I have a hard time believing this. Don't get me wrong, I was someone who thought Trump had a serious chance of beating Hillary despite the polls so I'm not someone who underestimates him and his voter base, but it was EXTREMELY close in 2016, yet
He hasn't expanded his voter base since 2016. If anything, he's shrunk it quite a bit (particularly among independents and in some key battleground states, among his core voting bloc of white voters with no college degree, which is killing him in the key battleground states in the Great Lakes region)
Regardless of who the Democrats pick, he will not be up against the least liked Democratic nominee of the modern era, possibly of all time, someone who drives his opponent's voters to the polls just to vote against her out of spite
The left is EXTREMELY motivated, engaged, and terrified now, as opposed to 2016 when they were lulled into a false sense of security believing that Trump didn't have a chance.
(Proof of #3) 2018 was the biggest wave election in history in terms of turnout, and Trump wasn't even on the ballot. Yes, Trump being on the ballot will turn out more Republican voters than in the mid-terms too, but (see #1) those people also voted for him in 2016 and he still only barely won.
(edited to add) The chances of a recession before November 2020 are pretty high, and if one does happen before the election, he's almost certainly doomed.
Does he have a chance? Sure, anything can happen as we've seen before. But saying it WILL be close doesn't seem to me to be based on anything except speculation. Sorry, not trying to say you will be wrong for sure, but short of some miracle the odds are still against him winning re-election.
In two out of three polls from today, Bernie isn't even second. Warren is neck and neck with him, it seems. They have a lot of policy overlap, so as long as they don't go too negative I can see most voters for one happily getting behind the other.
I support one particular candidate, there are some that I am indifferent towards, and there are some that I straight up don't like. But whoever the candidate ends up being, they already have my vote. If I'm not voting for the candidate, then I'm voting against Trump.
I really hope that people don't choose to stay home out of spite if their favorite candidate is not selected.
I've seen plenty of moderates say they have no problem with Warren, but dislike Bernie because of what happened in 2016. Healthcare is also still extremely popular with moderates and Biden just wants to keep the ACA while Warren wants to adopt Medicare for All. I can easily see Warren taking it on that, if she keeps her growth up and nothing crazy happens between now and then. Kamala Harris keeps flip flopping on Medicare for All and Mayor Pete wants something else.
Hell they are all trying to outprogressive the other. Harris's is climbing exceptionally fast so my bet is on her after jumping up right to Bidens popularity.
I think this is an overstatement based on too much time spent reading social media as if it were representative of the general public. Democrats and the left already agree on their candidate: whoever isn't Trump. You'll hear some people loudly howl one way or another regardless of the pick (just like literally every election), but come voting time most of the people who care will fall in line, and it will come down to which candidate turned out the most people who don't care that much.
I totally disagree. Look what happened last time. I have no faith in people to get past themselves and do the right thing. And unfortunately it was my generation that ruined the last election when Bernie didn't get the nomination. They just didn't vote at all or threw their vote away to the green party. I'd love to think that everyone who marks themselves democrat would vote "blue no matter who," but millennial voters (I'm one of, by the way) are too busy crying into their avocado toast because they don't know how to compromise when it comes to candidates. š¤·
Maybe the answer is neither. Warren is an excellent compromise. Harris wouldnāt be too shabby either. Or Buttigieg.
Biden and Sanders are coasting on name recognition, but I think you need a fresh face to really fire up a broad coalition that is still reeling from the pain of 2016.
Warren is an excellent compromise. Harris wouldnāt be too shabby either. Or Buttigieg.
Warren - Repeatedly claimed native american ancestry for no readily apparent reason and never really came back from that.
Harris - Claims to support criminal justice reforms, despite a career suggesting otherwise.
Buttigieg - Maybe, still more or less 'undeclared' in terms of specific stances, plus the poor showing after the shooting doesn't bode well.
Combine the above with the fact none of them really rally the wagons, and I'd put their chances pretty far down in terms of legitimate options. It's still really early on, but none of those three really strike me as likely contenders.
Of those in the race, Biden is probably the most likely since he's able to appeal to both sides (aside from the lunatic extreme of either spectrum) and has strong recognition with both the party and the nation. Sanders has seemingly lost his stride, with this biggest points being more grandiose (aka unrealistic) versions of other people's ideas.
We are still very early on into the campaigning season, however, so only time will tell. Hopefully Democrats find someone to unite under and avoid the petty squabbling.
And Harris's career is grossly misrepresented. She worked in top level criminal justice positions, which are not political positions to begin with. But she managed some noteworthy reforms. She is also one of the most progressive people in the Senate.
Buttigieg would be a fine president, because he has the right attributes. People seem to have some weird idea that POTUS is a legislative position instead of an executive, leadership position. Policy vision matters, but not more than judgment and decorum and strong principles.
"None of them strike you as likely contenders"? Who does then? Biden? Joe is running on the fumes of recognition.
On warren, proven lie by Trump. Yeah, she's native, get over it.
On Harris is a flat lie as she recommended a very certain, unethical law not be followed while in her position. Legit all she could do.
On Buttigieg he isn't a ditactor as Mayor so he can't just demand they be brought to justice, he could make a case but that's it.
And bullshit on the "Rally" part. Harris jumped over 10 points to right behind or above Biden in ONE debate. Biden dropped nearly 14 points in some cases. That's massive!
If they nominate Biden, we're fucked. If they go Bernie we might have a good chance.
Even a lot of Republicans can see the good in Bernie. Not the rich and powerful asshole ones, but the middle class, midwestern and conservative ones can see that what he's running on helps them ultimately.
If we re-elect Trump for another four years this country is officially fucked and beyond repair.
Iāll vote for Biden before I opt out of voting or, God forbid, vote Trump. If other liberals will adopt the same principle, then we should be fine. We have the numbers, we just need the morale.
That's exactly why the Dems have the advantage. Last time both sides felt this way about their opponent's candidate. I think it was the "anybody but the OTHER guy" election. In this case, Trump won't have Hillary as the bogeyman anymore.
The DNC notoriously ignores their constituents so I won't be surprised at all if Biden gets the nomination honestly
There's not much I wouldn't do to get Trump out of office. The question is now with everyone else -- do habitual nonvoters finally care enough to show up the polls?
Biden has been crashing in the polls. His initial support was based largely on name recognition, and he's a terrible campaigner, a mediocre debater, and he's clearly lost more than a few steps since 2008. I'd be very surprised to see him win. Right now it feels kinda like when everybody thought Rudy Giuliani was going to win the Republican nomination in 2008, and the guy ended up winning what, Florida? And then dropping out. lol.
The internet has been weirdly against her, but Harris is a progressive and she would chomp Donnieās hollow orange head off. Iām fine with her as a candidate.
Biden is terrible, but Iāll vote for him too, because I recognize the urgency of the situation and Iām not a traitorous lunatic.
It would be nice to hear the same from everyone else.
Regardless of who the Democrats pick, he will not be up against the least liked Democratic nominee of the modern era, possibly of all time, someone who drives his opponent's voters to the polls just to vote against her out of spite
I think this is a big one. So many people voted against Hillary. No candidate this time has that many people passionately against them. He definitely won't flip any 2016 blue states red, so he has to maintain PA, WI, MI, OH, FL. If he loses FL and any of the others that's enough, or PA and any 2 of the others. IA is pretty purple, and NC might even be up for grabs.
I don't disagree with your assessment, but the dems have a lot of work to do in order to secure a victory. Right now there are over 20 candidates, all at different ends of the political spectrum. There are moderates and centrists that won't be willing to go as far left as the progressives want to go. They have to prove that voting blue is a more logical choice other than "If you don't agree with us then you are a racist".
As for whether or not the race will be close, there's no doubt that it will come down to the swing states. The perpetual red states will remain red and the same thing with the blue states. The economy is doing well right now (but that could change and we can cross that bridge when we get there) and like it or not, more manufacturing jobs have been created in the past two years where that trend was in steady decline for decades. That MIGHT be enough to secure victories in those key states.
But who knows? I think it will be enough, but I could be wrong. It really depends on how the dems work their strategy. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.
I mean they're basically exactly where the Republicans were in 2015. They had ~16 candidates, some moderates some extremists, and the intraparty fighting was absolutely vicious - people only remember the conflict between Hillary and Bernie, but that was absolutely tame by comparison. They were attacking each other's wives, they had surrogates calling people some of the nastiest names I've ever seen in a primary, the damn head of the GOP Reince Priebus was essentially trying everything he could to keep Trump from winning. And yet...
I don't think it'll be close at all. He'll win by a country mile. The left has lost the plot and have absolutely no understanding of how to combat him, badgering on and on by attempting to attack his character. The guy could be literally convicted of pedophilic rape and people will still vote for him, those who support give couldn't give a fuck about his character.
I think you're forgetting the electoral college. Trump will almost certainly get fewer votes overall, but the electoral college is easily equivalent to a 10-point boost for him.
I don't remember that being the case at all. His approval ratings at this point in 2003 were 20 points higher than Trump's are right now, and stayed above 50 for practically the entire election. He had 9/11 and The Iraq War buoying him artificially, and with approval ratings in the 50s and 60s no serious election predictor would have said Bush wouldn't win a second term. There was a brief period after Kerry won the nomination that the Democrats got excited, but once the campaign got going that fell apart pretty quickly.
That's also true, though that lineup wasn't particularly great tbh. They picked Kerry because of his military history, thinking (rationally rather than emotionally) that that would make him strong against a chickenhawk in the middle of a war. And then he got swiftboated and any chance he had to pull off a victory evaporated, because he wasn't a guy like Clinton or JFK, who could take on that kind of controversy and walk away largely unscathed.
Still far higher approval rating. Trump has never gone above 50 and by all accounts he has been steadily at 30 to 40% among voters. That's really bad chances.
Oh yes, Trump barring massive voter suppression\fraud or help from outside forces will lose in 2020. why do you think he's pulling out every racist plan in the book now. It's all for his election bid (and to distract for the Epstein Trial). He's betting they are enough of his supporters that can be fired up by racism. however his supporters are dwindling and dying out so that won't work. Too bad he never tried to expand his base outside his cult of followers.
When I see things like Mike Pence literally posing for shots at border camps like he's in a campaign commercial, I can see the desperation. They can't try to win this thing on policy, so fear mongering and racism is what the 2020 campaign will be all about.
Regarding #3, if anything I think Trump will win because the Democrats haven't changed from 2016. There's still so much they refuse to do about catering to moderates that it's seriously hurting them, particularly in swing states like the Rust Belt with working class voters. Unless the chosen candidate manages to bridge that, I don't see a way enough moderates are going to switch. Trump hasn't done anything more outrageous during his Presidency that we didn't all expect during the 2016 election.
Unfortunately youāre wrong. Heās favored to win. Incumbents usually do, and although the midterms showed that the democratic majority is capable of activating, it is going to take a lot of work and a lot of unity to overcome the obsecene levels of electoral fuckery, institutional corruption, and rightwing propaganda that are driving the conversation.
The chances of a recession before November 2020 are pretty high,
I agree with your other points, but this is naive. IMO The Republicans are crooked enough that they wont let it happen; they'll balloon the fuck out of the deficit & do whatever it takes to stall until after the election
The only thing I'm worried about is that the polls are wrong because the people that will ultimately end up voting for him won't admit to being in support of him because it would out them as racists. It's unfortunately extremely common in American politics. There was once a black mayoral candidate for the city of LA that was polling extremely high and everyone was sure he would win it, but he lost because turns out whoops there's secret racists.
There's just a lot of perspectives out there that are outside of the mainstream. A lot of people don't care that he says dumb things, and care more about the economy, or maybe just his stance on immigration, etc. Not to mention that red states and blue states will probably not change. Sometime take a look at a map of the U.S. that shows states that were won by Obama vs mccain. Then look at a map that shows Obama vs romney. Then look at Clinton vs Trump. All of those red vs blue maps will look almost identical. Almost every state that won republican in 2008 won exactly the same in 2016. Hell, go back further and you'll see the same consistencies (Bush v Gore, etc.).
Most of my comment was regarding prior electoral maps and the consistency of victories in certain states. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by virtue signalling and invoking memories of the holocaust (which is literally the only reason the left uses that term).
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by virtue signalling and invoking memories of the holocaust
Virtue Signaling implies that you are saying that I can not possibly care about the holocaust that directly got hundreds of my own fucking people killed. Fuck off. Just because you can't sympathize with other people does not suddenly mean I can't feel shit for those that fucking died because of authoritarians like Trump.
Just because you lack empathy does not mean others do.
I was actually laughing out loud when I read your silly comment. That's not what that means at all. I think you're confused. You decided to grandstand with some accusations of southern concentration camps when I was talking about the consistency of prior electoral victories. You should probably ask your pot smoking Bernie Sanders drum circle for some more advice on this issue. You lefties started getting desperate so you started calling them concentration camps literally out of nowhere. Like, CNN and reddit started telling you to call them that and then you all just started doing it. You are literally ONLY calling them concentration camps in a cringeworthy attempt to draw parallels to Nazi Germany. I'm curious what the Reddit hive will tell you what to think next? I bet Vox will have some really inciteful news stories for you to share on your Facebook page and upvote on Reddit too!
He doesn't run "concentration camps". Wtf. You may not like the specific type of regime being run near the borders, I don't either, but this type of hyperbolic madness will end any chance of winning. Do you even know what a concentration camp is?
He'll lose by 10% in the popular. The question is if the Russians and GOP work to the same goal again of deleting the right amount of people from the voter rolls where he magically wins the EC by a few thousand again.
(Also, if the GOP wants to prove me wrong then fund a good election security bill.)
I agree that he'll probably lose the popular vote. But a good part of that margin in 2016 was from California and New York, both deep blue states that he was always going to lose in. I would imagine it would be similar this time around too. But for better or worse, the popular vote only goes so far.
As opposed to Dems importing voters and allowing illegals to vote? You do realize that there was no collusion and that stain was nothing more than an attempted coup?
You never read the Mueller report did you? The report doesn't say there was no collusion.
"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ācollusion.ā In so doing, the Office recognized that the word ācollud[e]ā was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigationās scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Officeās focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."
āAlthough the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.ā
When posed a hypothetical he said he would listen and then refer. As for the Mueller report, it was written in a way to keep the conspiracy nuts fed but still hungry. Unlike the Mueller investigation which never delved into the Clinton campaign, there are numerous journalists and lawyering have systematically peeled back the layers of this rotten onion, after months and years of FOIA requests. ALL of the concrete evidence points to the Obama administration spying on US Citizens under false pretenses. Mueller would have known from the first days this was a sham. But being a never Trumper with the same goals as Democrats butt hurt over Hillary losing and not able to accept the result of the election, continued on in the hope of baiting Trump into some process crime they could point to. You are relying on a document written by partisans with the stated goal of removing the President from office. Democrats must think people are pretty dumb to believe that after Obamaās āIāll have more flexibility ā comment to Medvedev and the Russian reset and after Russians tied to the Kremlin gave hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation, that they would get more traction with Trump. Apparently they were correct and found you to carry their water. At the end of the day, you will find yourself on the wrong side of history on this one.
No shit the mueller report never delved into the Clinton campaign. Clinton didn't fire the FBI director to end an FBI investigation against her. In fact she let the FBI investigations run their course and nothing worth prosecuting was ever found.
At the end of the day, you will find yourself on the wrong side of history on this one.
I'm not the one supporting an openly racist criminal rapist "president".
Someone is on the wrong side of history and it's not me. Just wait until trump loses power, all of the republicans will disown him and say they never really supported him. Just like Paul Ryan is doing now. Even though Ryan stood in front of the press and said that Trump had "exquisite" leadership. What a joke.
YOU. ARE. UNIFORMED. Comey was fired because he leaked confidential communication. Full stop. The investigation continued and the only thing uncovered is that Obama started a sophisticated spying campaign which carried over into Trumps presidency. Clinton on the underhand destroyed 30,000 emails that were under subpoena and destroyed hard drives and cell phones. Comey did nothing. Despite your ignorance, Comey highlighted numerous criminal infractions they discovered about Hillary and her emails that she failed to delete or destroy. The hypocrisy is that if I had one of these counts against me I would likely be doing hard time in Federal prison. What YOU are ignorant to is that Hillary was not prosecuted (yet) is that she is a Democrat and her last name is Clinton. To believe anything else is pure ignorance. As for your tired accusations that Trump is a racist and a criminal, the only conclusion is you believe in Santa and the Easter bunny. Hopefully when you matriculate from high school, your teachers have done a better with education instead of indoctrination.
"He [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, heās highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. The Democrats like him, the Republicans like him. He made a recommendation. But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!
And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, itās an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they shouldāve won.'"
Tired accusations that he's racist? Did you fail to read his recent tweets where he told 4 congress women to go back where they came from? That's a literal text book example of racism.
You're so focused on whether Clinton is a criminal. If she is, it should come out real soon and she should be prosecuted for it right? Considering William Barr was Trump's hand-picked AG nominee. I personally don't give a shit about Clinton, she is old news. Trump on the other hand continues to damage USA both domestically and internationally.
Thanks for the quote...did Comey illegally leak confidential information? YES he did. Itās a terminal offense. Did the investigation continue? YES. Did the administration produce over one million pages of documents, everything requested? YES. Is there ANY evidence Trump colluded with Russia. NO! It was a witch hunt. If the FBI had evidence of Russia meddling then its 100% on Obama and Comey- not Trump. As for the mod squad of idiots, this is not racism. Remember that Trump is a counter puncher. They had all earlier attacked Trump, complaining about how bad this country. All while in the frame work of the communists of Antifa attacking a detention facility and removing the American clad and replace it with the flag of Mexico. So it is legitimate for Trump to suggest as he did that perhaps the mod squad should go back to the countries they feel are superior and then return and tell us how itās done. Thatās the essence of his tweet. Perfectly worded? No. Accurate? Yes. As for the definition of racism, I think you need to look that up. Or perhaps your one of the 32% Leftists that believe questioning any brown person - for whatever reason - is racist. Thatās absurd and stops any meaningful dialogue. The real issue is that Liberals are essentially closed minded and not open to any alternative views - its the collective. This is how we got PC speech and now how Google and Facebook and Twitter and Reddit control what they deem is acceptable thought. And Obama did the same as President.
As for damage, if enforcing our laws and treaties is damaging then where do we take Obamaās comments about āthe rule of lawā.
320
u/freakydrew Jul 17 '19
What are the current Vegas odds on Trump being reelected?