2020 US Election (Part One)

[Timsup2nothin]

But how long is that last gasp going to last? If Trump wins in 2020 (I'm giving it 40% chance) the damage that will be done, notably to climate change, would basically be irreversible and likely catastrophic.

I think it's over. Trump has severely damaged the GOP, which wasn't strong to begin with, already, and that was with a cooperative congress trying to protect itself. The house democrats are in a position to use Trump to literally split the GOP like a grapefruit if they set their minds to it...and there is little doubt that Pelosi has the mind to do it. With control of the floor an endless parade of bills that appeal to one half of the GOP but are absolute anathema to the other can be presented, mixed with bills that go the other way. The two halves of the GOP are then left alternately siding with democrats and calling the other half sellouts for siding with democrats. Every one of them should go into 2020 with votes on their records that the good republicans back home will be frothing mad about.

And since those bills will have republican support in the house, when McConnell shoots them down in the senate to protect his vulnerable members he will take heat like Ryan never sent him. So GOP senators, going into 2020 and 2022 with very nasty maps, are going to get tarred and feathered as well. If the GOP doesn't come out of this mortally wounded I will be embarrassed for the Democratic Party. The opportunity is clear, and the tools are at hand and easy to use. If they jerk around squabbling and let it slip through their fingers the world deserves whatever the GOP does to it.

 

[Ajidica]

The house democrats are in a position to use Trump to literally split the GOP like a grapefruit if they set their minds to it...and there is little doubt that Pelosi has the mind to do it. With control of the floor an endless parade of bills that appeal to one half of the GOP but are absolute anathema to the other can be presented, mixed with bills that go the other way. The two halves of the GOP are then left alternately siding with democrats and calling the other half sellouts for siding with democrats. Every one of them should go into 2020 with votes on their records that the good republicans back home will be frothing mad about.

Assuming the Democrats do hold "split the GOP" votes, why do you think that will matter for GOP voters back in the congresscritter's district? Once core GOP policies -outside of tax cuts- have been dropped by the wayside and old-fashioned skepticism of regulation has been replaced by being pro-lead in the drinking water. Even Lindsey Graham, who only a few short years ago was seen as a "moderate" and "dealmaking" Republican has now gone full-on Trumptard.*

The GOP congresscritters who are in "moderate" districts will offer some minor criticisms of Trump, but will keep on voting with him -not like they ever really cared about climate change; while the ex-Teahadists and racists will just keep ranting and raving.

*Indeed, the shift from Lindsey "Just Waiting for the Right Woman" Graham to full Trumpist makes me wonder what Trump has on him.

 

[Takhisis]

The Donald's hanging up ‘finish the wall!’ posters at his rallies as of today. He's trying to get people to think that he's doing something/anything.

What's worse is that some people will fall for it.

 

[Berzerker]

Damn, Sen Klobuchar has a temper - and she seems so even tempered. Apparently she has thrown binders at staff.

and she's a centrist/moderate praised by some Republicans.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sen Klobuchar

That sounds like a faction in Dune

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Assuming the Democrats do hold "split the GOP" votes, why do you think that will matter for GOP voters back in the congresscritter's district? Once core GOP policies -outside of tax cuts- have been dropped by the wayside and old-fashioned skepticism of regulation has been replaced by being pro-lead in the drinking water. Even Lindsey Graham, who only a few short years ago was seen as a "moderate" and "dealmaking" Republican has now gone full-on Trumptard.*

The GOP congresscritters who are in "moderate" districts will offer some minor criticisms of Trump, but will keep on voting with him -not like they ever really cared about climate change; while the ex-Teahadists and racists will just keep ranting and raving.

*Indeed, the shift from Lindsey "Just Waiting for the Right Woman" Graham to full Trumpist makes me wonder what Trump has on him.

The key isn't the splitting, it's that every GOP congressman will wind up with votes on their record that they will have a hard time explaining. While the GOP controlled both houses of congress the wall funding never came up for a vote. Ever wonder why? It's because it would either fail, and GOP congressmen who voted against it would be tarred and feathered by the Trumpists, or it would pass with numerous congressmen from border districts where "build the wall" is recognized to mean "seize land with eminent domain from people who backed your campaign for congress" who would be tarred and feathered next time they went home. If the Democrats are smart, which they are, they will bring a "just in case the funds come available later let's seize these people's land for the wall" bill to the floor as a 'preliminary step.' Democrats from the Trumpier states can vote for it to get some cred in their districts, all the border republicans will be hung out to dry no matter which way they vote, and one of the ugliest pieces of the entire "build the wall" idea will be plainly highlighted.

That may seem like "playing games," but those congressmen who get hung out to dry will have opponents in 2020, and those opponents will have ammunition for the fight because of those games.

 

[Zardnaar]

Non American looking in things look really bleak for the house for the GoP, would not be surprised if they lose the senate as well.

Could be one of those once in 4o year moments when a party self destructs and can't get elected for the next 20 odd years- GoP post 1932 and Dems post 68.

 

[metalhead]

Warren Buffett, Tom Steyers, Bloomberg (?) and this guy would support a tax hike.

How many are working right now to raise taxes on themselves? None. Like I said, it's lip service. They can talk about it; none seems to actually be trying to do anything about it. You are, of course, free to believe empty words. I'll wait for action.

 

[rah]

Do we know if @rah has ever been an actual threat to vote for a Democrat for president?

For the Record
I voted for Slick Willy and Obama the second time around. So not just a threat but a reality. And I was pretty hard core Republican. Trump has changed the equation.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, now we have one more surprise for you, ma'am. But it's one you're going to like. The program isn't called "Obamacare"; it's called the Affordable Care Act.

Nope... It's called "Obamacare"... Sean Hannity just said so on the news.

 

[onejayhawk]

Nope... It's called "Obamacare"... Sean Hannity just said so on the news.

Actually, President Obama beat him to the punch.

They don't need Obamacare 'cause they have the ACA!

That's classic. AOC could use that in a speech and get cheers.

J

 

[metalhead]

For the Record
I voted for Slick Willy and Obama the second time around. So not just a threat but a reality. And I was pretty hard core Republican. Trump has changed the equation.

Would you still consider voting for a 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning if you lived in, say, Iowa or Wisconsin instead of Illinois?

 

[Berzerker]

How many are working right now to raise taxes on themselves? None. Like I said, it's lip service. They can talk about it; none seems to actually be trying to do anything about it. You are, of course, free to believe empty words. I'll wait for action.

Buffett's been calling for higher taxes for years and these guys have supported the Dems, not the Repubs. Schultz just said he supports higher taxes as part of his agenda. You cant accuse billionaires of opposing higher taxes when they're on the record supporting tax hikes.

The Democrats are centre-right.

if thats true they better nominate a center-right candidate or lose their base to Schultz

 

[rah]

Would you still consider voting for a 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning if you lived in, say, Iowa or Wisconsin instead of Illinois?

Their having no chance of winning would not come into consideration.
Your opinion on the matter would matter even less to me.
My opinion is the only that matters when I vote.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Their having no chance of winning would not come into consideration.
Your opinion on the matter would matter even less to me.
My opinion is the only that matters when I vote.

But does their chance of winning inform your opinion? That's really what he was getting at I think.

 

[rah]

I've voted for many people that lost in the past ( I am a republican living in Illinois). Are trying to say that if I knew Trump was going to win, that should have influenced me to vote for him? (or informed my opinion)

 

[Lexicus]

I've voted for many people that lost in the past ( I am a republican living in Illinois). Are trying to say that if I knew Trump was going to win, that should have influenced me to vote for him? (or informed my opinion)

He's just trying to ask if there are any strategic considerations that go into your decision of who to vote for. Like for example I can vote for a third-party whacko candidate because I'm in DC and it doesn't matter, the Democrats are going to win here no matter what. That was also true when I lived in NJ.

 

[rah]

No, I vote for who I prefer. No matter what strategy you think you have, you may just be wrong. Like all the Dems that thought that Hillary was going to win so they strategically stayed home. I have only missed one election in my recollection. And that's because I was at work collecting/projecting results and forgot to request a mail in ballot.

 

[Berzerker]

I've never been faced with that dilemma, I can vote 3rd party to my heart's content without thinking about who will win. Thats no longer true here locally now that the Dems became more competitive because the Republicans wore out their welcome. I just dont see enough of a difference between them to give up voting for people more in line with my thinking. I was not only surprised Kelly beat Kobach for guv, she stomped him pretty good for such a red state. Course Kobach is downright sleazy so anyone near the center could challenge him.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've voted for many people that lost in the past ( I am a republican living in Illinois). Are trying to say that if I knew Trump was going to win, that should have influenced me to vote for him? (or informed my opinion)

Not at all. It isn't about who will win, it's about having your vote count when there is uncertainty about the outcome. If there are two potential winners your vote can affect the outcome, but if you vote for a third candidate who has no shot then your vote will not affect the outcome. If there is really no uncertainty about the outcome then voting really makes no difference at all. I never think that that is the case, if for no other reason than there is very seldom a single race election. Anyone who stayed home rather than go vote "because they were sure Hillary would win anyway" is an idiot, not because Hillary didn't actually win but because down ballot, somewhere, there is always an outcome that is in doubt.