Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

One thing I wonder about is whether "not being Trump" is enough to attract enough swayable voters in the midwest.  I figure to win, Trump has to carry FL and OH and the rest, so it comes down, again, to the midwestern states, WI/MI/PA/MN.  And I think it will be close, 50-50 basically.

I think, personally, Biden needs to focus on "Three Things" he would do as President.  Hillary offered a to do list that was too long, and unfocussed.  I think the three things concept is useful and communicative.

And they should be affirmative things, not just "I'm not Trump".

It is ironic, to me, that my Number One concern for the country is the deficit/debt, and neither party wants to go there.

Yep.

I recall in my first Poli Sci class with a really smart prof, he said elections usually come down to a main issue. So you either win on the one that emerges or try to shift the main issue to something else. 

The debt is fascinating because it requires everyone to take a dose of unflavorful medicine, and so you need folks willing to ride out bad press. 

I'll agree that the Republican party machine lost its wheels and then Trump highjacked it.

But the Democratic machine is in full force.  It was powerful enough to railroad Bernie (and everyone else) to force Hillary into the prime position, and it ram-rodded Biden this go-round.  The Democratic voters are fractured, but the machine is in full force and still quite obviously driving.  Their real problem is that their platform has become not much more than "whatever the Republicans aren't" which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's a defensive position that doesn't generate much confidence or heartfelt support.

I'd say that Hillary had a bigger, better machine than Bernie did.  And her machine took over the DNC to ensure that she got all the breaks.  (Similar--though differing greatly in the details--to how Trump took over the RNC.)
She had the nomination locked up by the end of primary season.  It didn't take the Dems' super-delegates (what little is left of the "machine") to push her over the finish line.
By the time of the nominations, the DNC was doing Hillary's bidding and the RNC was doing Trump's.
I do agree that the DNC is the stronger of the two party apparati.  It's the super-delegates who provide that strength.  They make up a much larger share of the convention delegates than the Republicans' super-delegates do.
We now have a very dysfunctional system for selecting presidential nominees.  Haranguing a crowd is the most important skill needed to gain the nomination, and it's a skill far removed from what a candidate will need to do to be a good president.
For an interesting take on how the parties have been taken over, see "How Too Much Democracy is Bad for Democracy" in The Atlantic.

sorry CW I should have said Trump has not changed his message and his base remains very strong and loyal

in fact theres strong evidence a higher % of Blacks will vote for him then in 2016

with the republicans theres consistency in their platform and with the dems well lets just say Carl Marx would be very proud

They have deserted middle America and this will show up on election day

You know that most Democrats are not Marxists.  Only the extreme fringe of the party.
Well, at the extreme fringe of Trump's Republican party are neo-Nazis.
So, would it be fair to say that Adolf Hitler would be very proud?

You know that most Democrats are not Marxists.  Only the extreme fringe of the party.
Well, at the extreme fringe of Trump's Republican party are neo-Nazis.
So, would it be fair to say that Adolf Hitler would be very proud?

I think there are more of the former than the latter, numerically, by a fair stretch.   It could be 20% of the Democrats are at least socialists while maybe 1-2% of Republican voters are neo_Nazis.

You know that most Democrats are not Marxists.  Only the extreme fringe of the party.
Well, at the extreme fringe of Trump's Republican party are neo-Nazis.
So, would it be fair to say that Adolf Hitler would be very proud?

fair enough but we dont incorporate neo Nazis crap in our platform

No not all Democrats are Marxists just the party leaders

and why in the world would Biden pick a VP candidate from California 

what an idiot move the dems are getting California anyway

He should have picked a candidate from a toss up state

I think the more moderate Democrats were scared by Bernie and AOC and looked quickly for the alternative that would head him off, in both cases.  They might have preferred another candidate, but they were driven to find someone who could beat Bernie.  After SC, that was clearlyJoe.

I think you get it at the end, here.  
More than the DNC railroading Biden this go-around, it was the black voters in SC.  That was the "wait and see" moment of the Dem primary season.  It could've ended Biden's campaign there, but that voting block (I guess) didn't trust Bernie and didn't want to vote for a white unknown or woman.  It's a really interesting state to look at, actually.  Tom Steyer got more votes than Klobuchar and Warren combined.  The South reeeeeally doesn't believe a woman can be the president.  

So for every 10 non-Biden voters, 4 voted for Bernie, 1 each for Steyer, Mayor Pete, Klobuchar/Warren, and 2 for others.

Biden had just 5 fewer % than Obama in '08, in a relatively heavy black voting group, with Bernie getting 5% less than Hillary did in '08.  

I don't think it's a stretch to say that voting block was okay with an unknown black candidate, but felt more comfortable voting for a familiar white guy in 2020.  It bothered me at the time, but it is what it is.  


And on an aside, if republicans stopped mentioning her all the time, AOC would be a relative unknown.  They treat her like the Dems treat Trump - bordering on obsession.  She was a surprise winner of her district and was part of a minor documentary, but she's not some big, scary thing.  I find it odd that she's the one they're demonizing.  She's so far down the Democratic totem pole.  


Another aside - I see conservative colleagues posting being in favor of term limits so that horrible people like Nancy Pelosi can't stay in power for forever.  It made me do a little research.  She's been around a long time, sure, but she's only 10th in seniority in the House.  Guess what party the 4 longest-tenured members are?  Yup, Republicans.  Ugh.  The perpetual misleading is something I could really do without, all-around.

Another aside - I see conservative colleagues posting being in favor of term limits so that horrible people like Nancy Pelosi can't stay in power for forever.  It made me do a little research.  She's been around a long time, sure, but she's only 10th in seniority in the House.  Guess what party the 4 longest-tenured members are?  Yup, Republicans.  Ugh.  The perpetual misleading is something I could really do without, all-around.

OK.  Cite the posts.
I've probably made as many posts as anyone on the subject of term limits and I have certainly not focused my criticism on Nancy Pelosi.
I will await your motte-and-bailey defense.