The great 2020 election thread....

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Progressive voters tend to be satisfied with a flat restriction on fracking, but both Hillary and it seems now Biden tend to not want to cross that line and take it off the table.

[Captain Crimson]

The point was that Mr. Biden has flip-flopped, even daring Mr. 45 to put it on his web site, which he did - how did he not think that was going to backfire? In service of the larger point that these are victory conditions that are on par with lottery-winning odds, and yet the DNC will still declare victory and act like the status quo can serve us eight, sixteen years, and it can't.

[unknownsample]

This of course is a sign of a healthy, normal, functioning democracy.

https://twitter.com/ericcervini/status/1322336226792321025

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The point was that Mr. Biden has flip-flopped, even daring Mr. 45 to put it on his web site, which he did - how did he not think that was going to backfire? In service of the larger point that these are victory conditions that are on par with lottery-winning odds, and yet the DNC will still declare victory and act like the status quo can serve us eight, sixteen years, and it can't.

Well he probably lost investment voters very concerned about fracking I suppose. Who cares though, why is this a big concern for his platform?

[CharlesPhipps]

Of course he flip flopped.

Does anyone care if it is flip flopped to the right position?

[Captain Crimson]

The point was that Mr. Biden has flip-flopped, even daring Mr. 45 to put it on his web site, which he did - how did he not think that was going to backfire? In service of the larger point that these are victory conditions that are on par with lottery-winning odds, and yet the DNC will still declare victory and act like the status quo can serve us eight, sixteen years, and it can't.

Well he probably lost investment voters very concerned about fracking I suppose. Who cares though, why is this a big concern for his platform?

My area of contention is not what the DNC or Mr. Biden's platform is, mind. It is whether or not he can pull off a victory, and that if so, it is due to conditions that can never be replicated, due to the unique circumstances of 2020, which is why given all the extreme media bias, it's easy to speculate that while COVID is a serious threat, their response may be manufactured. They're as determined to make Mr. 45 a one-term president as the RNC had been in 2008, which is nothing unusual for the politics game, only now hate-voting and increasing polarization is making a real tribal issue if "your side is evil, if you're not with our side, you're a traitor to all we love!"

Recall that prior to the pandemic, lots of progressives and dems had real concerns over whether or not he could do so. But the democratic/progressive/liberal/leftist side is in an echo chamber coming up with reasons to why 2016 turned out the way it did, as is the republican/conservative/righty side. I generally tend to think Ms. Clinton, while a deeply flawed candidate, would have been an effective leader. But an effective leader is different from an effective candidate, and I see no indication Mr. Biden is either past capitalizing on COVID to keep him hidden. I doubt that will be the case in 2024.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The point was that Mr. Biden has flip-flopped, even daring Mr. 45 to put it on his web site, which he did - how did he not think that was going to backfire? In service of the larger point that these are victory conditions that are on par with lottery-winning odds, and yet the DNC will still declare victory and act like the status quo can serve us eight, sixteen years, and it can't.

Well he probably lost investment voters very concerned about fracking I suppose. Who cares though, why is this a big concern for his platform?

My area of contention is not what the DNC or Mr. Biden's platform is, mind. It is whether or not he can pull off a victory, and that if so, it is due to conditions that can never be replicated, due to the unique circumstances of 2020, which is why given all the extreme media bias, it's easy to speculate that while COVID is a serious threat, their response may be manufactured. They're as determined to make Mr. 45 a one-term president as the RNC had been in 2008, which is nothing unusual for the politics game, only now hate-voting and increasing polarization is making a real tribal issue if "your side is evil, if you're not with our side, you're a traitor to all we love!" Recall that prior to the pandemic, lots of progressives and dems had real concerns over whether or not he could do so. But the democratic/progressive/liberal/leftist side is in an echo chamber coming up with reasons to why 2016 turned out the way it did, as is the republican/conservative/righty side. I generally tend to think Ms. Clinton, while a deeply flawed candidate, would have been an effective leader. But an effective leader is different from an effective candidate, and I see no indication Mr. Biden is either past capitalizing on COVID to keep him hidden. I doubt that will be the case in 2024.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but the next runner up for consideration is Sanders, if not the first consideration. And I'm fairly certain Yuka and you both have shown complete disdain for him. So what, are you actually considering Trump as a candidate to choose?

[Captain Crimson]

The point was that Mr. Biden has flip-flopped, even daring Mr. 45 to put it on his web site, which he did - how did he not think that was going to backfire? In service of the larger point that these are victory conditions that are on par with lottery-winning odds, and yet the DNC will still declare victory and act like the status quo can serve us eight, sixteen years, and it can't.

Well he probably lost investment voters very concerned about fracking I suppose. Who cares though, why is this a big concern for his platform?

My area of contention is not what the DNC or Mr. Biden's platform is, mind. It is whether or not he can pull off a victory, and that if so, it is due to conditions that can never be replicated, due to the unique circumstances of 2020, which is why given all the extreme media bias, it's easy to speculate that while COVID is a serious threat, their response may be manufactured. They're as determined to make Mr. 45 a one-term president as the RNC had been in 2008, which is nothing unusual for the politics game, only now hate-voting and increasing polarization is making a real tribal issue if "your side is evil, if you're not with our side, you're a traitor to all we love!" Recall that prior to the pandemic, lots of progressives and dems had real concerns over whether or not he could do so. But the democratic/progressive/liberal/leftist side is in an echo chamber coming up with reasons to why 2016 turned out the way it did, as is the republican/conservative/righty side. I generally tend to think Ms. Clinton, while a deeply flawed candidate, would have been an effective leader. But an effective leader is different from an effective candidate, and I see no indication Mr. Biden is either past capitalizing on COVID to keep him hidden. I doubt that will be the case in 2024.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but the next runner up for consideration is Sanders, if not the first consideration. And I'm fairly certain Yuka and you both have shown complete disdain for him. So what, are you actually considering Trump as a candidate to choose?

I am aware. Mr. Sanders has tons of great ideas. My question is if he could ever implement them, since the DNC is too cozy with all those elitist institutions to put them into practice. Plus a four-time house owner and millionaire likes to spin himself as a working-class common-man proletariat. And yet political pragmatism is not winning out, but I'm not certain purity politics is the way to go with many SJWs and their echo-chamber mentality when it comes to that type of governance. The left is more often the one to play the gender and race card than the right is. At least in my experience.

No, I would never support Mr. 45. But we have very terrible options in all our leaders. I know you can't expect perfection, but I tend to think Mr. Obama was a good, if flawed, man, that should be the ideal, as Mr. Obama only ever had minor scandals that were cooked up by his opponents, and a lot of policies that are questionable, no doubt, but such decisions are par for the course in our leaders. Ms. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden, Mr. 45, none of them I'd call good. And yet I'd be lying to say none of them had any redeeming qualities. Even Mr. 45. Come on. Let's not act like a single human being is a demarcation of all good or all bad. I've already noted a few, like him keeping most of his campaign promises. I hear my right-wing friends say that all the time.

I won't lie, I think Mr. 45's biggest selling point is his drive and energy. Those don't always amount to a good final product, yet a smart candidate can spin it so it appears that way, and rapidly redirect once things go south for them, which Mr. 45 has in spades. He's got that combination of salesman/celebrity that was always going to get support on that basis. Ms. Clinton, like Mr. Biden, was a policy wonk, and that's how it should be, but she was also not a good speaker, if articulate in spite of that. Mr. Biden is not even articulate, and in my experience, a salesman performs better than a policy wonk among the average, casual, less-informed voter.

[Captain Crimson]

As my editing option is shot, I will add one more thing, that Mr. Obama also had that rare ability to also be charismatic as much of a savvy policymaker, despite his catering to the GOP more often than not. If I'd been old enough, I might have voted for him in 2008, but by now, that bit of idealism is tempered by the harsh realities. Another reason to wonder if Mr. Sanders could fulfill all his promises with both the GOP and DNC aligned against him. I suspect no. But who knows.

[clearspira]

I'm liking the broken forum. Reminds me of Youtube back in 2007. Be sure to leave three stars!

Y'know, if progressives don't like fracking and they don't like nuclear (even though gen 4 reactors can recycle nuclear waste making them among the cleanest energy sources around) then that really is not shaping up well for the green causes that they claim to love. More bird mincing windmills and inefficient solar panels then.