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.
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.
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.
Republican: 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
- Threads: 1145
- Posts: 19336
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.
Let 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: darkoz
Trump 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.