Biden Leading Trump in the Polls!

[Rubiks]

I see Biden as essentially being the Hillary Clinton of 2020.

I predict the 2020 election to have much higher voter turnout; that might give Biden a slight chance.

 

[Rubiks]

You mean their "racist hate towards old white men" like Bernie Sanders? Really??? LOL!!!!

edit: I think I parsed ArmenianJohn's post wrong.

 

[super animator]

I know plenty.

Sure you do, which why you use "socialism" as metaphor boogeyman as much as "neo marxist"

Don't get me started about the false narrative that is the climate hysteria... I could go on that issue for a LONG time... using scientific fact.

I am going to let @USincognito take it from here, as he is better suited to climate science then anything else.

Exactly what is "an issue"?

Are you going to act like the years of slavery and discrimination laws have nothing to do with the economic disadvantages, while the same time ignore the systematic racism they face when it comes to the police and the judicial system? Seriously a black church has been burn down in recent memory.

"Squelching free speech"
Free speech does not mean free from consequences.

"Safe spaces"
Do you know what that terminology even means? It generally means escape from bigotry.

"Political Correctness"
PC of what exactly?

"Defending Islam while persecuting Christians."
Citation needed.

"Universalizing Healthcare under the government."
You mean doing the same thing that other first world countries are doing such Norway Denmark etc?

 

[Fantine]

The top 5 Democratic candidates all beatTrumpin these polls. Good to see America starting to wise up and realize that anyone is preferable to Trump.

 

[Aldebaran]

The top 5 Democratic candidates all beatTrumpin these polls. Good to see America starting to wise up and realize that anyone is preferable to Trump.

When we get closer to the actual election, division will form between the 22 candidates (or is it just 21 so far?). That happened last time when there were far fewer, and it helped to defeat Hillary when Sanders supporters refused to vote for Clinton. But when there's 21 or 22 candidates with differing ideas within a fractured democrat party, the likelihood of a repeat of 2016 becomes greater.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

When we get closer to the actual election, division will form between the 22 candidates (or is it just 21 so far?). That happened last time when there were far fewer, and it helped to defeat Hillary when Sanders supporters refused to vote for Clinton. But when there's 21 or 22 candidates with differing ideas within a fractured democrat party, the likelihood of a repeat of 2016 becomes greater.

I see it differently.

I see with more choices that Democratic voters have the opportunity to really hone in on a certain candidate for more reasons than just "this is who we got". It's going to take the right combination of policy positions plus media marketability to rise up above the pack and that's only going to be better for the voters vs having the choice between a terrible candidate or a protest vote.

 

[Aldebaran]

I see it differently.

I see with more choices that Democratic voters have the opportunity to really hone in on a certain candidate for more reasons than just "this is who we got". It's going to take the right combination of policy positions plus media marketability to rise up above the pack and that's only going to be better for the voters vs having the choice between a terrible candidate or a protest vote.

The problem is the fact that only 1 of them makes it to become the nominee. When that happens, the people who (sometimes exclusively) wanted one of the other 20 are often going to be the "Sanders, Biden, etc. or nothing" voters. But you're correct if enough people who wanted someone other than the nominee badly enough can lay aside who they really wanted and vote for whoever the nominee ends up being. I'm already seeing posts here indicating they wouldn't vote for Biden, even though he's one of the strongest contenders.

 

[Fantine]

When the alternative is Trump, I don't see any people staying home from the polls because the nominee happened to be their second, or 3rd, or even 10th choice. I think we need someone who can handle Trump.
I always go back to how Obama handled Trump's vicious, racist, xenophobe lies about his birth. He attended the Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York City. In his speech he showed a video in the background of The Lion King where Mufasa was holding Simba up to the skies, likening himself to the chosen one. It was exactly what was needed to show people exactly who Trump was. That light, dismissive touch that put Trump in his place (the gutter.)
I think that Buttigieg has that light, deft touch to expose Trump for who he is. Not sure about the others.

 

[hedrick]

I think that Buttigieg has that light, deft touch to expose Trump for who he is. Not sure about the others.

So do I. However I'm not convinced that the US is ready to elect a gay president.

 

[Fantine]

70% are, and Buttigieg will get out the millennial vote in much larger numbers. Even if you disapprove of LGBT would you not also disapprove of the "seven deadly sins" president?

 

[hedrick]

70% are, and Buttigieg will get out the millennial vote in much larger numbers. Even if you disapprove of LGBT would you not also disapprove of the "seven deadly sins" president?

Trump can get away with a lot more than other candidates can. But you may be still be right.

 

[Allandavid]

When we get closer to the actual election, division will form between the 22 candidates (or is it just 21 so far?). That happened last time when there were far fewer, and it helped to defeat Hillary when Sanders supporters refused to vote for Clinton. But when there's 21 or 22 candidates with differing ideas within a fractured democrat party, the likelihood of a repeat of 2016 becomes greater.

Oh, a “repeat of 2016”, where one party also had a huge field of contenders....and one of them became President...??

 

[USincognito]

He's polling low because there are a lot of people who would never admit in a poll that they would vote for him. In the current political environment, admitting support for Trump is asking to be maligned and abused. Opinion polls don't count.

This is a pretty hilarious narrative. Seriously? People are afraid to answer in anonymous on-line polls like Survey Monkey or virtually anonymously over the phone that they would vote him because they want to seem cool? That's the most ridiculous thing I've read on here in a long time.

The only one that counts is the one in the ballot box. That's where the truth is told. And Trump will poll just fine there.

Well the polls predicted him taking a thumping in the mid-terms, at least as far as the house went, and that's exactly what happened. A 40 seat swing after 20 years of Republican gerrymandering was quite the thumping.

What I've described above is particularly true for Blacks. But there are going to a LOT of blacks that are smart enough and independent-minded enough to vote for the guy that's actually made life better for blacks... even though they might never admit it to anybody else out loud. Trump is going to get a LOT more of the Black vote... Wait and see.

There's no need to wait and see. 2018 actually happened and happened just recently. Remember how the Conservaisphere was convinced by #WalkAway that there was a massive exodus of blacks from the Democrats and they all were going to be voting for Trump? Well, not only did that turn out to be a big hoax:"
The 2018 midterm vote: Divisions by race, gender, education
>> Blacks voted overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%). <<
But Trump had just the opposite effect.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...black-voters-to-the-polls-to-choose-democrats

 

[USincognito]

No citation. Just common knowledge and common sense.

"Common knowledge" is the worst tool out there for determining scientific fact. One's gut does not trump data.

Ever heard of "snow birds"? People who spend every winter in Florida or Arizona?

My mother is a native of Massachusetts, but has lived in Texas since 1986 and even she needed to go our time share in Florida for a few months in winter. That has nothing to do with people dying from heat spells or cold snaps. I'm looking for actual data. Do you have any?

Ever looked to see where the most lush and abundant plant and animal life grows? It's not in Canada.

It's also not Coastal Peru, Niger, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Oman or western India, yet some of those areas are very warm. That is a lot more to verdant landscapes than the latitude.

When is the last time you've heard of a heat-related death in the US? By contrast we had cold-related deaths just this past winter... And if you want a citation: Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat (that's just the first one that popped up when I googled it just now...)

Great, an actual citation of an actual study. Did you even read that stats?
>> The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat. <<
As far as the U.S. goes,
https://www.cdc.gov/pictureofamerica/pdfs/picture_of_america_heat-related_illness.pdf
>> From 1999 to 2010, 8,081 heat-related deaths were reported in the United States. In 5,783 (72%) of these deaths, the underlying cause was exposure to excessive heat, and heat was a contributing factor in the remaining 2,298 (28%) deaths. <<

That said, the concerns from global warming aren't that people are going to be dropping like flies. Health wise, we're likely to see more kidney problems, including renal failure from dehydration in third world counties. But the bigger problem is who climate change will affect the ability to grow crops in already crowded countries with low food production. The refugee issue we see now will only increase as equatorial countries have more and more trouble growing food (and no, an increase in atmospheric CO2 doesn't magically increase crop yields.
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-carbon-dioxide-boost-plantgrowth.html

Here's another thing you've never seen a citation for:

• Proof that our current average temperature for the earth is optimum for life.

That seems to be the assumption... but any proof?

1. It's not optimum for life. Life, including human life, will get along fine if it's significantly warmer.
2. Life as we know it (meaning humans), however, does seem to be ideally suited to about 57°F.

Umm... your point?

Even if a mushroom gets its carbon for its carbohydrates from the ground, when you "dig" into where that carbon came from... it came from the remains of other plants... which got that carbon from CO2 in the air. So, still... even those carbohydrates came from the air.

You have never consumed a carbohydrate in your life that did not get extracted from the air by a plant.

Mushrooms aren't plants. That's difference between "common sense" and actual knowledge.

 

[Aldebaran]

70% are, and Buttigieg will get out the millennial vote in much larger numbers. Even if you disapprove of LGBT would you not also disapprove of the "seven deadly sins" president?

My vote would be for whoever is in line with at least the majority of the list in post #62. Does the gay or otherwise LGBT candidate meet that criteria?

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh, a “repeat of 2016”, where one party also had a huge field of contenders....and one of them became President...??

You left out some important facts from your observation.

 

[Allandavid]

You left out some important facts from your observation.

Not at all....the only additional point that you made was one about “division”. Are you going to tell me that there wasn’t plenty of that on display amongst the equally huge field of Republican contenders in 2016...?

And yet, one of them still became president...!

So yes, let’s have a re-run....

 

[Aldebaran]

Not at all....the only additional point that you made was one about “division”. Are you going to tell me that there wasn’t plenty of that on display amongst the equally huge field of Republican contenders in 2016...?

And yet, one of them still became president...!

So yes, let’s have a re-run....

What you are forgetting is that the 2016 election was going to elect a new president one way or the other rather than one side having an incumbent.

 

[Allandavid]

What you are forgetting is that the 2016 election was going to elect a new president one way or the other rather than one side having an incumbent.

Being the incumbent doesn’t seem to be an advantage for this particular incompetent...

 

[Aldebaran]

Being the incumbent doesn’t seem to be an advantage for this particular incompetent...

Election day of 2020 isn't here yet. The debates haven't even gotten started yet.