The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Danoff]

I'm of the opinion that divisiveness is really harming the populations of the world right now, destroying a lot of value, hindering progress, and making us less safe. I see Trump riding a wave of divisiveness, and I think that it harms the country (and the world). Bernie represents that same us vs. them divisiveness, just with a different view of who is "us" and who is "them".

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm of the opinion that divisiveness is really harming the populations of the world right now, destroying a lot of value, hindering progress, and making us less safe. I see Trump riding a wave of divisiveness, and I think that it harms the country (and the world). Bernie represents that same us vs. them divisiveness, just with a different view of who "us" is and who "them" are.

At least Yang's divisiveness scapegoated the machines. He was managing to unite people against a common enemy that wasn't other people. Have other recent politicians managed that feat? #stillyanggang

 

[Biggles]

Figures in from the Super Tuesday voting appear to show that enthusiasm for Sanders failed to translate into getting more people to the polls. For example:

In Virginia, 1.3 million Democrats voted, nearly double the 722,000 Democrats who voted in the 2016 primary, and also far ahead of turnout in 2008, which was 976,000. Biden won the state overwhelmingly, with 53 percent of the vote to Sanders’s 23 percent.

“It doesn't seem great for Sanders’s electability narrative that turnout seems to be increasing more in states where he isn’t doing as well,”said analyst Nate Silver, founder of the data journalism site FiveThirtyEight.

In Fairfax County, Va. — the dense suburban county just outside Washington, D.C. — Biden received almost 129,000 votes, compared to the 88,000 votes Hillary Clinton received there in the 2016 primary.

The key to success for the Democrats in the GE will be bringing moderate voters to their side, not motivating young people to vote. Most Americans (like M. Danoff even) are not looking for a revolution, they're looking for a return to civility.

 

[Swagger897]

I think what it also demonstrates to me is the deeply rooted misogyny in American society. Hillary Clinton was in every way a stronger candidate than Joe Biden. She needed the whole weight of the Democratic establishment behind her to come out ahead of Bernie Sanders. Good 'ol Joe has come out ahead in spite of his own worst efforts. Being a strong woman is just a tough sell to a big chunk of the American public.

So HRC should’ve been elected just for the sake of being a woman and discounting her prior record?

And if I’m not wrong, Sanders was the favorite of 2016 only to have the rug pulled out from under him by the DNC, because HRC was able to have larger donors give to the party than Sanders could with his “movement.”

 

[Biggles]

So HRC should’ve been elected just for the sake of being a woman and discounting her prior record?

And if I’m not wrong, Sanders was the favorite of 2016 only to have the rug pulled out from under him by the DNC, because HRC was able to have larger donors give to the party than Sanders could with his “movement.”

Not at all. Of course HRC should not have been elected "just for the sake of being a woman". Obviously there are a lot of variables involved. But it's hard not to see Biden's "success" with a very lacklustre performance in the primaries, compared with Elizabeth Warren's dynamic campaign & lack of success, as partly a consequence of "just being a man".

Maybe the DNC was not enthusiastic about Sanders, but the bottom line is that Sanders was not "the favourite" in the 2016 primaries - he did not win a majority of the popular vote. Clinton received 16,914, 722 votes to Sanders 13,206,428.

 

[Danoff]

Not at all. Of course HRC should not have been elected "just for the sake of being a woman". Obviously there are a lot of variables involved. But it's hard not to see Biden's "success" with a very lacklustre performance in the primaries, compared with Elizabeth Warren's dynamic campaign & lack of success, as partly a consequence of "just being a man".

Maybe it's just that Hillary was profoundly unlikable and corruption issues followed the Clintons around. And maybe Warren's platform isn't that appealing compared to Sanders for a lot of voters.

Biden represents safety to a lot of voters (he was VP under Obama after all), and Trump is causing a flight to safety. The American popular vote has gone Black Man, Black Man, White Woman in the last 3 presidential elections, representing a span that goes back to the election of 2008. I think a lot of Americans are pretty open minded about their candidates. I'd like to think that we've gotten to the point where we can stop making everything about gender, skin color, or sexuality, and focus on the actual campaigns.

 

[Jezza819]

If you don't mind me asking, would your vote for Biden be to purely get Trump out of office? I can support that position, but I still don't think I could bring myself to check Biden's box on my ballot.

Speaking for myself 100% yes. Biden wasn't my first choice either but as I said earlier, I see the I would vote for who ever ends up with the nomination

He's not "senile", just a little ... slow. Not sure it matters that much, it's the people he has around him that will count. I can't seem him running for a second term, so the VP choice will be important. I could see the possible advantages of choosing Warren, although Buttigieg would be a logical VP in terms of political stance. IMO Biden is going to need a strong VP in order to go up successfully against Trump.

I think what it also demonstrates to me is the deeply rooted misogyny in American society. Hillary Clinton was in every way a stronger candidate than Joe Biden. She needed the whole weight of the Democratic establishment behind her to come out ahead of Bernie Sanders. Good 'ol Joe has come out ahead in spite of his own worst efforts. Being a strong woman is just a tough sell to a big chunk of the American public.

I would love to see Buttigieg on the ticket not only because I think he's a pretty good guy but I would really be curious to see just how low Trump and conservatives would go in order to attack him. Personally I would like to see maybe Klobuchar as VP.

Jess Sessions almost won a Senate seat in Alabama, oh my god.

I've been to Alabama. Several times. Have any of you been to Alabama?

It lives up to the hype, let's just say that. Once you've been there, their electoral choices make perfectly good sense.

I have lived in Alabama all of my life and it's never changed and probably isn't going to change in the near future. All of the local and statewide political ads are always the same thing, God & Guns, supporting Trump, hating immigrants, rinse & repeat. It's nauseating. Nothing about education, infrastructure, etc. You know, kind of important stuff. Oh well, that's why one description of Alabama I heard a couple of years ago is very accurate. Alabama, first alphabetically, dead last in everything else.

 

[Biggles]

Maybe it's just that Hillary was profoundly unlikable and corruption issues followed the Clintons around. And maybe Warren's platform isn't that appealing compared to Sanders for a lot of voters.

Biden represents safety to a lot of voters (he was VP under Obama after all), and Trump is causing a flight to safety. The American popular vote has gone Black Man, Black Man, White Woman in the last 3 presidential elections, representing a span that goes back to the election of 2008. I think a lot of Americans are pretty open minded about their candidates. I'd like to think that we've gotten to the point where we can stop making everything about gender, skin color, or sexuality, and focus on the actual campaigns.

True. I'd agree with most of that ... but Trump wasn't profoundly unlikeable & corrupt? Look at the stats: 45 - 0 to date. I just think a woman's still faced with having to be a lot better candidate than the man she's running against to get over that statistical hump.

 

[Biggles]

I have lived in Alabama all of my life and it's never changed and probably isn't going to change in the near future. All of the local and statewide political ads are always the same thing, God & Guns, supporting Trump, hating immigrants, rinse & repeat. It's nauseating. Nothing about education, infrastructure, etc. You know, kind of important stuff. Oh well, that's why one description of Alabama I heard a couple of years ago is very accurate. Alabama, first alphabetically, dead last in everything else.

What about Mississippi?

 

[Danoff]

True. I'd agree with most of that ... but Trump wasn't profoundly unlikeable & corrupt? Look at the stats: 45 - 0 to date. I just think a woman's still faced with having to be a lot better candidate than the man she's running against to get over that statistical hump.

Trump is certainly likable. I'm not saying I'm fond of him, but people do like him quite a lot. Moreso than Biden, Hillary, McCain, Romney, Gore... He energizes his base the way Bernie does. Hillary was more of an Anti-Trump candidate. And she still got more votes. If anything she ran a worse campaign. I think she was a worse candidate than Trump and got more votes anyway. Not because she's a woman, but because people liked her platform better.

This time around, Trump is clearly corrupt. But this time around, Trump's faithful have gone full-believer.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Trump is certainly likable. I'm not saying I'm fond of him, but people do like him quite a lot. Moreso than Biden, Hillary, McCain, Romney, Gore... He energizes his base the way Bernie does. Hillary was more of an Anti-Trump candidate. And she still got more votes. If anything she ran a worse campaign. I think she was a worse candidate than Trump and got more votes anyway. Not because she's a woman, but because people liked her platform better.

This time around, Trump is clearly corrupt. But this time around, Trump's faithful have gone full-believer.

Trump has a truly remarkable, I'd almost say relentless amount of charisma. I don't know where his energy comes from. He's basically all cruelty and charisma, no actual substance.

 

[Biggles]

Trump is certainly likable. I'm not saying I'm fond of him, but people do like him quite a lot. Moreso than Biden, Hillary, McCain, Romney, Gore... He energizes his base the way Bernie does. Hillary was more of an Anti-Trump candidate. And she still got more votes. If anything she ran a worse campaign. I think she was a worse candidate than Trump and got more votes anyway. Not because she's a woman, but because people liked her platform better.

This time around, Trump is clearly corrupt. But this time around, Trump's faithful have gone full-believer.

No. I think Trump was an anti-Hillary candidate. Hillary didn't need to run against Trump, but Trump needed to run against Hillary.

Hillary was an experienced, intelligent, thoughtful person. Lacking in personal charm & charisma - certainly. Trump was a charismatic asshole. Hillary ran the best she was capable of - given the limitations of her personality - but it was a strategically flawed campaign which led to the loss in the EC. My own belief is that the election of Trump was an anomaly - an unusual confluence of a particular set of circumstances. I don't believe that enough Americans support Trump & Trumpism - although the ones that do are very passionate - to win him a second term. The majority of Americans are decent, reasonable people & are not happy having an asshole as President. However, the Democrats could still screw it up & Biden isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

I'm not saying Americans wouldn't vote for a woman, but to cross that threshold that woman is going to have to be an exceptional candidate, in the same way that Obama was an exceptional candidate. Hillary didn't rise to that. Next up: Pete Buttigieg!

 

[Jezza819]

What about Mississippi?

They're a little ahead of us, they have the lottery.

 

[Danoff]

No. I think Trump was an anti-Hillary candidate. Hillary didn't need to run against Trump, but Trump needed to run against Hillary.

Hillary had a pretty lackluster career and not that strong a following. It was almost as through the democratic party thought that she was owed a candidacy. She represented establishment democrats in a time when anti-establishment was riding strong support in Bernie and Trump. There was so much sentiment running against business as usual that I'm surprised she ended up with the candidacy. I definitely did not feel like people voted "for" Hillary the way they voted "for" Trump or Obama. They kinda defaulted into her, like the party did.

Hillary's Career:
- First Lady (this is not really part of it)
- 2 terms in the Senate
- Failed presidential bid
- Secretary of State
- Failed presidential bid

Hillary was an experienced, intelligent, thoughtful person.

I'm not sure I agree with any of that.

Hillary ran the best she was capable of - given the limitations of her personality - but it was a strategically flawed campaign which led to the loss in the EC.

The limitations of her personality are part of what I felt her campaign lacked. She just wasn't a good candidate. Biden has some of those same shortcomings, but the landscape has changed and Biden is still more likeable. He's also had a long career, so to the extent that people like him, they may be thinking of him from 10 or even 20 (or nearly 50) years ago.

I'm not saying Americans wouldn't vote for a woman, but to cross that threshold that woman is going to have to be an exceptional candidate

I'm not sure that's true. And I definitely don't think Biden proves it.

 

[huskeR32]

Good lord, the Bernie Bros out in force hollering about Warren have apparently completely forgotten that Bernie stayed in until the damn convention in 2016 - nearly five months later than where we're at right now. By that point, he had also lost any "viable path"* to victory, but he hung around, damaging Hillary's campaign, and likely playing at least a small role in giving us Trump. I guess asking for a little self-awareness is too much?

* As far as assessments that Warren's campaign was no longer "viable" going into yesterday, well, that seems like a pretty silly thing to declare so confidently before the primary of the largest and one of the most liberal states in the union. Now that California has spoken, I'll listen to conversations that it's time for Warren to bow out. But I don't want to hear it from Bernie and his Bros after how 2016 went down.

 

[Jezza819]

No. I think Trump was an anti-Hillary candidate. Hillary didn't need to run against Trump, but Trump needed to run against Hillary.

Hillary was an experienced, intelligent, thoughtful person. Lacking in personal charm & charisma - certainly. Trump was a charismatic asshole. Hillary ran the best she was capable of - given the limitations of her personality - but it was a strategically flawed campaign which led to the loss in the EC. My own belief is that the election of Trump was an anomaly - an unusual confluence of a particular set of circumstances. I don't believe that enough Americans support Trump & Trumpism - although the ones that do are very passionate - to win him a second term. The majority of Americans are decent, reasonable people & are not happy having an asshole as President. However, the Democrats could still screw it up & Biden isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

I'm not saying Americans wouldn't vote for a woman, but to cross that threshold that woman is going to have to be an exceptional candidate, in the same way that Obama was an exceptional candidate. Hillary didn't rise to that. Next up: Pete Buttigieg!

In the last few months of 2019 Hillary came on Howard Stern's radio show on Sirius and did an interview that ran right at 2 hours if I remember correctly. She really loosened up a bit and it was interesting to hear her perspective on how everything unfolded. I think if she would have opened up a little like that during the campaign it might have changed some people's opinions about her. Maybe not a lot but maybe a few.

 

[Keef]

I'm of the opinion that divisiveness is really harming the populations of the world right now, destroying a lot of value, hindering progress, and making us less safe. I see Trump riding a wave of divisiveness, and I think that it harms the country (and the world). Bernie represents that same us vs. them divisiveness, just with a different view of who is "us" and who is "them".

Considering that this problem is largely classist, I'd argue that certain definition of us and them are more correct than others.

The key to success for the Democrats in the GE will be bringing moderate voters to their side, not motivating young people to vote. Most Americans (like M. Danoff even) are not looking for a revolution, they're looking for a return to civility.

This is correct, however I think the majority of these people equate civility to comfortability, aka as long as the news doesn't piss them off they don't actually care what is happening politically. And that's dangerous, because that's exactly how the increasingly corporatist nature of our country occurred in the first place. It's a gradual slide that nobody notices and therefore don't care about. The term "moderate" is code for "I don't care as long as my bills are paid" in my opinion. It lets me know precisely who doesn't care about the future.

 

[Danoff]

Considering that this problem is largely classist, I'd argue that certain definition of us and them are more correct than others.

There is no such thing as class. We're all just people. And the problem of divisiveness is not classist.

Trump supporters would say the same thing. They'd say that considering that the problem is a destruction of American industry, blah blah... or considering that the problem is the depletion of our resources to immigrant freeloaders... or considering that the problem facing our country is socialism... or considering that the problem facing this country is political correctness...

 

[Keef]

There is no such thing as class. We're all just people.

This I definitely don't agree with. There are at least two classes of people in the world: Those who create the rules, and those who don't.

 

[Biggles]

Hillary had a pretty lackluster career and not that strong a following. It was almost as through the democratic party thought that she was owed a candidacy. She represented establishment democrats in a time when anti-establishment was riding strong support in Bernie and Trump. There was so much sentiment running against business as usual that I'm surprised she ended up with the candidacy. I definitely did not feel like people voted "for" Hillary the way they voted "for" Trump or Obama. They kinda defaulted into her, like the party did.

Hillary's Career:
- First Lady (this is not really part of it)
- 2 terms in the Senate
- Failed presidential bid
- Secretary of State
- Failed presidential bid

Hillary was an experienced, intelligent, thoughtful person.

I'm not sure I agree with any of that.

That strikes me as sexist. Without going into details, Hillary was a notable student at high school, at Wellesley College, went on to graduate from Yale Law School & then had what most people would consider a very successful career in law following that. Like many women she eventually subordinated her own career to that of her husband. Yes - her presidential bids failed ... like that other senator & "failure" Mitt Romney. How does all that stack up against your achievements to date?

. It was almost as through the democratic party thought that she was owed a candidacy. She represented establishment democrats in a time when anti-establishment was riding strong support in Bernie and Trump. There was so much sentiment running against business as usual that I'm surprised she ended up with the candidacy. I definitely did not feel like people voted "for" Hillary the way they voted "for" Trump or Obama. They kinda defaulted into her, like the party did.

I wouldn't disagree with this, except I can tell you that a lot of women I know were enthusiastic supporters of Hillary. Perhaps their life experiences led them to look at her in a different way from you?

 

[Danoff]

That strikes me as sexist.

Then you're throwing that around too much.

Without going into details, Hillary was a notable student at high school, at Wellesley College, went on to graduate from Yale Law School & then had what most people would consider a very successful career in law following that. Like many women she eventually subordinated her own career to that of her husband. Yes - her presidential bids failed ... like that other senator & "failure" Mitt Romney. How does all that stack up against your achievements to date?

I'm not running for president. My standards for what constitutes experienced, intelligent, and thoughtful when it comes to presidential candidates is a bit higher than it is for myself. However, I will say that my personal career, while very different from hers, is not exactly without its merits. I'm married to a successful lawyer, and I don't consider my career to be inferior.

Romney was governor and senator, which I think is broader experience than senator and secretary of state. Governor I think is more experience than senator, and senator is probably better experience than secretary of state. When it comes to experience, Obama was also very inexperienced before taking office as President.

Hillary might have been intelligent, but at times she acted quite at odds with that intelligence. Her campaign, some of her actions as secretary of state, in particular. I guess it's fair to say that she's an intelligent person, but again I have a high bar what constitutes an intelligent presidential candidate. Definitely she was is more intelligent than Trump, if that's what you're after.

Thoughtful can be interpreted a couple of ways. Mostly I interpreted it to be kind-hearted. Which she is not, at least as far as I can tell. Even just from her political platform kind-hearted doesn't seem to fit.

If you just meant intelligent again, then I'll refer you to intelligent above.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Then you're throwing that around too much.



I'm not running for president. My standards for what constitutes experienced, intelligent, and thoughtful when it comes to presidential candidates is a bit higher than it is for myself. However, I will say that my personal career, while very different from hers, is not exactly without its merits. I'm married to a successful lawyer, and I don't consider my career to be inferior.

Romney was governor and senator, which I think is broader experience than senator and secretary of state. Governor I think is more experience than senator, and senator is probably better experience than secretary of state. When it comes to experience, Obama was also very inexperienced before taking office as President.

SecState experience seems pretty darn valuable for a presidential candidate to me. Foreign policy is kind of a big part of the job. I don't see being Governor of a state as terrifically valuable either. Texas Governors famously have less actual authority than their own lieutenant. Many states are too small for it to be an important position one way or another.

Hillary might have been intelligent, but at times she acted quite at odds with that intelligence. Her campaign, some of her actions as secretary of state, in particular. I guess it's fair to say that she's an intelligent person, but again I have a high bar what constitutes an intelligent presidential candidate. Definitely she was is more intelligent than Trump, if that's what you're after.

Thoughtful can be interpreted a couple of ways. Mostly I interpreted it to be kind-hearted. Which she is not, at least as far as I can tell. Even just from her political platform kind-hearted doesn't seem to fit.

If you just meant intelligent again, then I'll refer you to intelligent above.

Hillary would have been fine as president. I don't really understand the torrential negativity associated with her. That's not to say I am crazy about her...I don't even like her. But she would have been okay.

 

[Joey D]

Not liking Hillary doesn't make you sexist unless you don't like her solely because she's a female. I didn't care for her because she seemed to have a taste for war or at least armed conflict. While she eventually owned up to her mistakes in Libya, I do think that the incident was mostly on her shoulders. Not enough to warrant constant berating by Republicans in Congress, but still enough to warrant a round of questioning. She also wanted to ramp up airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, which I think would've eventually led to an all-out war when Israel inevitably asked for it to happen.

Another reason I disliked her was that I thought she put the interests of "national security" ahead of people's rights and privacy. Anything in the name of national security almost always makes me raise an eyebrow because the government doesn't seem to stay in its lane.

Finally, her opinion of video game censorship was one I did not agree with. To this day I'll never understand why the Hot Coffee Mod was a big deal in GTA. It was super pixelated characters performing awkward sex motions without the ability to see anything. It was way too much of a "won't someone please think of the children" response on a game rated Mature.

Past that, her political stance on welfare and social programs turn me off from her too, but that's going to be pretty much anyone under the Democrat banner.

If she was male instead of female and did all the same things, I'd have the exact same opinion. I'll gladly vote for a female candidate for whatever office if they're the best person for the job. I don't think Clinton was the best person for the job in the 2016 election so therefore I didn't vote for her.

As for intelligence? Intelligence and education doesn't mean you'll be a good president. George W Bush graduate from Yale and Harvard, while Trump graduated from the Wharton School. Those are all Ivy League institutions that are well respected.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Yeah, well it's not going to be a battle of ideas is it? Trump's going to launch a full-scale offensive on Biden. I don't fancy being Hunter Biden in the coming months.

On the other hand, I would love to see Bernie debate Trump.

Not just Hunter, Joe has his own history of lies and plagiarism. This will not go unmentioned.







Oh, and Trump debating Bernie? Pay-per-view quality stuff!!! I'd love to see it!!!

 

[Biggles]

Not liking Hillary doesn't make you sexist unless you don't like her solely because she's a female.
If she was male instead of female and did all the same things, I'd have the exact same opinion. I'll gladly vote for a female candidate for whatever office if they're the best person for the job. I don't think Clinton was the best person for the job in the 2016 election so therefore I didn't vote for her.

There's nothing inherently sexist about not liking Hillary, or not voting for her because you don't agree with her agenda. And I'm not suggesting that people didn't like her "solely because she's a female". I'm saying that I believe one of the factors in her defeat was many people being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being in charge. Women like that are seen as "pushy" where men are seen as strong & ambitious - witness the delusional "alpha male" cult around the figure of Trump, who to me just seems like an ignorant, inarticulate, narcissistic buffoon with a weird hairdo & a fake tan.

If you just meant intelligent again, then I'll refer you to intelligent above.

I dunno. I guess if somebody asked me I would have said you're intelligent ... even though I think a lot of what you write is wrong. I guess I'll have to reconsider based on your extremely high standards. Apparently, being a US Senator & Secretary of State doesn't meet your high standards either.

Thoughtful, in the way I used it, means given to reflective thought, not "kind-hearted" .

Definitely she was is more intelligent than Trump, if that's what you're after.

What I'm after is she's more intelligent than President Trump (and definitely more thoughtful - not hard, admittedly). But she's also certainly more intelligent than President George W. Bush & more intelligent than Joe Biden, which was my original point. Intelligence is not the only, or possibly even the most important attribute of a Presidential candidate. I believe if Joe Biden had run in 2016 he would have likely beaten Trump because he would have been much better at connecting with the blue collar voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin who narrowly swung the EC in Trump's favour ... & he's a man.

 

[DK]

I think the lack of buttery males in Biden's closet wouldn't have dissuaded enough Dems in 2016 from getting out to vote.

 

[longshot1314]

There's nothing inherently sexist about not liking Hillary, or not voting for her because you don't agree with her agenda. And I'm not suggesting that people didn't like her "solely because she's a female". I'm saying that I believe one of the factors in her defeat was many people being uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being in charge. Women like that are seen as "pushy" where men are seen as strong & ambitious - witness the delusional "alpha male" cult around the figure of Trump, who to me just seems like an ignorant, inarticulate, narcissistic buffoon with a weird hairdo & a fake tan.

I honestly have to disagree with this assessment, frankly I think a large part of the reason that Hillary wasn't elected was because of a lot of people being fed up with the establishment, especially after her serving for 8 years under a president who promised change and instead mainly maintained the status quo, including starting two new wars and doubling down on Iraq, continuing the Patriot Act, and not holding wall street accountable for the 2008 crisis. It was also fairly apparent that the DNC had been shady in handing Hillary the nomination. The other issue was during the 2016 election cycle people on the left as well as the media basically called anyone who even remotely expressed interest in voting for Trump as idiots or racists or at least heavily implied it. Insulting people for their point of view has a habit of driving more people towards that point of view. On top of this Trump knew how to exploit these issues in the debates.

Honestly if they had actually wanted a strong female candidate it should've been Gabbard since she essentially ticked every box that you think they'd want for a Democrat to run against Trump, though the minute she backed Bernie in 2016 and openly campaigned as anti-war and wanting to end the partisan nature of politics in Washington she was kicked to the curb.

 

[ryzno]

Just heard Warren dropped out.

 

[McLaren]

According to Reddit, it’s Biden’s to take now. Seems a lot of Bernie’s young supporters did not actually go out and vote?

 

[PocketZeven]

Not just Hunter, Joe has his own history of lies and plagiarism. This will not go unmentioned.







Oh, and Trump debating Bernie? Pay-per-view quality stuff!!! I'd love to see it!!!

Dude if you did the same research on Trump as you are doing on Biden, you would be shocked.

That said, biden winning the nomination is the in my opinion the worstcase scenario. Be prepared for 4 more years of Trump.