2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[Ajidica]

I'm pretty sure Amy Klobuchar will run, if only to get her name out there for Vice President nomination. She is well liked in Minnesota, strong bipartisan credentials (and not the "I flip flop on everything" bipartisan credentials like Sleazeberman), solid progressive credentials but also represents large rural and farming communities and has a good record there.
She isn't a particularly dynamic speaker which counts against her in the presidential race.

 

[Enginseer]

Elizabeth Warren. She could at least be considered a serious candidate...

She's so easy to mudsling, it'll be the election of 2016 again except the Republican presidential candidate will have a major blast with her.

 

[caketastydelish]

No. First, she is not an establishment candidate like Hillary. I mean, not completely anti-establishment like Trump. Rather, a happy balance between Hillary and Trump that most people are looking for.

Hillary and her Husband had made over 100 million dollars in "speaking fees" (AKA bribes). We've already had one president from the Clinton family, who served for 8 years. Hillary herself has been under the public eye/scrutiny for decades.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a fraction of that kind of baggage. Elizabeth Warren is also much popular with younger voters, something that probably cost Hillary the election.

 

[Ajidica]

I mean, not completely anti-establishment like Trump.

Seriously, where do you get this idea His Trumpiness is "anti-establishment"? Attempting to legalize corporate fraud, slash taxes for the wealthiest at the expense of welfare programs, and taking a chainsaw to welfare programs is the intellectual core of the Republican Party. His Trumpiness just happens to be fond of unleashing tweet storms and reveling in his ignorance. ("Who knew health care could be so complicated?" comes to mind.) His anti-establishment credentials, such that they are, exist only in the areas that established norms are important, like not attempting to craft policy through tweet (military transgender ban) or not trying to turn the FBI into your personal investigative team.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm not saying his policies in office are anti establishment. I'm saying he was viewed as an anti-establishment candidate while he was running, people ate it up, and it got him elected.

 

[Ajidica]

Again, the only anti-establishment aspects to him as a candidate was the vulgarity and racism. His "revolutionary" slogan of 'America First' is quickly showing itself to be nonsense as we have, quite successfully mind you, spent the last 50 years creating a world order that puts us at the center and self-stabilizes to keep us there. #MAGA is also self-evidently nonsense as a slogan, as what year is His Trumpiness referring to when he says we were "great"? 1957? 1967? 1983?

Tony Benn was anti-establishment. Don't do a disservice to the phrase by associating it with the vulgarity and glorification of ignorance found in His Trumpiness.

 

[caketastydelish]

It doesn't matter how you perceive him. It's how a lot of people who voted for him perceive him, and many of them are people who had never voted before or haven't voted in a long time. He is not a career politician and for that reason, alone many people viewed him as an outsider, however valid that may or may not be. Then to exaggerate matters more his opposing candidate is someone who not only is a career politician, but under the public eye for decades with lots of people hating her, and her own husband was the president for 8 years. By all means, don't mistake me as one of those "I think Trump is better than Hillary" people. I'm explaining how voters perceive them to be, and that I propose a new strategy to beat Trump in 2020. Someone (preferably a female candidate, I agree it's time for a woman president) who doesn't have a direct relative who was a president and not part of such an established last name/family with a long history of baggage. Elizabeth Warren is technically a career politician, but there are a non-insignificant amount of people who would tolerate her more than Hillary for the reasoning I'm mentioning. Whether you think any of this is justified is beside the point, I'm talking about how lots of voters feel, and that's what decides elections.

 

[Enginseer]

And you know who else was much popular with younger voters? That comm- Democratic socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. He had almost essentially the same qualification and balance like Warren has but lost embarrassingly.

Young voters don't win elections. Old people and veterans win elections. That's why you can never revert social security and veteran benefits, it would be a political suicide to do so.

 

[Hamilton321]

I think that the Americans who voted for Trump were largely people who missed the way America used to be so they decided to send Donald Trump to Wasington to destroy the people and policies which they blame for ending the way of life they remember from when they are young, that's the way he's anti-establishment, also its hard to be seen as more establishment than HC

 

[danjuno]

That comm- Democratic socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

Communist? Really? You need to go back to political science 101. He's not even a socialist. When has he demanded the collectivization of all industry?

 

[Enginseer]

Communist? Really? You need to go back to political science 101. He's not even a socialist. When has he demanded the collectivization of all industry?

He describes himself as a socialist. If he's not a socialist like he self-described, then don't get offended if he doesn't fit your model of what a socialist is.

 

[caketastydelish]

And you know who else was much popular with younger voters? That comm- Democratic socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. He had almost essentially the same qualification and balance like Warren has but lost embarrassingly.

Young voters don't win elections. Old people and veterans win elections. That's why you can never revert social security and veteran benefits, it would be a political suicide to do so.

You're missing something here. Obama won twice, and against far more respectable candidates than Trump. Obama energized the youth. Hillary didn't.

The media/establishment and the DNC itself overwhelmingly favored Hillary. Hillary definitely felt the bern on election night.

The establishment/media/DNC (presumably wouldn't make the same mistake with Warren. She is also a female and will make the "first female president" people happy. But it doesn't even have to be Warren. Just someone who does not have tons of baggage/comes from a well-established name like Clinton or Obama or whatever.

 

[Zkribbler]

Hillary and her Husband had made over 100 million dollars in "speaking fees" (AKA sbribes).

Reagan was the first ex-President to charge outrageous speaking fees. --I'm not sure how someone can be bribed once they're out of office.

 

[innonimatu]

You're missing something here. Obama won twice, and against far more respectable candidates than Trump. Obama energized the youth. Hillary didn't.

He also disillusioned them. A new generation will grow up ready to fall for deceit again, granted. But for some 1o years more another Obama will not fool enough people to win, too many voters live with the memory of that one. That is my guess.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Damn. Well I guess the brief respite is over. It must get quite tiring to only spend about 6 months out of every 4 year period not talking about an election.

 

[Enginseer]

You're missing something here. Obama won twice, and against far more respectable candidates than Trump. Obama energized the youth. Hillary didn't.

And instead won the distrust of the political center and right to further radicalize them toward the far-right. He was basically winning votes for his motto of compromise and little change.

But who knows really. Let's see if Trump's motto of devolution and never backing down works to give him another 4 years which is probably winning the center's interest more than the right and left.

 

[danjuno]

He describes himself as a socialist. If he's not a socialist like he self-described, then don't get offended if he doesn't fit your model of what a socialist is.

It isn't just my interpretation, bubba. You called him a communist, when he doesn't identify as such, nor do his stated policies fit the textbook definition. And despite his saying otherwise his policies don't fit the accepted textbook definition of socialism either.

 

[caketastydelish]

He also disillusioned them. A new generation will grow up ready to fall for deceit again, granted. But for some 1o years more another Obama will not fool enough people to win, too many voters live with the memory of that one. That is my guess.

No. I would straight up prefer Obama for a third term than elect Clinton or Trump. I am not the only one to feel this one.

And instead won the distrust of the political center and right to further radicalize them toward the far-right. He was basically winning votes for his motto of compromise and little change.


But who knows really. Let's see if Trump's motto of devolution and never backing down works to give him another 4 years which is probably winning the center's interest more than the right and left.

No. They 'distrusted' him because the establishment was determined to kill him at all costs. In any case, everything I said is true. Hillary failed to energize the youth vote which cost her the election. "Bernie Sanders scared away the independents" is bogus, especially when he wasn't even running at that time.

The Bernie or Bust movement warned the DNC of their intentions LONG before the primaries were over, and they flat out got ignored. Then Hillary ran on a 'progressive platform' (nothing in her actual history of being a senator or sec. of state is progressive) and her running mate was even less 'progressive' than she is. What an insult, especially when they're saying we only didn't like her for being female.

The Democrats can either learn from their mistake in the 2020 election or (rightfully) get pwned time and time again.

 

[caketastydelish]

Reagan was the first ex-President to charge outrageous speaking fees. --I'm not sure how someone can be bribed once they're out of office.

Because none of Reagan's relatives are running for President. Not only was Hillary's husband doing this but so was her, herself. There's no comparison to be made.

It isn't just my interpretation, bubba. You called him a communist, when he doesn't identify as such, nor do his stated policies fit the textbook definition. And despite his saying otherwise his policies don't fit the accepted textbook definition of socialism either.

I agree. On the other hand, we're living in a time where people think they get to redefine what 'racism', or other words mean. "Because academia". Academia itself can be challenged just as much as the Bible, Quran, Torah, whatever. "According to academia" doesn't make it untouchable.

 

[Enginseer]

You called him a communist, when he doesn't identify as such, nor do his stated policies fit the textbook definition. And despite his saying otherwise his policies don't fit the accepted textbook definition of socialism either.

I didn't realize we were cherrypicking definitions now. I cant recalling calling Sanders a soci- communist though.