What's new

2020 Presidential election

The problem with Williamson is that more Republicans are excited about her and want her to do well than Democrats. She has yet to exceed one percent in any of the qualifying polls for the next debate in September. She needs to hit 2 percent in four qualifying polls in just the next two weeks to make the debate. Extremely doubtful this happens. So far, not many Democrats anywhere have been willing to turn out for her. Democrats tend to support candidates they think have the best chance of beating Trump. Republicans get excited about fringe Democrats that really have no shot against Trump because it’s fun to try to splinter Democrats and prevent, for as long as possible, the Party from coalescing around one strong candidate.

There is nothing in this analysis that is not well-founded or reasonable. I agree, I have heard some conservatives get really excited about the Dems putting up a fluff head with no shot.

The problem is, nobody is getting ahead already, and most dems, even, see the extreme bunch as a fluff heads with no shot. I think the "social democrats" or "justice democrats", which includes Bernie and maybe even Warren, have extreme funding right now. Even Biden is playing to that market in this phase of the campaign, though I'd expect him to play more centrist in the "real election".

There is a strategy being worked on within the Dem party..... the social dems are trying to do about a dozen AOCs in the primaries, running out moderate dems in places where Rs can hardly compete with anyone. I dunno, it might cost the dems a few of their base "secure" house seats.

Maryann Williamson is about the only one in sight who can get support from moderates or Republicans. The Brietbart crew might pray for her to be a darkhorse contender with a bounce to make it to October, but it's not a sure bet, to say the least.

Pretty sure Biden has had the nod from the old guard dems....but I think they need to find a moderate. That's why I posted something about Dershowitz a week or so ago, but with Dershowitz being outed as an Epstein associate, that is absolutely out the window now. If Trump were having Epstein outed in his first Primary run, he woulda been sunk as well. Probably, I'll have to concede to Colton's view on Trump.....
 
Anecdotal evidence here. I work for a hospital system that also run their own insurance. Currently, I pay ~$170/check for insurance for myself and my wife, just counting the medical/dental/vision. I'm paid semi-weekly, so that comes out to $4420/yr. BUT my employer pays $800/check, which is another $20800/year. Even if they only gave me 25% of that, I would come out ahead. And companies would increase salaries if they didn't pay insurance, since otherwise they'd not be able to attract the best talent.

More anecdotal evidence..... I'm covered on a medical provider plan but the deductibles are serious considerations.... Lots of differences between providers I'd think of going to. I had a doctor's order for an MRI recently..... depending in where I went for the MRI, I'd pay $45,000 at the place I was being referred to. My wife located another provider within her insurance plan's providers, where our cost would have been $500. The prescription for the MRI was, imo, not justified. The doc was trying to fluff his income with some concerns I believe are just long-standing, stable issues. Nothing is going on. So I decided not to put out the $500, even.

I wonder if even half of our medical costs are really needed in the first place. I quit going to the chiropractor. Wasn't making any difference. I just need to sleep more on the floor. Straightens me out pretty good.

But yes, with Obamacare, the paperwork tripled, the docs where hamstrung and tongue-tied, and a lot just quit their practice. Great way to make care cost more. Our expenses tripled. That's paystub deductions for insurance and the cost of what we do. $8000 a year more.

What we need is price disclosure so patients can price-shop and so the system gets some competitive market factors. More competition in the insurance providers, like people being allowed to shop over statelines. That's interstate commerce, right. The Feds can rightly restore that to us.

The only Fed involvement we need, actually, is FDA oversight on prescription sales (for safety of products).... and a subsidy pool for existing conditions and job transfers so people can maintain coverage though job loss or transfers to other companies, and maybe some basic plan that anyone can get. Say a deductible on welfare payments or like social security enrollment on Medicare. Or maybe just, say, a voucher people can use in buying into private plans. The less bureaucracy we have to maintain, the more efficient our plans can be.

Even so, I am concerned about the revolving door with the FDA and the Pharmaceuticals, and the lobbying, so I think the FDA needs to be audited regularly, and examined for personnel conflicts of interests.

Same for all our med insurance outfits....

corruption of our system is our biggest source of inflated costs, I say.

Even Obamacare was literally written by our healthcare giants, and it was a sort of play to drive competition out in both care and insurance. Corrupt as Hell. We should dump it.
 
Here's something to think about. Every time President Trump sends a tweet, it goes out to 63 million people. More often than not, several media organizations will then pick up that twitter post as being newsworthy and will make a story about it. In addition, the tweets get retweeted and replied to. So, in total, President Trump's Twitter feed could very easily reach as many as 80+ or 90+ million people, especially if Trump wants to be a little controversial or inflammatory.

A liberal media pundit like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, on her best day, draws an audience of between 2.5 and 3 million people during primetime. Joe Scarborough, who does a morning show, likely has an average daily viewership near the 1 million-viewer range, if he's lucky.

President Trump has a fair amount of media experience (having been in the business), and he knows full well that the smartphone in his pocket carries 20 times the reach and influence of the 'mainstream' media.

Liberal media personalities, along with writers at NY Times and Washington Post, probably think of themselves as being thought leaders and key influencers, but in the grand scheme of things, and going by the numbers, they aren't really. The digital media revolution has had a profound and nearly incalculable impact on American politics.

By comparison, the most popular Democratic candidate on Twitter is Bernie Sanders with around 8.5 million followers. That's about 15% of the following that Trump has.

I'm not trying to be overly simplistic here, but if Twitter turns out to be any kind of barometer for a candidate's popularity or base of support, Trump is going to win again.
 
Last edited:
Here's something to think about. Every time President Trump sends a tweet, it goes out to 63 million people. More often than not, several media organizations will then pick up that twitter post as being newsworthy and will make a story about it. In addition, the tweets get retweeted and replied to. So, in total, President Trump's Twitter feed could very easily reach as many as 80+ or 90+ million people, especially if Trump wants to be a little controversial or inflammatory.

A liberal media pundit like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, on her best day, draws an audience of between 2.5 and 3 million people during primetime. Joe Scarborough, who does a morning show, likely has an average daily viewership near the 1 million-viewer range, if he's lucky.

President Trump has a fair amount of media experience (having been in the business), and he knows full well that the smartphone in his pocket carries 20 times the reach and influence of the 'mainstream' media.

Liberal media personalities, along with writers at NY Times and Washington Post, probably think of themselves as being thought leaders and key influencers, but in the grand scheme of things, and going by the numbers, they aren't really. The digital media revolution has had a profound and nearly incalculable impact on American politics.

By comparison, the most popular Democratic candidate on Twitter is Bernie Sanders with around 8.5 million followers. That's about 15% of the following that Trump has.

I'm not trying to be overly simplistic here, but if Twitter turns out to be any kind of barometer for popularity or support, Trump is going to win again.

Yeah. You’re being overly simplistic.

Just because someone follows him on twitter or reads one of his tweets doesn’t mean:

A. They believe him.
B. They support him.
C. They want him re-elected.

Nancy Pelosi follows him and clearly reads his tweets. But she’s not voting for him.
 
Yeah. You’re being overly simplistic.

Just because someone follows him on twitter or reads one of his tweets doesn’t mean:

A. They believe him.
B. They support him.
C. They want him re-elected.

Nancy Pelosi follows him and clearly reads his tweets. But she’s not voting for him.

I wouldn't dismiss it either. In other spheres of influence, having a large following on social media, like Twitter, has been a relevant gauge of popularity. Remove all the politicians, professional journalists and dedicated antagonists from his following--say even 5 million people. Nothing changes.
 
I wouldn't dismiss it either. In other spheres of influence, having a large following on social media, like Twitter, has been a relevant gauge of popularity. Remove all the politicians, professional journalists and dedicated antagonists from his following--say even 5 million people. Nothing changes.

Trump’s popularity among republicans and Russian bots isn’t in doubt.

But no credible pollster would base any chances of re-election on one’s number of twitter followers. Far too simplistic. Even if it were, it would still be too simplistic; the presidential election isn’t based on the popular vote.
 
Trump’s popularity among republicans and Russian bots isn’t in doubt.

But no credible pollster would base any chances of re-election on one’s number of twitter followers. Far too simplistic. Even if it were, it would still be too simplistic; the presidential election isn’t based on the popular vote.

Right, of course they wouldn't. But having 8 - 10 times more followers on twitter than any other candidate isn't completely irrelevant either. I can also assure you that the media organizations who measure their influence do care about these numbers.
 
Right, of course they wouldn't. But having 8 - 10 times more followers on twitter than any other candidate isn't completely irrelevant either. I can also assure you that the media organizations who measure their influence do care about these numbers.

I think it is.

Twitter isn’t where the majority of voters get their political views or news. If they’re influenced by what’s happening on twitter, it’s most likely influencing them against re-electing trump.

He has a 40 percent approval 60 percent disapproval for a reason, bud. I don’t know why Trumpers like you think this is Reagan 1984 or FDR 1936.
 
Last edited:
Yet they managed to find a candidate who was almost hated as much as the Donald is now. Arrogance. Idiocy.

Yet, she still won the popular vote despite all this plus Russian hacking on the DNCs servers. Remember, a combined 80,000 votes in 3 states that trump’s underwater in, changed the election.
 
Yet, she still won the popular vote despite all this plus Russian hacking on the DNCs servers. Remember, a combined 80,000 votes in 3 states that trump’s underwater in, changed the election.

All true. My point is that the Democrats chose the worst possible candidate.
 
Who was worse?
I mean I guess they could have chose trump

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Hilary had political credibility. She was nearly an automatic vote for D’s. She also received more votes than Trump so implicitly saying she was an awful candidate is just wrong.

Not one of those other candidates would’ve had a shot at Trump and his shenanigans. He would’ve embarrased them. Sadly.
 
Hilary had political credibility. She was nearly an automatic vote for D’s. She also received more votes than Trump so implicitly saying she was an awful candidate is just wrong.

Not one of those other candidates would’ve had a shot at Trump and his shenanigans. He would’ve embarrased them. Sadly.
Sanders polled MUCH better against Trump than Hillary did...
 
Hilary had political credibility. She was nearly an automatic vote for D’s. She also received more votes than Trump so implicitly saying she was an awful candidate is just wrong.

Not one of those other candidates would’ve had a shot at Trump and his shenanigans. He would’ve embarrased them. Sadly.

She did not energized the base.
She was unappealing to swing voters and independents.
She energized the opposition
She ran an arrogant campaign by trying to stretch her lead instead of getting the Midwest vote she needed to win.
She was part of the establishment in an antiestablishment election.

Besides that she was an awesome candidate.
 
Back
Top