Why I Think Trump is the Best Democratic Asset

[Berzerker]

and he kinda looks like a young John Kerry

 

[Gori the Grey]

They got him for his personal shenanigans going back years, not a conspiracy to release DNC emails.

No, I mentioned the Manafort case just so you'd know that Conspiracy to Defraud the US is a crime. Trump's conspiracy will be for a different defrauding.

 

[Gori the Grey]

he was raised an elite brat, and he'll be perceived and attacked as such.

By whom? The pot?

 

[Berzerker]

hypocrisy never stopped Trump from projecting

 

[GenMarshall]

So who comes closest, Bird? Beto?

All I know it’s going to be between a turd sandwich and a rabbid raccoon.

 

[caketastydelish]

That's just teenage angst, delayed because people are getting (kind of) adult later in life. Don't assume they'll be that way even in a couple of years.

As for Beto, he's not a billionaire. But he's married into a lot of money, he was raised an elite brat, and he'll be perceived and attacked as such.

He's still nothing on the 'elite establishment' extent that Hillary was though.

Keep in mind that with the exception of Obama all of our Presidents have been either Bush's or Clinton's for over 20 years. Hillary Clinton specifically has been in the spotlight for decades with a countless amount of baggage she's acquired during that time; tons of people already hated her long before the 2016 election (or even the 2008 one for that matter) even started.

Beto doesn't have that problem now just as Obama didn't have it when he first started running.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Patience grasshoppers. we have almost two years to make up our minds and two years to find out the results. Everything will change once Mueller makes his report. There is no need to act like the election is next month.

 

[Dekker]

Replace a wealthy billionaire populist with a wealthy billionaire elitist? People won't fall for that. They'll take coarseness over hypocrisy.

Please name two potential candidates on rep and dem side that can't be described as such?

 

[Kaitzilla]

The Dems need a socially progressive, fiscally rational, youngish, charismatic person who can talk about the future. Pairing them with an opposite gender running mate who has a depth of knowledge about how things work would be good.

Just make Vice President Oprah happen (celebrity billionaire) and the next Dem president can be picked out of a hat.

 

[Hehehe]

Just to be clear I am not an American but from the outsider looking in the Republicans are in deep trouble. I think Trump is partly right in terms of the mainstream media being out to get him (but he makes it so easy), but he is wrong in terms of them making stuff up.

If you like Fox News that is fair enough, I read the website myself occasionally. More to get a sense of what they're saying but here is a hint its - entertainment trash. If you want some better news and don't trust mainstream USA media try Reuters or the BBC. Even if you don't like what you read you need to find out what people are saying or whats going on.

Anyway short of the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot with a circular firing squad perhaps by nominating Hilary again (or Elizabeth Warrens perhaps) the 2020 elections are theirs to lose. Trump won 2016 by a very narrow victory if 40 000 people in 3 states changed their minds he would have lost. Based on the 2018 mid terms more than that have changed their minds.

Trump is the guy who turned a 20 odd point lead in Texas to 3 points. They elected a Democratic senator in Alabama of all places. The 2018 senate map was bad for the Democrats as they were defending in lots of red states that are quite red. This was part of the 6 year cycle that Obama carried in 2012. In 2020 the situation is reversed with the Republicans on the defensive with a blue tide from 2018. The main advantage they have is they are defending red states but a few are purple or are well within the margin of losses of the 2018 mid terms.

This is also compounded by Americans skewing left on virtually all of the main topics but the red states use social issues to drive turnout. But overall America is getting more liberal with Texas being tipped to go blue or purple in 2032. Trump seems to have brought that forward by a decade or so. I don't think Texas will flip blue in 2020 but what about states like Ohio and Florida let alone the other mid western states Trump would have seemed to have lost already. If he is driving voters into the arms of the Democrats in 2020 odds are they will win again in 2024 (its really hard to beat a sitting president). By 2028 it won't matter to much.

Even with gerrymandering that in effect gains the Republicans about a 7 point advantage that makes it hard to beat in swing states. However once again a lot of those stats showed gains equal to or larger than that in the 2018 mid terms. If the Democrats carry some of them in 2020 long term Gerrymandering will likely hurt the Republicans as it will make winning them back that much harder when combined with more liberal trends overall in the US electorate. When millennial start hitting their 30's and 40's in numbers they don't seem to be voting Republican combined with normal population die off. Basically older conservative voters die off and are not replaced. Note that President Reagan and other Republican candidates used to win the popular vote as well, its just been since Bush II that they have struggled (except 2004?). Also note the popular vote doesn't matter that much but it does reveal longer term trends in the US electorate.

By any objective means Trump is not a good president. He is a dead duck and cannot pass any of his legislative agenda (such as it was) so even if you are a Republican/like him just thought I would point that out. I would do further and use words like "disaster" and "calamity". Not for America but for the GoP. Last time you had a president this bad (Hoover) the Democrats basically got a pass for the next 20 years. In reverse after the 60's the Democrats were effectively locked out of executive power for 20+ years.

So yeah at this point I think the Democrats have already won 2020 and they ave a decent chance of getting the senate and can lock this in for potentially decades to come. If you have a large democratic field that is in indicator that a lot of them think they can beat Trump in 2020. However the 2018 elections revealed that despite all the noise the progressive wing of the Democrats party makes they failed hard and the ones that won are the more blue dog types. Nominating a progressive fruitcake might let the GoP win in 2020 as getting more votes in the west and east coast won't win you the election they need it in the Mid West/Ohio, Florida, and potentially Texas and some other red states that are starting to trend purple.

I don't disagree with your main thesis. I do think that Republicans are in deep trouble. However, even though Trump is an easy target, I think that the causes for this go a lot deeper than Trump. First of all, the thing that is flipping these big red states (Texas, Florida) is not so much Trump as it is demographic change. Hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and as the electorate shifts, so do the voting patterns. I suppose it is possible that Trump may have accelerated this trend (I don't know if there is data to prove or disprove this) but it would have happened eventually. In fact, in many ways, Trump is the only Republican who actually wanted to stop this trend by limiting immigration. Also, on a slightly unrelated note, the absolute stupidity of the so-called "real conservatives" never ceases to amaze me. Does somebody like Jeb Bush think that he can get hispanics to vote for him against their own interests? Or is he simply going to let Democrats flip some of the biggest Republican strongholds?

Second point to touch on, yes, millenials tend to support Democrats. But that lead has been slipping. Usually, people become more conservative as they age (starting somewhere around 25-30 years old, and millenials are starting to reach that). What was the saying again? If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no brain? Also, I think it is worth noting that Republicans have a lead among millenial white men. Which brings us to the next point...

A lot of people mock the Republicans for being "too white". But the thing is, they're correct. Especially now that Trump stole a lot of white working class supporters from Democrats. Republicans are becoming the white people's party. I suppose in some way they've always been that (on average, Republican party positions have always tended to favor white people). All politics is identity politics. Republicans are becoming more white, while Democrats are becoming more diverse. Is this a good trend for a democratic nation? You decide.

 

[Kyriakos]

It'll be "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States of America." "Collusion" was just a shorthand term that caught on.

If the "center" of America isn't concerned about a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power to defraud America, we can just go ahead and shut out the lights now. It was a good run.

Not sure if they care, but obviously they dont believe it happened, so it is a meaningless affair and has been for 2 years. Also, there are foreign countries that have far more obvious control on the usa than russia ever can hope to have. Eg israel. Even saudi has more influence than russia.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't disagree with your main thesis. I do think that Republicans are in deep trouble. However, even though Trump is an easy target, I think that the causes for this go a lot deeper than Trump. First of all, the thing that is flipping these big red states (Texas, Florida) is not so much Trump as it is demographic change. Hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and as the electorate shifts, so do the voting patterns. I suppose it is possible that Trump may have accelerated this trend (I don't know if there is data to prove or disprove this) but it would have happened eventually. In fact, in many ways, Trump is the only Republican who actually wanted to stop this trend by limiting immigration. Also, on a slightly unrelated note, the absolute stupidity of the so-called "real conservatives" never ceases to amaze me. Does somebody like Jeb Bush think that he can get hispanics to vote for him against their own interests? Or is he simply going to let Democrats flip some of the biggest Republican strongholds?

Second point to touch on, yes, millenials tend to support Democrats. But that lead has been slipping. Usually, people become more conservative as they age (starting somewhere around 25-30 years old, and millenials are starting to reach that). What was the saying again? If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no brain? Also, I think it is worth noting that Republicans have a lead among millenial white men. Which brings us to the next point...

A lot of people mock the Republicans for being "too white". But the thing is, they're correct. Especially now that Trump stole a lot of white working class supporters from Democrats. Republicans are becoming the white people's party. I suppose in some way they've always been that (on average, Republican party positions have always tended to favor white people). All politics is identity politics. Republicans are becoming more white, while Democrats are becoming more diverse. Is this a good trend for a democratic nation? You decide.

The main problem there is that the Dems have gone a bit far down the road of identity politics when 75% of the electorate (give or take) is white. Democrats don't really need to do anything to appeal to minorites etc they are safe votes now.

And older people tend to vote more reliably so you only need to win the ones that turn up (and in the right locations).

Even here the popular former neo liberal government was only getting numbers similar to the republicans in the USA with coalitions being the norm.

 

[Zardnaar]

Please don't.

How did you take this away from the results? Serious question, because progressives did really good while centrists like McCaskill got voted out.

I agree with the thesis of the OP but not the conclusion. 2020 is going to be a blowout but they won't get 20 years of control. They'll be lucky if they have Congress (both houses) and the Presidency for more than 2 years. The Supreme Court is shot for a decade and the federal appeals courts forever as far as we are concerned with. They have at best a 4 year window to undo a huge mess against an activist judiciary before Republicans take back one house or the other or even the Presidency.

And that's leaving aside the huge uphill battle at state level districts, the new tendency for Republican legislatures to effectively neuter incoming Democratic administrations and the potential for the 2020 census to purposely undercount urban people.

We are past the tipping point for a healthy political system and are in for a descent into de facto one-party rule at the Federal level.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...06139e540e5_story.html?utm_term=.e996392acdb2

67% of the seats flipped in the US midterms were by Blue Dog Democrats. 27% were by progressives.

Basically the Democratic primary voters could elect some wing ding uber liberal and then proceed to lose the 2020 election. I think it would be hard to do but its one of Trumps best chances of winning IMHO.

The Democrats don't need more votes for a moral victory, they already got that in 2016 and 2018 they need more votes in the right places.

Outsider looking in my personal pick would be Beto. He may not carry Texas but if he can replicate a fraction of that in some of the other red states after the 2018 mid terms they could flip.He shaved a 20+ point lead in a deep red state to 3%.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...06139e540e5_story.html?utm_term=.e996392acdb2

67% of the seats flipped in the US midterms were by Blue Dog Democrats. 27% were by progressives.

Basically the Democratic primary voters could elect some wing ding uber liberal and then proceed to lose the 2020 election. I think it would be hard to do but its one of Trumps best chances of winning IMHO.

The Democrats don't need more votes for a moral victory, they already got that in 2016 and 2018 they need more votes in the right places.

Outsider looking in my personal pick would be Beto. He may not carry Texas but if he can replicate a fraction of that in some of the other red states after the 2018 mid terms they could flip.He shaved a 20+ point lead in a deep red state to 3%.

I'll accept your figures because I'm too lazy to look them up myself. But that's only statistics for flipped seats, not total seats. So I'm not sure it holds true more broadly.

It also ignores the massive amount of gerrymandering at play that means Democrats had to flip districts that were far more red than they would be under a rationale system. That's why the dems got 30% more votes this round than the Republicans got in 2010 and yet pulled in 30% less seats. This was a landslide of historic proportions and yet the Democrats underperformed relative to Republicans in past landsides due to gerrymandering.

So the discussion of how progressive the flipped seats are misses a lot of context if we just look at the raw results.

 

[Hehehe]

The main problem there is that the Dems have gone a bit far down the road of identity politics when 75% of the electorate (give or take) is white. Democrats don't really need to do anything to appeal to minorites etc they are safe votes now.

And older people tend to vote more reliably so you only need to win the ones that turn up (and in the right locations).

Even here the popular former neo liberal government was only getting numbers similar to the republicans in the USA with coalitions being the norm.

I see what you mean. Politics closer to the middle ground would be a great way to attract middle ground voters. However, I think that most Democrats would find that to be too right wing, and be opposed to it. And given the current political polarization, it seems to me that both parties are better off appealing to their core supporters, and getting them to the polls, rather than trying to go for centrist policies and voters. Besides, I'm not sure if all this even matters to Democrats, given that they have demographics on their side.

 

[rah]

The middle deserves to be represented somewhere. If Trump does 100 things where 99 are dumb and 1 makes sense to me and I publicly support that one, I find myself being accused of being a Trumpette by the left, and then they wonder why I don't go along with them lockstep on anything they propose.
There has to be some respect for those that look at every issue fresh and not necessarily through the glasses of who's side you're on. I find myself on nobodies side but my own.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If Trump does 100 things where 99 are dumb and 1 makes sense to me

If Trump does 100 things and 1 makes sense to me, I figure I just haven't yet seen why that 1 is also dumb.

 

[Kyriakos]

If Trump does 100 things and 1 makes sense to me, I figure I just haven't yet seen why that 1 is also dumb.

There is that broken clock saying

 

[Gori the Grey]

Trump is a shorted-out LED clock.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If the economy in 2020 is good or Trump's fault, I think their platform should be;

• Fix immigration
• Fix health care
• Re-regulate air and water
• Rebuild infrastructure
• Tax the top 10%

How to do those would need discussion. How do you retain the progressives and capture the many, many disaffected in the middle who want things to be better than they are, but fear big change.