US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It's interesting that the same poster who is continually criticising Joe Biden and complaining about the Democratic Party moving to the left seems to have had quite different views only two years ago.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...ove-Her/page22

"And it's my opinion (yes everyone has one) that Sanders stood a better chance of defeating Trump than Hillary."
"I think Joe Biden would have been the better President."
"Oh and speaking of Biden....Had he ran, I also believe he would have defeated Trump also......"

---

It's clear he's not saying what he ultimately means but in this case what is going on? I think he wants to always be in a position to say he WOULD support a Democratic candidate if Democrats made the right choice but his excuses are incompatible and don't fit any pattern of ideology. You go to the left he says you're extremists. You go to the center he might still say you're extreme but then he gets to say they're bland and unoriginal as well.

If anyone thinks I'm just trying to dump on Mr. Fanti, including Mr. Fanti, that's not really true. The above views combined with his current views don't really make sense except as a smokescreen. What else is new.

Thanks for posting the polling information. I knew it was out there and wanted to look for it but got too lazy. That was my sense and why maybe I'd say for safety sake if Florida and Ohio are within a percentage point, maybe Trump takes them comfortably. But I see state leads of 8% as durable as long as Biden doesn't do anything terrible and a 4% lead in Pennsylvania as a real lead but possibly a bit closer. Nate Silver wrote something today chastising people for not seeing the potential state by state margin of error as correlated. I assume this means he's warning people that you do have to concern yourself with systematic error that consistently lowers Trump's polling a bit and if it's the case, it might occur everywhere rather than at random. But your post is instructive as we are not talking about polling averages that miss huge swathes of Trump voters.

And in the previous 2018 link Mr. Fanti says that Sally Wasserman interfered with the primaries. The head of the Democratic National Committee was Debbie Wasserman Schultz. While people do mix up names I would expect someone who vehemently felt the Democratic establishment cheated Bernie to know who the DNC chair was, unless he was just stirring up shit as an afterthought.

Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019
https://www.census.gov/library/publi...0Table%20A%2D1).
Some interesting data points from the US Census Bureau:

The 2019 poverty rate of 10.5 percent is the lowest rate observed since estimates were initially published in 1959 (Figure 7 and Table B-5).

Median household income was $68,703 in 2019, an increase of 6.8 percent from the 2018 median of $64,324 (Figure 1 and Table A-1).

The 2019 real median incomes of family households and nonfamily households increased 7.3 percent and 6.2 percent from their respective 2018 estimates (Figure 1 and Table A-1). This is the fifth consecutive annual increase in median household income for family households, and the second consecutive increase for nonfamily households.

The 2019 real median incomes of White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic households all increased from their 2018 medians (Figure 1 and Table A-1).

Real median household incomes increased for all regions in 2019; 6.8 percent in the Northeast, 4.8 percent in the Midwest, 6.1 percent in the South, and 7.0 percent in the West (Figure 1 and Table A-1).


Now of course, this reflects everything pre-COVID...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

And in the previous 2018 link Mr. Fanti says that Sally Wasserman interfered with the primaries. The head of the Democratic National Committee was Debbie Wasserman Schultz. While people do mix up names I would expect someone who vehemently felt the Democratic establishment cheated Bernie to know who the DNC chair was, unless he was just stirring up shit as an afterthought.

---

I stand corrected in names - but the facts remain the same.
The DNC slanted the primaries to favor Hillary over Sanders & you could probably make a half-way decent argument that the DNC and also THE MEDIA did it again this year & slanted the primaries for Biden over Sanders.

And I still believe that had this NOT been done by the DNC - we would be discussing President Sanders now instead of President Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It's clear he's not saying what he ultimately means but in this case what is going on? I think he wants to always be in a position to say he WOULD support a Democratic candidate if Democrats made the right choice but his excuses are incompatible and don't fit any pattern of ideology. You go to the left he says you're extremists. You go to the center he might still say you're extreme but then he gets to say they're bland and unoriginal as well.

If anyone thinks I'm just trying to dump on Mr. Fanti, including Mr. Fanti, that's not really true. The above views combined with his current views don't really make sense except as a smokescreen. What else is new.

Thanks for posting the polling information. I knew it was out there and wanted to look for it but got too lazy. That was my sense and why maybe I'd say for safety sake if Florida and Ohio are within a percentage point, maybe Trump takes them comfortably. But I see state leads of 8% as durable as long as Biden doesn't do anything terrible and a 4% lead in Pennsylvania as a real lead but possibly a bit closer. Nate Silver wrote something today chastising people for not seeing the potential state by state margin of error as correlated. I assume this means he's warning people that you do have to concern yourself with systematic error that consistently lowers Trump's polling a bit and if it's the case, it might occur everywhere rather than at random. But your post is instructive as we are not talking about polling averages that miss huge swathes of Trump voters.

---

I'll say it yet again.
I support Tulsi Gabbard - who would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

You don't have agree with me (which is actually nice and shows independent thought rather than collective thought).....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And I still believe that had this NOT been done by the DNC - we would be discussing President Sanders now instead of President Trump

---

Really, Mr Fanti? This plus your support for the morally holiier-than-thou Gabbard makes me wonder about your sense of judgment.

Why did Obama win his first election? Because he was young, articulate and had a passion for things positive and wanted change. That Clinton became the successor candidate might have made sense if the US was to have a woman in the White House, but it was a reversion to another age, the 1990s, just as Sanders would never have been elected with his aggressive tone, his negative copy, and the fact that he too is from another age for most Americans.

I can see Biden winning because in the midst of this crisis he looks safe and comforting, but what Obama did was tap in to what we outside it, have always believed is America's strength -compared to this place- adaptability to new things, the desire to go forwards not backwards, the science and the capital to do better things before anyone else. See it that way and you can see how the last 4 years has been a frog-march backwards in time. But if you did travel back to the 1970s, you wouldn't like it.

Oh boy, do you people need real change. And what a dismal time to be seeing self-inflated fools incapable of using generations of medical and administrative to co-ordinate action against Covid 19, because so many budgets have been slashed, and so many good people give a cheque and a 'get lost' email. Sanders? Gabbard? If they are top of your list, you are in real trouble, and you don't even know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And...The Democratic Party has lurched so far left, it is no longer the party of Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

The "far left" here in the states are the new progressives coming into power. I.E., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, IIhan Omar, and, Rashida Tlaib. The Kennedy and Clinton Democrats for example would have taken an early an immediate stance in the violence that's happening within the U.S. cities - all of which interestingly have Democrat mayors as well. Also, 3 Pelosi backed candidates have now lost progressive candidates as well (the latest being Pelosi backed Joseph Kennedy losing to progressives backed Ed Markey).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

The DNC slanted the primaries to favor Hillary over Sanders & you could probably make a half-way decent argument that the DNC and also THE MEDIA did it again this year & slanted the primaries for Biden over Sanders.

And I still believe that had this NOT been done by the DNC - we would be discussing President Sanders now instead of President Trump

---

How exactly are these positions compatible? I take it you understand that Sanders is well to the left of Biden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It's clear he's not saying what he ultimately means but in this case what is going on? I think he wants to always be in a position to say he WOULD support a Democratic candidate if Democrats made the right choice but his excuses are incompatible and don't fit any pattern of ideology. You go to the left he says you're extremists. You go to the center he might still say you're extreme but then he gets to say they're bland and unoriginal as well.

---

In the same disingenuous way that he pretends to be an independent even though he only ever criticises one side. The question is why he has this anti-Democrat Party fixation. I suspect it's because libertarianism leads him to favour the party that professes anti-government ideology. I also don't why he thinks he's fooling anyone, but logical thinking is obviously not his strong point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

IMHO, Tulsi Gabbard was the best of the Democrats....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

2) Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is a much better candidate (IMHO) than Joe Biden - hands down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And that person IMHO, like I said earlier was Tulsi Gabbard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

That being said, like I said in an earlier post, Tulsi Gabbard was my favorite of the Democrat primary candidates and she would smoke Trump in a debate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Speaking of Democrat TULSI GABBARD, here's a stance of hers that's very close to this forum:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Tulsi Gabbard would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

I still stand with Gabbard....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

I'll say it yet again.
I support Tulsi Gabbard - who would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

---

Yeah, we qot that message, but Tulsi Gabbard is not on the ballot. Being around you must be like Groundhog Day.

I can't comment on Ruth Bader Ginsburg because I know little about her other than what I have seen on tv this evening. It poses a dilemma for the Senate with regard to both the timing issue as far as the selection process is concerned, and the possibility that the outcome of the election might depend on a Supreme Court vote.

Perhaps the President will nominate either his eldest son or Ivana, on the basis that his favourite States such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE are run as family firms, and maybe it is time for the USA to try it out?

Whaddaya think?