What's new

2020 Presidential election

Most recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll finds Trump beating any Democratic candidate he faces:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

This poll included a third party candidate in the poll, which skews the data.

An unnamed third-party candidate received between 11% and 15% in the head-to-head contests – a factor that could determine who wins the White House.

Just to compare, Gary Johnson in 2016 got 3 percent of the vote, the best showing since 1996 when Perot got nearly 10 percent. In order to have a third party candidate achieve 11-15 percent of the vote, we'd have to see a third party candidacy the likes of which we haven't seen since George Wallace in 1968 when the map looked like this:

1968_large.png


So this is not a reliable poll imo unless you think a third party candidate is going to have a strong showing, the likes of which we haven't seen in 50 years.
 
Been an Iowa resident for most of my life, and always enjoyed the caucus approach (actively engaging, learn new perspectives, don't need to have made up your mind beforehand), obvious negatives related to pressuring people for votes (though the Republican caucus is secret ballot) how does the rest of the world feel about it?
 
Trumpers on here seem to forget this:



  • Just because Mueller didn’t indict doesn’t = Trump was exonerated.
  • Just because the senate doesn’t convict doesn’t = Trump was innocent all along.
 
Trumpers on here seem to forget this:



  • Just because Mueller didn’t indict doesn’t = Trump was exonerated.
  • Just because the senate doesn’t convict doesn’t = Trump was innocent all along.


But we have been over this already.

You can't be exonerated under the law. You are either guilty or not guilty. The court can't find you not guilty but then say you are not exonerated. You are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

DDhE6YdXsAI61Qi.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
I don’t care if Yang has the charisma of a plank. I want pragmatic solutions and I would support him.
They literally all just seem like better, smarter people than Trump

Listen to Trump speak. Then listen to literally any of the Democratic candidates speak. It's night and day. Trump sounds kind of senile and usually makes very little sense and has all kinds of errors in his sentence structure.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
They literally all just seem like better, smarter people than Trump

Listen to Trump speak. Then listen to literally any of the Democratic candidates speak. It's night and day. Trump sounds kind of senile and usually makes very little sense and has all kinds of errors in his sentence structure.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Agreed about Trump’s talk, he sounds like he’s talking to children.

“Believe me, believe me...”
“And that’s a very very bad thing, a very bad thing...”
 
Hey look, there was a debate tonight...

I love how Trumpers mock how little attention Democrats receive. As if endless broadcasts of **** like this is somehow winning over voters to the Republican side:



As a Democrat, the more the public hears from Trump, the better. Trump is the best Democratic recruitment ad we could ever imagine. Doubt me? Look at Orange county. Look at Trump's approval rating with women. Especially with women in the suburbs. Look at Kentucky and Louisiana's governor's mansions. Keep it up Trump! He's doing absolutely nothing to expand his base of support.

They'll be plenty of time in the general for the Democratic nominee to speak. Right now, I quite honestly appreciate all the cover fire Trump is providing us while Democrats duke it out to find the nominee. A competent president would shut the hell up, let the economy hum along, and exploit the fissures within the Democratic Party. But not Trump. He's too stupid and self-absorbed to do that. Thanks bud!
 
Some things from last nights debate.
Biden:
He dealt particularly well with the toughest question he got, which was about a recent Washington Post report on how leaders, including those in the Obama administration, misled the country about the status of the war in Afghanistan. He said he argued against nation-building there and emphasized disagreements with the Pentagon about things such as the troops surge. And he’s got documents to back that up. He had previously struggled when asked to own particular elements of the Obama legacy, but he did not on Thursday.

Biden also described how he connects with voters, including by talking like a child who stutters — something he struggled with when he was younger. Trump’s former press secretary Sarah Sanders appeared to not pick up on what Biden was actually doing and ridiculed him on Twitter, which could be a lasting moment from this debate. Sanders later apologized and deleted that tweet

Mayor Pete:
Buttigieg under fire: The most pointed exchange of the evening — and one of the most pointed exchanges of any debate to date — came when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) went after Buttigieg. Hard. It was pretty brutal. She pointed to a fundraiser he recently held in a wine cave. “Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States, Mr. Mayor,” she said, punctuating it by referring to $900 bottles of wine and addressing him directly.

But Buttigieg, as he almost always has been, was prepared. He noted he was the least wealthy of anyone onstage, and then he hit back just as hard. He noted that Warren transferred millions raised for her Senate campaign to her presidential bid, which included money raised at big-dollar fundraisers. “This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass,” he said. Warren has largely avoided attacking other candidates and has avoided being attacked herself. The fact that she opted to go after Buttigieg reinforces what a force he has become in this race — and how, even with a more mainstream approach, he has apparently peeled off some of her voters.

Buttigieg also parried a series of attempts by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) to goad him, including on his views of press freedom and his comments about the Washington experience of his opponents. It may not have been fun for Buttigieg, but he passed the tests. He’s a force in this race.

Bernie:
If there was one issue that dogged Sanders in his 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton, it was his inability to appeal to minority voters. And for one striking moment on Thursday, that problem reared its ugly head again.

The candidates were asked about the declining diversity in their debate field, and when the question was presented to Sanders, he opted instead to try to return to a previous topic, climate change. Debate moderator Amna Nawaz of “PBS NewsHour” cut in, though. “Senator, with all respect, this question is about race. Can you answer the question as it was asked?”

The crowd roared. Sanders tried to rescue it by saying people of color would suffer from climate change, too, and then he offered some boilerplate about problems that plague minority communities. It was one moment, but it came just after the only minority candidate onstage, Andrew Yang, gave a detailed answer citing the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and it briefly revived some old demons.

Sanders also, shortly thereafter, responded to a quote Barack Obama recently gave about old white men running countries. When debate moderator Tim Alberta noted Sanders was the oldest candidate onstage, Sanders interjected, “And I’m white, as well!” It wasn’t awful, but it may not have been the time to emphasize that.

For the first hour-plus, this looked less like a debate and more like a town hall, in which each candidate was able to use a bunch of talking points, unchallenged. Then things turned. It was Warren vs. Buttigieg, yes, but Klobuchar in particular was looking to mix it up with just about everyone. The candidates took exception to the moderators’ questions. Sanders waved his arm when Biden was talking — as he is wont to do — and Biden told him, “Put your hand down for a second, Bernie.” Biden even sought to one-up Warren on her selfie game. It was evident that we are about a month and a half from the actual votes.

Part of Democrats’ challenge in 2020 is to compete with the news machine that is Donald Trump. And that was particularly the case Thursday night, the day after Trump was impeached. It was perhaps an unfortunate bit of timing, including because it was six days before Christmas, and that won’t be the case in the future. But this was a really substantive debate, and it will be a shame if people weren’t tuned in.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...cratic-debate/ar-BBYbn1h?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 
2020 is going to be insane. I don’t recall all sides being so polarized. It’s a question I ask many people and they all agree.
It's the Trump effect imo. He literally and intentionally treats anyone who criticizes him as an enemy. The citizens of the country have largely followed his lead. I can't recall any other president treating his critics in such a manner.
If Ted Cruz or some other republican were president then I can guarantee that I wouldn't be engaging in these political threads and be arguing with everyone.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
2020 is going to be insane. I don’t recall all sides being so polarized. It’s a question I ask many people and they all agree.

but, the polarization is not equal. I’ve read extensively what leading political scientists have found. This article sums it up nicely:

  • The growing gap between the two parties on the individual items making up their ideological consistency scale are mostly a consequence of Republicans taking more conservative positions.
  • Consistent conservatives have much more unfavorable views of the Democratic Party than consistent liberals have of the Republican Party.
  • Republicans, especially those who are consistent conservatives, see the other party as a threat to the nation’s well-being more than do Democrats.
  • Republicans who view the other party very negatively are more likely to vote than Democrats.
  • The ideological “silos” by place and friendship networks are much higher among conservatives than liberals. The same is true for race and ethnicity as well as religious faith.
  • And importantly, as we have seen in other surveys, consistent conservatives like their elected officials to “stick to their positions” rather than “make compromises”; consistent liberals overwhelmingly prefer politicians who make compromises.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...rch-centers-report-on-political-polarization/
 
Back
Top