US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Again, I'm saying IF he ran solely as a disruptor:

His popularity (albeit from an entertainment perspective) lies mostly with Millenials. This group had a greater affinity for Bernie rather than Joe, and wouldn't be big Trump supporters. So, if Kanye captures some votes originally destined for Bernie, along with a slice of African American votes that would otherwise have voted Joe, those get taken out of possible Joe votes. In a marginal state, a relatively small number of votes can separate number 1 from number 2. For example in 2016, Trump beat Clinton by just over 110,000 votes. Gary Johnson's vote in FL was twice that difference at 207,000 votes. Even Jill Stein took 65,000 while write in votes amounted to 25,000. That's the power of disruptors.... Not that they have a chance of winning themselves... Just that they can **** it up for someone else...

Remember, we're only talking about un-committed middle ground voters here... No hardened loyalty to either camp...also Protest voters.. Think Ming Flanagan back in the day... and, Ming actually won elections....

Kanye is on record for been a MAGA dude while his wife has worked with Trump. The Kardashian family and what it symbolises is rightfully loathed by those who support Bernie.

Maybe at his artistic peak and when he dropped his Katrina rant aimed at Bush that Kanye could have been alluring to the Bernie base but not 2020 Kanye.

If someone like Killer Mike decided to run who is a thoughtful intelligent lefty rapper,,,, then yeah that would be a disaster for Biden, but not this version of West who probably won't be on that many ballot boxes in the first place.

eagle eye

I think this is the first election where the right third candidate has a real chance of winning.

StringerBell

sid waddell wrote: »

West wouldn't peel away any* Trump voters.

Trump voters are either out or all in at this stage.

The game is voter suppression, including using Covid as a weapon, vote splitting, and if necessary, vote falsification, and if all that fails, legal chicanery and/or violence to deny democracy and keep Trump in power.

*When I say any, I mean the amount of Trump voters he would take would be infinitesmal.

I agree actually, and I would feel the same about how many Biden supporters he would turn or people who were going to vote Biden for the sole purpose of removing Trump. I don't see Kanye being a substantive candidate to affect the outcome one way or the other.

Igotadose

eagle eye wrote: »

I think this is the first election where the right third candidate has a real chance of winning.

Wishful thinking at this late date.

If one had started out at the beginning and kept going till now, maybe. But even those that have in the past, like John Anderson and Ross Perot didn't garner many votes. Perot did well for awhile till he got on the debate stage and started rambling about black helicopters at his daughter's wedding or whatever it was, and that was it for him.

sid waddell

eagle eye wrote: »

I think this is the first election where the right third candidate has a real chance of winning.

You might as well have written "I think Leitrim have a real chance of winning the All-Ireland senior football championship this year."

sid waddell

Rjd2 wrote: »

Kanye is on record for been a MAGA dude while his wife has worked with Trump. The Kardashian family and what it symbolises is rightfully loathed by those who support Bernie.

Maybe at his artistic peak and when he dropped his Katrina rant aimed at Bush that Kanye could have been alluring to the Bernie base but not 2020 Kanye.

If someone like Killer Mike decided to run who is a thoughtful intelligent lefty rapper,,,, then yeah that would be a disaster for Biden, but not this version of West who probably won't be on that many ballot boxes in the first place.

Yeah but anybody thoughtful and intelligent like that is not going to run as a third candidate because they know full well that doing so would hand the election to Trump.

Anybody thoughtful and intelligent knows it's Biden or bust. A flawed candidate for sure, but that's who the candidate is, there's no other choice but Biden. That's the system, that's the way it is.

KiKi III

eagle eye wrote: »

I think this is the first election where the right third candidate has a real chance of winning.

Not a hope.

Even if they were a billionaire, without the structure of either party it would be impossible to win.

People underestimate what it takes to get elected president in the US: Tens of millions of dollars, a shrewd campaign team and thousands of volunteers are just the start of it.

duploelabs

sid waddell wrote: »

You might as well have written "I think Leitrim have a real chance of winning the All-Ireland senior football championship this year."

With more than three quarters of the season already played

Rjd2

KiKi III wrote: »

Not a hope.

Even if they were a billionaire, without the structure of either party it would be impossible to win.

People underestimate what it takes to get elected president in the US: Tens of millions of dollars, a shrewd campaign team and thousands of volunteers are just the start of it.

I think The Rock is the only celebrity I could see winning it some day and even then he would have to start work a few years before any campaign and he would need 2 horrible candidates from the 2 main parties.

Igotadose

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think The Rock is the only celebrity I could see winning it some day and even then he would have to start work a few years before any campaign and he would need 2 horrible candidates from the 2 main parties.

Zero chance for the Rock. If he came close, the amount of muck-slinging and rat-f**king from the other sides would be enormous. He's mixed-race, which doesn't play in a lot of the US still, and a career in Wrestling means he dealt with seedy individuals, even if he remained clean.

It'd be entertaining, though. He'd get my vote.

sid waddell

As regards celebrity candidates, I don't see Democrats ever choosing one, the sort of people who vote in Democratic primaries are more interested in policies than the average person and less interested in choosing a celebrity. Any celebrity candidate would have to have serious policies that really appealed to voters.

Republicans are much more easily seduced by bare celebrity, two of their last four presidents have been celebrities.

I could see Tucker Carlson running in 2024 as a slightly toned down demagogue type candidate and possibly getting the nomination too. Ivanka Trump also has to be in the reckoning.

briany

Igotadose wrote: »

Zero chance for the Rock. If he came close, the amount of muck-slinging and rat-f**king from the other sides would be enormous. He's mixed-race, which doesn't play in a lot of the US still, and a career in Wrestling means he dealt with seedy individuals, even if he remained clean.

It'd be entertaining, though. He'd get my vote.

As far as ex-wrestlers go, I'd still say that Jesse Ventura would have had a good chance if he'd run on a Dem ticket. I know he's running for a 3rd party this time around, but 3rd parties are such a non-entity over there that they're only mentioned as potentially spoiling the vote for the 2 main parties.

He has a good degree of political experience, is a good talker, has a liberal policy on marijuana use, is a Vietnam vet, can position himself as an outsider etc. I know he's into conspiracy theories, too, but those have gone mainstream in the U.S. and no longer a shocking belief to be held, even by a serious political candidate.

sid waddell

briany wrote: »

As far as ex-wrestlers go, I'd still say that Jesse Ventura would have had a good chance if he'd run on a Dem ticket. I know he's running for a 3rd party this time around, but 3rd parties are such a non-entity over there that they're only mentioned as potentially spoiling the vote for the 2 main parties.

He has a good degree of political experience, is a good talker, has a liberal policy on marijuana use, is a Vietnam vet, can position himself as an outsider etc. I know he's into conspiracy theories, too, but those have gone mainstream in the U.S. and no longer a shocking belief to be held, even by a serious political candidate.

Conspiracy theories are not mainstream within the Democratic party. No conspiracy theorist would stand a chance of gaining a Democratic presidential nomination.

briany

sid waddell wrote: »

Conspiracy theories are not mainstream within the Democratic party. No conspiracy theorist would stand a chance of gaining a Democratic presidential nomination.

The way the Democratic party is going these days it seems it wants nothing to do with anyone who's not a party lifer. But on the subject of Ventura's conspiracy predilections, his show mostly discussed conspiracies that have established themselves in popular culture like JFK, global warming, missile hitting the pentagon on 9/11, top secret weapons, gang stalking and Area 51. Maybe this would be shocking to the Democratic elite of Greenwich, Connecticut, but to the youth vote that Ventura would likely target, not so much. It would be a stick to beat Ventura with but no more than Bernie Sanders and his 'crazy' ideas about free college. Anything not staid, centrist politics seems anathema to that crowd.

duploelabs

briany wrote: »

The way the Democratic party is going these days it seems it wants nothing to do with anyone who's not a party lifer. But on the subject of Ventura's conspiracy predilections, his show mostly discussed conspiracies that have established themselves in popular culture like JFK, global warming, missile hitting the pentagon on 9/11, top secret weapons, gang stalking and Area 51. Maybe this would be shocking to the Democratic elite of Greenwich, Connecticut, but to the youth vote that Ventura would likely target, not so much. It would be a stick to beat Ventura with but no more than Bernie Sanders and his 'crazy' ideas about free college. Anything not staid, centrist politics seems anathema to that crowd.

This Jesse Ventura as a democratic pick?

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/12/politics/donald-trump-jesse-ventura-roger-stone-vice-president/index.html

(To Roger Stone about Donal Trump's VP pick)

"Roger, that throws me out of the equation because I'm a former governor. Do you think Donald will ever think of asking me?"

sid waddell

briany wrote: »

The way the Democratic party is going these days it seems it wants nothing to do with anyone who's not a party lifer. But on the subject of Ventura's conspiracy predilections, his show mostly discussed conspiracies that have established themselves in popular culture like JFK, global warming, missile hitting the pentagon on 9/11, top secret weapons, gang stalking and Area 51. Maybe this would be shocking to the Democratic elite of Greenwich, Connecticut, but to the youth vote that Ventura would likely target, not so much. It would be a stick to beat Ventura with but no more than Bernie Sanders and his 'crazy' ideas about free college. Anything not staid, centrist politics seems anathema to that crowd.

Conspiracy theories such as the above are not in the least "shocking", they're just idiotic. They might be big in the culture of young white stoners who like The Big Lebowski or listen to Joe Rogan, but young white stoners are not a reliable base on which to win a presidential election.

And it would be extremely idiotic for the Democrats to ever pick a presidential candidate who believed in such nonsense.

There are entirely different rules for Republicans and Democrats. A Republican can get away with public pushing of idiotic conspiracy theories. A Democrat can't.

The entirety of the Republican media, who at the moment are slavish in their devotion to a conspiracy theorist, would suddenly "discover" their critical faculties if a Democrat pushed such nonsense. And such a Democrat would also be savaged by the non-Republican media - and rightly so. They would lose in a landslide.

BonnieSituation

eagle eye wrote: »

I think this is the first election where the right third candidate has a real chance of winning.

Unlike 1992?

My God. There is NO possibility of a third candidate being close to winning in this election. How could you possibly think this?

Martin Heinrich could stand I guess.

Rjd2

sid waddell wrote: »

I could see Tucker Carlson running in 2024 as a slightly toned down demagogue type candidate and possibly getting the nomination too. Ivanka Trump also has to be in the reckoning.

Tucker from all accounts loathes the idea of been president, but is having the time of his life taunting the Neocon element of the party.

In 2024 whoever wants to be president will have to bend the knee to him because if not they are dead. That's why those who dream of Nikki Haley bringing it back to the "glory" days of Regan style obsession with small government, "free" markets and foreign imperialism are deluded.

It will be someone like Hawley who will probably win with the backing of Tucker which is why Biden needs to actually be a radical president. Been polite on twitter and not wanting to offend suburban Republicans will leave him vulnerable to someone like Hawley in 2024.

Ivanka is gorgeous, but bar that she has doesn't have her father's charisma or ability to connect/con the common man. She would bomb on a debate stage.

On The Rock,,,,,,,a million things would have to go right for him, but he has absolutely immense charisma and is popular with both sides. Right wing boomers and generation x type people love him for his WWE work and crappy fast and furious films so no attack would stick.

He did a few years praise David French of the national review (not a left wing site!) when he suggested he should run.:D

Can't think of any other celebrity that could cross both aisles ,,,someone like Labron James is to polarising, while someone like Killer Mike would be to left wing for both parties.

eagle eye

KiKi III wrote:

Even if they were a billionaire, without the structure of either party it would be impossible to win.
People underestimate what it takes to get elected president in the US: Tens of millions of dollars, a shrewd campaign team and thousands of volunteers are just the start of it.

And a household name in the US.

There are people who could go for it who would have what it takes.

I'm just saying that given the candidates, the worst options there's ever been imo, that a well known popular independent would have a more realistic chance than ever before.

pixelburp

A third party candidate, no matter how "credible", simply doesn't have a hope in hell within the electorial college. Ross Perot came closest in modern history with his 19%, yet it amounted to an aberration within the machine. There's not a shred of evidence as far as I can see that points towards an opening for a 3rd party candidate to exploit. One's personal distaste for the actual candidates can't surrplant reality. The exposure, resources and political clout required to gain traction would cripple most - before the question of "charisma" could even count for something.

eagle eye

pixelburp wrote:

A third party candidate, no matter how "credible", simply doesn't have a hope in hell within the electorial college. Ross Perot came closest in modern history with his 19%, yet it amounted to an aberration within the machine. There's not a shred of evidence as far as I can see that points towards an opening for a 3rd party candidate to exploit. One's personal distaste for the actual candidates can't surrplant reality. The exposure, resources and political clout required to gain traction would cripple most - before the question of "charisma" could even count for something.

This election is different to anything we've seen before. We have coronavirus , a huge racism protest vote, the questions about the cops.

ancapailldorcha

eagle eye wrote: »

This election is different to anything we've seen before. We have coronavirus , a huge racism protest vote, the questions about the cops.

None of this is going to help yet another celebrity who is so arrogant that they think they have the right to play with the lives of hundreds of millions of people simply because they're wealthy and famous enough to run for the highest office in the land.

eagle eye

ancapailldorcha wrote:

None of this is going to help yet another celebrity who is so arrogant that they think they have the right to play with the lives of hundreds of millions of people simply because they're wealthy and famous enough to run for the highest office in the land.

I didn't not know anything about Kanye. I'm not into celebrity stuff at all.
I wasn't even talking about him..
All I'm saying is that Ross Perot's mark could be well beaten if a proper independent ran.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't not know anything about Kanye. I'm not into celebrity stuff at all.
I wasn't even talking about him..
All I'm saying is that Ross Perot's mark could be well beaten if a proper independent ran.

America has already reaped the harvest of electing someone who has no political experience and a massive ego, I doubt they'd repeat the mistake

Wanderer78

duploelabs wrote:

America has already reaped the harvest of electing someone who has no political experience and a massive ego, I doubt they'd repeat the mistake

Oh you d never know!

pixelburp

eagle eye wrote: »

This election is different to anything we've seen before. We have coronavirus , a huge racism protest vote, the questions about the cops.

Ifs and buts. There's no proof except speculation that some mythical 3rd party candidate will upend literal decades of past behaviour - not to mention we have seen this election before ... 2016. Trump is exactly the kind of left-field, 3rd party candidate you're talking about - albeit running under the banner he chose for convenience (not to mention the political realities of America's electoral system). Hell Bernie Sanders ran independent until necessity demanded he "pick a side". Ross Perot managed 20% of the national vote and as I sit couldn't say why, but one swallow doesn't mean a summer here.

And even if this phantom candidate of rarity appeared and swept the EC with a campaign that disintegrated 200+ years of a cabal ... you still have the reality that any 3rd party candidate would still be required to work within the confines of a Congress & Senate controlled by the Republicans or Democrats. All that bluster over a non-partisan candidate would slam into the wall of the two Houses of government.

Anyway. Trump has poisoned the well of the myth of the populist celebrity running for office; he's the new low watermark and a cautionary tale about choosing someone full of bluster and apparent "can do" attitude. And those celebrities running do nothing to actually solve the fundamental structural problem of American "Democracy" in the first place.

A useful, genuinely transformative political revolution would be for a new, 3rd party to take a substantial bite into the makeup of Congress or the Senate. There's no sign of that happening; the Greens are irrelevant, the Libertarians a naive farce of a project. Maybe AoC et al could coordinate a proper left-wing party but again ... the 2 party system is the only game in town. A fanciful 3rd option President would be nothing more than thin smoke and mirrors.

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't not know anything about Kanye. I'm not into celebrity stuff at all.
I wasn't even talking about him..
All I'm saying is that Ross Perot's mark could be well beaten if a proper independent ran.

Kanye is not a proper independent.
He sold plain white tshirts from his clothing line for $120 and once claimed his greatest disappointment is that he will never be able to see himself perform live.

It is not surprising that himself and Trump have seen some sort of kindred spirit in each other.

In terms of independents beating Perot's mark. Maybe, its hard to see at this point. Maybe if someone like Bill Gates ran he would have the standing, money and strategic nous to make an impact. But, if he, or someone similar was so inclined, then I'd imagine they'd try to get the nomination of one of the established parties as Trump did.

Gates is too smart to devote so much effort to being a respected also ran and I couldn't see someone splitting the establishment entirely so that an independent might win.

Quin_Dub

pixelburp wrote: »

Ifs and buts. There's no proof except speculation that some mythical 3rd party candidate will upend literal decades of past behaviour - not to mention we have seen this election before ... 2016. Trump is exactly the kind of left-field, 3rd party candidate you're talking about - albeit running under the banner he chose for convenience (not to mention the political realities of America's electoral system). Hell Bernie Sanders ran independent until necessity demanded he "pick a side". Ross Perot managed 20% of the national vote and as I sit couldn't say why, but one swallow doesn't mean a summer here.

And even if this phantom candidate of rarity appeared and swept the EC with a campaign that disintegrated 200+ years of a cabal ... you still have the reality that any 3rd party candidate would still be required to work within the confines of a Congress & Senate controlled by the Republicans or Democrats. All that bluster over a non-partisan candidate would slam into the wall of the two Houses of government.

Anyway. Trump has poisoned the well of the myth of the populist celebrity running for office; he's the new low watermark and a cautionary tale about choosing someone full of bluster and apparent "can do" attitude. And those celebrities running do nothing to actually solve the fundamental structural problem of American "Democracy" in the first place.

A useful, genuinely transformative political revolution would be for a new, 3rd party to take a substantial bite into the makeup of Congress or the Senate. There's no sign of that happening; the Greens are irrelevant, the Libertarians a naive farce of a project. Maybe AoC et al could coordinate a proper left-wing party but again ... the 2 party system is the only game in town. A fanciful 3rd option President would be nothing more than thin smoke and mirrors.

Indeed, to be honest all that would be required would be for an aligned group to take sufficient seats in either house to prevent a majority for either of the main two.

They could then wield substantial power - Although I can't seem to find out what happens if there's no majority in terms of Speaker and Committee leads etc.

Carfacemandog

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm just saying that given the candidates, the worst options there's ever been imo,

Call me nuts but I'm going to assume you said that exact same thing back in 2016 with Clinton and likely considered sanders a worse candidate than Biden, but now somehow Biden is one half of 'the worst candidates there's ever been'?

everlast75

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Call me nuts but I'm going to assume you said that exact same thing back in 2016 with Clinton and likely considered sanders a worse candidate than Biden, but now somehow Biden is one half of 'the worst candidates there's ever been'?

The only thing standing against Biden is his age.

Everything else is fabricated.

He is well liked by the centre left and centre right.

He is disliked by both ends of the spectrum.

He is vanilla, but he is well known and a trusted politician (if that's not an oxymoron). He is a safe pair of hands.

He doesn't excite people, but the idea of removing Trump excites plenty.

Quin_Dub

For anyone interested in Kanyes plans for a Presidential run.. Have a read of this

Some of the nuggets coming out of this Forbes interview

• That he’s running for president in 2020 under a new banner—the Birthday Party—with guidance from Elon Musk and an obscure vice presidential candidate he’s already chosen. “Like anything I’ve ever done in my life,” says West, “I’m doing to win.”
• That he no longer supports President Trump. “I am taking the red hat off, with this interview.”
• That he’s ok with siphoning off Black votes from the Democratic nominee, thus helping Trump. “I’m not denying it, I just told you. To say that the Black vote is Democratic is a form of racism and white supremacy.”
• That he’s never voted in his life.
• That he was sick with Covid-19 in February.
• That he’s suspicious of a coronavirus vaccine, terming vaccines “the mark of the beast.”
• That he believes “Planned Parenthoods have been placed inside cities by white supremacists to do the Devil’s work.”
• That he envisions a White House organizational model based on the secret country of Wakanda in Black Panther.

Yeah - Viable alternative candidate alright.

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

For anyone interested in Kanyes plans for a Presidential run.. Have a read of this

Some of the nuggets coming out of this Forbes interview



Yeah - Viable alternative candidate alright.

The only thing Kanye West is a viable candidate for is a frontal lobotomy. Whoever thinks that this isn't all one big publicity stunt by someone who is starved for attention can join him.

Utter nonsense.

KiKi III

everlast75 wrote: »

The only thing Kanye West is a viable candidate for is a frontal lobotomy. Whoever thinks that this isn't all one big publicity stunt by someone who is starved for attention can join him.

Utter nonsense.

I want to believe that’s true, but we said the same thing almost word for word about Trump.

everlast75

KiKi III wrote: »

I want to believe that’s true, but we said the same thing almost word for word about Trump.

Yes, but apply context to that comparison.

We have had him at the helm for 3.5 years. Would you rate that as a postive example or an endorsement of voting in someone with zero political experience?

And his term isn't over yet. It's getting worse in the US day after day. What state will it be in thanks to him come November?

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

The only thing Kanye West is a viable candidate for is a frontal lobotomy. Whoever thinks that this isn't all one big publicity stunt by someone who is starved for attention can join him.

Utter nonsense.

And someone who's squatting and bending out an album out next week so they need all the coverage they need to sell that turd

sid waddell

everlast75 wrote: »

The only thing Kanye West is a viable candidate for is a frontal lobotomy. Whoever thinks that this isn't all one big publicity stunt by someone who is starved for attention can join him.

Utter nonsense.

everlast75 wrote: »

Yes, but apply context to that comparison.

We have had him at the helm for 3.5 years. Would you rate that as a postive example or an endorsement of voting in someone with zero political experience?

And his term isn't over yet. It's getting worse in the US day after day. What state will it be in thanks to him come November?

West is obviously obsessed by attention but that doesn't mean he is starved for attention. There's a difference. Because of his celebrity, he can drum up attention for himself very easily, unfortunately.

Obviously he is not a viable candidate to win himself.

Proclaiming himself a candidate might be a publicity stunt, it might not be. He has the motive to be a disruptor, and if he is a candidate, he would be a disruptor - ie. a chaos candidate who runs for no other reason than to peel off votes from Biden to try and hand victory to Trump. Well, and to gain publicity for himself in order to feed his monstrous ego.

Some of the soundings out of the dirtbag left about a possible run by West have been worrying. Nina Turner in particular. There is a cohort of "left" "personalities" out there who would only love West to run because they want Biden to lose, and Trump to win.

eagle eye

Carfacemandog wrote:

Call me nuts but I'm going to assume you said that exact same thing back in 2016 with Clinton and likely considered sanders a worse candidate than Biden, but now somehow Biden is one half of 'the worst candidates there's ever been'?

I said in 2014 that Hilary has no charisma and there's a big chance she loses.
I was never against Bernie but always felt he was a no hoper as regards winning an election.
Biden's the worst Democratic nominee I can remember in my 50+ years on this earth.

StringerBell

By what metric is he worse than Hilary?

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

I said in 2014 that Hilary has no charisma and there's a big chance she loses.
I was never against Bernie but always felt he was a no hoper as regards winning an election.
Biden's the worst Democratic nominee I can remember in my 50+ years on this earth.

And Trump is by far the worst incumbent Republican President in the last 50+ years.

What's your point?

sliabh 1956

The Supreme Court just ruled Trumps financial affairs can be invistigated

Muahahaha

There was two rulings. One said that Congress cannot look into Trumps tax affairs and the other said that New York prosecutors can investigate them.

In the case regarding the request from the New York prosecutors, the Supreme Court ruled by a majority of seven to two that the president did not have absolute immunity from criminal investigation.

This opens up the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

And Trump is by far the worst incumbent Republican President in the last 50+ years.

What's your point?

You didn't need to go any further than Trump is the worst incumbent.
I wasn't making a point, I was responding to somebody I quoted.

MadYaker

Hillary was a far weaker candidate than Biden. She wasn’t well liked and had a lot of baggage and trump ran a better campaign. Now trumps campaign is stuck in reverse and it’s hard to see what’s going to change. The resurgence of coronavirus there will only lead to more economic woes and a strong economy is (was?) his only chance.

Itssoeasy

Muahahaha wrote: »

There was two rulings. One said that Congress cannot look into Trumps tax affairs and the other said that New York prosecutors can investigate them.



This opens up the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

That ruling by the Supreme Court isn't new though as both Nixon and Clinton tried to claim something like trump did and were told that they were wrong. Nixon got a 9-0 ruling against him over his tapes and I don't know what Clinton got but the trump argument on the NY stuff never had a hope if the SC stick to precedent on two former presidents.

Itssoeasy

MadYaker wrote: »

Hillary was a far weaker candidate than Biden. She wasn’t well liked and had a lot of baggage and trump ran a better campaign. Now trumps campaign is stuck in reverse and it’s hard to see what’s going to change. The resurgence of coronavirus there will only lead to more economic woes and a strong economy is (was?) his only chance.

She wasn't well liked and Biden has a wider appeal to voters then she did. He appeals to moderate republicans who may not want to vote for trump this time unlike last time.

Trump in July 2020 still can not seem to define joe Biden which is surely a worry for them. Also, trump is trying to run as an outsider, despite the fact he's president so kind of hard to square that circle when you are the president. He can't complain about the state of the country because at this stage any issues have his fingerprints on them.

rossie1977

She wasn't well liked because Republicans and the media had run a 15 year smear campaign against her.

They have tried with Biden too but its not sticking as well and they don't have the same time frame to accomplish their task.

ELM327

I for one hope that kanye runs, it will cement Trump's victory.
Biden's main hope is the angered black vote

Muahahaha

ELM327 wrote: »

I for one hope that kanye runs, it will cement Trump's victory.
Biden's main hope is the angered black vote

Hope away but Kaynes family are saying he is in the middle of one of his bi polar episodes, hasnt taken his medication, wont answer their calls and has gone into hiding. It explains his Presidential run, he is having a manic episode. He also said that there are chemicals in our toothpaste that affect our ability to be in the service of god as well as other anti vax positions

If Trump supporters think Kayne West is going to be their salvation then theyre deluded. The guy needs medical help, not a run for president.

Quin_Dub

ELM327 wrote: »

I for one hope that kanye runs, it will cement Trump's victory.
Biden's main hope is the angered black vote

Given that he leads in every single Demographic category except "White - Non College Educated" , I'm not sure that that is at all true.

Kanye running might syphon off some votes , but given that Trump said in Hannity last night that "Kanye is always going to be for us" I don't think it's altogether clear who exactly he might take votes off.

Quin_Dub

Muahahaha wrote: »

Hope away but Kaynes family are saying he is in the middle of one of his bi polar episodes, hasnt taken his medication, wont answer their calls and has gone into hiding. It explains his Presidential run, he is having a manic episode. He also said that there are chemicals in our toothpaste that affect our ability to be in the service of god as well as other anti vax positions

If Trump supporters think Kayne West is going to be their salvation then theyre deluded. The guy needs medical help, not a run for president.

That's sad to hear if true. Hope he gets the right help if needed.

I did think that the details of his telephone interview with Forbes a few days ago were more than a little bizarre , like he would base his administration on Wakanda?!