Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

teen you are not correct in what i said on a few fronts. i didnt say Hunter was "fully qualified and his actions did't even appear corrupt".

Post 7572 I said :"i see mention of a 50k a month job, and when it appeared there would be conflict of interest appearances son refused a 2nd term. in any case it was the son taking advantage of fathers name recognition to land a 50k a month job he was not resume solid with, and without joe biden having even known about son taking position until some time had passed. this isnt a biden corruption issue. it is a son taking advantage of father name to make a better living that wasnt fully earned, though at least son had a law degree. he was more qualified that many trump appointees to thir positions.

still to compare trump call with biden issue is just different levels. i would say son complicated issues with what could be perceived to be shady self dealing, though no laws broken. son did no favors for father though. no corruption on part of joe biden. yes corruption by trump."

Bidens have handled this fallout as well as anyone could have hoped on this non issue that has been investigated and claims of wrong doing found to be without basis though clearly not a good look. Not surprising at all to me how joe and hunter have handled this, so not sure what your use of funny this means. in any case, this isnt wont be the death of bidens campaign. now the sinking of bidens campaign may be if he looks even more bewildered on next debate stage, and appears to be forgetful or incoherent and lost a step next to other candidates.

Okay, fair enough. I basically agree with everything you've said, and anything you've quoted from earlier that agrees with my position, I must have missed it earlier. Trump's corrupt use of power for self-dealing, as well as his kids' willingness to cash in on Trump's position with their own corrupt dealings, are all far beyond the corruption of Hunter Biden taking $50K/mth for something he wasn't qualified to do. I disagree that Joe Biden knew nothing of Hunter's position, and I think that will be an issue if Biden is the nominee. I also think the Bidens have handled this poorly. Joe's response has been terrible. He gets angry and repeats "there's been absolutely zero credible evidence from a single credible source that shows any wrongdoing whatsoever, period." I think the whole "fake news" response has been getting a lukewarm reception, and that's why Joe and Hunter have changed their positions on it. But Hunter not revealing the total amount earned from Burisma is a bad sign... not divesting from the Chinese company is another bad sign... Finally, the fact that Hunter Biden earned that $50K/mth after being dishonorably discharged from the US Army for drug use, and while being a regular cocaine and crack user... seems like some combination of these items would be kryptonite if Biden made it to the general election.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Finally, the fact that Hunter Biden earned that $50K/mth after being dishonorably discharged from the US Army for drug use, and while being a regular cocaine and crack user... seems like some combination of these items would be kryptonite if Biden made it to the general election.

I'll frankly be very surprised if Hunter Biden is the Democratic nominee, but I agree that if he is, he will have some questions to answer.

[Sour Masher]

I'll frankly be very surprised if Hunter Biden is the Democratic nominee, but I agree that if he is, he will have some questions to answer.

[Teenwolf]

I'll frankly be very surprised if Hunter Biden is the Democratic nominee, but I agree that if he is, he will have some questions to answer.

You imply that it doesn't stain Joe. That's foolish.

[Teenwolf]

Wow, Tom Brokaw was an early adopter of the Hunter Biden conspiracy, it seems.

Here's Brokaw in 2008 asking Joe Biden about the bankruptcy bill he signed that directly benefited Hunter Biden... huh, funny that he just created the same nothing-burger conspiracy theory, 10 years ago, as Trump would later create. Isn't that a super weird and almost impossible coincidence, that one of the best known honest journalists in America would create the same conspiracy theory later used by Trump? Honestly, if Joe Biden would just say "C'mon man, here's the deal! Ivanka and Jared earned $82 Million last year on all kinds of corrupt dealings with foreign countries! He's trying to smear me to avoid the stink of corruption surrounding him and his family." That might do alright, as the media would prop him up. But ultimately, he can't do it, because his family has made a business trading on the Biden name for decades. So he's sort of stuck screaming "fake news, focus on Trump", but it comes off as extremely weak. I'm sure he'll be handled with kid gloves at the debate tonight, and he'll escape unscathed, but long-term it's a huge issue for him.

Video of Tom Brokaw Calling Out Joe and Hunter Biden's Corruption Resurfaces

In the midst of President Donald Trump's scandal over calling on Ukraine to investigate 2020 Democratic front runner Joe Biden, a video has resurfaced of former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw calling out Biden for conflicts of interest involving his son from more than a decade ago.[...]

Brokaw questions Biden about the propriety of his support for a law that made it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection during a time when his son, Hunter, consulted for a Delaware credit company. Hunter Biden also is the son at the center of the Trump-Ukraine scandal.

Brokaw references a Wall Street Journal story stating that Hunter Biden made about $100,000 from the company, MBNA, and that the company gave Joe Biden's campaign $214,000. Brokaw added that Joe Biden was "fighting for a bankruptcy bill that MBNA really wanted to get passed through the Senate" that would make it harder for other companies to file bankruptcy. Brokaw noted that Barack Obama, who was a senator and not yet president, opposed the bill.

"In retrospect, wasn't it inappropriate for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from the big credit card company while you were on the floor protecting its interests?" Brokaw asked Biden.

"Absolutely not," Biden said.

"My son graduated from Yale Law School. The starting salary on Wall Street is $140,000 a year as a lawyer, options he had," Biden added. "He came home to work for a bank, surprise, surprise."

[Teenwolf]

Bernie was great in the 4th debate, the voice sounded clear and loud and strong, and that was my biggest concern. Within minutes of the debate ending the news has broken...

AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib will all endorse Bernie Sanders in New York this upcoming Saturday. Should be a huge boost for the campaign.

[Sour Masher]

Bernie was great in the 4th debate, the voice sounded clear and loud and strong, and that was my biggest concern. Within minutes of the debate ending the news has broken...

AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib will all endorse Bernie Sanders in New York this upcoming Saturday. Should be a huge boost for the campaign.

Their endorsements are not a surprise, and given that his base and their base has huge overlap, I am not sure it will move the the needle for him.

[Sour Masher]

You've never had substantive arguments regarding Warren's flaws. I don't take you seriously either.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I will say about Warren's performance tonight that I was frustrated by her dodging the question of costs for m4all. She kept dodging whether it would raise taxes on middle class families. I have
been trying to sell her to my wife and in-laws, but after this performance, Warren is dead last in their book. They are more moderate, and do not want to give up employer provided insurance or pay more taxes, but they do respect Sanders much more for being honest, clear, and upfront with his agenda and admitting he would raises taxes. My wife especially found Warren evasive and dishonest in dodging that question.

I do admit Warren seems to want it both ways on this and it makes me think she will end up going with a medicare option plan like Beto and others have pushed, despite her admitting such an opt in plan would fail to bring down costs enough for those who need it to make it make good economic sense. But since most of the wealth tax money she is proposing seems earmarked for child care, education, and student loans, I just don't know if she will make M4All a priority..

In not being honest about that, though, she has lost support from people like my wife and in-laws, who would actually favor that more moderate solution over M4All, but see her as being dishonest about it. My wife still has hope for Mayor Pete, and my in-laws keep hoping some other non-Biden moderate will emerge that won't raise their taxes (they do not think America will elect a gay man, and they may still have some bias there themselves). But yeah, moderates that they are, they all still like Sanders more than Warren, because he is more honest and upfront about the costs of what he is proposing. They know where he stands on this issue, but they do not know what to make of Warren or her refusal to address the costs of M4All.

[Teenwolf]

Their endorsements are not a surprise, and given that his base and their base has huge overlap, I am not sure it will most he the needle for him.

I agree they have a huge overlap, but it gives him a big signal boost among younger voters, typically the hardest to get to vote in the primary, and will amp up the enthusiasm around his campaign. AOC is the most valuable endorsement of the cycle, and could have sealed the deal if she chose to endorse Warren, so I'm really excited for Bernie's resurgence with the strong debate and endorsements.

[nots]

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I will say about Warren's performance tonight that I was frustrated by her dodging the question of costs for m4all. She kept dodging whether it would raise taxes on middle class families. I have
been trying to sell her to my wife and in-laws, but after this performance, Warren is dead last in their book. They are more moderate, and do not want to give up employer provided insurance or pay more taxes, but they do respect Sanders much more for being honest, clear, and upfront with his agenda and admitting he would raises taxes. My wife especially found Warren evasive and dishonest in dodging that question.

I do admit Warren seems to want it both ways on this and it makes me think she will end up going with a medicare option plan like Beto and others have pushed, despite her admitting such an opt in plan would fail to bring down costs enough for those who need it to make it make good economic sense. But since most of the wealth tax money she is proposing seems earmarked for child care, education, and student loans, I just don't know if she will make M4All a priority..

In not being honest about that, though, she has lost support from people like my wife and in-laws, who would actually favor that more moderate solution over M4All, but see her as being dishonest about it. My wife still has hope for Mayor Pete, and my in-laws keep hoping some other non-Biden moderate will emerge that won't raise their taxes (they do not think America will elect a gay man, and they may still have some bias there themselves). But yeah, moderates that they are, they all still like Sanders more than Warren, because he is more honest and upfront about the costs of what he is proposing. They know where he stands on this issue, but they do not know what to make of Warren or her refusal to address the costs of M4All.

This is an excellent post. Warren’s elusiveness on how to pay for her health plan was my takeaway from the debate (well that and watching Buttigieg throw Beto in a box).

[Teenwolf]

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I will say about Warren's performance tonight that I was frustrated by her dodging the question of costs for m4all. She kept dodging whether it would raise taxes on middle class families. I have
been trying to sell her to my wife and in-laws, but after this performance, Warren is dead last in their book. They are more moderate, and do not want to give up employer provided insurance or pay more taxes, but they do respect Sanders much more for being honest, clear, and upfront with his agenda and admitting he would raises taxes. My wife especially found Warren evasive and dishonest in dodging that question.

I do admit Warren seems to want it both ways on this and it makes me think she will end up going with a medicare option plan like Beto and others have pushed, despite her admitting such an opt in plan would fail to bring down costs enough for those who need it to make it make good economic sense. But since most of the wealth tax money she is proposing seems earmarked for child care, education, and student loans, I just don't know if she will make M4All a priority..

In not being honest about that, though, she has lost support from people like my wife and in-laws, who would actually favor that more moderate solution over M4All, but see her as being dishonest about it. My wife still has hope for Mayor Pete, and my in-laws keep hoping some other non-Biden moderate will emerge that won't raise their taxes (they do not think America will elect a gay man, and they may still have some bias there themselves). But yeah, moderates that they are, they all still like Sanders more than Warren, because he is more honest and upfront about the costs of what he is proposing. They know where he stands on this issue, but they do not know what to make of Warren or her refusal to address the costs of M4All.

How do you expect her to answer the question of tax implications when she doesn't have a health care plan? How is this so difficult for everybody to understand? Warren doesn't have a health care plan, she supports ANY health care proposal that improves on the current state of disrepair. DMT mocked me just yesterday for saying Harry Reid is right about Warren's lack of conviction to pass Med4All. Do people still doubt Harry Reid after this debate performance?

[Art Vandelay]

is Moody's respected by dems and left?

...The Moody’s models have been backtested to 1980 and were correct each time — except in 2016, when they indicated Clinton would get a narrow victory. The authors attributed “unexpected turnout patterns” in Trump’s favor caused the error and they adjusted for that in the latest projections. They also said the will be updating the projections as conditions develop and change...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html

[Sour Masher]

This is an excellent post. Warren’s elusiveness on how to pay for her health plan was my takeaway from the debate (well that and watching Buttigieg throw Beto in a box).

I agree with Buttigieg on this. I understand where Beto is coming from, but a mandated buyback would 1. not work, and 2. be general election poison.

[Teenwolf]

Some thoughts.

Bernie killed it, very strong voice, very good hit on Biden, which needs to be his biggest focus to draw voters. Not much more to say.

Tulsi Gabbard was awful. She attempted to attack Warren and was cut off going to commercial, but she spent way too much time talking about her qualifications to lead up to the Warren attack, so I was okay with her being cut off. Her right wing positioning seemed awkward and forced at times, and the overuse of "regime change wars" was an attempt to simplify, but made her rhetoric too clunky. Just a bad performance.

Biden looked awful, and now the entire media is saying it. Crazy enough, I thought it was his least terrible debate, but he still got crushed. His yelling at Warren that he whipped the votes for her CFPB, and pointing his finger in her face, that looked rough. The comment butting into Warren talking "you did a good job in your job", that looked horrible. Sanders landed a haymaker on Biden, pointing out the Iraq war, PNTR with China, NAFTA killing 4 million jobs, that all looked really bad. If you were playing a debate drinking game with a shot for every time Biden said "in fact", you'd be dead. It was just a very wobbly and confusing and pitiful performance, really. Oh, and the refusal to answer on Hunter Biden was predictably hilarious. Telling a moderator of a debate "what you should be focused on is Trump", is incredibly weak.

Warren was very strong with the exception of the Med4All issue. She's getting mixed reviews, but I thought she did well.

Andrew Yang's UBI drawn out discussion was bad... Warren apparently asked Yang for his UBI specifics afterwards, and Castro's embrace, Tulsi's embrace... I hate to see it, but Yang is going to be in it until the end. Warren could be pushed to adopt it as a way of sidelining Yang. We'll see how it goes, but I'm not optimistic.

The rest, go away. Booker, Beto, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Harris, be gone. You offer nothing. I'm reading strong reviews for Buttigieg, but I seriously doubt he jumps back into the top tier. His attacks were strong but his personal vision was non-existent.

[Sour Masher]

How do you expect her to answer the question of tax implications when she doesn't have a health care plan? How is this so difficult for everybody to understand? Warren doesn't have a health care plan, she supports ANY health care proposal that improves on the current state of disrepair. DMT mocked me just yesterday for saying Harry Reid is right about Warren's lack of conviction to pass Med4All. Do people still doubt Harry Reid after this debate performance?

I think your perspective as a hardline progressive skews your view on how other voters see this issue. Your phrasing that Warren wants to do anything she can manage to implement that would improve on our current health care situation is probably accurate, but whereas you see that as evidence she is inferior to Sanders, many voters see that as preferable to a "give me Med4All or give me death" approach that 1. would significantly raise taxes, 2. take away private options from millions who want to keep them, and 3. would never happen.

That last point especially, I'd love for you to address. I see it is similar to what Mayor Pete said to Beto on gun buy back. In pushing for that, it turns off many and makes it so something more practical doesn't get done. What makes you think, after how hard it was for Obama to pass even a watered done band aid that was the ACA, that Sanders would actually be able to pass M4All in the time he'd have in office? As I've argued before, I do think, with proper buy in, a M4All system could work in this country, but I just don't see that buy in happening any time soon. You have too many people who will continually try to undercut and fight against the system. I just don't see it happening. Making Med4All a purity test for the Democratic candidate, to me, is like saying you will only vote for the candidate who extra pinky swear promises to cure cancer in their first term. It is a great and noble goal, but it ain't happening.

So again, whereas you see Warren's lack of commitment to pursuing Med4All above and beyond all else as a negative, I see it as an opportunity for her to improve healthcare in ways that can actually happen, and also have the money and political capital to implement many other progressive solutions to current problems facing our country.

ETA: But saying all that, as my previous post indicates, it is annoying she is being cagey about paying for M4All. I agree that she did well overall in the debate, but that one bit of elusiveness was disappointing. She usually doesn't play that annoying politician game, and I suspect she wants to say, ""look, I want Med4All, but stop asking me how I will pay for it, because, if I am being honest, unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to get that done, and what I do think I can get done will fit within the budget I have already thought out with my wealth tax on the uber rich." As always, Sanders, in contrast, is honest and upfront about who he is and what he wants to do, even if what he wants ain't gonna happen.