Gavin Newsom is the logical choice - far more marketable, younger and looks the part.
... If they push ahead with Biden, the orange game show host should win comfortably.
Play Nice 46th President of the United States: Joe Biden 2: Incidit in scyllam cupiens vitare charybdim
- Thread starter Deaneus!
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Gavin Newsom is the logical choice - far more marketable, younger and looks the part.
... If they push ahead with Biden, the orange game show host should win comfortably.
- Mar 20, 2007
- 30,062
- 28,339
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Would the Dems need to go through a full primary process, or could they just hold a convention where state electors pick whoever they want ?
I don't know the rules, but would think it depends on who wins the necessary delegates. So, depends when he exited the race (again, I don't think they can just remove him, they would have to swing behind another candidate).
If there's enough primaries still to go, where someone already in, or eligible to join late, overtakes his then haul of delegates, it would be clear cut. Would prevent them doing something dodgy like giving them all to Harris because she is on his ticket (presumably).
If it's unclear, then it might just turn into campaigning to the delegates directly and they pick at the convention, as you say.
- Mar 20, 2007
- 30,062
- 28,339
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Immagine if it went to whoever was next on the ballot in most states.
Could end up Trump vs Marianne Williamson
Policy wise, Marianne would be the best of all declared candidates.Immagine if it went to whoever was next on the ballot in most states.
Could end up Trump vs Marianne Williamson
I don't think she'd fare that well in the bloodsport of a presidential race though.
Last edited:
- Mar 20, 2007
- 30,062
- 28,339
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I must admit I haven't followed her campaign this time round, but I recall in 2020 she was planning to solve the middle east crisis with love and positive energy.
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 82,607
- 135,897
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Dean Phillips is gaining some support - his presser says he has gained (from 0 ) trailing Biden %58 to %28
New Hampshire Polls
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/...-biden/video/97f4adb9febfc324881bc4dfb335e49b
I came across him on Andrew Yangs feed. Only issue is he wants Musk in a Cabinet position.
New Hampshire Polls
| Biden | 58% | 28% | Phillips |
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/...-biden/video/97f4adb9febfc324881bc4dfb335e49b
I came across him on Andrew Yangs feed. Only issue is he wants Musk in a Cabinet position.
Immagine if it went to whoever was next on the ballot in most states.
Could end up Trump vs Marianne Williamson
That's not how it would work, but Marianne Williamson would be easily better than Biden (or Newsom - just because the media hype him up doesn't mean he's good. Usually the opposite, pretty safely).
In what ways would she be better?
- Jan 20, 2014
- 592
- 961
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
After I watched a documentary on Obama's 2008 campaign I decided to watch footage of those primary debates. Mainly because I wanted to see him and Hillary Clinton debate. It slipped my mind Biden was in some of those debates. He wasn't a key player in that race so didn't get as much time to talk, but honestly his answers were often better than theirs. Obviously there's a big difference being 65 and 80 years old but it wasn't just the delivery of his answers (speed, coherency, tone of voice) that are obvious in being downhill. It was the content of the answers themselves. For example they all got a question on immigration which was a bit of a leading question because it was using a poll stating the public wanted stronger border security and they thought Bush wasn't doing enough to stop a flow of immigrants but his policies were still better than the Democrats. The moderator brought up that Biden voted for the largest amnesty of illegal immigrants in the 1980s and whether he would do it again as president (no one else was specifically asked that as that vote didn't apply to them). He said yes he'd do it again as president. Then explained why it was good then as it managed to bring millions of people out of the shadows who were ordinary people working and participating in society but on the edge because they didn't have legal rights to home ownership, driving a car, healthcare, tax credits etc, and their kids wouldn't be able to do a lot of things growing up. The sort of thing that is still applicable now.
What struck me as the biggest contrast was he flipped the narrative of the question on its head by saying the way you stem illegal immigration does not require layers more onto border enforcement as it was already stringent enough in 2007 but that you need to work with the countries in the region to make them robust economically and/or end civil disorder internally as a way to long term drive down people in desperation to flee (he said Mexico's economy was fine but their problem was gang violence more than doubled in a few years). Then explained that a lot of those people in any case would qualify legally as refugees if they had the tools to do so but the legal immigration system was downsized and full of hurdles to navigate. Meaning the number of people who were illegal (in 2007) was worse than it should have been because the immigration system was broken on the US-side to process legal applicants. He also said rather than punish people who are found to be illegal immigrants working jobs on farms (as an example) the people who should be prosecuted are the employers to use as a deterrence to exploitation of immigrant works by American employers. While also granting work permits to migrant workers who will not permanently reside in the USA but will work seasonal jobs so that they do not have to be renewed every year taking away the cost and hassle and do not have to be exploited to get work.
I think those answers were sensible and would be supported by the majority of people. It was then and I think it would be now. Yet the fact is he is down 30 points on the subject of immigration and the irony is he has since done a few of those things such as the work permits and getting legal immigration back to pre-pandemic pre-Trump levels and refugee admissions to 30 year highs. I think his age problem and issues of his vigour come into fore when it comes to combatting these issues because the other side will get their smartphones out and film people crossing the border, call it an invasion and get the richest man in the world to promote their claims. If the Biden of 2007 was around I think he would have shut it down rather than let this talking point stick.
What struck me as the biggest contrast was he flipped the narrative of the question on its head by saying the way you stem illegal immigration does not require layers more onto border enforcement as it was already stringent enough in 2007 but that you need to work with the countries in the region to make them robust economically and/or end civil disorder internally as a way to long term drive down people in desperation to flee (he said Mexico's economy was fine but their problem was gang violence more than doubled in a few years). Then explained that a lot of those people in any case would qualify legally as refugees if they had the tools to do so but the legal immigration system was downsized and full of hurdles to navigate. Meaning the number of people who were illegal (in 2007) was worse than it should have been because the immigration system was broken on the US-side to process legal applicants. He also said rather than punish people who are found to be illegal immigrants working jobs on farms (as an example) the people who should be prosecuted are the employers to use as a deterrence to exploitation of immigrant works by American employers. While also granting work permits to migrant workers who will not permanently reside in the USA but will work seasonal jobs so that they do not have to be renewed every year taking away the cost and hassle and do not have to be exploited to get work.
I think those answers were sensible and would be supported by the majority of people. It was then and I think it would be now. Yet the fact is he is down 30 points on the subject of immigration and the irony is he has since done a few of those things such as the work permits and getting legal immigration back to pre-pandemic pre-Trump levels and refugee admissions to 30 year highs. I think his age problem and issues of his vigour come into fore when it comes to combatting these issues because the other side will get their smartphones out and film people crossing the border, call it an invasion and get the richest man in the world to promote their claims. If the Biden of 2007 was around I think he would have shut it down rather than let this talking point stick.
good post
yeah, sensible ideas and discussion have been out the window for little while now, at least from one side of the aisle.
I seem to recall a similar discussion, albeit with much less exposure maybe on a panel, during a recent manufactured immigrant 'crisis'. Maybe is was the dreaded Immigrant Caravan Mach I. I think it got drowned out in other election hot topics of the moment.
She's in favour of a ceasefire rather than the continued arming of a far right, mass murdering regime.
She has her issues, of course, including credibility, and so that enormous failure on the part of the party's left is why you're seeing these signs in New Hampshire at the moment:
She’s a nut case, with one issue you seem to like. There are also groups in NH at the moment encouraging people to write in Joe Biden’s name, which balances out the ceasefire signs.She's in favour of a ceasefire rather than the continued arming of a far right, mass murdering regime.
She has her issues, of course, including credibility, and so that enormous failure on the part of the party's left is why you're seeing these signs in New Hampshire at the moment:
I think consistently responding to criticism about the enabling of a genocide as below is also the sign of a nutcase, as well as a tremendous prick.
So yes, I'll take her on the one issue (plus Medicare for All, the Green New Deal etc). Don't get me wrong, she wouldn't be close to my first pick for President. But there'd be a couple hundred million people I'd prefer between her and Biden.
Also re Williamson, the Dems make out anyone they deem non corporate and actual real left wing as some wacky extremist.
They will smear anyone who won’t serve their corporate interests.
They will smear anyone who won’t serve their corporate interests.
I'm afraid all you are seeing is the difference between having an opinion when your opinion matters, and having one when it doesn't.
If she was running things, there wouldn't be a ceasefire. She may or may not be saying she wanted one, but that would be the sum total of the difference between her an Biden imop.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #417
And so it has started:
The New Hampshire attorney general's office is investigating recorded calls that appear to use a voice crafted to sound like President Biden to tell voters not to cast their ballot in the state's presidential primary on Tuesday.
"Although the voice in the robocall sounds like the voice of President Biden, this message appears to be artificially generated based on initial indications," the AG's office said in a statement.
The call, which was sent Sunday, said, "Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday."
The New Hampshire attorney general's office is investigating recorded calls that appear to use a voice crafted to sound like President Biden to tell voters not to cast their ballot in the state's presidential primary on Tuesday.
"Although the voice in the robocall sounds like the voice of President Biden, this message appears to be artificially generated based on initial indications," the AG's office said in a statement.
The call, which was sent Sunday, said, "Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday."
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #418
Just watched and listened to Elizabeth Warren (age 74) and last week Bernie Sanders (age 84), it isn't always about age.
They spoke with passion, coherently and no lies. Have watched them many times interviewed/speak without script or teleprompter.
Angus King (Independent Maine) speaks well too and seems rather sharp.
They would put much younger people to shame in discussions.
They spoke with passion, coherently and no lies. Have watched them many times interviewed/speak without script or teleprompter.
Angus King (Independent Maine) speaks well too and seems rather sharp.
They would put much younger people to shame in discussions.
I honestly don't think he is. He just has better delivery and doesn't let it worry him when the stuff he's talking about makes 0 sense, just ploughs ahead regardless and confidently even if the actual words he's saying are complete gibberish. Whereas Biden has a tendency to just trail off when he loses the thread of what he's talking about.
Plenty of other examples too - Niki Haley responsible for Capitol security, Jeb Bush responsible for Iraq war, wind farms give you cancer, airports 200 years ago. The list goes on.
Simply put, if the future of the USA for the next 4 years is who is the least senile, my word that county is cooked.
Bugger me, if you have these two as opposing candidates, the spotlight should be on the veeps as the real election race as the probability you will have the veep in power mid term has to be up there.
Bugger me, if you have these two as opposing candidates, the spotlight should be on the veeps as the real election race as the probability you will have the veep in power mid term has to be up there.
Jesus, I’m not generally one to worry that much about this stuff but look at the contrast between his ears and the spray tan on his face.
probably wasn’t a joke and he just didn’t realise because he is senile
- Sep 20, 2010
- 1,683
- 4,445
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
You keep telling us who you wouldn't vote for but offer no alternatives.
Who is your number 1 pick for US President?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
