Who Has the Best Shot at Beating Trump?

Which Democratic candidate would best beat Trump?

  • Biden

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Booker

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Buttigieg

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Harris

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Sanders

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Warren

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Someone else

    Votes: 17 58.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • This poll will close: .
Jan 2012
899
288
SoCal
I agree to a certain extent. But Trump will clearly try to bully whomever the nominee is. Remember him stalking Hillary at the debates? She should have told him to sit his ass down. In any event, I've changed my take on Warren (I originally liked Harris, but I think her support for reparations would seriously hurt her in the general). She's smart, politically savvy, and actually has some strategies on policy. But more importantly, I've come to view her as pretty tough; I don't think she'd tolerate any of Trump's bullshit. (Also, I don't think she'd blather on endlessly about trivialities like Hillary did, either.)

Now, if only some of the clowns who don't have a prayer would only sit their asses down....
I think Warren, like Biden is made for Trump to defeat. You can't confirm a Trump narrative while trying to beat him. You need something different. That is what cracks me up with news coverage. All they would have to do is just cover the news and Trump would be powerless. That is how you defeat someone peddling in conspiracy. You just let regular life happen. However because Trump trolls them, they end up confirming the claims of conspiracy.

Warren is like that only with identity politics. Trump will claim that rather than just trying to make everything about equal opportunities it is about claiming an equal outcome and using intersectionality and victim status to create a new social order of winners and losers.

That could be real or it could be pure bullshit but you know who you don't want answering those questions.... a former Republican turned Democrat who is a white woman who spent major portions of her life either seeking or possibly benefitting from a claimed Native American status. Doesn't matter the number of hairs to split, etc. There are candidates Warren could beat but her past and narrative play right into Trump, just like Biden.

I hear you. Klobuchar was an early favorite of mine, but she seems to be going nowhere fast. Still like her a lot, though. And she is much more of a moderate, which is a big plus, too. I think. And you’re right. It’s still way early to lock in a choice. I am growing increasingly less enthused with Biden, though. And I’m not feeling these poll numbers, either. At this point it feels a lot like Clinton Redux.
The poll numbers at this stage are name recognition and noise. They are pointless.


Your second sentence is correct.

Your third sentence is complete garbage, and completely bassackwards.

As for your fourth sentence, the effects of the Trump tax cut are precisely why it was highly regressive.

You flunk both economics and arithmetic. You don't have a single fucking clue as to what you are talking about. In sharp contrast, I taught university economics for nearly thirty years. You're like a freshman physics student who waltzes into a freshman physics class and idiotically starts telling the professor that you intend to change the definitions in the textbook of terms like angular momentum and torque, whether he likes it or not. You would get laughed out of the auditorium.
Two points... how do tax cuts not end up being regressive when given within a progressive system? Also since nearly half the population pays zero in federal income taxes how do all those zeros not dramatically distort any analysis?

Trump bought voters in W VA by promising to get their jobs back. Which hasn't and will not ever happen. But mostly Trump bought voters by giving them permission to to be racists and xenophobes and give liberals the finger. Republicans always try to buy voters by cutting taxes.

The Democrats don't have to buy votes of blacks or gays. They just listen to the Republicans and automatically vote for Democrats.
If Democratic policies worked then it shouldn't even be close. You should see red state wastelands and blue state utopias. However it is just the reverse for now. The blue states and especially blue cities are expensive hell holes of economic and basic inequity.

Democrats would never have to scream about racism if the racists lived in trailer and the blue city residents enjoye good jobs and services. Each claim and label would reflect their thought models and outcomes. However that hasn't happened. Quite the opposite has happened.



That's a superlative column.....and these two paragraphs, in particular:

Even Jonathan Chait, as likely a friend as Biden could have among the center-left pundit class, savaged him over the Eastland comments. "It suggests that he has not grasped any of the tectonic changes in American politics, and that he is equipped neither for the campaign nor the presidency," he wrote.

The rest of Biden's campaign is only somewhat less feckless. Biden's rallies have attracted notably small crowds, and unlike Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Pete Buttegieg, his oratory is rambling and low-energy. He's doing fewer public events in general than other candidates — but attending plenty of private gatherings with the oligarch class, whose fat checks he is collecting by the barrel. At one recent event, he promised he would not "demonize" the rich, in part because "I need you very badly." If he were elected, "No one's standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change."

I am more and more convinced that Joe Biden would be a terrible mistake for the Democratic Party.....
We are in complete agreement. Joe Biden is a terrible mistake. However the only reason people are giving him the time of day is all the younger and more energetic candidates are either very weak on policy or have gone off the rails on policy.

Most of America's low-income and middle-income voters aren't 'buying' the notion that they got any big benefits from Trump's tax cut anymore. They've wised up to the fact that his tariffs are tax HIKES, and that his tariffs have completely wiped out any modest benefits they got from the tax cut, and beyond, and are now leaving them worse off than before.

In short, they're BEGINNING to grasp, to understand, to comprehend, that Donald Trump has been an utterly phony populist all along. He was never a friend of the working man (or woman).

Hell, he's been RIPPING OFF people like that his entire life!
You're probably correct that they haven't gotten any short term game but unless manufactoring returns to the U.S. or countries are forced to adopt standards for worker safety and environmental controls then they never will return. Maybe there is disagreement about how to improve the lot of these families and workers but the race to the bottom in terms of worker pay and protections and environmental harm isn't a debate at all.

There is a reason the Trump position is mentioned as at least somewhat similar to the Warren position and is very close to the Sanders position. You can't say have avoid free markets with no protections or controls in all areas except trade. The Democratic position is very convoluted here. Democrats want nuns to pay for birth control within the United States. They want all manner of protections within our borders but want to do nothing about everyone being able to avoid all of that by just taking business overseas and shipping the products that have sidestepped all those issues back into the United States a zero additional cost.


Um, hello? Earth to bman? Earth to bman? Are you there? It is Donald Trump constantly pushing the Fed to print more and more and more money. It is Donald Trump threatening to FIRE Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, if he doesn't start doing exactly that.

Wake up and smell the road apples!
Well it can't be both ways. If Trump is a liar and the economy was largely inherited and is still relatively weak, then we don't need measures taken to slow it down or limit economic growth. As I've mentioned the best way to tap the brakes a bit economically would be to slow some federal spending. Trump can control that and the fed need not be involved. That said both parties don't have any real means of addressing debt, entitlements or many other economic issues. We are the least sick patient in the care ward for now.

I think most people, deep down, know that the environment is changing. If you spend any time outside, you can feel it. The sun basically eats your skin off...seriously. I am very tan right now and I played golf over the weekend and I have blisters on top of my tan on my nose and shoulders. That has never happened to me before. You don't need a scientific study to see that. I think most of the resistance comes from fear of job loss as the solution and they know they are fucked if that happens.
That is quite some anecdotal proof. In California I have been going outside and riding bikes for several hours each week. My skin has not peeled off nor have I even gotten a bad burn.

I'd start by checking the age of your sunblock. It does expire in terms of effectiveness. Perhaps you are using the left over bottle from last summer at the beginning of this summer and the SPF is half of what it had been.
 

HCProf

Moderator
Sep 2014
27,842
17,054
USA
I think Warren, like Biden is made for Trump to defeat. You can't confirm a Trump narrative while trying to beat him. You need something different. That is what cracks me up with news coverage. All they would have to do is just cover the news and Trump would be powerless. That is how you defeat someone peddling in conspiracy. You just let regular life happen. However because Trump trolls them, they end up confirming the claims of conspiracy.

Warren is like that only with identity politics. Trump will claim that rather than just trying to make everything about equal opportunities it is about claiming an equal outcome and using intersectionality and victim status to create a new social order of winners and losers.

That could be real or it could be pure bullshit but you know who you don't want answering those questions.... a former Republican turned Democrat who is a white woman who spent major portions of her life either seeking or possibly benefitting from a claimed Native American status. Doesn't matter the number of hairs to split, etc. There are candidates Warren could beat but her past and narrative play right into Trump, just like Biden.



The poll numbers at this stage are name recognition and noise. They are pointless.





Two points... how do tax cuts not end up being regressive when given within a progressive system? Also since nearly half the population pays zero in federal income taxes how do all those zeros not dramatically distort any analysis?




We are in complete agreement. Joe Biden is a terrible mistake. However the only reason people are giving him the time of day is all the younger and more energetic candidates are either very weak on policy or have gone off the rails on policy.



You're probably correct that they haven't gotten any short term game but unless manufactoring returns to the U.S. or countries are forced to adopt standards for worker safety and environmental controls then they never will return. Maybe there is disagreement about how to improve the lot of these families and workers but the race to the bottom in terms of worker pay and protections and environmental harm isn't a debate at all.

There is a reason the Trump position is mentioned as at least somewhat similar to the Warren position and is very close to the Sanders position. You can't say have avoid free markets with no protections or controls in all areas except trade. The Democratic position is very convoluted here. Democrats want nuns to pay for birth control within the United States. They want all manner of protections within our borders but want to do nothing about everyone being able to avoid all of that by just taking business overseas and shipping the products that have sidestepped all those issues back into the United States a zero additional cost.




Well it can't be both ways. If Trump is a liar and the economy was largely inherited and is still relatively weak, then we don't need measures taken to slow it down or limit economic growth. As I've mentioned the best way to tap the brakes a bit economically would be to slow some federal spending. Trump can control that and the fed need not be involved. That said both parties don't have any real means of addressing debt, entitlements or many other economic issues. We are the least sick patient in the care ward for now.



That is quite some anecdotal proof. In California I have been going outside and riding bikes for several hours each week. My skin has not peeled off nor have I even gotten a bad burn.

I'd start by checking the age of your sunblock. It does expire in terms of effectiveness. Perhaps you are using the left over bottle from last summer at the beginning of this summer and the SPF is half of what it had been.
I have a great base tan, very brown....I shouldn't be burning at all and I live in Ohio. I always get a good base tan prior to my golf league starting so I don't burn. Definitely don't blister. I have never needed sun block before. I will be buying some now tho.
 
Oct 2018
4,045
5,292
Somewhere they can't find me.
I think Warren, like Biden is made for Trump to defeat. You can't confirm a Trump narrative while trying to beat him. You need something different. That is what cracks me up with news coverage. All they would have to do is just cover the news and Trump would be powerless. That is how you defeat someone peddling in conspiracy. You just let regular life happen. However because Trump trolls them, they end up confirming the claims of conspiracy.

Warren is like that only with identity politics. Trump will claim that rather than just trying to make everything about equal opportunities it is about claiming an equal outcome and using intersectionality and victim status to create a new social order of winners and losers.

That could be real or it could be pure bullshit but you know who you don't want answering those questions.... a former Republican turned Democrat who is a white woman who spent major portions of her life either seeking or possibly benefitting from a claimed Native American status. Doesn't matter the number of hairs to split, etc. There are candidates Warren could beat but her past and narrative play right into Trump, just like Biden.

I disagree. The fact is Trump will act the bully regardless of who his opponent is. That was a big part of his "winning" strategies both in the primaries and in the general. It's a given. The only questions are: What will he toss at them and how much of it will stick?

"Pocahontas?" Please. That only works with the cult faithful at this point. Biden may be a bigger risk due to his age and the fact that he's a gaffe machine who doesn't need any assistance from Trump. Several other candidates (Bernie, Buttigieg, Booker, Beto, et al) may present potentially larger targets, IMO, which is one reason I'd rather not see any of them get the nom, tbh. In spite of Trump's advantage as an incumbent, I believe this is the Democrats' race to lose. The only way that will happen is by nominating someone who's guaranteed not to win, which is obviously something we'd like to avoid.

OTOH, it can be argued that this election has already been decided--as a minimal number (if that) of voters are likely to be swayed one way or the other between now and Election Day. What really matters, I think, is which side gets the better turnout.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy
Jan 2016
54,283
50,797
Colorado
I disagree. The fact is Trump will act the bully regardless of who his opponent is. That was a big part of his "winning" strategies both in the primaries and in the general. It's a given. The only questions are: What will he toss at them and how much of it will stick?

"Pocahontas?" Please. That only works with the cult faithful at this point. Biden may be a bigger risk due to his age and the fact that he's a gaffe machine who doesn't need any assistance from Trump. Several other candidates (Bernie, Buttigieg, Booker, Beto, et al) may present potentially larger targets, IMO, which is one reason I'd rather not see any of them get the nom, tbh. In spite of Trump's advantage as an incumbent, I believe this is the Democrats' race to lose. The only way that will happen is by nominating someone who's guaranteed not to win, which is obviously something we'd like to avoid.

OTOH, it can be argued that this election has already been decided--as a minimal number (if that) of voters are likely to be swayed one way or the other between now and Election Day. What really matters, I think, is which side gets the better turnout.
I sincerely wish that Donald Trump would start calling Cory Booker 'Sambo', and thereby make his racism so blatantly obvious that only the Archie Bunkers of America could continue to deny it.
 
Jan 2012
899
288
SoCal
I disagree. The fact is Trump will act the bully regardless of who his opponent is. That was a big part of his "winning" strategies both in the primaries and in the general. It's a given. The only questions are: What will he toss at them and how much of it will stick?

"Pocahontas?" Please. That only works with the cult faithful at this point. Biden may be a bigger risk due to his age and the fact that he's a gaffe machine who doesn't need any assistance from Trump. Several other candidates (Bernie, Buttigieg, Booker, Beto, et al) may present potentially larger targets, IMO, which is one reason I'd rather not see any of them get the nom, tbh. In spite of Trump's advantage as an incumbent, I believe this is the Democrats' race to lose. The only way that will happen is by nominating someone who's guaranteed not to win, which is obviously something we'd like to avoid.

OTOH, it can be argued that this election has already been decided--as a minimal number (if that) of voters are likely to be swayed one way or the other between now and Election Day. What really matters, I think, is which side gets the better turnout.
Do you seriously think Trump somehow just out "bullied" every other Republican politician and also Hillary Clinton and so he won by virtue of coming up with the best mean names or what have you?

I could totally see your point if we were arguing who abandoned the handball court at the playground but this is a country and an election.

I didn't say anything about calling her a name. I talked about narratives. People think well in narratives and will obviously ignore or change facts to fit their preferred narrative.

As I said Biden is a terrible match because if you want to portray Trump as too old, too touchy and unfamiliar with modern norms, too crass, too anti-intellectual and instead he is bombastic and goes from his guts... if you even want to go into things like he is vane and lies about his appearance and his weight... then Biden is a terrible contrast to that narrative.

Biden is even older. Biden is too touchy by modern standards and it doesn't matter if one is MORE inappropriately touching. It's like arguing over whether someone is more wrong for dating a 14 vs 12 year old girl. Biden is gaffe machine and crass. Biden is not much of a thinker and prefers to go from his gut and press the flesh.

So Biden is what... Trump +3 years and minus 10% less offensive? He didn't say fine people, maybe he just said fine senators....

Do you start to get this yet?

Elizabeth Warren is a 70 year old former Republican who, whether to what degree of correct or not claimed Native American status not just as a personal anecdote but in professional settings and circumstances. The general public really won't care about the minutia of to what degree of claim or benefit. The act alone is proof of a narrative that Trump has put out there and will associate with her.

When people talk about deplorables, the older white supposedly racist Americans who voted to Trump what are the claims.... they believe the system is rigged against them. They believe reverse racism exists. They believe that other people are being helped before Americans and that people are using various claims of oppressed groups and classes to control their lives or get ahead.

So you say to that group.....let's elect a 70 year old woman who used to be a Republican but became a Democrat while moving into the real of academia and also claiming she deserved advancement because of her Native American status......

Right or wrong it literally confirms the Trump narrative. It also isn't any sort of contrast. The last election was lost by a too old, too out of touch white woman who got beat by Trump.

Think back to 1992 or 1996.... You had a George H.W. Bush or a Bob Dole running against Clinton/Gore. How easy was it to create a contrast there? Think about Obama vs first McCain and later Romney. Romney actually ran a pretty good campaign but the contrasts were easy to see on top of policies. Obama was young and the future. McCain was the past.

You aren't going to beat a Trump by claiming to be a 5% better version of the past. Warren has loads of exploitable baggage.

Also I'll say this for Trump... it could be all the Diet Coke but the energy level of the man is pretty undebatable at this stage. Half the world wakes up wanting to know what crazy things he tweeted about while they were sleeping. He's never stopped having political rallys and hasn't seemed to dramatically age or slow down at all. Hillary seemed to have to be managed toward the end of the campaign. She seemed to have health and energy concerns that cropped up.

Why are a Sanders, Biden and Warren the claimed best shots at Trump? Can't the Democrats find someone under 70?

Here is a poll from around the same timeframe in 2015...


The top three were Bush, Carson and Huckabee. The poll found Trump losing to Clinton 50-32 and doing worse than almost every other Republican.

How did that end up working out?

Point blank. If the Democrats don't pick someone that creates a strong contrast to Trump and has the energy to handle the heat is going to bring then they are done.

I say this as someone who would love to cast another vote for someone like a Gary Johnson. No Republican or Democrat is going to offer me 100% of that but if one is offering me 55% the other could try 60%....
 
Oct 2018
4,045
5,292
Somewhere they can't find me.
I sincerely wish that Donald Trump would start calling Cory Booker 'Sambo', and thereby make his racism so blatantly obvious that only the Archie Bunkers of America could continue to deny it.

I'm willing to bet it would have zero impact on his approval ratings, while the chorus of "tut-tuts" from the Republicans in Congress would be over before anyone noticed.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy
Oct 2018
4,045
5,292
Somewhere they can't find me.
Do you seriously think Trump somehow just out "bullied" every other Republican politician and also Hillary Clinton and so he won by virtue of coming up with the best mean names or what have you?

I could totally see your point if we were arguing who abandoned the handball court at the playground but this is a country and an election.

I didn't say anything about calling her a name. I talked about narratives. People think well in narratives and will obviously ignore or change facts to fit their preferred narrative.

As I said Biden is a terrible match because if you want to portray Trump as too old, too touchy and unfamiliar with modern norms, too crass, too anti-intellectual and instead he is bombastic and goes from his guts... if you even want to go into things like he is vane and lies about his appearance and his weight... then Biden is a terrible contrast to that narrative.

Biden is even older. Biden is too touchy by modern standards and it doesn't matter if one is MORE inappropriately touching. It's like arguing over whether someone is more wrong for dating a 14 vs 12 year old girl. Biden is gaffe machine and crass. Biden is not much of a thinker and prefers to go from his gut and press the flesh.

So Biden is what... Trump +3 years and minus 10% less offensive? He didn't say fine people, maybe he just said fine senators....

Do you start to get this yet?

Elizabeth Warren is a 70 year old former Republican who, whether to what degree of correct or not claimed Native American status not just as a personal anecdote but in professional settings and circumstances. The general public really won't care about the minutia of to what degree of claim or benefit. The act alone is proof of a narrative that Trump has put out there and will associate with her.

When people talk about deplorables, the older white supposedly racist Americans who voted to Trump what are the claims.... they believe the system is rigged against them. They believe reverse racism exists. They believe that other people are being helped before Americans and that people are using various claims of oppressed groups and classes to control their lives or get ahead.

So you say to that group.....let's elect a 70 year old woman who used to be a Republican but became a Democrat while moving into the real of academia and also claiming she deserved advancement because of her Native American status......

Right or wrong it literally confirms the Trump narrative. It also isn't any sort of contrast. The last election was lost by a too old, too out of touch white woman who got beat by Trump.

Think back to 1992 or 1996.... You had a George H.W. Bush or a Bob Dole running against Clinton/Gore. How easy was it to create a contrast there? Think about Obama vs first McCain and later Romney. Romney actually ran a pretty good campaign but the contrasts were easy to see on top of policies. Obama was young and the future. McCain was the past.

You aren't going to beat a Trump by claiming to be a 5% better version of the past. Warren has loads of exploitable baggage.

Also I'll say this for Trump... it could be all the Diet Coke but the energy level of the man is pretty undebatable at this stage. Half the world wakes up wanting to know what crazy things he tweeted about while they were sleeping. He's never stopped having political rallys and hasn't seemed to dramatically age or slow down at all. Hillary seemed to have to be managed toward the end of the campaign. She seemed to have health and energy concerns that cropped up.

Why are a Sanders, Biden and Warren the claimed best shots at Trump? Can't the Democrats find someone under 70?
Here is a poll from around the same timeframe in 2015...

The top three were Bush, Carson and Huckabee. The poll found Trump losing to Clinton 50-32 and doing worse than almost every other Republican.

How did that end up working out?

Point blank. If the Democrats don't pick someone that creates a strong contrast to Trump and has the energy to handle the heat is going to bring then they are done.

I say this as someone who would love to cast another vote for someone like a Gary Johnson. No Republican or Democrat is going to offer me 100% of that but if one is offering me 55% the other could try 60%....

I was really tempted to type "tl/dr," but since you went through all that effort.... ;)


>> Do you seriously think Trump somehow just out "bullied" every other Republican politician and also Hillary Clinton and so he won by virtue of coming up with the best mean names or what have you?

In part...yeah, I do. But there were other factors involved, as well. He won the primaries thanks to the crowded field of candidates and his built-in constituency: All those who jumped on the "Trump Train" when it pulled into Birther Nation. More was in play during the general election, of course: Hillary's god-awful campaign, her own flaws as a candidate, Bernie Sanders, scare tactics about migrants and Muslims, and, of course, Russia, to name a few.

>> As I said Biden is a terrible match because if you want to portray Trump as too old, too touchy and unfamiliar with modern norms, too crass, too anti-intellectual and instead he is bombastic and goes from his guts... if you even want to go into things like he is vane and lies about his appearance and his weight... then Biden is a terrible contrast to that narrative.

How about portraying Trump as an insane criminal, a racist xenophobe, a habitual liar, and a complete idiot without any regard for (or even a passing awareness of) the U.S. Constitution or the laws of our country? Do you think there might be some room for contrast there?

>> Elizabeth Warren is a 70 year old former Republican who, whether to what degree of correct or not claimed Native American status not just as a personal anecdote but in professional settings and circumstances. The general public really won't care about the minutia of to what degree of claim or benefit. The act alone is proof of a narrative that Trump has put out there and will associate with her.

No offense, but big fucking deal.

>> Also I'll say this for Trump... it could be all the Diet Coke but the energy level of the man is pretty undebatable at this stage. Half the world wakes up wanting to know what crazy things he tweeted about while they were sleeping. He's never stopped having political rallys and hasn't seemed to dramatically age or slow down at all. Hillary seemed to have to be managed toward the end of the campaign. She seemed to have health and energy concerns that cropped up.

Well, I'll give you that, although I attribute it to all the Adderall he snorts. And he is a master propagandist/manipulator of the media. But then, I think that just comes with the turf of being the consummate attention whore he's always been.
 
Last edited:

Similar Discussions