First (Blank) President

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It's the Dems job to fix the Republican party by beating them in elections. They could start by running on issues that the people want instead of what their donors want. 

 

Biden's polling at ~35-40%. People literally want what he's offering.

 

Whether or not that lead sustains itself, we'll have to see.

[Dbqgolfer]

It is pretty widely believed by historians that James Buchanan was our fist gay president.

[RedDenver]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Biden would have beaten Trump easily.  Hillary wouldn't have lost to Trump if not for Comey's email.

I can just as easily say Trump would have beaten Biden easily. I think Biden is a lousy campaigner based on his previous attempts at the nominee. There's no way for either of us to know.

 

And while Comey may have cost Hillary the election based on changes in the polling, it's difficult to say for sure especially since it's the Electoral College and not the national vote that matters. She might have still lost the midwest states that she needed.

 

And you're assuming that Biden would have done better than Hillary.

 

3 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Biden's polling at ~35-40%. People literally want what he's offering.

 

Whether or not that lead sustains itself, we'll have to see.

I think it's mainly name recognition and pre-Trump nostalgia. Maybe Biden can maintain that lead, but I have doubts. Everything from his creepy touching, opposition to integrated schools, writing the crime bill, racist comments about Mexicans and building a wall, negotiating to cut Social Security - will eventually get out and we'll see how his numbers fair then.

[Danny Bateman]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I think it's mainly name recognition and pre-Trump nostalgia. Maybe Biden can maintain that lead, but I have doubts. Everything from his creepy touching, opposition to integrated schools, writing the crime bill, racist comments about Mexicans and building a wall, negotiating to cut Social Security - will eventually get out and we'll see how his numbers fair then. 

 

Most of this is predicated on the belief that most voters vote primarily based on policy and past positions. Personally I don't think that's the case. It was not in last year's midterms.

 

Personally I feel like most of those things are a blip on the radar that won't have much staying power. How much are people going to care about Biden's policy stances from the 70s or even the 90s? Not as much as what he's telling them today on the stump, I'd wager.

[Landlord]

6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Maybe. I think Biden would have lost to Trump, but we'll never know. Plus, Biden being President doesn't fix the underlying problems that allowed Trump be elected.

 

 

You can't prove it either way, but I don't see that as being possible. Biden, or Bernie, or any other hypothetical dem candidate would have easily beaten Trump imo. Hillary only barely lost to him, and she was a woman, extremely unpopular, racked with a history of scandal or supposed scandal, had her husband's baggage, and had Comey announce the re-opening of the investigation. Biden wouldn't have had any of those factors at play (neither would Bernie) and likely would have easily won.

[RedDenver]

8 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Most of this is predicated on the belief that most voters vote primarily based on policy and past positions. Personally I don't think that's the case. It was not in last year's midterms.

 

Personally I feel like most of those things are a blip on the radar that won't have much staying power. How much are people going to care about Biden's policy stances from the 70s or even the 90s? Not as much as what he's telling them today on the stump, I'd wager.

That's entirely possible, but his past stances affect how people view what he's saying. For example, does anyone think Biden wants to fix healthcare or just defend Obamacare? Does anyone trust him to stand up to Wall St?

 

8 hours ago, Landlord said:

You can't prove it either way, but I don't see that as being possible. Biden, or Bernie, or any other hypothetical dem candidate would have easily beaten Trump imo. Hillary only barely lost to him, and she was a woman, extremely unpopular, racked with a history of scandal or supposed scandal, had her husband's baggage, and had Comey announce the re-opening of the investigation. Biden wouldn't have had any of those factors at play (neither would Bernie) and likely would have easily won.

You're assuming that Biden is a good campaigner, but I'm not sure he'd have done better than Hillary. Biden's previous candidate campaigns have not done well. But of course that was before he was VP, so we'll have to wait and see.

[TGHusker]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Biden would have beaten Trump easily.  Hillary wouldn't have lost to Trump if not for Comey's email.

I'll have to agree with this. Biden would have taken Pa, Wisc, Mich if not in full at least one of them.  If the GOP had any sense, they would have nominated Kasich who I believe would have beaten Hillary  also but without all of the baggage.    Comey's email caused a lot of dominoes to fall for sure.  What a mess we have because of it.

[BigRedBuster]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

Biden would have beaten Trump easily.  Hillary wouldn't have lost to Trump if not for Comey's email.

 

 

But..but...but....Comey is an angry Democrat that was secretly trying to take down Trump.  

[Danny Bateman]

57 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

But..but...but....Comey is an angry Democrat that was secretly trying to take down Trump.  

 

I saw a headline that said he was talking about the death penalty for Come, Clapper, et al. So don't worry, he's on it.

 

He's get a history of suggesting we kill innocent people:

 

[TGHusker]

12 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

It is pretty widely believed by historians that James Buchanan was our fist gay president.

Really- we can't let facts get in the way of a HB poll now can we.   Of course my poll is about an 'openly gay' person becoming president.  You know you bring up a good point.   I recall reading a small reference to that point once but I've never been a fan of Buchanan - pretty inept president so I haven't read a biographical book dedicated to him. 

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/69500/6-presidential-facts-about-james-buchanan

 

 

Quote

 

1. HE WAS THE ONLY PRESIDENT WHO WAS A LIFELONG BACHELOR.

In 1819, 28-year-old Buchanan, then an attorney who had already served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, was engaged to Ann Coleman. The romance wasn’t exactly like something out of a storybook. Buchanan’s busy schedule kept the two apart for long stretches of time, and rumors swirled that Buchanan was seeing another woman. Ann also worried that her fiancé was more interested in her father’s fortune than her. 

The ill-fated romance had a tragic end. After Buchanan returned from a trip and was rumored to have visited another woman, Ann broke off the engagement with a letter, sank into a depression, and died just a few days later on December 8, 1819. Doctors initially indicated the cause of death was “hysterical convulsions,” while others claimed she overdosed on laudanum, a tincture of opium sometimes used to treat insomnia. Coleman’s father refused to allow Buchanan to attend the funeral, and Buchanan later wrote to him, “I feel that happiness has fled from me forever.”

 

 

2. HIS SEXUALITY REMAINS AN OPEN QUESTION. 

Quote

 

Buchanan entered Congress in 1821, became a senator in 1834, and during this time struck up a friendship with Alabama Senator William Rufus King. The two lived together at Mrs. Ironsides’ Boarding House on Tenth and F Streets in Washington, D.C. This kind of roommate arrangement wasn’t uncommon for young congressional newcomers, but since Buchanan and King were both older and were independently wealthy, the fact that they roomed together for more than 10 years and remained inseparable the remainder of their lives incited vicious gossip. Andrew Jackson referred to King and Buchanan, respectively, as “Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy,” and a newspaper described the relationship as a “conspicuous intimacy.” 

After King departed for France in 1844, Buchanan wrote to a friend, “I am now ‘solitary and alone,’ having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them.” Evidence suggests that after Buchanan won the 1856 presidential election, his niece, Harriet Lane, and King’s niece, Catherine Ellis, destroyed letters from their correspondence. Historians and writers have also speculated Buchanan may have been asexual, as his volumes of papers and letters never mentioned love, lust, women, romance, or physical attractions to either sex.

 

• Quote

   

  • HE WAS THE ONLY PRESIDENT WHO WAS A LIFELONG BACHELOR. ...
  • HIS SEXUALITY REMAINS AN OPEN QUESTION. ...
  • HE WAS CALLED A “DOUGHFACE” FOR HIS VIEWS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. ...
  • HE SUFFERED FROM POOR VISION. ...
  • HE DRANK A LOT, BUT WASN'T A DRUNK. ...
  • HE'S CONSIDERED ONE OF THE WORST U.S. PRESIDENTS FOR SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE CIVIL WAR.

   

   

[Ratt Mhule]

God help our kids and grandkids if corrupt, bought and paid for by fossil fuel lobbyists Joe Biden is elected president. Its losers like him and his ilk that got us to this place to begin with. Govt knew about climate change in the 70’s and didnt do s#!t about it and now he has the audacity to say he wants “a middle ground” when it comes to climate change. Screw him and his corporate donors. 

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You're assuming that Biden is a good campaigner, but I'm not sure he'd have done better than Hillary. Biden's previous candidate campaigns have not done well. But of course that was before he was VP, so we'll have to wait and see.

 

 

He wouldn't have to have done any better than Hillary. Just do exactly the equal amount as Hillary, then don't have all those scandals and perceived scandals and Comey blabbing his stupid mouth and it'd be a runaway.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

He wouldn't have to have done any better than Hillary. Just do exactly the equal amount as Hillary, then don't have all those scandals and perceived scandals and Comey blabbing his stupid mouth and it'd be a runaway.

By definition, wouldn't that be better than Hillary? And it wouldn't have been a runaway IMO. I think some are remembering Biden as Obama, but Biden isn't anywhere close to Obama especially as a campaigner. And Trump wasn't as disliked during the election as he is now.

 

Looking at recent polling which has 54% saying they won't vote for Trump, whichever Dem candidate gets to the general should be favored. So if beating Trump is your main objective, then it might not matter among the top Dem candidates which one wins the nomination.

[Danny Bateman]

On 5/24/2019 at 8:26 AM, RedDenver said:

That's entirely possible, but his past stances affect how people view what he's saying. For example, does anyone think Biden wants to fix healthcare or just defend Obamacare? Does anyone trust him to stand up to Wall St? 

 

This is getting down a bit in the weeds, but the Kaiser Family Foundation had a poll last month that suggested that a majority of Dems and Dem-lean indies would rather see an protected and expanded ACA (i.e., a public option) than a M4A plan take it's place:

 

 

There's a ton of good info in that link if you want more info. The same holds true among independents and Republicans: they generally prefer a public option to buy into Medicare or Medicaid, although M4A remains popular even among Republicans. An important point is that a M4A who want it approach is far more popular than a mandatory M4A plan at this point, and several Dem candidates have expressed support for the former. I know Buttigieg is one fo them.

 

Honestly I've gotten a bit annoyed with some of the progressives who won't even consider a public option approach. Personally I don't think we're at a point to be taking options off the table.

[Ratt Mhule]

20 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

This is getting down a bit in the weeds, but the Kaiser Family Foundation had a poll last month that suggested that a majority of Dems and Dem-lean indies would rather see an protected and expanded ACA (i.e., a public option) than a M4A plan take it's place:

 

 

There's a ton of good info in that link if you want more info. The same holds true among independents and Republicans: they generally prefer a public option to buy into Medicare or Medicaid, although M4A remains popular even among Republicans. An important point is that a M4A who want it approach is far more popular than a mandatory M4A plan at this point, and several Dem candidates have expressed support for the former. I know Buttigieg is one fo them.

 

Honestly I've gotten a bit annoyed with some of the progressives who won't even consider a public option approach. Personally I don't think we're at a point to be taking options off the table.

 

Ive posted multiple videos on why a public option would never work. First of all, its a way to say “see medicare for all wouldnt work”. Youd have all the sick people buy into the public option which would jack up prices for that system. Then the insurance companies could charge super cheap because they have all the healthy people. Plus the way medicare is right now, youd still need private insurance because it does not cover everything. Youd essentially be paying for two different insurance plans.