US Presidential Election 2020

eagle eye

It pains me to say anything positive as regards Bloomberg but he is a really big name and I think he would beat Trump.
He is very level headed too and wouldn't be baited into a position which would make him look bad.
He is an old man though and he won't excite young voters and with the tendency of Democratic voters to avoid the polls if they don't have somebody that excites them its possible Trump still wins. I still think he'd get enough votes between the Trump haters and old school democrats to win.

PopePalpatine

everlast75 wrote: »

I was just thinking, in relation to Bloomberg, Trump and his supporters can hardly lay a glove on him. Allegations like the following can't work

1) He's rich and trying to run the Country like a company - Trump bragged about how much he is worth constantly on the trail and said as he was a business man, he knew how to make the Country prosperous again
2) Stop and frisk means he is a racist - Trump has the travel ban, among many many other things in that closet
3) He is not a politician - Trump prided himself on that.


In what way is Bloomberg not the much better version than Trump?

The problem is Republicans love playing the "tu quoque" card.

rossie1977

Politics is like sport in the US. If Trump was a Democrat majority of his current base would not vote for him. On the flip side if Hillary Clinton changed absolutely nothing about herself or her policies but was Republican she would have rabid right wing following.

Bill Clinton was most fiscally conservative president this past 100 years yet absolutely hated by those that preached fiscal conservatism on a daily basis.

If Bloomberg ran as a Republican candidate in 2024 he likely would get big following. Running as a Dem makes him public enemy.

StringerBell wrote: »

Bloomberg hasn't started yet though, he has just launched a 37million dollar and campaign now hasn't he? Incredible money

You would expect a bit of a bump upon entering race though and it's less than Beto got.

He has money but its time that's massively against him, even making last debate stage will be struggle regardless how much he throws at this thing.

Dem voters already seem happy enough with the choices available last month so most probably have their minds made up and weren't yearning for another high profile candidate this late in the day https://mobile.twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1187080676270583808?s=20

Rjd2

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html

Pretty long examination of the Harris campaign which is doomed despite all the hype.

pixelburp

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html

Pretty long examination of the Harris campaign which is doomed despite all the hype.

In fairness, the hype died very quickly after the Bussing riposte at that first debate. Her campaign has been moribund for months now and haven't seen any sense of enough support to suggest hype in the conventional sense

Hande hoche!

With regards Bloomberg there a number of theories. One is that he is just doing it to get a position in a Democrat administration. Another more tin foily one is that he is doing it to skirt campaign donation restrictions.

marno21

Kamala Harris seems to have dropped out according to the Daily Beast.

The biggest name to go yet, there's a good few minnows who could follow her lead

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-out-of-presidential-race-074902

Hande hoche!

Imagine that Brooker is not far behind her. Gabbard and her supporters will be happy to have outlasted her.

Larbre34

I know it is make or break time as regards decisions to bring campaigns forward into 2020, but I think there's more to these exits, I have a strong feeling Hillary is coming back and may wait until some way into the primaries, and I think a few candidates have been tipped off.

Lets face it, she could wake up and decide to walk onto the floor of the convention in Milwaukee in July and be selected by acclamation. A ticket of herself and Mayor Pete would pose interesting questions.

Water John

Acclaimed by whom? Most delegates will be there mandated to support a candidate who toiled for the last 2 years. Not a chance, dreamland.
More need to take a realistic look now and not waste both political and economic capital. Some may feel however, there best bet is to take some delegates to the convention floor if no clear candidate has emerged. They'll have serious bargaining power, if that's the case.

Quin_Dub

Not a chance that Hilary Clinton comes back - even if she did , I doubt she'd get the votes..

Everyone now knows how toxic she is - People picked Trump over her!!!!

I wonder if Harris dropping out early rather than fighting a few rounds of Primaries is maybe tied to her making a deal with Biden for a VP slot.

A Biden/Harris ticket could be an interesting one.

StringerBell

Harris can and likely will come again, she did the right thing now dropping out though and I do think a few more should follow quickly but I would like to see how Booker does in some of the primaries. There is a lot of talk that his ground organisation and work being done locally in the first few primary areas is very good so if he can pick up some steam there who knows. I don't think he will take the nomination but the likes of Obama, Clinton etc were further back at this point and came through strong to sweep the nomination.

Polling, especially national polling isn't really important right now, other than getting them on the debate stage.

eagle eye

If Booker could get the nomination he'd beat Trump.

pixelburp

eagle eye wrote: »

If Booker could get the nomination he'd beat Trump.

No way a vegan would win the American Presidency IMO; given the hysteria the GOP have already drummed up over lies made about the Green New Deal, you could bet your bottom dollar the attack ads would emphasise Booker coming after the steaks of ordinary Americans.

Water John

Oh, so that's the problem with Schiff.

LuckyLloyd

Larbre34 wrote: »

I know it is make or break time as regards decisions to bring campaigns forward into 2020, but I think there's more to these exits, I have a strong feeling Hillary is coming back and may wait until some way into the primaries, and I think a few candidates have been tipped off.

Lets face it, she could wake up and decide to walk onto the floor of the convention in Milwaukee in July and be selected by acclamation. A ticket of herself and Mayor Pete would pose interesting questions.

So I agree with that first part - she’s back doing public appearances and the book launch is a way to test the waters with regards to her brand recognition and popularity. If the winds look favourable, she’ll run.

But she’s utterly toxic and I struggle to believe she’ll be embraced by a majority of the party. The Democrat party power structure will also be at pains not to influence or manipulate the process the way they did four years ago as AOC and the new wave elected last year exposed all of that nonsense and it’s a really bad look.

Hillary has no path, she doesn’t accept that but I believe enough people around the Democrat party do. Bloomberg is going to get motoring over the next couple of weeks and start to shift this thing. He has excellent social positions, is a safe pair of hands economically and is a robust candidate due to his wealth, experience and independence - i.e. the simple type of attacks that worked against Hillary (and would work again!) aren’t available to Trump.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

If Booker could get the nomination he'd beat Trump.

Not a hope. His personal life will be ripped to shreds.

Hande hoche!

eagle eye wrote: »

If Booker could get the nomination he'd beat Trump.

Would give him very poor odds. As said the veganism plus elements of his private life would probably scupper him.

Ihatewhahabies

Larbre34 wrote: »

I know it is make or break time as regards decisions to bring campaigns forward into 2020, but I think there's more to these exits, I have a strong feeling Hillary is coming back and may wait until some way into the primaries, and I think a few candidates have been tipped off.

Lets face it, she could wake up and decide to walk onto the floor of the convention in Milwaukee in July and be selected by acclamation. A ticket of herself and Mayor Pete would pose interesting questions.

I hope not but if it happens there will be a lot of entertainment especially if Barr decides to start prosecuting people (who were involved with the coup against Trump) in particular Coomey, Page, Strzok, Brennan, and clapper (if there is a benevolent God). Then it will truly be a blood sport.

Bring it on Hilary.

Either way I am happy as it is hard to feel sympathy for Trump et al when they are pursuing coups against at least ten countries at the moment. Live by the sword die by...

marno21

Ihatewhahabies wrote: »

I hope not but if it happens there will be a lot of entertainment especially if Barr decides to start prosecuting people (who were involved with the coup against Trump) in particular Coomey, Page, Strzok, Brennan, and clapper (if there is a benevolent God). Then it will truly be a blood sport.

Bring it on Hilary.

Either way I am happy as it is hard to feel sympathy for Trump et al when they are pursuing coups against at least ten countries at the moment. Live by the sword die by...

Anyone who committed a crime should be made to face justice, regardless of which "side of the aisle" they are on.

If the US starts applying the law on a partisan basis then the future for the Republic is quite grim.

duploelabs

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Would give him very poor odds. As said the veganism plus elements of his private life would probably scupper him.

What is it about his private life that you allude to?

Hande hoche!

duploelabs wrote: »

What is it about his private life that you allude to?

His bachelor status. Shouldn't matter but it does to some voters.

Water John

He be competing with a man who says 'grab them by the pussy'.

NSAman

Water John wrote: »

Oh, so that's the problem with Schiff.

The problem with Schiff, is that he us totally unlikable and has created falsehoods which don't bear out the facts.

duploelabs

NSAman wrote: »

The problem with Schiff, is that he us totally unlikable and has created falsehoods which don't bear out the facts.

Can you cite these falsehoods?

reg114

Biden is no paragon of virtue,. Consider his failure to vote for Bill Clinton's conviction when the latter lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky which led to impeachment proceedings. Bill Clinton on the surface of it was a veritable statesman compared with Trump but dig down a little and you will find deeply morally flawed individual who buried many political corpses to rise to the top. My point is Clinton (supported by now presidential candidate and self-styled statesman himself Joe Biden)is no different to Trump. In American political circles the left is really no different to right when it comes down to moral fortitude. Trump simply lacks any veneer of intelligence, a trait he shares with a clumsy Joe Biden who landed on his feet when he joined the Obama ticket. If Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate in 2020 you are looking at 4 more years of Trump sadly.

pixelburp

reg114 wrote: »

Biden is no paragon of virtue,. Consider his failure to vote for Bill Clinton's conviction when the latter lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky which led to impeachment proceedings. Bill Clinton on the surface of it was a veritable statesman compared with Trump but dig down a little and you will find deeply morally flawed individual who buried many political corpses to rise to the top. My point is Clinton (supported by now presidential candidate and self-styled statesman himself Joe Biden)is no different to Trump. In American political circles the left is really no different to right when it comes down to moral fortitude. Trump simply lacks any veneer of intelligence, a trait he shares with a clumsy Joe Biden who landed on his feet when he joined the Obama ticket. If Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate in 2020 you are looking at 4 more years of Trump sadly.

That's all well and good on his personal code, but there's no way you can seriously call Joe Biden representative of "The Left", he's an establishment centrist through and through, hence the acrimony within the Democrats. Sanders and Warren are the left leaning candidates by any sensible metric, while most of the rest of the field to some degree are themselves centrist; on key left leaning issues where there has been loud clamouring for change or introduction, Biden hasn't shared that approach. He's the establishment, but if he's left of centre, it's in the same way 00:01 is the morning time. But as it happens he's also beating Trump by clear margins in most reliable polls so who knows what'll defeat Trump.

Jesus effing Christ

eagle eye wrote: »

If Booker could get the nomination he'd beat Trump.

A few weeks ago you thought deval patrick would be a serious contender.
These strong bold predictions of yours are getting a bit old, maybe you should look at where you're getting your info and ask more of them.

Jesus effing Christ

reg114 wrote: »

If Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate in 2020 you are looking at 4 more years of Trump sadly.

Im not a Biden supporter.

Why do so many posters think by adding this prediction "yadda yadda yadda then trump wins" it somehow adds weight to whatever they have to say. You do realise that you cant see into future and nobody thinks you can! A year out from the general every prediction I've seen on here and elsewhere about the general election shows naivety more than anything.
Today there seems to be 5 contenders, 4 of which are in their 70s if any one of the 4 died it would completely change the race.

eagle eye

Jesus effing Christ wrote:

A few weeks ago you thought deval patrick would be a serious contender. These strong bold predictions of yours are getting a bit old, maybe you should look at where you're getting your info and ask more of them.

I said the same thing about both of them. If they get the nomination they'll beat Trump.
I'm not saying they will get the nomination just that they'd beat Trump.
No chance that Biden, Warren or Sanders beats Trump but they look most likely to be the final three sadly.

Jesus effing Christ

eagle eye wrote: »

Deval Patrick will be a serious contender. He is younger than Biden and Sanders too.

This is your first and full post on deval patrick. No, if's or but's here.
Given you can tell with such certainty what will happen a year from now, any chance of you making predictions for the next few weeks or months even.

I could now say if IRON MAN was in the general HE'D BEAT TRUMP (FULL STOP). But we'll just never know will we.
Therefore I'd get to carry on making my baseless outlandish predictions

eagle eye

Jesus effing Christ wrote:

This is your first and full post on deval patrick. No, if's or but's here. Given you can tell with such certainty what will happen a year from now, any chance of you making predictions for the next few weeks or months even.

What do you want?
Do I need to talk about his links and support for Obama or Bill Clinton? The fact he'd get the Black vote? His Chicago links? I'd imagine most people know these things.

Jesus effing Christ

I want you to put your crystal ball away and give it a rest with claims such as this.

eagle eye wrote: »

No chance that Biden, Warren or Sanders beats Trump but they look most likely to be the final three sadly.

you clearly have failed to take stock of events that have already happened, such as the rise in popularity across the country of many left wing progressive positions.

The US is finally showing a bit of cop on, so right now it can be summarised as.

WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT?
has been pushed aside for.
WHY DO OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS HAVE IT?

eagle eye

Jesus effing Christ wrote:

The US is finally showing a bit of cop on, so right now it can be summarised as.

You are grossly overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate.

eire4

eagle eye wrote: »

You are grossly overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate.

To be fair I think it is more a case of the American electorate or a large chunk of it begin checked out. Roughly 45% do not vote in general elections and close to 60% don't vote in midterms. I posit that is because they do not believe in the system which is totally corrupted and offers only a choice between a lesser and a greater evil in most of the country.

I have long said if the Democrats were actually really interested in representing the best interests of the vast majority of Americans they would pivot towards FRD like positions such as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and they would have a chance at maybe pulling in some of those who don't vote. The hardcore far right are lost. The so called middle ground is a tiny group in reality the really big group out there is the 45% or so who have checked out. But of course the Democratic party is part of the problem and has shown no interest in any of the above other then some of the more progressive members but they represent a minority in the party still.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

I have long said if the Democrats were actually really interested in representing the best interests of the vast majority of Americans they would pivot towards FRD like positions such as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and they would have a chance at maybe pulling in some of those who don't vote. The hardcore far right are lost. The so called middle ground is a tiny group in reality the really big group out there is the 45% or so who have checked out. But of course the Democratic party is part of the problem and has shown no interest in any of the above other then some of the more progressive members but they represent a minority in the party still.

Both sides have made this argument in the past. After John McCain failed, many conservatives said it was a deserved loss because the Republicans attempted to field an unexciting, boring moderate, and not a true conservative who espoused conservative ideals. For the last three years, many Democrats have been doing this exact same. To a very large extent, talking about the numbers who can be brought back in is irrelevant.

Your problem is that your assertion is not supported by the data. Most of the seats which flipped Red to Blue in 2018 were run by moderate democrats, not progressives. It works. See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html
One Year From Election, Trump Trails Biden but Leads Warren in Battlegrounds
Signs that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College has persisted or even increased since 2016.

Why would moderate Biden be doing better in head-to-heads than more progressive Warren if there is a good grounding in your assertion? Polls show that of swing state voters, 2/3 of those who voted Trump in 2016, then a Democrat congresscritter in 2018 are looking to vote Trump in 2020. (At least as of a month ago, maybe the current impeachment business may change that, but absent data, it's the best I can find).

Let's say that a more progressive candidate manages to be the messiah to the masses of those who want progressive policies, and brings them out in droves. The vast majority of them are in places like New York City or San Francisco which helps not a whit. A slim majority of Americans support single-payer healthcare. 2/3 of voters in Wisconsin don't. 58% of Michiganians don't.

And, from articles recently, the Democrat primary voters are thinking about this as well. From this weekend:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/trump-is-hanging-over-every-aspect-of-the-democratic-presidential/article_c7af3414-e6b3-5dad-8bd0-115fe02f364b.html

"I identify as a Democratic socialist. Progressive politics speak to me and that's what I prefer, but I also understand that I am not representative of the whole electorate," said Maggie Willems, a social studies teacher who has been agonizing over her choice for months. "We need to be sure to select a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump."

Further food for thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/progressive-candidates-conservative-values.html
Why Progressive Candidates Should Invoke Conservative Values
Research suggests they would gain moderate and conservative support — without losing ground among their base.

AbusesToilets

Calling them Progressive Democrats implies that their policy positions are trending towards the extreme, when in reality the majority of US citizens support initiatives such as Medicate for all, Financial reform, environmental protection.

It's lobbying from vested interests that have done everything in their power to promote these views as being put there.

RobertKK

I chat with a number of Americans regularly from different states, they feel the Democrats have gone too left, but would vote for a Democrat over Trump if they picked someone like Tulsi Gabbard, but at present they would vote Trump over the leading Democrat candidates.

Water John

So some of your American contacts believe Biden to be too far to the left???
IWT these acquaintances are very much, too far to the right.

Jesus effing Christ

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your problem is that your assertion is not supported by the data. Most of the seats which flipped Red to Blue in 2018 were run by moderate democrats, not progressives.

If the moderate position is so popular why did most moderates start there primary campaign pretending to be progressives only slowly moving back to the centre one by one when they realized nobodys buying it. Remember back when " well now, they've all adopted Bernies positions so no need for the old man anymore" was all the rage.
Where they planning on doing the old pivot, cos that's worked so well for the dems since Bill Clinton.

And where's your data? one carefully worded line doesn't mean ****. There are hundreds of considerations to take into account when considering the popularity of moderates v progressives in the midterms.

And it is you, who needs to provide the data! beause along with the majority or democratic party and all of the establishment media and all of Washington its you who are constantly saying the same thing; "Keep your eye on the prize, Beat Trump! And whatever you do, dont ever ever dare look under the hood, to see truth about the fine selection centrist candidates we've already picked for you. Brown, white, male, female, gay , straight take your pick just dont ask any questions."

I get it. you and them, are backing terrible candidates who only got where they are, through legally bribery. You know full well, those corrupt candidates cant go head to head with the progressives candidates on any metric, they'd be destroyed! if you compared their record up against that of a progressive.
So the bull**** " only a moderate can beat trump " is the only route that offers some hope of holding onto the status quo.

dwayneshintzy

RobertKK wrote: »

I chat with a number of Americans regularly from different states, they feel the Democrats have gone too left, but would vote for a Democrat over Trump if they picked someone like Tulsi Gabbard, but at present they would vote Trump over the leading Democrat candidates.

So they're Republicans?



Why do they like Tulsi Gabbard so much?

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Both sides have made this argument in the past. After John McCain failed, many conservatives said it was a deserved loss because the Republicans attempted to field an unexciting, boring moderate, and not a true conservative who espoused conservative ideals. For the last three years, many Democrats have been doing this exact same. To a very large extent, talking about the numbers who can be brought back in is irrelevant.

Your problem is that your assertion is not supported by the data. Most of the seats which flipped Red to Blue in 2018 were run by moderate democrats, not progressives. It works. See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html
One Year From Election, Trump Trails Biden but Leads Warren in Battlegrounds
Signs that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College has persisted or even increased since 2016.

Why would moderate Biden be doing better in head-to-heads than more progressive Warren if there is a good grounding in your assertion? Polls show that of swing state voters, 2/3 of those who voted Trump in 2016, then a Democrat congresscritter in 2018 are looking to vote Trump in 2020. (At least as of a month ago, maybe the current impeachment business may change that, but absent data, it's the best I can find).

Let's say that a more progressive candidate manages to be the messiah to the masses of those who want progressive policies, and brings them out in droves. The vast majority of them are in places like New York City or San Francisco which helps not a whit. A slim majority of Americans support single-payer healthcare. 2/3 of voters in Wisconsin don't. 58% of Michiganians don't.

And, from articles recently, the Democrat primary voters are thinking about this as well. From this weekend:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/trump-is-hanging-over-every-aspect-of-the-democratic-presidential/article_c7af3414-e6b3-5dad-8bd0-115fe02f364b.html

"I identify as a Democratic socialist. Progressive politics speak to me and that's what I prefer, but I also understand that I am not representative of the whole electorate," said Maggie Willems, a social studies teacher who has been agonizing over her choice for months. "We need to be sure to select a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump."

Further food for thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/progressive-candidates-conservative-values.html
Why Progressive Candidates Should Invoke Conservative Values
Research suggests they would gain moderate and conservative support — without losing ground among their base.

Your problem is your post does not relate to the central contention I made in my post.

Interestingly you say the many people who do not vote which stands at roughly 45% in general elections and around 60% in mid terms so roughly half of Americans overall on average is irrelevant. Interesting. Personally I like democracy and think people voting is very relevant. Then you go full bore into ignoring my position which is that basically on average half of Americans do not vote for which I posit that this fact which is an actual fact is IMHO because they have checked out due to the total corruption of the system where their choice very often is between an evil or a lesser evil. Instead you go off talking about where Democrats won seats in the last mid terms which actually just backs up my point because again over half of Americans did not vote in the last mid terms elections. So again Democrats made no attempt to win back some of the voters who do not vote by actually be willing to follow FDR style policies which would be in the best interests economically of most Americans. It was just more of the same old Corporate Democrats in action and the pathetic voter turnout was to be expected and this time they won more of the seats because of just how big the gap was between evil and lesser evil. But it does not change the fact that roughly half of Americans once again did not bother to vote and why would they congress does not represent their best economic interests.


You mention Warren and how Biden is doing better in head to heads in the primary. Again just proving my main contention because the facts are and again they are actual facts the voter turnout in primaries is so low they almost make the actual main elections look representative of the people. So shock horror the Democratic primaries have a center right political in the lead not a surprise as again the Democratic party as an organization is beholden to their corporate masters and has no real interest in anything that would upset that apple cart. The main stream media are very much a key component in the maintenance of the current oligarchy which is the US government in DC. For example in this regard talking about the magic horse of electability and deliberately ignoring the fact that roughly half of the country is checked out thus encouraging them to push their own narrative to keep it this way.

As for your so called food for thought no thanks. Just another way of making sure the status quo remains the same and that the corruption in DC continues unabated while the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans is not just ignored but actively worked against at the behest of the wealthy and major corporations. Again no attempt to actually bring in the roughly half of Americans who do not vote by actual FDR style politics which would be in the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. In fact when you look at the corporate controlled Democratic party when in power over the last 40 odd years they have moved further to the right and look where that has left the financial situation of most Americans especially when contrasted with the financial position of the wealthy which has of course resulted in massive income inequality growth in the US as well of course as playing a part in the turning of the US into an oligarchy and one scarily now that is showing tendencies of authoritarianism.

RobertKK

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

So they're Republicans?



Why do they like Tulsi Gabbard so much?

They like her anti war stance and feel she is more centrist than a lot of the lefter leaning candidates.
She also dislikes Hillary which is a plus given some voted for Trump given their dislike of Hillary Clinton.

Some are just Trump supporters but others are open to change but they do not like the front runners for the Democrats.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

Your problem is your post does not relate to the central contention I made in my post.

Interestingly you say the many people who do not vote which stands at roughly 45% in general elections and around 60% in mid terms so roughly half of Americans overall on average is irrelevant. Interesting. Personally I like democracy and think people voting is very relevant. Then you go full bore into ignoring my position which is that basically on average half of Americans do not vote for which I posit that this fact which is an actual fact is IMHO because they have checked out due to the total corruption of the system where their choice very often is between an evil or a lesser evil. Instead you go off talking about where Democrats won seats in the last mid terms which actually just backs up my point because again over half of Americans did not vote in the last mid terms elections. So again Democrats made no attempt to win back some of the voters who do not vote by actually be willing to follow FDR style policies which would be in the best interests economically of most Americans. It was just more of the same old Corporate Democrats in action and the pathetic voter turnout was to be expected and this time they won more of the seats because of just how big the gap was between evil and lesser evil. But it does not change the fact that roughly half of Americans once again did not bother to vote and why would they congress does not represent their best economic interests.


You mention Warren and how Biden is doing better in head to heads in the primary. Again just proving my main contention because the facts are and again they are actual facts the voter turnout in primaries is so low they almost make the actual main elections look representative of the people. So shock horror the Democratic primaries have a center right political in the lead not a surprise as again the Democratic party as an organization is beholden to their corporate masters and has no real interest in anything that would upset that apple cart. The main stream media are very much a key component in the maintenance of the current oligarchy which is the US government in DC. For example in this regard talking about the magic horse of electability and deliberately ignoring the fact that roughly half of the country is checked out thus encouraging them to push their own narrative to keep it this way.

As for your so called food for thought no thanks. Just another way of making sure the status quo remains the same and that the corruption in DC continues unabated while the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans is not just ignored but actively worked against at the behest of the wealthy and major corporations. Again no attempt to actually bring in the roughly half of Americans who do not vote by actual FDR style politics which would be in the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. In fact when you look at the corporate controlled Democratic party when in power over the last 40 odd years they have moved further to the right and look where that has left the financial situation of most Americans especially when contrasted with the financial position of the wealthy which has of course resulted in massive income inequality growth in the US as well of course as playing a part in the turning of the US into an oligarchy and one scarily now that is showing tendencies of authoritarianism.

You are utterly missing the point. It doesn't matter how many votes are cast nationally, it matters where they are cast geographically. It is a known issue that voters in New York or Utah are less inclined to vote because they feel the State is likely to go one way or the other. So let's take your 45% assertion at face value.

However, if you look at voter turnout where the voters know their vote really counts, the swing states, you suddenly see that the voters are coming out, in numbers.

Let's go down a list of Swing States, shall we? We can compare voter turnout with a respectable electoral region, like Ireland (65.1% in the 2016 general election), or our good neighbors in the Great White North, Canada (66% two months ago in their General).

These aren't polls, these are figures from the State websites.

We'll kick off with the Great State of Florida.
https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/elections-data/voter-turnout/
75% in 2016, 63% in 2018.

Or we can go up to the Badger State
https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/page/general_election_voter_registration_and_absentee_s_40046.xlsx
67% in 2016. (Doesn't show for 2018)

Keystone State:
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/pages/votingelectionstatistics.aspx
70% of estimated eligible voters, 87% of those who are actually registered to vote in 2016

Buckeye State
https://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/election-results-and-data/historical-election-comparisons/voter-turnout-in-general-elections/#gref
71% in 2016, 56% in 2018

Wolverines?
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_8722-29616--,00.html
63% in 2016. Eeek! One which is less than Ireland. Michigan often has low turnout, mind, it's still more than they had in 2012.

How about Old Dominion, quite a topical State recently?
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/resultsreports/registrationturnout-statistics/
72% in 2016, 59% in 2018

Let's try going West to the Silver State. Battle Born!
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
77% in 2016, 63% in 2018. I guess Nevadans like to vote.

How about the Centennials?
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/resultsData.html
72.1% in 2016, 62% in 2018


The elections are being decided in these Swing States. Whatever your opinions on the "States vote independently" system, it is the system, and that's what the politicians need to win. Turnout in these states is already high. Arguing that "Because most voters don't vote, therefore the solution is to get more voters out there" (and just assuming that they'll vote for the one party) completely ignores the point of diminishing returns which is encountered when one already has a high turnout where it matters.

Manic you seem to be explaining the situation as if you think someone doesn't understand the situation. eire4 does understand the situation and they have a problem with it. The fact that swing states have a higher turnout both demonstrates the situation and supports the point being made.
If person A dislikes something and person B explains it (needlessly) then finished by saying "that's how it is so that's how it is" then I think person B may be missing the entire point.

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

Manic you seem to be explaining the situation as if you think someone doesn't understand the situation. eire4 does understand the situation and they have a problem with it. The fact that swing states have a higher turnout both demonstrates the situation and supports the point being made.
If person A dislikes something and person B explains it (needlessly) then finished by saying "that's how it is so that's how it is" then I think person B may be missing the entire point.

I could not really have said it better.

Manic Moran

Ok. You don’t like the way the US votes by State for President. I do. It’s a wash.

But if you want to talk about, as the thread title says, “Beating losing to Trump in 2020”, and strategies for doing so, our personal approval or disapproval of the voting methodology is irrelevant. Your post #1786 above equates more progressive policies with higher turnout and a better chance to win. I do not believe the figures bear this out because of the already high turnout of voters in the swing states.

rossie1977

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Calling them Progressive Democrats implies that their policy positions are trending towards the extreme, when in reality the majority of US citizens support initiatives such as Medicate for all, Financial reform, environmental protection.

It's lobbying from vested interests that have done everything in their power to promote these views as being put there.

They call themselves that.

How does the word 'progressive' suggest extremism?

Humans over the centuries have been progressive in nature rather than regressive.

AbusesToilets

rossie1977 wrote: »

They call themselves that.

How does the word 'progressive' suggest extremism?

Humans over the centuries have been progressive in nature rather than regressive.

It's how the term progressive is framed in the media by those with agendas that stand to lose out if those policies are enacted. Suggesting that the public isn't in favour of the ideas,that they're too liberal or some such. The reality is that they aren't leftist positions, they're entirely in line with the desires of the majority of the public, however only one group of politicians are putting them forward.

Mr Meanor

What about this guy, any chance?
Andrew Yang
https://time.com/5718279/andrew-yang-primary-support/