The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[UKMikey]

*Trump has many, many more though.

He has many more for other people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

 

[Mr Tree]

Bernie's betrayal was to his loyal supporters, fervent socialist populists left twisting in the wind, who felt very uncomfortable with Hillary.

At Benghazi, a US Ambassador was slain in a planned attack by Islamic militants. He was engaged in a misbegotten gun running operation from Libya and on through Turkey to Islamic militants. Hillary Clinton, his boss, rightly took responsibility for the "security lapses". Her term as Secretary of State was a disaster. Her hands are unclean.

I'm a fervent socialist or social democrat, what did the others expect, him running as an independent? If so you have to realise that was never going to happen once bernie joined the democratic primaries not?

On the Benghazi part thanks for the info, i'll have to look into it more to fully grasp the situation I geuss.

 

[mustafur]

I don't see any real push back on that right now though, it will be interesting to see how the debates will work out when you got at least 3 people on very similar platforms now(Sanders, Gabbard and Warren).

Gabbard is much better on foreign policy imo, but at this stage has the least media attention.

 

[Mr Tree]

it will be interesting to see how the debates will work out when you got at least 3 people on very similar platforms now(Sanders, Gabbard and Warren).

It does freighten me a bit that they might split the vote between them and have a more neoliberal candidate win the primary due to this.

 

[mustafur]

It does freighten me a bit that they might split the vote between them and have a more neoliberal candidate win the primary due to this.

I would expect the media to smear all 3 pretty badly though, but I don't think the other candidates will have a good time in the debates as it's pretty easy to see Donors and most of the public is aware of this stuff now, and none of the Neo Libs really have a name to ride off now, unless Biden runs.

 

[mustafur]

Soo much hostility to an anti war candidate, good to see John McCains daughter(on the far right of the table) is just as much a hawk as her father.

 

[Dotini]

Soo much hostility to an anti war candidate, good to see John McCains daughter(on the far right of the table) is just as much a hawk as her father.

Realists, Libertarians, independents and paleoconservatives are going to see things in Gabbard that they really like. If the ideologues on the left can wrap their uptight mind around this Democrat, you may be looking at the next elected American president.

 

[Liquid]

Just referring to Sanders, once he conceded defeat in the 2016 Democrat run, what was he supposed to do? Tell his loyal supporters "Well that's it. We lost, I admit defeat. There're no similar candidates so don't vote in October"?

That would have given the Republicans a far more comfortable winning margin than they did have.

At the very least a "next best candidate" endorsement is reasonable even if that candidate is several notches over on the x axis.

Ideally it shouldn't be like that but we don't live in an ideal world. Especially not with regard to politics.

 

[mustafur]

Just referring to Sanders, once he conceded defeat in the 2016 Democrat run, what was he supposed to do? Tell his loyal supporters "Well that's it. We lost, I admit defeat. There're no similar candidates so don't vote in October"?

That would have given the Republicans a far more comfortable winning margin than they did have.

At the very least a "next best candidate" endorsement is reasonable even if that candidate is several notches over on the x axis.

Ideally it shouldn't be like that but we don't live in an ideal world. Especially not with regard to politics.

It didn't go down well because at the same time he did that, evidence was coming out about Media and DNC collusion to Favour Hillary over Sanders.

Hillary represented alot of what Bernie was fighting against and the lesser of two evils doesn't go down well when you combine the other things.

 

[Biggles]

It didn't go down well because at the same time he did that, evidence was coming out about Media and DNC collusion to Favour Hillary over Sanders.

Hillary represented alot of what Bernie was fighting against and the lesser of two evils doesn't go down well when you combine the other things.

I think the bottom line is that HRC would have won the Democratic nomination anyway, even without the dubious tactics of the DNC & "establishment Democrats". Bernie is a man of principle & the principle, at the end of the day, was preventing a person with quasi-fascist tendencies from winning the White House. It's true that Bernie's younger, more idealistic/naive supporters may have seen Clinton's nomination as a betrayal of what they fought for, & elected to abstain from voting in the GE. The sobering result of that decision is a President who has promoted racism & xenophobia, delivered a huge tax cut to the super rich & corporations & delivered on his promises to the working class by questionable monkeying around with import tariffs & a confused & confusing economic strategy.

This sets the stage for the 2020 election. Again, the DNC will have to choose between candidates who represent a more moderate, middle-of-the-road position (most obviously Joe Biden) & candidates who represent the more left-wing aspirations of the Democratic base (like Bernie or Beto or one of the women running). Seems to me that the obvious strategy would be to nominate Biden, with a more radical person as VP - preferably a woman. This would leave the possibility open that that person could step in in 2024 to take over from a geriatric Biden. Could be seen as a win-win strategy in attracting the moderate/independent vote in the GE while still appeasing Democratic activists.

 

[mustafur]

I think the bottom line is that HRC would have won the Democratic nomination anyway, even without the dubious tactics of the DNC & "establishment Democrats". Bernie is a man of principle & the principle, at the end of the day, was preventing a person with quasi-fascist tendencies from winning the White House. It's true that Bernie's younger, more idealistic/naive supporters may have seen Clinton's nomination as a betrayal of what they fought for, & elected to abstain from voting in the GE. The sobering result of that decision is a President who has promoted racism & xenophobia, delivered a huge tax cut to the super rich & corporations & delivered on his promises to the working class by questionable monkeying around with import tariffs & a confused & confusing economic strategy.

This sets the stage for the 2020 election. Again, the DNC will have to choose between candidates who represent a more moderate, middle-of-the-road position (most obviously Joe Biden) & candidates who represent the more left-wing aspirations of the Democratic base (like Bernie or Beto or one of the women running). Seems to me that the obvious strategy would be to nominate Biden, with a more radical person as VP - preferably a woman. This would leave the possibility open that that person could step in in 2024 to take over from a geriatric Biden. Could be seen as a win-win strategy in attracting the moderate/independent vote in the GE while still appeasing Democratic activists.

I don't doubt for a second that is a losing strategy, they lost with Hillary why would they do the exact same thing again?

 

[Mr Tree]

Why is HRC still running tbh?

To me it seems like she feels entiteled to be the first female president.

If he comes up against Trump the dem's will lose again. And at that point I have little to no sympathy for the ones crying they can't have Trump as president.

And to those voting for Trump, honnest question: "Is there really no other candidate that represents your views that doesn't minimalises sexual assault, that doesn't normalise the far/alt right?".
This is really odd to me as some things he said would instantly disqualify him for my vote. But this doesn't seem to bother other people, why not?
I want to accept bot all Trump voters are deplorable, so I geuss those people have a way of dismissing those comments in a descent way. And if that's not the case why is it wrong to call that deplorable?
I hope 'you' don't see this as an attack but as an opening to explain what people who call you deplorables get wrong about you.

 

[Liquid]

It didn't go down well because at the same time he did that, evidence was coming out about Media and DNC collusion to Favour Hillary over Sanders.

Hillary represented alot of what Bernie was fighting against and the lesser of two evils doesn't go down well when you combine the other things.

I don't dispute any of this. It only adds fuel to the dumpster fire that was the 2016 US Presidential election; one of the most ridiculous and insane real-world events I've ever had the displeasure of watching from a comfortable chair.

 

[Dotini]

I don't doubt for a second that is a losing strategy, they lost with Hillary why would they do the exact same thing again?

One good working definition of insanity is to do the same thing over again and expect different results.

The #1 job of government and the president is to provide safety and freedom of economic opportunity, i.e., peace and prosperity. Those deliverables are or should be the focus of good government in the US, if but not elsewhere. When peace, freedom and prosperity are sacrificed on the altar of authoritarian centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society, then we have a problem.

According to bookies, Trump is currently the overwhelming 3-2 favorite for reelection.
https://www.mediaite.com/entertainm...s-have-donald-trump-as-massive-2020-favorite/

 

[DK]

In other words, it's around 3/2 that the GOP hang onto the White House in 2020.

 

[Biggles]

I don't doubt for a second that is a losing strategy, they lost with Hillary why would they do the exact same thing again?

I'm not sure what you're referring to - what is "the exact same thing"?

 

[mustafur]

I'm not sure what you're referring to - what is "the exact same thing"?

Middle of the road Democrats, Hillary is just like Biden in that department.

 

[Dotini]

Gallup: Liberals outnumber conservatives in only 6 states, down from 9

Before conservatives start to cheer, Gallup said the gap used to be 21 points and a handful of the state numbers fall in the margin of error.

But the survey still shows a large swath of red and pink states bookended by the whole West Coast, New England, and the mid-Atlantic, including the Washington, D.C. area.

Screen shot of Gallup's most conservative states.

 

[Biggles]

Middle of the road Democrats, Hillary is just like Biden in that department.

One good working definition of insanity is to do the same thing over again and expect different results.

My guess is that the "insanity" the Democrat establishment is most concerned about repeating is what happened in the 1972 Presidential election. The Democratic nominee was George McGovern - probably the most "liberal" candidate in US history. This map shows the result.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin. Had she carried the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin - which she lost by somewhere between a half & one percent of the vote -she would have won the election by a comfortable margin. I'm pretty convinced that had Biden been the Democratic candidate he would have carried those three states easily against Trump.

The dilemma facing the Democratic party is whether to focus on getting out the Democratic base by promoting a more left-wing candidate, or to attract the votes of independents by nominating a more centrist candidate. Trump seems to have made no attempt to court moderates, so it would be a logical move on the part of the Democrats to step in & try & capture the vote of independent moderates. In addition to that, activist Democrats may chafe at the idea of another centrist Democrat candidate, but I wonder if they may have been somewhat sobered by the unexpected election of Trump & may be more likely to suck it up & support a centrist Democrat to ensure Trump does not get re-elected?

That's the way I see it. Add a suitable, more left VP & you've covered the bases. However, anything could happen through the primaries & it's possible a strong, younger, more appealing candidate may emerge ...

 

[mustafur]

My guess is that the "insanity" the Democrat establishment is most concerned about repeating is what happened in the 1972 Presidential election. The Democratic nominee was George McGovern - probably the most "liberal" candidate in US history. This map shows the result.

View attachment 801807


In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin. Had she carried the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin - which she lost by somewhere between a half & one percent of the vote -she would have won the election by a comfortable margin. I'm pretty convinced that had Biden been the Democratic candidate he would have carried those three states easily against Trump.

The dilemma facing the Democratic party is whether to focus on getting out the Democratic base by promoting a more left-wing candidate, or to attract the votes of independents by nominating a more centrist candidate. Trump seems to have made no attempt to court moderates, so it would be a logical move on the part of the Democrats to step in & try & capture the vote of independent moderates. In addition to that, activist Democrats may chafe at the idea of another centrist Democrat candidate, but I wonder if they may have been somewhat sobered by the unexpected election of Trump & may be more likely to suck it up & support a centrist Democrat to ensure Trump does not get re-elected?

That's the way I see it. Add a suitable, more left VP & you've covered the bases. However, anything could happen through the primaries & it's possible a strong, younger, more appealing candidate may emerge ...

Even though in Polling in 2016 Bernie had a bigger advantage over Trump then Hillary did, which suggested, that Hillary lost alot of Bernie supporters when faced against Trump.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

 

[Biggles]

Even though in Polling in 2016 Bernie had a bigger advantage over Trump then Hillary did, which suggested, that Hillary lost alot of Bernie supporters when faced against Trump.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

I'm aware of what the polls were suggesting in the period leading up to the nomination of Clinton. Whether Bernie would actually have beaten Trump in the GE is unknowable - a lot could have happened in the months before election night. What I do believe is that the DNC & the "Democratic establishment" favoured Clinton, because: she had paid her dues in the party hierarchy, they probably felt more confident in her ability to beat Trump, she was a woman ("it's about time"), & after all, Bernie wasn't even really a Democrat. As it turned out, a number of factors contributed to Clinton's (unexpected) loss to Trump.

But ... because the 2016 election turned out the way it did does not confirm that a moderate Democrat, other than Clinton, would not have beaten Trump ... and it does not confirm that a moderate Democrat could not beat Trump in 2020.

 

[mustafur]

Politicians are supposed to represent the people why should anyone respect paying dues to party hierarchy.

Super Delegates, Closed Primaries and Overtly Biased Mainstream Media Coverage already do enough to make sure the Establishment Candidate wins as it is.

 

[Biggles]

Politicians are supposed to represent the people why should anyone respect paying dues to party hierarchy.
.

And ... what? I'm not defending it - I'm explaining it.

 

[mustafur]

And ... what? I'm not defending it - I'm explaining it.

Maybe jumped the gun there, sorry.

 

[Biggles]

Maybe jumped the gun there, sorry.

My disagreement with you (on this subject) is that you seem to have concluded that it would be a mistake for the Democrats to nominate a moderate candidate for the 2020 Presidential election, based solely on the defeat of Clinton in the 2016 election. I think this is a highly questionable conclusion. In fact, I would suggest that the Democrats would be better off nominating a moderate ... as long as that moderate isn't Hilary Clinton.

The DNC would be well advised to remain neutral through the primaries given the fall out from the last primaries. However, I'm sure that many moderate Democrats would worry that nominating a candidate too far to the left could potentially hand Trump another victory. It's true that left wing Democrats might be disillusioned with a centrist/establishment nominee, but even if that's true, are they likely to sit the next election out, knowing that they could be handing Trump another 4 years? So, on balance, I think Democrats would be better off courting the moderate/independent vote rather than pandering to the left wing, because Trump is certainly not courting independents.

'Course it could play out completely different ...

 

[mustafur]

Last time Democrats where in this position they did have a Moderate and lost against an already wildly unpopular George W Bush Via John Kerry.

 

[BobK]

wildly unpopular George W Bush

Wildly unpopular in the media and Hollywood, perhaps, but he still won the election with over 50% of the vote. It's hard to see how that can be called "wildly unpopular".

 

[UKMikey]

Wildly unpopular in the media and Hollywood, perhaps, but he still won the election with over 50% of the vote.

Eventually...

[EDIT] I just realised you're talking about the follow up election in 2004... apologies. Nevertheless the 49.3% of the electorate which voted against him does appear to represent a widespread amount of dissatisfaction beyond the media and Hollywood.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@Biggles is correct in saying that whether or not Bernie would win in the GE assumes facts not in evidence. However, we shouldn't assume that because HRC rigged the system to earn the nomination (Thanks, Little Miss Debbie), that Bernie would have had a fair shot at the nomination. Barack Obama was coming off arguably his popularity, and pretty much tipped his hand on who he supported when Joe Biden decided not to run.

Biden is 76 now. There is no way that he can sustain a national campaign on his own. However, if Trump is to be beaten, and he can, it should take a moderate to unite the democratic base, and not someone who is an all and out socialist/Communist.

 

[Biggles]

Last time Democrats where in this position they did have a Moderate and lost against an already wildly unpopular George W Bush Via John Kerry.

Are you really advocating the position that Democrats are better off nominating a leftist candidate?

2004 marked the only time at which a president who lost the popular vote in the preceding election won it in the following election. Bush won the popular vote with 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%. Although in percentage terms it was the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting president, Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry. Wikipedia

I think this was a bit of a wag-the-dog scenario: Bush garnered "patriotic" public support as a "war time President". This was before it became clearly evident that the Iraq war was a strategic & planning disaster. And then there was the swiftboating of Kerry.

@Biggles is correct in saying that whether or not Bernie would win in the GE assumes facts not in evidence. However, we shouldn't assume that because HRC rigged the system to earn the nomination (Thanks, Little Miss Debbie), that Bernie would have had a fair shot at the nomination. Barack Obama was coming off arguably his popularity, and pretty much tipped his hand on who he supported when Joe Biden decided not to run.

Biden is 76 now. There is no way that he can sustain a national campaign on his own. However, if Trump is to be beaten, and he can, it should take a moderate to unite the democratic base, and not someone who is an all and out socialist/Communist.

Yes - it's impossible to know if Bernie would have beaten HRC if the DNC had acted impartially & it's impossible to know if Bernie would have beaten Trump if he had been nominated. Who knows what the GOP & Trump would have thrown at Sanders in the run up to the election?

Both Sanders & Biden are "too old" - if not for 2020, certainly for 2024. This would make the choice of VP particularly important.

There are no "communists" running for the Democratic nomination - not even close. "Democratic socialists" - maybe. You've got to understand that in Europe there have been, for decades, a whole smorgasbord of left of centre parties who are not communist. The main policy idea being advocated by pretty much all the Democratic candidates is universal health care. This is something that has been adopted (a long time ago) by all other western countries & has been kept in place by all political parties - from the centre left to the centre right.