect on the markets. The overwhelming majority of the US workforce have pension plans based on investments. That and the potential employment impact of the muddle should have an impact on their vote preferences.

There are solutions (in terms of limiting the spread) available but they carry significant social and economic cost. After the Chinese messed up the initial outbreak their authoritarian approach since seems to have been fairly successful. Knowing your centralist and rather stern preferences I would imagine that you'd be OK with some of their draconian stuff!? You'll note that our own medical leads have specifically touched on the balance in measures between effectiveness and social acceptability.

In the US they wouldn't need "socialised medicine" except in the sense that they require government run (or sponsored through agents) testing in far higher volumes backed with tracing, isolation and treatment of the small minority needing substantial interventions.

I think what is acceptable in China may not be elsewhere. But in terms of the numbers and size of their cities they did the only thing they could. Also there is a strong sense of Confucianism and obedience to authority in China.
In America the issue may well be payment mechanisms given the insurance based systems. Hard to imagine them doing it for free.

[Merseymike]

Mar 12, 2020 13:51:59 GMT curiousliberal said:

Just my two cents, Merseymike , but IMO the quality of your analysis has seriously deteriorated over the last 6 months or so, and it's a shame because there is value in a different perspective here. The trap you seem to have fallen into is one I've seen a couple of socialist friends fall into: over-reliance on so-called "structural analysis"; while this is inevitably going to be important to most socialists, I'm not sure most of its advocates argue that it's the be-all-and-end-all of all politics. Those who do are the sort who argued that Marxist analysis could be used to predict the future, which turned out about as well as other attempts to predict the future by ideology. The sum total of human history, or even just its most recent centuries, does not follow a small set of neat patterns, and even a structure that attempts to self-perpetuate does not necessarily succeed in doing so.

To twist a common phrase, this sort of mistake ensures you do not see the trees from the wood, and it's a shame. I don't know why this has happened, but I do know that in the past, you used to joke about an accelerationist acquaintance who voted for Thatcher instead of advocating their position. W.r.t. the couple of socialist friends I've seen a similar change in, I would hazard a guess that it's something to do with the defeat of Corbyn, but the defeat of Corbyn in 2019 does not mean the eternal defeat of your ideology in this democracy forever. Even with structural forces hypothetically set a certain degree against you, there are variables that can be changed to tilt things back in your favour. 

As for Sanders himself, he can have a valuable role in the Democratic Party without being President or even having an official post; as the most prominent politician of the American left, he'll be able to champion specific causes, fight worrying trends in the progressive movement, and help Democrats get elected to the legislature, which is probably more powerful than the President when both of its chambers are controlled by the same party. Biden loves compromise (beyond mere centrism - see his apparent loath to use executive privilege) and seems to have a good relationship with Sanders, so if the left bloc can cultivate its power, Sanders can get good work done with him.

You are entitled to your view, but clearly I don't agree with you.
It was obvious that Corbyn was going to lose for a range of reasons - too many to go into now. However, what it has made me realise is that it's very unlikely that those who hold power are likely to allow anything too far from the current mainstream to take over.
And I've become more and more convinced that centrist social democracy has insurmountable flaws and problems which make it something I don't wish to encourage. I think it is essentially incoherent.
If there's one thing Marxist analysis wasn't good at its predicting the future, but the rejection of it in total by the Labour right has essentially left them advocating a cuddlier sort of capitalism and an enthusiasm for globalisation, neither of which I think are possible or welcome within a left wing context.

I'm sure there is still room for my ideology but I'm no longer convinced - indeed, I haven't been for a while - that we will get any closer to it by electing a Labour government led by someone like Starmer. So I would now question how much change can happen via parliamentary centred reformism given the structural forces ranged against it. Similarly I think we need to be very careful how much we go along with the second-best option. Sometimes I think it's best to stand aside and be a genuine alternative. What I would say is that I'd back a cross party opposition election agreement to get electoral reform but that would be in the hope of moving away from the broad-church catch all party.

[greenchristian]

Mar 12, 2020 11:23:21 GMT matureleft said:

Presuming that nothing even more bizarre than normal happens, Trump will be the Republican candidate.

There's a nonzero probability, given his age, that Trump becomes a coronavirus fatality - and so isn't alive to be the Republican candidate. I don't think that eventuality is something more bizarre than normal.

[nelson]

More Irish nepotism from Biden. He has hired Jennifer O’Malley Dillon (who previously worked as campaign manager for a certain Robert Francis O’Rourke) to run his presidential campaign. 

Irish-Americans rumoured to be on Biden's shortlist for a cabinet position:

Sally Yates, née Quillian (AG)
Bank of America's vice chair Anne Finucane (Treasury)
John Kerry ("Climate Czar")
Tom Donilon ( CIA director/Director of National Intelligence/Secretary of State)

[nelson]

The DNC is moving Sunday's presidential debate between Biden and Sanders from Phoenix to Washington due to coronavirus concerns, but without an audience that probably doesn't really matter. 

[Khunanup]

Mar 12, 2020 17:48:07 GMT nelson said:

More Irish nepotism from Biden. He has hired Jennifer O’Malley Dillon (who previously worked as campaign manager for a certain Robert Francis O’Rourke) to run his presidential campaign. 

Irish-Americans rumoured to be on Biden's shortlist for a cabinet position:

Sally Yates, née Quillian (AG)
Bank of America's vice chair Anne Finucane (Treasury)
John Kerry ("Climate Czar")
Tom Donilon ( CIA director/Director of National Intelligence/Secretary of State)

Seeing as half your country seems to claim some Irish heritage this isn't especially surprising...

[nelson]

Civiqs poll of 1,441 RV
civiqs.com/documents/Civiqs_DailyKos_monthly_banner_book_2020_03_y54g2h2.pdf

Biden 48%
Trump 46%
Unsure 6%

Sanders 49%
Trump 46%
Unsure 5%

That's probably a Trump victory, at least over Biden. Sanders generally has a more efficient vote distribution so a three point lead may be enough (though that's not really relevant anymore since he doesn't have a realistic path to the nomination).