Does she have any particular qualifications beyond having endorsed Bernie? Not to say that that can't be an important qualification (you could argue, for instance, that it shows perceptiveness), but what distinguishes her from any other random Bernie supporter?
2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter GoodEnoughForMe
- Start date
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
She's a member of the House of Representatives, for one. And if that seems unimpressive, remember that the guy who bragged about his complete inexperience just won.
Azem.Ocram
King
Democracy is effectively dead in the USA when all 3rd party and write-in votes combined add to less than 5% of the popular vote and the president-elect lost the popular vote. The people are losing faith in the government. Depending on what happens, Pence vs Sanders might be the 2020 candidates, hopefully. Trump's biggest talking point is his southern border wall. If he avoids impeachment and curbs drug smuggling with his wall, he will likely be elected in 2020. On the other hand, if progressives emigrate en masse, foreign nations could see bolstered economies and the tariffs (Trump's 2nd biggest issue) could effectively kill the US economy, leading to hyperinflation and possible dissolution of the union.
China artificially inflated its economic numbers before the election. It could easily take the US economy down by halting its construction spree after being hit by the first wave of tariffs. They are nominally communist after all.
China artificially inflated its economic numbers before the election. It could easily take the US economy down by halting its construction spree after being hit by the first wave of tariffs. They are nominally communist after all.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
We had the highest 3rd party vote since Bill Clinton. Ironic, no?
J
J
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
There is an article directly on point. It raises Biden, Warren, and Deval Patrick are mentioned as no-go candidates. The winner? "Someone New" was the option with by far the most support. Shades of Richard Pryor in Brewster's Millions.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...emocrats-running-for-president-2020/95651728/
2020 is an election year and also a census year, which means reapportionment. This will have an impact on the number of electoral votes available. Here is an early estimate of the revised Congressional seats.
Alabama: -1 (to 6)
Arizona: +1 (to 10)
Colorado: +1 (to 8)
Florida: +2 (to 29)
Illinois: -1 (to 17)
Michigan: -1 (to 13)
Minnesota: -1 (to 7)
New York: -1 (to 26)
North Carolina: +1 (to 14)
Ohio: -1 (to 15)
Oregon: +1 (to 6)
Pennsylvania: -1 (to 17)
Rhode Island: -1 (to 1)
Texas: +3 (to 39)
West Virginia: -1 (to 2)
The bubble 5
Illinois to 16 seats (No. 431) net -2
California to 53 seats (No. 432) net -1
Texas to 39 seats (No. 433) net +3
Arizona to 10 seats (No. 434) net +1
Florida to 29 seats (No. 435) net +2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...shed_light_on_2020_redistricting__132623.html
Gerrymandering is certain to raise its ugly head. About half of all states are fully Republican. Less than 1/4 are fully Democratic. However, on statewide elections gerrymandering has limited importance. In the recent election, Trump would have been largely unchanged, -1 to +2 depending on the bubble. Clinton is impacted, -6 to -8. The net impact will be 5-10 EV in favor of Trump.
J
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...emocrats-running-for-president-2020/95651728/
2020 is an election year and also a census year, which means reapportionment. This will have an impact on the number of electoral votes available. Here is an early estimate of the revised Congressional seats.
Alabama: -1 (to 6)
Arizona: +1 (to 10)
Colorado: +1 (to 8)
Florida: +2 (to 29)
Illinois: -1 (to 17)
Michigan: -1 (to 13)
Minnesota: -1 (to 7)
New York: -1 (to 26)
North Carolina: +1 (to 14)
Ohio: -1 (to 15)
Oregon: +1 (to 6)
Pennsylvania: -1 (to 17)
Rhode Island: -1 (to 1)
Texas: +3 (to 39)
West Virginia: -1 (to 2)
The bubble 5
Illinois to 16 seats (No. 431) net -2
California to 53 seats (No. 432) net -1
Texas to 39 seats (No. 433) net +3
Arizona to 10 seats (No. 434) net +1
Florida to 29 seats (No. 435) net +2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...shed_light_on_2020_redistricting__132623.html
Gerrymandering is certain to raise its ugly head. About half of all states are fully Republican. Less than 1/4 are fully Democratic. However, on statewide elections gerrymandering has limited importance. In the recent election, Trump would have been largely unchanged, -1 to +2 depending on the bubble. Clinton is impacted, -6 to -8. The net impact will be 5-10 EV in favor of Trump.
J
I think Tulsi Gabbard is the next up for the Democrats. Unless Booker comes out as gay, which would make him an instant national sensation. Bernie, Biden and Warren are all too old, although Bernie and Biden have both already said they are running.
I'm not confident that any of them beat Trump TBH... assuming the world hasn't been blown up by then, in four years the whole "OMG Trump is going to blow the world up!!"
is not gonna have the same oomph' that it had this cycle (which is to say... very little). The whole argument against Trump was that he was unfit cause OMG its Trump... that obviously failed, and its certainly not gonna sound any better when he is the incumbent and everyone has had 4 years to get used to him being President.
So on that note I'm thinking Oprah is the Democrats best hope.
I'm not confident that any of them beat Trump TBH... assuming the world hasn't been blown up by then, in four years the whole "OMG Trump is going to blow the world up!!"
is not gonna have the same oomph' that it had this cycle (which is to say... very little). The whole argument against Trump was that he was unfit cause OMG its Trump... that obviously failed, and its certainly not gonna sound any better when he is the incumbent and everyone has had 4 years to get used to him being President. So on that note I'm thinking Oprah is the Democrats best hope.
Especially if he somehow gets lucky and his policies actually turn out to be successful, or at least appear to be successful.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I still doubt Trump will run again.
In any event, matching Democrats against Kasich and Cruz is more interesting. Also, throw Scott Walker in the hat. He got out early in the process, but made a considerable impact by delivering Wisconsin.
J
In any event, matching Democrats against Kasich and Cruz is more interesting. Also, throw Scott Walker in the hat. He got out early in the process, but made a considerable impact by delivering Wisconsin.
The way things are going, he will almost certainly be successful at changing things. Which way that cuts is a different issue.
J
Nothing in this post is even remotely close to being accurate.
That's the "best" (or worst depending on your perspective) part... The US is like a Corvette, you look awesome driving it as long as you don't crash it, regardless of how fast you drive, or where you go. He doesn't have to "do" anything to appear successful, he's already in the Corvette. As long as the US still exists in 4 years it will easily be spun as a success. Even more so because his opponents did such a great job lowering the expectations on him... When you're expecting WW3 and another Holocaust, its gonna be pretty hard to do worse.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I always thought Clinton was the greater danger to world peace. She had no record of due diligence or considering fallout.
J
Yeah, I guess that's how demonizing your opponent can backfire if your opponent ends up winning. It just makes it easier for him to win next time around.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Judging by the last election I expect to see Oprah vs a smart car
My money is on there still being a pretend, Russian-style 2020 election, where people are led to believe they actually have a vote. Having a "vote" gives the people a false sense of hope. If the broader population realized they don't really have a vote, then the things that really need to get done would begin to get done.
Narz
keeping it real
I also don't think Trump will run again or if he does he will be crushed in primaries. I've merely skimmed but curious as to speculation as to who repubs will run.
So to sum your guys' position: The candidate you wanted didn't win, therefore democracy and rule of law MUST be dead in the US. Also, if Trump isn't immediately removed from office upon being sworn in, then it must also mean rule of law and democracy MUST be dead.
Nice to see you two are remaining level-headed and grounded in reality...
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Be nice. They readily admitted that Clinton should have been tried years ago since all the many allegations were well founded.
What? They didn't? My bad.
J
I've listened to Gabbard speak, and I'm pretty confident she'd be a good pick. Her speaking style appears quite sincere, which was one of Clinton's biggest flaws - Clinton seemed like she was lying even when she was being completely honest. Gabbard's resignation of her DNC position and support of Sanders helps boost her anti-establishment credentials. Her stances on Islam and terrorism are fairly aggressive, shielding her from one of Trump's favorite lines of attack, but she checks all the other boxes that liberal Democrats like to see (including of course the "woman" and "minority" diversity boxes). Her labor credentials are very strong, and she's a veteran with positions on the military that are both reasonably strong and anti-interventionist - both of these stances would play quite well in the Rust Belt. I can't think of a more promising candidate at this time.
Booker would probably be the strongest of the establishment Democrats. He'd essentially be trying for the third term of Obama, which might work out. Despite Obama's relative popularity now, I'm not totally sure this will transfer over. But if the Dems insist on keeping their party roughly the way it is, he would be their best pick.
Biden and Sanders really are too old, and I am uneasy about how Sanders' calling himself a socialist would play out. Warren might work age-wise (she'd be 71 in 2020, IIRC, and is younger than Trump), but I'm concerned she is easier to pigeonhole as some sort of out-of-touch Massachusetts liberal, despite the fact that she grew up in Oklahoma and was a Republican until the early 1990s. She'd still be a relatively decent pick though.
Trump appears to be following a path roughly in line with the radical wing of the Republican Party, which is going to cause a lot of fairly evident damage to blue-collar people of all races. The best way to attack him is on populist grounds - essentially, accuse him of being a fraud who sold out the people he said he would protect, all the while transferring money to his kids and his cronies. We all know he's going to do that, and hammering on this theme may be helpful.
But I'm afraid the liberals and leftists outside the mainstream will play their cards all wrong, and instead we'll get a bunch of highly-publicized protests where angry young liberals confirm other peoples' worst stereotypes of angry young liberals. And then liberals inside the mainstream will play their cards wrong and run insider technocrat types. And then there will be four more years of Trump and Republican control of virtually everything, until they finally blow a housing crisis-scale bubble that pops or something.
Inclusive populism good, insider technocrats bad, SJWs bad. If we want to win elections, that is.
Booker would probably be the strongest of the establishment Democrats. He'd essentially be trying for the third term of Obama, which might work out. Despite Obama's relative popularity now, I'm not totally sure this will transfer over. But if the Dems insist on keeping their party roughly the way it is, he would be their best pick.
Biden and Sanders really are too old, and I am uneasy about how Sanders' calling himself a socialist would play out. Warren might work age-wise (she'd be 71 in 2020, IIRC, and is younger than Trump), but I'm concerned she is easier to pigeonhole as some sort of out-of-touch Massachusetts liberal, despite the fact that she grew up in Oklahoma and was a Republican until the early 1990s. She'd still be a relatively decent pick though.
Trump appears to be following a path roughly in line with the radical wing of the Republican Party, which is going to cause a lot of fairly evident damage to blue-collar people of all races. The best way to attack him is on populist grounds - essentially, accuse him of being a fraud who sold out the people he said he would protect, all the while transferring money to his kids and his cronies. We all know he's going to do that, and hammering on this theme may be helpful.
But I'm afraid the liberals and leftists outside the mainstream will play their cards all wrong, and instead we'll get a bunch of highly-publicized protests where angry young liberals confirm other peoples' worst stereotypes of angry young liberals. And then liberals inside the mainstream will play their cards wrong and run insider technocrat types. And then there will be four more years of Trump and Republican control of virtually everything, until they finally blow a housing crisis-scale bubble that pops or something.
Inclusive populism good, insider technocrats bad, SJWs bad. If we want to win elections, that is.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,312
I predict Kasich challenging Trump in the primaries, should Trump run again. In the event that Trump runs again but has not had a successful term, I think Kasich will stand a good chance of getting the Republican nomination.
Why Kasich? Primarily his outspoken opposition to Trump, and credentials within the mainstream Republican party, which will only be stronger if Trump does not succeed. And after 2016, he should have sufficient name recognition in 2020. Other candidates could challenge as well, but to me Kasich is the prototype of the prominent, fairly-well-known anti-Trump Republican with presidential ambitions and (unlike Trump) at least decent qualifications. I could see Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, or Scott Walker considering a run as well, but I'm not sure if they're sufficiently anti-Trump either to run, or to win the primaries if they do. Particularly Lyin' Ted, with his early support of Trump - if he tried to run, Trump would surely attack him on that again and it might help Trump again, too.
Democrats, I'm less sure. I don't think Clinton will run again, although if Trump is sufficiently bad she might actually have a chance. But the last thing the Democrats want is another William Jennings Bryan record of repeatedly being the nominee and losing. Biden has popularity, but is old, and Sanders' message could be be more popular yet, but again he's also old. Then again, if Trump is also running, that may not be too much of a liability. Who else has the name recognition? Most of the people being talked about, like Gabbard, I hardly know about at all. Harry Reid is retiring. California's best-known Democrats (Boxer and Pelosi) are likely either too liberal, or too establishment, or some combination of both. John Kerry already ran and lost, and is over 70 himself. Someone from Obama's cabinet perhaps? A representative who proves adept at either opposition to Trump or compromise with moderate Republicans to nullify Trump? I suspect we'll have a much better idea in a year or two.
And what about Michael Bloomberg? Either as an independent or a Democrat. He's considered it before, and while again he'd be fairly old, he wouldn't be much older than Trump, or older than Biden. If he was considering it in 2016, before deciding Clinton was good enough, I could certainly see him going for it in 2020 if Trump proves bad enough and there isn't a sure-fire Democrat to get behind.
The problem is not the desired candidate not winning, it's that the winning candidate's respect for the democratic process is dubious at best. Between his professed admiration for multiple rulers who have, to be generous, been unkind to the democratic processes in their country, his hesitancy to say he would willingly concede the election during the debates is, as far as I'm aware, unprecedented. Combined with his narcissistic personality and thin skin, and if there's any "politician" that I wouldn't trust to behave properly upon losing, it's him. Cruz, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, to name just a few of the more conservative Republican choices in recent years, while I would have had strong disagreements on policy, I would trust to not abuse the system of government when in power. Trump, I have essentially no trust, and it's only the pressure that would be exerted on him from the mainstream Republican Party and the leaders of the armed forces that make me think he would set aside power in 4 years should he run for re-election and lose.
And the real concern isn't the rule of law and democracy being dead now (although the civic health of a country that elects so unqualified a candidate should be seriously questioned), but what will happen to it while Trump is president, and should he lose in 4 years.
Why Kasich? Primarily his outspoken opposition to Trump, and credentials within the mainstream Republican party, which will only be stronger if Trump does not succeed. And after 2016, he should have sufficient name recognition in 2020. Other candidates could challenge as well, but to me Kasich is the prototype of the prominent, fairly-well-known anti-Trump Republican with presidential ambitions and (unlike Trump) at least decent qualifications. I could see Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, or Scott Walker considering a run as well, but I'm not sure if they're sufficiently anti-Trump either to run, or to win the primaries if they do. Particularly Lyin' Ted, with his early support of Trump - if he tried to run, Trump would surely attack him on that again and it might help Trump again, too.
Democrats, I'm less sure. I don't think Clinton will run again, although if Trump is sufficiently bad she might actually have a chance. But the last thing the Democrats want is another William Jennings Bryan record of repeatedly being the nominee and losing. Biden has popularity, but is old, and Sanders' message could be be more popular yet, but again he's also old. Then again, if Trump is also running, that may not be too much of a liability. Who else has the name recognition? Most of the people being talked about, like Gabbard, I hardly know about at all. Harry Reid is retiring. California's best-known Democrats (Boxer and Pelosi) are likely either too liberal, or too establishment, or some combination of both. John Kerry already ran and lost, and is over 70 himself. Someone from Obama's cabinet perhaps? A representative who proves adept at either opposition to Trump or compromise with moderate Republicans to nullify Trump? I suspect we'll have a much better idea in a year or two.
And what about Michael Bloomberg? Either as an independent or a Democrat. He's considered it before, and while again he'd be fairly old, he wouldn't be much older than Trump, or older than Biden. If he was considering it in 2016, before deciding Clinton was good enough, I could certainly see him going for it in 2020 if Trump proves bad enough and there isn't a sure-fire Democrat to get behind.
The problem is not the desired candidate not winning, it's that the winning candidate's respect for the democratic process is dubious at best. Between his professed admiration for multiple rulers who have, to be generous, been unkind to the democratic processes in their country, his hesitancy to say he would willingly concede the election during the debates is, as far as I'm aware, unprecedented. Combined with his narcissistic personality and thin skin, and if there's any "politician" that I wouldn't trust to behave properly upon losing, it's him. Cruz, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, to name just a few of the more conservative Republican choices in recent years, while I would have had strong disagreements on policy, I would trust to not abuse the system of government when in power. Trump, I have essentially no trust, and it's only the pressure that would be exerted on him from the mainstream Republican Party and the leaders of the armed forces that make me think he would set aside power in 4 years should he run for re-election and lose.
And the real concern isn't the rule of law and democracy being dead now (although the civic health of a country that elects so unqualified a candidate should be seriously questioned), but what will happen to it while Trump is president, and should he lose in 4 years.
