What's new

2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates [Bernie Sanders drops out Update#741]

Only person with a sensible foreign policy is Sanders. Or else the Saudi-Israel-USA funded wars will continue, and millions will continue to suffer.
 
Nostalgic said:
Sanders and Warren are splitting the progressive vote as things stand. It looks unlikely that they will emerge as the two front runners, because the establishment types will coalesce around one candidate at some point, most probably Biden. The progressives need to do likewise: flip a coin or something and have one of them throw in their lot with the other. I would prefer Sanders, since he’s more likely to attract disgruntled, traditionally Democratic voters back into the fold.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with the way things are going now, it'll be one of Warren or Bernie vs Biden. Bernie is definitely the far better candidate, but don't see Warren dropping out before super Tuesday.
 
Biden would lose to Trump.

The Democrats need to back Sanders.
 
I'm amused by the attacks by some Sanders supporters online portraying Warren, who's now pulling ahead in the polls, as some establishment sellout and closet neoliberal.

This is someone who's devoted her career to tackling the abuses and practices of Wall Street and predatory lenders. She pushed for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is loathed by the financial elites for daring to hold them accountable for their corruption.

Of course in a primary battle lines will be drawn and there SHOULD be a robust debate. No candidate is above scrutiny. There IS a distinction between Warren and Sanders who come from two different progressive traditions (Social Democracy vs Democratic Socialism), and primary voters must make a choice.

However this inability by some parts of the Sanders fanbase to accept there's more than one candidate who can take on the progressive mantra is obnoxious. I love Bernie for the record and his foreign policy agenda is better than Warren's (whose foreign policy plank is nowhere as detailed as her domestic agenda). But this notion that only Sanders can be the true torchbearer of progressivism is insulting and counterproductive if you want to achieve progressive goals.
 
Markhor said:
I'm amused by the attacks by some Sanders supporters online portraying Warren, who's now pulling ahead in the polls, as some establishment sellout and closet neoliberal.

This is someone who's devoted her career to tackling the abuses and practices of Wall Street and predatory lenders. She pushed for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is loathed by the financial elites for daring to hold them accountable for their corruption.

Of course in a primary battle lines will be drawn and there SHOULD be a robust debate. No candidate is above scrutiny. There IS a distinction between Warren and Sanders who come from two different progressive traditions (Social Democracy vs Democratic Socialism), and primary voters must make a choice.

However this inability by some parts of the Sanders fanbase to accept there's more than one candidate who can take on the progressive mantra is obnoxious. I love Bernie for the record and his foreign policy agenda is better than Warren's (whose foreign policy plank is nowhere as detailed as her domestic agenda). But this notion that only Sanders can be the true torchbearer of progressivism is insulting and counterproductive if you want to achieve progressive goals.
Click to expand...

Warren has come out and said she believes in free markets which % of Bernie fans don’t want to hear.

They are both Liberals though and I rather have a strong America which means Warren is better.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW POLL: Warren and Biden running neck and neck as Sanders sinks <a href="https://t.co/42FOxR4QuB">https://t.co/42FOxR4QuB</a> <a href="https://t.co/PJlHPNu78K">pic.twitter.com/PJlHPNu78K</a></p>— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1181239528499093506?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
JaDed said:
Warren has come out and said she believes in free markets which % of Bernie fans don’t want to hear.

They are both Liberals though and I rather have a strong America which means Warren is better.
Click to expand...

So you want American foreign wars to continue, and hence millions misplaced or killed. Cool.
 
SensiblePakFan said:
So you want American foreign wars to continue, and hence millions misplaced or killed. Cool.
Click to expand...

So this is how Bernie fans talk its either him or wars? What has free markets and strong America got to do with Wars? Are you saying a country is strong only if wages Wars?
 
It will probably be Biden vs Trump.

I think Biden can beat Trump if Democrat voters stick together and find a common ground.
 
SensiblePakFan said:
Hillary 2.0 aint gonna win. Wake up
Click to expand...

I want Sanders to get the nomination but I think that's not going to happen.

Biden is a dodgy individual but any candidate is better than Trump.

Based on recent polls, Biden is likely to get the nomination.
 
National polls are meaningless, it's all about the first few rounds.

If Bernie can keep his lead in Nevada and California , and pull off Iowa and New Hampshire, then he'll probably win the nomination. Bernie has the advantage of having a few big favourable states at the start, so we absolutely can't say he's out of it yet.

Biden is Hillary 2.0, and will be destroyed by Trump, while Warren struggles to attract Bernie's lower class and young base, as well as African Americans (Biden strong here) and Latinos (Bernie strong here) .
 
Things don’t look good for Bernie, health wise.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: After returning from his visit to the cardiologist <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BernieSanders</a> tells us he is prepared to change the "nature" of his campaign. He said he plans to scale back his travel and the number of events he participates in. <a href="https://t.co/IqUzM9stRN">pic.twitter.com/IqUzM9stRN</a></p>— Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) <a href="https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1181689439690604545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Democratic White House front-runner Elizabeth Warren has found herself under fierce attack from her rivals in a live television debate.

Contenders accused the Massachusetts senator of dodging a question on whether she would raise taxes.

Twelve White House hopefuls squared off in the primetime forum, with two other front-runners also under pressure.

Joe Biden has been battling Republican personal attacks, while Bernie Sanders is recovering from a heart attack.

Tuesday night's debate, hosted by CNN and the New York Times, in the electoral battleground state of Ohio was the most crowded so far in the Democratic race.

Also on stage were South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg, California Senator Kamala Harris, New York entrepreneur Andrew Yang, former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, former Obama housing secretary Julian Castro, Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and billionaire activist Tom Steyer.

Languishing on single digits in the opinion polls, they strived to make a splash with time running out.

The Democratic White House race officially begins with the Iowa caucuses on 3 February.

The pack will be whittled down in state-by-state votes until a final candidate is crowned at the party convention next July, before he or she takes on President Donald Trump, a Republican, in the November 2020 election.

How did Warren find herself under attack?
Ms Warren was always expected to find a bullseye on her back on Tuesday night after accelerating to the tip of the field in the past two months.

Both Mr Sanders, a Vermont senator, and Ms Warren, a Massachusetts senator, favour an NHS-style system of free healthcare for Americans.

But unlike Mr Sanders, Ms Warren has repeatedly avoided stating explicitly whether her version of "Medicare for All" would raise taxes on working families.

She was pressed on the issue by debate moderators and replied that she would not sign any bill that raises costs on the middle class.

Standing beside Ms Warren, Mr Buttigieg rounded on her, saying: "You heard it tonight, a yes or no question that didn't get a yes or no answer.

"This is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular.

"Your signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything except this - no plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion dollar hole in this Medicare for All plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in."

Even Ms Warren's progressive ally Mr Sanders took a veiled jab, saying: "I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up."

Ms Klobuchar pounced: "At least Bernie's being honest here and saying how he's going to pay for this and taxes are going to go up.

"And I am sorry, Elizabeth, but you have not said that, and I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we are going to send the invoice."

Mr Biden took a pop at both Ms Warren and Mr Sanders.

"Both are being vague on the issue of Medicare for All," he said. "Now look, here's the deal, come on, it costs 30 trillion dollars!"

Ms Klobuchar renewed her attack on Ms Warren over her proposed wealth tax to target income inequality.

"I want give a reality check here to Elizabeth," said the Minnesotan, adding that "your idea is not the only idea".

Ms Warren counter-punched: "I think as Democrats we are going to succeed when we dream big and fight hard, not when we dream small and quit before we get started."

Ms Harris repeatedly challenged Ms Warren to back her call for Twitter to delete Mr Trump's account for incendiary tweets.

Ms Warren replied: "I don't just wanna push Donald Trump off Twitter, I want to push him out of the White House."

Talking over her, Ms Harris said: "Then join me in saying his Twitter account should be shut down. No?"

What did the candidates say about impeachment?
It was the first debate since congressional Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry into Mr Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

The first question of the night was about the congressional investigation that could attempt to remove the president from office.

In a show of unity, all candidates voiced support for the inquiry, railing against Mr Trump's "criminality" and "corruption".

What about the Hunter Biden story?
Mr Biden was asked about Mr Trump's unsubstantiated claims that the former US vice-president improperly tried to aid his son Hunter Biden's business interests in Ukraine.

"My son did nothing wrong," replied Mr Biden, who is trying to steady his campaign after seeing his once commanding lead in opinion polls erode. "I did nothing wrong."

"He [Mr Trump] doesn't want me to be the candidate. He's going after me because he knows that if I get the nomination I will beat him like a drum."

He was pressed by the debate moderator on whether he made a mistake while he was the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine by allowing his son to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

Mr Biden replied: "I never discussed a single thing with my son about anything having to do with Ukraine, no one has indicated I have. We've always kept everything separate."

His Democratic rivals refrained from attacking Mr Biden on the issue.

How did age come up?
Mr Sanders was closely watched in the three-hour debate for signs of flagging stamina after suffering a heart attack earlier this month.

The oldest contender at 78, Mr Sanders has dropped into third place in the polls.

"I'm healthy," the self-described democratic socialist told a moderator who questioned his fitness. "I'm feeling great."

In a touching gesture, he added: "Let me take this moment, if I might, to thank so many people from all over this country, including so many of my colleagues up here for their love, for their prayers, for their well wishes.

"And I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I'm so happy to be back here with you this evening."

Mr Biden was also asked by the moderators about his age - he would turn 80 during his first term as US president.

"One of the reasons I am running is because of my age and my experience," he replied. "With it comes wisdom.

"We need someone to take office this time around who on day one can stand on the world stage, command the respect of world leaders from Putin to our allies."

His reply will be interpreted as an implicit put-down of his younger challengers such as Mr Buttigieg, 37, Mr Yang, 44, and Mr Castro, 45.

How did the candidates clash on Syria?
Democratic divisions between the hawkish and dovish wings of the party were once again on display.

In a comment that will likely elicit further scrutiny, Ms Warren said: "I think we ought to get out of the Middle East."

Ms Gabbard, often described as an isolationist, said: "Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do other politicians on both sides who have supported this regime-change war."

The Hawaii congresswoman also blamed the "mainstream media" for being pro-war.

Mr Biden hit back: "That has not been the policy, to change the [Syrian] regime - it's been to make sure the regime did not wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people!"

Mr Buttigieg also attacked Ms Gabbard, calling her "dead wrong".

He added: "When we think our only choices are between endless war or total isolation the consequence is the disappearance of US leadership from the world stage."

Mr Sanders later attacked Mr Biden for his congressional 2002 vote to approve the "disastrous war in Iraq".

While the candidates disagreed on US intervention overseas, they united in pillorying Mr Trump's policy on Syria.

Ms Harris said the president has "basically given 10,000 ISIS fighters a get-out-of-jail free card."

She added: "That's why 'dude gotta go' and when I am commander-in-chief we will stop this madness."

How did the candidates spar on gun control?
In one of the sharpest exchanges of the night, Mr Buttigieg and Mr O'Rourke clashed over US firearms deaths.

Mr O'Rourke was challenged on his plan to remove assault-style weapons from private ownership under a so-called mandatory gun buyback.

A debate moderator pressed Mr O'Rourke: "Exactly how are you going to take away weapons from people who do not want to give them up and you don't know where they are?"

Mr O'Rourke replied: "The expectation is that Americans will follow the law. I believe in this country, I believe in my fellow Americans, I believe they will do the right thing.

Mr Buttigieg said to Mr O'Rourke: "Look, congressman, you just made it clear you don't know how this is actually going to take weapons off the streets."

Mr O'Rourke implied that Mr Buttigieg was being "limited by the polls and the consultants and the focus groups".

Mr Buttigieg, a military veteran, hit back: "I don't need lessons from you on courage, political or personal."

Mr O'Rourke countered that it was "slap in the face" to victims of gun violence when Mr Buttigieg disparaged Mr O'Rourke's policy as "a shiny object".
Click to expand...

Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50064723.
 
Saw the Moody's analytics on the elections. Cannot help but think that the Democratic candidates are doing this for nothing and have pretty much no chance.
 
Interestingly, Warren's 3 grandkids are Indian-American, and Trump of course is rather well disposed towards India. It's either going to be Trump or Warren in 2020, and India is well positioned either way.

The most anti India candidate is Bernie, but at this point his probability of winning is less than 10% according to the election markets.
 
Former US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said Russia is "grooming" a female Democrat in the 2020 White House race.

She said the Kremlin wanted the contender to run as a third-party candidate to divide liberal voters and help re-elect Donald Trump.

Mrs Clinton did not name the candidate, but she is believed to be referring to Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

Ms Gabbard called Mrs Clinton's allegation "cowardly".

In an interview with former Obama adviser David Plouffe's podcast, Campaign HQ, Mrs Clinton, herself a Democrat, said the Russians have "got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate".

"She's the favourite of the Russians," Mrs Clinton said, without naming her in the podcast that aired on Wednesday. "They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far."

Ms Gabbard hit back accusing "queen of the warmongers" Mrs Clinton of orchestrating a campaign to "destroy my reputation".

She challenged the former secretary of state to join the White House race and not "hide behind your proxies".

Skip Twitter post by @TulsiGabbardEnd of Twitter post by @TulsiGabbard
Ms Gabbard is a military veteran and anti-war candidate who has called on the US to stop acting as the world's policeman.

In a live TV debate with 11 other Democratic contenders on Tuesday, she said US media suggestions that she is a Russian asset were "completely despicable".

Ms Gabbard has previously ruled out an independent campaign.

In the podcast, Mrs Clinton also accused 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein by name of effectively being a traitor.

She raised the possibility that Ms Stein could run again as a third-party candidate "because she's also a Russian asset".

"Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally," added Mrs Clinton. "They know they can't win without a third-party candidate."

On Friday, Ms Stein hit back at Mrs Clinton's "rant", calling it a "crack down on dissent".

Ms Stein's 2016 presidential election campaign garnered almost 1.5 million votes (1% of the national vote).

The number of ballots cast for Ms Stein in three states that turned out to be critical to the overall result - Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - did exceed Mr Trump's margin of victory over Mrs Clinton.

However, there is debate over whether Ms Stein did in fact help elect Mr Trump since exit poll data suggests not all Stein voters would have picked Mrs Clinton as a second choice, or even voted at all.

Documents from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russian investigation show that Russian nationals and corporations worked to boost Ms Stein's campaign in an effort to draw votes away from Mrs Clinton.

The long list of who Hillary Clinton blames
In 2018, Ms Stein acknowledged potential Russian interference in the US election, but said the US also meddled overseas.

"Interference is wrong and it's an assault against democracy, and it should be pursued," she said to CNN.

"But [the United States] should pursue it knowing that we do it, too."

Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy in the 2000 White House election is often blamed or credited with helping George W Bush, a Republican, win the state of Florida, and thereby the US presidency.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50104958.
 
hussain.r97 said:
National polls are meaningless, it's all about the first few rounds.

If Bernie can keep his lead in Nevada and California , and pull off Iowa and New Hampshire, then he'll probably win the nomination. Bernie has the advantage of having a few big favourable states at the start, so we absolutely can't say he's out of it yet.

Biden is Hillary 2.0, and will be destroyed by Trump, while Warren struggles to attract Bernie's lower class and young base, as well as African Americans (Biden strong here) and Latinos (Bernie strong here) .
Click to expand...

This sums up the situation pretty well.
 
Clinton has come out and directly accused Gabbard of being a Russian plant.
 
Gabbar Singh said:
Things don’t look good for Bernie, health wise.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">JUST IN: After returning from his visit to the cardiologist <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BernieSanders</a> tells us he is prepared to change the "nature" of his campaign. He said he plans to scale back his travel and the number of events he participates in. <a href="https://t.co/IqUzM9stRN">pic.twitter.com/IqUzM9stRN</a></p>— Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) <a href="https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1181689439690604545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

He seems even more energetic after he got his stints.
 
Hillary and her supporters attacking Tulsi for being a "Russian agent" (which really isn't true), but very few are talking about her more obvious connections to Hindutva groups and BJP.
 
Hillary is just a nutter at this point. Seems like her electoral mauling from Trump of all people has sent her over the edge, and she probably won’t be coming back. Half surprised that she hasn’t entered herself into the race for the nomination. I think we all need an ignore button for Hillary.

As for Bernie, surely he has to drop out of the race? If he gets the nomination, Trump’s flunkies will be all over his health problems like a cheap suit. And thinking longer term, old age and heart problems do not mix well at all with high-strain jobs. Sorry to say it, but if Bernie pushes on, then all sorts of chancers will be queuing up to be his running mate and Vice President....

I’m now backing Pocahontas Warren. She could actually beat Trump.
 
A Democratic frontrunner in the 2020 US election, Joe Biden, has launched a bid to rally Hispanic voters - only to see it hijacked by President Trump's team.

On Wednesday the Biden campaign took to Twitter to announce its "Todos Con Biden" (Everyone with Biden) drive.

The Trump camp immediately bought the domain name www.todosconbiden.com.

The page now features a picture of a downbeat-looking Joe Biden with the text - both in Spanish and English: "Oops, Joe forgot about Latinos."

A prominent link redirects viewers to the "Latinos for Trump" site.

In response, the Biden campaign issued a statement saying: "It is no surprise that Trump's Campaign would resort to childish antics like this to take attention away from this President's appalling record of separating families and using immigrants as scapegoats."

Former Vice-President Joe Biden is among 15 Democrats seeking the party's nomination for the presidential election.

He is regarded as one of the top contenders, along with Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

A record 32 million Latino people are expected to cast their ballots next year.

Many Democrats are highlighting President Trump's controversial anti-immigration policies, as well as social issues like health care, in an effort to woo Hispanic voters.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50177590.
 
The campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination appears to have opened up, with 100 days to go before the Iowa caucuses kick off voting. There are new opportunities for some second-tier candidates – especially South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar used this month’s televised debate to hone their appeal to the moderate wing of the Democratic Party – directly by attacking Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s liberal policy proposals (especially “Medicare-for-all”) and implicitly by being younger than former Vice President Joe Biden.

Going into the debate, the emerging conventional wisdom appeared to be that – for all the energy of over 20 starting candidates – the race was quickly turning into a two-person contest between Warren and Biden.

Warren was running a pitch-perfect effort and consolidating the support of the liberal wing of the party, which seeks fundamental change in the U.S. economic system.

Biden was riding a tide of polling that suggested he would be the strongest general election candidate. He was appealing to a party electorate whose anger at President Trump motivates many of them to care primarily about who has the best chance of achieving their top objective: defeating Trump.

But now folks are realizing the historical truism of the nominating process: It starts in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina – and results there can often depart from national polling and have an impact on subsequent contests.

The first three contests rely more on in-state retail politics than on national support, and the one-state nature of each contest enables more-focused media campaigns.

The truism comes out in the polling. In the RealClear Politics averages, Buttigieg currently garners roughly twice as much support in Iowa and New Hampshire as he does nationally.

By contrast, Biden does slightly worse in those states than he’s doing nationally, while the other two leading candidates – Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – run basically in line with their national performance.

The most recent USA Today Poll showed the leading “candidate” – at 29 percent – is “Undecided,” scoring over 10 points ahead of supposed front-runners Biden and Warren.

Other lower-tier candidates may also benefit from the one-state focus of the first three contests.

Klobuchar, from neighboring Minnesota, is mounting a full-court press in Iowa, vowing to visit all 99 counties. She is shuttling between there and New Hampshire.

But it’s not just Midwestern moderates Buttigieg and Klobuchar who are making strong bids in the early states.

Even novelty candidates – like Andrew Yang, who cleverly uses social media to lead his #YangGang, and self-funding billionaire Tom Steyer – are able to make a push in the smaller early states.

Steyer, though he has yet to articulate a real rationale for his candidacy, is funding enormous media buys in the early states – and as a result is registering 2 or 3 percent in polling there, while barely garnering 1 percent support nationally.

But in a wide-open, in-state race, it is even possible that some of the third-tier, but more traditional candidates – such as Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Michael Bennet of Colorado, or Montana Gov. Steve Bullock – might figure out a way to break through or reanimate their fading campaigns.

Still, the three currently leading candidates – Biden, Warren and Sanders – retain the best chance of winning the nomination, even though the race has opened up, and they’re facing clear headwinds.

Warren has run into challenges from two sources. She’d been hoping that Sanders – currently third and, since May, consistently running at around 16 percent in national polls – would fade and enable her to consolidate the support of the left wing of the party, but that hasn’t happened.

Despite recent punditry saying Sanders was losing ground, he reported raising the most money of any candidate in the last reporting period, put in a solid debate performance not long after a heart attack, and won the support of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

The endorsements may not affect the bulk of the Democratic electorate, but show that Sanders still has a solid appeal to a significant segment of the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

While Warren can turn that lemon into lemonade by saying she’s more moderate than Republicans like to portray her, she ran into other challenges in the debate. She wasn’t able to articulate a good response to questions about whether “Medicare-for-all” will result in higher taxes.

Face it: “Medicare-for-all” will require tax increases, but one can argue that middle-class Americans will pay less with government-funded health insurance than they pay today separately in both taxes and for private health insurance premiums.

Similarly, Biden has run into headwinds despite a political environment that appears tailor-made for him. With an impeachment inquiry surrounding claims that President Trump sought to extort Ukraine to provide dirt against Biden, it ought to be easy for Biden to make the case that he’s the Democrat Trump fears the most.

It also ought to be easy for Biden to inoculate himself against questions of whether he helped his son get a high-paid position on the board of a Ukrainian company, but it hasn’t been. Instead, Biden seems to have trouble getting those questions behind him. Every time I watch Biden, I think: Presidents Reagan, Clinton, or Bush would’ve had enough political jiu-jitsu to turn this Ukraine story into a winner. Why can’t you?

My sense is that the troubles for Warren and Biden are not over. If the two continue to face challenges in consolidating their separate wings of the party, other candidates may soon claim their place in the spotlight, and could catapult themselves into a leading position.

Indeed, there are calls, especially from donors and uncommitted consultants, for others to join the race.

These new candidates include: former first lady Michelle Obama, who evinces zero interest in running; former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has said he might consider running if Biden falters; and presumably former senator, secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

Even one of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s top aides has publicly said that Clinton should think about entering the race.

My own bet is that Clinton, in particular, is unlikely to run, but quite clearly is enjoying her role on Twitter as an ongoing Trump troll, giving her personal vindication.

Bottom line: the most important numbers to watch will be the polling emerging from the three early states. Those will indicate how the race is evolving.

The polling numbers – which span both before and after the most recent debate – show why one should look primarily at the results of the early states, rather than try to just use national numbers to consider how the nomination contest is shaping up.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/arn...en-warren-arent-only-candidates-who-could-win.
 
It seems like Biden is collapsing, Buttigeg has been making gains. I have a feeling he'll replace, or come close to replacing, Biden as the centrist candidate.

Bernie is also on a bit of a surge since his good debate showing, and AOC and Ilhan Omar endorsing him in front of a crowd of 30,000 in New York.
 
Joe Biden said President Donald Trump is “an idiot” for calling Russia’s election interference a “hoax,” and says it’s clear the president and the Russians are aligned in wanting to keep the former vice president from winning in 2020.

"The Russians don't want me to be president and Trump doesn't want me to be the nominee," he said in a new interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday. "Trump not only doesn't want to do anything about it he's going out and asking for help."

As to Trump's insistence that Russian election interference— something the U.S. intelligence community, America's allies abroad, and Congress agree is real— is a hoax, Biden said that Trump is, "an idiot— in terms of saying that. Everybody knows this. Everybody knows it. Nobody doubts it."

Biden also said Trump has "no integrity" when he targets the former vice president's family on the campaign trail.

"I've never discussed my business or their business, my son's or daughter's. And I've never discussed them because they know where I have to do my job and that's it and they have to make their own judgments," he said. "He's a grown man. And it turns out he did not do a single thing wrong, as everybody's investigated."

Downplaying his campaign’s cash woes, Biden said he believes he is still the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination.

"I know I'm the frontrunner. Find me a national poll with a notable, a couple exceptions. But look, this is a marathon,” he said. “I'm not worried about being able to fund this campaign. I really am not, truly."

He also again targeted his 2020 rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., over her healthcare and tax plans. Warren, who has risen in the polls in recent weeks, took repeated blows during the last Democratic debate when she refused to say whether she would raise taxes to pay fun "Medicare For All.

"I want more young people engaged. I want them voting," he said. "But the idea that this is the way in which it's going to change is— by just making the most far reaching assertions you can make, I mean, let's talk about Medicare For All. Do you think there's been any truth in advertising on that It's going to raise taxes on middle class people, not just wealthy people?” he said. “Even Bernie acknowledges you got to raise taxes."

Asked about his performance in debates and on the trail, Biden acknowledged a "learning curve" while criticizing the format. His wife, who joined for part of the interview, also defended her husband and said she had no concern about his ability to serve as president.

"I don’t worry about the gaffes. And, you know what, the American people know who Joe Biden is,” she said. “I mean, if he misspeaks one word, they don't— that doesn't affect the way they're going to vote, one way or the other."
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...g-russian-election-interference-hoax-n1072606.
 
US Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke has announced he is ending his campaign.

The former Texas congressman tweeted: "Our campaign has always been about seeing clearly, speaking honestly, and acting decisively.

"In that spirit: I am announcing that my service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee."

Mr O'Rourke, 47, ran for president in March after losing his 2018 bid to oust Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz.

In that Senate race, he did better than any Democrat had in Texas for decades, running a campaign that invigorated the party nationwide and drew comparisons with former President Barack Obama.

His passionate delivery along with his good looks and background as a skateboarder and a punk rocker endeared him to liberals across the country.

But Mr O'Rourke struggled to carry that energy into a White House race crowded with more than 20 Democratic candidates.

On Friday he said his campaign did not have "the means to move forward successfully".

What did Mr O'Rourke say?
Speaking in Des Moines, Iowa, Mr O'Rourke thanked his supporters, many of whom were clearly disappointed.

"How proud I am to be with you," he said.

Mr O'Rourke vowed to support the Democratic nominee who will challenge President Donald Trump in the 2020 race for the White House.

"We're right in the middle of this fight," he said.

In a blog post announcing the end of his presidency, he wrote: "We confronted institutional, systemic racism and called out Donald Trump for his white supremacy and the violence that he's encouraged against communities that don't look like, pray like or love like the majority in this country."

Mr O'Rourke was highly critical of the president after a mass shooting in his hometown of El Paso, Texas, in August, describing the bloodshed as a "consequence" of Mr Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric.

What went wrong?
As the initial buzz over his campaign began to subside, Mr O'Rourke tried to reboot his candidacy.

He began to focus on gun control, and vowed to remove assault-style weapons from private ownership, saying in one televised debate: "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15s."

But he could not catch up with front-runners like former Vice-President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Mr O'Rourke also found himself leap-frogged by another young, charismatic candidate - 37-year-old Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

In the latest opinion poll by New York Times/Siena College on Friday, Mr O'Rourke drew the support of just 1% of voters in the crucial early-voting state of Iowa.

Mr O'Rourke had been urged by donors to drop out of the presidential race and run against Texas Senator John Cornyn, who is up for re-election next year. But the O'Rourke camp reiterated in a statement on Friday night that he did not plan on standing for the Senate again.

Mr O'Rourke is not the only once-promising Democratic candidate who is struggling - California Senator Kamala Harris this week scaled back her campaign, firing some staffers and shuttering offices in another key, early voting state, New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50268843.
 
US presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has offered details on funding for her healthcare plan, which is expected to cost the federal government $20.5tn (£15.8tn) over 10 years.

She said "Medicare for All" would not raise taxes "one penny" for ordinary Americans, but would largely be paid for by businesses and the wealthy.

Ms Warren is a Democratic front-runner in the 2020 race to the White House.

But she has faced criticism over lack of detail about her Medicare plan.

What does her plan say?
Ms Warren, who moved clear of her key rival Joe Biden in a poll in the early-voting state of Iowa on Friday, said her plan would not spend "any more money overall than we spend now". But she said the share spent by the federal government would increase to $20.5tn.

Her plan would mandate that employers pay the government the same amount that they currently contribute for private health insurance for their staff.

According to her campaign, the current US health system will cost $52tn over the next decade. Economists have estimated the cost of Medicare for All at $13.5tn to $34tn in the same timeframe.

"The $11tn in household insurance and out-of-pocket expenses projected under our current system goes right back into the pockets of America's working people," her plan states.

"And we make up the difference with targeted spending cuts, new taxes on giant corporations and the richest 1% of Americans, and by cracking down on tax evasion and fraud. Not one penny in middle-class tax increases."

Ms Warren said she would:

raise her previously proposed wealth tax on billionaires from 3% to 6%
increase corporate taxes
tax transactions such as stock trades
raise revenue through immigration reform - by turning undocumented migrants into legal, taxpaying workers
"Healthcare in America is world-class," the Massachusetts senator wrote in her proposal. "Medicare for All isn't about changing any of that. It's about fixing what is broken - how we pay for that care."

What is 'Medicare for All'?
First proposed by Ms Warren's fellow liberal senator, Bernie Sanders, it is a measure to expand the federally run health programme for the elderly and disabled, Medicare, into a single-payer health system.

The federal government would become the sole insurance provider for all essential and preventative healthcare.

Under Ms Warren's plan, the private health insurance that more than half of Americans now receive through their employers would be replaced by free federal medical coverage for everyone.

According to her campaign, the array of often puzzling medical bills currently faced by US patients - such as premiums, deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses - would be abolished.

Several more moderate Democratic candidates - including another front-runner, Joe Biden - favour adding the option of government-run medical insurance for all Americans while allowing those who wish to to keep their private medical coverage.

It is not a universal healthcare system under which the government would own and operate hospitals - instead, the government would pay private providers an agreed-upon rate for their services.

Unlike Ms Warren, Mr Sanders has said his plan to pay for Medicare for all would require an increase in taxes on the middle class, without offering specifics.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50267557.
 
sweep_shot said:
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50268843.
Click to expand...

May seem like a small deal since he was only polling 1-3% nationwide, but this is actually HUGE. Beto was consistently polling around 1st or 2nd, at 20%, in Texas, and him dropping out is highly likely to give Bernie Sanders a huge boost, probably making him the front-runner in Texas as poll after poll has shown that most Beto supporters have Bernie Sanders as their second choice candidate.

With Beto dropping out, it puts Bernie into a very good position. Officially, he is not the nationwide front-runner so there will be a lot less heat on him in debates and from the media. However, this is just an illusion, because looking at the states, Bernie is absolutely in front in most of the key early states.

Early States:
Iowa - Bernie and Warren currently tied. Biden falling fast, Buttigeg making gains.
New Hampshire - Bernie in front.
Nevada - Bernie in front.
South Carolina - Biden in front by a lot.
(likely 2 or 3 out of 4 to Bernie)

Super Tuesday:
Alabama - Biden
American Samoa - probably Biden
Arkansas - Biden
California - Bernie
Colorado - Bernie
Maine - probably Warren
Massachusetts - Warren
Minnesota - Bernie or Warren
North Carolina - Biden
Oklahoma - probably Bernie
Tennessee - Biden
Texas - probably Bernie
Utah - Bernie
Vermont - Bernie
Virginia - Biden or Warren
Democrats Abroad - Bernie
(6 to 8 out of 16 to Bernie, including the key states of Texas and California which pack about 50% of the Super Tuesday delegates)

After these contents, the rest of the race usually swings strongly towards the front runner.
 
US President Donald Trump has ridiculed Beto O'Rourke just hours after the Democratic presidential hopeful ended his campaign.

The president used a profanity to describe his rival and said he "quit like a dog".

Mr O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman, was highly critical of Mr Trump after a mass shooting in his hometown of El Paso in August.

He called the bloodshed a "consequence" of Mr Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric.

On Friday Mr O'Rourke said he was quitting the race for the White House as his campaign did not have "the means to move forward successfully".

Mr Trump's response came days after he said Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had "died like a dog" during a US military operation in north-western Syria.

Speaking at a rally in Tupelo, Mississippi, the president branded Mr O'Rourke a "poor, pathetic guy".

What did Trump say?
"He came out of Texas a very hot political property, and he went back as cold as you can be," Mr Trump declared.

He had earlier mocked Mr O'Rourke on Twitter.

He also described former Vice-President Joe Biden, a frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination, as mentally deficient, and said he was "dropping like a rock".

Turning to the impeachment inquiry against him, the president said he believed an "angry majority" of American voters would support him.

The Trump impeachment story explained
The investigation was launched over allegations that Mr Trump improperly sought help from Ukraine to boost his chances of re-election, which he denies.

How did Mr O'Rourke quit?
Announcing the end of his campaign, Mr O'Rourke tweeted: "Our campaign has always been about seeing clearly, speaking honestly, and acting decisively.

"In that spirit: I am announcing that my service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee."

In a blog post thanking supporters, he wrote: "We confronted institutional, systemic racism and called out Donald Trump for his white supremacy and the violence that he's encouraged against communities that don't look like, pray like or love like the majority in this country."

Democratic frontrunners tweeted their tributes to Mr O'Rourke after he stood aside.

Mr Biden said he had inspired many.

Elizabeth Warren commended his "commitment to ending gun violence", while Bernie Sanders thanked him "for running a campaign to bring millions of people together".

Who is Beto O'Rourke?
Mr O'Rourke, 47, ran for president in March after losing his 2018 bid to oust Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz.

In that Senate race, he did better than any Democrat had in Texas for decades, running a campaign that invigorated the party nationwide and drew comparisons with former President Barack Obama.

His passionate delivery along with his good looks and background as a skateboarder and a punk rocker endeared him to liberals across the country.

But Mr O'Rourke struggled to carry that energy into a White House race crowded with more than 20 Democratic candidates.

As the initial buzz over his campaign began to subside, the former congressman tried to reboot his candidacy.

He began to focus on gun control, and vowed to remove assault-style weapons from private ownership, saying in one televised debate: "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15s."

But he could not catch up with front-runners like former Vice-President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

As he launched his campaign, he posed on the cover of Vanity Fair, telling the magazine about the White House race: "Man, I'm just born to be in it."

He later said he regretted that move because it reinforced a "perception of privilege."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50272171
 
Beto O'Rourke was never a good candidate for presidency and simply should not have run, he was better suited to running for Senate from Texas again. The problem is that, by taking the gun confiscation stance, he has pretty much killed his chances of winning a senate run too.
 
hussain.r97 said:
Beto O'Rourke was never a good candidate for presidency and simply should not have run, he was better suited to running for Senate from Texas again. The problem is that, by taking the gun confiscation stance, he has pretty much killed his chances of winning a senate run too.
Click to expand...

Only Sanders, Biden, and Elizabeth are relevant. Rest are not charismatic enough.

Biden should win this in the end.
 
Last edited:
sweep_shot said:
Only Sanders, Biden, and Elizabeth are relevant. Rest are not charismatic enough.

Biden should win this in the end.
Click to expand...

Still looking like Biden has a chance, but I really hope he falls fast. He represents the status quo, only Bernie, and to some extent, Warren are capable of bringing any meaningful change.
 
Democratic primary voters increasingly feel the need to nominate a candidate who can beat President Trump in 2020, and more think Joe Biden can do that than any of the other top Democratic hopefuls. In addition, while most Democratic primary voters are satisfied with their field, more than a quarter wish they had other options, according to a new Fox News Poll.

Biden leads the nomination race with the backing of 31 percent of Democratic primary voters, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 21 percent, Bernie Sanders at 19 percent, and Pete Buttigieg at 7 percent. In early October, Biden was at 32 percent, Warren 22, Sanders 17, and Buttigieg 4.

Kamala Harris and Andrew Yang receive 3 percent apiece, followed by Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, and Amy Klobuchar each at 2 percent, and Tom Steyer at 1 percent.

Compared to March, the first Fox News Poll on the race, Biden’s support is unchanged, while Warren has gained 17 points, Buttigieg is up 6 and Sanders is down 4.

Biden is helped by a large majority of Democratic primary voters (80 percent) saying it is extremely important their nominee can beat Trump -- and more (68 percent) think he can do that than feel that way about Warren (57 percent), Sanders (54 percent), or Buttigieg (30 percent).

Far fewer, 42 percent, feel it is extremely important their candidate shares their views on major issues. However, more Democratic primary voters also say Biden shares their views (72 percent) than say the same of Sanders (68 percent), Warren (62 percent), or Buttigieg (43 percent).

Since May, the number of Democratic primary voters saying it is extremely important their nominee can defeat Trump has gone up 7 points (from 73 to 80 percent), and the portion saying it is extremely important their candidate shares their views has dropped 9 (51 vs 42 percent).

The poll, released Sunday, finds that despite having umpteen candidates to choose from, more than one in four Democratic primary voters wish they had other options (28 percent). That includes 26 percent of Biden supporters and 27 percent of Warren supporters.

Seventy-eight percent of GOP primary voters want to keep Trump as their nominee, while 69 percent of Democratic primary voters are satisfied with their field.

“If Hillary Clinton were to enter the race, she’d likely do so near the top of the pack,” says Democratic pollster Chris Anderson, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Republican Daron Shaw. "And Michelle Obama could probably clear the field.”

Twenty-seven percent of Democratic primary voters would definitely vote for Clinton, including one-third of those backing Biden and one-quarter supporting Warren.

The numbers are rosier for former first lady Michelle Obama: 50 percent would definitely vote for her, including nearly 5 in 10 of Biden’s and 4 in 10 of Warren’s supporters.

Few, 6 percent, would definitely back former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Thirty-two percent would never vote for Bloomberg, 30 percent Clinton, and 8 percent Obama.

While health concerns about Sanders aren’t an issue for over half of Democratic primary voters (53 percent), 28 percent say these concerns make them less likely to support the Vermont senator (14 percent more likely). Sanders suffered a heart attack October 3.

On the other hand, nearly twice as many say they are more likely (21 percent) rather than less likely (11 percent) to back Biden given Trump’s claims about the former vice president and his son’s business dealings in Ukraine and China. About two-thirds say the allegations make no difference (65 percent).

One year out from the 2020 election, Trump ties or trails the Democrat in each of the possible head-to-head matchups tested.

Biden performs best against Trump (51-39 percent). He leads by 12 points, garners over 50 percent and keeps Trump below 40 percent. In early October, Biden led by 10 (50-40 percent).

More Democrats (91 percent) back Biden than Republicans (86 percent) support Trump, and 88 percent of 2016 Trump voters would stick with him, while 91 percent of Clinton voters would support Biden.

Sanders has an 8-point lead (49-41 percent). Warren’s 5-point advantage over the president (46-41 percent) is within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and Buttigieg and Trump tie (41-41 percent). In a 2016 rematch, Clinton has a 2-point edge (43-41 percent).

Between 10-17 percent of voters are undecided or backing third-party candidates.

“Trump’s support in these early ballot tests is consistently around 40 percent,” says Shaw. “He’ll need to shore up his support among a few wavering Republicans and pull some independents and Democrats away from the other side if he’s going to win another term.”

Slim majorities of voters say health care (53 percent) and the economy (52 percent) will be extremely important to their vote for president in November 2020. That’s more than feel that way about guns (44 percent), immigration (43 percent), terrorism (42 percent), taxes (41 percent), abortion (36 percent), foreign policy (36 percent), Supreme Court nominations (36 percent), and climate change (34 percent).

The top issues among Democrats are health care (62 percent extremely important), climate change and guns (both 48 percent), and the economy (46 percent). For Republicans, it’s the economy (60 percent), terrorism (55 percent), and immigration (54 percent).

“Trump’s lowest approval rating is on health care, so Democrats have a big opening there,” says Anderson. “But the size of that opening will depend hugely on the ultimate nominee’s position on Medicare expansion.”

By a 69-21 percent margin, voters favor giving everyone the option to buy into Medicare.

Voters split 47-47 percent over getting rid of private health insurance and moving to a government-run health care system for everyone. Among Democratic primary voters, 80 percent favor allowing everyone to buy into Medicare and 65 percent favor a government-run system.

Pollpourri

Even though the general election is 12 months away, interest is already remarkably high with 60 percent extremely interested. That matches the record high from November 2008, and is nearly double the 32 percent who were extremely interested in November 2015, a year before the 2016 presidential election.

Sixty-three percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Republicans are extremely interested.

Conducted October 27-30, 2019 under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company (R), this Fox News Poll includes interviews with 1,040 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide who spoke with live interviewers on both landlines and cellphones. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for all registered voters and 4.5 points for Democratic primary voters (471).
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...ation-race-tops-trump-by-12-points-in-matchup.
 
With 12 months to go until Election Day, we look at who is winning the race to be the Democratic nominee for US president.

Joe Biden has been the frontrunner from the off, but in recent months his lead has begun to fade.

Recently released fundraising figures suggest the former vice-president is also struggling to raise money, pointing to a race that is far from over.

We've taken an in-depth look at those fundraising numbers, how the national polls are shaping up and what effect the debates have had.

While there are still 17 noteworthy Democrats in the race (you can see them all here), we've focused on the candidates that qualified for the most recent debate - minus Beto O'Rourke, who ended his campaign last week.

At the moment, those 11 candidates are roughly split into three tiers:

1) Joe Biden alongside two well-known senators, Vermont's Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

2) Pete Buttigieg, the young, gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and California Senator Kamala Harris.

3) And the rest: tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang, senators Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota and Cory Booker from New Jersey, Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, former Texas mayor Julian Castro, and hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer.

When you look at their polling numbers in the chart below, it's easy to see that Warren is the candidate with the momentum, coming from an average of around 5% in January to 20% in November.

Bernie Sanders remains a heavyweight contender and has hovered between 15-20% since the start of the year. Remarkably, his numbers were barely affected by news that he suffered a heart attack in early October.

Buttigieg saw an early boost after a cable news town hall forum in March and has largely held on to the support he gained. Yang, meanwhile, has been slowly building support throughout the year.

Harris has seen a couple of boosts to her poll numbers, most notably after she criticised Joe Biden's record on civil rights in the June debate, but they fell away soon after. At the moment, she looks at risk of dropping into the third tier.

The five other candidates have failed to get much traction and could well drop out before the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50097838.
 
Democrats claim victory in key Virginia and Kentucky elections

US Democrats have made gains in state elections, in what is being seen as a blow to President Donald Trump.

Democrat Andy Beshear claimed victory in Kentucky's governor vote, after a tight race in the conservative-leaning state.

Meanwhile, Democrats seized full control of the legislature in Virginia for the first time in over 20 years.

The results are being viewed as a gauge of the political mood ahead of next year's presidential election.

However, Republicans held onto power in the Mississippi governor vote, following a closely-fought race.

Why Democrat election gains should concern Trump
Who will take on Trump in 2020?

In Kentucky, Mr Beshear claimed victory over incumbent Republican governor Matt Bevin after final results gave him a lead of 0.4%.

Mr Bevin, 52, has reportedly said he will not concede, citing unspecified "irregularities".

However, Mr Beshear, a 41-year-old attorney general whose father was a former governor of the state, said: "We will be ready for that first day in office and I look forward to it."

The loss will be seen as a setback for Mr Trump, who attempted to galvanise support for Mr Bevin at a campaign rally in Kentucky on Monday night.

In a speech to thousands of supporters, Mr Trump said a loss for Mr Bevin would be characterised as "the greatest defeat in the history of the world" by his critics.

Mr Trump, who won Kentucky in the 2016 presidential election, said Mr Beshear was "too extreme and too dangerous" to govern the state.

But despite losing the governor's race, Republican candidates claimed victory in five other votes in Kentucky, including a poll for the state's Attorney General.

Meanwhile, in Virginia, Democrats overturned Republican majorities in both chambers of the state legislature.

The election of Danica Roem, the first openly transgender person to serve in the House, and Ghazala Hashmi, who will be the first Muslim woman in the Senate, were among the Democrat's notable victories in the state.

Ahead of the vote, Democratic presidential hopefuls - including frontrunners Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren - had campaigned with local candidates.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50311633
 
Bernie surging over the past month, increase between latest poll and previous poll -

Monmouth: +5
Harvard/Harris: +2
NBC/Wall Street Journal: +5
Fox News: +2
IBD/TIPP: +3

Real Clear Politics polling average change in the last month-

Sanders + 3.8
Biden +2.3
Buttgieg +1.1
Warren -4.6
 
Bill Gates has become the latest billionaire to express concern for presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren's plan for a new tax on the super-rich.

At a conference, the philanthropist and Microsoft founder said it would stifle business innovation in America.

Ms Warren, a Democratic front-runner in the 2020 presidential race, has offered to meet Mr Gates in response.

It comes after criticism of Ms Warren's policy from figures like Jamie Dimon, head of banking giant JP Morgan.

Under the original plan, households with a net worth between $50m (£39m) and $1bn (£780m) will be charged with a 2% "wealth tax" every year. This would rise to 3% for any households with a net worth of over $1bn.

But last week, Ms Warren suggested doubling the latter rate - from 3% to 6%. She said the money raised from this new tax would be used to fund her healthcare plan, which is expected to cost the federal government $20.5tn over 10 years.

Mr Gates hit back at the idea during a talk at the New York Times DealBook conference in New York on Wednesday.

"I'm all for super-progressive tax systems," he said. "I've paid over $10bn in taxes. I've paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to pay $20bn, it's fine.

"But when you say I should pay $100bn, then I'm starting to do a little math about what I have left over. Sorry, I'm just kidding," he added.

"So you really want the incentive system to be there and you can go a long ways without threatening that."

Mr Gates is the second-richest person in the world, according to Forbes magazine, with a net worth of $106.2bn.

When asked if he would be willing to meet with her about the policy, Mr Gates said he wasn't sure if Ms Warren would "sit down with somebody who has large amounts of money".

Hours after his comments, Ms Warren said she would "love" to meet Mr Gates to explain her plan in more detail.

Tax reform has become a key talking point among contenders for the US presidential election. The debate has been partially spurred by tax reform under Donald Trump's administration, which the president dubbed "the biggest tax cut in history".

Mr Trump said cuts would help to boost the economy, but critics argue they disproportionately benefit the country's wealthiest individuals.

Earlier this year, a group of America's richest people penned an open letter calling on presidential candidates to roll out a wealth tax on the super-rich.

"America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more," they said in a letter, proposing that the money be spent on tackling climate change and economic inequality.

Signatories included investor George Soros and Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. The group said they were non-partisan and not endorsing any candidate.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50333597.
 
Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg is strongly considering entering the race for the US Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The ex-New York City mayor is concerned the current field of candidates is not good enough to beat Donald Trump in the 2020 election, his spokesman says.

The 77-year-old is expected to file paperwork this week for the Democratic presidential primary in Alabama.

A total of 17 candidates are currently vying to take on President Trump.

Former Vice-President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are the Democratic frontrunners.

Some recent opinion polls have suggested that Ms Warren and Mr Sanders - who are regarded as to the left of Mr Biden - might lose against Republican Mr Trump if either won the party's nomination.

The key issues for 2020 Democrats
Mr Bloomberg's spokesman said: "We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated. But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that."
 
MenInG said:
Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg is strongly considering entering the race for the US Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The ex-New York City mayor is concerned the current field of candidates is not good enough to beat Donald Trump in the 2020 election, his spokesman says.

The 77-year-old is expected to file paperwork this week for the Democratic presidential primary in Alabama.

A total of 17 candidates are currently vying to take on President Trump.

Former Vice-President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are the Democratic frontrunners.

Some recent opinion polls have suggested that Ms Warren and Mr Sanders - who are regarded as to the left of Mr Biden - might lose against Republican Mr Trump if either won the party's nomination.

The key issues for 2020 Democrats
Mr Bloomberg's spokesman said: "We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated. But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that."
Click to expand...

Very disingenuous article considering literally every opinion poll has Warren and Bernie beating Trump, including in swing states, often by larger margins than Joe Biden does.

Don't see what Bloomberg brings to the race. Literally everyone running is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, while Bernie Sanders is a good candidate whatever the year. Seems like a PR stunt.
 
US President Donald Trump has taunted former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has taken a key step towards joining the White House race.

Speaking to reporters early on Friday, Mr Trump said of the billionaire: "There is nobody I'd rather run against than little Michael."

Mr Bloomberg later filed paperwork for the Democratic presidential primary in Alabama.

But he has so far not announced that he is running for president.

What else did President Trump say?
On Friday, Mr Trump said Mr Bloomberg "doesn't have the magic" to make it to the White House.

He continued: "He's not going to do well, but I think he's going to hurt Biden actually."

Calling him "a nothing", Mr Trump said that Mr Bloomberg "will fail" if he joins the Democratic race.

What did Bloomberg's aide say?
In a statement late on Thursday, Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson said: "We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated.

"But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that."

Mr Bloomberg is said to be fully aware such a belated entry to the race presents challenges in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where other Democratic contenders have been campaigning for months.

The Bloomberg team reportedly sees a possible pathway through the so-called Super Tuesday contests in March, when 14 states, including California, Alabama and Colorado, will vote on a single day for their preferred White House nominee.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50352801.
 
Hillary Clinton has said she is "under enormous pressure" to challenge US President Donald Trump in next year's White House election.

The former Democratic presidential nominee refused to rule it out, telling the BBC: "Never say never."

Mrs Clinton, 72, said she thinks "all the time" about what kind of president she would have been if she had beaten Mr Trump in 2016.

Seventeen Democrats are already vying to lead the party in 2020.

Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live's Emma Barnett while in the UK on a book tour, Mrs Clinton was asked whether she would run again.

The former secretary of state, New York senator and US first lady replied: "I think all the time about what kind of president I would have been and what I would have done differently and what I think it would have meant to our country and the world.

"So of course I think about it, I think about it all the time. Being able to do that, and look, whoever wins next time is going to have a big task trying to fix everything that's been broken."

Pressed on whether she would throw her hat into the ring at the last minute, Mrs Clinton said: "I, as I say, never, never, never say never.

"I will certainly tell you, I'm under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.

"But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans."

Mrs Clinton did not elaborate on who was pressuring her to mount what would be her third White House campaign.

The interview in London came as she promoted The Book of Gutsy Women, which she has co-written with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

The Democratic race is still largely up in the air even as the first of the state-by-state votes that will decide which of the contenders challenges Mr Trump looms in Iowa in February.

The perceived vulnerability of one front-runner, Joe Biden, has spurred former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to take steps to enter the fray.

Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a close ally of former President Barack Obama, is also reportedly considering jumping into the race.

But the deadline has already passed to file on the Democratic primary ballot in several states, including New Hampshire, which also votes in February.

The filing deadline for Alabama expired last week, and the deadline for Mrs Clinton's former political heartland of Arkansas was on Tuesday.

Some of the 14 states that will vote on so-called Super Tuesday in March have filing deadlines next month.

Political gossip about whether Mrs Clinton might jump into the White House race continues to set tongues wagging in Washington DC.

Some of this speculation has been stoked by the Clintons themselves.

Last month when Mr Trump goaded Mrs Clinton to enter the presidential race, she retorted in a tweet: "Don't tempt me. Do your job."

At a Georgetown University event in Washington DC in October, former President Bill Clinton said of his wife, who was sitting beside him: "She may or may not ever run for anything."
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50399230.
 
Just when it appeared the Democratic presidential field was shrinking in earnest, it starts expanding again.

First, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg began motioning toward a campaign. Now Deval Patrick has jumped in with both feet.

The former Massachusetts governor has a tall task ahead of him if he wants to seriously compete for his party's nomination.

Unlike Bloomberg, he does not have a seemingly bottomless personal fortune to draw on for campaign expenses. Fund-raising is one of the most important components of a successful presidential bid, and Patrick will start at zero with only a few months until the primaries begin.

It appears Patrick will count on his personal charisma and a focus on early voting New Hampshire, which borders his home state, to jump-start his campaign. He is pitching himself as an optimistic mainstream Democrat who can unite the country after the divisive Trump presidency. And he's a charismatic African American candidate who counts the Obamas as close friends.

Somewhere, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker - the other black man in the race, who has struck similar campaign themes - must be shaking his head.

Other candidates may also be a bit concerned at Patrick's entry. Senator Elizabeth Warren is no longer the only candidate from Massachusetts in the race. She, along with Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, have been making a strong play for New Hampshire - and they now have to deal with a new, potentially powerful force there.

Joe Biden's camp should also be worried. Not only could Patrick compete for the black voters who make up the former vice-president's base, his entry into the race will be seen as yet another sign that the political establishment is uneasy with the performance of Biden's candidacy so far.

His friendship with Barack Obama could be an indication that the still-popular former president harbours his own doubts about his former vice-president's electoral viability. Although Mr Obama is staying out of backing a horse in this race, there's little doubt Patrick consulted him before launching his bid.

Patrick's campaign has a long way to go before it can be considered a serious factor in this race, however.

Will he be able to find the political oxygen in the days remaining to catch fire? He won't qualify for next week's presidential debate and seems unlikely to do so for December's event. As the other candidates left off the stage can attest, not appearing in the monthly face-offs can consign even a gifted politician to also-ran status.

Patrick also will have to address some concerns about his resume. While the former governor is mostly aligned with his party's more liberal politics these days, his recent work with Bain Capital - the same investment firm that was a Democratic punching bag when it employed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney - will set the party's progressives on edge.

Regardless of Patrick's ultimate performance, his entry, and Bloomberg's manoeuvring, paints a picture of a Democratic presidential field still in flux in the home stretch before 2020 primary balloting.

Establishment Democrats are worried progressive candidates like Warren and Sanders are unelectable - or could pull the party too far to the left if they do win. Moderates are uneasy about Biden's political agility and endurance in what will be a gruelling year of campaigning - and don't see any saviours in the current field.

They view Buttigieg as too young and inexperienced. The rest of the pack can't seem to get traction. It's enough to give Democratic voters, who prize unseating Donald Trump above all else, heartburn.

Then there's the spectre of impeachment looming over the entire race. Five of the 10 candidates who have qualified for next week's debate in Atlanta are US senators. There's a very real prospect at this point that Mr Trump will be impeached, and they will all have to spend a big chunk of January in Washington, serving as jurors in the president's Senate trial.

Mr Biden could end up being a witness in those proceedings - or, at the very least, distracted by Republican attempts to paint his son's involvement with a Ukrainian energy company as a corrupting influence on the then vice-president. He could be damaged by it all.

When a potential candidate like Patrick or Bloomberg surveys a field without a dominant front-runner, where half the participants could be sidelined or preoccupied in the key weeks before primary voting kicks off, that can't help but tickle once-dormant presidential ambitions.

At some point the Democratic race will have to come into focus. Primary voters will cast their ballots, and polls and prognosticators will give way to hard results.

At this point, however, making predictions or setting expectations before then seems a fool's errand. For every moment of clarity, there are two waves of chaos.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50423763.
 
Former US President Barack Obama has issued a warning to Democratic presidential candidates, cautioning them against policies that are not "rooted in reality".

Mr Obama said Democrats risked alienating voters if they lurched too far to the left politically.

The former president, speaking at a fundraising event, said most voters didn't want to "tear down the system".

Mr Obama is yet to publicly back a Democratic candidate.

The field is crowded, with 17 Democrats vying for the nomination to take on Republican President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

The frontrunners are former Vice-President Joe Biden, senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

At the event held in Washington on Friday, Mr Obama did not mention any candidate by name nor criticise any specific policy proposal.

Instead, he used the appearance to urge Democrats to "pay some attention" to voters on issues such as health care and immigration.

These voters, Mr Obama said, did not necessarily have the same views as what he called "certain left-leaning Twitter feeds" or "the activist wing of our party".

The comments, which come less than four months before the Democratic primaries, represent one of Mr Obama's most pointed interventions in the race so far.

They may be seen as a critique of senators Sanders and Warren - widely seen as two of the most left-wing candidates in the field.

Both candidates have called for far-reaching political and economic change, including policies that would end private health insurance and decriminalise illegal border crossings.

But Mr Obama, who occupied the White House from 2009 to 2017, said the country was "less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement".

"Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality," Mr Obama said at the meeting, reportedly attended by wealthy liberal donors.

Barack Obama, pictured here with Joe Biden after giving his election victory speech in 2008, is viewed as a moderate Democrat
The Democratic race is still largely up in the air even as the first of the state-by-state votes that will decide which of the contenders challenges Mr Trump for the White House looms in Iowa in February.

Some Democrats are concerned that Mr Biden, a moderate, will struggle to beat Mr Trump, prompting a flurry of latecomers to join the race.

In recent days Deval Patrick, the two-time former governor of Massachusetts, entered the field amid speculation that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg may follow suit.

Meanwhile, political gossip about whether Hillary Clinton might enter the fray continues to set tongues wagging in Washington DC.

In an interview with the BBC, Mrs Clinton said she was "under enormous pressure" to challenge Mr Trump, who beat her in the 2016 presidential election.

Who will take on Trump in 2020?
Election day is less than a year away now and the race to become the Democratic challenger to Donald Trump is hotting up.

The latest polling suggests Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are the front-runners, while Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg are not far behind.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50445743
 
Democratic presidential candidates have given their reaction to a warning by former President Barack Obama against moving too far left in politics.

Mr Obama's rare intervention into the Democratic race was a talking point at campaign events on Saturday.

Some Democrats called for unity, while others defended their policy agenda.

Nearly 20 candidates remain in the running and there is much debate over the best approach to taking on President Trump next year.

Speaking at a fundraising forum in Washington, the former president - considered a moderate - cautioned candidates against pursuing polices that were not "rooted in reality".

Mr Obama, who was in office from 2009 to 2017, said "ordinary Americans" didn't want to "completely tear down the system".

"This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement," Mr Obama said to an audience of wealthy donors on Friday.

The remarks represented Mr Obama's most pointed intervention yet in a crowded race featuring 18 candidates.

Obama issues warning to 'revolutionary' Democrats
Former vice-president Joe Biden and senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are leading the pack, but Mr Obama is yet to publicly back a candidate.

How did candidates respond to Mr Obama?
Although none of the Democratic candidates explicitly rebuked Mr Obama's comments, Mr Sanders mounted the strongest defence of his policy platform.

Answering questions on a forum aired by Univision, a Spanish-language TV network, he was asked whether Mr Obama was "right" to say voters didn't want systemic change.

Mr Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist and progressive, laughed and said: "Well, it depends on what you mean by tear down the system."

"The agenda that we have is an agenda supported by the vast majority of working people," he said. "When I talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, I'm not tearing down the system. We're fighting for justice."

Elizabeth Warren, another left-leaning frontrunner, struck a more conciliatory tone, choosing to praise Mr Obama's trademark health care policy, the Affordable Care Act.

"I so admire what President Obama did," Ms Warren said at a campaign event in Iowa, the New York Times reported.

"He is the one who led the way on health care and got health care coverage for tens of millions of Americans when nobody thought that was possible."

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker said the party ought to be focusing its energy on defeating Republican President Donald Trump, not internal political squabbles.

"Let's stop tearing each other down, let's stop drawing artificial lines," he said.

Unlike Mr Obama, Julián Castro, a former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, said he was confident any Democratic candidate would beat President Trump, regardless of their political persuasion.

"Their vision for the future of the country is much better and will be more popular than Donald Trump's," Mr Castro, former housing secretary in the Obama administration, said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50452177
 
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York who has made moves towards running as a presidential candidate, has apologised for backing the city's "stop and frisk" policy.

Stop-and-frisk disproportionately targeted black and Latino residents.

Speaking at an African-American church in Brooklyn, New York, Mr Bloomberg said the policy was a mistake.

He believed that stop-and-frisk saved lives, he said, but accepted that good intentions were not good enough.

"I can't change history," he told the congregation at Christian Cultural Centre. "However, today I want you to know that I realise back then, I was wrong, and I'm sorry. But I also want you to know that I am more committed than ever to ending gun violence."

Mr Bloomberg, who was Republican mayor of the city from 2002 until 2013, added that the policy "eroded what we had worked so hard to build: trust".

"Trust between police and communities, trust between you and me," he said. "And the erosion of the trust bothered me, deeply. And it still bothers me. And I want to earn it back."

But the apology was met with scepticism from many, who believe the timing of it betrays a political motive.

Although he hasn't formally announced his candidacy, Mr Bloomberg has indicated that he may join the Democratic race for the presidency ahead of next year's election.

Since the end of his time as mayor, Mr Bloomberg has repeatedly defended the stop-and-frisk policy - including as recently as this January.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50453904.
 
It was the poll heard round the world - or at least the US political world.

On Saturday, the Des Moines Register released a mid-November survey of Iowa Democratic voters that had South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg in a comfortable lead among candidates in the state's first-in-the-nation presidential nomination caucuses.

The mayor of Indiana's fourth-largest city stood at 25%, followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren with 16%, and Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice-President Joe Biden tied at 15%. The survey's margin of error was 4.4%.

The results represent a remarkable surge for Buttigieg, who posted 9% in the Register's September survey. The 37-year-old also had the highest favourability rating of any Democrat in the field, with 72% of likely Democratic caucus-goers having either a very or mostly favourable view of the candidate.

A March Register poll showed 73% either weren't sure or didn't know what they thought of Buttigieg, so the more Iowans see of him, the more they seem to like.

Buttigieg's rise appears to have come at the expense of Warren, who dropped 6% since September, and Biden, who is down 5%.

Even though another Iowa poll showed a much closer race, with Buttigieg in a dead heat with Sanders and Biden, the take-away is clear. Buttigieg, who was a political unknown a year ago, is gaining support and should be considered among the front-runners - at least in Iowa, which carries an outsize significance in the Democratic presidential nominating process.

He's shown he can fundraise as well or better than any of the other candidates, and is rapidly expanding his campaign organisation in Iowa and across the US. Once it gets closer to the voting, he has the resources to dominate the television airwaves with campaign advertisements.

"That's extremely encouraging, obviously," Buttigieg told reporters at a candidate event in California after the Des Moines survey came out. "At the same time, there's a long way to go, and there are a lot of states in this process."

With the Iowa caucuses set for 3 February, there is indeed a long way to go - and the Register poll showed that nearly two-thirds of Iowa Democrats who expressed a preference for a candidate "could be persuaded" to change their minds.

What's more, the state has traditionally rewarded candidates who get hot late in the process. In a November 2003 Des Moines Register poll, Democrat John Kerry - the eventual Iowa winner - trailed Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt by 12%. In October 2015, neurosurgeon Ben Carson had a Buttigieg-size lead over the Republican field, 28% to Donald Trump's 19%.

When Iowans finally cast their ballots, Carson finished a distant fourth behind Ted Cruz, Trump and Marco Rubio, with only 9%.

Buttigieg has other concerns besides finding a way to keep his Iowa momentum going, too. While his poll numbers there are encouraging, the surge has not been replicated on a national level. Even more troubling, while he's looking good in Iowa and New Hampshire, in later-voting states that have a diverse electorate that more accurately reflects the composition of the modern Democratic Party, Buttigieg's support is moribund.

In South Carolina, for instance, Buttigieg sits in fifth place, at 6.7% in the RealClearPolitics polling average. A just-released Quinnipiac poll had Buttigieg at 6% there, with less than 1% support from the state's black Democrats. Several other recent surveys had Buttigieg at 0% among blacks.

While Buttigieg has tried to reach out to black voters, some of his efforts have risked backfiring. His campaign released its Douglass Plan - named after US Civil War abolitionist Frederick Douglasss - to combat racism, but used a stock photo of a Kenyan woman to promote it on its website. It also listed the names of 400 South Carolinians who supported the plan in a way that made it seem they had endorsed Buttigieg's presidential bid - many hadn't.

There has also been a bit of a social media kerfuffle over a 2017 photograph - posted on the Instagram page of Buttigieg's husband, Chasten - of the candidate posing coyly at the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, with the caption "This guy".

That's just a taste of the kind of scrutiny in store for Buttigieg now that Iowa polls put him firmly in the top tier of presidential candidates.

There's already been some grumbling from other candidates about Buttigieg's outsized success given what they see as a thin political resume.

Eight days ago, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar said that she and the other female presidential candidates would never have been able to run credible presidential campaigns with Buttigieg's level of experience.

"Do I think we would be standing on that stage if we had the experience he had?" she asked in a television interview. "No, I don't. Maybe we're held to a different standard."

Former Obama administration cabinet secretary Julian Castro also had a blunt assessment of his fellow candidate.

"It is very risky to nominate a candidate that can't attract black and Latino voters," Castro told the New York Times. "He's going by the old playbook of following the focus groups, going by what political consultants tell you. If we've learned anything from Donald Trump, unfortunately in a bad way, it's that focus grouping and poll testing ain't the way that you're going to win."

Given this context, Buttigieg may be in for a tough time when the Democrats take the stage at the next presidential debate in Atlanta on Wednesday. Every time a candidate appears to be surging - whether it's Biden, Harris or Warren - they've eventually become a lightning rod for opponent attacks.

Buttigieg could be a particularly ripe target for candidates like Klobuchar and Cory Booker, who view his appeal to moderate Democratic as obstructing their electoral path, or Warren, who polls indicate is competing with the mayor for white, college-educated voters.

In the weeks ahead, Buttigieg may find that climbing to the top of the candidate heap was the easy part. Staying there will be hard.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50463702.
 
Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, an increasingly likely 2020 presidential candidate, plans to launch a $31 million television advertising campaign on Monday, in a move deemed anti-democratic by Bernie Sanders.

The billionaire has purchased a total of $31 million in advertising inserts, according to the ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics, the largest sum ever spent by a US presidential candidate.

The amount — an increase on the record $25m spent by Barack Obama at the end of his 2012 campaign — reflects the financial clout of the 77-year-old former mayor, one of the richest men in the world.

But the vast spend has raised concerns among the 17 or so Democrats who are already competing to challenge Donald Trump in the November 2020 White House race.

Senator Bernie Sanders attacked the decision on Friday, tweeting he was “disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy elections”.

“If you can't build grassroots support for your candidacy, you have no business running for president,” he wrote.

Bloomberg, who ran New York from 2002 to 2013, registered on Thursday with the US Federal Election Commission — another step towards a run at the White House.

Twelve days ago he said he was “close” to making a final decision on whether or not to enter the crowded field.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1518421/p...didate-bloomberg-buys-record-amount-of-tv-ads.
 
Billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has officially announced he is standing to be the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

In a statement, the 77-year-old said he was standing "to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America".

"The stakes could not be higher. We must win this election," Mr Bloomberg wrote.

He joins 17 other candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to take on Mr Trump in 2020.

As things stand, former Vice-President Joe Biden, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the party's front-runners.

Mr Bloomberg is said to be concerned the current field is not strong enough to challenge the president.

He enters the race after months of debate over wealth inequality in the US, with Mr Sanders and Ms Warren announcing plans for steep tax rises for billionaires. Unveiling his tax proposals in September, Mr Sanders said: "Billionaires should not exist."

President Trump taunted Mr Bloomberg earlier in November, saying there was "nobody I'd rather run against than little Michael".

The same day, Mr Bloomberg filed paperwork for the Democratic primary election in Alabama.

Who is Mr Bloomberg?
Michael Bloomberg is the eighth richest American with a net-worth of $54.4bn (£42bn), according to Forbes.

Born in Massachusetts, he started out in business as a Wall Street banker before going on to create the financial publishing empire that bears his name.

Over the years he has given millions of dollars to educational, medical and other causes - including political ones.

He staged a successful campaign to become New York mayor in 2001 and remained in office for three consecutive terms until 2013.

Rumours of presidential ambitions have surrounded him for more than a decade.

Why is Bloomberg running?

Mr Bloomberg is a very data-driven businessman. But it doesn't take an advanced degree in quantitative analysis to realise that the Democratic field, even at this (relatively) late date is still in flux.

There are four candidates at or near the top of early state and national primary polls - all with their strengths, of course, but also obvious weaknesses. His strategy appears to be to let the other candidates fight it out in the early voting states, then take on a diminished field later in the process, where his near unlimited resources will allow him to compete in the dozens of states that vote in March.

It's a risky play that only someone of Mr Bloomberg's vast wealth can afford to make.

Even so, it takes quite a leap of faith to imagine that Democrats these days are ready to jump over to a New York City plutocrat ex-Republican with a smorgasbord of a record that's business friendly, fiscally conservative and includes opposition to government-run health insurance and legalised marijuana, and past support for aggressive policing measures.

At the very least, however, his entry will provide him a means to push a party that he sees drifting dangerous leftward back to the pro-business centre.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50539242.
 
Democratic White House hopeful Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential race, US media report.

The California senator's campaign seemed full of promise when it launched in January, but she struggled to make headway in a crowded field.

In November her cash-strapped bid laid off staff at its Baltimore HQ and in New Hampshire and her home state.

The 55-year-old, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, was once seen as a rising star within the party.

But she could not break into the top tier of candidates - Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren - despite a memorable attack on Mr Biden on the issue of race during a live TV debate in June.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50652290
 
Pakistani-American journalist to moderate US presidential debate

WASHINGTON: A Pak*istani-American, Amna Nawaz, has created history by becoming the first South Asian American journalist selected to moderate a US presidential debate.

Amna Nawaz of PBS News Hour will co-moderate the sixth Democratic primary debate on Dec 19 at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.

PBS NewsHour anchor and managing editor Judy Woodruff will lead the panel which includes POLITICO chief political correspondent Tim Alberta and PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor.

The Virginia-born Nawaz joined PBS NewsHour in April 2018 and is now its senior national correspondent and primary substitute anchor.

Prior to joining the NewsHour, Nawaz was an anchor and correspondent at ABC News, where she covered the 2016 presidential election. Before that, she was a foreign correspondent at NBC News, reporting from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, and the broader region. She is also the founder and former managing editor of NBC’s Asian America platform, built to elevate the voices of America’s fastest-growing population.

At NewsHour, Nawaz has reported politics, foreign affairs, education, climate change, culture and sports. She’s investigated the impact of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies, focusing on detention, refugees and asylum, and migrant children in the US government custody.

Amna Nawaz has interviewed international newsmakers — including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and Brazilian leader Eduardo Bolsonaro; lawmakers and Trump Administration’s officials. She has visited Brazil to report on climate change from within the Amazon, and the Venezuelan refugee crisis.

In 2019, her reporting as part of a NewsHour series on the global plastic problem received a Peabody Award.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1520914/pakistani-american-journalist-to-moderate-us-presidential-debate.
 
#NeverBiden

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dear fellow Democrats:<a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> has been repeatedly trying to tell us something. When someone tries this hard to make clear exactly who they are and what their values are, we should listen. <a href="https://t.co/KVtr9jtNHn">pic.twitter.com/KVtr9jtNHn</a></p>— David Sirota (@davidsirota) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1211828357601456128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 31, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Trump would eat warren, bernie and joe all together, the only chance democrats have is to elect bloomberg who will take the fight right to the wire.
 
PetroDollars said:
Trump would eat warren, bernie and joe all together, the only chance democrats have is to elect bloomberg who will take the fight right to the wire.
Click to expand...

Nope, Bloomberg is extremely unpopular. Actually any Democrat candidate would be able to defeat Trump, all they have to do is flip 2 large swing states and that's it. People forget that Trump did not win by a big margin and he's more unpopular. Just 2 key swing states is enough to end his run.
 
Pakistanian said:
#NeverBiden

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dear fellow Democrats:<a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> has been repeatedly trying to tell us something. When someone tries this hard to make clear exactly who they are and what their values are, we should listen. <a href="https://t.co/KVtr9jtNHn">pic.twitter.com/KVtr9jtNHn</a></p>— David Sirota (@davidsirota) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1211828357601456128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 31, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

It's amazing to me how centrist democrats budge before any republican has even asked them to budge, and concede 90% of their position. Meanwhile, republicans don't budge an iota.
 
ahsan17 said:
It's amazing to me how centrist democrats budge before any republican has even asked them to budge, and concede 90% of their position. Meanwhile, republicans don't budge an iota.
Click to expand...

I think it's cause they are aware of how conservative the country really is, if you look at map of counties you'll realize that there isn't really a single "blue state" aside from Massachusetts and Vermont, however the democrats don't realize that they have population on their side - most of the solid blue counties have a plurality of the population.

election-2016-county-map.png
 
Pakistanian said:
I think it's cause they are aware of how conservative the country really is, if you look at map of counties you'll realize that there isn't really a single "blue state" aside from Massachusetts and Vermont, however the democrats don't realize that they have population on their side - most of the solid blue counties have a plurality of the population.

election-2016-county-map.png
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with that. It's more related to legalized bribes, aka campaign contributions. That is what vast majority of the issues in the US boil down to, not Trump or even Republicans. The Republican party and the centrist Democrats are beholden to their donors. Only the progressive left, i.e. Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren are the ones that are against this.

Though I think the US is turning a tide against this. From what I see, most Americans are now fully aware of how campaign contributions are hurting their country. Trump won because of this reason, although he ended up being the same thing he was fighting against. Same for Obama. Bernie is the only genuine hope IMO.
 
It would be nice if America had a real democracy. When was the last time Republiacans actually won the popular vote?

I think Democrats' biggest threat is the stock market. It has been surging ever since Trump took over (although nowhere near as much as it surged when Obama was president) and, since most Americans own stocks, they will vote fo him again if it appears to improve their personal wealth.
 
Pakistanian said:
Nope, Bloomberg is extremely unpopular. Actually any Democrat candidate would be able to defeat Trump, all they have to do is flip 2 large swing states and that's it. People forget that Trump did not win by a big margin and he's more unpopular. Just 2 key swing states is enough to end his run.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg is a newcomer, even trump was unpopular when he entered the race, extremely unpopular, things dont work out like you seem to think they do?

2 swing states can turn the result of any election, Trump did not win by a big margin but he will this time and anyone who thinks any of the democrate candidates has even a little chance are well deluded. Before trump had the nationalist vote, now he has the whole capitalist vote, economy boom, stock market record highs, silicon valley boom has bought him alot of love from wall street to silicon valley. His run is just beginning.
 
There have been seven official Democratic debates but this one had a real sense of urgency - in less than three weeks the candidates will face their first test.

The primary season begins on 3 February with the Iowa caucuses, when the Democratic voters in this state will pick who they want to take on Donald Trump in November.

As the six White House hopefuls took to the debate stage in Des Moines, the Republican US president they have in their sights was mocking them at a rally 400 miles east in Wisconsin.

Here are some key moments from the debate - and the Trump rally.

What was the biggest moment?
The body language between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders at the conclusion of the debate - when they spoke heatedly and did not shake hands - told its own story.

The non-aggression pact between the two candidates could be over just as the voting is set to begin.

The biggest news story in campaign politics over the past few days had been the growing tensions between the two most liberal candidates.

Warren had alleged that Sanders told her in December 2018 that a woman couldn't win the presidency - something Sanders denied.

Asked about this during the debate, Sanders denied it again - saying he has long supported the idea of a woman president.

Then Warren had her turn, and in a set-piece response she clearly spent time crafting, she hit a number of political targets almost in one breath.

She started by essentially implying that Sanders was lying. She then pivoted her response into a shout-out for the electoral success that she and Amy Klobuchar, the other woman candidate on the stage, have had. They've won every election they've been in, she said to thunderous applause, while the three male politicians debating have lost 10 between them.

She ended by pitching herself as the unity candidate with a broad coalition.

"The real danger we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can't pull party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of constituency," she said. "We need to excite all parts of party, bring everyone in and give everyone a Democrat to believe in."

Given that Sanders has been criticised for being too divisive, Pete Buttigieg for not being able to draw significant minority support, and Biden for a lack of enthusiastic support, it was a roundhouse kick at the three candidates vying with her at the top of the polls.

Due to the last week's Iran crisis, foreign policy for the first time opened the debate - and the candidates fell into two broad categories.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders called for US forces to be withdrawn from the Middle East.

Warren said that US generals had been saying for years that the US was "turning a corner" in the Middle East and Afghanistan, but they could never detail exactly how and when the US could get out.

"We've turned the corner so many times we're going in circles in these regions," she quipped, before saying that the US had to stop asking the US military to solve problems that could not be addressed militarily.

Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar and - somewhat obliquely - Pete Buttigieg came down in support of extending scaled-down US deployments in Iraq. Biden warned that without US troops in the region, the Islamic State might regain strength.

"They'll come back if we do not deal with them and we do not have someone who can bring together the rest of the world to go with us, with small numbers of special forces we have, to organise the effort to take them down," he said.

When the topic turned to trade, similar divides formed - with a twist. Sanders said he opposed the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement negotiated by the Trump administration, while Warren said she reluctantly supported it as a "modest improvement".

There haven't been to many cracks between Warren and Sanders on policy, but this was one.

The irony, of course, is that recent polls show that a majority of Americans - and Democrats - are in favour of trade deals.

Americans tend not to vote on foreign policy issues outside of times of war or national crisis - but as last week showed, there's no telling when such a moment could arise.

Warren may have had the standout moment during the debate, but the candidate who could end up emerging the biggest beneficiary of the evening is the one who has bumped and grinded through the months and still seems in the best position heading into primary season.

If there's a real break forming between Warren and Sanders, it is nothing but good news for the former vice-president. He can keep his head down while his fellow front-runners duke it out - and keeping his head down was exactly what he did on Tuesday night.

Over the course of the evening, Biden once again showed that he's never going to be a master debater. He wasn't when he was in his prime and he seems to have lost a step in recent years. Nevertheless, the smaller debate stage has benefited him. Where he tended to get lost and tired in the lengthy double-digit candidate scrums, he has been more engaged in the past two contests.

When the topic turned to impeachment, he noted that Republicans have "savaged my surviving son" - a subtle reference to the fact that he has buried two children and a wife, a source of sorrow that could generate public sympathy if Hunter Biden gets pulled into Trump's upcoming Senate trial.

After Warren had her moment, Biden got the last word before the commercial break, noting that he has "the broadest coalition of anyone running up here in this race".

That was a theme he returned to when asked whether he could go toe-to-toe with Trump in a general-election debate.

"I have support across the board," he said, touting his support from black and working-class voters. "I'm not worried about taking on Donald Trump at all."

Then it was time for more commercials.

Once again, Biden got the last word. And his competitors missed out on yet another opportunity to ding the former vice-president before the campaign moves from places like Iowa and New Hampshire to more diverse states, where the breadth of Biden's coalition could give him the upper hand.

Biden's far from a lock for the nomination, but he's keeping his ship afloat - which is more than many thought after his first few rocky debates.

And the Democrats were on Trump's mind
At the rally - Holly Honderich, BBC News, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

"What these people are doing, they will destroy our nation."

President Trump made fleeting - though biting - references to his Democratic challengers on Tuesday night, speaking at a campaign rally in Milwaukee just as his opponents took the debate stage in Iowa.

Bernie Sanders is "a nasty guy" "surging" in the polls, Trump said to jeers and boos, as he addressed a state that voted for Sanders over Hillary Clinton by a 13-point margin in the 2016 Democratic primary.

Trump resorted to well-worn insults to address the other frontrunners: "Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren" and "Sleepy Joe Biden", poking fun at the former vice-president for past gaffes.

And with just these short swipes, Mr Trump said more about the Democratic field than most of his supporters lined up outside, waiting to hear the president speak.

When asked, those in line commented on the Democrats collectively, calling them "fools", buffoons" or "jokes", wasting time on impeachment. But none, they said, pose any real challenge to the president.

"No one can stand up to Trump," Vicky Francis said as she waited in line top attend her 10th Trump rally.

"Everything he said he would do, he has done. He's speaking the truth."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51109341
 
I Sort of Can’t Believe This Is Happening’: Young Progressives Agonize Over Bernie-Warren Feud

DES MOINES, Iowa—They chatted and laughed and clanked pint glasses for the first 43 minutes, paying just enough attention to the television monitors to know that nothing of consequence had yet occurred. And then, so suddenly that it could mean only one thing, the crowd inside Papa Keno’s Pizzeria fell hushed.

The past two days had been building to the must-see moment now airing live on CNN: Bernie Sanders was denying the allegation, reported by multiple outlets, that he had told Elizabeth Warren during a private meeting before the campaign began that he didn’t think a woman could win the presidency in 2020; and Warren, maintaining that he had, was disputing the perceived electability of Sanders and the other male candidates. “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women,” she said.

Story Continued Below
As this tense exchange unfolded inside an auditorium on the campus of Drake University, the implications were manifest to the dozens of young people gathered in the college bar nearby. With 20 days remaining until Iowa’s first-in-the-nation nominating caucuses, two of the leading candidates were now engaged in a zero-sum, identity-based conflict that could reshape the Democratic race. And for many of the young voters watching Tuesday night, it wasn’t just any two candidates entering the Thunderdome—it was the two candidates they admired most, the two candidates they had struggled to choose between, the two candidates they believed would never attack each other.

Story Continued Below
Until now.

“I sort of can’t believe this is happening,” says Nicole Margheim, shaking her head between sips of a local porter. “Maybe this is naïve, but I was hoping they would ignore this infighting and focus on policy. Now I’m really worried. We should be building a coalition to make sure one of them gets the nomination, and instead this is going to divide us on the left.”

Warren, Sanders don't shake hands after debate stage sexism spat
SharePlay Video
Margheim, a Drake senior studying anthropology and English, backed Sanders against Hillary Clinton in 2016 but has remained noncommittal ahead of the Feb. 3 caucuses. The reason: Her admiration for Warren. Margheim says she has teetered back and forth between the two progressives, scrutinizing their positions, studying their candidacies and agonizing over which one to support. Margheim knew that eventually she would have to pick a side. She just never imagined it would happen under these circumstances—amid a confrontation not over policy disagreement but over accusations of gender sensitivity, “a he said, she said situation,” one that only grew more heated after the debate concluded, when Warren chose not to shake Sanders’ hand, setting social media ablaze and prompting pundits to run harder with a story that was otherwise losing its legs.

Story Continued Below
“I’ve always said I would be thrilled if either one of them was our nominee. I think a lot of us on the left felt that way,” she said of Sanders and Warren, noting that she doesn’t know whom to believe. “But now I’m not sure.”

Against the backdrop of a virtual four-way tie in Iowa, with Warren and Sanders running so closely alongside Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, the abrupt unraveling of the nonaggression pact between the two longtime friends and Senate colleagues is arguably the biggest development of the Democratic campaign. And while there are legitimate long-term questions about unity on the left heading into a general election, the more pressing question facing Warren and Sanders is how their dispute will be adjudicated among their most coveted demographic: young voters.

In 2016, when Sanders roiled the Democratic establishment by fighting Clinton to an effective tie in Iowa, he did so on the strength of overwhelming support among young people: Sanders won 84 percent of voters ages 17 to 29, entrance polls showed, compared with just 14 percent for Clinton. It was that lopsided advantage among younger Democrats, more than his appeals to working-class whites or any other demographic sect, that kept Sanders competitive with Clinton deep into the primary season.

Four years later, even as he sought to grow his loyal base of supporters, Sanders has invested heavily in maintaining that edge. This is particularly true in Iowa, a sprawling state with patchy population centers where organizing is famously challenging—and essential. With its two massive universities, several midsize schools and dozens of smaller private colleges scattered across the state, Iowa offers a sort of built-in activist class to any Democrat with the message and machinery to leverage it. Sanders has been the undisputed leader in this regard, out-organizing his Democratic rivals on Iowa campuses even since before the launch of his 2020 candidacy. But, by all accounts, Warren has been gaining on him, cultivating an organic grassroots loyalty while demonstrating a durable appeal to young voters that even her loyalists did not expect at the outset of the contest. (Curiously, the 37-year-old Buttigieg continues to poll shabbily among the youngest segments of the electorate.)

Long before the hostilities broke out this week between Sanders and Warren, it was becoming apparent to both camps—and to Iowa insiders—that the battle to become the progressive standard-bearer was boiling down to a battle for young voters. In September, when Warren surged to her first-ever lead in the Des Moines Register poll, it was because she had dethroned Sanders among voters under 35; when this month’s poll showed Sanders back on top of the field in Iowa, he had reclaimed a comfortable lead among that group. This has been a reliable pattern in almost every Iowa survey: Whichever one of the progressive candidates performs better among young voters, performs better statewide.

Can a woman win the W.H.? They're the only ones not losing, Warren says
SharePlay Video
This reality was not lost on the 20- and 30-somethings who assembled for Tuesday night’s watch party, a joint venture of the Drake Democrats and the College and Young Democrats of Iowa. (The latter group brings high schoolers and young professionals under the activist umbrella.) In conversations with nearly a dozen attendees, the Sanders-Warren showdown was all anyone could talk about—not merely because it was the news of the night, but because it laid bare the reality that many of them, and many of their friends, were still struggling to choose between the two candidates.

MOST READ
Lev Parnas
House Dems release new impeachment evidence related to indicted Giuliani associate
House triggers impeachment trial with vote approving articles
Warren appears to rebuff Sanders' handshake amid sexism feud
What we learned about the Democratic field from Tuesday's debate
Trump set to gut water protections
Story Continued Below
“If I had to decide tonight, I don’t think I could do it,” said Katie Schickel, a recent University of Northern Iowa graduate who’s now a social worker in Des Moines. Like numerous other young women I spoke with Tuesday, Shickel said she wasn’t sure whether to believe Sanders or Warren—and frankly, wasn’t sure whether to care. “I don’t know what to make of this whole thing tonight, but I don’t think I view either of them differently because of it.”

“I liked that she used it as an opportunity to talk about her electability,” Olivia Habinck, a junior at the University of Northern Iowa, said of Warren’s performance Tuesday. Still, Habinck downplayed the entire drama—“we have so many bigger fish to fry”—and said that she wouldn’t downgrade Sanders for his role in the feud. These young women mostly agree that sexism has played a role in the Democratic primary, but there was consensus as well that Sanders is no sexist.

So, whom will she caucus for?

“I really don’t know,” Habinck said. “It’s 20 days away. That doesn’t sound like a lot of time. But as we’ve just seen, anything can happen.”

Leaning into the bar at the debate’s conclusion, Margheim sipped the last of her beer and looked around. She wondered how many of her compatriots were caught in the same dilemma. “I mean, I live with four other girls, and we’re all stuck between Warren and Sanders,” she said. “It’s the policy details and passion of Warren, versus the charisma and grassroots energy of Bernie. And my gut still hasn’t led me one way or the other.”

The indecision didn’t scare her until the events of this week. In just the past few days, Margheim said, she’s begun to see attacks, online and elsewhere, mounted by friends and classmates loyal to one of the two candidates: Warren fans questioning Sanders’ age and health and electability, Sanders fans challenging Warren’s authenticity and her commitment to progressive ideals. Suddenly, Margheim fears, caucusing might feel less like making a choice and more like picking a fight.

“It’s really unnerving,” she said. “I hope it doesn’t just hurt them both.”

POLITICO
Facebook
Twitter
Link
More
 
Trump is loving the Sanders-Warren feud, and why wouldn’t he. Clearly, Warren backstabbed Bernie by lying that he told her that women can’t become a US president. In 2015, Bernie actually endorsed Elizabeth Warren and asked her to run for president.

I believe that Warren has realized that she can’t win the democratic primary and is now hoping to become the VP instead by sucking up to Joe Biden.
 
I can’t believe Biden is still front runner, this almost seems like a race Democrats want to lose.

I’m all for establishment candidates as I believe in corporates over leftists but clearly Biden is not at all worthy.

Sanders is defn a good man the perfect Liberal and what Warren did was a low blow.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Watch this. All of it. <br><br>It’s just 90 seconds. <br><br>And it DESTROYS what CNN and Elizabeth Warren pulled on <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BernieSanders</a> last night. <br><br> <a href="https://t.co/HqC89J2tmh">pic.twitter.com/HqC89J2tmh</a></p>— Shaun King (@shaunking) <a href="https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1217466294452260869?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

CNN getting a lot of flak.
 
AdamM97 said:
Trump is loving the Sanders-Warren feud, and why wouldn’t he. Clearly, Warren backstabbed Bernie by lying that he told her that women can’t become a US president. In 2015, Bernie actually endorsed Elizabeth Warren and asked her to run for president.

I believe that Warren has realized that she can’t win the democratic primary and is now hoping to become the VP instead by sucking up to Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

I really want to see post debate polls after the Iowa debate. I don't think many people are buying into Warren's lies about Sanders-Warren private meeting. Mainstream pundits are still trying hard, but it's not really working.

In the long run Warren has really burned the bridge with progressives, will be interesting to see how she moves forward with progressives post 2020 Democratic primaries.
 
Elizabeth Warren accused rival Bernie Sanders of calling her a liar at the end of a Democratic candidates' TV debate, according to a newly released recording.

On Tuesday, she refused to shake his hand during a tense, post-debate talk.

The audio of their heated exchange has since emerged, revealing what the candidates said to each other.

The progressive candidates for the presidential nomination had previously refused to attack each other.

On Monday, Ms Warren alleged Mr Sanders had told her in December 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency - something Mr Sanders denies.

Asked about this during Tuesday's debate in Des Moines, Iowa, Mr Sanders denied it again - saying he had long supported the idea of a female president.

They appeared to end the night on a tense, frosty exchange, which could not be heard on the live broadcast at the time. But sound of the moment was caught by CNN's back-up audio system and found later on Wednesday.

Here's the full exchange:

Ms Warren: "I think you called me a liar on national TV."

Mr Sanders: "What?"

Ms Warren: "I think you called me a liar on national TV."

Mr Sanders: "You know, let's not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion."

Ms Warren: "Anytime."

Mr Sanders: "You called me a liar... You told me... [Tom Steyer interrupts]

Mr Sanders: "All right, let's not do it now."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51133725
 
I was a big Warren fan until that moment at the end of the last debate. It showed what a petty woman she really is, not to mention the bad judgment of her behaviour right in front of the TV cameras and the other debaters.

There was also a moment in the debate itself which showed how petty she is. She stated that none of the men on stage had defeated an incumbent Republic. But Sanders correctly pointed out that he had done so in 1990. Warren then said "But that was 30 years ago and I was specifically talking about the last 30 years". Not only was her retort completely unnecessary, it was also untrue. At no point had she said she was referring to the past 30 years.

When politicians make mistakes then I like the idea that they put up their hands and admit to it instead of trying to cover it up with lies.
 
Bernie is now officially ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, that too by quite a large margin. He's also only trailing Biden by 3-5 points nationally, and he's gaining very fast, with a few polls even showing him as the frontrunner. Looking extremely likely that he will be the nominee, and probably the next President.
 
It's almost remarkable how everyone is intent on making sure Bernie doesn't get the nomination. The campaign against him by the sell-out public intellectuals of the US, the media (liberal & conservative alike) and hateful war-mongers like Hilary Clinton is astonishing to say the least. And yet Bernie is still leading the polls. That's democracy for you. One can only hope he manages to get the nomination and then manage an even greater upset than Trump did 4 years ago.
 
It helps that the progressive vote is split in two, between Bernie and Warren, whereas the establishment vote is split in at least three: Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar. Of these, I expect Klobuchar to fizzle our after Iowa. Being from the neighboring state of Minnesota, she has some sway in Iowa but is unlikely to have any in NH and beyond.

Eventually, we will see the progressive vote coalesce behind one of Bernie and Warren, most likely Bernie, and the establishment vote likewise.

Of the two progressives, I would much prefer Bernie. I expect him to appeal to the blue collar vote better than Warren, given how he comes across as more earnest. A small wave of blue collar whites returning to the Dem fold in the rust belt would be sufficient to overturn the 2016 debacle.
 
Seeing articles saying why Bernie is the opponent Trump wants, lol this is 2020 not 1960 , that such kind of reverse psychology would work.

Congratulations to Bernie , good man hopefully isn’t like Jimmy Carter.
 
There’s the small matter of his heart trouble in October, which the Republicans will harp on ceaselessly, given how their own candidate is fighting fit, in perfect health, in better shape than any president in history...
 
Iowa caucuses to take place in a half hour or so.

Turnout will be key: if younger voters were to flock to the caucuses instead of doing whatever it is that younger voters do on Monday nights, it will help Bernie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
Trump-Russia: Special counsel Robert Mueller delivers report
Replies
1
Views
387
giri26
G
S
Bernie Sanders to Democrats : This Is What A Radical Foreign Policy Looks Like
Replies
0
Views
813
s28
S
Back
Top