politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020 could be the election that the US finally chooses a wom

First! Like Biden

Also with Warren and Harris having promised to take away everybody's health insurance and bankrupt all the hospitals and Joe Biden having a hard time remembering what his policies are there's KLOBUCHAR

SNP MP complains about non-showing of film shot in Montana.....good to see she's got her priorities right.....

https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/status/1144480185472843776

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

"but it is apparent that Senators Harris and Warren are the ones to beat. "

I can't even begin to describe how far this statement gets ahead of itself

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Well, she's more federal government interventionist, which is not the same thing.

But it some respects that's a bit meaningless, as the more ambitious ideas of the candidates (if elected) would run into Congress and go no further.

Pulpstar said:

"but it is apparent that Senators Harris and Warren are the ones to beat. "

I can't even begin to describe how far this statement gets ahead of itself

There was plenty of that in the last thread - and I see that HYUFD has continued in the same vein below.

edmundintokyo said:

Also with Warren and Harris having promised to take away everybody's health insurance and bankrupt all the hospitals and Joe Biden having a hard time remembering what his policies are there's KLOBUCHAR

95 on BETFAIR.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

SNP MP complains about non-showing of film shot in Montana.....good to see she's got her priorities right.....

https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/status/1144480185472843776

Asking the questions that matter. They really are a grievance machine, aren’t they?

The replies from the faithful are a hoot.....when the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems are nails.....

Someone disagrees with Our Genial Host and has just laid a massive chunk of Harris out to 4.9.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems

You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.

Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

Nigelb said:

95 on BETFAIR.

BARGAIN

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems

You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.

Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print

And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.

The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal

Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it means things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.

HYUFD said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes

Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.

MikeL said:

Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it mean things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.

Yup, it's quite a mad proposition. Even Britain doesn't do it, and the British system is literally communism, complete with waiting for months for things.

The other problem is that medicare rates are way lower than the rates insurance companies pay, so you end up bankrupting a bunch of hospitals.

I think it will turn out to be a problem even among Democratic primary voters, if some feisty centrist with a folksy manner and a strong sarcasm game starts going after the Bernie imitators.

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems

You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.

Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print

And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.

The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal

Which is your opinion, fair enough.

But to suggest that head to head presidential polling against Democratic candidates - some of whom have been national politicians for years, even decades, and others who are at this stage barely known - holds any predictive meaning for the general election at the end of next year, is simply delusional.

What is of interest is how that head to head polling for each candidate changes over time.

What it shows is a left liberal elitist like Warren or Harris is far easier for Trump to beat than a charismatic moderate like Biden

edmundintokyo said:

MikeL said:

Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it mean things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.

Yup, it's quite a mad proposition. Even Britain doesn't do it, and the British system is literally communism, complete with waiting for months for things.

The other problem is that medicare rates are way lower than the rates insurance companies pay, so you end up bankrupting a bunch of hospitals.

I think it will turn out to be a problem even among Democratic primary voters, if some feisty centrist with a folksy manner and a strong sarcasm game starts going after the Bernie imitators.

I think it likely some of these positions will... evolve.
Though probably not Bernie's.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes

Read the first part of my statement - once you've got tax at above 40% for most employment income where else do you get money from.

And it's rapidly approaching 40% if you include Employers NI...

So is not at 40% with Employers NI then, there already is a hefty inheritance tax at 40% on estates over £1 million anyway.

Raise NI on 50 to 65 year olds, Japan, the Netherlands etc fund social care through National Insurance largely

You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5! In that age range you would hit Tory voters hardest. I thought the Conservative Party favoured regressive taxes like VAT. Likewise the Republican Party.

No, hitting Tory voters hardest would be making over 65s pay NI

Yes I am on at 5 for female president. I like that price with Warren and Kamala running for me. It's time. Viva la femme!

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes

Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.

They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc

So you bin them and introduce a wealth tax instead - that will encourage people to ensure their wealth works for a living if nothing else...

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet

Let's not rewrite history so soon after the event. He did not find it easy to beat Hillary. It was a photo finish after a long and bruising campaign.

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes

Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.

They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc

If you taxed wealth whether it was being deployed or sitting idle, you could dispense with those last three. A sensible land value tax could dispense with the first as well.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet

Let's not rewrite history so soon after the event. He did not find it easy to beat Hillary. It was a photo finish after a long and bruising campaign.

It was the biggest win ever.




For Vladimir.

edmundintokyo said:

OK, weird clarification from Kamala on banning private health insurance: Apparently she meant she'd ban her own private health insurance, but everyone else can keep theirs...

https://twitter.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1144584397187944455

See what I mean about evolve....


This will be one of the key battlegrounds of the campaign (both nomination and general election). Threading the needle to win both is going to be tough going.
Though it's helped by Trump essentially not having a healthcare policy.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes

Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.

They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc

If you taxed wealth whether it was being deployed or sitting idle, you could dispense with those last three. A sensible land value tax could dispense with the first as well.

interesting. If that were introduced then you would kill off most family owned farms in this country, which would be a very bad thing IMO. That said, the Brexiteers seem happy enough to kill off farming

Pulpstar said:

I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

& Was it a good or a bad thing ?

It was a very complicated thing, and very controversial at the time.

Larry Sabato's take on the issue as raised last night is interesting:

Harris powerfully reproached Biden for his opposition to school busing to achieve racial balance in the 1970s, noting that she had benefitted from busing. It was another time and place, and older observers (including one of us) recall that plenty of Democrats were damaged or defeated because of their support of busing, which was greatly unpopular among whites and also disliked by many blacks, because it limited extracurricular activities and resulted in many students leaving home very early and returning home after dark. But none of that matters now, and Biden is paying a price. Biden didn’t answer these criticisms well, and some of his staff privately said he hadn’t followed the script they’d devised.

http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2-debates-20-candidates-26-hours/

Pulpstar said:

I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

& Was it a good or a bad thing ?

Bussing kids from their home to schools further away so that there was less segregation between schools. It is certainly perceived to be a good thing by the sounds of it.

"Interesting" choice of media for the wingnut in chief to give his first interview to....

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1144597440475148289

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes

Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.

They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc

"family property" = inherited wealth and privilege, of which there is an over-supply in this country. Better for the tax system to do more to equalise opportunities ex ante rather than taxing success ex post.

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1144602275677134850

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

& Was it a good or a bad thing ?

It was a very complicated thing, and very controversial at the time.

Larry Sabato's take on the issue as raised last night is interesting:

Harris powerfully reproached Biden for his opposition to school busing to achieve racial balance in the 1970s, noting that she had benefitted from busing. It was another time and place, and older observers (including one of us) recall that plenty of Democrats were damaged or defeated because of their support of busing, which was greatly unpopular among whites and also disliked by many blacks, because it limited extracurricular activities and resulted in many students leaving home very early and returning home after dark. But none of that matters now, and Biden is paying a price. Biden didn’t answer these criticisms well, and some of his staff privately said he hadn’t followed the script they’d devised.

http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2-debates-20-candidates-26-hours/

Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

& Was it a good or a bad thing ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing

which brings us onto (one of) our favourite discussion subjects the telly - just started watching This Is Us.

Fantastic.

(Busing is mentioned.)

https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1144601286245007360

Nigelb said:

Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.

Personally I thought Kamala Harris' attack on him was unfair, unreasonable, shouty and frankly rather obnoxious, but I'm not the target market and I expect it will have gone down well.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Jess_Shankleman/status/1144555157792968705

Water and Mars Bars - we'll be fine.
Where's your British spirit ?

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1144604685246062592

edmundintokyo said:

MikeL said:

Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it mean things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.

Yup, it's quite a mad proposition. Even Britain doesn't do it, and the British system is literally communism, complete with waiting for months for things.

The other problem is that medicare rates are way lower than the rates insurance companies pay, so you end up bankrupting a bunch of hospitals.

I think it will turn out to be a problem even among Democratic primary voters, if some feisty centrist with a folksy manner and a strong sarcasm game starts going after the Bernie imitators.

I believe Canada bans private health insurance, although the actual providers are a mixture of public charity and private, the same as the US. I think I'm right in saying Canada outright bans for-profit providers though, although if it's like the US most "not-for-profits" look and quack like a for-profit, making hefty "surpluses".

As to bankrupting hospitals due to lower rates, no-one in the US actually pays the hospitals' sticker prices, insurance co.s "negotiate" massive discounts and even private payers can arrive at payment plans which usually result in a hefty wedge off the notional price.

And most ordinary peoples' employer-provided insurance plans are becoming junk insurance, Obamacare minimums not withstanding, with huge deductibles heading towards $10k per person per year and < 100% reimbursement. Typically you have to pay 10-20% "co-insurance" even after the deductible has been met. So great, the insurance company pays for 90% of your (negotiated down) $150k hospital stay after a bad accident but you're still on the hook for $15k. 4/5s of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and they aren't going to be able to afford that. This is exactly the situation my wife's cousin is in and his family have had to resort to a GoFundMe to pay his bills.

So it ought to be pretty easy for the Democrats to point out how much better universal healthcare would be, but whether they can actually pull that off is another matter.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Jess_Shankleman/status/1144555157792968705

Mr Johnson's genius is of course this also resolves childhood obescity issues at the same time. So this will save the NHS a further £350b a day, week, minute or whatever it was. Brilliant!

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1144602275677134850

Logged in to see how @HYUFD spins this.

eek said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

williamglenn said:

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.

I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes

Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.

Reducing or capping business rates would be a lot better. It is crippling for many small businesses, unless their premises are very small

That screws up local government finances though which does make things more complex...

If sales are moving online, the local govt tax base needs to shift somewhat - certainly more of it will need to come from general taxation.

Gallowgate said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1144602275677134850

Logged in to see how @HYUFD spins this.

Pretty obvious given most of the 41% would never consider Tory or even have their best interests at heart.

macisback said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.

Personally I thought Kamala Harris' attack on him was unfair, unreasonable, shouty and frankly rather obnoxious, but I'm not the target market and I expect it will have gone down well.

Yes but she overplayed her hand by lying on her personal situation regarding that subject and leaves herself wide open, whenever Biden chooses to strike back.

No I think it was effective, what I question is how much of the Dem base is the ultra-woke twitterati that was never going to vote for Biden anyway.

And does one good debate performance really justify making her the 3-1 favourite ?

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems

You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.

Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print

And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.

The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal

Which is your opinion, fair enough.

But to suggest that head to head presidential polling against Democratic candidates - some of whom have been national politicians for years, even decades, and others who are at this stage barely known - holds any predictive meaning for the general election at the end of next year, is simply delusional.

What is of interest is how that head to head polling for each candidate changes over time.

What it shows is a left liberal elitist like Warren or Harris is far easier for Trump to beat than a charismatic moderate like Biden

You simply can't assert that based on polls. At the same stage last time, the head-to-heads were:

54% Clinton 41% Bush
56% Clinton 37% Christie
56% Clinton 39% Rubio
57% Clinton 38% Walker
59% Clinton 34% Trump

In fact I think Clinton would have won against any of the other candidates, and Trump was always likely to be her toughest opponent.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/donald-trump-poll-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush/index.html

It's pretty clear that Biden and Trump will have an overlap and fish in a similar pool. Biden will certainly win votes from Trump. Can anyone say that Harris will win round any Trump 2016 voters? She's relying on unlocking non 2016 voters which is a much more dangerous business. She would be a huge risk.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet

Let's not rewrite history so soon after the event. He did not find it easy to beat Hillary. It was a photo finish after a long and bruising campaign.

The final scoreboard didn't show a photo finish. Trump pretty much won all the states he wanted, some were close but won all the same.

Brom said:

It's pretty clear that Biden and Trump will have an overlap and fish in a similar pool. Biden will certainly win votes from Trump. Can anyone say that Harris will win round any Trump 2016 voters? She's relying on unlocking non 2016 voters which is a much more dangerous business. She would be a huge risk.

I think Warren will be able to win over what could be called Trump Democrats more effectively than Biden, who is typical of the kind of establishment politician that Trump upended in 2015/2016.

AndyJS said:

O/T

"A Frenchman who killed his parents, wife and children after pretending for two decades to be a successful doctor, in a case that inspired a book and films, has been released on parole after 26 years in jail, his lawyer said Friday.

Jean-Claude Romand murdered his parents, wife and two children in 1993 as they were about to learn about his double life."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/notorious-fake-doctor-killed-entire-family-found-freed-26-years/

I don't remember that case, but I can guarantee you there are thousands of people who are pretending to their family that they are doing a job that they aren't. Cases of people leaving for "work" when they don't actually have any work to go to are sadly commonplace. Thankfully these lies rarely lead to murder, but they do sometimes lead to suicide.