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

[onejayhawk]

Another article on gerrymandering. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-12/democrats-strike-back-in-the-redistricting-wars

One twist is that the Republicans have captured more than 800 state level seats in the last decade. Most of the gerrymandering in place was done with Democrats in control. Partly this was because racial minorities would cooperate with Republicans to produce heavily minority districts. Partly this was the steady loss of Democratic influence over the last two generations, first in the south then the midwest.

J

 

[AdrienIer]

Are you suggesting that Democrats do more gerrymandering than Republicans ? Because in 2012 republicans won the house easily despite losing the popular vote, which is a good sign of them being the main beneficiaries of gerrymandering.

Edit : sorry I misread you, you're just suggesting that democrats were inneficient at fighting gerrymandering, which is probably true to some extent.

 

[onejayhawk]

I am not part of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.
Will Rogers

It's more than that. It is finally beginning to dawn on Democrats that they are in a deep hole and that getting out will not be easy. They did nothing when they had the advantage. Now they want to do something and they are outnumbered two to one.

J

 

[danjuno]

I would love to see Bernie run again, but Tulsi Gabbard probably do better on account of a less controversial background and less of an age issue whilst still supporting most of his ideas.

 

[KmDubya]

I'm hoping that Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner makes a comeback

 

[danjuno]

Anthony Weiner certainly had cojones while he was in congress.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Seeing as Russia helped put Trump in office, The D(onald Tr)unp has been silent on Russia's mass arrests of protesters (an enormous human rights violation), and The D'ump's incompetence and violations, I cannot see a 2020 election happening with The D'ump.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

 

[onejayhawk]

This should be in a post 2016 analysis thread, but there isn't one. Since it is relevant to 2020, I'll post it here.

The chart compares 2012 to 2016. The net move is less than 1.75% nationwide, from 3.78% popular margin for Obama to 2.09% for Clinton. The only significant third party impact is Utah and parts of Arizona, Idaho and Wyoming.

 

[warpus]

Is that the "coal belt" that stends out as red there in the (geographic) north-east?

 

[metalhead]

I would love to see Bernie run again, but Tulsi Gabbard probably do better on account of a less controversial background and less of an age issue whilst still supporting most of his ideas.

Tulsi "I traveled to Damascus and now toe the Kremlin/Assad line" Gabbard? Thanks, but no thanks. Bernie's background isn't particularly controversial, especially compared to hers. And Trump will be 74.

Kamala Harris would be a great choice, though I don't know much about her stances on the issues. Still, biracial female prosecutor checks a lot of boxes and would make her formidable in opposition to Trump or whatever lame duck is in office then.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Frank Underwood 2020

 

[Lexicus]

Tulsi "I traveled to Damascus and now toe the Kremlin/Assad line" Gabbard? Thanks, but no thanks. Bernie's background isn't particularly controversial, especially compared to hers. And Trump will be 74.

Yeah my respect for Gabbard plummeted after that, not that I was a huge fan of her before.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I remain skeptical and jaded about the possibility of a female candidate winning... I'm thinking just KISS and go with Gavin Newsom

 

[metalhead]

The simplest answer is Joe Biden. He's got some of that white male grievance stuff working for him without the Bernie baggage from 2016.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I'd still support Tulsi. At least she seems interested in ending regime change wars. The more I look at that Syria mess the less clear who the "good guys" are. If we want to oppose the Kremlin we're far better off doing it in the Ukraine where its more justified. Gabbard just wants more definitive proof that we're in the right fighting Assad before we enter a proxy war.

I can respect a rational approach and it resonates with voters, many of whom voted for Trump when he claimed he wanted all foreign intervention focused on ISIS. Constantly harping on this Russia/Putin/Assad thing may turn out to be more damaging for Democrats, not less.

Tulsi may be a good VP pick for anyone interested in pulling in progressives. Hillary would've been smart to choose a progressive as an olive branch to the far left. Picking a guy like Kaine who probably fell to the right of Hillary was crazy.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I still think at this point you have to have a PoC as the headliner on the ticket. Black voters especially stayed home this past election, and the reality is the Dems are going to continue to bleed white voters as the country gets more and more diverse, regardless of the policy they implement or identity they kowtow to. Kamala is interesting, although I know she generates some vitriol from those on the far left - I don't know enough about her to know if it's warranted or not. I still wish Tammy Duckworth was a possibility, partly because she has midwest cred and the veteran thing will play well, but I think there's a 0.01% chance she'd ever run.

Maaaaaybe Biden has an avenue if Trump's presidency really fails and he can play the "miss us?" card but I don't think going back to the past should be a Dem calling card.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Democrats going with one of the "oldies but goodies" = Trump reelection
Democrats need to drive up turnout period not just black turnout. Democrats focusing on wooing one demographic (rust-belt white males) failed in 2016 and it will fail in 2020 if they make the same mistake.

 

[Lexicus]

Democrats going with one of the "oldies but goodies" = Trump reelection

I was in the middle of typing a post that literally said "for the love of God, we need someone young and new" when you posted this.

 

[onejayhawk]

The simplest answer is Joe Biden. He's got some of that white male grievance stuff working for him without the Bernie baggage from 2016.

You were talking of Trump being 74, which is one reason I think the Donald will not run again. However, Biden will be 77 (dob Nov 20, 1942). There is hard up and then there is desperate. Biden smells of the latter.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

You were talking of Trump being 74, which is one reason I think the Donald will not run again. However, Biden will be 77 (dob Nov 20, 1942). There is hard up and then there is desperate. Biden smells of the latter.

I still think that Hillary running again will raise the media profile of the Democrats race and actually help us towards a Democratic win... but only if she loses the primary. I don't know whether Biden running adds anything besides, as you say, an aura of desperation, clinging to power, stubbornness and just overall stale old mildew flavour to the race. Same thing with Sanders TBH...

One oldie in the race to be defeated in a symbolic "passing of the torch" will help by providing an exciting Cinderella/David-and-Goliath narrative... Two or three oldies in the race just makes it into bingo-night at the retirement home

TBH, in retrospect... 2008 should have been that passing-of-the-torch moment... but as Cutlass eloquently put it (in another thread?), the egos at play would not allow it... and frankly I have to include myself in the blame for that.