Warren ends White House bid, leading Biden, Sanders to fight for Democratic nod

[lannarebirth]

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by lannarebirth

[Curt1591]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Just another 45 fan fantasy that has bupkis to do with any possible reality.

Hillary has fired of hints of running again. After all, the presidency was her destiny.

Well, after a relative long silence (at lest for her) Hillary has begun to crawl out from under her rock lately. The latest sign is a new documentary TV series "Hillary". Just in time for the run. 

I am not a fan of Trump. I have always view him as a pompous jerk, long before he ran for office. 

However, given the alternatives ....

[cmarshall]

So now Biden and Sanders will face off in the first real debate of the season between two real contenders.  Sanders is still sharp as a tack while Biden is already so addled that he can't tell his wife from his sister.  This will be very obvious to viewers.  In addition, Sanders will attack Biden for having been consistently on the wrong side of policy, some of which is of vital interest to Michigan, to wit: 

 

1.  Biden supported Bush's endless wars including voting for the Iraq War.

2.  Biden supported Nafta which hoovered up all those manufacturing jobs in the rust belt.

3.  Biden, aka the "Senator from MBNA" supported toughening the bankruptcy laws to the benefit of the banks and the detriment of student debt holders.

4.  Biden has repeatedly supported cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

 

So, Bernie has a hand to play.  If it does come down to Biden debating Trump the US will have entered its Andropov/Chernyenko period of sclerotic leadership.

[cmarshall]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

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. 

If Biden is the nominee he will pick a white woman.  He doesn't need a black VP since he has the black vote locked up already and he would have to give up any hope of picking up some of Trump's racist supporters.

[TopDeadSenter]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

he would have to give up any hope of picking up some of Trump's racist supporters

Do you have any credible info on exactly how many Trump supporters are racists? The way you write it's as if all of them are. Is it possible that some supporters (including black Americans) appreciate getting off welfare and back into employment? Some are happy their retirement funds have swelled. Some will be happy to see a serious effort made to protect the border. Many reasons to support Trump, I'm not convinced that ALL are racists.

 I see Sanders as an angry old man, Biden as a confused old man, and Trump as a winning old man.

[Sujo]

12 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Shows you how dishonest and two faced Dems (career politicians) are...you never really know where they stand.

Of course the repubs werent like that at all with trump where they.

[blazes]

16 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

So now Biden and Sanders will face off in the first real debate of the season between two real contenders.  Sanders is still sharp as a tack while Biden is already so addled that he can't tell his wife from his sister.  This will be very obvious to viewers.  In addition, Sanders will attack Biden for having been consistently on the wrong side of policy, some of which is of vital interest to Michigan, to wit: 

 

1.  Biden supported Bush's endless wars including voting for the Iraq War.

2.  Biden supported Nafta which hoovered up all those manufacturing jobs in the rust belt.

3.  Biden, aka the "Senator from MBNA" supported toughening the bankruptcy laws to the benefit of the banks and the detriment of student debt holders.

4.  Biden has repeatedly supported cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

 

So, Bernie has a hand to play.  If it does come down to Biden debating Trump the US will have entered its Andropov/Chernyenko period of sclerotic leadership.

 

So who will be the American Gorbachev?  And will he bring down the southern Wall, letting in all the illegals looking for free health care in the US of A?

 

 

 

[metisdead]

Offensive troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

So who will be the American Gorbachev?  And will he bring down the southern Wall, letting in all the illegals looking for free health care in the US of A?

 

 

 

US has free health care?

[Jingthing]

53 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If Biden is the nominee he will pick a white woman.  He doesn't need a black VP since he has the black vote locked up already and he would have to give up any hope of picking up some of Trump's racist supporters.

That's possibly true but it's not really all that black and white. 

 

Some other factors come into play that could make the difference between beating 45 or not. 

 

To wit

 

Analysts are claiming if 45 gets as little as 12 percent of the black vote he wins. 

 

In 2016 if blacks had turned out just a little bit better such as in the Philadelphia Pennsylvania area 45 would have lost. 

 

Biden is indeed very popular with older black people but not with younger black people. So the older black people will turn out for him but younger ones are going to be much harder to get to turn out. 

 

A relatively younger and exciting African American woman VP could make the difference for that critical demographic. 

 

Specifically Stacy Abrams is strongly associated with fighting against systematic republican voter suppression not just of black people but also of Latinos and the poorer American underclass of all races. She also has massive charisma and lovability which Biden lacks. She would put much of the South in play including Georgia, Texas, and Florida. She would excite a good segment of the Bernie brigade. 

 

That said Biden can potentially win with a number of different VP picks. But there are specific pros and cons for each specific pick. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Jingthing

[blazes]

41 minutes ago, Sujo said:

US has free health care?

 

Sorry if it's confusing:  I was merely referring to what I thought everyone knew, that each of the 20-odd Dem presidential candidates last year swore blind that they would provide medical care to any illegal who entered the US under their (his/her) administration.  It was a "human right".

 

So, no, there is no free medical care in the US, but there will be if any one of those 20 candidates becomes president (if, of course, they keep their promise).

Btw, don't you remember all those Dem sheep raising their arms to signify "yes, I will spend a few trillion dollars here and there on this and that"?

[cmarshall]

52 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's possibly true but it's not really all that black and white. 

 

Some other factors come into play that could make the difference between beating 45 or not. 

 

To wit

 

Analysts are claiming if 45 gets as little as 12 percent of the black vote he wins. 

 

In 2016 if blacks had turned out just a little bit better such as in the Philadelphia Pennsylvania area 45 would have lost. 

 

Biden is indeed very popular with older black people but not with younger black people. So the older black people will turn out for him but younger ones are going to be much harder to get to turn out. 

 

A relatively younger and exciting African American woman VP could make the difference for that critical demographic. 

 

Specifically Stacy Abrams is strongly associated with fighting against systematic republican voter suppression not just of black people but also of Latinos and the poorer American underclass of all races. She also has massive charisma and lovability which Biden lacks. She would put much of the South in play including Georgia, Texas, and Florida. She would excite a good segment of the Bernie brigade. 

 

That said Biden can potentially win with a number of different VP picks. But there are specific pros and cons for each specific pick. 

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.

[lannarebirth]

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.

[Silurian]

23 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Historically, the VP pick doesn't matter. 

 

I worry more about Biden picking someone that is obscure and milquetoast like the VP choices in the 2016 election. If he picks some relatively unknown white male Senator or white male Governor, this would hurt his chances more than it would if he picks a better know female or better known non-white person.

 

To me, the VP picks hardly ever inspire anyone due to their lack of popularity. So I assume in this case, the VP choice will be someone subdued and uninspiring (as usual).

[Jingthing]

30 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.

If it even matters a little bit and arguably it will matter at least a little bit then the right strategic VP pick could easily be the difference between winning and losing. 

 

I think it mattered lady time. Pence did wonders to stir up evangelical support for 45. HRC's pick for those that can even remember his name was a pleasant and serviceable enough gentleman but a bigger and more exciting name may have put her over the top. Remember the last election was decided by only about 70000 votes in four states. Little advantages can matter alot! 

[cmarshall]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

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.

The VP choice does matter a great deal for the nation since that person will have a higher than usual chance of becoming president.  However, who the VP candidate is will not affect the outcome of the election much if at all.  Voters don't vote for the VP, nor do they pay much attention to possible succession.  

 

Yang?  Please.  No chance at all. Yang doesn't exist in the worldview of the Dem leadership, since he got no votes and has never held office.  Since Biden will do the picking, it will be someone he is comfortable with.  He should pick Warren, but he is more likely to choose some white woman who has never attacked him.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

I worry more about Biden picking someone that is obscure and milquetoast like the VP choices in the 2016 election. If he picks some relatively unknown white male Senator or white male Governor, this would hurt his chances more than it would if he picks a better know female or better known non-white person.

 

To me, the VP picks hardly ever inspire anyone due to their lack of popularity. So I assume in this case, the VP choice will be someone subdued and uninspiring (as usual).

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. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

 

Sorry if it's confusing:  I was merely referring to what I thought everyone knew, that each of the 20-odd Dem presidential candidates last year swore blind that they would provide medical care to any illegal who entered the US under their (his/her) administration.  It was a "human right".

 

So, no, there is no free medical care in the US, but there will be if any one of those 20 candidates becomes president (if, of course, they keep their promise).

Btw, don't you remember all those Dem sheep raising their arms to signify "yes, I will spend a few trillion dollars here and there on this and that"?

If someone is in need of medical attention yes it should be a right to get it. Medical help should not be a privilege.

 

if someone is illegal they should, and will be deported. Those seeking asylum are not illegal.

 

You say if one of the dem candidates becomes president there will be free health care, like its a bad thing. It isnt.

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If it even matters a little bit and arguably it will matter at least a little bit then the right strategic VP pick could easily be the difference between winning and losing. 

 

I think it mattered lady time. Pence did wonders to stir up evangelical support for 45. HRC's pick for those that can even remember his name was a pleasant and serviceable enough gentleman but a bigger and more exciting name may have put her over the top. Remember the last election was decided by only about 70000 votes in four states. Little advantages can matter alot! 

There have been other close elections in US history, but the VP never decided the outcome with the exception of LBJ in 1960.  

 

Voters don't vote for the VP; they vote for the pres.  Any VP pick is more likely to cause harm than to help which is why Biden won't pick a black, since why should he run the risk of offending racist whites when he already has the black vote.  

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The VP choice does matter a great deal for the nation since that person will have a higher than usual chance of becoming president.  However, who the VP candidate is will not affect the outcome of the election much if at all.  Voters don't vote for the VP, nor do they pay much attention to possible succession.  

 

Yang?  Please.  No chance at all. Yang doesn't exist in the worldview of the Dem leadership, since he got no votes and has never held office.  Since Biden will do the picking, it will be someone he is comfortable with.  He should pick Warren, but he is more likely to choose some white woman who has never attacked him.

Warren would be a good pick but the problem with her is that her state has a republican governor meaning she would be replaced with a republican senator. Hurts the chances of taking over the senate. 

 

I agree Yang no freaking way. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Just now, cmarshall said:

There have been other close elections in US history, but the VP never decided the outcome with the exception of LBJ in 1960.  

 

Voters don't vote for the VP; they vote for the pres.  Any VP pick is more likely to cause harm than to help which is why Biden won't pick a black, since why should he run the risk of offending racist whites when he already has the black vote.  

Turnout can be impacted. We'll have to agree to disagree. 

[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.

[lannarebirth]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Warren would be a good pick but the problem with her is that her state has a republican governor meaning she would be replaced with a republican senator. Hurts the chances of taking over the senate. 

 

I agree Yang no freaking way. 

Yeah, he and Bernie both are for democratic reforms and campaign finance reform. The horror!

[zydeco]

23 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Trump may be 70ish

About to be 74 in three months. But, sure, "70ish." Fact is the Democrats seemed determined to nominate someone with signs of dementia. And the Republicans will once again run a moron. And you're right, age doesn't seem to affect Trump. He's apparently been a moron all his life.

[zydeco]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

US has free health care?

In a way, yes. It's the law. A hospital cannot turn you away for emergency or life threatening treatment (which would include kidney dialysis, for example). Hospitals are then free to pursue payment. But . . . get blood out of a turnip, if you can. Or from an illegal with no papers or false ones. In many cases, hospitals don't even try.

[zydeco]

Quote

Earlier this year, Abrams, 46, told the website FiveThirtyEight that she plans to become president of the United States by 2040.     https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article240884301.html

Best way for her to do that would be to become Biden's VP and wait a few months for him to die or be declared unfit due to dementia.

[blazes]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

If someone is in need of medical attention yes it should be a right to get it. Medical help should not be a privilege.

 

if someone is illegal they should, and will be deported. Those seeking asylum are not illegal.

 

You say if one of the dem candidates becomes president there will be free health care, like its a bad thing. It isnt.

 

Sorry, it's no use arguing with you (and I certainly like to argue).  You just don't see the contradictions in what you say.

 

[JHolmesJr]

16 minutes ago, zydeco said:

About to be 74 in three months. But, sure, "70ish." Fact is the Democrats seemed determined to nominate someone with signs of dementia. And the Republicans will once again run a moron. And you're right, age doesn't seem to affect Trump. He's apparently been a moron all his life.

 

What have you achieved?

[blazes]

1 minute ago, zydeco said:

Best way for her to do that would be to become Biden's VP and wait a few months for him to die or be declared unfit due to dementia.

 

Is there ANYone on this thread who could contemplate this Abrams woman as the POTUS without fearing for the sanity of an already inflamed nation????  

[cmarshall]

17 minutes ago, zydeco said:

About to be 74 in three months. But, sure, "70ish." Fact is the Democrats seemed determined to nominate someone with signs of dementia. And the Republicans will once again run a moron. And you're right, age doesn't seem to affect Trump. He's apparently been a moron all his life.

Trump certainly has Alzheimer's Disease which has advanced since 2016.  His speech is slurred, he wanders off the topic, can seldom manage a complete sentence, has a vocabulary much reduced to what you hear from him in interviews from the 80's, had an emergency trip to Walter Reed in November probably the result of a fall after which his doctor tailed him everywhere, and is full of rage.  All of these are symptoms of Alzheimer's which affects every aspect of mental and physical functioning.  

 

I expect that Trump will refuse to debate the Democrat candidate, because he can no longer manage enough coherence to participate.  The mainstream media hardly touch the issue of Trump's Alzheimer's, but wait until he falls down in public after which that will be the only topic.