View Poll Results: Will Bernie beat Trump in the 2020 presidential election?
Yes 71 33.18%
No 143 66.82%
Voters: 214. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:36 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
<snip>The American people have listened to the idiot in chief rant for four years instead of making anyoneís life better.</snip>
Here's where your mistake lies; Trump has made other people's lives worse, so his base believes theirs got better because of it. He hasn't, of course. But they believe he has by comparison.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #152  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:16 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Assuming it is Trump vs. Sanders in the general election you wanna bet?
I don't gamble.
  #153  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:16 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Here's where your mistake lies; Trump has made other people's lives worse, so his base believes theirs got better because of it. He hasn't, of course. But they believe he has by comparison.
Loath as I am to admit it, his tax cut has been of significant benefit to small business owners like me. So it's not just that he's made lives worse for people his supporters do not like. He's made lives (financially) better for some people who do not like him, have never liked him, will never like him, but may very well still vote for him (not me).
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #154  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:26 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I have yet to see any evidence that the mythical swing voter even exists, much less that there are a lot waiting to be swayed by the 'socialist' boogeyman. Asserting that the Republicans will shout 'socialist' louder than they did before and that it will alienate people is just assertion, not fact.

Right. There are no swing voters. There are no swing states. There are no stay at home voters that might be convinced to come out. Might as well have the election today since nothing can change. President Hillary will be happy to hear that.

As for the socialist thing, again no one has to shout it when Bernie is proudly stating it. You may choose to ignore it but the Gallup poll I posted earlier shows clearly that being a socialist remains by far the biggest liability in American politics with the most people stating they will never vote for a socialist. Itís even far ahead of being an atheist which doesnít help Bernie much either. When the margins are so narrow in those non-existent swing states with those non-existent swing voters you canít ignore that kind of liability.
  #155  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:28 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
That's meaningless at this point. The real campaign hasn't begun yet. The Republicans won't start attacking Sanders until he's confirmed as the nominee and the Democrats can't change horses.

Once Sanders is locked in, the Republicans will start the negative campaigning and his popularity will drop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If you match closest to Bloomberg than you are more conservative than liberal. If Republicans had let candidates run against Trump I think the Republican party would have had a super-solid chance and winning again with a new Republican. But they prevented that.

Bloomberg was a Republican now turned Democrat. Funny since Trump was a Democrat turned Republican. More billionaires in the White House. Yay!
You're out of touch with American politics if you think a candidate with a history of being a Republican has a bigger liability than a candidate with a history of being a Socialist.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, Americans vote for Republicans. How many Americans vote for Socialists?

Last edited by Little Nemo; 02-25-2020 at 01:30 PM.
  #156  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:38 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,840
The best thing that Bernie could do for the democrats in November would be to drop dead from a heart attack sooner rather than later. I'm not wishing it on him, but it's the best path to beat Trump.

The BernBros won't be butthurt and vindictive about him not being the nominee and will more or less enthusiastically endorse another candidate. That, and whoever does run will pick up sympathy votes from the undecided.
  #157  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:52 PM
Fugazi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's meaningless at this point. The real campaign hasn't begun yet. The Republicans won't start attacking Sanders until he's confirmed as the nominee and the Democrats can't change horses.

Once Sanders is locked in, the Republicans will start the negative campaigning and his popularity will drop.
You know. The Democrats will actually be campaigning too. And there's a hell of a lot more negative to be said about Trump than Bernie. And I think Bernie has a lot more positive things to say too.
  #158  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:55 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You're out of touch with American politics if you think a candidate with a history of being a Republican has a bigger liability than a candidate with a history of being a Socialist.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, Americans vote for Republicans. How many Americans vote for Socialists?
Exactly. And the problem with nominating Sanders is that you run the risk of alienating thousands if not millions of voters who would be on board with ANYONE else in hopes of getting Trump out of office, but who might consider Sanders as a cure that's as bad or worse than the disease.

Hell, I almost feel that way myself. I find myself asking if getting Trump out of office is worth electing Sanders. I mean, in practical terms what'll happen if he's reelected is we get four more years of crooked assholery and buffoonery, and someone else gets elected in 2024, probably someone who's a career politician, and things will go back to something approaching the pre-2016 normal.

But electing Sanders is a whole 'nother can of worms, especially if you're NOT a progressive or even a left-winger. Strangely I find it comforting to think that O'Connell will obstruct him at every turn, as under nearly any other circumstance, I would absolutely never vote for Bernie Sanders or anyone so absurdly left wing.
  #159  
Old 02-25-2020, 01:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As for this, I really don't like to guess about this type of thing. I have no idea why that was erased.
There's only two options, he ignorantly or purposefully didn't address something central to his entire frigging article. "This expert says any Dem will win! So Sanders will win!" shouldn't ignore the fact that she said "except maybe Sanders".
  #160  
Old 02-25-2020, 02:39 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Exactly. And the problem with nominating Sanders is that you run the risk of alienating thousands if not millions of voters who would be on board with ANYONE else in hopes of getting Trump out of office, but who might consider Sanders as a cure that's as bad or worse than the disease.
Agreed. Trump is very beatable. With the economy the way it is, he should not be, but he is. He has high negatives.

But you guys are about to nominate possibly the only high profile Democrat in the country who is unable to beat him because he is so extreme and admits he is so extreme.
  #161  
Old 02-25-2020, 02:49 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
the GOP won't wait until the convention to go after Sanders . If he continues to lead in delegates they will go after him way before July. they might start next week after super Tuesday.
  #162  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:15 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
What a brave new world, based on 1950s prejudices and biases. When republicans appeal to regressive values they are much better at it.

Remember that when you get bloomie vs orange.
  #163  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:23 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
The rebupkis are coming! Look out. Time to get scared. I hear they have a special name for bernie. It's VICIOUS!
  #164  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:27 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Agreed. Trump is very beatable. With the economy the way it is, he should not be, but he is. He has high negatives.

But you guys are about to nominate possibly the only high profile Democrat in the country who is unable to beat him because he is so extreme and admits he is so extreme.
I see you're getting down to real electoral science.

I want to point out the phrase "you guys" in your post to suggest that your advice might be coming from outside the tent.
  #165  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:30 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nars Glinley View Post
I originally considered "can" instead of "will" in the title but I don't want to cloud this thread with "If such and such happens", then he "can" win. I want to know if you think that he will beat Trump. So look into your crystal ball and vote.

Obviously this assumes that Bernie wins the nomination. Please don't fight the hypothetical.
My fear is that Bernie will win the nomination and choose his biggest fan, A.O. Cortez, as his running mate. Trump wins by a landslide and the House is lost.
  #166  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimfromNapa View Post
My fear is that Bernie will win the nomination and choose his biggest fan, A.O. Cortez, as his running mate. Trump wins by a landslide and the House is lost.
AOC is not 35 and thus does not qualify for VP.
  #167  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:35 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post
You know. The Democrats will actually be campaigning too. And there's a hell of a lot more negative to be said about Trump than Bernie. And I think Bernie has a lot more positive things to say too.

All of the negative stuff has already been said about Trump. Nobody is going to dislike him more than they do right now. Not so with Bernie. Democratic primaries are NOTHING, compared to what's coming. Huge segments of Americans don't give a rip about the Democratic primary. For reference, about 4 times more people will be watching the presidential debates than are watching the Democratic debates. America is going to know Bernie REALLY well, and there's a LOT of baggage there. His Democratic opponents have SOME motive to quell their attacks. Republican opponents will come with both barrels.
  #168  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:47 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
We need to consider the possibility that the act of publicly knuckling under to the fear of how mean the republicans are, and nominating a MOR candidate, is a sign of weakness that will make bloomie or biden lose even worse than they would have otherwise.
  #169  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:50 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post
And there's a hell of a lot more negative to be said about Trump than Bernie.
The thing is...those things you say are negative about Trump are not necessarily seen as negatives by his base. You see racism, they see patriotism. You see kids separated from their parents, they see tough immigration policy. You see punishing people for being poor, they see sound fiscal policy. You see outrageous disdain for the rule of law, they see a hero's courageous fight against activist judges. You see day, they see night.

Really, unless you've got video of him stuffing kittens into a wood chipper, and maybe even then, going negative on Trump is not going to matter. The only negative thing I can imagine that might hurt Trump would be proof that he pressured multiple women into having abortions--better yet if he paid for them. But if you do have that somehow...the people offended by abortion aren't going to vote Dem, they'll just stay home.
  #170  
Old 02-25-2020, 04:03 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Well, it's actually pretty easy. Just don't shout so much.

I'm completely serious - the tone of someone's voice is extremely important to how they and their ideas are perceived. If Sanders can discuss the rapacious greed of the billionaire class in a calm way without raising his voice, he can make more of an impact than he would be able to if he stuck with his angry hectoring style.
That particular suggestion I agree is simple. I'm not sure it's easy though for him. Again, not to take the comparison too far, lots of people somewhat sympathetic to Trump's general political positioning really wish he'd modify basic elements of his personal style. But he just can't/won't. Again I think that's generally typical of old people whose styles have worked for them, generally.

Anyway do you really think that one thing would go that far? I think the more important point actually is that a lot of what Sanders proposes really *doesn't* fit into the template 'every other rich country does it'. The general idea of a more socialized health system being standard everywhere else is reasonably true as political claims go (though the US system is far from 100% private now, more like 50/50, and some other rich country systems also have a big private component). Taking 8% of anyone's assets per yr or 77% at death really isn't standard anywhere, that's way past what's done anywhere else. So 'nicely explaining' the Sanders idea is still US going from (at least supposedly, also not 100% true on every issue now) most rightist rich country to most leftist on some pretty major issues. It's fair to wonder if that's really just a matter of how it's explained, or whether Sanders could run into a more fundamental problem in the general which isn't reflected in (often 'registered voter') polls when most people still aren't paying attention.

Though lots of elections turn out close, so it can't be ruled out that little things could make a difference. And the whole situation is not entirely predictable. Say Covid 19 turns into a huge issue and it can be plausibly argued the govt mishandled it. That's not predictable.
  #171  
Old 02-25-2020, 04:32 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post
You know. The Democrats will actually be campaigning too. And there's a hell of a lot more negative to be said about Trump than Bernie. And I think Bernie has a lot more positive things to say too.
Sure. But we've already heard the negative stuff about Trump. It's old news.

Sanders hasn't been a real target yet. The negatives about him will be fresh news.
  #172  
Old 02-25-2020, 04:39 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
the GOP won't wait until the convention to go after Sanders . If he continues to lead in delegates they will go after him way before July. they might start next week after super Tuesday.
They'll play at it. But they won't go full negative that early. They want to weaken Sanders not destroy him. They don't want to hurt Sanders so badly that he drops out (or is kicked out) and they suddenly have to start working on attacking a different candidate.

That and the timing. You want to save the really good stuff for the summer so it will still be fresh in people's minds on Election Day.
  #173  
Old 02-25-2020, 04:46 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Sanders has issued some fairly detailed plans for paying for his proposals. I have no opinion on whether these plans are realistic, and am not qualified to make that judgment anyway; and I suspect this website is brand spanking new (I looked for such a page literally yesterday and couldn't find it, but it was the first Google result this morning). He may even have released it just in time for the debate tonight.

But it's no longer accurate to say he doesn't have any details on how he's gonna pay for everything.
That is positively frightening. At least if he is elected there is zero chance of any of that passing. He could have 70 Dems in the Senate and 300 Dems in the House and that still doesn't pass.

Yeah, but stick it to the rich, right? Let's just look at one data point: That 8% Jeff Bezos wealth tax. Bezos would owe approximately $7 billion dollars per year to the feds. Most of his wealth is in Amazon stock. He will be required to sell a bunch of it every year to pay the tax, causing the stock price to plummet and hurting everyone with 401ks.

You think Bezos is going to keep innovating knowing that the company he built is being confiscated right out from under him? How does that affect consumers who use Amazon?

Now apply that to every major company. It's absolutely radical insanity.
  #174  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:05 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Well who ever said dems aren't working to make a win impossible?
  #175  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:10 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
They'll play at it. But they won't go full negative that early. They want to weaken Sanders not destroy him. They don't want to hurt Sanders so badly that he drops out (or is kicked out) and they suddenly have to start working on attacking a different candidate.

That and the timing. You want to save the really good stuff for the summer so it will still be fresh in people's minds on Election Day.
We may live in hellscape where republicans are opaque and omniscient, and dems are their chattel and subjects. You seem to think they aren't even campaigning, just wating for the punch. But acting like it's true going in is a bad move. I don't see it for 2020 anyway.
  #176  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:19 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 234
A bit soon to be asking this question. We don’t know what oppo research might come out to hurt Sanders and to what extent it will hurt him. We don’t know what profoundly stupid attempt at interfering in the election Trump will get caught doing that might trigger another call for impeachment. Or how the economy will hold itself up by November (coronavirus is already hurting the global economy, and Trump doing nothing to stymie the spread of the disease isn’t helping). Lots of variables at play here. But the democrats’ best bet is for Trump to be severely weakened so that electability doesn’t matter so much for whoever the candidate is.
  #177  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:37 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,975
I used to have a feeling for what Americans would and wouldn't do, but I don't any more, that disappeared with trump. So frankly I do not have any idea who would win. I do get the sense that both the racist fascistic morons who make up such a surprisingly large section of the electorate and more ordinary people share in the collective sense that everything is fucked up and broken and there is no returning to any previous more comfortable political state, there is no path to it any more.
  #178  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:47 PM
Suse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Great Black Swamp
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
What was 2016 a referendum on?
Hillary. I like Hillary and her policy wonk tendencies. I think we need people in office who actually like the nitpicky technical details of running the country. But even in 2016 I couldn't see how she could win, mostly because I am surrounded by people who hate her and who swallow every vicious lie and piece of slime the Republican machine has put out about her for the last 25 years. Sometimes they tell me they think Trump is a "boob" but they think Hillary is way worse. Those people are the ones who put him in office.

I think to find a way to win, the Democrats need to make the election a referendum on Trump and how hideously awful he is for our country and for the world, what a sordid, slimy person he is and make sure it is absolutely clear how he has violated our Constitution and our laws. I think we need to go after Mitch and the other Republicans who have fallen all over themselves to accommodate Trump's desires while with the other hand doing their utmost to steal democracy from the people.
We need a emotional appeal, regardless of who the candidate may be. Stir up as much revulsion as we can against Trump and his cronies and then we might have a chance.

And of course I'm guessing. And hoping. I don't claim that my thoughts are any more than that. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. I'm just very afraid that I'm right.
  #179  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:53 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You think Bezos is going to keep innovating knowing that the company he built is being confiscated right out from under him? How does that affect consumers who use Amazon?

Now apply that to every major company. It's absolutely radical insanity.


https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
Quote:
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
  #180  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:11 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warm blood View Post
A bit soon to be asking this question. We donít know what oppo research might come out to hurt Sanders and to what extent it will hurt him. We donít know what profoundly stupid attempt at interfering in the election Trump will get caught doing that might trigger another call for impeachment. Or how the economy will hold itself up by November (coronavirus is already hurting the global economy, and Trump doing nothing to stymie the spread of the disease isnít helping). Lots of variables at play here. But the democratsí best bet is for Trump to be severely weakened so that electability doesnít matter so much for whoever the candidate is.
Another thing is Ternp has not debated since Clinton. I think he is very vulnerable. The clinton thing is famous for the harrassment and stalking on the stage.

If he gets a smart articulate opponent it will be a crack in the facade. Who will be able to give him the coup de grace?
  #181  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:21 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
We aren't even debating the typical Dem-GOP argument of higher income taxes. This is an 8% "wealth tax" as in We Will Take Your Shit.

When people understand this, they will flip. I look back with fondness when we debated such simple things like whether or not it is a good idea to take more of a person's income because he or she "could afford it." This is not that. This is confiscation, not only of Amazon, but of pretty much every major corporation because he is going to tax the corporation at the same rate as if it was an individual. The corporation, if it makes over $10 million/yr gets taxed at 52% and individuals who get dividends also get taxed at their marginal rate (PLUS 12.6% as social security is not capped).

Further, after the wealth tax kicks in and you have confiscated wealth above a certain amount, how then do you keep paying for these myriad of programs when there is no more wealth to tax? And these numbers keep adding up...52% income tax (including capital gains), 7.5% health insurance tax for all employees, 8% wealth tax, 12.6% social security (no cap), 4% health insurance tax (for yourself), plus whatever else I missed in Bernie's confiscatory tax plan.

Hey, but those are rich bastards, right? They can afford it. You think Amazon will cost the same for the end consumer? You think the little guy won't pay more for food in the grocery store when the shipping costs have went through the roof because of fossil fuel taxes?

You think investment in startup companies will continue at the same pace when the tax rate goes from 15% to 52%+12.6% or 64.6%? Maybe helping you start your widget company was worth it for Daddy McRichbucks at 15% but they'll be a swath of businesses never getting off the ground because of the nearly 35% surcharge that Bernie has put on investment.

Again, I'll remember with fondness our debates over whether the top marginal tax rate should be 33% or 39.6%. I just hope you, or I, the SDMB can still afford to get on here and post about it.

And what is all of this for? For a health care universal plan when most people are already satisfied with what they have? Free everything? Wouldn't it be far, far, far better just to patch the holes in the current system which is largely working well?
  #182  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:02 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
We aren't even debating the typical Dem-GOP argument of higher income taxes. This is an 8% "wealth tax" as in We Will Take Your Shit.

When people understand this, they will flip. I look back with fondness when we debated such simple things like whether or not it is a good idea to take more of a person's income because he or she "could afford it." This is not that. This is confiscation, not only of Amazon, but of pretty much every major corporation because he is going to tax the corporation at the same rate as if it was an individual. The corporation, if it makes over $10 million/yr gets taxed at 52% and individuals who get dividends also get taxed at their marginal rate (PLUS 12.6% as social security is not capped).

Further, after the wealth tax kicks in and you have confiscated wealth above a certain amount, how then do you keep paying for these myriad of programs when there is no more wealth to tax? And these numbers keep adding up...52% income tax (including capital gains), 7.5% health insurance tax for all employees, 8% wealth tax, 12.6% social security (no cap), 4% health insurance tax (for yourself), plus whatever else I missed in Bernie's confiscatory tax plan.

Hey, but those are rich bastards, right? They can afford it. You think Amazon will cost the same for the end consumer? You think the little guy won't pay more for food in the grocery store when the shipping costs have went through the roof because of fossil fuel taxes?

You think investment in startup companies will continue at the same pace when the tax rate goes from 15% to 52%+12.6% or 64.6%? Maybe helping you start your widget company was worth it for Daddy McRichbucks at 15% but they'll be a swath of businesses never getting off the ground because of the nearly 35% surcharge that Bernie has put on investment.

Again, I'll remember with fondness our debates over whether the top marginal tax rate should be 33% or 39.6%. I just hope you, or I, the SDMB can still afford to get on here and post about it.

And what is all of this for? For a health care universal plan when most people are already satisfied with what they have? Free everything? Wouldn't it be far, far, far better just to patch the holes in the current system which is largely working well?
At this moment, the guys at ACA decided that I should apply with the state medicare, but the state just told me that I just make about a bit more than what they stipulate, so I don't have health insurance now; curiously, my wife was allowed to remain in the ACA.

So again, During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Incidentally, a lot of independent business are growing thanks to allowing entrepreneurs to not be burdened early with extreme health care costs at the beginning.

IMHO while there should be a wealth tax, thanks to moderates in congress it is unlikely that a wealth tax will come, but that then the top bracket tax will increase.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-25-2020 at 09:06 PM.
  #183  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:22 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Another thing is Ternp has not debated since Clinton. I think he is very vulnerable. The clinton thing is famous for the harrassment and stalking on the stage.

If he gets a smart articulate opponent it will be a crack in the facade. Who will be able to give him the coup de grace?
Hillary was a smart and articulate opponent, and how well did that work to her advantage? Trump could pull his pants down onstage and take a massive dump on the floor on live TVó it wonít sway his supporters one bit. People already know heís a complete idiot and donít care.
  #184  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:33 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
the GOP won't wait until the convention to go after Sanders . If he continues to lead in delegates they will go after him way before July. they might start next week after super Tuesday.
Probably not from the campaign itself but I can see that from the PACs. Thankfully I probably wonít have to see it because they wonít waste money in my state. Sorry swing state people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
All of the negative stuff has already been said about Trump. Nobody is going to dislike him more than they do right now. Not so with Bernie. Democratic primaries are NOTHING, compared to what's coming. Huge segments of Americans don't give a rip about the Democratic primary. For reference, about 4 times more people will be watching the presidential debates than are watching the Democratic debates. America is going to know Bernie REALLY well, and there's a LOT of baggage there. His Democratic opponents have SOME motive to quell their attacks. Republican opponents will come with both barrels.
And why should they care about the primaries? For large portions of the country their primary vote has been meaningless for decades while their choice is made by places like Iowa.
  #185  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:44 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warm blood View Post
Hillary was a smart and articulate opponent, and how well did that work to her advantage? Trump could pull his pants down onstage and take a massive dump on the floor on live TV— it won’t sway his supporters one bit. People already know he’s a complete idiot and don’t care.
You are getting carried away. He hasn't taken responsiblity for his words in public in 2 years or more.

You think a debate wtih trump will be the same, after 2016? When we saw that stuff?

70 million people can't wait to see him try to pull his stunts again just so bernie or liz or (if only kamala huh) can show the world who he really is. He can't compete intellectually outside of a very small lane and I don't think he can improvise well on topics other than his narcissistic supply.

Last edited by drad dog; 02-25-2020 at 10:46 PM.
  #186  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:24 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's meaningless at this point.
I've got data. You've got feels.

Roger that.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #187  
Old 02-26-2020, 12:13 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I've got data. You've got feels.

Roger that.
We both have data. Your data is what Sanders' popularity is in February.

My data is the historical record that says candidate's popularity in February does not reflect what their popularity will be in November.

So a February poll does not necessarily predict a November victory.
  #188  
Old 02-26-2020, 08:44 AM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Hey, but those are rich bastards, right? They can afford it. You think Amazon will cost the same for the end consumer? You think the little guy won't pay more for food in the grocery store when the shipping costs have went through the roof because of fossil fuel taxes?

You think investment in startup companies will continue at the same pace when the tax rate goes from 15% to 52%+12.6% or 64.6%? Maybe helping you start your widget company was worth it for Daddy McRichbucks at 15% but they'll be a swath of businesses never getting off the ground because of the nearly 35% surcharge that Bernie has put on investment.
[...]
And what is all of this for? For a health care universal plan when most people are already satisfied with what they have? Free everything? Wouldn't it be far, far, far better just to patch the holes in the current system which is largely working well?
Maybe we should have a vote on that!
  #189  
Old 02-26-2020, 09:48 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... And what is all of this for? For a health care universal plan when most people are already satisfied with what they have? Free everything? Wouldn't it be far, far, far better just to patch the holes in the current system which is largely working well?
Which holes? So, do you support Obamacare with better subsidies and a public option?
  #190  
Old 02-26-2020, 11:07 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
We both have data. Your data is what Sanders' popularity is in February.

My data is the historical record that says candidate's popularity in February does not reflect what their popularity will be in November.

So a February poll does not necessarily predict a November victory.
And even more importantly, what we should have learned from 2016 is that national polls can be misleading or inaccurate. State polls are what we should be tracking, state polls in the swing states Dems need to pick up in order to win in 2020. It is early still but looking at 538's state polls page Bernie appears to be doing well in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Carolina. Pennsylvania he is only up by 2% in the latest poll. It will be interesting to see how much of this holds once the full on slander and screaming about socialism gets going.

Still too early to mean much but I would say more revealing that national polls at this point.
  #191  
Old 02-26-2020, 02:29 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
If Sanders gets the nomination the swing voters will finally look at his position site and actually pay attention to what he says and has said in the past. I wager 95% of them will shit bricks. HTF is he going to do any of all that without bankrupting the nation, YTF is most of it the governments business, and why would anyone vote for an agenda that basically can only get done at gun point? I've always loathed Trump but he's going to beat Sanders like a drum.
I don't even think the "swing" voters will even look at his position site. As mentioned, the base of each side is locked up, and then there are the "undecideds." Some of those may be single-issue economy voters who will go where the economic winds blow. At this point, they are probably leaning Trump, and less likely to switch from Trump to Sanders than any other Democrat, but could if the economy tanks in a way that Trump is clearly to blame for.

Most of the rest are probably un-engaged in politics. They probably won't go look stuff up. They will take in some part of what is put in front of them. I'm not super concerned about whether Sanders is more susceptible to the Socialist label than other Democratic candidates. But you know who is super concerned about that? US businesses. If Sanders is nominated, I think PAC money goes through the roof, and there will be a non-stop flood of Sanders's face and voice backed by ominous music and dire words until everyone in America that was not already a Sanders fan gets a reflexive cold chill down their spine every time they hear his name.

I do not prefer Sanders. I will absolutely vote for him if he is the nominee. But I think most likely he will lose, primarily due to the enormous opposition he will draw from corporate interests.

By the way, I also think this election might be Sanders's best chance to win, as well, because some of his natural opposition will be more strongly opposed to Trump. So, I think it's his best chance to win, but also that it likely won't be enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
And even more importantly, what we should have learned from 2016 is that national polls can be misleading or inaccurate. State polls are what we should be tracking, state polls in the swing states Dems need to pick up in order to win in 2020. It is early still but looking at 538's state polls page Bernie appears to be doing well in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Carolina. Pennsylvania he is only up by 2% in the latest poll. It will be interesting to see how much of this holds once the full on slander and screaming about socialism gets going.

Still too early to mean much but I would say more revealing that national polls at this point.
Yeah, those who think they have evidence backing their opinion because of national polling in February are off base. Hillary Clinton won in actual national votes, but that is not the way we measure winning in this particular contest. And it's even more meaningless 8 months before the election.
  #192  
Old 02-27-2020, 12:51 AM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
You are getting carried away. He hasn't taken responsiblity for his words in public in 2 years or more.

You think a debate wtih trump will be the same, after 2016? When we saw that stuff?

70 million people can't wait to see him try to pull his stunts again just so bernie or liz or (if only kamala huh) can show the world who he really is. He can't compete intellectually outside of a very small lane and I don't think he can improvise well on topics other than his narcissistic supply.
Have the past few years not taught you that Trumpís lack of intellectual might doesnít hurt him nearly as much as it ought to? Sure itís made himself and the country he represents an international laughing stock, but aside from that what damage has that perception brought on him? Absolutely none. He made a complete ass of himself on the debate stage in 2016, more than any candidate ever did. He still won (only thanks to a hideously outdated and thoroughly undemocratic electoral system, but he won nevertheless. And that shitty system is still around and can still help him win). So how exactly is facing off another dem candidate in a debate going to change anyoneís mind at this point? If multiple unnecessary government shutdowns, consistent attempts at destroying ACA, grossly inhumane immigration policies, abjectly incompetent mismanagement of federal agencies, revolving door of cabinet replacements, numerous credible allegations of corruption, FBI investigations and an impeachment hasnít convinced someone by now that he has absolutely no business being president any longer, then what on earth makes you think theyíll be swayed by a freaking debate? People who realize what a horror show he is didnít just recently arrive at that conclusion. It was always self evident to those willing to acknowledge it.
  #193  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:19 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Right. There are no swing voters. There are no swing states. There are no stay at home voters that might be convinced to come out. Might as well have the election today since nothing can change. President Hillary will be happy to hear that.
There is not the mythical swing voter that is talked about on these boards who's sitting around with a pen over D and R and just waiting for something to tip them to pick one or the other major party candidate. "Stay at home voters who might be convinced to come out" is pretty much the direct opposite of the 'swing voter' who's just waiting for the word 'socialist' to check 'R' instead of 'D'. I don't buy the idea that there is a huge pool of people sitting around saying 'well, this guy is a socialist like the Republicans have said about every Democratic candidate since at least the 90s, therefore I need to come out and vote for a Republican'.

I do think that there are a lot of people who are indifferent to the usual offering of far-right and 'right wing, but OK on a few things' that the establishment offers through candidates like Hillary and Biden (or the "Republican and Republican in Blue" that Bloomberg offers). "None of the above" actually won the last election, more people didn't vote at all than voted for any particular candidate. I haven't seen any actual support from the Bernie-Bashers to support the contention that more people will run away from 'socialist' than turn up to vote for his rather different campaign. And most of the arguments about 'swing voters' seem to be very much like the arguments that showed that there was no way Hillary could lose to Trump in 2016, which were rather dramatically discredited.

Quote:
As for the socialist thing, again no one has to shout it when Bernie is proudly stating it. You may choose to ignore it but the Gallup poll I posted earlier shows clearly that being a socialist remains by far the biggest liability in American politics with the most people stating they will never vote for a socialist. Itís even far ahead of being an atheist which doesnít help Bernie much either. When the margins are so narrow in those non-existent swing states with those non-existent swing voters you canít ignore that kind of liability.
I'm more than a little skeptical of Gallop polls, since they only capture responses from people who do not screen their calls for unknown numbers, and include at least 30% landline responses. That skews the demographic that they're looking at pretty severely, and I would expect that skew to be very strong towards people who think of 'socialist' as a scare word. But accepting it as valid, you're mischaracterizing the poll anyway - the poll didn't ask 'could you ever vote for someone with the label socialist', it asked "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [characteristic], would you vote for that person?". Someone doesn't have to believe that they 'will never vote for a socialist' to answer that question that way. Not sure what the 'Atheist' bit has to do with anything, Bernie Sanders isn't an atheist and has stated so publicly in response to leaked emails that Hillary's campaign was going to try to portray him as one to try to push him out of 2016 primaries. The fact that you're picking one poll about something that doesn't ask about Sanders directly and ignore all of the other polls now and from 2016 that show very broad support for Sanders is also a bit troubling.

Putting these together, it really looks like you're cherry picking data and badly skewing what the data in the single poll you have says to support a conclusion. I'll look at the wide variety of polls and election results over one single poll that doesn't even say what you claim it does.
  #194  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:26 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
70 million people can't wait to see him try to pull his stunts again just so bernie or liz or (if only kamala huh) can show the world who he really is. He can't compete intellectually outside of a very small lane and I don't think he can improvise well on topics other than his narcissistic supply.
While they will need to do so to campaign against him, I don't think that any candidate is going to cause Trump to lose support by trouncing him in debates, making him take responsibility for his words, or competing intellectually with him. And I don't think that there is a significant pool of people who will watch the debates and would move from 'not voting' to 'voting D' based on any of the above either - I think that anyone engaged enough to follow debates has already decided whether they can stand Trump or not. While there will obviously be some campaigning against Trump, I think that for any candidate victory will rest on whether they can sell people on what they're actually offering, Trump has already been painted as negatively as you're going to paint him.

I also remember an awful lot of crowing on here about how Clinton won the debates in 2016, and look where that ended up.
  #195  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:44 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 89,100
An interesting piece on the Electoral College and the remaining Democratic field: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...cid=spartanntp
  #196  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:52 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
An interesting piece on the Electoral College and the remaining Democratic field: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...cid=spartanntp
That was indeed helpful. Besides Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the key states are likely to be Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina ó and the piece describes why Sanders has liabilities specific to each of several of these states (Bloomberg has some, too, but not as badly).

Last edited by JKellyMap; 02-27-2020 at 09:53 AM.
  #197  
Old 02-27-2020, 01:14 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
While they will need to do so to campaign against him, I don't think that any candidate is going to cause Trump to lose support by trouncing him in debates, making him take responsibility for his words, or competing intellectually with him. And I don't think that there is a significant pool of people who will watch the debates and would move from 'not voting' to 'voting D' based on any of the above either - I think that anyone engaged enough to follow debates has already decided whether they can stand Trump or not. While there will obviously be some campaigning against Trump, I think that for any candidate victory will rest on whether they can sell people on what they're actually offering, Trump has already been painted as negatively as you're going to paint him.

I also remember an awful lot of crowing on here about how Clinton won the debates in 2016, and look where that ended up.
It's not about one debate, or about whether he can be "trounced" or not. twitler has ducked all unscripted reality for years now as potus. He needs to be held accountable in public routinely to avoid the creeping totalitarianism. To just bag it and leave the field is death.

If we just decide that he can't be challenged, and have invested in that belief then he will win.

If we tell ourselves stories about how invulnerable he is to our liberal strategies he is going to win.

A lot of what you say is rationalization. We have had debates and used them to organize our electoral life. If trump is immune to it, it would be strangely superhuman of him. But why decide beforehand?

We need to drag turnp into unscripted reality to beat him. It has to happen a lot and he needs to be embarrassed in front of his less secure supporters.

If every debate arguement around him is just know it alls decrying any debate at all because he can't be trounced, then he will win, no?

Debates are not to trounce others. They are unscripted civic speech in public.
  #198  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:23 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 379
I do think it could make a difference if debates showed, not just that he doesn't care and lies, but his actual cluelessness and inability to cope with information and words on the fly. I really do think there are some declining mental acuity issues in play, and if he came off as truly bumbling, I think it might help.

I think if he lies and is ill informed and doesn't care, it might not make a big difference because that was clear in the last election.
  #199  
Old 02-27-2020, 11:23 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
It's not about one debate, or about whether he can be "trounced" or not. twitler has ducked all unscripted reality for years now as potus. He needs to be held accountable in public routinely to avoid the creeping totalitarianism. To just bag it and leave the field is death.

If we just decide that he can't be challenged, and have invested in that belief then he will win.

If we tell ourselves stories about how invulnerable he is to our liberal strategies he is going to win.

A lot of what you say is rationalization. We have had debates and used them to organize our electoral life. If trump is immune to it, it would be strangely superhuman of him. But why decide beforehand?

We need to drag turnp into unscripted reality to beat him. It has to happen a lot and he needs to be embarrassed in front of his less secure supporters.

If every debate arguement around him is just know it alls decrying any debate at all because he can't be trounced, then he will win, no?

Debates are not to trounce others. They are unscripted civic speech in public.
What are you suggesting? That the Democrats try to get a Constitutional Amendment enacted and ratified in the next six months requiring a Presidential candidate to participate in a debate as an eligibility requirement? I don't see that happening. And that's the only way we're going to compel Trump to appear in a debate if he isn't willing to.

I think Democrats would be wiser to accept the possibility that Trump might refuse to attend a debate and spend their resources on trying to turn his refusal into a campaign issue against him.
  #200  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:33 AM
OldOlds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 835
I have come to the conclusion that we are doomed.

Too many of the Trump voters I know (and there are quite a few) believe all the superlatives Trump throws around. Try and get them to look at the markets' trajectories, or job growth, and they simply reject any data they don't like. Try to point out that we have been shedding manufacturing jobs, and they won't believe it. Try to point out that coal's decline has been going on for 70+ years, and that natural gas will kill it, and they will tell you Trump's deregulation push has reinvigorated coal.

On the other side, I am noticing a lot of my less informed* acquaintances on the left think the Democrats are a bunch of idiots, and that somehow "politicians are all the same" and I see a lot of them disengaged.

The nature of my job is such that I regularly interact with people from every walk of life. From minimum wage couriers in the deep south to NYC billionaires. I'm definitely not in a bubble.

*I'm surprised at how many people don't really understand what the Ukraine call was really about, or what Stone did, etc. They have a very simplistic understanding; and they assume that there's an equality of shame, in that Hunter and Joe Biden surely did something wrong.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017