2020 Election
"U.S. Sen. Cory Booker made his debut as a potential 2020 presidential contender, arriving in Iowa on Saturday -- just hours after casting his Senate vote against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The New Jersey Democrat was well-received at an Iowa Democrats' gala in Des Moines, which featured around 1,400 activists in a state where Republicans control the governorship and both chambers of the Legislature, the Washington Post reported."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/after-dems-kavanaugh-failure-cory-booker-heads-straight-to-iowa
The 2016 Election thread started in November 2013. B9 predicted Christie would be the nominee and that he would lose. He did lose, but it was well before the nominations were made...anyone have predictions to make now that we can either say "wow, that was genius" or laugh at later?
Republican Nominee: It will be Trump, but somebody will make a valiant effort and fail.
Winner: I think it depends on where the economy is at in November 2020.
Quote: RonC
The 2016 Election thread started in November 2013. B9 predicted Christie would be the nominee and that he would lose. He did lose, but it was well before the nominations were made...anyone have predictions to make now that we can either say "wow, that was genius" or laugh at later?
1. Dem field to be at least as big as the GOP field was in 2016. The Obama years decimated the usual bench of Governors and other usuals, so a lot will jump in for the political exposure if nothing else.
2. Barring health issues, even with, Hillary jumps in after seeing the weak field. She might not make it far with an actual field to choose from this time and not having it fixed for her though. But she will freeze enough money and attention to muck up the field.
3. Floor fight at the Democrat convention, Supers needed to take the nomination. This will result in even more calls to get rid of the Superdelegate system, ensuring a very far left candidate and wipeout in 2024.
4. Expect the early Democrat debates to be a total Trump hatefest. A smart candidate, maybe Biden. will try to talk about something else. They either get a large part of the vote as the others split the Trump-hate-vote or get laughed out.
5. The Democrat Party will have an identity crisis the whole way. Older and working class vs. young and socialist. The young and socialist will win out as they will push and Trump will pull the other group. The 50 year drift left of the Democrat Party picks up more speed than ever.
6. Unions like USW and UMW have a hard time not endorsing Trump given the results he has given to their rank and file. One or a few might break and endorse him.
7. A never-Trumper RINO will try to primary him. The press will say how it has weakened him. As history has shown, CW is never right with Trump and it just fires up his base.
8. Trump wins, picking up another state or two of working class folk, potentially NV. A 1984 style sweep is impossible today, but the trendlines are in that direction.
9. Democrats could pick up some Senate seats as GOP is defending twice as many. Their best chances there since 2008 as the 2006/08 "Blue Bubble" has worked its way out of the cycle. If they do or not depends on who tops the ticket. A Biden and they do. A Harris or other socialist they do not.
10. Wizard elected Mayor of Vegas after promising to ban 6:5 BJ.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkDemocratic Nominee: Either Biden or Sanders or Warren
Republican Nominee: It will be Trump, but somebody will make a valiant effort and fail.
Winner: I think it depends on where the economy is at in November 2020.
Republican: How do you define, "Valiant effort?" I think somebody will make, "An effort," and will lose by a country mile. In terms of approval rating amongst Republicans, Trump is essentially no less popular than was George W. Bush. He also has the advantage of incumbency.
In fact, only five times in the country's history has an incumbent President NOT won the nomination of his own party. On only one of those occasions was that President elected. (All others were VP's who replaced a President who died in office)
It hasn't happened at all since 1884 and Franklin Pierce in 1856 has the sole distinction of being the only elected President to ever lose the following primary. Pierce has also gone down in history as one of the worst Presidents of all time. This is a hard pill to swallow, but if I'm being objective based on everything that has happened so far, speaking from a policy standpoint only, but I don't think Trump will go down as one of the Top 5 or Top 10 worst Presidents of all time.
I understand there's a ranking out there that already has him as THE WORST, yeah, no bias there.
Anyway, he would have to seriously F something up monumentally between now and then for anyone to even be within sniffing distance of him in the Primary.
Again, it all depends on how you define, "Valiant effort." Honestly, I'll be impressed if all others Republican nominees, combined, win 25% of the vote.
(Post on Democrats to come)
Quote: AZDuffman1. Dem field to be at least as big as the GOP field was in 2016. The Obama years decimated the usual bench of Governors and other usuals, so a lot will jump in for the political exposure if nothing else.
I don't know that it will be as big, or if it is, that it will be as big for as long. Personally, I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of eight candidates make it to the first debate and maybe three-five make it out of South Carolina. Probably three.
Quote:2. Barring health issues, even with, Hillary jumps in after seeing the weak field. She might not make it far with an actual field to choose from this time and not having it fixed for her though. But she will freeze enough money and attention to muck up the field.
Let's hope to God not. I've really enjoyed the last couple years of not seeing or hearing from Hillary. I think it's also important to note that things haven't changed so much since 2016. If she somehow made it to the General Election, I tend to think she would just lose Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by even bigger numbers.
I also don't think Trump has really done badly enough (so far at least) for Hillary to really make a case against him. Her campaign would basically be, "Correct your mistake," but I don't think you have enough people who consider Trump a mistake. Once again, I would vote for neither, in all likelihood.
Finally, she's nowhere near Progressive enough for the current climate. You're going to need to turn out the youth in droves, not just at the polls, but also out there putting feet on the ground with signs and door-to-door to have any prayer in 2020. Incumbency is a pretty big advantage.
It's really just about being well-liked amongst your base and turning them out for the incumbent. Both W. and Obama had approval ratings right about at 50% for their reelection bids and both won more-or-less handily. Neither was going up against a great candidate, though. Romney certainly had a better chance than Kerry, but that 47% thing was a serious screw up.
Quote:3. Floor fight at the Democrat convention, Supers needed to take the nomination. This will result in even more calls to get rid of the Superdelegate system, ensuring a very far left candidate and wipeout in 2024.
I wish both parties would just go to popular vote, if you want to know the truth. It's possible that superdelegates will decide it, but I don't think that will bode well for the Democrats, if so.
Quote:4. Expect the early Democrat debates to be a total Trump hatefest. A smart candidate, maybe Biden. will try to talk about something else. They either get a large part of the vote as the others split the Trump-hate-vote or get laughed out.
We agree on this 100%. I think the smart candidate bashes Trump AND talks about something else. The left really hates Trump, so I have no idea how someone plans to win without bashing him.
Quote:5. The Democrat Party will have an identity crisis the whole way. Older and working class vs. young and socialist. The young and socialist will win out as they will push and Trump will pull the other group. The 50 year drift left of the Democrat Party picks up more speed than ever.
Yeah, I have to believe they lose the white male, non-college educated, working class almost completely sooner-or-later. 2020 might not be the year, but I have to think that it's coming sooner or later. If not for Unions and economically liberal policies, they would have almost zero of this demographic anyway.
The other issue is that if the eventual nominee is not far enough to the left, then you will have a third-party candidate who pulls some of that vote. You have to find a way to unite everyone behind one candidate, but it's not really a united party. Neither are the Republicans, but the different Republican factions seem to do a better job of at least putting up with one another. Gotta give them that.
IOW, I think big business and reduce taxes economic interests look at social conservatives and say, "Yeah, we can live with that, why not?" And vice-a-versa. Many Libertarians (not all) are just Republicans who think that the Evangelical Christians are a bunch of nutjobs (which they mostly are) when it comes to social issues.
Quote:6. Unions like USW and UMW have a hard time not endorsing Trump given the results he has given to their rank and file. One or a few might break and endorse him.
You realize that the USW was on the cusp of going on strike as early as two weeks ago, right? Apparently, the owners are not wanting the tax cut proceeds to, "Trickle-Down," as so many Republicans tend to believe will always happen.
The Right might get the Unions one day, just not today.
Quote:7. A never-Trumper RINO will try to primary him. The press will say how it has weakened him. As history has shown, CW is never right with Trump and it just fires up his base.
I agree that there will be primary competition that has virtually no chance of winning. I disagree that the person will be a RINO automatically. Do you know that it's possible for one Republican to disagree with the views and/or priorities of another and for both of them to still be Republicans?
Quote:8. Trump wins, picking up another state or two of working class folk, potentially NV. A 1984 style sweep is impossible today, but the trendlines are in that direction.
Unless something out of left field happens, I agree with this, but I think the map looks almost the same. The Democrat maybe wins Florida.
I think Biden is the Democrats' best chance. He's extremely well-liked, just maybe not Progressive enough, according to some. I don't see how Biden gets swept in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan AND Wisconsin, so that's something. I also think Biden could realistically win Florida and North Carolina.
What I don't think is that Biden will win the nomination.
Quote:9. Democrats could pick up some Senate seats as GOP is defending twice as many. Their best chances there since 2008 as the 2006/08 "Blue Bubble" has worked its way out of the cycle. If they do or not depends on who tops the ticket. A Biden and they do. A Harris or other socialist they do not.
I have no strong opinion on this.
Quote:10. Wizard elected Mayor of Vegas after promising to ban 6:5 BJ.
YES!
Booker.
Klobuchar.
Clinton.
Cuomo.
My top 5 for the Dems. I would be surprised if it is not Harris or Booker.
I just don't see a successful challenger to Trump. It is not impossible that Trump decides he doesn't want 4 more years and makes way for Pence.
Quote: SOOPOO
I just don't see a successful challenger to Trump. It is not impossible that Trump decides he doesn't want 4 more years and makes way for Pence.
(Insert Name Here) would destroy Pence in an absolute landslide. He's absurdly socially conservative and he has all the personality of an unpainted fence post.
I'd like to see Amy Klobuchar run, but I don't think she will - if she did, it's conceivable she could win the nomination, but I think she's too nice in this age of mean. Harris is not nice, which is in her favor for a race against Trump - she also scares the hell out of a lot of men, including the Senators she serves with. She is the only person fast and deft enough to grind and disrupt Trump (other than Biden, but he's a different kind of tough). Hillary will not run again.
Republicans. Trump is running - I don't see anyone able to defeat him in the primary. Flake, Kasich may try.
Third party could easily play a huge role in this. Any of the above possibilities could affect it, along with people like Michael Bloomberg. The largest political "party" affiliation is now Independents, with the main parties going further and further to their extremes.(Rep 24-26%, Dem 27-31%, Ind 41-44% in 2018 per Gallop).
As the Republican party has morphed into Trump voters, their numbers are shrinking, but more unified than any other faction. So a 3rd party is more likely bad for Dems, but it would depend on the candidates.
Trump wins with virtually no challenge.
Trump wins election again with losing popular vote.
GOP wins back house and keeps Senate.
Everyone on here complains that everything is so unfair to Republicans.
Quote: mcallister3200I would personally never vote for someone over 70 yo be president. Guess I’m either not voting for pres or libertarian next one, same as this one. If they’re going to turn 80 during the presidency, god forbid. Maybe I’ll change my mind on this when/if I’m 75.
Agreed. I don’t think anyone over 65 should be allowed to run.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/kamala-harris-heads-iowa-first-step-campaign/572266/?utm_source=twb
"Harris was likewise a firm proponent of civil asset forfeiture, sponsoring a bill to allow prosecutors to seize profits before charges were even filed. Years before that, she opposed AB 639, a bill that aimed to reform asset forfeiture. The bill easily cleared the state assembly, but was soon scuttled by a united wall of opposition from law enforcement, with whom Harris was united."
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general
That is not the largest issue out there...but it is one we have talked about here...
Quote: Mission146
Let's hope to God not. I've really enjoyed the last couple years of not seeing or hearing from Hillary. I think it's also important to note that things haven't changed so much since 2016. If she somehow made it to the General Election, I tend to think she would just lose Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by even bigger numbers.
I also don't think Trump has really done badly enough (so far at least) for Hillary to really make a case against him. Her campaign would basically be, "Correct your mistake," but I don't think you have enough people who consider Trump a mistake. Once again, I would vote for neither, in all likelihood.
Finally, she's nowhere near Progressive enough for the current climate. You're going to need to turn out the youth in droves, not just at the polls, but also out there putting feet on the ground with signs and door-to-door to have any prayer in 2020. Incumbency is a pretty big advantage.
You do not understand Hillary. She is "me-me-me" and does not see her own weaknesses. Party has indeed moved left, power brokers still like her. Press will fawn all over her, again. But as I said, the fix will not be in this time. Supers have had power reduced. So she might run but have to drop out.
Quote:It's really just about being well-liked amongst your base and turning them out for the incumbent. Both W. and Obama had approval ratings right about at 50% for their reelection bids and both won more-or-less handily. Neither was going up against a great candidate, though. Romney certainly had a better chance than Kerry, but that 47% thing was a serious screw up.
Romney had it until the Hurricane and Obama played that perfect. The 47% thing should have been a non-story. What he was saying is you always have 47% against you, which in modern elections has almost always held true.
Quote:I wish both parties would just go to popular vote, if you want to know the truth. It's possible that superdelegates will decide it, but I don't think that will bode well for the Democrats, if so.
Won't happen. The current process while not designed as such does test a candidate for the long haul. Other nations look at this long process and think we are nuts. As to the Supers, without this system the Democrats end up picking unelectable loons. The 1972 wipeout showed this. Dean would have been unelectable. Bernie is a nut. The GOP does not have near this problem for some reason. The GOP just nominates losers like Dole because "it is their turn to run." It was Jeb's turn to run this time, why the Bush family is so anti-Trump.
Quote:Yeah, I have to believe they lose the white male, non-college educated, working class almost completely sooner-or-later. 2020 might not be the year, but I have to think that it's coming sooner or later. If not for Unions and economically liberal policies, they would have almost zero of this demographic anyway.
It is unions and their thinking it is still the party of JFK. I once had to explain to my dad that the Democrat Party was for all he disliked, except he was major pro-union and had a very, very hard time accepting that.
Quote:The other issue is that if the eventual nominee is not far enough to the left, then you will have a third-party candidate who pulls some of that vote. You have to find a way to unite everyone behind one candidate, but it's not really a united party. Neither are the Republicans, but the different Republican factions seem to do a better job of at least putting up with one another. Gotta give them that.
The GOP is a party based on a few core beliefs. The Democrat Party tends to be more of, "I hate that the other side is doing 'x' so if you support my issue I will support yours." While this might get you more people, in the end it makes you less united. A union guy is not going to want to sign on to someone who wants to run the coal industry out of business. A college professor probably looks at the blue collar "uneducated" worker and wonders what they have in common. Why should feminists have monolithic views on global warming?
The unions are the first to probably peel away. If they can reconcile that profitable business means profitable contracts (Walter Ruther!) and everything else the Democrats do is hurting them, they could jump. Sooner or later Blacks have to wonder what voting Democrat time after time is getting them. So the coalition has to be nurtured. But again, interests are sometimes 100% opposed.
Quote: Mission146(Insert Name Here) would destroy Pence in an absolute landslide. He's absurdly socially conservative and he has all the personality of an unpainted fence post.
That might be what is needed after 8 years of such a bombastic personality.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou do not understand Hillary. She is "me-me-me" and does not see her own weaknesses. Party has indeed moved left, power brokers still like her. Press will fawn all over her, again. But as I said, the fix will not be in this time. Supers have had power reduced. So she might run but have to drop out.
I think that if she does run again, it's going to look like Bush 2016 or maybe even Santorum 2016, something along those lines. She's going to be out of the ballgame fairly quickly.
I don't see why the power brokers, or anybody else, should like her. She's not going to energize the far left because she couldn't do it last time. More importantly, I really don't see why any Trump voters would swing over to Hillary. Trump may not have succeeded at all of the things he promised to do so far, (and probably won't) but everything that he has succeeded at is what he said he would do and what the Trump voters signed up for. I can't fathom any reason why a Trump-2016 voter would be a Clinton-2020 voter. What I can fathom is a few, "Never-Trump," Republicans having a change of heart from 2016 and there not being a right-of-center semi-serious third-party candidate again.
The Moderate Democrats just need to accept that they cannot win with Hillary. If she did somehow get the nomination, your far left is not only ticked off again...they're also despondent, because they know they are going to lose. The Democrats would not gain the Presidency, would not gain control of the Senate and would likely lose control of the House. It would be a completely demoralizing landslide in every conceivable way.
Quote:Romney had it until the Hurricane and Obama played that perfect. The 47% thing should have been a non-story. What he was saying is you always have 47% against you, which in modern elections has almost always held true.
Let me refresh your memory on the Romney quote:
Quote:“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. …These are people who pay no income tax. …and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
If he would have stopped at the words, "No matter what," he'd have been fine. He didn't think he was being recorded. Do you think he would ever say that in a speech? Then again, Hillary did put essentially every white working-class male in the Rust Belt in her, "Basket of Deplorables," because you know almost all of them would at least have considered Trump. She pushed that demographic right over to his side, just like Romney did with a few economically disenfranchised people who were looking to him to create jobs, not to chastise them, "Believe they are victims."
Do you know who else, "Pays no income tax?" People who are unemployed and whose time on unemployment has run out.
Honestly, Romney, in part, completely alienated the same Rust Belt group of people that Hillary did.
Quote:Won't happen. The current process while not designed as such does test a candidate for the long haul. Other nations look at this long process and think we are nuts. As to the Supers, without this system the Democrats end up picking unelectable loons. The 1972 wipeout showed this. Dean would have been unelectable. Bernie is a nut. The GOP does not have near this problem for some reason. The GOP just nominates losers like Dole because "it is their turn to run." It was Jeb's turn to run this time, why the Bush family is so anti-Trump.
How does popular vote NOT test a candidate for the long haul? It looks hopeless, then a candidate drops out. You would whittle the field down the same exact way.
I also don't know how you can bring up Democratic Superdelegates so favorably. You just basically said powerbrokers are the problem above, but the problem is partially mitigated because the superdelegates have had their power reduced.
As I recall, the whole field pretty well sucked in 2004.
Quote:It is unions and their thinking it is still the party of JFK. I once had to explain to my dad that the Democrat Party was for all he disliked, except he was major pro-union and had a very, very hard time accepting that.
It is what it is. The Democrats still have the Unions, whether you like it or not. Rightfully so. Why should workers put social conservatism above labor views that they think are beneficial to them anyway? I think they mostly care about what that piece of paper they get every other Friday says on it.
Quote:The GOP is a party based on a few core beliefs. The Democrat Party tends to be more of, "I hate that the other side is doing 'x' so if you support my issue I will support yours." While this might get you more people, in the end it makes you less united. A union guy is not going to want to sign on to someone who wants to run the coal industry out of business. A college professor probably looks at the blue collar "uneducated" worker and wonders what they have in common. Why should feminists have monolithic views on global warming?
In the most general of terms, you can break each party down into two general and overarching general philosophies. I think that the GOP does a better job of not alienating certain segments of its own supporters, I'll give them that much. Of course, like Romney, they occasionally manage to screw that up. That still only gets you your base, though. You still have to be able to convince Independents no matter how you slice it.
I think the far left is becoming so fervent in its SJW beliefs as to be borderline ridiculous. Also, as you saw with Franken, Democrats will turn on their own without a second's hesitation. It doesn't even have to be something like that. It seems that many on the far left, especially the much younger and less mature ones, make it a personal goal to be the most liberal. As a result, they like to jump all over anyone who says anything that they disagree with even slightly...even if that disagreement is perceived rather than actually real. Anything that's not PC, jump on the person. "Shame, shame!"
That's my view on it, anyway. They're basically the equivalent of religious adherents who attend every service and whisper in hushed tones about those who aren't, "Godly," enough and gossip with each other about every little thing. At least the most vocal of them. There's almost zero difference.
Quote:The unions are the first to probably peel away. If they can reconcile that profitable business means profitable contracts (Walter Ruther!) and everything else the Democrats do is hurting them, they could jump. Sooner or later Blacks have to wonder what voting Democrat time after time is getting them. So the coalition has to be nurtured. But again, interests are sometimes 100% opposed.
There's nothing to reconcile because that's not always true. Again, it's the same thing with USW having to negotiate any raises when they voluntarily gave up raises that they'd already had negotiated when business was down.
The IAWAW strike at Tecnocap just ended back in August after four months:
http://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2018/08/tecnocap-strike-ends-after-130-days-in-glen-dale/
The company wanted them to eat more of their health insurance costs, basically.
Even the USW agreement is set to see any wage increases largely offset by increases to their insurance premiums.
The fact of the matter is that only the first part of, "Trickle-Down," is ever guaranteed to happen, the tax cuts. When it comes time for the workers to get their share, sometimes not going to happen without a strike or a threat of a strike. After all, businesses exist to make the bottom line as big as possible, so it's understandable why they would want to keep those proceeds or invest them in other areas, workers are arguably more of a sunk cost than they are an investment, from a business standpoint.
Quote:That might be what is needed after 8 years of such a bombastic personality.
If we're going to go with a fairly bland Republican, I'll take Jeb Bush. Honestly, I don't think Pence is Moderate enough to ever win. I think most independents would be a hard no.
Quote: Mission146I think that if she does run again, it's going to look like Bush 2016 or maybe even Santorum 2016, something along those lines. She's going to be out of the ballgame fairly quickly.
I don't see why the power brokers, or anybody else, should like her.
Pretend you are a powerbroker.
"Hey, how's the family? Good that you keep them safe. Man needs to have family."
Get it? You really think Biden just decided not to run on his own? The Clintons are experts at destroying people to get their way.
Quote:She's not going to energize the far left because she couldn't do it last time. More importantly, I really don't see why any Trump voters would swing over to Hillary. Trump may not have succeeded at all of the things he promised to do so far, (and probably won't) but everything that he has succeeded at is what he said he would do and what the Trump voters signed up for. I can't fathom any reason why a Trump-2016 voter would be a Clinton-2020 voter. What I can fathom is a few, "Never-Trump," Republicans having a change of heart from 2016 and there not being a right-of-center semi-serious third-party candidate again.
The Moderate Democrats just need to accept that they cannot win with Hillary. If she did somehow get the nomination, your far left is not only ticked off again...they're also despondent, because they know they are going to lose. The Democrats would not gain the Presidency, would not gain control of the Senate and would likely lose control of the House. It would be a completely demoralizing landslide in every conceivable way.
For some reason, a large amount of people think people "like her." Or think she is likable. Or that we should like her. Really, she is the least personable pol I can think of in my lifetime that has gotten as far as she has. It really came out in the campaign. The "rope box" around her during that parade. Saw a state fair she was at, she was eating some kind of fair food, what ain't the question. People asking her "how do you like it?" She just ignored them, no nod, no thumbs up, nothing. Just a "how much longer do I have to be around these hicks" look on her face. But for some reason, she keeps getting push from the media.
Let me refresh your memory on the Romney quote:
Quote:“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. …These are people who pay no income tax. …and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
He spoke the truth though.
Quote:How does popular vote NOT test a candidate for the long haul? It looks hopeless, then a candidate drops out. You would whittle the field down the same exact way.
I am not following. Primaries use the popular vote. Caucuses are open to all, though on the Democrat side they winnow off the unviable candidates. Doing it in stages tests the long haul though. But I would like to get it down to just 4-6 weeks.
Quote:I also don't know how you can bring up Democratic Superdelegates so favorably. You just basically said powerbrokers are the problem above, but the problem is partially mitigated because the superdelegates have had their power reduced.
As I recall, the whole field pretty well sucked in 2004.
2004 was a bad field, same as 1992 was. In both cases, nobody wanted to spend the effort early when a Bush looked unbeatable. Bill Clinton would have never gotten the nomination in a stronger field. Come to think of it, he got it the same way Hillary did, just 1 other candidate most of the way and said candidate was a loon. I am not trying to sound favorable to the Supers, just explaining it as it is. They are like an engine governor to the party, keeping it from revving so fast it blows the engine.
Quote:I think the far left is becoming so fervent in its SJW believes as to be borderline ridiculous. Also, as you saw with Franken, Democrats will turn on their own without a second's hesitation. It doesn't even have to be something like that. It seems that many on the far left, especially the much younger and less mature ones, make it a personal goal to be the most liberal. As a result, they like to jump all over anyone who says anything that they disagree with even slightly...even if that disagreement is perceived rather than actually real. Anything that's not PC, jump on the person. "Shame, shame!"
The SJW thing is a bunch of crazies, and hopefully eventually collapses under its own weight. These people do not live in the real world. I saw a YT video on student loan debt where the girl wanted to be a lawyer specializing in "social justice." That is not a law specialty, that is a hobby. Maybe one day they realize they cannot make the world "fair" and give up. More likely is they continue to congregate in colleges and a few cities and leave the rest of us alone. Though they are good for laughs.
Quote:The fact of the matter is that only the first part of, "Trickle-Down," is ever guaranteed to happen, the tax cuts. When it comes time for the workers to get their share, sometimes not going to happen without a strike or a threat of a strike. After all, businesses exist to make the bottom line as big as possible, so it's understandable why they would want to keep those proceeds or invest them in other areas, workers are arguably more of a sunk cost than they are an investment, from a business standpoint.
People think supply-side is "magic" and the next week they should get a raise. Not how it works. Tax cut means some guy decides to buy a car. Car needs steel and other materials. Steel mill and other mills hire. Those materials need gas to produce. I help make the gas well happen. While making it happen, I buy coffee at the college bookstore and pizza at DiCarlos. Those people spend their money wherever. You are better off because we are all better off.
John Delaney It bears mentioning that John Delaney has already announced he is running. I will list everything I know about John Delaney:
1.) John Delaney is a Democrat.
/List
Actually, I know that John Delaney is also both white and male. Those are probably strikes one and two for anybody not named, "Joe Biden," or, "Bernie Sanders."
CONCLUSION: Non-Factor
Ahhh....screw the list. I don't really know enough about the Democratic side to make predictions without help. Let's see what BeachBumBabs said:
Quote: beachbumbabsPredictions. Candidates. Democrats. If Biden declares, he will win, and several other strong candidates will not run. If he doesn't become a candidate, Kamela Harris will run, and win. Other candidates in a non-Biden race will be Booker, Warren, Avenatti, Steyer, maybe Bernie, couple others I don't see yet. I don't see any of them other than maybe Warren and for sure Harris being a serious contender against Trump.
I'd like to see Amy Klobuchar run, but I don't think she will - if she did, it's conceivable she could win the nomination, but I think she's too nice in this age of mean. Harris is not nice, which is in her favor for a race against Trump - she also scares the hell out of a lot of men, including the Senators she serves with. She is the only person fast and deft enough to grind and disrupt Trump (other than Biden, but he's a different kind of tough). Hillary will not run again.
I think Biden has a pretty good chance to win if he runs, with only Oprah or Michelle Obama being major threats to him if either of them decide to run. Of course, Obama won't if Biden does.
For Oprah, it's really just a question of whether or not she wishes to be President. She'd win the Democratic nomination, against anybody, in an absolute landslide. She would dominate Trump in the REPUBLICAN WOMAN demographic, not speaking to what she would do to him among women overall. She has said she's not running, though.
If Avenatti wins the Democratic nomination, I will start voting for Republicans. I won't even look at who they are. Just Republicans, solid ticket, rest of my life.
I think Bernie is too old. What!? Biden is only two years younger!? Damn!
I don't know enough about anyone else BBB said to have an opinion. Isn't Kirsten Gillibrand supposed to be a Senator who is considering running?
So far, here is my order that I would vote for candidates in the Democratic Primary, assuming they ran and subject to change:
1.) Michelle Obama
2.) Joe Biden
3.) Oprah Winfrey
I think any of those three could conceivably beat Trump, with Oprah probably having the best chance, but would be far from locks. I think Biden could make Trump look the most silly in a debate, quite frankly, I think he'd wipe the floor with him. He was very charitable and merciful to Sarah Palin (fortunately for her) and made Paul Ryan look like an idiot.
Quote: AZDuffmanPretend you are a powerbroker.
"Hey, how's the family? Good that you keep them safe. Man needs to have family."
Get it? You really think Biden just decided not to run on his own? The Clintons are experts at destroying people to get their way.
If you say so. I just don't think the power brokers would want Clinton 2020 because they might decide they have at least a passing interest in winning, instead.
Quote:For some reason, a large amount of people think people "like her." Or think she is likable. Or that we should like her. Really, she is the least personable pol I can think of in my lifetime that has gotten as far as she has. It really came out in the campaign. The "rope box" around her during that parade. Saw a state fair she was at, she was eating some kind of fair food, what ain't the question. People asking her "how do you like it?" She just ignored them, no nod, no thumbs up, nothing. Just a "how much longer do I have to be around these hicks" look on her face. But for some reason, she keeps getting push from the media.
I don't particularly care for anything about her. I especially don't care for candidates of destiny rather than choice. She would have been more likely than Trump to compel me to vote for her, but that said, she didn't come even particularly close to getting my vote.
Quote:He spoke the truth though.
If you believe that, I hope you never run for office. You had guys long out of work in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, they didn't want handouts...they wanted jobs. The economy was recovering, but it wasn't quite there for everybody yet. Romney could have made a compelling argument that he could get it there even faster than Obama, instead he disenfranchised them. Good work. Obama-Trump voters were a big part of 2016, the votes who lost it for Romney won it for Trump.
Quote:I am not following. Primaries use the popular vote. Caucuses are open to all, though on the Democrat side they winnow off the unviable candidates. Doing it in stages tests the long haul though. But I would like to get it down to just 4-6 weeks.
You could do it in stages and still have it be based on popular vote. The states don't all have to vote on the same day.
Quote:2004 was a bad field, same as 1992 was. In both cases, nobody wanted to spend the effort early when a Bush looked unbeatable. Bill Clinton would have never gotten the nomination in a stronger field. Come to think of it, he got it the same way Hillary did, just 1 other candidate most of the way and said candidate was a loon. I am not trying to sound favorable to the Supers, just explaining it as it is. They are like an engine governor to the party, keeping it from revving so fast it blows the engine.
I'm afraid I'm not old enough to have an opinion on this. The only thing I can say for sure is that there were two other guys besides Clinton who both got a similar number of votes.
Quote:The SJW thing is a bunch of crazies, and hopefully eventually collapses under its own weight. These people do not live in the real world. I saw a YT video on student loan debt where the girl wanted to be a lawyer specializing in "social justice." That is not a law specialty, that is a hobby. Maybe one day they realize they cannot make the world "fair" and give up. More likely is they continue to congregate in colleges and a few cities and leave the rest of us alone. Though they are good for laughs.
I don't find anything about them even remotely amusing.
Quote:People think supply-side is "magic" and the next week they should get a raise. Not how it works. Tax cut means some guy decides to buy a car. Car needs steel and other materials. Steel mill and other mills hire. Those materials need gas to produce. I help make the gas well happen. While making it happen, I buy coffee at the college bookstore and pizza at DiCarlos. Those people spend their money wherever. You are better off because we are all better off.
I'm just explaining why Unions favor Democrats and encourage their members to do the same. Although, I will say that a handful of rich guys aren't out buying thousands of economy cars.
And, for those already working, even if you were right, product demand would go up which drives up prices...but their wages haven't changed.
Trump declares voting rigged (even though he won in 2020)
Republicans pass bill eliminating votes and declare Trump president for life
Any person right or left who says a peep against trump thrown in prison and investigated by the newly appointed FBI
9 Republican justices overturn everything including the 13th amendment (Kanye in chains saying its the best thing that happened to him)
Trumps son changes his name to Snow in anticipation of the Hungry games
With this new Democratic Socialism movement seeming to gain momentum, quite frankly I don't see why the Democratic party is getting 99% of the vote. I mean think about their message. It's basically "vote for me because I deem this 1% rich guy over here shouldn't have all that money so I'm going to take it away from it him and use it to pay for your health care, education, jobs etc." It's basically just a legal bribe to get votes and power. The answer is 50% do fall for that. The bright side is 49% somehow don't. They don't want redistribution of wealth and government controlled everything because some people believe in the traditional work ethic. Also if you have ever actually tried to use a government program you realize that very little actually gets to the end recipient. It just all gets eaten in the bureaucracy.
I was and am a huge Trump supporter (from the beginning). I never thought he would win. No shot whatsoever. The American people proved they could get something right once, I don't have faith that they will get it right again. It was a perfect storm that came together at the right time. If the election were this year, I think Trump loses. He will carry Florida and Ohio and possibly Michigan but I think he loses Pennsylvania.
I think Biden probably has the best chance, although I think his age is a legitimate factor. I think the American people see right through the fakeness of Senators Spartacus and Harris. They are just attention seekers with no substance.
I agree with your entire first paragraph, though I would increase your 6% in the middle to maybe 8-10%. Definitely agree about the importance of a motivated base.
When it comes to your second paragraph, Economics is an inexact thing. I think both sides can make compelling arguments in that regard. Honestly, if the Republicans could abandon conservative social views without losing the Religuous right, I think there are plenty of Democrats who could be swayed. You can’t lose the Evangelicals, though, so you at least have to pay lip service to conservative social views.
I disagree with part of your third and fourth paragraphs.. My opinion is that Trump is a slight-moderate favorite going in. Oprah destroys him. Other than that, I think he’s a slight favorite or moderate favorite against anyone.
Quote: Mission146
I'm afraid I'm not old enough to have an opinion on this. The only thing I can say for sure is that there were two other guys besides Clinton who both got a similar number of votes.
Kids.......
In 1991 we had the Gulf War. Bush41 was amazingly popular. SNL even had a sketch of various leading Democrats saying they were not the man to run against him. He looked unbeatable 18 months out. If the election were held in Spring of 1991 it would have been another 49 state sweep. Then the recession lingered, and Bush41 played prevent defense. His popularity waned. Meanwhile, a few Democrats did give it a shot. After the initial start it was Clinton, Tsongs, and Brown. Brown was a non-factor. Barely a spoiler. Then out of the blue, Tsongas drops out. Even with proven marital infidelity, Clinton won the nomination and with the split vote with Perot won.
In early 2002, Bush43 was probably more popular than any POTUS of our day. If the election were held in spring of 2002, Bush 43 would have won 51 states (Ontario would have joined the USA to vote for him.) This time more Democrats ran but it was a circus. Al Sharoton was always a joke candidate. Shelia Jackson Lee was half forced to run and dropped out the day before Iowa. Howard Dean got some energy but the Bush admin could barely contain themselves from saying they wish he would get the nomination. Kerry was there and I forget who else.
And all thru 2003 their debates were "I HATE BUSH MORE THAN YOU DO!" While Dean was leading going into IA, it was as if at the caucuses people said, "Dean? Are you on drugs?!" The boring Kerry was the best available pol and he got it, then proceeded to make a fool of himself with double talk almost the whole way. Bush43 managed to almost lose to such a guy by playing prevent defense.
So we get 2020. While Sharpton might be too old, look for several goofs to run in the same way he did. To get attention. The guy selling "I HATE TRUMP" merch outside the debates will be able to buy any Cadillac he wants. The media will decide which minority candidate to give pro-wrestling level push. Trump will find pet names for the ones that do not have one yet, driving the media nuts. A good thing for Trump, the more nuts the media the better he does.
Probably going to be 12-18 candidates. Some will drop out in 2019. Some will cry that they are not getting attention at the debates. Some will try to emulate Trump style to get attention, and that will fail like the Edsel. (Or Aztek) When the dust settles at IA you will see one "electable" candidate, maybe Biden. And one far-left candidate, way too hard to tell. Then the struggle for the soul of the Democrat Party begins.
Trump probably wins re-election. And a violent 2020s starts.
Quote: Mission146Republican: How do you define, "Valiant effort?" I think somebody will make, "An effort," and will lose by a country mile.
Yeah, thats all I meant.
Also you are right, the people ranking him as the worst president in history are historically stupid. I am not saying he is great by any means, but we have had some f***ing idiots for presidents.
Elizabeth Warren - Not a Chance
Bernie Sanders - Only if he can promise enough free stuff
I’m a registered independent, but I switch my party affiliation to whichever party’s primary I want to have a vote in.
Then I immediately switch back to independent, out of principle more than anything.
Quote: WizardLet the record show on this date I'm predicting Kamala Harris to be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
I strongly believe she has a chance to run
She is strong smart and probably scary to white old male republicans
Her questioning of kavanaugh was almost district attorney in your face
She has my vote
New testimony from the former top lawyer at the FBI confirms that it was the Democrats who were colluding with the Russians, in some cases even through their cutouts. daily caller, ny timesQuote: darkozTrump probably gets reelected if Putin helps him win again
"James Baker, who served as FBI’s general counsel until he resigned in May, testified to Congress on Wednesday that Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the firm Perkins Coie, provided documents and electronic media related to Russian meddling in the election.
Perkins Coie is the firm that hired opposition researcher Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The result of the contract was the infamous but unverified Steele dossier alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.
Sources familiar with Baker’s testimony to the House Judiciary and House Oversight & Government Reform Committees tell The Daily Caller News Foundation that he said Sussmann approached him for the meeting, which occurred in late summer or early fall 2016. (RELATED: Top FBI Attorney Provided ‘Explosive’ Testimony Regarding Trump-Russia Probe)
The meeting took place before the FBI submitted an application for its first FISA warrant against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. That warrant application, which was granted on Oct. 21, 2016, relied heavily on unverified allegations made in the report authored by former British spy Christopher Steele.
Steele had been hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016 to investigate Trump. , , , .
DNC officials first met with senior FBI officials about the computer hacks in mid-June 2016, The New York Times reported on Dec. 13, 2016. Sussmann is not identified as taking part in the meeting, but he is quoted heavily in the Times piece.
Sussmann also appears to have provided information to Baker that was separate from hacks of the DNC’s computer systems.
“In September 2016 [redacted] shared similar information in a one-on-one meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker,” reads a footnote in a report on Russian meddling released by the House Intelligence Committee’s report on April 27.
The report does not identify Sussmann, but it refers to an interview conducted with the committee on Dec. 18, 2017, the same day as Sussmann’s testimony.
The report goes on to say that at “around the same time as his meeting with FBI, [redacted] shared the information with journalists, including [redacted] of Slate, who published an article at the end of October.”
The footnote then cites an article published on Oct. 31, 2016 by Slate’s Franklin Foer. The piece claimed that the Trump Organization’s computer servers were secretly communicating with those of Alfa Bank, a Russian bank.
Foer’s report was quickly dismissed by news outlets and cyber security experts."
Honestly, my blood pressure cant take this anymore. How can every single person in this country be so uneducated about law and the Constitution. Oh I know, just look at the TV airwaves, social media, media in general, and the public school system. There's your answer. When 99% of the country can tell you what Kim Kardashian is up to and which celebrity cheated on who, but cant recite the Bill of Rights, then god help us all.
Quote: ZenKinGWHO CARES about the 2020 FEDERAL election. Jesus Christ. You want proof of drone disease in this country, just look at all the Trump and federal election threads on this website. Where are all the STATE ELECTION threads? You know, the election that ACTUALLY matters and will affect 95% of your life going foward. If you actually read and understood your Constitution, you would know that, wouldnt you? You would know the federal government is very restricted in what they can do to each citizen in their respective states. You would know this was set up not by coincidence, but because our founding fathers knew the dangers of a central govt with too much power. You would also know that your state elected representatives will be the ones representing you in Congress, you know, the same Congress that actually MAKES and PASSES the laws, not some drone puppet President that cant do shit by himself. Sure, the President has his role, but it's military and foreign relations related and will affect your life very little going forward.
Honestly, my blood pressure cant take this anymore. How can every single person in this country be so uneducated about law and the Constitution. Oh I know, just look at the TV airwaves, social media, media in general, and the public school system. There's your answer. When 99% of the country can tell you what Kim Kardashian is up to and which celebrity cheated on who, but cant recite the Bill of Rights, then god help us all.
When 99% of the voters in this country think they can influence the outcome of a slot machine by rubbing the glass as the reels spin...
Oh crap, we're all in trouble!
Quote: darkoz
She is strong smart and probably scary to white old male republicans
Her questioning of kavanaugh was almost district attorney in your face
She has my vote
She looked like a fool on her questioning from what I saw. Asking questions that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, not accepting legit answers.
Quote: AZDuffmanShe looked like a fool on her questioning from what I saw. Asking questions that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, not accepting legit answers.
Kavanaugh didnt have any answers.
Just kept repeating the question about who she was referring too. Usually a sign of guilt and an attempt not to perjure yourself while fishing for the smallest information you need to answe without admitting what you did
A pure childs tactic most mothers can see thru. Kamala saw right thru it
And yeah, from your reply, she already has you scared lol
Quote: darkozKavanaugh didnt have any answers.
Because there was not a legit question, just loaded questions to try to make him look bad.
Scared that low information voters will put such an unqualified goof in power? Always! We had the same in 2008.
Nothing short of him being removed as the nominee would have satisfied those against him. Not a single Democrat vote changed from the time he was nominated until the time of the vote. A couple of fence-sitters did not announce votes but they were pretty much politically expedient votes anyway--the calculation wasn't about what Kavanaugh may have done but what the impact on the election pending for each Senator would be. Manchin only voted "Yes" because the confirmation was a done deal and that would help him most in the election.
The transcript of her questioning:
HARRIS: Thank you. Judge Kavanaugh, have you taken a professionally administered polygraph test, as it relates to this issue?
KAVANAUGH: No, the — I’ll do whatever the committee wants. Of course, those are not admissible in Federal court, but I’ll do whatever the committee wants, they’re not admissible in Federal court because they’re not reliable —
HARRIS: Thank you — thank you.
KAVANAUGH: As you know.
HARRIS: So you’ve not taken one?
KAVANAUGH: Right.
HARRIS: All three of the women who have made sworn allegations against you have called for an independent FBI investigation in to the claims. You’ve been asked during the course of this hearing — by four different members by my count, at least eight times today, and also earlier this week on national television whether you would call for the White House to authorize an FBI investigation.
Each time you have declined to do so. Now you know, I know you do — that the FBI is an agency of men and women who are sworn and trained law enforcement who in the course of conducting background investigations on nominees for the Supreme Court of the United States and others, are charged with conducting those background investigations because they are sworn law enforcement and they have the expertise and the ability and the history of doing that.
So I’m going to ask you one last time, are you willing to ask the White House to authorize the FBI to investigate the claims that have been made against you?
KAVANAUGH: I’ll do whatever the committee wants, of course —
HARRIS: And I’ve heard you say that —
KAVANAUGH: The witness statements —
HARRIS: But I’ve not heard you answer a very specific question that’s been asked, which is, are you willing to ask the White House to conduct an investigation by the FBI to get to whatever you believe is the bottom of the allegations that have been levied against you?
KAVANAUGH: The FBI would gather witness statements, you have witness statements —
HARRIS: Sir, it’s — I don’t want to debate with you how they do their business, I’m just asking are you willing to ask the White House to conduct such an investigation? Because as you are aware, the FBI did conduct a background investigation in to you, before we were aware of these most recent allegations. So are you willing to ask the White House to do it — and say yes or no and then we can move on.
KAVANAUGH: I’ve had six background investigations over 26 years —
HARRIS: Sir, as it relates to the recent allegations are you willing to have them do it?
KAVANAUGH: The witness testimonies before you know a witness who was there, supports that I was there —
HARRIS: OK, I’m going to take that as a no and we can move on. You have said in your opening statement, you characterized these allegations as a conspiracy directed against you. I’ll point out to you that Judge — Justice now, Neil Gorsuch was nominated by this president.
He was considered by this body, just last year. I did a rough kind of analysis of similarities — you both attended Georgetown Prep, you both attended very prestigious law schools, you both clerked for Justice Kennedy, you were both circuit judges, you were both nominated to the Supreme Court, you were both questioned about your record — the only difference is that you have been accused of sexual assault.
How do you reconcile your statement about a conspiracy against you with the treatment of someone who was before this body not very long ago?
KAVANAUGH: I explained that in my opening statement, Senator. Look at the evidence here, the calendars, look at the witness statements, look at Ms. Keyser’s statement.
HARRIS: OK. And then, do you agree that it is possible for men to both be friends with some women, and treat other women badly?
KAVANAUGH: Of course, but the point I’ve been emphasizing and that is if you go back to age 14 for me — you will find people, and not just people, lots of people who I’ve been friends with. Some of whom are in this room today, starting at age 14, women. And who’ve talked about my friendships with them through my whole life, and it’s a consistent (ph) pattern all the way through.
Sixty-five women, who knew me more than 35 years ago, signed a letter to support me after the allegation was made because they know me, and they were with me, and we grew up together, we talked on the phone together and we went to events together. That is who I am.
What the people who worked with me in the Bush White House, the — the women there, look at what Sarah Day said in CentralMaine.com. Look at the — what the law clerks — I have sent more women law clerks to the Supreme Court than any other federal judge in the country.
HARRIS: I only have a few seconds left and I’ll just ask you a direct question. Did you watch Dr. Ford’s testimony?
KAVANAUGH: I did not. I plan to…
HARRIS: Thank you, I have nothing else…
KAVANAUGH: … I plan to…
HARRIS: … Thank you.
KAVANAUGH: … I plan to. But I did not because I was preparing mine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.7b99de2b5f65
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause there was not a legit question, just loaded questions to try to make him look bad.
What a weak argument. Can't handle questions like a boss, didn't deserve that high position.
Quote: RonCshe kept asking if he would call for further investigations. It isn't his call to make and why would he make it?
BECAUSE that's what an innocent person would demand to clear their name. A full and complete investigation is the solution. WHY wasn't he for it if he was so ruined?
Quote: rxwineBECAUSE that's what an innocent person would demand to clear their name. A full and complete investigation is the solution. WHY wasn't he for it if he was so ruined?
So saying that he would submit to whatever examination the committee determined was necessary is not enough? He should have jumped up and down and said "Gee, investigate me more...drag my family through more....I want more, ma'am"?
Ridiculous.
Not one Democrat would have accepted the investigation and voted "Yes" (excluding the politically expedient votes) no matter how long it took to do whatever a "complete" investigation would look like. There is no way to be 100% sure what happened 26 years ago. No one corroborated her story. The Democrats were "No" from before the hearing started...
They would be "No" if he had been removed as the nominee and replaced by another conservative.
Quote: RonCSo saying that he would submit to whatever examination the committee determined was necessary is not enough? He should have jumped up and down and said "Gee, investigate me more...drag my family through more....I want more, ma'am"?
Ridiculous..
No, the guy presented himself as golden.. DID you see the promos for him with all those women vouching for the angel. HE couldn't lose, right?
The Democrats can do us all a favor and keep it in the news, including threatening impeachment. The longer they do that and grab the headlines with it, the less any of their positions on issues will be heard. Republicans thought impeaching Clinton would be a winner for them; it gave them a narrower margin in the House than they had going into that election.
We'll see which side stays awake until Election Day. People are fickle.
********************
What happens in the 2018 election cycle will get us started towards 2020. 25 months until the 2020 election!
Quote: AZDuffmanShe looked like a fool on her questioning from what I saw. Asking questions that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, not accepting legit answers.
There was no matter at hand. You knew the motivation never had anything to do with the allegations when the goalposts immediately moved from the unverifiable allegations potentially disqualifying to his demeanor while being railroaded being the disqualification.
I agree with everything you said, except I think you’re not giving Manchin enough credit. He’s been bipartisan his entire time on the Senate, voted for cloture, voted for Gorsuch, employed both conservative and liberal policies as a Governor.
Like I said, a WV Democrat really is a very moderate Republican anywhere else.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to call the IRS and request they audit my entire tax history, so I can prove no wrongdoing. After I do that, I need to drive over to the police department and demand they tear everything out of the inside of my car and have a drug dog sniff the undercarriage so they know I’m not transporting any drugs.
Re: Democratic Issues. They have issues this year? Any idea what their stances are? I know, “Trump BAD,” is one, but is there anything else they stand for right now?
1. He doesn't seem to be enjoying himself as President.
2. He has cemented his brand by being President for one term. No advantage to his brand in being President for a second term.
3. Realistically he might lose the next election, which would hurt his brand and tarnish his legacy.
4. He doesn't like living in the White House or DC area.
5. He would like to return to actively run his business.
6. Campaigning is very hard unglamorous work.
7. He will be four years older than he was last time - and age is not "just a number." Your energy level declines, as does your overall health. Slowing down becomes progressively more attractive for most people as you age.
Quote: Mission146RonC,
I agree with everything you said, except I think you’re not giving Manchin enough credit. He’s been bipartisan his entire time on the Senate, voted for cloture, voted for Gorsuch, employed both conservative and liberal policies as a Governor.
Like I said, a WV Democrat really is a very moderate Republican anywhere else.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to call the IRS and request they audit my entire tax history, so I can prove no wrongdoing. After I do that, I need to drive over to the police department and demand they tear everything out of the inside of my car and have a drug dog sniff the undercarriage so they know I’m not transporting any drugs.
Re: Democratic Issues. They have issues this year? Any idea what their stances are? I know, “Trump BAD,” is one, but is there anything else they stand for right now?
Youre up for supreme court justice?
Quote: Mission146RonC,
Re: Democratic Issues. They have issues this year? Any idea what their stances are? I know, “Trump BAD,” is one, but is there anything else they stand for right now?
Look up the platform last election. Different emphasis is likely is all. Maybe one new issue to really focus on.
Quote: Mission146
Re: Democratic Issues. They have issues this year? Any idea what their stances are? I know, “Trump BAD,” is one, but is there anything else they stand for right now?
They are promising higher taxes and open borders if elected.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey are promising higher taxes and open borders if elected.
Open borders? Cool! I’ll have to take a closer look!
#LibertarianLife
I still believe in being part of the conversation and fixing things from within, but there is no longer any shred of the party I joined there, no conversation we can have. And, once Trump is out of office, no party to sustain. Every reasonable, bipartisan, decent person has left or is leaving. Further, the party is villifying everyone still trying to inject a note of sanity or opposition to the goose-stepping mindless attacks and undermining.
So I'm gone. This morning I changed my registration to Democrat. Yuck. But there do seem to be at least a few people of reason and moderation left there. And increasingly, I agree with their stances in opposition to what the "Republicans" are doing and how they comport themselves.
Sadly, the time is coming where everyone must make a black and white choice. I think we are the closest we have been in post- Civil War history to losing it all. And 18% of this country forcing their extreme agenda on the rest of us is the powder keg. Not sure what will be the match. Maybe it's already lit.
Quote: beachbumbabsCongratulations, Republican Party. 42 years ago this month, I registered with you. I have hung in with you during years of declining values, relevancy, greed, and corruption.
I still believe in being part of the conversation and fixing things from within, but there is no longer any shred of the party I joined there, no conversation we can have. And, once Trump is out of office, no party to sustain. Every reasonable, bipartisan, decent person has left or is leaving. Further, the party is villifying everyone still trying to inject a note of sanity or opposition to the goose-stepping mindless attacks and undermining.
So I'm gone. This morning I changed my registration to Democrat. Yuck. But there do seem to be at least a few people of reason and moderation left there. And increasingly, I agree with their stances in opposition to what the "Republicans" are doing and how they comport themselves.
Sadly, the time is coming where everyone must make a black and white choice. I think we are the closest we have been in post- Civil War history to losing it all.
Well, you have not supported one thing the GOP stands for on this board that I have ever seen. You seem to hate Reagan. You seem to hate anyone popular with the party. You have supported everything the Democrat side says or does. You have attacked everything the GOP has done. Even with the GOP shift left over the last 20 years. You complain about "attacks" yet joined the party of trying to destroy Kavanaugh and making any kind of lowbrow attack on any conservative acceptable.
See you at the polls!
