politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Bye-bye Biden? Warren leads in new national poll, tied for lead in another
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/allahpu ... tional-poll-tied-lead-another/
Published: Sep 25, 2019
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2019-09-25 16:11:16 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 4842
Comments: 35
Bear in mind, these results are trickling in *before* Democratic voters have digested the allegations of corruption made against Biden in the Ukraine matter. Even if they opt not to believe them, how many will conclude that swing voters will believe them next fall and start discounting Biden’s alleged “electability” advantage? Imagine if Trump ends up being impeached for trying to make trouble abroad for a candidate who was never going to be his general election opponent anyway. A game-changing new poll from Quinnipiac: Not only is 27 percent the best Warren’s ever done in a national poll, it’s also the first time she’s led Biden outright in any national poll. As usual, she leads him in enthusiasm too: Fully 70 percent of Dems say they’d be excited to see her as nominee versus 56 percent who say the same of Biden. The real alarm bell for Grandpa Joe, though, is the split among black voters, as Philip Klein rightly notes: In California, it’s a similar story. A new LA Times poll finds Warren jumping to a 29 percent to 22 percent lead in the delegate-rich state overall, but, she’s only trailing Biden 32 percent to 24 percent among black voters. Sen. Kamala Harris, who is both black and from California, was at 18 percent among the group. Not only is Warren now second to Biden among black voters, trailing him 40/19, but Bernie Sanders has 12 percent of that group. If Bernie fades and black progressives begin drifting towards Warren, suddenly she’d be competitive with Joe among voters who are supposed to be his “firewall,” the group that will offset his losses among other demographics by preferring him overwhelmingly. Blacks no longer prefer him overwhelmingly, according to today’s Quinnipiac data. And given the general drift towards Warren in all polling lately, it’s likely that his lead among them will shrink rather than grow. Could the Quinnipiac poll be an outlier? Seems unlikely. This new data that dropped this morning from YouGov confirms that the race is a coin flip right now, with Warren and Biden neck and neck in the mid-20s. % naming candidate as their first choice (among likely voters): Warren: 25% All else 1% or less — G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) September 25, 2019 When Democratic voters are asked whom they’re considering voting for, Warren leads Biden 54/47. There are other polls lately that look like this too — Emerson recently had Biden up 25/23 and NBC/WSJ had it 31/25 in mid-September. There’s no reason, in other words, to think Quinnipiac and YouGov are “bad polls” for Biden or “good polls” for Warren. They seem to accurately reflect the state of the race at the moment, before the impact of the Ukraine stuff has been felt. In fact, as of today, Warren is the first candidate besides Biden to crack 20 percent in the RCP poll of polls since May. She seems to be for real. “But wait,” you say, “national polls are interesting but ultimately don’t matter. Iowa and New Hampshire are what matter.” Right, true — but Warren’s surging there too. I already posted this new Monmouth poll of New Hampshire yesterday but it’s worth eyeballing the numbers again: 1. If the Democratic primary election for president was today, would you vote for [NAMES WERE ROTATED]? [If UNDECIDED: If you had to vote for one of these candidates at this moment, who do you lean toward?] She’s just three points behind Biden in the RCP polling average of the state right now. And Iowa? Warren has led the field there in the last two polls taken, 24/16 over Biden in an Iowa State survey taken in mid-September and 22/20 in a Des Moines Register poll conducted a few days later. She’s up 2.7 points in the RCP average. If you had to make a bet on the Democratic primaries at this particular moment in time, Warren running the table would look like a fairly solid bet. The question is whether South Carolina’s mostly black Democratic electorate would stick with Biden if he lost the first two states or if they’d break for Warren if she won them. The signs there aren’t great for Biden either, per Politico: As strange as it is to imagine after the Democratic field initially ballooned to more than 20 candidates, the actual race could be over quickly once Democrats start voting. Which means Trump will never have a chance to use the Ukraine matter against Biden — but Warren will have lots of chances to use it against Trump. Good lord. Exit question: Kamala Harris is now at three percent nationally, per Quinnipiac? Was even Scott Walker’s 2016 flameout as embarrassing as this? Sep 25 Aug 28 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02 Jun 11 May 21 Apr 30 Mar 28 Biden 25 32 32 34 22 30 35 8 29 Sanders 16 15 14 11 13 19 16 1 19 O'Rourke 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 5 12 Harris 3 7 7 12 20 7 8 8 8 Warren 27 19 21 15 14 15 13 2 4 Booker - 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 Klobuchar 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 Buttigieg 7 5 5 6 4 8 5 0 4 DK/NA 13 9 10 12 12 13 11 8 14 Back in a July poll, Warren was essentially in a three-way tie for second place, with 15 percent nationally, according to Quinnipiac. In that poll, she was at 20 percent among white voters, but way back at six percent among black voters. In a Wednesday poll, she has vaulted to the top, with 27 percent overall, just edging out Joe Biden, at 25 percent. But now among black voters, she’s in second place, at 19 percent. #NEW poll of the 2020 Democratic primary from The Economist and YouGov:
Biden: 25
Sanders: 16
Buttigieg: 7
Harris: 6
O’Rourke: 2
Yang: 2 TREND: (with leaners) Sept.
2019 May
2019 Elizabeth Warren 27% 8% Joe Biden 25% 36% Bernie Sanders 12% 18% Pete Buttigieg 10% 9% Kamala Harris 3% 6% Cory Booker 2% 2% Tulsi Gabbard 2% <1% Amy Klobuchar 2% 2% Tom Steyer 2% n/a Andrew Yang 2% 1% Beto O’Rourke 1% 2% Biden’s level of support in South Carolina makes it his firewall state, but even in South Carolina there are troubling signs of erosion. While he remains on top, among black voters, who are more than 60 percent of the Democratic electorate, Biden has plummeted 19 points in Tyson’s polls. That’s a potential leading indicator of the problems he could face after South Carolina’s Feb. 29 primary when many of the minority-heavy Southeastern states — as well as Texas and California — beginning voting on Super Tuesday, March 3, and thereafter.
Poster Comment:
Brutal numbers for Biden. And these were before most of the news about his own Ukraine scandal came out.
Will Team Biden even survive the journey to the Iowa caucus? And Warren is taking the black vote away from him, his last stronghold.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
A bit on a subject you've mentioned before, a national wealth registry:
Sanders introduced an expansive wealth tax on Tuesday. The proposal is even more aggressive than that of the Warren campaign. It would levy a progressive wealth tax, starting at 1 percent for fortunes valued between $32 to $50 million and up to 8 percent on those in excess of $10 billion. That makes for a much more aggressive scheme than Warren’s plan, which has just two brackets: a 2 percent tax on wealth in excess of $50 million and a 3 percent tax on wealth in excess of $1 billion. A wealth tax is a direct tax levied on the assets a person holds. This makes it distinct from many other taxes, such as income or sales, which are levied when money or assets change hands. Under Sanders’s plan, a tax would be levied on an individual reported net worth. To see that the wealth tax is actually paid, the Sanders campaign also called for harsher enforcement mechanisms. That includes the establishment of a “national wealth registry,” although what or who would be “registered” under such a system remains unclear.
HotAir: Get ready for the “national wealth registry”
Warren might be able to sell this. And we can have some confidence that she would actually do it, given what she did in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And this is why Wall Street fears her almost as much as Sanders.
Anyway, I still say Warren is the one. She excites a lot of Dems, they like her politics, blacks are starting to like her better than Biden, what is there not to like for a Dem (other than those capitalist pigs on Wall Street).
On the up side for Trump, Warren has all the charisma of Hitlery on a bender. She just isn't that good a politician in real life. She's never actually been very popular in Massachusetts even.
Biden was really only getting worse as a candidate the more he campaigned and got tired; the Dems all seem to think Biden is frail. And Biden has that history of brain surgeries (and hair plugs). And groping young girls. And deals involving Ukraine and China and Biden's son. And saying odd things. Biden just seems off, even for Biden. I think Biden is almost ready to implode and that Warren will take his place. The Dems badly want to unify on a nominee very early. IA/NV/NH caucus/primaries might be decisive in choosing the Dem nominee.
Warren is vacuuming up black supporters at the expense of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker and Joe Biden. She's grabbing some of Bernie's voters too. Warren is sort of a middle-of-the-road Dem in 2019, far Left but in a centrist way so that the far Left can unify to support her. Buttigieg and other lesser Dem candidates are losing voters to her. Her surge definitely is coming at almost everyone else's expense. She has a wide and growing draw of support across the Dem party.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
It will be a Warren-Buttijig ticket. Woman and gay guy.
#3. To: Tooconservative (#0) (Edited)
Warren is the one I did not want to see as nominee. She is so full of anger! The minute she comes on the tv, I grab the remote. I can't stand her finger pointing, obnoxious persona. The hope is that others feel the same way on her side of the aisle.
This wealth tax will tick off big donors. They don't mind being taxed more, but touching their wealth is another matter. Bezos would be paying $9 billion in taxes if she went thru with this position.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#1)
I dont see black males supporting a weak freak like chief babybloodonherhands.
#5. To: redleghunter (#2)
It will be a Warren-Buttijig ticket. Woman and gay guy.
I think Buttigieg is too much of a lightweight. From mayor of a small town to VP? This isn't Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Same for Beto. Wang is fun but a little far out. Klobuchar, meh, no better than Harris really. There just aren't that many successful Dem senators and governors in the 55-65 age group to choose from.
Warren will pick a more centrist figure of the far Left, probably male. Booker starts to look better as a known attack dog and to lock down the black vote and many non-white voters, whether Asian or Indian or from the Mideast or wherever. And the Dems are making a major play for Native American votes for 2020, really courting them. No particular person stands out. This is how Hitlery ended up with boring Tim Kaine as her VP pick. Like Hitlery, Warren can't risk having a VP that is a better pol than she is. It's hard to think of any Dem governors or senators or senior statesman types that would have much appeal as a VP choice.
If I had to guess at the Dem 2020 ticket today, I'd say Warren-Booker is an easy combo.
#6. To: WWG1WWA (#3)
This wealth tax will tick off big donors. They don't mind being taxed more, but touching their wealth is another matter. Bezos would be paying $9 billion in taxes if she went thru with this position.
Warren and Sanders scare the crap out of the old money and Wall Street types and the tycoons. Warren is more feared because she's seen as almost as radical as Sanders but, unlike Sanders, could actually get elected prez.
Bezos and Soros and Buffet and the Waltons and the Kochs will all be free to vote against Warren. And to fund PACs to persuade others to do the same.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#4)
I dont see black males supporting a weak freak like chief babybloodonherhands.
I did mention above that Booker is hanging around with his presidential season calendar wipe open. I bet Booker won't be launching any attacks on Warren.
It wouldn't surprise me if Booker has been running for VP all along. He's a natural fit to balance a ticket for Dems. And he's plenty far Left too.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Now if Warren were a black woman, but I'm not allowed to go there?
#9. To: paraclete (#8)
Now if Warren were a black woman, but I'm not allowed to go there?
Would you settle for a #FakeCherokee if she were further Left than Karl Marx?
#10. To: Tooconservative, paraclete (#9) (Edited)
Would you settle for a #FakeCherokee
The fact that this Cherokee thing is the main argument against Warren shows two things. First her opponents are desperate, second she is going to be the next President (unless Trump has some tremendous successes).
further Left than Karl Marx?
Taxing great wealth is not Karl Marx idea, abolishing it altogether is. Taxing it (akin to FDR New Deal) would prolong the life of capitalism (like restart of Monopoly Game or Jubilee year).
Radical Marxists would not have it. They would rather prefer greater concentration of wealth in few hands and misery of common people, so revolution becomes possible.
#11. To: A Pole (#10)
Warren is a cunt and you suck Obama's balls. You are a murderer like the cunt. If those babies had guns I wish they would boow your brains out for trying to murder them
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
All those insults to preserve great wealth from taxation?
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11) (Edited)
I did actually LOL for about thirty seconds after that volley.
I think those fetuses should arm themselves to defend their lives against people like A Hole.
#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)
I am opposed to abortion (unless to save the mother).
And I do not believe that you are against or really care. It is a Red Herring like Cherokee things to protect great wealth of your idols.
#15. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#14)
It is a Red Herring like Cherokee things to protect great wealth of your idols.
I don't care about the tycoons and old money interests and I certainly don't care about Wall Street.
I don't mind either Sanders' or Warren's wealth confiscation tax system. I think that, for outfits like the Walmart heirs or Amazon or Monsanto, that they game the system unfairly, buy lobbyists and local and state officials, and screw everyone. They get no sympathy from me. They quite often deliberately game the system and bend the law and use teams of attorneys to drag it out for so many years that their strategy deliberately frustrates the intent of legislators and voters. And it is quite deliberate, a way to play the system.
It isn't the wealth confiscation schemes these Dems have that keep me far away from voting for them. It's all the rest of the Left baggage that goes along with it.
And that is Warren's chance at the WH. And it is why Wall Street really does fear her, why she didn't run in 2016 when Hitlery was obviously so weak. Wall Street doesn't fear Trump at all.
Vic is interested in this tax scheme as well, hence my flag to him. If Warren goes far enough with it, Vic may be torn between Trump and Warren as to which one will enact the policies he wants as prez. It's interesting when you finally find a voter that isn't voting for a Lesser Of Two Evils but for a Greater Of Two Goods. Vic may face that choice in 2020. Vic may be, in 2020, the rarest bird going to the polls. And that is interesting.
#16. To: A Pole, Tooconservative, paraclete (#10)
The fact that this Cherokee thing is the main argument against Warren shows two things. First her opponents are desperate, second she is going to be the next President (unless Trump has some tremendous successes).
Should Warren be nominated, Trump will be reelected in a landslide. Her stated policies may work in a radical socialist Democrat primary, but would challenge George McGovern for the record for electoral college failure (520-17).
#17. To: nolu chan (#16)
Should Warren be nominated, Trump will be reelected in a landslide. Her stated policies may work in a radical socialist Democrat primary, but would challenge George McGovern for the record for electoral college failure (520-17).
Shhh... Now that Biden's ship is on the rocks, we don't want to scare them away from the true disaster awaiting them: Warren 2020.
#18. To: Tooconservative (#15)
Vic is interested in this tax scheme as well, hence my flag to him. If Warren goes far enough with it, Vic may be torn between Trump and Warren as to which one will enact the policies he wants as prez. It's interesting when you finally find a voter that isn't voting for a Lesser Of Two Evils but for a Greater Of Two Goods. Vic may face that choice in 2020. Vic may be, in 2020, the rarest bird going to the polls. And that is interesting.
Warren's policies are music to my ears: a gross wealth tax - THAT is what we need to balance the tax code.
Of course the devil is in the details, and I think her starting threshold is WAY too high. $50 million? Seriously? It should start at $11 million - that is the level at which estates of married couples can pass without estate taxes, so that is the logical place where "great wealth" begins.
Her rates are right where I would put them too. Bernie's 8% rate is ridiculous, unworkable, radical redistribution - it would wreck the economy. 2-3% is entirely bearable, will not wreck the economy, but definitely will stop, and reverse, both the overconcentration of wealth at the top, and the expanding budget deficit.
The gross wealth tax is PRECISELY what we need, and I am as in favor of that as a pillar of things to come as I was of the particular pillar in Trump's platform for which is supported him (peace with Russia).
The other great thing in Warren's plan is her version of universal Medicare. It is sensible, and workable, and doesn't destroy some element of the economy.
Those two things: wealth taxation and universal health insurance are solid gold for me - absolute pillars of what I believe in.
If she runs on those things and her party backs her plan, I think she will be hard to beat unless the economy is doing very, very well.
As for Trump, I still support him. The Republican Party itself lost my provision support when they did not support him on the key issues that I support him for. Of course they pushed through their bad tax law - they had the majority and nothing could stop them. BUT they blocked Trump on every single thing I cared about: they did not repeal Obamacare, they did not fund the Wall.
For his part, perhaps Trump DOES have good relations with Russia, and he and Putin very prudently keep it on the down-low given the effort by Democrats and - importantly to me - Republicans (such as McCain, and Graham, and Bolton, and Romney) to block the establishment of easy and open good relations with Putin. Their efforts to derail him with regards to his most important foreign policies: Russia, China, North Korea and the Border Wall have absolutely broken any residual "default" support I had for Republicans. I used to say they were bad on tax policy but better on foreign policy. Now, I can truthfully say that the only policy on which the Republicans seem to have any redeeming qualities is that their Senators will approve Trump judicial appointees.
There's another thing that is crucial. But the Supreme Court has been too deferential to police abuse for my tastes, and the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. So I'm not gushing with support for them - I just think they're better than they probably would be if appointed by Democrats.
I still believe that Trump wants the good relations with Russia, a settlement of North Korea, to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela, containment of Iran without war, fair trade with China, and immigration control (including the all-important Border Wall - which is key because the opposition has made it THE symbolic point of resistance - its erection, therefore, is the explicit in-your-face, visible sign of something that the other side screams is FOLLY. It may be folly, but I want it, and part of the REASON I want it is because the other side screams it wrong, it won't work, it's useless. I think it will work, and that when it's up it will be part of the comprehensive effort that finally controls the borders. BUT EVEN IF I'M WRONG AND IT DOESN'T, EVEN IF those opposed to the Wall who say it won't work turn out to be right, I want to build it anyway, as a sign of who is master. I want the Wall, I have heard your objections, I reject them, I have seen the degree to which you oppose it, so building it is taking my boot, putting on your neck, and making it clear that, politically, I and my ideas are Master in this country, and even if the ideas are bad, you will obey them and pay for them and submit to the law - we are not equals: I am more powerful, therefore you MUST work with me, even if you hate me, because when you start spewing the hate, it makes me want to win symbolic fights that SHOW YOU that my boot in on your neck, and you cannot get away, and you will obey, and you will pay.
In other words, the border wall, for me, is symbolic of the authority that police brutality is for misterwhite. To him, all of the screaming against the police have deafened him to justice. Now, with him, it's just: This is the way it's going to BE, goddamn you, and you will OBEY or we will beat you to death, capische?
That's where I am on Border control and the wall.
Now, I also commend Trump for his systematic deregulation. As long as that is accompanied by the wealth tax, the hefty concentration of wealth at the top that deregulation will accelerate is fine.
On climate change, I am ambivalent. I can see that the climate has warmed substantially since my childhood. I sense it, and experience it. I think it's a matter of the sun's output, not pollution, but I am do allow that the science may be right. The science seems to have been manipulated, but I allow that maybe it hasn't been. But then it comes back to the question of Who is to be Master. When I see 12 year old grating Greta with her puffed up angry face, and I see that SHE is going to set policy, if her ilk have their way - well, no. No, once again I am Master, this is my country and my world and my status quo, and you have to CONVINCE ME that pollution controls have benefits BESIDES this chimera of climate control. Because I see what those guys are doing is seeking POLITICAL control, through control of all human activity, in the same of the environment, the terms of discussion of which they desperately want to control.
No. I will not cede control of the government and of policy. If I'm wrong? Well, the seas rise and a bunch of billionaire's properties are flooded by the sea, and the next street back - the folks off the beach now - now have beachfront property and a windfall. Fish stocks go down, people in lowlands suffer. It's all too bad. Am I willing to give up control to prevent that? No. So, if it's really going to happen, and it's the most important thing to you to stop it, then do not come before me with an imperious air that "science" is on your side - what if it is? I was willing to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki and firebomb Dresden to establish who will be master, and ignoring you in your power grab is crucial. If that means 300 million human deaths in a century, to keep power, that is a price I am willing to pay.
I'd rather not. Nevertheless, I sit on the status quo throne now, and you will not come and hector me with your damned speeches. I don't give a damn what YOU believe. I am the status quo, and you have to cater to ME, or you don't get power. To quote Lucifer in the Rolling Stones' song: "So if you meet me have some courtesy, have some sympathy and some taste. Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste."
That's the way it is.
I detest Republicans because they thwart what I want too often. I detest Democrats because they bitch and lecture and make grabs for power that are unacceptable.
But yeah, Warren offers some golden pillars, and I think she will be the nominee.
And choosing between her - whose policies I know will actually get enacted by a Democrat Congress - and Trump, many of whose policies I support but that he hasn't been able to get done thanks to the Republicans in Congress knifing him in the back over and over - well, that's going to be a tough call.
Here's how I'll probably vote.
IF the economy is doing well, Trump doesn't abandon anything, and it looks to me, with MY special sauce judgment and crystal ball and mystical glimpses of the future, not some "polling data" - as though the Republicans will hold the Senate, I'll vote for Trump. That way, I'll get the judges, the Border will be brought under control (he won the court cases), deregulation will continue apace, and I expect in his second term we'll get settlements with China, North Korea, Venezuela, and have better relationships with Russia (which will then control Syria and Iran much better).
But, if the economy falls apart, and the Democrats impeach Trump and the Republicans prove faithless and in substantial numbers abandon him - if they don't stand by him - and it's clear to me that the Democrats are headed for a sweep, then - even though I love Trump - I will vote for Warren, because she will enact two of the pillars of what I believe in.
In fact, I get my cake and eat it too, because I live in Connecticut, where my vote in the general election is pointless, but where my vote in the primary can help make Warren the nominee.
I like the idea of having two candidates whose key policies I support, so that I win no matter who wins. I also like the idea of getting to vote for both of them, in turn, in the primaries and the general election.
It warms the cockles.
#19. To: nolu chan (#16)
Should Warren be nominated, Trump will be reelected in a landslide. Her stated policies may work in a radical socialist Democrat primary, but would challenge George McGovern for the record for electoral college failure (520-17).
Wanna bet?
If this were 1980 that would be true. But the warnings about Reaganomics - that the "trickle down" economics actually results in the rich pulling up the ladder - that is visible everywhere.
And so many families are now crashing out of the middle class because of illness that can't be covered.
No, the jig is up. There will be substantial wealth redistribution in America, from the very top.
It won't be crazy Bernie style - he won't be elected.
Warren is measured, a capitalist not a socialist, and a social democrat, as opposed to a democratic socialist. There is a world of difference between the two.
Universal health insurance paid by taxes, and wealth taxation are key aspects of the future, and of the solution to two of the most pressing and persistent problems of America.
Trouble is, the Republicans won't ever acknowledge either thing. They keep holding the fort trying to resist all change. In the Obamacare age, they had the opportunity to present their OWN policy option, but all that is, is status quo.
And then came the Obamacare repeal, and now that insurers are making a ton of money from it, the status quo is: don't repeal it.
Anyway, it's pointless to argue with Republicans on these things.
They will be determined by power, not by argument. My part of the country: the Independent middle, decides everything, and the Republicans have lost us on untaxing the rich - no, they must be taxed more to bring what they pay in line with the far heavier tax burden that we bear: the rich have to pay the same percentage of THEIR wealth in taxes that the middle class does. Right now they pay FAR less. That will end.
And everybody needs government health insurance. There's no other way to afford care against diseases that randomly strike everybody.
Those will be the issues THIS election that will move the middle towards Warren, if she's the nominee.
The wild card is Trump. HE has always believed in some sort of universal care. If HE co-opts that issue, he gives the middle the ability for the middle to vote for our policy.
Likewise, if he agrees that the overconcentration of wealth at the top needs to be addressed, and agrees to something like the wealth tax, and says he's going to focus on making the economy more competitive and responsive so that more people get rich and have to pay those taxes - well, he will have found the sweet spot.
The Democrats are all going to come out and vote for their nominee. The Republicans always vote.
The question is what people like me - the Independent middle will do.
Warren v. Trump will be a very hard decision. Biden v. Trump is easy: Trump. Anybody else v. Trump is easy: Trump.
With Warren, it's hard because she has the right policies, and only Democrats can get those things through...unless Trump surprises us.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
Warren's policies are music to my ears:
You’re a sick fuck... and if you were one of the many banned from Free Republic, it was 100% justified.
Your momma should have suffocated you at birth, and ate your bones before they hardened.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
I like the idea of having two candidates whose key policies I support, so that I win no matter who wins. I also like the idea of getting to vote for both of them, in turn, in the primaries and the general election.
LF's only swing voter.
I just hope you're not too pleased with yourself. : )
#22. To: GrandIsland, Vicomte13 (#20)
Your momma should have suffocated you at birth, and ate your bones before they hardened.
Well, as long as she didn't abort him in the womb...
LOL
#23. To: GrandIsland (#20)
Your momma should have suffocated you at birth, and ate your bones before they hardened.
She didn't, but you're going to meet our Father before I do.
#24. To: Tooconservative (#21)
I just hope you're not too pleased with yourself. : )
Have you ever known me not to be supremely satisfied with myself?
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
Can't say that I have. You make happiness a priority. I suspect you pay a certain hidden price for that priority in life. Of course, we all make choices.
It's funny how most people think happiness is the ultimate goal in life. Or that living longer is the best life. But what if those aren't the best goals? A long but pointless life is no blessing. And some of mankind's best moments were not happy ones. I don't admire short and unhappy lives but I don't believe that a long life or a hedonistic life are necessarily the best lives a human can live.
#26. To: A Pole (#10)
not concerned about cherokee, that can only be a local issue as to marxist, well we have all been there an it isn't pleasant so noone wants rerun
#27. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#19)
With Warren, it's hard because she has the right policies, and only Democrats can get those things through...unless Trump surprises us.
If she gets the chance to.
HotAir: Wall Street Democrats threaten to sit out 2020 if Warren is the nominee
| CNBC: |
|---|
| Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination. In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race. “You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump,’” said a senior private equity executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity in fear of retribution by party leaders… “They will not support her. It would be like shutting down their industry,” an executive at one of the nation’s largest banks told CNBC, also speaking on condition of anonymity. |
I'm feeling pretty smug myself to see this article today since I've been mentioning how much Wall Street Dems dislike Warren and that probably prevented her from running in 2016. They haven't changed their minds about her, it seems.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#25)
You make happiness a priority.
When God wants me to do something and tells me so, I do that. When God gives no indication, I do what I want, to the extent I can.
#29. To: GrandIsland (#20)
You’re a sick fuck... and if you were one of the many banned from Free Republic, it was 100% justified.
Is that old site still in business?
That guy started out with wide-open vistas, a place where a whole movement met, wit wit with first mover power and potential.
Then he managed it like an epileptic with Tourette's, and managed to turn a s silk purse into a sow's ear.
#30. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#19)
With Warren, it's hard because she has the right policies
Posted without comment.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/warren-backs-aocs-illegal-immigrant-welfare-plan/
Warren Backs AOC’s Illegal Immigrant Welfare PlanBill package includes federal rent control, welfare for illegal immigrants and ex-cons
Collin Anderson - October 1, 2019 5:00 AM
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren endorsed a Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) policy proposal that includes taxpayer-funded welfare benefits for illegal immigrants.
Ocasio-Cortez's proposal, dubbed "A Just Society," calls for nationwide rent control and bans the federal government from denying welfare benefits based on an individual's immigration status and previous criminal convictions. Warren became the first Democratic presidential candidate to endorse the plan, calling it "just the type of bold, comprehensive thinking we'll need" to make "big, structural change."
Ocasio-Cortez is considered to be "one of the most important endorsements in America," and Warren's immediate support of her latest policy marks another attempt to win the freshman congressman's nod of approval. Warren's quick embrace of Ocasio-Cortez's plan is the latest sign of the social media superstar's policy impact on the Democratic presidential field.
Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Warren returned requests for comment.
Ocasio-Cortez's proposal, consisting of six separate bills, calls for the expansion of welfare. Bills three and four make it illegal for the federal government to deny welfare benefits to ex-convicts and illegal immigrants. The legislation does not address how to pay for the rising cost of welfare, nor does it explain how it would accomplish its goals.
"It's been really hard for me to find housing. I have the money to move places and stuff, but they deny me for my felony history. It's not right," a man with a face tattoo said in the legislative package's announcement video.
Ocasio-Cortez's second bill, titled "The Place to Prosper Act," calls for federal rent control by imposing a 3 percent national cap on annual rent increases. Similar legislation has failed at the local level amid concerns that such policies increased housing prices while limiting supply. A recent study by the American Economic Association found that San Francisco rent control policy "drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law." The Council of Economic Advisers found that in 11 metropolitan areas with housing regulations, deregulation would reduce homelessness by an average of 31 percent. More than 80 percent of economists surveyed by the University of Chicago in 2012 found rent control to be bad policy.
Ocasio-Cortez's proposal also includes an official poverty guideline that accounts for "new necessities," such as internet access, while the fifth bill creates a "worker-friendly score" based on union membership and other factors that would be used to evaluate or award government contracts.
The last bill in Ocasio-Cortez's proposal establishes health care, housing, and healthy food as government-provided rights.
A Just Society is Ocasio-Cortez's latest major policy initiative since introducing the Green New Deal, a $94.4 trillion environmental policy proposal that would have no effect on the environment.
All major Democratic presidential candidates quickly supported the Green New Deal, including Warren, Sanders, former vice president Joe Biden, and South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg.
To date, only Warren has endorsed "A Just Society."
#31. To: nolu chan (#30)
Warren is calculating how far Left she has to go to grab the nomination.
She worries about how she'll tack back to the political center to pick up the indies after getting the nomination.
But without the nomination, none of it means anything.
She doesn't want to be the next Hitlery, full of regrets for the rest of her life over something as simple as paying a few campaign visits to MI/WI/PA. Or taking the most hard-Left positions during the early primaries.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)
She worries about how she'll tack back to the political center to pick up the indies after getting the nomination.
They all have an epiphany after the nomination. Sometimes their pre-nomination insanity makes effective campaign ads for the opposition.
#33. To: nolu chan (#30)
Rent control is bad policy. Much better policy is government-built housing projects for the very poor.
Government projects (not prisons) should house the derelict homeless and those who cannot afford other housing. People who can afford better housing than that, and who want to, can rent on the private market.
The private market needs firm regulation for health and safety standards (there are grim illegal tenements in New York, still, and the landlords who operate them should be punished financially and criminally when they are caught), but rent control is a mistake. Build a lot of cheap government welfare housing, so that there is no homelessness, and leave the nicer things to the private market.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
How does one politically sell welfare for illegal aliens to the taxpayers and voters who must pay for it?
#35. To: nolu chan (#34)
How does one politically sell welfare for illegal aliens to the taxpayers and voters who must pay for it?
No idea. That's their problem. I don't think they can sell it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]