US Presidential Election 2020

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Bernie got a heart stent

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/4bf1660a-e522-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html

I'm familiar with stents: he's likely fine, but it will take time for the stent to assimilate into the arterial wall (6~18 months), but after a week you can pretty much return to active lifestyle.

I don't expect it to have awful effects on him (know a few who got them) but it's enough to ruin his chances of the nomination, he had a narrow path as it was.

4068ac1elhodqr

Bernie overtaken by Yang for DN on markets for 3rd fav.

The Phantom Jipper

You'd wonder who these people are that are throwing money away on Yang

4068ac1elhodqr

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

You'd wonder who these people are that are throwing money away on Yang

Has been in the top10 bets for months now, appears to have some steady support.

Would be a lot more concerned about the shortening on HC, lol, as if.

To be fair, Yang has perhaps the best USP going, still unlikely to win DN, just depends on the offer delivery and market penetration.

Still if backing Y, may as well look for a 100/1 market:
Yang (Presidential Nominee) + Gabbard (VP Nominee) @101.

Manic Moran

Something I haven't seen addressed. If this impeachment thing actually works, and Trump is removed, does that make life more difficult for Democrats because they will no longer be running against him? After all, much of the discontent against Trump is due to the man himself, there's a fair amount of 'motivation' gone from some potential voters.

Overheal

I'm more curious about what might happen if we have a situation in a year where Trump is/about to be impeached or is unconvincingly acquitted; and where Biden is swept up into any kind of criminal probe, if he's the nominee. Something to that effect.

Overheal

Warren heckled today by Trump supporter at a rally and she gave him back his lunch apparently

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-elizabeth-warren-troll-hecklers-at-rally-trump-and-his-supporters-are-getting-really-nervous/

More of his supporters earlier had stalked her through an airport to yell 'Pocohontas' at her: https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-trump-fans-chase-elizabeth-warren-through-airport-screaming-pocahontas-slur/

Zubeneschamali

Manic Moran wrote: »

If this impeachment thing actually works, and Trump is removed, does that make life more difficult for Democrats because they will no longer be running against him?

What are the Republicans going to do? Trump fans are going to demand that Ivanka gets the nomination!

Have Pence stand? Some of the Ukraine mud is going to stick to him, too - he was either knowingly involved or deliberately looking the other way.

Hold primaries? They won't have time. Draft Mitt Romney, two time loser?

StringerBell

Manic Moran wrote: »

Something I haven't seen addressed. If this impeachment thing actually works, and Trump is removed, does that make life more difficult for Democrats because they will no longer be running against him? After all, much of the discontent against Trump is due to the man himself, there's a fair amount of 'motivation' gone from some potential voters.

I'd be surprised, also tbf he isn't going to be removed by impeachment so it's a shot to nothing for the democrats. It's politics, they can and will use the material from the impeachment investigation as campaign ads.

The calculation is more pertinent on the republican side, do they think if they cast him aside they could claw back some of the ground etc. To me I think they can't, I don't think he would go quietly without dragging the GOP (further) down with him.
.
If they impeach him and remove him the Dems run on the entire fruit of the poisonous tree platform, the entire administration will be held responsible, as they should and I would say you could forget about trump's base abandoning dear leader and voting for any of those "traitor" republicans who voted to remove him.

They have made their bed and will have to lie in it at this stage.

Quin_Dub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What are the Republicans going to do? Trump fans are going to demand that Ivanka gets the nomination!

Have Pence stand? Some of the Ukraine mud is going to stick to him, too - he was either knowingly involved or deliberately looking the other way.

Hold primaries? They won't have time. Draft Mitt Romney, two time loser?

That's just it..

If Trump does get impeached that means that at least 20 GOP Senators voted against him.

For that to happen public opinion among GOP voters will have to have shifted significantly against Trump.

So the environment will be generally toxic to the GOP - The Senators they will getting hit no matter which way they voted.

The ~20% Trump base will be hammering those that voted for impeachment and those that voted against will be getting hammered by the Democrats and the moderate GOP that shifted away from Trump.

Pence is an empty suit that will have to be tarnished quite badly by the whole deal - either because he's implicated in some way or because he'll be seen as having acquiesced to Trumps behaviour or again by the Trump core - for not having done enough to protect him.

Given how utterly the GOP have aligned themselves to Trump at this stage ,outside of Romney they don't have a single person with any kind of name recognition that could be seen as a "white knight to clean things up" kind of candidate.

And as pointed out, Romney is a busted flush already.

Bottom line , if Trump gets impeached , the GOP will lose all three branches of Government by some margin.

The only thing that matters here is public opinion.

If GOP support for Trump dips , he's done - Truth , fact and evidence is meaningless , it's all about Votes.

I don't think he will be impeached as it stands and given what we have already seen and heard so far I really don't think there's anything that will shift his current support base.

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

Something I haven't seen addressed. If this impeachment thing actually works, and Trump is removed, does that make life more difficult for Democrats because they will no longer be running against him? After all, much of the discontent against Trump is due to the man himself, there's a fair amount of 'motivation' gone from some potential voters.

I don’t think it’ll progress that far before the election.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Something I haven't seen addressed. If this impeachment thing actually works, and Trump is removed, does that make life more difficult for Democrats because they will no longer be running against him? After all, much of the discontent against Trump is due to the man himself, there's a fair amount of 'motivation' gone from some potential voters.

They will be running against someone who enabled him. All Reps are guilty of that by now.

The Dem advert campaign will be footage of Trump, being Trump, and footage of whoever stands for the Reps agreeing with him.

If there is any justice, he will be seen as toxic and anyone who sat by him for 3 odd years should be eviscerated for it.

Zubeneschamali

I have seen people floating Nikki Haley as a future candidate, and she is not too contaminated with Trumpism.

everlast75

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have seen people floating Nikki Haley as a future candidate, and she is not too contaminated with Trumpism.

If Trump does not win re-election, she will have a chance maybe in 2024, as enough years would have gone by. That said, there are still videos of her being quite trumpian in existence from her tenure at the WH

Quin_Dub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have seen people floating Nikki Haley as a future candidate, and she is not too contaminated with Trumpism.

everlast75 wrote: »

If Trump does not win re-election, she will have a chance maybe in 2024, as enough years would have gone by. That said, there are still videos of her being quite trumpian in existence from her tenure at the WH

Agreed - She's a likely candidate for after Trump , can't see her taking the chance of a post impeachment run.

If Trump loses in 2020 she'll have a go at 2024 , if he gets another 4 yrs she'll hold out until 2028 - Will probably need to make run for Governor or Senate in between though to keep herself "in view"

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed - She's a likely candidate for after Trump , can't see her taking the chance of a post impeachment run.

If Trump is impeached and removed, the Republicans will be desperate for a candidate. Will she really rule herself out? After all, it'll still be a two horse race, and anything can happen...

pixelburp

I can't help but think that at this stage, there's an argument to be made Biden is more tainted than ever: while there's no actual evidence of skullduggery it seems, there's an inevitability that anti-establishment conspiracy theories will persist and be weaponised (again) as a valid tactic for Trump and his adjacent attack dogs. Joe Biden as Democratic pick would become immediately entangled in the quagmire of the impeachment proceedings, albeit as an innocent bystander; so while it wouldn't be a legal impediment, it would surely be a public-relations nightmare and endless sequences of Trump making outrageous claims about Biden & his family.

We've all seen enough political scandals where simply being accused, or implicated by accident, can be enough to leave a mark or smell.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

I can't help but think that at this stage, there's an argument to be made Biden is more tainted than ever: while there's no actual evidence of skullduggery it seems, there's an inevitability that anti-establishment conspiracy theories will persist and be weaponised (again) as a valid tactic for Trump and his adjacent attack dogs.

If Biden drops out, the attack dogs will turn on Warren or Sanders, and similar conspiracy theory nonsense will be generated.

You can't beat them just by putting up a squeaky clean candidate because they will just make stuff up. You have to put up a candidate who will fight.

pixelburp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Biden drops out, the attack dogs will turn on Warren or Sanders, and similar conspiracy theory nonsense will be generated.

You can't beat them just by putting up a squeaky clean candidate because they will just make stuff up. You have to put up a candidate who will fight.

... which IMO Biden absolutely isn't. The stink of controversy was already lingering around Biden, but his proximity to this Ukrainian farce would surely drag him down further. All the Clinton ranting will simply transfer to Biden.

I agree that even if it's Warren or Sanders the attack dogs will be unleashed, but bar trivial controversies like Warren's ancestry, there's not a lot of red meat to throw to those dogs. The GOP would have to resort to policy and 'socialism' scaremongering, and I'm not sure that'd play as well as they'd hope for.

Jamiekelly

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

You'd wonder who these people are that are throwing money away on Yang

I think it has to do with his Q3 fundraising and the economist/yougov poll. He raised 10 million which is only 1 million less than Harris and the economist yougov poll indicated that 10% of Trump supporters would vote for Yang over Trump in a GE. The only other candidate to get higher was Bernie at 14%.

everlast75

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Biden drops out, the attack dogs will turn on Warren or Sanders, and similar conspiracy theory nonsense will be generated.

You can't beat them just by putting up a squeaky clean candidate because they will just make stuff up. You have to put up a candidate who will fight.

Trump has already talked to China about Warren.

This is what some people fail to realise. He will keep going until he is stopped. He is not going to "get better". He is testing the boundaries all of the time.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

bar trivial controversies like Warren's ancestry, there's not a lot of red meat to throw to those dogs.

The Biden stuff is made up.

The Hillary stuff was blown up from nothing - right now Trumps crew are doing much worse things with less secure comms, an no-one cares.

They will make up sh!t about Warren and run it 24/7 Just like Benghazi or buttery mails.

The difference is Warren now knows not to be defensive.

Overheal

Heart attack earlier this week now the reported cause of Bernie’s stent.

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed - She's a likely candidate for after Trump , can't see her taking the chance of a post impeachment run.

If Trump loses in 2020 she'll have a go at 2024 , if he gets another 4 yrs she'll hold out until 2028 - Will probably need to make run for Governor or Senate in between though to keep herself "in view"

It'll take a few years to distance herself now...



https://twitter.com/415holgate/status/1180229595171155968?s=19

Overheal

Fans of conspiratorial matters around Rep Omar will have fun connecting more dots now that Omar filed for divorce from her Husband this week https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/10/07/minnesota-rep-omar-files-for-divorce-from-husband/?fbclid=IwAR0HrjxrDXax8AQ-uaFxbzxSKtU5ZSvHPx2bN4O7ek9lwmVg53SknQ8DSl8

The Phantom Jipper

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what's behind the shortening of Hillary Clinton's odds to be the Democratic nominee? She's now 3rd favourite in most bookies at the moment.

Rjd2

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what's behind the shortening of Hillary Clinton's odds to be the Democratic nominee? She's now 3rd favourite in most bookies at the moment.

Would not take much money to do it tbh.

Her tweet teasing Trump she would run and numerous media campaigns. Not many people bar Biden and Warren have much momentum either.

She is awful , but doubt even she would have the arrogance to run again in 2020.

is_that_so

Rjd2 wrote: »

Would not take much money to do it tbh.

Her tweet teasing Trump she would run and numerous media campaigns. Not many people bar Biden and Warren have much momentum either.

She is awful , but doubt even she would have the arrogance to run again in 2020.

Nope but she can get inside his head!

Sanders has jumped the shark... Been a big fan for years but two things I've seen today have me doubting him. Employees owning 20% of large companies, and employees elect 45% of the board. And there are gender / race etc. quotas for the board. For the workforce, identity politics is one thing, but for the actual board, that should be solely left to the company.

If he wants to increase tax to 35% as he also said, fine. It can't happen because of congress and there are pros and cons. But this meddling in internal business operations is a no-go in my opinion.

Water John

Among Dems and Dems leaning Inds Warren is at 30%, Biden 27% and Sanders 11%. Is it already a two horse race unless something unforseen occurs?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/oct/15/trump-news-today-live-elizabeth-warren-turkey-syria-democrats-impeachment-latest

The choice then is simple enough, go MOR or more radical, in terms of policy.
In terms of personality Warren is much warmer than Biden.

eire4

Water John wrote: »

Among Dems and Dems leaning Inds Warren is at 30%, Biden 27% and Sanders 11%. Is it already a two horse race unless something unforseen occurs?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/oct/15/trump-news-today-live-elizabeth-warren-turkey-syria-democrats-impeachment-latest

The choice then is simple enough, go MOR or more radical, in terms of policy.
In terms of personality Warren is much warmer than Biden.

When you add in his medical issues I wonder will we see Sanders withdraw sometime in the next month or 2. If he does I imagine most of his supporters would go towards Warren putting her in a strong position. Will be interesting to see what decisions Sanders makes in the coming couple of months.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

Sanders has jumped the shark... Been a big fan for years but two things I've seen today have me doubting him. Employees owning 20% of large companies, and employees elect 45% of the board. And there are gender / race etc. quotas for the board. For the workforce, identity politics is one thing, but for the actual board, that should be solely left to the company.

With the majority of shares owned by high level employees compared to lower level, it probably wouldn't break many large corporations if share ownership was more equally distributed, it would help to create a more democratic workplace, and obviously help to distribute the wealth created more evenly.

pixelburp

With the best will in the world, Sanders must surely be looking at his situation and thinking of his family & health at this stage. Being President, being a leader of any country, is an intense, debilitating role on your physical well-being. I'd have a lot of time for the man but even before this operation I'd already argued that his time had passed; 2016 was the white hot heat of anti-establishment fervour, and while it never truly dimmed, others have stepped up including Warren.

Water John

Sanders has proved fairly stubborn, won't step down easily. The only comfort for him is if Dems policies move towards his way of thinking. I'm sure Warren would find a key role for him in Govn't.

marno21

Bernie's reaction to Warren's climbing the polls seems to be out and out left wing extremism. Between that and the medical issues, I would nearly have him as out at this stage.

It's quite sad in a way for a man who has been so committed to his beliefs for his whole political career but if Warren gets elected, he can take the claim for mainstreaming many of the ideas she is running on. It's no solace to him being the bridesmaid rather than the bride at the same time.

RobertKK

Gabbard would be the best but she is not left enough for the Democrats.
She would be the most difficult candidate for Trump.

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

Sanders has jumped the shark... Been a big fan for years but two things I've seen today have me doubting him. Employees owning 20% of large companies, and employees elect 45% of the board. And there are gender / race etc. quotas for the board. For the workforce, identity politics is one thing, but for the actual board, that should be solely left to the company.

If he wants to increase tax to 35% as he also said, fine. It can't happen because of congress and there are pros and cons. But this meddling in internal business operations is a no-go in my opinion.

Doesn't stop some from trying. It is now a law in California that all publicly traded companies which have an executive office in California (no matter where they are incorporated) must have one female on the Board by the end of this year. If the board has five members, by the end of 2021, two must be female, and three are required if the board is six or more.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-governor-women-corporate-boards-20180930-story.html

CNN states that such laws do exist in Europe. I'm sure someone can say where.

Note that even when Governor Brown signed it into law, he stated that its legality was questionable. Most lawyers seem to agree. It took a while, but the first lawsuit on the matter was started last month.

This article over on Harvard's law school queries if the State will even try to defend it.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/09/04/a-first-challenge-to-californias-board-gender-diversity-law/

Not to mention the practical problems. Can you imagine being appointed as the Board's legally mandated token female? Even if you happen to have been appointed on your own merits, the tag will follow you and undermine you.
There are also movements to mandate racial diversity (though in practice attempts of legislation have run afoul of questions as to which races to mandate).

How does a mandated diverse board election work? "You may vote for your top male candidate and your top female candidate"? "Top three males get in, then the top two females, even if two other males scored higher in the elections than the females"?

Dislike Buttigieg's packing of the Supreme Court opinion (And there's something to be said for Warren's answer that Congress should just legislate in favour of abortion and leave it at that), but he did call O'Rourke out on the practicality (or otherwise) of his gun control plan.

osarusan

What do polls of Republican voters say about Trump?

I'm sure that he has strengthened his support among a certain kind of Republican voter, but other, more moderate Republicans, even if they voted for him the first time, might not have been that impressed with him so far.

And, probably more to the point, what do the polls of swing voters in swing states say?

eagle eye

I'm of the opinion that the Democrats have messed it up again. I think Trump, or another Rep candidate wins in 2020.

Do people think there is now an opening for a third party? A more liberal but still coservative in nature type party?

StringerBell

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the Democrats have messed it up again. I think Trump, or another Rep candidate wins in 2020.

Do people think there is now an opening for a third party? A more liberal but still coservative in nature type party?

Do you genuinely see a democrat path to victory so narrow it has to conform to your own view completely or it just isn't any good?

eagle eye

StringerBell wrote:

Do you genuinely see a democrat path to victory so narrow it has to conform to your own view completely or it just isn't any good?

I think the party is split between more conservative types and socialists, for want of a better word, and as such their message is not going to please all their supporters.
I don't think Warren can win, I don't think Bernie can win and I think Biden comes across like he is too old to do the job.

Zubeneschamali

eagle eye wrote: »

I think the party is split between more conservative types and socialists, for want of a better word, and as such their message is not going to please all their supporters.

They would vote for an inanimate carbon rod if necessary to beat Trump.

eagle eye

Zubeneschamali wrote:

They would vote for an inanimate carbon rod if necessary to beat Trump.

Democrats don't vote if they don't like the candidate.

Zubeneschamali

eagle eye wrote: »

Democrats don't vote if they don't like the candidate.

They will crawl across broken glass to vote against Trump.

StringerBell

eagle eye wrote: »

I think the party is split between more conservative types and socialists, for want of a better word, and as such their message is not going to please all their supporters.
I don't think Warren can win, I don't think Bernie can win and I think Biden comes across like he is too old to do the job.

I know I've read your posts I'm just saying surely there is margin for error there? The party for sure is going to be united behind whoever gets the nomination. That is without doubt at this point, they all read off the same hymn sheet there. It's getting the voters out that will be the challenge, regardless of candidate

As it always is with the Dems

pixelburp

I don't think it's particularly outrageous or left of field to suggest that the Democrat voting base enabled Trump, by dint of apathy and presumption Clinton would walk it. I saw a number of think pieces that basically said the latter, arguing for Jill Stein as a more useful vote to bolster a 3rd party candidate. Clinton herself being so spectacularly unlikeable and feeding into the narrative of "The Establishment" didn't help either of course.

Once bitten twice shy n' all that, and while there's a distinct Centrism vs. Socialism schism going on with the Democrats at the moment, I'm sceptical that even in 2020 the Democrats can conspire to destroy their chances. Or at least, its voters & supporters anyway; with possibly the worst US President in living memory, if not total history, and an egregiously awful human being, the '20 election cycle wil very much be a case of "p*ss or get off the pot".

seamus

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't think it's particularly outrageous or left of field to suggest that the Democrat voting base enabled Trump, by dint of apathy and presumption Clinton would walk it. I saw a number of think pieces that basically said the latter, arguing for Jill Stein as a more useful vote to bolster a 3rd party candidate. Clinton herself being so spectacularly unlikeable and feeding into the narrative of "The Establishment" didn't help either of course.

Once bitten twice shy n' all that, and while there's a distinct Centrism vs. Socialism schism going on with the Democrats at the moment, I'm sceptical that even in 2020 the Democrats can conspire to destroy their chances. Or at least, its voters & supporters anyway; with possibly the worst US President in living memory, if not total history, and an egregiously awful human being, the '20 election cycle wil very much be a case of "p*ss or get off the pot".

I'd agree completely with you except that GWB got in for a second term. He was, at the time, the worst President of the modern era, made a mess of the reaction to the WTC attacks and dragged the military into a pointless, expensive and vicious conflict in order to exact personal revenge and enrich his friends. This was not after-the-fact stuff, this was all known at the time.

And he still got elected.

A surprising amount of Americans probably won't know or even remember that.

duploelabs

seamus wrote: »

I'd agree completely with you except that GWB got in for a second term. He was, at the time, the worst President of the modern era, made a mess of the reaction to the WTC attacks and dragged the military into a pointless, expensive and vicious conflict in order to exact personal revenge and enrich his friends. This was not after-the-fact stuff, this was all known at the time.

And he still got elected.

A surprising amount of Americans probably won't know or even remember that.

If the movie Vice is to be believed, GWB wasn't president

Manic Moran

seamus wrote: »

I'd agree completely with you except that GWB got in for a second term. He was, at the time, the worst President of the modern era, made a mess of the reaction to the WTC attacks and dragged the military into a pointless, expensive and vicious conflict in order to exact personal revenge and enrich his friends. This was not after-the-fact stuff, this was all known at the time.

And he still got elected.

A surprising amount of Americans probably won't know or even remember that.

The problem with that is that you are looking back a little with the benefit of hindsight.

In the 2004 election season, Iraq had not yet turned into the quagmire it would become (I was there), Afghanistan seemed to be going along relatively well. There was no doubting the effectiveness of his leadership immediately after 9/11, and various bills had been passed which seemed fairly positive to the average punter, such as tax cuts and No Child Left Behind. For the "swiftboating" of Kerry, Bush equally had to survive the equally questionable Killian Documents, the difference being that the latter were proven false rather publicly and quickly. And then, four days before the election, there was foreign interference: Osama Bin Laden released a video taunting the US, which gave Bush quite a bump.

The end result was that Bush ended up getting more votes overall, more percentage of votes, and a greater EC tally than he had in 2000.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the Democrats have messed it up again. I think Trump, or another Rep candidate wins in 2020.

Do people think there is now an opening for a third party? A more liberal but still coservative in nature type party?

Is this a joke? The democrats are largely a Conservative party, with some fringe elements.