lannarebirth

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think he'll be that stupid to repeat HRCs mistake but I think the question will be the level of risk he's comfortable with in his pick. 

Klobuchar would be a lower risk. Abrams higher. I happen to think Booker would bring a lot of passion to the campaign as well. 

It won't be HRC, Bernie, Castro, or Warren. 

Abrams means a loss. She's another one Bloomberg's been funding. I'd love to be holding the opposing hand to this overt subversion of democracy. He might win with Klobuchar, but I can't imagine how they're going to get the vote out, let alone the young people. And they lose the following election for sure because nothing transformative is coming out of those two. I say that as someone who actully likes Klobuchar.

11 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Historically, the VP pick doesn't matter.  The only election where I think the VP could be said to have affected the outcome is when LBJ carried Texas for Kennedy in 1960.  The VP candidate in this election could matter if turnout increased, but Biden has already benefited from increased turnout in the primaries encourage the belief that the Dems will indeed turnout to get rid of Trump, more than to elevate Biden.  

 

So with older black voters, i.e. the ones who actually vote, strongly for Biden, I don't see how Abrams would get him any more votes.  The young voters did not turn out in numbers for Bernie, whom they support.  Hard to see how Abrams would improve that.  I don't see a basis for supposing that black support for Trump would increase.  Black Americans recognize Trump's racism for what it is and they see its effect on themselves.  Until there is a poll showing more blacks for Trump I won't believe it.

The VP choice by all candidates, on both sides, matters a lot more in this election than most. First of all, nobody really likes any of these people, even though they may end up voting for one of them anyway. Secondly, they're all old AF and Biden has even hinted at a one term presidency. The succession plan will be the biggest deal in deciding on a candidate to support. For the Democrats, if it's to be a white woman as you say, I'm not sure who that would be that is of a younger generation, can heal the progressive/establishment rift. It's got to be someone that will be seen as having the chops to be president themselves. For my money that's Andrew Yang. If Biden chooses him (assuming Yang would accept on his own terms) then it's game, set, match.

What's funny about the Biden candidacy, and more than a little ironic is, Joe is the one that secures the African American vote but he's being encouraged to select a young African American woman to secure the vote of affluent, college educated White women who appreciate tokenism. 

Just now, DoctorG said:

Energy and strength are 2 different things.

Could you do 5 pushups? I know I would be struggling.

 Yes. 5 pullups, umm, don't think so.

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I see what you did there....I didn't criticise their age btw.

Trump may be 70ish....but I think the guy has more energy than most 40 year olds.

 

Really?  C'mon, do you really think he could even do 5 legit pushups? 2?

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Either one of those picks will lead to a loss in November. He needs to select someone that is everything he is not. Young, smart, future oriented, not linked to Obama, not linked to any of America's current problems domestically or abroad. Not beholden to corporations or special interests.

Here comes the quid pro quo to Clyburn. It's a mistake IMO:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clyburn-says-biden-should-pick-a-woman-to-be-his-running-mate-223820072.html

6 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

DNC have changed the rules again to keep Tulsi off the debate stage.

Sure, one could easily argue that she should not be there with her 1% but she did have one delegate, which was the proviso for the debate.

 

I've got nothing against her and I endorse her policy to end the forever wars, but you could argue that the DNC are the only ones keeping her name in the news.

29 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

I think chosing Waren as Bidens' VP will be strongest

I don't. There isn't anybody on either side that doesn't think that their candidate is horrible. But they like them better than the horrible one the other side is running. The winner of this election has to find a way to get younger and project America into the future with some new vision, because let's face it, this is a nation in rapid decline, and it didn't start with Trump. Adding yet another septugenarian isn't going to get the job done.

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I prefer Abrams but picking her will be seen as risky because of her relatively lower level state government experience. Probably stronger experience than Mayor Pete though. But face it Biden is correctly seen as the safe choice for the top of the ticket. But too safe is boring. Picking Abrams would give his candidacy an edge and also a chance to take more southern states. 

Either one of those picks will lead to a loss in November. He needs to select someone that is everything he is not. Young, smart, future oriented, not linked to Obama, not linked to any of America's current problems domestically or abroad. Not beholden to corporations or special interests.

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

Well thats certainly proven true for dems. For repubs no.

You think Bloomberg is going to stop spending money to elect the candidate he chooses and thwart the opponent? It's gonna be like what the Russians spent times 100. I'm not saying it's illegal or anything, but it does show our democracy to be a sham.

6 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

As a European and not knowing much about US politics I ask myself if the Donald on the one and Biden on the other side really are the best, the US have to offer.

To me it seems as Biden was a bit mentally disabled. Sometimes not knowing, where is is, confounding his wife with his sister, believing he made climate agreements with Deng Xiauping and pretending he was imprisoned when he wanted to meet Nelson Mandela.

Biden's not mentally disabled in the least but he does have public speaking deficiencies. He plays alot better from ahead than from behind. His biggest issue is he's got a lot of political skeletons in his closet. He needs to turn the page and make this election about the future and that requires a VP choice from the next generation of leaders that will make everyone feel good about succession issues. 

8 hours ago, Ventenio said:

Bloomberg really did GREAT!!!!  

 

He could have saved 932749204732943489324324 poor families or got 7 electoral (?) votes....  I'd take that 7 any day!!!!  

 

He should go and spend 10 billion on commercials and go watch them at church with friends from the slums of Detroit.  

 

lol

He accrued delegates, which are fungible, as was his aim.

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

Hey, Tulsi hasn't dropped out yet!

 

 

Hey, Tulsi's got some bargaining power at the convention. She may yet be a kingmaker!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/03/tulsi-gabbard-american-samoa-first-delegate-120131

2 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Of those three, the only one with any chance at all in a debate with Trump is Warren. You saw how she eviscerated Bloomberg. She could tear Trump apart and leave him in little pieces. Put Trump against Biden, and I'm not even sure Joe will know what year it is or where he is.

What can she say about Trump that we haven't read in the newspaper the past 4 years? Yeah she can give it to us with breathless histrionics and a full helping of righteous indignation, but that only works if you don't live in a glass house yourself. Probably would have helped if she didn't place 3rd in her own state tonight.

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Ah I see, Bring on the Tangerine Democrat to take on the Orange Republican.

 

Both make Reagan look like Einstein now! 

 

Just what the world needs - neither of them!

Remember when no one ever thought it could get worse than George W? It can always get worse. It is the natural result of always voting for the lesser of two evils. Each successive election presents 2 lesser choices than the last.

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not at all surprise that you have no idea but do have a look at the inverted bond yield. Paint a sobering picture of the economy ruined by the FED and the Trump administration. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/us-bonds-jobless-numbers-in-focus.html

I look at this stuff for hours per day for the past 25 years. I was being facetious.

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The majority of democratic voters disagree with you. They think Biden is a much safer bet than Bernie to beat 45.

 

Biden will be our nominee. 

 

We will see whether you are right or the majority of democrats are right in November. 

 

I totally agree though that this is about beating American fascism and saving the USA from the authoritarian demagogue in the white house. 

 

Incredibly high stakes indeed. 

 

Of course even if Biden wins it doesn't automatically follow that 45 will leave. 

 

Leaving for him means exposure to criminal prosecution and prison. 

Biden will probably use Bloomberg's money, staff, offices and data clearinghouse which are all paid through November. All of which are said to be the best ever assembled. Do you find that bothersome at all?  What did Dylan say?    "In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach. Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach".

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Who are you supporting at this point?

5 septugenarians running at this point. Soon to be 3. ANY candidate better have an attractive succession plan in place IMO.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I'll do the same.  That doesn't mean it's a good idea to politicize the Fed.  It's also not a good idea to run up the Federal deficit when the economy is strong, as the Republicans have a habit of doing. 

 

There's a real possibility of a global recession in the near future.  Interest rates can't go much lower.  The deficit is already too high.  We are entering unknown territory.

Gee, I had no idea.

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The DNC isn't exactly rushing to embrace Bloomberg either.

 

I find it puzzling that some people can't understand why the DNC favors reliable Democrats over people who change parties whenever it is convenient. 

If that were true, then why would they allow him to run under their banner? Just to bleed off young and disenchanted voters?

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Guess who disagrees:

 

" President Trump, who has been a vocal opponent of the Fed, responded to the rate cut on Twitter, calling for more cuts and further policy easing in order to maintain the United States’ global economic advantage. "   https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/03/03/fed-cuts-rates-to-combat-coronavirus-impact-on-markets-trump-calls-for-more-easing-and-cutting/#7f1947c5560e

 

So what if Trump is having some success on politicizing the Fed?  What could go wrong?

Guess who's about to refinance his property portfolio at new, lower rates?