The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Dennisch]

Trump doesn't have to do any campaigning this time. The DNC will ruin it for themselves.

 

[Dotini]

The DNC will ruin it for themselves.

Yes, they are deep into "circular firing squad" mode, and making a terrible mess of the election process, almost as if they have taken license to subvert US democracy, voting and electoral process much as Russia has been accused of doing

 

[Danoff]

Yes, they are deep into "circular firing squad" mode, and making a terrible mess of the election process, almost as if they have taken license to subvert US democracy, voting and electoral process much as Russia has been accused of doing

You mean the republicans right? And Russia actually did that. "Accused" is not as accurate as "did". There's a whole lengthy treatise on it called "The Mueller Report".

 

[Pupik]

Can you imagine a Canadian invasion? I just envision a bunch of hockey players riding moose lobbing maple syrup at the White House while apologizing the entire time. Or they'd just go crazy and drop an Eh?-Bomb on us.

Yeah, but then our national curling team won't be as good. Federally-subsidized Canada Goose jackets will make up for that.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

Can you imagine a Canadian invasion? I just envision a bunch of hockey players riding moose lobbing maple syrup at the White House while apologizing the entire time. Or they'd just go crazy and drop an Eh?-Bomb on us.

If they come in blasting Rush, Red Rider, April Wine, the Guess Who, Alanis et al, I’d be on their side. Heck, throw in Bieber, Drake, and Nickelback. And Bryan Adams.

 

[dlshearon]

Why live in a country you give zero :censored:s about?

 

[mustafur]

Why live in a country you give zero :censored:s about?

Why be born on land if you don't like the land.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Why live?

 

[Dotini]

FBN anchor Trish Regan says Buttigieg campaign manager's wife is CEO of company running the app that screwed up the Iowa Caucus to the benefit of Buttigieg. Sanders won the most votes, the popular vote. But when 62% of the caucus was in, party elites cherry-picked counties and that showed Buttigieg winning by a 1.6% margin. The margin now is too close to call, with a manual recount underway that may not finish until after New Hampshire.

From The New Yorker.

A number of people associated with Shadow have close ties to Democratic Party officials. Shadow was launched by Acronym, a nonprofit that promotes Democratic candidates, in January of 2019. Acronym’s founder and C.E.O., Tara McGowan, is married to Michael Halle, a senior adviser to Pete Buttigieg. David Plouffe, who served as President Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, is on Acronym’s board. After the app’s failure on Monday, a spokesperson for Acronym distanced the organization from Shadow on Twitter.

Shadow appears to have built a texting tool used by the Buttigieg and Biden campaigns. F.E.C. filings show that the Buttigieg campaign paid the firm $42,500 and the Biden campaign paid it $1,225. If it wasn’t previously obvious to the Democratic Party, or to Shadow, or to the Biden and Buttigieg campaigns, that this arrangement might be perceived as a conflict of interest, it is certainly obvious today. It did not take long before rumors spread on social media that Shadow was in cahoots with the Buttigieg and Biden campaigns. For a political party that needs to distinguish itself from the one that is short on integrity, this was a failure all around. The Nevada Democratic Party, which had planned to use the Shadow app for its caucuses, later this month, announced on Monday that it would not be doing so.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-lesson-american-voters-can-learn-from-iowa

 

[Biggles]

I have a hard time understanding why who "won" Iowa - in a multi-candidate field & by a margin of a handful of votes - has any real significance in the wider scheme of things?

 

[Danoff]

I have a hard time understanding why who "won" Iowa - in a multi-candidate field & by a margin of a handful of votes - has any real significance in the wider scheme of things?

This isn't real life, this is a game. Winning is the only thing that matters.

 

[Dotini]

I have a hard time understanding why who "won" Iowa - in a multi-candidate field & by a margin of a handful of votes - has any real significance in the wider scheme of things?

- Momentum, aka "Big Mo"
- Strutting, preening and proselytizing at the victory banquet, press conference and interviews
- $$ coming in from contributors big and small
- Enthusiasm of support base
- Erasure of competition from lower in the poll
- Narrowing of "lanes" (Bern and Warren are in the left/socialist lane, the others in the neoliberal/establishment lane

 

[Biggles]

- Momentum, aka "Big Mo"
- Strutting, preening and proselytizing at the victory banquet, press conference and interviews
- $$ coming in from contributors big and small
- Enthusiasm of support base
- Erasure of competition from lower in the poll
- Narrowing of "lanes" (Bern and Warren are in the left/socialist lane, the others in the neoliberal/establishment lane

My takeaway:

- Buttigieg has emerged as a real, viable proposition.
- Warren is not looking as appealing as Sanders leaving Sanders as the clear favourite on the progressive wing.
- Biden is struggling.

Whether Buttigieg got 1% more or less of the vote than Sanders is of no real significance at all.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Just for the sake of keeping things interesting, I'm probably going to vote for Mikey B in the CA primary. If he has a good showing here, especially now that we are earlier than we have been before, he could really gain some momentum.

I'm not really pumped about any of the field, though I do like Andrew Yang however hopeless his candidacy is. I think Bloomberg has a better shot at beating Trump in the GE than any of the rest of the field. Biden would have crushed Trump in 2016...now though? I have serious doubts.

Bernie....oh Bernie.
How many moderates would sit out the GE if Bernie were to win the primary? I think some, maybe even many.
How many progressives would sit out the GE if Bloomberg were to win the primary? With Trump in office, ZERO.

 

[Joey D]

I'm really curious how Buttigieg would do in a national election. I think there are many people who wouldn't feel comfortable with a gay president even if his romantic interests have really no bearing on how good or bad he'd be as an elected official. Although, I suppose after Trump, anything is possible.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm really curious how Buttigieg would do in a national election. I think there are many people who wouldn't feel comfortable with a gay president even if his romantic interests have really no bearing on how good or bad he'd be as an elected official. Although, I suppose after Trump, anything is possible.

I saw a short clip of an Iowa woman changing her vote to Biden after learning Pete was gay. A self-identified Democrat, mind.

I worry.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Apologies for the double post, but I found this Vox article about the current state of the Democratic party to be astute and also highly entertaining:

“We’re losing our damn minds”: James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party

Falling into despair won’t help anyone, though. I mean, you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle. I’m getting a ****ing welding torch. Okay?

 

[mustafur]

Bernie....oh Bernie.
How many moderates would sit out the GE if Bernie were to win the primary? I think some, maybe even many.
How many progressives would sit out the GE if Bloomberg were to win the primary? With Trump in office, ZERO.

Yet that same scenario played out different in 2016.

If Bernie loses to Bloomberg it has to be in a non hostile way or you risk a branch of them revenge voting or not voting at all in the general, that is atleast what the data showed in the 2016 Nomination, also national polling Averages suggest Bernie has a comfortable lead on Trump at present so your theory is lacking: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Yet that same scenario played out different in 2016.

If Bernie loses to Bloomberg it has to be in a non hostile way or you risk a branch of them revenge voting or not voting at all in the general, that is atleast what the data showed in the 2016 Nomination, also national polling Averages suggest Bernie has a comfortable lead on Trump at present so your theory is lacking: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

Revenge voting? Populist rage needs to stop. Hilary comfortably beat Bernie in almost all important swing states in the 2016 Primary and only lost the GE due to a multitude of extraordinary circumstances. Just look at the primary vote count in Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio. Are you suggesting Bernie would have had more votes in Florida and Pennsylvania in the GE than he would have in the Democratic primary? I don't buy that at all. It's definitely possible that Bernie supporters "Revenge Voted" for Trump in those states enough to tilt them away from Clinton in the GE, but that does not mean Bernie could have actually won those states. So where does that leave us? Is the sentiment "if we can't have Bernie than we'll allow Trump to destroy the country" How is that helpful? It's like putting a gun to someone's head.

@Danoff If you are wondering what problem income inequality causes (other thread), I think the answer is that it causes populism. It's not a poverty problem. The problem is the disparity. It did in 1920s Europe, and it most certainly appears to be doing the same thing again now. Inequality -> Rage -> Populism -> Populist Leaders -> Authoritarianism -> War.

 

[Keef]

So I finally met the Bernie supporters on the Politics subreddit who are in favor of breaking the rules in order to counter those who are breaking the rules.

That's always a fun debate.

 

[polysmut]

@Danoff If you are wondering what problem income inequality causes (other thread), I think the answer is that it causes populism. It's not a poverty problem. The problem is the disparity. It did in 1920s Europe, and it most certainly appears to be doing the same thing again now. Inequality -> Rage -> Populism -> Populist Leaders -> Authoritarianism -> War.

I'm not Danoff, obviously, & I don't know how much of a problem wealth inequality is, if any.
But you seem to be arguing that people's reaction to wealth inequality is a problem, rather than wealth inequality itself?

 

[Famine]

I have a hard time understanding why who "won" Iowa - in a multi-candidate field & by a margin of a handful of votes - has any real significance in the wider scheme of things?

Trump won Iowa.

 

[Keef]

Trump won Iowa.

Perhaps because it was expected, only 35,000 votes were cast in the entire Republican caucus, while Bernie got 45,000 alone in the Democratic caucus.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps because it was expected, only 35,000 votes were cast in the entire Republican caucus, while Bernie got 45,000 alone in the Democratic caucus.

I was more suggesting that - due to the insane mess caused by DNC with the app, the lack of a clear Democrat winner, and renewed conspiracy stuff about the Clintons to stymie Bernie - Trump won the Democrat one.

 

[Keef]

Fair point. Plus, they're now reporting on all the errors in counting. There are still a ton of districts "tied" because of improperly apportioned delegates on NYT's district map.

Hopefully the rest distracts from this. It's only one election of many but I do think it established a trend - Bernie dominates urban areas and is more popular than Warren, while Pete dominates rural "moderate" areas.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm not Danoff, obviously, & I don't know how much of a problem wealth inequality is, if any.
But you seem to be arguing that people's reaction to wealth inequality is a problem, rather than wealth inequality itself?

Well yes. That doesn't make it any less problematic, even if its an abstraction.

 

[mustafur]

Revenge voting? Populist rage needs to stop. Hilary comfortably beat Bernie in almost all important swing states in the 2016 Primary and only lost the GE due to a multitude of extraordinary circumstances. Just look at the primary vote count in Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio. Are you suggesting Bernie would have had more votes in Florida and Pennsylvania in the GE than he would have in the Democratic primary? I don't buy that at all. It's definitely possible that Bernie supporters "Revenge Voted" for Trump in those states enough to tilt them away from Clinton in the GE, but that does not mean Bernie could have actually won those states. So where does that leave us? Is the sentiment "if we can't have Bernie than we'll allow Trump to destroy the country" How is that helpful? It's like putting a gun to someone's head.

@Danoff If you are wondering what problem income inequality causes (other thread), I think the answer is that it causes populism. It's not a poverty problem. The problem is the disparity. It did in 1920s Europe, and it most certainly appears to be doing the same thing again now. Inequality -> Rage -> Populism -> Populist Leaders -> Authoritarianism -> War.

Florida and Pennsylvania where Closed Primarys and people had to register as a democrat well before they voted, its not fully reflective of a general.

But I wasn't talking about this, Hillary had a big advantage over Bernie in 2016 with name recognition where as now Bernie is already more well known then he was back then and is the betting markets favourite currently which he never was in 2016.

When it came out that the DNC was funding Hillary's campaign, told her debate questions before hand and where actively trying to stiffle Sanders that would be strong reasons I can see why she lost alot of support from Sanders supporters, If the DNC have a hands off approach(which they should anyway) and Sanders loses I don't see it being as bad as 2016.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Apologies for the double post, but I found this Vox article about the current state of the Democratic party to be astute and also highly entertaining:

“We’re losing our damn minds”: James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party

Here is the video of this interview.

To those of you who don't live here, James Carville, practically a household name, is a brilliant democratic strategist. He is the guy who said "it's the economy stupid"

 

[PocketZeven]

Is he running TV ads over there too? I have never seen a politician run so many ads. Not just national network ads, but local ads too.

Nope. I didnt even seen 1 ad at all. Just think he is a smart guy with a good sense of morality. He is experienced in governing and doesnt have a long list of courtcases against him in his wake.

He's buying his way to be the nominee, and the DNC will throw the entire election away if they don't learn the lesson they did with Hillary & Bernie.

To be fair he had a late start and is trying to making up ground. But "buying" votes is kind of what all politicians do, the big difference is, that he is using his own money.

edit: added comment

 

[mustafur]

Nope. I didnt even seen 1 ad at all. Just think he is a smart guy with a good sense of morality. He is experienced in governing and doesnt have a long list of courtcases against him in his wake.



To be fair he had a late start and is trying to making up ground. But "buying" votes is kind of what all politicians do, the big difference is, that he is using his own money.

edit: added comment

Except Sanders who doesnt take any money from corporations, and Warren atleast if you dont count her previous senate run that she put into this.

They had to change the rules for him and that was after he paid off the DNC.

He is trying to buy Relevence and it highlights the point about unrestricted private capital making a joke of democracy.