2020 US Election (Part One)

[Sommerswerd]

The hatred evaporated, but there wasn't any enthusiasm. The dingbat fringe had grown tired of candidates that paid them lip service but when push came to shove represented the mainstream. They were demanding that the GOP put up someone who would screw over 65% of the people they supposedly represent and throw a steady stream of red meat to the 35% crazies. Now that they have had their way for a term they are not going to just sit back down...at least in a primary. Whether they will sit down after their designated nut bag loses in November is questionable.

Well they don't need to sit down this cycle for any primary because Trump is the incumbent and will certainly receive the nomination. The moment of truth comes in 2024, regardless of how 2020 turns out. I share your expectation that a Trump win in 2020 will mean that the base demands a similar song-and-dance in 2024. However, I think a loss means a battle in earnest for the steering wheel, where two enter and one leaves.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well we thought that about Romney's failed candidacy and for all the 'soul searching' the GOP did then, we wound up with an even more extreme party.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well we thought that about Romney's failed candidacy and for all the 'soul searching' the GOP did then, we wound up with an even more extreme party.

Like I said... Two enter... one leaves. We know which one left last time...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well we thought that about Romney's failed candidacy and for all the 'soul searching' the GOP did then, we wound up with an even more extreme party.

I think we just ended up with acknowledgement of how extreme the party was. The party didn't really change, just the leadership.

 

[Lexicus]

Well we thought that about Romney's failed candidacy and for all the 'soul searching' the GOP did then, we wound up with an even more extreme party.

That doesn't contradict what Sommer said though. Two enter, one leaves...he didn't say which one would leave.

 

[Takhisis]

I'll send you a map. With luck and a GPS you might be able to find reality from there.

J

I'm quite sure that GPS does not admit i as valid input, so your reality will remain within your imagination for now.

 

[onejayhawk]

I've already told this story so I won't repeat the anecdote... but remember how much McCain was hated and despised by the base, FOX, Rush, etc., in 2008? Remember how that hatred just evaporated once he got the nomination? I think it will go similarly for Ryan.

I remember 2008 well and the dislike did not evaporate. Instead, it went silent and showed in the turnout numbers.

Ryan is much better liked than McCain. He is seen as a solid worker if not a true believer.

Well we thought that about Romney's failed candidacy and for all the 'soul searching' the GOP did then, we wound up with an even more extreme party.

How was Romney a failed candidate? True, he lost but it was a respectable showing against an incumbent.

J

 

[Takhisis]

How was Romney a failed candidate? True, he lost

Moderator Action: All posts require some original content, otherwise they are considered spam. ~ Arakhor

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well we thought that about Romney's failed candidacy and for all the 'soul searching' the GOP did then, we wound up with an even more extreme party.

The "soul searching" was successful, in a way. They realized they didn't have one, so they should go for a candidate who didn't.

 

[Rashiminos]

That's easy. Ted Cruz strolls through the primaries and shreds whoever survives on the Democrats side.

J

Ted Cruz, if he knows what's good for his political career, will stay right where he is needed as the Honorable Ted Cruz from the Great State of Texas. Someone who has a less full

plate or is not sitting on a threatened seat, like Rick Scott, would potentially have a chance, if..

What if Trump isn't on the ticket? Pence? Probably not. Who else might be running for the Republicans?

the President's term of office came to an autopsy-confirmed natural end. Otherwise, the names on the ticket might not be the most pressing concern. Trump is the presumptive nominee and very few Republicans seem willing to upstage him rather than distance themselves (if ineffectively).

As a general principle, it's hard to picture how GOP candidates are going to frame themselves in the aftermath of Trump. Trumpism will long outlast Our Glorious Leader, so people will need to appeal to the Trumpists somehow. But there's also going to be powerful Trump-fatigue, or even Trump-revulsion, so too strong a connection to the Trumpists will be damaging as well.

The jam that drove people like Ryan and Flake out of even trying to make another bid will survive to vex GOP candidates, I think.

Definitely. Guys are like that are flipping toast.

I remember 2008 well and the dislike did not evaporate. Instead, it went silent and showed in the turnout numbers.

Ryan is much better liked than McCain. He is seen as a solid worker if not a true believer.


How was Romney a failed candidate? True, he lost but it was a respectable showing against an incumbent.

J

He campaigned for a glorious defeat and got it. He also inspired some choice legislation around a similar timeframe if you'll recall.

 

[onejayhawk]

Ted Cruz is ambitious, capable, and extremely organized. He's a self-centered, self-involved, unlikeable jerk so no one in his own party really likes him, much less the opposition. That will not keep him from being the next President, either in 2020 or 2024.

Trumpism is just the latest brand-name of something much older. For example, I always liked the name silent majority. Whatever it may be called, it's the group created by the false labels of the day. One very popular misconception is to call Trump is a populist, even though populists are not pro-business. What he did was identify a theme that had been shamed into silence and gave it a voice.

There was a recent study that showed that the most intolerant group is highly educated whites. It is also one of the most liberal groups.

J

 

[rah]

Ted Cruz will be to the Republicans what Hillary was to the Democrats. Hated enough that a large enough part of his own party won't bother to come out and support him.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I remember 2008 well and the dislike did not evaporate. Instead, it went silent and showed in the turnout numbers.

No, that does not appear to be accurate. McCain got 45.7% of the vote, while Trump got 46.1% which is less than a 1% difference. Meanwhile, the total turnout in 2008 was 58.2% compared to 55.7% in 2016. So no, there was no depressed Republican etc., turnout in 2008 that you can blame McCain's loss on. If anything, it was increased Democratic turnout and maybe some defection to the Democrats that made the difference in 2008. Ultimately, the highest Republican turnout over the last 5 cycles would not have been anywhere near close to enough to beat Obama in 2008... and that belies the untapped power that the Democrats are sitting on, in terms of their apathetic electorate.

The reality is that the Republican electorate is pretty static and consistent, while the Democrats turnout is prone to huge swings, depending on how energized/inspired/motivated they are. Baby Bush got 62 million+ votes in 2004... fast forward to 2016... Trump got 62 million+, with McCain and Romney both hauling in just under and just over 60 million respectively in the years between. Meanwhile, the Democrats got about10 million more votes in 2008 than in 2004,, while getting about 4 million less votes in 2016 than in 2008. The Republicans have nothing remotely resembling that in potential votes gained or lost.

How was Romney a failed candidate? True, he lost but it was a respectable showing against an incumbent.

Which recent losing Democratic candidate would you describe as having given a "respectable showing" rather than as a "failed candidate"? Or is that distinction reserved for Republicans in your mind?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Fun trivia, based on my quick and dirty Wikipedia research....

The last President over 50 that the Democrats got elected into office was Jimmy Carter at 54 y/o. The last Democrat at least 60 to assume the office was Truman, in 1945 when Roosevelt died (he was exactly 60 y/o at the time). Trump is the oldest POTUS to be elected to his first term at 70.

Democrats seem to have a poor track record with getting elderly POTUS'es elected... at least in recent history.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, that does not appear to be accurate. McCain got 45.7% of the vote, while Trump got 46.1% which is less than a 1% difference. Meanwhile, the total turnout in 2008 was 58.2% compared to 55.7% in 2016. So no, there was no depressed Republican etc., turnout in 2008 that you can blame McCain's loss on. If anything, it was increased Democratic turnout and maybe some defection to the Democrats that made the difference in 2008. Ultimately, the highest Republican turnout over the last 5 cycles would not have been anywhere near close to enough to beat Obama in 2008... and that belies the untapped power that the Democrats are sitting on, in terms of their apathetic electorate.

The reality is that the Republican electorate is pretty static and consistent, while the Democrats turnout is prone to huge swings, depending on how energized/inspired/motivated they are. Baby Bush got 62 million+ votes in 2004... fast forward to 2016... Trump got 62 million+, with McCain and Romney both hauling in just under and just over 60 million respectively in the years between. Meanwhile, the Democrats got about10 million more votes in 2008 than in 2004,, while getting about 4 million less votes in 2016 than in 2008. The Republicans have nothing remotely resembling that in potential votes gained or lost.
Which recent losing Democratic candidate would you describe as having given a "respectable showing" rather than as a "failed candidate"? Or is that distinction reserved for Republicans in your mind?

I am not sure of your point here. I will concede that no one would have beaten Obama in 2008. I also acknowledge that Democrats are more volatile. What does that add?

Also, what is your source for turnout by party?

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

I am not sure of your point here. I will concede that no one would have beaten Obama in 2008. I also acknowledge that Democrats are more volatile. What does that add?

Also, what is your source for turnout by party?

Wikipedia."Turnout by party" is self-evident in final vote count. For example, there isn't any meaningful distinction between "Republican turnout" and the number of votes the Republican got.

My point is that you were incorrect to say that the Republican's dislike of McCain manifested in the turnout. The numbers don't support that conclusion. McCain and Romney got similar relative vote totals and both would have lost to Obama's count in 2012 as well as to Hillary's in 2016. The Republican vote essentially is what it is, year in and year out. So Republicans win or lose based primarily (maybe solely) on how many Democratic voters are willing (and able) to vote.

 

[onejayhawk]

That I will not give you because of the number of voters in neither party.

You say that McCain's intra-party differences were negligible and then compare him to Trump who had massive intra-party issues. You say he did not have poor Republican turnout then assume, "there isn't any meaningful distinction between 'Republican turnout' and the number of votes the Republican got." Your brush is awfully wide here.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Your brush is awfully wide here.

Just call me Pablo Picasso... Your point?

 

[Lexicus]

Your point?

I think his point is that because he needs it to sustain his argument that Ted Cruz Will Win, "turnout" needs to be some mystical quality distinct from any actual vote numbers or other discernible evidence.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You say that McCain's intra-party differences were negligible

I said no such thing. You're strawmanning.

That I will not give you because of the number of voters in neither party.

For election purposes...being "in neither party" is irrelevant when you vote for the candidate of one of the parties... as I've explained to many an "independent".