SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Lonestar]

I'm gonna lose it if HRC announces she's running dammit

[Mr Bean]

I'm gonna lose it if HRC announces she's running dammit

Not even the democrats will support a double loser, nor do I think there is ore than 5%-10% support for a rematch.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah nah, I said it last time, she would be done if she lost. That was her last shot at the big time and she called it a day after that. I could see her running for something local to her, but odds are she's just going to sit pretty on all the Clinton Foundation stuff.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly? Speculation about Hillary running again is just flame-bait for suckers at this point.

[His Divine Shadow]

Lol
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/ ... 8689335297

Also, reminder that your media is shit, utter shit, shite and piss.
https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/11 ... 4003872768

[FaxModem1]

Note that the Bernie Sanders ad has gotten over 5 million views.

[His Divine Shadow]

Bernie unveils some policies
https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/ ... 2076511233

INBOX: Stunning new economic plan from @BernieSanders this AM. It would give workers 20% of the shares in their companies and 45% of board seats. Bernie's declaring war on unfettered capitalism.
@joshorton will give us the details this AM on #rising

[His Divine Shadow]

Nice going Biden's, also that's capitalism
https://twitter.com/Robeno/status/1181675897079750656

[bilateralrope]

Why did you link to a tweet that links to the article instead of just linking to the article ?

Anyway, here it is:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/hun ... ntity-list

Hunter Biden's BHR owns stake in Chinese company blacklisted by US

The Trump administration has put Hunter Biden’s business dealings in its crosshairs.

One of the 27 Chinese companies the Commerce Department added to its so-called entity list of firms barred from doing business with the U.S. is Megvii Technology, a business in which BHR, the cross-border investment arm of China’s Bohai Industrial Investment Fund, owns a stake in. *Hunter Biden owns a 10 percent stake in BHR, but is not a limited partner in the funds that own Medvii.

Biden and his father, Vice President Joe Biden -- who's seeking the Democratic Party's nomination to run against Trump -- have come under scrutiny over the younger man's business dealings in Ukraine. House Democrats are conducting an impeachment inquiry into a whistleblower's claim that the president asked the Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden's work there in the hopes of generating ammunition for his 2020 reelection campaign.

Trump responded to the move by saying he has a responsibility as president to address potential corruption, whether it involves the Bidens or anyone else.

Biden attorney George Mesires did not immediately respond to FOX Business’ request for comment. Megvii, the firm in which BHR Investment Fund VI invested, designs image recognition and deep-learning software. The company said in a statement that it "strongly objects to the company’s designation on the U.S. Commerce Department’s Entity List, for which there are no grounds."

The U.S. government "cannot and will not tolerate the brutal suppression of ethnic minorities within China,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “This action will ensure that our technologies, fostered in an environment of individual liberty and free enterprise, are not used to repress defenseless minority populations.”

Megvii, which is backed by Chinese tech giant Alibaba, filed in August for an initial public offering in Hong Kong. It’s seeking to raise up to $1 billion in the stock sale, which is expected to occur before the end of the year. It is unclear if Monday’s actions will alter the company’s plans.

Earlier this year, Megvii raised $750 million in a funding round, giving it a valuation of more than $4 billion, according to Reuters. Megvii lost 5.2 billion yuan ($730 million) in the first six months of this year, more than in all of 2018.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

*This article was corrected to show that Hunter Biden does not individually own a stake in Megvii Technology, only BHR Partners does.

So this is the dirt they found on Joe Biden: His son owns 10% of an investment fund that has invested in a company that isn't allowed to do business in the US because of what the Trump administration alleges this company is involved in.

Lets see how Joe Biden responds. He could easily make it look worse.

[His Divine Shadow]

Because I liked the summary it came with

[His Divine Shadow]

Bernie's getting the endorsement from AOC and Omar:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/p ... nders.html

[His Divine Shadow]

Poll


How poll is reported:


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1184959286276960257

[mr friendly guy]

Remember all those times Aerius joked about how everyone is a Russian agent. Well....
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rd/600370/

I've taken a snippet from the article.

How Hillary Clinton Boosted Tulsi Gabbard
The 2016 Democratic nominee is right to worry about the congresswoman from Hawaii—but overshot the mark by calling her a Russian asset while offering no proof.

OCT 20, 2019

Tom Nichols
Author of The Death of Expertise

What was Hillary Clinton thinking? The 2016 Democratic nominee, for some reason, felt the need to insert herself into the 2020 race with an attack on Tulsi Gabbard, an oddball Democratic presidential contender who barely registered in polls. The congresswoman from Hawaii is a completely discreditable candidate—more on that in a moment—but Clinton’s accusation that Gabbard is a tool of the Russians was so blunt and clumsy that it has added new life to a primary bid that should never have existed in the first place. Within a day, Gabbard was already fundraising off of it, a development as predictable as a sunrise.

Clinton fired at Gabbard in a recent podcast, during which she made reference to an unnamed Democrat who Clinton believed was readying a third-party challenge. “I’m not making any predictions,” Clinton said, “but I think [the Russians] have got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Clinton then brought up the 2016 candidate Jill Stein, whom Clinton described as “a Russian asset.” Or, more accurately, as also a Russian asset, in addition to the mysterious Democrat canoodling with the Kremlin. When asked if Clinton was referring to Gabbard, the Clinton aide Nick Merrill said, “If the nesting doll fits …”


Even if one shares Clinton’s suspicions of Stein and Gabbard—and, as a longtime observer of Soviet and Russian government, I do—her decision to inject herself into the 2020 election was a mistake. It was exactly the kind of clumsy, self-absorbed move that, despite Clinton’s lifetime in the public eye, revealed a total misunderstanding of how politics work. Far from exposing or thwarting Gabbard, as Clinton loyalists want to believe, the former secretary of state overshot the mark by making an accusation without proof. Gabbard will now dismiss real concerns about her as just so much conspiracy theorizing.

There you have it. Anyone who says something remotely positive about Russia is a Russian agent. And once again some SDN joke becomes reality.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, its not "Anyone who says something positive about Russia is a Russian agent." Its "The person running for President while spreading "rigged primary" conspiracy theories, repeating Trumper rhetoric on impeachment, and defending throwing the Kurds under the bus while engaging in appologism for Assad is a Russian asset."

Note also that Clinton said "Russian asset", not "Russian agent". That's an important distinction. An asset can be an unwitting pawn or tool. An agent implies someone knowingly working on the Kremlin's payroll. There is no solid evidence (yet, anyway) for Gabbard being the latter, but a pretty good case can be made for the former.

[His Divine Shadow]

More polls, apparently Sanders is 2nd now. And has 45% of the vote in the 18-29 range. However the fact that Biden who is falling apart like a zombie on stage is still number 1... makes me wonder if polls can be trusted at all.

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.c ... ic-primary

[His Divine Shadow]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... in-florida

Yeah can't really trust polls
https://twitter.com/EllieTheLeftist/sta ... 1971731456

I work for the lab that ran this poll. When I asked our director why Bernie wasn't included, saying that he's a top 3 candidate, I was told "not for long". This man thinks it's more likely for a Republican senate to remove Trump than Bernie to stay strong in the polls.

[FaxModem1]

Beto O'Rourke has dropped out of the race.

New York Times

[The Romulan Republic]

I admit I'm surprised to see Beto out so soon, given that, while he wasn't going to win nationally, he might have polled higher in Texas, and made a bid to be someone's VP.

Guess the question now is who is voters go to.

[The Romulan Republic]

New polls:

First, three national polls have come out, all showing Biden in front, Warren in second, and Bernie in third. They are the only ones in double-digits:

https://axios.com/2020-election-polls-o ... ff860.html

Secondly, a new poll has half of Americans already committed to voting against Trump regardless of the Democratic nominee (suck it, Dickless):

https://nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-p ... 0-n1075746

Thirdly, a new Iowa poll has a Warren, Bernie, Biden, and Buttigieg all within the margin of error. Warren appears to hold a slight edge, with Buttigieg cutting into Biden's base (Biden is also polling at only 2% among voters under 45):

https://nytimes.com/2019/11/02/us/polit ... ights.html

[Elfdart]

Remember all those times Aerius joked about how everyone is a Russian agent. Well....
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rd/600370/

I've taken a snippet from the article.


There you have it. Anyone who says something remotely positive about Russia is a Russian agent. And once again some SDN joke becomes reality.

Keep in mind that Tom Nichols despises Gabbard to the point where he tweeted that he'd rather vote for Trump than her. So this article is pretty damning.

I'm not surprised Gabbard is doing better in the polls after Harris (who is about to follow O'Rourke to the discard pile), then Clinton tried to smear her as a Russian agent. Almost every president from John Quincey Adams to Barack Obama has had the same slander hurled at them, along with many of this country's greatest statesmen like George Marshall. It's a badge of honor right up there with being on Nixon's Enemies List!

Besides, the Clintons and their lackeys have slimed so many people over the decades (and so ineptly), from spreading the rumor that Jerry Brown was a homosexual, to smearing Monica Lewinsky as a liar and a stalker, to accusing Paula Jones of being a gold-digger, to trying to link Obama to Louis Farrakhan, to attempting to red-bait AND Jew-bait Bernie Sanders that the latest attacks on Gabbard are like when the neighbor's cat starts coughing up a furball: It's gross and unpleasant to hear, but nothing to worry about.

[Elfdart]

Note also that Clinton said "Russian asset", not "Russian agent". That's an important distinction. An asset can be an unwitting pawn or tool. An agent implies someone knowingly working on the Kremlin's payroll. There is no solid evidence (yet, anyway) for Gabbard being the latter, but a pretty good case can be made for the former.

Bullshit:

(1:00:25)



Taibbi: You were in the CIA. What does the word asset mean?

Kiriakou: The word asset has a very specific meaning in the CIA and in the broader intelligence community. Asset means that you are being paid to provide either classified information, or access to someone who has classified information. In nine times out of ten -90% of the time- you know that you are being paid by the CIA ( or by an intelligence service) and you are providing that service for cash. And Hillary Clinton knows this.

[Ralin]

Given that Clinton isn't working for the State Department anymore and said this in a podcast instead of any official capacity why should we assume she was adhering to professional jargon enough for this to be worth word-lawyering?

[Elfdart]

Because the point of the smear was to accuse Gabbard of being a Russian agent. Otherwise, why use the term? The reason so many "Russia, Russia, RUSSIA!" cranks like to throw around this kind of spook jargon is precisely because it implies Gabbard and others are Russian fifth columnists with absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

[Ralin]

Because the point of the smear was to accuse Gabbard of being a Russian agent. Otherwise, why use the term? The reason so many "Russia, Russia, RUSSIA!" cranks like to throw around this kind of spook jargon is precisely because it implies Gabbard and others are Russian fifth columnists with absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

Because the point of the smear was to accuse Gabbard of being a Russian agent.

Bullshit:
...

Kiriakou: The word asset has a very specific meaning in the CIA and in the broader intelligence community. Asset means that you are being paid to provide either classified information, or access to someone who has classified information. In nine times out of ten -90% of the time- you know that you are being paid by the CIA ( or by an intelligence service) and you are providing that service for cash. And Hillary Clinton knows this.

Or just that Clinton, not being a member of the intelligence community, is using the term in the same non-jargon way that most people would. You included.

[The Romulan Republic]

Despite trailing Democrats badly in nation-wide polling, Trump is leading or within the margin of error against Biden, Bernie, and Warren in the key battleground states, due to his strong support from whites without college degrees. This could lead to a scenario where Trump loses the popular vote by over five million but wins reelection:

https://vox.com/policy-and-politics/201 ... ers-warren

Depending on which reputable survey you look at, President Donald Trump’s approval rating is somewhere between 41 and 38 percent — numbers that are underwhelming at best. But a new poll from the New York Times and Siena College illustrates how Trump has a clear path to winning a second term even as he remains unpopular nationally.

The NYT/Siena polling — which is framed as a look at the state of the 2020 race exactly one year before Election Day — indicates the Electoral College advantage that landed Trump in the White House (despite him receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton) is still very much in play. In hypothetical head-to-head matchups with Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren in six battleground states that Trump won in 2016 — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina — Trump is still extremely competitive.

Trump is broadly unpopular in each of those states, with his approval rating ranging from 2 percentage points underwater in Florida to 11 percentage points underwater in Wisconsin. But the story is different when Trump matches up against the top Democratic contenders. Here’s the state-by-state breakdown, via Nate Cohn, who wrote the Times piece about the polling:

New Times/Siena polls show Trump highly competitive in the six closest states carried by the president in '16:
Biden+2, Biden 46 to Trump 45
Even, Sanders 45, Trump 45
Trump+2, Trump 46, Warren 44

2016 result in these states was Trump+2, 48 to 46https://t.co/lOTo3Vx8cc pic.twitter.com/wQjUdeRXSv

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) November 4, 2019
Beyond showing Biden better positioned to defeat Trump in battleground states than Sanders or Warren, the poll illustrates the “nightmare” scenario for Democrats outlined by David Wasserman in a July piece for MSNBC — one in which Trump loses the popular vote by as many as 5 million votes, but still prevails in the Electoral College. To put it succinctly, no matter how much the Democratic nominee runs up the score in states like California and New York, it won’t matter if they can’t win in a handful of the aforementioned states that Trump won in 2016. And as of now, only Biden is positioned to do that — and even in that case his edge over Trump is within the margin of error.

What explains Trump’s enduring appeal in battleground states? According to the NYT/Siena poll — his overwhelming popularity with white voters who don’t have college degrees, which is just as strong now as it was three years ago.

pic.twitter.com/O9W2IncpPZ

— Dr. Jennifer Mercieca (@jenmercieca) November 4, 2019
Cohn writes that “n contrast to recent national surveys, the Times/Siena polls find that the president’s lead among white, working-class voters nearly matches his decisive advantage from 2016 ... The poll offers little evidence that any Democrat, including Mr. Biden, has made substantial progress toward winning back the white working-class voters who defected to the president in 2016, at least so far.”

Democrats, of course, dominated the 2018 midterms and took control of the House of Representatives by winning 40 seats nationwide. But Cohn’s piece indicates that those results aren’t necessarily predictive of what will happen in the presidential race next year, since “[n]early two-thirds of the Trump voters who said they voted for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 say that they’ll back the president against all three named opponents.”

RELATED

The astounding advantage the Electoral College gives to Republicans, in one chart
There are some caveats. The Times’ polling, which was based on a survey of 3,766 registered voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona, and 1,435 registered voters in Iowa between October 13 and October 30, does not account for new voters. A piece detailing the methodology notes that the Michigan results, in particular, should be treated “with an added degree of caution,” since pollsters had trouble with the sample there. And it’s somewhat of an outlier when compared with other recent polls in states like Florida and Wisconsin that have showed Biden in particular with larger leads over Trump.

Still, the survey shows why fluctuations in Trump’s national approval rating — which currently indicates he’s the second least-popular president at this point in his term in modern times, ahead only of Jimmy Carter — should be taken with a grain of salt. What ultimately matters is the Electoral College. And in that contest, Trump remains in a strong position to win — even if he loses the popular vote by an even wider margin than in 2016.

So, Electoral College apologists: tell me again why its so essential that tiny majorities in six states should be able to dictate the future of the entire country. Tell me how that's just.