[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

Cure... cancer. That's just... is he trying to be Trump 2.0?

That kind of statement is particularly troubling to me because it shows not only a complete lack of medical understanding of what cancer is (which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, hes not a doctor) but also an unawareness of the lack and a willingness to act on it (which is a bad thing)

Or worse, a horrible cynical underhandedness, because if anyone calls him on it, he can play for sympathy, since he just lost a son to brain cancer.

thrawn82 wrote:

That kind of statement is particularly troubling to me because it shows not only a complete lack of medical understanding of what cancer is (which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, hes not a doctor) but also an unawareness of the lack and a willingness to act on it (which is a bad thing)

That’s why I made my comment earlier about how we’ll deliver this cure. What good does curing cancer do if a majority of Americans are broken by medical bills?

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Am I missing something in that table? Because I don't see anything about candidates turning anyone off.

I mean, I guess you can say it suggests that, because if a candidate didn't turn anyone off they would have equal numbers whether big or small. Then again, it could be that there are preferences that break along age lines but it's not the people are turned off by one candidate vs. another, it's that they're turned on more by one vs. another.

Biden's 23 point drop between the 50+ and 18-49 crowd is a pretty big sign that younger Democrats aren't particularly thrilled about him. And Sander's 27 point drop between the 18-49 crowd and the 50+ crowd more than hints that older Democrats aren't terribly enthused about him.

No, it doesn't for the reasons I stated. There's another way to explain that divergence.

A couple of posts down I linked this
:

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Found this from February:

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are the most popular potential Democratic presidential candidates, but they are also the top second choices among registered voters, according to a Morning Consult survey released this week.
.
The poll found that Sanders was the second choice for 27 percent of Biden's supporters. Another 15 percent of Biden supporters said they would back Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) while 9 percent said they supported Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
.
Among Sanders's supporters, 26 percent said they supported Biden as a second choice, followed by Warren at 16 percent and Harris at 7 percent.

It could be that Biden is the young people's second choice, and Sanders is the old peole's second choice. We need more data.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Cure... cancer. That's just... is he trying to be Trump 2.0?

Probably not. He'll probably support measures that are backed by science to an acceptable degree. Trump's Wall is basically homeopathic border control.

Maybe that's why Trump has only built so little of it.

The 2020 NIH budget is $37B, which is about 40% of an F-35A. So for the cost of an F-35, we could more than triple the amount we spend on all health research.

It probably still won't cure cancer, because as I said above there isn't really any such thing, but it could do a lot of good.

It'd do even more good if we had, say, Medicare for All so us American citizens can afford to be treated.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

It could be that Biden is the young people's second choice, and Sanders is the old peole's second choice. We need more data.

Based on the Quinnipiac poll Sanders is the 5th choice for 50+ Democrats and Biden is barely the 2nd choice for younger Democrats.

The poll you linked to provides some interesting information, especially the Heard Of, No Opinion/Never Heard Of numbers, which clearly benefits the better known candidates like Biden and Sanders now. But there's no age group cross-tabs.

The idea that there's a generational ideological gap in the Democratic Party isn't exactly earth-shattering news. Older Democrats are whiter and more moderate than younger Democrats and that will have an impact on what candidates they--and younger Democrats--find appealing. I mean the "What Comes Next" thread is a perfect example of that tension.

But you're right that we're basically looking at tea leaves now. We need more data.

But I can guess that the campaigns are looking at the Quinnipiac numbers and wondering how in the f*ck they're going make their candidate more appealing to both age groups, which they absolutely need to do if they want to win. Hell, I'm not sure someone like Bernie can even moderate some of his positions to better appeal to older Democrats without getting crucified as a sell out by his current supporters.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Cure... cancer. That's just... is he trying to be Trump 2.0?

Probably not. He'll probably support measures that are backed by science to an acceptable degree. Trump's Wall is basically homeopathic border control.

Maybe that's why Trump has only built so little of it.

Maybe Biden was meaning it metaphorically, as in if he is elected that would mean that Trump (the great cancer of America), along with his cabals of zealots, would be gone and hence "cured".

Of course, that may be giving Biden too much credit...

Cladmir wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Cure... cancer. That's just... is he trying to be Trump 2.0?

Probably not. He'll probably support measures that are backed by science to an acceptable degree. Trump's Wall is basically homeopathic border control.

Maybe that's why Trump has only built so little of it.

Maybe Biden was meaning it metaphorically, as in if he is elected that would mean that Trump (the great cancer of America), along with his cabals of zealots, would be gone and hence "cured".

Of course, that may be giving Biden too much credit...

/leans in and take a sniff of Cladmir's hair

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

It could be that Biden is the young people's second choice, and Sanders is the old peole's second choice. We need more data.

Based on the Quinnipiac poll Sanders is the 5th choice for 50+ Democrats and Biden is barely the 2nd choice for younger Democrats.

Yeah, so granting Sanders for the sake of argument, Biden being "barely the 2nd choice" is "hate"?

and people say I argue semantics! : D

The poll you linked to provides some interesting information, especially the Heard Of, No Opinion/Never Heard Of numbers, which clearly benefits the better known candidates like Biden and Sanders now. But there's no age group cross-tabs.

The idea that there's a generational ideological gap in the Democratic Party isn't exactly earth-shattering news. Older Democrats are whiter and more moderate than younger Democrats and that will have an impact on what candidates they--and younger Democrats--find appealing.

Eh, I wonder about it really being an ideological gap. I think there's more to the story than that. And again, if one candidate is the first choice of one group and the second choice of the other group, that's not exactly a yawning chasm.

I mean the "What Comes Next" thread is a perfect example of that tension.

I would not use any of these threads as even an imperfect example of the larger picture of the electorate, and *certainly* not that one. I doubt we're a very representative demographic ; D

But you're right that we're basically looking at tea leaves now. We need more data.

True.

But I can guess that the campaigns are looking at the Quinnipiac numbers and wondering how in the f*ck they're going make their candidate more appealing to both age groups, which they absolutely need to do if they want to win. Hell, I'm not sure someone like Bernie can even moderate some of his positions to better appeal to older Democrats without getting crucified as a sell out by his current supporters.

Again, if an establishment choice is the 2nd choice of the youth, well, there are worse problems to have.

Cladmir wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Cure... cancer. That's just... is he trying to be Trump 2.0?

Probably not. He'll probably support measures that are backed by science to an acceptable degree. Trump's Wall is basically homeopathic border control.

Maybe that's why Trump has only built so little of it.

Maybe Biden was meaning it metaphorically, as in if he is elected that would mean that Trump (the great cancer of America), along with his cabals of zealots, would be gone and hence "cured".

Of course, that may be giving Biden too much credit...

Nah, he meant it literally. He's been on the 'cure cancer' beat for a while.

OG_slinger wrote:

But I can guess that the campaigns are looking at the Quinnipiac numbers and wondering how in the f*ck they're going make their candidate more appealing to both age groups, which they absolutely need to do if they want to win. Hell, I'm not sure someone like Bernie can even moderate some of his positions to better appeal to older Democrats without getting crucified as a sell out by his current supporters.

He'll steal all the Trump voters that would have voted for him in 2016.

Gremlin wrote:
Cladmir wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Cure... cancer. That's just... is he trying to be Trump 2.0?

Probably not. He'll probably support measures that are backed by science to an acceptable degree. Trump's Wall is basically homeopathic border control.

Maybe that's why Trump has only built so little of it.

Maybe Biden was meaning it metaphorically, as in if he is elected that would mean that Trump (the great cancer of America), along with his cabals of zealots, would be gone and hence "cured".

Of course, that may be giving Biden too much credit...

Nah, he meant it literally. He's been on the 'cure cancer' beat for a while.

The room was dark and smelled of cigar, whiskey, and old socks.

"I tried to convince them, Joe. I really did," I plead passionately.

"I know you did," said Joe as he put his hand on my shoulders and leaned in to sniff my hair.

It's barely begun and it's a sh*t show.

HEY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, GO AHEAD AND INTERFERE FOR HIS FAVOR. IT'S FINE. PLEASE STAY AT THIS HOTELS WHILE YOU DO IT. THANKS.

Biden’s pronouncement of curing cancer is obviously wishful thinking and aspirational. But as someone who works in cancer research, he is viewed as a champion of trying to support research for finding better cancer treatments and maybe some cures (I think we maybe can cure some advanced lung cancers and melanoma patients now which was a fantasy 5 years ago). He pronounced the “cancer moonshot” when he was VP which did improve funding for some really innovative work.

So there are lots of reasons to make fun of Biden or to dislike him. But many in the cancer research community view him as a real champion, one of the few out there.

Docjoe wrote:

Biden’s pronouncement of curing cancer is obviously wishful thinking and aspirational. But as someone who works in cancer research, he is viewed as a champion of trying to support research for finding better cancer treatments and maybe some cures (I think we maybe can cure some advanced lung cancers and melanoma patients now which was a fantasy 5 years ago). He pronounced the “cancer moonshot” when he was VP which did improve funding for some really innovative work.

So there are lots of reasons to make fun of Biden or to dislike him. But many in the cancer research community view him as a real champion, one of the few out there.

Are people making fun of him? I’m not. I appreciate his focus and the reason for his focus. I just think his platform should be, “I’ll cure cancer AND the cure, along with basic healthcare, will be available to all Americans”.

oilypenguin wrote:

It's barely begun and it's a sh*t show.

HEY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, GO AHEAD AND INTERFERE FOR HIS FAVOR. IT'S FINE. PLEASE STAY AT THIS HOTELS WHILE YOU DO IT. THANKS.

Does this mean if you’re on the other side and China interferes you can just accept that help?

oilypenguin wrote:

It's barely begun and it's a sh*t show.

HEY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, GO AHEAD AND INTERFERE FOR HIS FAVOR. IT'S FINE. PLEASE STAY AT THIS HOTELS WHILE YOU DO IT. THANKS.

Honestly....this changes nothing. Everyone has known this was his stance for 3 years.

Jonman wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

It's barely begun and it's a sh*t show.

HEY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, GO AHEAD AND INTERFERE FOR HIS FAVOR. IT'S FINE. PLEASE STAY AT THIS HOTELS WHILE YOU DO IT. THANKS.

Honestly....this changes nothing. Everyone has known this was his stance for 3 years.

Why did he bother obstructing justice?

DSGamer wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Biden’s pronouncement of curing cancer is obviously wishful thinking and aspirational. But as someone who works in cancer research, he is viewed as a champion of trying to support research for finding better cancer treatments and maybe some cures (I think we maybe can cure some advanced lung cancers and melanoma patients now which was a fantasy 5 years ago). He pronounced the “cancer moonshot” when he was VP which did improve funding for some really innovative work.

So there are lots of reasons to make fun of Biden or to dislike him. But many in the cancer research community view him as a real champion, one of the few out there.

Are people making fun of him? I’m not. I appreciate his focus and the reason for his focus. I just think his platform should be, “I’ll cure cancer AND the cure, along with basic healthcare, will be available to all Americans”.

Ok, maybe just a lot of throwing shade.

And I’m not being dismissive of people criticizing him or wanting him to do better. Or of just being sick of old white men in general. But the cancer thing is deeply personal to him (I think to some others too) so I’m appreciative of his efforts.

Now back to figuring out how to get a progressive who is not an old white man at the top of the ticket....

Quick question: why is Bill de Blasio so unpopular, as in not just unknown but actually disliked? And apparently his approval ratings as a mayor within NYC is high among Black people and low among whites. Is that because of his support of Black Lives Matter?

DSGamer wrote:
Jonman wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

It's barely begun and it's a sh*t show.

HEY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, GO AHEAD AND INTERFERE FOR HIS FAVOR. IT'S FINE. PLEASE STAY AT THIS HOTELS WHILE YOU DO IT. THANKS.

Honestly....this changes nothing. Everyone has known this was his stance for 3 years.

Why did he bother obstructing justice?

Probably mostly a tongue in cheek question, but I think it was really important. The tiniest veneer of something approaching doubt really helps people get behind him. Also it's a delay, which helps our status quo brains get used to the crimes in dribs and drabs. For example I think that the response to the Mueller report would have been 1000x different if Barr hadn't been given ten days to lie about it. Even though we had (basically) the entire thing ten days later, that delay still sucked all the air out of the room (apparently).

The democratic presidential candidates as high school boyfriends THREAD

Jayhawker wrote:

The democratic presidential candidates as high school boyfriends THREAD

no love for Inslee? Oh wait he's the principal.

Gremlin wrote:

The 2020 NIH budget is $37B, which is about 40% of an F-35A. So for the cost of an F-35, we could more than triple the amount we spend on all health research.

Uh, I think you mixed up your millions and billions. The F-35A is outrageously expensive, but to the tune of about $85 MILLION dollars. In actual fact, a single year of the annual NIH budget would buy you a shiny fleet of about 435 F-35A jets.

Yonder wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Jonman wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

It's barely begun and it's a sh*t show.

HEY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, GO AHEAD AND INTERFERE FOR HIS FAVOR. IT'S FINE. PLEASE STAY AT THIS HOTELS WHILE YOU DO IT. THANKS.

Honestly....this changes nothing. Everyone has known this was his stance for 3 years.

Why did he bother obstructing justice?

Probably mostly a tongue in cheek question, but I think it was really important. The tiniest veneer of something approaching doubt really helps people get behind him. Also it's a delay, which helps our status quo brains get used to the crimes in dribs and drabs. For example I think that the response to the Mueller report would have been 1000x different if Barr hadn't been given ten days to lie about it. Even though we had (basically) the entire thing ten days later, that delay still sucked all the air out of the room (apparently).

I would not be surprised if it boiled down to something as simple and dumb as he didn't want to acknowledge he got any help in the 2016 election. He was so proud of that electoral map, and he's so...him, I could see him creating a constitutional crisis and become an accomplice after the fact just to defend his own ego.

Yonder wrote:

For example I think that the response to the Mueller report would have been 1000x different if Barr hadn't been given ten days to lie about it. Even though we had (basically) the entire thing ten days later, that delay still sucked all the air out of the room (apparently).

See also the announcement they were looking into Hillary's emails right before the election vs the follow up that they didn't find anything new.

The first story gets wall to wall coverage. The follow up gets nothing.

Edit: Wrong thread.