SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Rep. Justin Amash (formerly R-Michigan), the sole Republican Congressperson to endorse impeaching Trump, has announced that he is leaving the Republican Party to become an independent:

https://fortune.com/2019/07/04/justin-amash-republican/

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, the only Republican in Congress to call for impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, said Thursday he is leaving the GOP because he has become disenchanted with partisan politics and "frightened by what I see from it."

In an opinion article published in the Washington Post , on July 4, Amash said partisan politics is damaging American democracy.

"I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party," Amash said. "I'm asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us."

Amash had been the only Republican in Congress to say Trump engaged in impeachable conduct, drawing the ire of many fellow Republicans and Trump. In a series of tweets on May 18 , Amash said that he had read special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

"Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment," Amash said at the time.

He was roundly criticized by fellow Republicans and withdrew from the Freedom Caucus of conservatives in Congress after the group disavowed his views.

At a town hall in Michigan after he announced his support for impeachment proceedings, Amash cited a section of the Mueller report that suggested Trump had told former White House counsel Don McGahn to create a "false record" denying he had asked for Mueller's removal as special counsel.

"Things like that to me reflect incredible dishonesty and really harm the office of the presidency. I don't think that you can just let that stuff go," Amash told his constituents. "I think you have to have proceedings to deter this kind of conduct even if ultimately the person is not convicted."

Under the Constitution, the House has the power to begin impeachment proceedings and the Senate would decide whether to convict.

Trump responded immediately to Amash's announcement that he is quitting the GOP, tweeting Thursday: "Great news for the Republican Party as one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress is 'quitting" the Party." Trump called Amash a "total loser."

Amash, whose voting record in Congress is considered libertarian-leaning, has represented Michigan's 3rd Congressional district in the western part of the state since 2011.

And once again, we see that there is no place in today's Republican Party for anyone with even a smidge of conscience. Their only agenda is power by any means for "their team" (which has now been redefined as "those who are blindly loyal to Trump"- note Trump's characterization of Amash as "disloyal").

[The Romulan Republic]

Holy fuck, new poll has Warren leading in Iowa, with Harris in second a point ahead of Biden:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... ll-1397998

As Joe Biden lands in Iowa for two days of events, he’s confronting signs of crumbling support in the first-in-the-nation caucus state: A new survey shows he’s plummeted 20 percentage points since September.

A Focus on Rural America poll released Wednesday suggests the ground has shifted significantly over the past several months, with Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Biden currently clustered together at the top: Warren had 20 percent, Harris at 18 percent and Biden 17 percent.

Bernie Sanders came in fourth at 12 percent.

In September, in the same poll, Biden was walloping the field; with 37 percent support, he led Sanders, his next closest competitor, by 25 points.

In the months since then, however, the former vice president has lagged behind other top-tier rivals in assembling an on-the-ground organization. Leading Iowa Democrats have complained Biden has failed to offer Iowans the kind of doting retail politics to which they’re accustomed.

Focus on Rural America Chair Patty Judge, also a former lieutenant governor in Iowa, said the results are the latest sign that Biden has to “step up his game” if he wants to compete in Iowa.

“He has not been campaigning in Iowa. He has not had a presence here,” Judge said. “Couple that with the debate — in which Kamala Harris certainly took a piece of his hide. I think it has caught up to him.”

The new survey showed Warren making the most marked gains, with a 12-percentage-point jump since March. It’s a sign the Massachusetts senator’s heavy investment in staffing and organization in the state might be paying off.

“[Warren] is definitely seeing some of the fruits of all of the hard work done by her campaign in Iowa. She’s doing well because she’s been here,” Judge said. “She is growing here in name ID and popularity, she’s camped out here a good deal of the time. She has an incredible field operation going.”

Harris, too, saw a sizable bump, gaining 9 percentage points since March. Biden, meanwhile, dropped 8 percentage points since the March survey, when he led with 25 percent. The latest poll was in the field the weekend after the first presidential debates, when Harris seized headlines after a lengthy takedown of Biden over race-related questions. The survey was conducted by David Binder Research, who also serves as Harris’ main pollster.

But Harris stood at just 7 percent in December and 9 percent in March in the same poll.

The new poll is the latest sign of trouble for the 76-year-old Biden, who is attempting to regain his footing after his roundly panned first debate performance raised questions about the durability of his candidacy.

The former vice president has been buffeted in the days after the debate with questions about his record on civil rights and his recent comments about his relationship with segregationist senators.

Biden has had one high-profile donor abandon him and has seen his standing decline in several national polls taken after the debate.

His campaign, however, has committed to plowing more resources into early state infrastructure, including in Iowa, where 50 new staffers are rushing to catch up to already established organizations of Warren and others who began laying the groundwork as early as January.

Biden, who in June promised Iowans he would be paying closer attention to the state, will appear with his wife, Jill, at a community event in Waterloo on Wednesday. He will march in the Fourth of July parade in Independence on Thursday and has two other events scheduled.

And here people were thinking Biden was going to be another "inevitable" Centrist candidate like Hillary.

Edit: Also, Bernie is in a more distant fourth at 12%, which is a big shift from 2016 where he was in an effective tie with Hillary for Iowa.

[The Romulan Republic]

Who's made the cut for the July and September debates thus far:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... er-1398973

The first Democratic presidential debates illustrated just how important the national platform can be to presidential campaigns, shaking up the primary polls and reshuffling opinions of front-runners and lesser-known candidates alike. And Democrats are already scrambling to make sure they’re involved in the next rounds of televised debates later this summer and fall.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) tried to make a splash in June, urging former Vice President Joe Biden to “pass the torch” to younger Democrats — but the attack had little impact, and Swalwell is now in danger of missing the next round of debates in July and being replaced by Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who missed out on the June debates.

Meanwhile, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro has been polling near the back of the primary pack, but his splash in last week’s debate has gone a long way toward ensuring he can make the September debate, when the qualification thresholds rise significantly, posing an existential threat to many campaigns. Castro told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that he raised $1 million in the days following the debate, and that his campaign had around 116,000 donors — just shy of September’s 130,000-donor threshold with months still to go.

Currently, 21 candidates have passed a modest qualification threshold for the July debates, either hitting 1 percent in three qualifying polls or getting 65,000 donors. That’s one more candidate than the Democratic National Committee has said it will allow on stage across the two nights, meaning someone has to get cut.

The DNC’s tiebreakers prioritize candidates who hit both the polling and financial thresholds, followed by candidates who only have the polling benchmark, sorted by poll average, and then candidates who have hit only the donor mark

The race for 2020 starts now. Stay in the know. Follow our presidential election coverage.

Fourteen candidates have crossed both of the thresholds, according to a POLITICO analysis, virtually guaranteeing their spot on stage on either July 30 or July 31: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.

That leaves seven candidates who have only crossed the polling threshold without a secure grasp on a debate-stage lectern. Some are marginally better off than others: John Delaney, John Hickenlooper and Tim Ryan all have polling averages slightly above 1 percentage point, meaning they rank ahead of the other candidates.

But four Democrats sit at a polling average of just 1 percent, with only three slots to give to them: Michael Bennet, Bullock, Bill de Blasio and Swalwell.

Because they’re all tied in a polling average, the next tiebreaker is the number of qualified polls they’ve scored. Swalwell has only reached the 1 percent mark in three qualifying polls. Bullock, meanwhile, is at five polls, Bennet is at six polls and de Blasio has eight.

Seth Moulton, Wayne Messam, Mike Gravel and Joe Sestak have not crossed either threshold, and none appear poised to make the stage. But the roster for those debates is not yet locked in; surveys from qualifying pollsters that are released by July 16 will count.

It is also not clear how the debate stages will be set, once the 20 candidates who will be on stage are confirmed. NBC News, the DNC’s media partner for the first debate, randomly and evenly divided a group of high-polling candidates and a group of low-polling candidates between the two nights of their debates. CNN, the host of the July debates, did not respond to a request from POLITICO on how the stages will be set. The DNC declined to answer questions on the stages.

Those July debates might be the last, best chance for some lesser-known candidates to jump-start their campaigns and make the next round in September.

Qualification for a pair of fall debates in September and October features stepped-up requirements. Instead of hitting a donor threshold or a polling threshold, candidates will have to hit both — and both will be higher: 2 percent in four qualifying polls and 130,000 unique donors.

That is expected to sharply winnow the field, with some candidates stuck at 1 percent in polls and others currently struggling to amass even half of the 130,000-donor mark. But several candidates have locked up spots already by hitting both thresholds, according to POLITICO’s analysis: Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders and Warren.

The analysis includes an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Tuesday. Previously released ABC/Post polls were disallowed by the DNC from counting, because they asked an open-ended question on who respondents supported instead of reading off a list of candidates. But the new poll released Tuesday had both an open-ended question and one including a list of candidates, and POLITICO obtained a memo the DNC sent to campaigns confirming the ABC/Post poll question listing the candidates would count.

Other candidates, for now, are on the bubble, with no guarantees of making the stage. Both O’Rourke and Yang have passed the new donor threshold, but neither has hit four qualifying polls so far. O’Rourke currently is at two polls, while Yang has not yet picked up his first one.

Three other candidates — Castro, Booker and Klobuchar — have not publicly said they’ve hit the donor mark yet, but they indicated they are close to it, and they each have at least one poll. Booker and Klobuchar each have three polls, while Castro has one.

Gabbard is nearing 93,000 donors, but hasn’t hit 2 percent in any qualifying polls.

And as for everyone else? The remainder of the Democratic field faces a very steep climb to get to the fall debates — and many of them are counting on something big to change soon if they are going to make that stage.

September in particular has tighter entry requirements, so it should serve to narrow the field substantially, if somewhat artificially (I expect Iowa and New Hampshire to effectively cut it down to three or four, most likely). Biden, Warren, Harris, Sanders, and Buttigieg remain the prime contenders, even if what order they rank in is somewhat in flux.

Williamson's and Gabbard's continued viability (at least to remain in the race) disturbs me, as it suggests that the same disease that helped give us Trump could take root in the Democratic Party-backing anyone, regardless of qualifications or views, as long as they're "anti-establishment".

[The Romulan Republic]

Billionaire Tom Steyer, best-known for spending the last couple years spearheading the lobbying to have Trump impeached, has made a late entry to the Democratic Presidential Primary:

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/9/18175395/t ... each-trump

California billionaire and environmentalist Tom Steyer, who has spent the past two years pouring millions into a campaign to impeach President Donald Trump, announced he is running for president after all.

Steyer’s announcement Tuesday came as a surprise, especially after he said he wasn’t running for president in January.

But he has changed his mind, entering the race a day after California Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the running. Steyer’s interest in political office is well documented; last year, he traveled to all the early primary and caucus states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina) and launched his “5 Rights” campaign, a platform based on equal voting rights, the right to clean air and water, free public education, a living wage, and universal health care.

In a video announcing his candidacy, Steyer put corporate greed and inequality at the center of his opening message saying “almost every single major intractable problem, at the back of it, you see a big money interest for whom stopping progress, stopping justice is really important to their bottom line.”

But until now, Steyer, a progressive activist, has been focused on a Need to Impeach initiative, aimed at lobbying lawmakers to impeach Trump. He has amassed more than 8 million signatories, even leading Trump to call him a “crazed and stumbling lunatic” on Twitter. So far, the movement has seen little traction from Democratic Party leaders; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she does not see impeachment as the best path forward.

Steyer spent $120 million on the 2018 midterm elections to help Democrats take back the House, what the California philanthropist told reporters was only a first “step.” Apparently, running for president is Steyer’s next act.

Tom Steyer got into politics because of climate change — then Trump happened

Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor (who has a net worth of $1.6 billion, according to Forbes), has never run for elected office. But’s he’s been a long-rumored candidate, first for governor of California — which he forwent — and for president.

He was raised in an upper-class family in Manhattan, went to the prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy, then Yale, then Stanford. He worked at Goldman Sachs in New York before moving to San Francisco to work in private equity and eventually start an investment firm where he made his fortune. Steyer left the financial world to become a political activist full time in 2012.

Climate change precipitated his entrance into politics. In 2013, he founded NextGen Climate, an environmental advocacy group that’s invested heavily in electing Democrats, so much so that John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff who ran Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, told the Ringer that if Clinton had won, he could “imagine [Steyer] would be the secretary of energy in the Clinton administration.”

According to a 2018 profile of Steyer in Vogue, in 2013 “he spent more than $30 million on a successful referendum in California to bring in more money for clean-energy initiatives. In 2014, he allocated $75 million to support Democratic candidates.” In 2016, Steyer gave more to political causes — more than $100 million to liberal candidates — than any other political donor, even the Koch brothers.

But when Trump was elected, Steyer expanded NextGen Climate to NextGen America, organizing around health care, social justice, and immigration; and NextGen Rising, a new voter registration initiative. By 2017, he’d launched his latest, most headline-grabbing project: the Need to Impeach initiative, lobbying lawmakers to impeach Trump.

But what has been Steyer’s rallying cry — impeaching Trump — is also a thorn in the side of top Democratic leaders, like Pelosi, who have largely tried to work around impeachment.

Steyer has been called a “golden child of corporate America.” Yet his politics are more resonant with the likes of Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have crafted their political campaigns around railing against the corporate class.

The opening line of Steyer’s “5 Rights” campaign was that “corporate lobbyists rigged the system.”

“I grew up believing the point of our country was to be free, the promise that everyone could make a good life for themselves,” Steyer said in the introductory video. “But over time I saw big corporations buy our democracy and set the rules for the sake of their profits, not for the common good. Corporate lobbyists rigged the system, leaving the majority walled off from their dreams.”

He has endorsed a progressive policy platform in line with Sanders’s and Warren’s agendas. As Sanders has unveiled an “economic bill of rights,” calling for a living wage, quality health care, complete education, affordable housing, clean environment, and secure retirement, Steyer has his own “5 rights” campaign. It includes the rights to an equal vote, clean air and water, education, living wage, and health care.

Steyer supports single-payer health care, raising the minimum wage, and free public education. He has said Sanders’s agenda is the way forward, and had initially held off from running in part because he was reportedly impressed with Warren’s campaign messaging.

But now he’s jumping into a primary race against Sanders and Warren.

Its possible he's doing this just to give himself a bigger platform to push for impeachment, and if so, then more power to him.

The downside, of course, is that despite being a billionaire, his platform is highly progressive, and he is effectively going to be competing with Bernie and Warren for votes. Which means further splitting of the progressive vote. The Biden camp must be celebrating right now.

Edit: And Swalwell is out. Is that the first concession?

[The Romulan Republic]

Debate lineup round two has been announced:

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/18/20699925/ ... candidates

Harris is against Biden again (bet he's looking forward to that), and Bernie will be going head to head with Warren for the progressive vote for the first time.

They couldn't have set it up better to boost Harris and Warren's campaigns if they'd tried.

[The Romulan Republic]

A new poll has Harris leading Biden in California:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... -2020-poll

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) leads a new poll of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls in her home state, edging out former Vice President Joe Biden in a close contest.

The Quinnipiac University Poll survey of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters found that 23 percent support Harris while 21 percent support Biden. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are supported by 18 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg had the support of 3 percent in the survey, while former tech executive Andrew Yang had the support of 2 percent.

"California Democrats catch the national wave as native daughter Kamala Harris leaps from promising contender to prominent player putting her neck and neck with former Vice President Joseph Biden," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, in a statement.

Harris has seen a bump in the polls following the first Democratic debate, in which she confronted Biden over his comments on working with segregationist senators and his 1970s stance on busing black students into majority white schools. In most major polls, however, Biden has led the crowded field of more than two dozen Democrats.

In an April 10 Quinnipiac poll of California voters, Biden had the support of 26 percent, Sanders had 18 percent, Harris had 17 percent and Warren had 7 percent.

Researchers surveyed 519 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters between July 10 and July 15. The results have a margin of error of 5.7 percentage points.

Within the margin of error, but given that California is the single largest state, and has moved its primary forward to Super Tuesday, this could be significant.

Maybe Biden shouldn't have skipped the Democratic Convention in California?

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... d-n1028971

Another poll with Biden in the lead, Warren in second. Biden is at 26, Warren seven points behind at 19, and Bernie and Harris tied for third at 13%. No one else hits double digits.

It definitely appears to have settled into effectively a four person race, with Biden in a decent but not unassailable lead, Warren the primary challenger, and Bernie and Harris significant players who will probably get some delegates. Nobody else factors in much, though Buttigieg appears to be maintaining a place in the top five.

Edit: I do think its striking how diverse the Democratic field is. Among the top four players, we have two men and two women, one non-white candidate, and one non-Christian candidate (Bernie). Add in Buttigieg, and we have an LGBT candidate as well. Its so nice to see a field that reflects the country's actual diversity.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some recent polls show Trump winning match-ups against a number of leading Democrats:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-p ... ieg-2019-7

President Donald Trump is poised to beat a handful of top-tier Democratic presidential candidates in the 2020 election, while losing to others, according to a new poll of head-to-head matchups.

The latest poll from Emerson College is yet another reflecting positively for Trump, who has a number of advantages and disadvantages going into the 2020 election as nearly two dozen Democrats are all vying to unseat him from the White House.

Read more:No sitting president has survived a serious primary challenge in the past 50 years. Here's why Trump should be worried.

Trump edges out several candidates 51-49, including rising Democratic stars such as Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

The race gets tougher for Trump when facing former Vice President Joe Biden, who according to the poll would beat the incumbent Republican 53-47. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont also wins a head-to-head matchup 51% to Trump's 49%.

The poll also gave Trump a decisive edge over his Republican primary challenger in former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, leading the former Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee 91-9.

Read more: 9 reasons Trump could win reelection in 2020

Trump is benefiting from a handful of positive polling in recent weeks, including a Washington Post/ABC News poll showing all-time high approval ratings.

The Trump reelection campaign is also flush with cash while Democrats are busy in a neck-and-neck primary fight for the next several months and well into 2020.

Now, its way, way too early to give polls much credence, if we can give them credence at all after 2016. But this should serve as a reminder that no matter how awful Trump is, and how hated he is, this election is not in the bag. We need to avoid a highly-divisive primary, and get high turnout on election day, if we're going to win this.

I really hope Democrats don't become complacent or apathetic to this election.

[FaxModem1]

Speaking of polls:

USA Today

Subscribe
Sign In

Subscribe
Sign In
Sen. Bernie Sanders is greeted by audience members before a Fox News town-hall style event, April 15, 2019, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.Show caption
Sen. Bernie Sanders is greeted by audience members before a Fox News town-hall style event, April 15, 2019, in Bethlehem, Pa.
MATT ROURKE, AP

Bernie Sanders leads Joe Biden in Emerson national poll of 2020 contenders
WILLIAM CUMMINGS | USA TODAY
Updated 2:42 p.m. CDT Apr. 16, 2019

WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Sanders finished ahead of Joe Biden in the first major national poll of the year that did not find the former vice president leading the pack of potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.


When asked whom they would support from a list of 20 candidates – including "someone else" – 29% named Sanders, and 24% named Biden in an Emerson College poll released Monday. They were trailed by South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who was the pick of 9% of likely Democratic primary voters.

California Sen. Kamala Harris and former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke each came in at 8%, and 7% picked Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro got 3%, as did entrepreneur Andrew Yang. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker got 2%, and the rest of the field got 1% or less.

The full field of candidates: Who is running for president in 2020?

Money primary: Celebrities back Harris in 2020 fundraising, MAGA hats power Trump's haul in FEC reports

"Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March, the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5-point lead," said Spencer Kimball, director of Emerson Polling.

"While still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete (Buttigieg) is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination; the numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April," Kimball noted.

The survey is the first of more than three dozen 2020 polls listed by RealClearPolitics dating back to October to show Sanders ahead of Biden, including the Emerson poll in March in which they tied.

In December, a poll by McLaughlin & Associates found Sanders with a 1-point lead, but RealClearPolitics does not include results from that firm.

The latest poll from Morning Consult – which posts updates on the 2020 Democratic race every week – indicates the Emerson result could be an outlier. Its survey, based on 12,550 interviews conducted from April 8-14, found Biden with 31% support among Democratic primary voters and Sanders with 23%. Harris finished third at 9%, followed by O'Rourke with 8% and Buttigieg with 7%.

The RealClearPolitics polling average shows Biden with a 9.3-percentage-point lead over Sanders.

In a head-to-head matchup with President Donald Trump, Biden still performed the best in the Emerson poll, leading the incumbent 53% to 47%. But that was a slide from the college's poll in March in which he topped Trump 55% to 45%.

Sanders edged out Trump 51% to 48%, and Harris tied him in a hypothetical matchup. The rest of the Democratic field trailed Trump, who had a 43% approval rating among respondents.

Trump leads former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld – who is his only challenger for the nomination – 85% to 15% among Republican primary voters.

The Emerson poll was conducted April 11-14 with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.

Sanders is beating Biden, and is projected to beat Trump. So, it's really not as open and shut as it appears.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is definitely an outlier from what I've seen, since Sanders beating Biden, or being that far ahead of Warren and Harris, is way out of step with most recent polling I've come across.

Of course, the Bernie or Bust crowd will claim that this is the one real poll and all the others are rigged by the DNC.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, the polls are all over the fucking map:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... -by-warren

Former Vice President Joe Biden widened his lead in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary to 19 points over second-placed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), according to the latest Quinnipiac poll released Monday.

Biden widened his lead after the previous Quinnipiac Poll on July 2 showed Biden's lead over then second-placed candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) had shrunk to just two points shortly after the first Democratic primary debate.

Warren placed second in the latest Quinnipiac poll with 15 percent support, up from third in the July 2 poll.

Warren was followed closely by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), at third with 12 percent support, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at fourth with 11 percent support.

In the July 2 poll, Harris had placed second, with 20 percent support, after confronting Biden over the former vice president's policy opposition to federally mandated busing during desegregation, while Warren was at third, with 14 percent support.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) again placed fifth, polling at 6 percent.

All other candidates in the crowded field are polling at 2 percent or less.

The latest Quinnipiac poll was released just ahead the second presidential primary debates set to take place over Tuesday and Wednesday.

The Democrats will face-off again in two debates this week, 10 on Tuesday and 10 on Wednesday, in Detroit.

Sanders and Warren will be on the same stage the first night, while Biden and Harris will again be on stage together at Wednesday’s debate.

The poll was conducted from July 25 to 28 and surveyed 1,306 voters nationwide. There is a 3.4 percentage point margin of error.

I may just stop posting poll results until we get some actual voting results (ie Iowa). Because when Biden has a 17-point swing in the course of a month, and one poll has him 19 ahead with Warren in second while another has Bernie in the lead, its hard to escape the impression that they're just pulling numbers out of their asses.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, just got back from watching the first round of the July debates. I'm having trouble finding a full video of it in its entirety on Youtube. When I find one, I'll post it. Until then, a few thoughts:

I don't think this one will have changed much, or told us much we didn't already know. Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg were the star performances. Sanders (often a weaker debater) seemed at the top of his game tonight, and he hit Delaney hard. Buttigieg was solid, and Warren came out swinging and didn't let up. I could see all of them rising a little in the polls after tonight, at Biden and Harris's (especially Biden's) expense. It also unfortunately strongly underscored that the party is deeply split between Centrists and Progressives, though multiple candidates made an effort to reinforce a sense of unity against Trump.

I think that the most important things tonight was that Sanders and Warren refused to take the bait and engage in the much anticipated fight for the progressive vote. Instead, Warren greeted Sanders in an almost overly-friendly manner at the start, and they spent most of the night either standing shoulder to shoulder against the moderates, or at least avoiding any overt or direct clashes between them. The message was very clear: we the progressives are standing together against the Centrists. This was a very wise move, not to split the progressive base, though it does underscore the much larger division in the party.

I thought some of Warren's rhetoric got into dangerous territory at times, for example suggesting that people would have no reason to vote for a candidate they didn't "believe in" (ie a Centrist candidate), but she did open by saying that anyone in either debate was better than Trump. Overall, there seemed to be a push for unity, despite the moderators' attempts to provoke clashes.

Also of importance was the fact that multiple candidates, starting with Warren, described white supremacy as domestic terrorism. That's not exactly how I would word it, since white supremacy is an idea and I'm not sure an idea, however disgusting, can by itself be considered terrorism, but many of the actions it leads to definitely are, and after nearly two decades of seeing "terrorism" and "Islam" treated as almost synonymous terms, this was a welcome and long-overdue recognition.

It pissed me off how the moderators seemed to keep trying to set up fights between the candidates, both between Warren and Sanders, and between them and the more centrist candidates in particular. I also felt that they gave disproportionate time to the aggressively, belligerently Centrist (and anti-Sanders and Warren) Delaney and Bullock. Bullock, a newcomer to the debate stage, was particularly abhorrent: a loud, aggressive man with little substance or bold new ideas, except when he became oddly determined to defend America's right to engage in a nuclear first strike. I hope the tighter requirements for the next round in September weed him out. However, their attacks on Sanders and Warren gave the progressives lots of opportunity to respond and defend their views.

O'Rourke and Hickenlooper were mostly boring, and O'Rourke in particular seemed to me to get very little time. Beyond O'Rourke arguing that we can put Texas in play (his only big selling point), they didn't stand out much, though some of O'Rourke's ideas weren't bad. I think tonight was O'Rourke's last chance to make a big impact, and his campaign is pretty much toast now (Hickenlooper never had much of a shot). Maybe he'll be someone's VP pick if they really want to try to put Texas in play.

I did think Hickenlooper had a point about the consequences for women, and those who supported us, in Afghanistan if we completely withdraw. Many would argue its not our business, and we can't be there forever, but we should recognize that complete withdrawl from there and many other places, without a post-war political solution in place, will have a high cost in suffering and lives, just as staying will.

Klobuchar and Ryan were utterly forgettable (aside from Ryan's suggestion to appoint a manufacturing officer reporting directly to the President, which while hardly a sufficient solution to anything by itself, doesn't strike me as a terrible idea). So forgettable were they that I literally forgot they were there until their closing remarks reminded me.

Williamson spoke well at times, and her heart seems in the right place, but she comes off way too flaky some times, and seems to almost embrace emotion over substance as a philosophy. That's not the direction I want the party to go in.

[The Romulan Republic]

Buttigieg also stood out in being the one guy to actually articulate the need for constitutional amendments to address things like Citizens United and create a more just political system.

[FaxModem1]

NPR

'Impossible Promises' Vs. 'Small Ideas.' Moderates And Progressives Clash At Debate
July 31, 201912:26 AM ET
Jessica Taylor at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., July 25, 2018. (photo by Allison Shelley) (Square)
JESSICA TAYLOR

Twitter

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (far right) gestures while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (far left), Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke listen during the Democratic presidential debate in Detroit on July 30. Clashes between moderates like Hickenlooper and progressives like Sanders and Warren punctuated the debate.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Ideological lines were drawn early and often during Tuesday night's presidential primary debate between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party.

It was the clearest delineation yet this primary season, with centrist candidates such as former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock making arguments similar to those that Republicans have made — that many of the liberal policies Democrats such as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have championed on health care and taxes could ensure a second term for President Trump.

"Let's not kid ourselves — [Trump] will be tough to beat," Bullock said in his debate debut, cautioning against "wish-list economics" to create liberal policies, including "Medicare for All," which dominated the start of the debate and was perhaps the biggest touchstone issue illuminating differences within the field.

The Democratic Debate Over Medicare For All And Middle Class Taxes, Explained
POLITICS
The Democratic Debate Over Medicare For All And Middle Class Taxes, Explained
Kamala Harris Releases 'Medicare For All' Plan With A Role For Private Insurers
POLITICS
Kamala Harris Releases 'Medicare For All' Plan With A Role For Private Insurers
Delaney — a former backbench, wealthy congressman who has generated little buzz for his campaign despite running the longest — tried to draw historical parallels in warning that a nominee too far to the left would doom the chances of Democrats. He compared the duo of Sanders and Warren to George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 — all of whom were crushed by their Republican opponents in presidential elections.

"Democrats win when we run on real solutions, not impossible promises," Delaney argued.

"I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for," Warren fired back. "I don't get it."


Team Warren
✔
@TeamWarren
Why would anyone go through all the trouble of running for President just to get up on stage and talk about what’s not possible? @ewarren is ready to fight.


4,036
8:29 PM - Jul 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,010 people are talking about this
Warren also pushed back as other candidates challenged her and Sanders' support for Medicare for All, which would replace private health insurance: "We're not going to solve these ideas with small ideas and spinelessness."

The fireworks, which started immediately, shouldn't be that surprising, given that Warren and Sanders were at center stage and that the lower-polling candidates, who need to generate momentum to even make the September debate, had to ding the top-tier hopefuls somehow. The two friends and ideological equals have had a détente of sorts throughout the campaign, and that helped them take a sort of tag-team approach against more moderate candidates on the edges of the stage.

Debate May Be Last-Ditch Effort For Struggling Democrats To Stay Alive
POLITICS
Debate May Be Last-Ditch Effort For Struggling Democrats To Stay Alive
Warren took a more measured, reasoned approach, while Sanders showed more outrage, throwing his hands up in disgust during one exchange with Hickenlooper. But the two never went after each other. At one point, when Sanders accidentally interrupted Warren, he stopped himself and apologized — a courtesy he didn't afford other opponents.

Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan also took issue with Sanders' Medicare for All bill, claiming that it wouldn't help union members and senior citizens. "I do know it. I wrote the damn bill," Sanders shot back when the two tussled over the details.

Sanders took much of the friendly fire from his fellow competitors, while Warren tried to make more nuanced arguments with personal details and examples.

In his closing statement, Hickenlooper echoed the sentiments of his more centrist colleagues in a different way, arguing that "I'm as progressive as anybody up on this stage, but I'm pragmatic."

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who hasn't fit neatly into either camp, argued that Republicans were going to paint Democrats with a broad brush anyway, so they should just choose what is best for America, regardless of political implications.

"If we embrace a far-left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. So let's stand up for the right policy, go up there and defend it," Buttigieg said.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was on purpose on Sanders and Warren's parts. with NPR noting that Sanders apologized when he interrupted Warren, something he didn't do with the others. They described it as a tag team effort on their part. Which is probably for the best, have the two teaming up and focusing on the policies they want to go forward and knocking the centrists and moderates out of the race. So for now, fears of them dividing up the progressive base seems to be for nought, as they're clearly not working against each other to steer the ship of the Party, as much as everyone else in the Democratic Party leadership wishes otherwise.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders has also made statements heavily implying that he would pick Warren as his VP if nominated. I don't know if they've formally discussed any of this, but there is at the very least an informal effort to send a message that they are not at odds, but are standing together against the Centrists. This goes a long way toward mitigating what was my biggest fear about them both running, that they would split the progressive base.

[FaxModem1]

I think the hilarious part is Bernie Sanders, on CNN, notes that pharmaceutical companies will spend a lot of money on advertising, and during the ads for that very debate, an ad for a pharmaceutical shows up.

Huffington Post

Bernie Sanders Bashes CNN For Pairing Drug Company ‘Talking Points’ With Its Ad Money
“The health care industry will be advertising tonight on this program,” Sanders told moderator Jake Tapper. “They will be advertising tonight with that talking point.”
By Molly Redden

Sen. Bernie Sanders torched CNN host Jake Tapper at Tuesday night’s Democratic primary debate for grilling the candidates about their health care proposals in between commercial breaks that featured advertisements for major drug companies.

“Jake, your question is a Republican talking point,” said the Vermont senator after Tapper pressed multiple candidates to say whether they would raise taxes on most Americans in order to pay for universal health care coverage.

“And, by the way, the health care industry will be advertising tonight on this program,” Sanders continued over crosstalk. “They will be advertising tonight with that talking point.”

Like clockwork, it happened:


the norms misser
✔
@cd_hooks
the ad break includes a commercial for a pill named "otezla" that partially clears skin at the cost of nausea, diarrhea and depression at a listed price of $3,400 for a 30-day supply. anyway back to asking candidates why they'd change our terrific health care system

1,226
8:11 PM - Jul 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
399 people are talking about this
Subsequent commercial breaks featured an ad paid for by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) that celebrated drug breakthroughs and an ad redirecting to a website that discusses “what the biopharmaceutical industry is doing to make medicines more affordable.”

The ads bookended a heated exchange among Sanders, Tapper and Sen. Elizabeth Warren over the cost of a “Medicare for All” plan for middle-class taxpayers.

Tapper tried to extract from both progressive senators an admission that their Medicare for All proposals rely on raising taxes, brushing past their arguments that that net cost of health care would decline for most middle-class taxpayers, which would offset tax increases.

Tuesday night was not the first time Sanders and his team had linked skeptical coverage of his policy proposals to the companies who advertise on the news network.

Appearing Sunday on the CNN show “Reliable Sources,” Sanders 2020 campaign manager Faiz Shakir said this about Sanders’ longtime criticism of “corporate media”: “This isn’t a personal commentary on you or any other journalist,” Shakir told host Brian Stetler. “But in about a minute or so, or two minutes or so, you’re going to cut to commercial breaks, and you’re going to see pharmaceutical ads.”

With the ads “basically paying your bills and the bills of all of this,” Shakir said, “what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas.”

Really shows the relationship between media and the pharmaceuticals. Good on Sanders for commenting on it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, Sanders landed some fine zingers tonight.

I should add that the closeness between him and Warren could be critical at the convention, too. With so many candidates running, and new rules ensuring that there are no winner-take-all states, but that anyone who wins over fifteen percent in a state is guaranteed at least some delegates, it is highly plausible that we will get to the convention with no candidate having a majority, meaning a contested convention. In that eventuality, after the first vote, delegates would be free to switch candidates, and having close ties rather than bitter rivalries between the Warren and Sanders camps could potentially allow them to ally on the convention floor to oust Biden and ensure that a progressive gets the nomination*, even if he comes to the convention with the single largest number of delegates.


*Warren in this scenario would make the most sense as a compromise candidate, as she is less polarizing than Bernie, and could bring in some Clinton supporters who hate Bernie but still want a female President.

[The Romulan Republic]

Buttigieg landed a good hit too, when he pointed out that Republicans will call Democrats socialist whatever we do, and that shouldn't be a reason not to adopt a particular policy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, here's a reason for Beto to stay in for a while:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... ollowed-by

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D) leads the 2020 primary field in his home state by 3 points over the front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, according a new poll released Tuesday.

O’Rourke saw a 12-point uptick, from 15 to 27 percent, since last month’s University of Texas poll — pulling into first among Texas voters. Biden’s support increased 1 point, from 23 percent to 24 percent, placing him second to O’Rourke.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) trailed in third at 15 percent, and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) are statistically tied within the margin of error at 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

According to the Texas poll, O’Rourke’s lead widens to 38 percent among primary voters when the survey included independent Democratic-leaners, whereas Biden’s support shrinks to 19 percent when such voters are factored in.

The Texas primary will be held on March 3, “Super Tuesday,” along with the primaries in 16 other states.

O’Rourke, as an underdog Senate candidate, lost to incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz (R) in 2018, but the close race for state-wide office in what was once seen as a Republican stronghold is putting the state back in play for 2020.

A Democratic presidential candidate has not won the state in 40 years, since President Carter in 1976.

Four of the six leading primary candidates in Texas beat Trump in a general election mockup, based on the poll.

O’Rourke holds the strongest lead over Trump, at 48.8 percent to 37.6 percent. Warren holds a 40.7 to 38.2 percent lead, Sanders holds a 39.2 to 37.3 percent lead, and Harris tops Trump with 39.8 percent to 38.5 percent.

Trump holds a lead over Biden, the Democratic frontrunner, though only two-tenths of a point separate the two candidates. Trump wins 37.1 percent to Biden's 36.9 percent. Trump has a larger lead over Buttigieg, taking 38.6 percent to Buttigieg's 33 percent.

Although O’Rourke appears to be polling strong with Texas voters, he’s trailing the crowded field in most national polls, barely breaking 3 percent. A RealClearPolitics average of polls shows O’Rourke at 2.8 percent, trailing Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D).

Twenty of the 2020 Democrats will face off Tuesday and Wednesday in two nights of debates in Detroit.

O’Rourke is one of eight candidates that has already met the threshold to qualify for the third debate, which will be held in Houston at Texas Southern University on Sept. 12 and Sept. 13.

--Updated at 11:06 a.m.

Despite his dismal poll numbers nationally, he's leading in Texas. Winning Texas won't win him the primary, but it could give him a respectable number of delegates (even though its not winner take all) at the convention, and thus potential clout/credibility for a future run, and maybe even a king/queenmaker role in a contested convention.

Also, while of course polls mean little this early, right now O'Rourke, Warren, Sanders, and Harris are beating Trump in Texas, and Biden is trailing him by .2%. O'Rourke is beating him by double digits.

Texas is arguably a swing state now, and that should terrify Republicans. If Texas flips, all the Electoral College math is changed, and the Republicans may well be dead as a national party. Even if it doesn't, having to pour money into holding Texas means the Republicans will have less resources to go on the offense in traditional swing states.

Its also very telling to me that Sanders and Warren are polling ahead of Trump in Texas, while Biden is (albeit very narrowly) behind. So much for the argument that Sanders and Warren are too Left-wing to compete in redder states.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not quite the worst case scenario (that would be Trump winning the legitimacy of the popular vote), but pretty damn close:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... 0-n1031601

In the wake of President Donald Trump's tweets suggesting several nonwhite progressive congresswomen "go back" to their countries — three of them were born in the U.S. — it's tempting for Democrats to believe the comments will backfire with an increasingly diverse electorate and seriously damage his re-election prospects.

But the cold reality for Democrats? The bulk of the nation's demographic transformation is taking place in states that matter the least in deciding the Electoral College.

Democrats' worst nightmare came true in November 2016 when Hillary Clinton captured 2.9 million more votes than Donald Trump but he still comfortably prevailed in the Electoral College, 306 to 232. As much as they would like to purge that outcome from memory, Democrats would be unwise to write it off as a fluke: In 2020, it's possible Trump could win 5 million fewer votes than his opponent — and still win a second term.

The nation's two most populous states, California and Texas, are at the heart of Democrats' geography problem.

Both behemoths are growing more diverse at a much faster rate than the nation — owing to booming Asian and Latino populations — and are trending toward Democrats. Yet neither blue California nor red Texas would play a pivotal role in a close 2020 election, potentially rendering millions of additional Democratic votes useless.

Over the past four years for which census estimates are available, California's population of nonwhite voting-age citizens has exploded by 1,585,499, while its number of white voting-age citizens has declined by a net 162,715. The Golden State's GOP is in free fall: In May 2018, the state's Republican registrants fell to third place behind "no party preference" voters for the first time. In 2016, Clinton stretched Barack Obama's 2012 margin from 3 million to 4.2 million votes. But padding that margin by another 1.2 million votes wouldn't yield the 2020 Democratic nominee a single additional Electoral vote.

Over the same time period, Texas has added a net 1,188,514 nonwhite voting-age citizens and just 200,002 white voting-age citizens. Texas' economic boom has attracted a diverse, highly professional workforce to burgeoning urban centers of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio and shifted the state's politics leftward — especially as GOP votes have begun to "max out" in stagnant rural areas. In 2016, Clinton cut Obama's 2012 deficit from 1.2 million to just over 800,000. But again, even cutting Trump's margin by 800,000 wouldn't yield the 2020 Democratic nominee a single additional Electoral vote.

Democrats' potential inefficiencies aren't limited to California and Texas: The list of the nation's top 15 fastest-diversifying states also includes the sizable yet safely blue states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington and Oregon.

Meanwhile, demographic transformation isn't nearly as rapid in the narrow band of states that are best-positioned to decide the Electoral College — a factor that seriously aids Trump.

In 2016, Trump's victory hinged on three Great Lakes states he won by less than a point: Michigan (0.2 percent), Pennsylvania (0.7 percent) and Wisconsin (0.8 percent). All three of these aging, relatively white states have some of the nation's highest shares of white voters without college degrees — a group trending away from Democrats over the long term. And the nonwhite share of the eligible electorate in each of the three has increased at only a quarter to a half of the rate it has surged in California, Texas and Nevada.

Democrats eagerly point out that they swept Senate and governors' races in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in 2018. And they flipped two seats in Michigan and four in Pennsylvania on their way to taking back the House.

But Trump could lose Michigan and Pennsylvania and still win the Electoral College, so long as he carries every other place he won in 2016. And Wisconsin didn't provide as clear a verdict in 2018. Even with favorable turnout in a "blue wave," Democrats won Wisconsin's governor's race only by a point and failed to gain a House seat. If enough Trump voters who sat out 2018 — particularly white working-class men — return to the polls in 2020, the Badger State could easily stay red.

There are three other states Trump carried by fewer than five points in 2016 that could play a decisive role in 2020: Arizona (3.5 percent), Florida (1.2 percent) and North Carolina (3.7 percent).

Of the "Sun Belt" trio, Florida was the closest in 2016 yet remains one of Democrats' biggest frustrations.

Over the past four years of census data, it had the nation's eighth sharpest increase in the nonwhite share of voting-age citizens. But the Sunshine State's trend lines favor Trump: The rapid influx of conservative Midwestern retirees to the Panhandle and Gulf Coast, along with Florida's above-average Hispanic support for GOP candidates, explain why Sen. Rick Scott and Gov. Ron DeSantis, both Republicans, defied the "blue wave" in 2018.

Democrats' strongest Sun Belt pickup opportunity in 2020 may actually be Arizona. Its electorate isn't very rural and its share of nonwhite voting-age citizens is growing at the third-fastest rate in the country, behind only Nevada and California.

Unlike in Florida, where Democrats lost a Senate seat, Arizona Democrats picked up a Senate seat in 2018. And North Carolina looks likely to remain competitive as the Research Triangle, Charlotte and the Piedmont Triad continue to attract young, left-leaning professionals.

Together, these six states — Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — are best-positioned to decide which candidate reaches the magic 270 Electoral votes. That's not to say that other states won't be close: It's possible Trump could win Maine, Minnesota, Nevada or New Hampshire, and it's possible the Democratic nominee could win Georgia, Iowa, Ohio or Texas. But if either scenario materializes, the election will be a blowout and the victor will likely have already won the "swing six" comfortably.

Bottom line: Mired at an approval rating in the low 40s, Trump has a narrow path to re-election. But the concentration of demographic change in noncompetitive states, particularly California and Texas, threatens to further widen the chasm between the popular vote and the Electoral College, easing his path. Trump could once again win with less than 47 percent, a victory threshold far below the share of the popular vote the Democratic nominee might need.

The ultimate nightmare scenario for Democrats might look something like this: Trump loses the popular vote by more than 5 million ballots, and the Democratic nominee converts Michigan and Pennsylvania back to blue. But Trump wins re-election by two Electoral votes by barely hanging onto Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Maine's 2nd Congressional District — one of the whitest and least college-educated districts in the country.

A scenario that divergent isn't especially likely, but after 2016, Democrats shouldn't discount it either.

If this happens, the last vestige of credibility in our electoral system or American democracy is dead, Trump reigns as a tyrant imposed by the minority upon an unwilling majority, and there are riots across the country, if not outright serious secession movements.

Now do people get why I think the Electoral College should be fucking abolished?

[Gandalf]

If this happens, the last vestige of credibility in our electoral system or American democracy is dead, Trump reigns as a tyrant imposed by the minority upon an unwilling majority, and there are riots across the country, if not outright serious secession movements.

Considering the history of disenfranchisement, and overall low voter participation rates, when was American democracy alive?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Texas is arguably a swing state now, and that should terrify Republicans. If Texas flips, all the Electoral College math is changed, and the Republicans may well be dead as a national party.

If you just flipped Texas from Trump to Hillary in 2016, Trump still wins the election by 7 electoral votes. While obviously Texas theoretically being a swing state changes the electoral math in a significant fashion, I think it's a big leap from there to Republicans being dead as a national party. Further, we are talking about super premature polling numbers comparing Beto (a popular native Texan politician) vs. Trump (one of the most polarizing candidates in American history); it may be a stretch to consider these as indicative of a broader electoral trend as opposed to a unique outlier.

Those caveats aside, it is still an encouraging sign that Texas may be more in play than it has historically.

Considering the history of disenfranchisement, and overall low voter participation rates, when was American democracy alive?

Can we just ... not do this right now, dude? TRR was clearly just using some rhetorical flourish, and we all know by now he has a tendency to be hyperbolic when talking about politics. Nitpicking his use of the phrase "American democracy is dead" to earn some empty "America sucks lol" hipster cred points is just going to lead to a really pointless argument that drags on for several pages for no particular reason (and probably leads to a mod telling everyone to shut up). We've seen this happen about a thousand times before on this forum, basically every time this subject gets brought up. This thread is about the 2020 election specifically, not a referendum on the entire historical, philosophical, and ethical implications of the American political system.

[The Romulan Republic]

Texas is arguably a swing state now, and that should terrify Republicans. If Texas flips, all the Electoral College math is changed, and the Republicans may well be dead as a national party.

If you just flipped Texas from Trump to Hillary in 2016, Trump still wins the election by 7 electoral votes. While obviously Texas theoretically being a swing state changes the electoral math in a significant fashion, I think it's a big leap from there to Republicans being dead as a national party. Further, we are talking about super premature polling numbers comparing Beto (a popular native Texan politician) vs. Trump (one of the most polarizing candidates in American history); it may be a stretch to consider these as indicative of a broader electoral trend as opposed to a unique outlier.

Those caveats aside, it is still an encouraging sign that Texas may be more in play than it has historically.

Well yeah, but the odds of Trump loosing Texas while sweeping Florida, North Carolina and the Midwest seem... low, to put it mildly. Also, as I noted, any scenario where Texas is competitive means that the RNC and Trump will have to pour resources into holding territory they once could have largely taken for granted, meaning that they will not be able to spend the same time and money going on the offensive in traditional swing states.

So while it is indeed concievably possible for the Republican Party to lose Texas but win the Presidency, the odds on that are very, very long.

Can we just ... not do this right now, dude? TRR was clearly just using some rhetorical flourish, and we all know by now he has a tendency to be hyperbolic when talking about politics. Nitpicking his use of the phrase "American democracy is dead" to earn some empty "America sucks lol" hipster cred points is just going to lead to a really pointless argument that drags on for several pages for no particular reason (and probably leads to a mod telling everyone to shut up). We've seen this happen about a thousand times before on this forum, basically every time this subject gets brought up. This thread is about the 2020 election specifically, not a referendum on the entire historical, philosophical, and ethical implications of the American political system.

This is one of the most sensible things anyone has said on this forum in a long time.

That said, Gandalf isn't entirely wrong, actually. I've said myself that I don't regard America as fully democratic as long as the Electoral College is in effect. I'm clearly using "democracy" here in the common, colloquial sense- to refer to the semi-democratic system of representative government and checks and balances that the American Republic employs. True, full democracy would be based on the direct popular vote, and would require the abolition or neutering (via something like the popular vote interstate compact) of the Electoral College as well as a rolling back of voter suppression at minimum.

[Elfdart]

I would caution anyone reading the polls right now to keep in mind that at this point in 1999, roughly a third of GOP primary voters who favored Bush thought they were favoring George H.W. Bush, not Dubya. It's purely name recognition right now. Biden was VP for eight years, and has been a nationally well-known pol for over thirty years -including runs for the White House in 1988 and 2008. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have also been nationally well-known for two decades or more, and are talk-show favorites for speaking in plain, concise terms when they're on TV. Kamala Harris is from the most populous state in the union and has a built-in advantage. Gillibrand would have had a similar leg up, except the mayor of New York is also in the race and apparently a lot of Dems are still sore at her for kneecapping Al Franken.

The other candidates don't have much of a chance and never really did.

I hate these TV "debates" because they're nothing of the kind, the moderators are dishonest and stupid, and there isn't enough time for twenty candidates to get a word in. However, there were some highlights:

* Bernie pwning Ryan: "I wrote the damn bill!"

* Warren stooge-slapping that wanker Delaney.

* Gabbard mugging Harris so badly that all she could do was have her flunkies attack Gabbard later that night on Twitter with the usual bullshit. Ryan tried the same thing after getting dunked on by Gabbard and it just exposed him as being a whiny little bitch. It was even more pathetic than watching Delaney run to Fox News to whine that Warren was being mean.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know you probably won't agree, but I think Gillibrand was absolutely right on Franken. If we're going to shield men facing multiple sexual abuse allegations because they're on "our team", we might as well just be Republicans.

I think my views on Gabbard are well known, and I'll leave it at that.

Bernie and Warren did very well, yes. I admire them for not taking the bait to fight each other, and maintaining a united progressive front while pecker-slapping the Centrists. God damn they'd make a good ticket together, if not for the fact that Warren is my preference for the head of the ticket, and Bernie is a bit old for a VP.