2020 US Election (Part One)

[onejayhawk]

I . . . what? The topic of discussion here was whether Ross Perot cost Bush the '92 election. Post 36 says nothing on this topic.

I thought the topic was the 2020 ele.ction, like it says in the title.

Now this I actually tend to agree with... which incidentally also seems to indicate that you agree with about Perot. Is that correct?

As soon as someone agrees with me, I need to correct myself.

There is a Democrat with the necessary Charisma, Peter "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg. This is not only relevant but important because Buttigieg is one of only three candidates with double digits in IA and NH. Normally, I would say it's too early to look at polls, but those states get serious early.

As to Perot, I do believe that he was necessary for Bill Clinton to overtake GHW Bush. I particular, Perot threw Bush off stride in the first debate. Thereafter Clinton was able dominate the debate and change the momentum of the race. Clinton needed an opening which Perot provided.

J

 

[metalhead]

Clinton polled ahead of Bush by double digits in the time after Perot first dropped out of the race. He led in the polls from early July through election day.

So, no. That's wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

I thought the topic was the 2020 ele.ction, like it says in the title.


As soon as someone agrees with me, I need to correct myself.

There is a Democrat with the necessary Charisma, Peter "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg.

First of all with that kind of surname you are not very likely to become potus.

 

[Berzerker]

Which is too bad, I'd think people with names open to ridicule - and even more so for war veterans - would develop inner strength.

 

[El_Machinae]

Johnny Cash almost agrees

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah its more like "outer" than "inner"... but anyway I love that song...

 

[Kyriakos]

Johnny Cash almost agrees

If you mean to juxtapose the surname (?) then imagine how good he'd have done if he was called Butticash
Tbh any surname starting with Butt (including just having that as the full surname) followed by a vowel will sound pretty terrible.

 

[Berzerker]

and a thicker skin... on the other hand, Columbine et al show ridicule can promote or even produce killers... If only someone had loved poor Adolf.

 

[Berzerker]

If you mean to juxtapose the surname (?) then imagine how good he'd have done if he was called Butticash
Tbh any surname starting with Butt (including just having that as the full surname) followed by a vowel will sound pretty terrible.

good stripper name

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: I deleted a series of backbiting posts that served no purpose. It should come as no surprise that such posts are not desired at CFC.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you mean to juxtapose the surname (?) then imagine how good he'd have done if he was called Butticash
Tbh any surname starting with Butt (including just having that as the full surname) followed by a vowel will sound pretty terrible.

I could swear there was a post there that said having a funny name means that you will be tough when you're old

 

[Kyriakos]

I could swear there was a post there that said having a funny name means that you will be tough when you're old

Well, depends on the name - and at least a name can be changed, rather easily. Imo it isn't really good to keep a name if it sounds really bad (not that i think this particular one is terrible for any civilian or even politician of some stature, but if you are running for potus it could be a problem).
Imagine someone named "Moron" or similar. Sure, they can keep it, but it won't be a good idea.

 

[Takhisis]

Johnny Cash almost agrees

What about Pence?

he cannot be near women because they have cooties or something

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, depends on the name - and at least a name can be changed, rather easily. Imo it isn't really good to keep a name if it sounds really bad (not that i think this particular one is terrible for any civilian or even politician of some stature, but if you are running for potus it could be a problem).
Imagine someone named "Moron" or similar. Sure, they can keep it, but it won't be a good idea.

I didn't think about changing my name. And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him
Bill or George any damn thing but Sue
I still hate that name

 

[Berzerker]

I looked it up, the Columbine shooters cant blame their names. Now maybe if they did have funny names they would have been inoculated by the time puberty hit.

 

[Lexicus]

If the only potential downside is that "people will think it's partisan," I dunno how that's much of a downside. They'll say the same about corruption hearings, or anything else you try to do. So either public oversight is worthwhile, or it isn't.

The problem, or at least what I think the problem is, is that with corruption hearings there's not a single outcome at the end that everyone remembers. With impeachment it's the opposite: all people will remember is that Trump wasn't convicted. None of the juicy stuff that comes out during the proceedings will matter too much. It's different if the proceedings are all there is, there's never any vote to convict Trump or let him off the hook.

 

[Sommerswerd]

and a thicker skin... on the other hand, Columbine et al show ridicule can promote or even produce killers... If only someone had loved poor Adolf.

His mother reportedly doted on him tremendously, since she lost multiple children prior to him.

Also... Does this count as a Godwin?

 

[metalhead]

The problem, or at least what I think the problem is, is that with corruption hearings there's not a single outcome at the end that everyone remembers. With impeachment it's the opposite: all people will remember is that Trump wasn't convicted. None of the juicy stuff that comes out during the proceedings will matter too much. It's different if the proceedings are all there is, there's never any vote to convict Trump or let him off the hook.

Does anybody remember that the outcome of Clinton's impeachment trial was acquittal? No, they remember the "juicy stuff" that came out about his various encounters with Monica Lewinsky, most of which wasn't even relevant to the question of impeachment.

I don't think you're making an astute judgment of how people tend to view questions of law and fairness, if you think the technical outcome of a trial is going to matter more to people than the actual facts and circumstances that make up the substance.

Do people remember OJ's acquittal and believe he was innocent? Of course not. The actual outcome of the trial has no bearing on anyone's opinion. The opinion gets baked over the months of hearings. Nobody will be sitting there reserving judgment until the outcome of the trial. That's just not how people function.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The voting public has pretty reliably supported these pertinent declarations so far:

Trump lied
Trump obstructed
Trump committed crimes
The Mueller report does not clear him

These were not things that polled originally where they have for the last 6 months, in which a decent majority supports all of the claims. Even on impeachment, recent polls have us pretty close in favor of or against, single digits and sometimes margin of error. This seems like a very winnable public battle.

But even putting aside that, I think if the left is going to position itself as it has it the last few years as not angling for polling victories, moderation, big tent, whatever malarkey gets tossed out there, it's imperative to impeach. Trump has undoubtedly broken the law, the constitution, and has presented himself as entirely unfit. That this is true of many many many other presidents doesn't change that.

I can maybe, maybe buy that Trump is so perniciously bad that removing him from office is the most important goal, and that 2020 is the best chance to do that, and so, impeachment is a gamble. But that same argument then, again, leads us now to coalescing, at least right now, entirely behind

Spoiler :

I'm not sure I buy that we can know for sure which option is 'the best' for electoral victory or ending Trump's presidency, but we do know that impeachment was built for this very kind of presidency. Nor do I personally want to vote for a serial hair sniffer and racist.

It also says a lot about the Democratic Party that if they choose to not impeach simply on the basis that the Republican senate will protect Trump (which they will), and that the body politic is so corrupt as to allow such behavior, than there is literally, truly, no reason for any Dem to not run on things from court packing to partitioning California to all kinds of increasingly un-institutional ideas. Since they won't do that, that leaves them as needing to at least take the institutional step of starting impeachment hearings.

 

[onejayhawk]

The voting public has pretty reliably supported these pertinent declarations so far:

Trump lied
Trump obstructed
Trump committed crimes
The Mueller report does not clear him

These were not things that polled originally where they have for the last 6 months, in which a decent majority supports all of the claims. Even on impeachment, recent polls have us pretty close in favor of or against, single digits and sometimes margin of error. This seems like a very winnable public battle.

But even putting aside that, I think if the left is going to position itself as it has it the last few years as not angling for polling victories, moderation, big tent, whatever malarkey gets tossed out there, it's imperative to impeach. Trump has undoubtedly broken the law, the constitution, and has presented himself as entirely unfit. That this is true of many many many other presidents doesn't change that.

I can maybe, maybe buy that Trump is so perniciously bad that removing him from office is the most important goal, and that 2020 is the best chance to do that, and so, impeachment is a gamble. But that same argument then, again, leads us now to coalescing, at least right now, entirely behind

Spoiler :

I'm not sure I buy that we can know for sure which option is 'the best' for electoral victory or ending Trump's presidency, but we do know that impeachment was built for this very kind of presidency. Nor do I personally want to vote for a serial hair sniffer and racist.

It also says a lot about the Democratic Party that if they choose to not impeach simply on the basis that the Republican senate will protect Trump (which they will), and that the body politic is so corrupt as to allow such behavior, than there is literally, truly, no reason for any Dem to not run on things from court packing to partitioning California to all kinds of increasingly un-institutional ideas. Since they won't do that, that leaves them as needing to at least take the institutional step of starting impeachment hearings.

You opening comment makes no sense. The voting public has not voted since Mueller reported. Further, Mueller's report directly contradicts your statement, "Trump has undoubtedly broken the law, the constitution, and has presented himself as entirely unfit." feel free to have an opinion but this one lacks a factual basis.

That said, you may be right in thinking the Democrats will try to stay the course and focus on impeachment. It's a road to disaster but both parties have ridden off cliffs in the past. One word of caution. Until now Trump's hands have been tied as he cooperated with the Mueller investigation. No longer. It has been mentioned before, but is worth repeating. The Flood letter indicates that the gloves are off.

J