2020 US Election (Part One)

[Timsup2nothin]

What again were the two elections Democrats were most reliably whining about before Trump happened to them?
Right, that would be 1980 and 2000.

Yeah, good thing there was no spoiling by people in the business of urgent way-getting going on in either of those...

There were the usual suspects, who don't make a lot of difference but routinely get their skirts blown up about how their 0.5% performance made a huge difference...but that isn't what was being commented about. Not some "show your protest by voting for our candidate...we're a long established band of protesting nutjobs called <fill in name>. Sometimes they share a name with genuine political parties that Europeans are familiar with, so they may look more genuine from across the Atlantic than they actually are.

The topic at hand is a Ross Perot style party splitting "revolution" candidate running as an independent after not getting their way in the party primary process. That gets talked about in one party or the other, or both, every four years but Perot is the last one to actually do it.

 

[Berzerker]

Perot didn't run in the primaries and drew from both parties

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Perot didn't run in the primaries and drew from both parties

Sure man...he wasn't an outraged Republican wanting to tack GHWBush's hide to the door over taxes on millionaires or anything like that.

For anyone interested:

There were no GOP primaries to run in, realistically. As usual for the times most state parties defaulted to the sitting president as their guy. That was where Perot started saying he would run independently in protest, because he wanted some other Republican to at least challenge GHWB. When he didn't get his way, he surprised the GOP by following through on the threat.

Berzerker's report about 'drew from both parties' is accurate, but is simplified to the point of idiocy. Without Perot in the race Clinton had absolutely no shot, and everyone knew it at the time...except maybe Berzerker. Handfuls of Democrats joining the boatloads of disenchanted Republicans is well beside the point.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Like 'observing' how tens of millions of people need to be killed for the good of the country and then accusing other people of trolling?

But enough about the GOP and their awful stance on healthcare, war, LGBT rights, racial equality etc

 

[metalhead]

Berzerker's report about 'drew from both parties' is accurate, but is simplified to the point of idiocy. Without Perot in the race Clinton had absolutely no shot, and everyone knew it at the time...except maybe Berzerker. Handfuls of Democrats joining the boatloads of disenchanted Republicans is well beside the point.

Evidence tends to show that "Perot cost Bush the election" is a myth." In fact there is basically no evidence to support that claim, and lots to support the opposite.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I am pretty sure that most dem establishment would rather have Trump win in 2020 than Bernie become potus.
"Sad!"

For a liberal, a fellow liberal is always preferable to a Social Democrat. And for any non-socialist, rioting/fascism is always preferable to a genuine socialist.

The recent treatment of Bernie, AOC, and Ilhan Omar obviously falls into the former category.

As I've said before the Democratic elite would rather see Trump remain in power than a successful Bernie campaign for President because Trump doesn't threaten their careers the way Bernie's model of politics does. I think most Democrats do sincerely prefer Bernie's policies to those of the Republicans, but those policies need to be accomplished via the current Democrat leadership's preferred model of politics.

Careful ... because its funny in this context... I'll remind you guys that AOC in 2024 is only possible with a Trump win.

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here obviously... but the point is still undeniable and humorously ironic... So does that change anyone's analysis?

 

[Kyriakos]

Careful ... because its funny in this context... I'll remind you guys that AOC in 2024 is only possible with a Trump win.

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here obviously... but the point is still undeniable and humorously ironic... So does that change anyone's analysis?

The only two dem candidates with a chance to win are unlikely to be alive by 2024, so you have no point at all

 

[Sommerswerd]

At this point I don't think any Democratic candidate has "a chance to win"... but maybe things change over the coming months...

 

[Traitorfish]

As usual, the best way to see what someone feels guilty about is to look at what accusations they make. The Bernie supporters who said "well, if we can't have Bernie may as well have Trump" are now slinging the accusation at anyone and everyone. Fact is that I thought Sanders was the only candidate the Democrats could find in 2016 who was really similar to Trump, and I think he is the most like Trump in the field today, and that is why he gets similar support. The disaffected fringe of the GOP took over the party, and now the disaffected fringe of the Democratic party wants to do the same thing.

When you say "disaffected fringe", do you mean to say "the working class"?

 

[rah]

At this point I don't think any Democratic candidate has "a chance to win"... but maybe things change over the coming months...

It's a bit too early to be calling it. Plenty could happen. But I will admit that Trump seems pretty resilient to setbacks.

 

[onejayhawk]

When you say "disaffected fringe", do you mean to say "the working class"?

This forum makes a habit of referring to large blocs of opposition voices to be fringe. On occasion, more than half the population became fringe. What's even worse is trying to limit it to the white working class. Trump also made inroads in minorities.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Careful ... because its funny in this context... I'll remind you guys that AOC in 2024 is only possible with a Trump win.

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here obviously... but the point is still undeniable and humorously ironic... So does that change anyone's analysis?

My analysis has nothing to do with AOC. I'm just noting that no one should be very surprised when the DNC and the Democratic leadership in Congress take actions that appear to be politically suicidal. Ultimately Trump probably helps their careers. If he wins they get to be the #Resistance and the continued existence and power/victories of the extreme Republicans mean they are able to continue playing the good cop in their good cop bad cop routine (Republicans/Trump being the bad cop).

Look at the alternate scenario. Bernie wins the election based on small donors, rejecting corporate money, and with a bold progressive agenda based on the principle that "if you need 5 cents, don't ask for 3...ask for 10". What does that mean for Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and every other leading Democrat whose political career has been based on "fundraising", ie, begging money from rich people, and balancing the policy demands of the liberal base with this supposed need to fundraise from rich people?

I'll tell you what it means for them: it means that their model is dead! It can no longer be justified as the only game in town, which is the only way it can be justified to non-millionaires! And that in turn means Pelosi, Schumer, etc are dead (metaphorically), they will no longer be the leading Democrats, their authority over the party will be gone, the justification for all the small-c conservatism and caution they embody will be gone.

Now I am not actually saying I think Bernie will win - as I've indicated elsewhere I'm not optimistic - but this is just my explanation for why many Democrats perhaps unconsciously prefer Trump to Bernie, if those are the choices. It's not that they don't want most of the things Bernie wants, it's that their own political existence, their own careers. depend on the failure of Bernie's model.

Trump also made inroads in minorities.

You still never answered when I asked you why you think 89% black people voted for Clinton and 8% voted for Trump.

 

[rah]

Obama got a lot of small "grass roots" donations on top of larger ones so I think they can coexist in the future regardless of any Bernie success.

 

[onejayhawk]

Obama got a lot of small "grass roots" donations on top of larger ones so I think they can coexist in the future regardless of any Bernie success.

Trump was basically only grass roots. Where is this going?

I don't think Biden's lead is nearly as important as some do. He does not have a big lead in the early states which inevitably shape the dialogue. Also, it's ridiculously early to be looking at polls. They are like day 10 of the weather report.

It's a bit too early to be calling it. Plenty could :
But I will admit that Trump seems pretty resilient to setbacks.

He's just looking at the reality of the political landscape. Trum is:

1. An incumbent
2. With a good economy
3. whose troops are are blooded veterans by thwarting strong enemy attacks
4. who has a year and a half to torture the Democratic party for overplaying the Mueller card

On top of that, none of the Democrats have shown the necessary Umph to take control like Obama did in 2008 or Bill Clinton did in 1992. Another John Kerry or Al Gore won't get the job done and heaven help another Dukakis or McGovern.

J

 

[rah]

Trump was basically only grass roots. Where is this going?

That I don't think Bernie winning would change anything in terms of larger donations in the future. Trump didn't get them not because he didn't solicit them so I think that's slightly different. But it is another example. Big money will still be desirable and available to those that play ball.

 

[metalhead]

Look at the alternate scenario. Bernie wins the election based on small donors, rejecting corporate money, and with a bold progressive agenda based on the principle that "if you need 5 cents, don't ask for 3...ask for 10". What does that mean for Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and every other leading Democrat whose political career has been based on "fundraising", ie, begging money from rich people, and balancing the policy demands of the liberal base with this supposed need to fundraise from rich people?

I'll tell you what it means for them: it means that their model is dead! It can no longer be justified as the only game in town, which is the only way it can be justified to non-millionaires! And that in turn means Pelosi, Schumer, etc are dead (metaphorically), they will no longer be the leading Democrats, their authority over the party will be gone, the justification for all the small-c conservatism and caution they embody will be gone.

Bernie is not the only one running such a campaign, and Elizabeth Warren has been a thorn in the side of the Joe Biden wing of the party for far longer and with more consistency than Bernie.

Look no further than the impeachment question. It's the clearest example of who is invested in the status quo, which appears to me to be everyone except for Elizabeth Warren. Bernie explicitly says that fighting this battle risks the agenda. Being too bold and standing up to a tyrannical president risks the agenda? OK then. I thought this was what we all hated about Democrats.

 

[AdrienIer]

According to an Emerson poll from last week Biden currently leads Trump in Texas. The last CNN poll has Biden leading Trump by 6 points nationally. It's really early for this to matter, but there's no reason to believe Trump is in a good position

 

[Lexicus]

Look no further than the impeachment question. It's the clearest example of who is invested in the status quo,

No, the "impeachment question" is a matter of show over substance and has little if anything to do with "investment in the status quo." The votes to remove Trump from office do not exist in the Senate and I'm willing to concede that reasonable people can disagree on the potential political effects of an impeachment attempt that everyone knows ahead of time will fail. My own position is that it would weaken the Democrats politically but I could be wrong.

 

[rah]

Personally, I would prefer that people that strive towards inevitable failure not be in charge of anything.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Evidence tends to show that "Perot cost Bush the election" is a myth." In fact there is basically no evidence to support that claim, and lots to support the opposite.

My position is purely anecdotal, but since I campaigned for Perot I find it hard to ignore my experience. Everyone I encountered that was involved in the campaign was a disaffected Republican.

When you say "disaffected fringe", do you mean to say "the working class"?

No, I mean a disaffected fringe. Since "the working class" accounts for probably 90% of the population the pretense that it is a monolithic block that doesn't contain a wide spectrum, including fringes, is beneath you.