View previous topic :: View next topic |
Who do you hope wins the US Election? |
Trump |
|
39% |
[ 9 ] |
Biden |
|
39% |
[ 9 ] |
Don't Care |
|
21% |
[ 5 ] |
|
Total Votes : 23 |
|
Author |
Message |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Gabbard’s a fascinating candidate, but I can’t actually imagine anyone (beyond a very specific strain of leftists, i.e. tankies) voting for her. Like Ron Paul before her, however, her strong anti-war positioning makes her a vastly better option for those of us outside the United States than most of her opponents, regardless of her wacky domestic politics. She’d probably be my pick (albeit with reservations) if Sanders and Warren weren’t running.
I have to admit to not having much of a read on Yang beyond his position as the Silicon Valley, pro-UBI candidate. Where would you say his appeal lies, Jezza? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ I heard him speak on Joe Rogan's podcast and he's been a guest on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox and I've come away quite impressed by what he's said. He seems to be a man of good principle and conviction.
I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but it's refreshing to hear a Democratic candidate who doesn't resort to identity politics to win easy votes. I think the fact that he generally sticks to discussing core economic issues makes him a somewhat appealing candidate especially to those up in the rust belt states.
There's a lot of variables at play and he's still a long shot, but he's a candidate I will keep a close eye on apart from the obvious high-profiled ones. _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Given that Trump got Republican nomination from a seemingly hopeless position, how are you defining “no hoper” in the American electoral context? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
Someone who Australians might vote for. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
Glad to see this loser drop out of the race.
He's suffering from the most severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | Given that Trump got Republican nomination from a seemingly hopeless position, how are you defining “no hoper” in the American electoral context? |
Just an utterly miscellaneous candidate. There are at least half a dozen of them on the Democrats’ side – all more or less interchangeable, and only seem to be in the race because they thought it a good idea to test out the clown car’s passenger capacity. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Because my predictions turned out so well last time around, I’m going to call it now: the Democratic nominee is going to be one of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (with my money leaning towards Harris or Warren). Everybody else in the race is somewhere between a slight chance and none whatsoever.
Each of these four fills a fairly distinct niche:
Joe Biden is the "centrist" candidate, the one who’s supposed to be able to reach across the aisle and appeal to moderate Republicans put off by Trump (and, to be fair, he is just about the only candidate who can do that). His big advantage is his name recognition and association with the Obama years; his big disadvantage is his status as a bit of a fossil of an older kind of politics and his constant gaffes. He’s the current favourite and the nomination is his to lose, but there’s every chance that he’ll do just that.
Kamala Harris is the Democratic Party establishment candidate, the "safe pair of hands" who can criticise Biden as a black woman (given his particularly atrocious policy record on race and gender equality) but will still give the corporate donors what they want at the end of the day. I’m honestly surprised that she isn’t doing better at the moment (she’s acknowledged to be in the top tier of candidates, but is struggling to keep up with the other three in terms of fundraising). Personally, I find her manner a bit phoney and her history as a state prosecutor is a bit eyebrow-raising (using her position to, among other things, campaign for the punishment of truant children’s parents and attack sex workers’ rights). But if I had to pick who I think the most likely nominee will be, it’s her.
Elizabeth Warren is basically the compromise candidate between mainstream Democrats and the party’s left – basically, she supports radical (and rigorously planned out) technocratic reforms without embracing any kind of socialist politics. After 2016, that would seem to make her the ideal candidate, but there are question marks over her capabilities as a candidate – she’s not always the most compelling presence – and her capacity to face off against Trump. Nonetheless, I think she’s a big chance and is currently enjoying very strong support among wealthier and university-educated Democrat voters.
Bernie Sanders is still the revolutionary (in a manner of speaking) candidate for those on the left who see themselves outside the Democratic Party and/or want a radical progressive shift in US society. People know what they’re getting here: he’s the candidate with the strongest and most loyal core of support, but there are questions over whether he can reach beyond that – and the fact that a hostile congress would stop him from getting nearly anything done as president probably doesn’t help. I think he’ll put up a good fight and be there all the way, but I’d honestly be surprised if he won.
Dark horse candidates: Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Cory Booker. These guys have all polled reasonably so far (though well below the top 4), but I can’t see much serious chance for them. Castro’s maybe the biggest outside chance, but that’s not saying much. They all sit politically somewhere between Biden and Warren, nodding to some left-leaning ideas but without a great deal of commitment, and are struggling to differentiate themselves. They all get id-pol points (Booker’s black, Castro’s hispanic, Buttigieg’s gay), but I expect most of them will be gone from the race by January or February next year.
The rest are just making up the numbers. It’s a pity that some of the more interesting ones like Tulsi Gabbard don’t seem to be in the frame – I wouldn’t support her for various reasons, but she certainly brings a different political perspective to the race (i.e. strongly anti-war, pro-Assange and Manning) while most of the other candidates seem pretty much interchangeable. But she has pretty much zero support beyond the (thankfully small) pro-Putin left.
Anyway, let’s see how it pans out. One thing is for sure: I’m not betting any money this time around. 😳 _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Pies4shaw wrote: | Given that Trump got Republican nomination from a seemingly hopeless position, how are you defining “no hoper” in the American electoral context? |
Just an utterly miscellaneous candidate. There are at least half a dozen of them on the Democrats’ side – all more or less interchangeable, and only seem to be in the race because they thought it a good idea to test out the clown car’s passenger capacity. |
But if Noddy is President, how do you discount the people in the back seat of the clown car? |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Biden will have to screw up hugely to not get the nomination. He's leading in every early race by double figures with the exception of California, which is Harris' home state.
Of course, he's a moron so I wont be surprised if he says something incredibly stupid and drops off a cliff. If he doesn't do that during the primaries you can almost lock it in that he'll do it during the general. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
Support for Trump has seen him firm in to even money for 2020.
Harris 4/1
Warren 13/2
Biden 9/1
Sanders & Buttigieg 11/1
Yang 18/1
Booker 30/1
Klobuchar & Gabbard 33/1
O'Rourke 40/1
Romney 45/1
Castro & Obamas missus 60/1
Pence 70/1 _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think that’s about spot on, surprisingly. Except for Yang at 18/1, which is either a joke or the result of some very optimistic betting by a horde of 4chan geeks. I also think Pence deserves to be way better odds given Trump could quite feasibly have a heart attack between now and next November. You get less for Michelle Obama, who isn’t even running. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
I thought the same, a 73 year old man dying is more likely than someone not running become President. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
That's why it's called gambling gents.... place your bets
I took the better than evens months ago... DT isn't going anywhere _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|