US Presidential Election 2020

Itssoeasy · 22-01-2019 9:08pm

That Biden Harris ticket is a good shout. This way kamala Harris get to be VP and seeing how Obama let Biden operate as VP, you'd assume Biden would do the same as Obama and let kamala Harris learn the ropes so to speak. She'd have the local and federal chops then to make a run for president after Biden.

I don't fully agree that because of Clinton that the dems would resist another female candidate, it think Clinton is/was an unlikeable candidate who assumed she was liked in some states and it's obvious she wasn't liked as much as she assumed. I know she got more votes than Trump but that's not the way the US works.

Brian? · 22-01-2019 10:14pm

seamus wrote: »

Harris is the frontrunner in my mind. Everything I've read about her makes her a lightning rod for the unrepresented in US politics. As I've said previously, if the Dems repeat the previous mistakes of avoiding candidates who appear too "radical", then she won't get picked. But if she is picked, she has the greatest potential, in my mind.

There are potentially some skeletons in the closet in relation to her time as an AG, but nothing major.

It makes me laugh that the bookies put Biden as the frontrunner, when during the Obama administration, he was considered something of a comic foil to Obama, the embarrassment of the White House, out of touch with modern America.

Biden is hugely respected by people in both parties. This characterisation you have is one built by the right to slur him.

A Biden v Trump debate would be brilliant. Biden would destroy him with intelligence and humour.

He’s too old though.

rossie1977 · 23-01-2019 4:53pm

Public policy polling survey released yesterday has Biden +12 ahead of Trump in a national election with Sanders +10. Harris is +7, O'Rourke +6, Warren +6.

Professor Moriarty · 23-01-2019 5:22pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Public policy polling survey released yesterday has Biden +12 ahead of Trump in a national election with Sanders +10. Harris is +7, O'Rourke +6, Warren +6.

IMO, Sanders and Biden are too old. If you put someone like Harris, O'Rourke or even Warren in the same room as Trump, he's going to look mighty old.

Rjd2 · 23-01-2019 5:34pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Public policy polling survey released yesterday has Biden +12 ahead of Trump in a national election with Sanders +10. Harris is +7, O'Rourke +6, Warren +6.

I genuinely don't think he wants to run though. He may be temped if some radical lefty was looking dangerous, but Bernie is undecided and Tulsi has to much baggage. The likes of Beto, Warren Harris, Brown and Kloub winning the nomination won't concern him whatsoever.

spacecoyote · 23-01-2019 6:07pm

Another name has been thrown into the already packed Dem field:

Pete Buttigieg

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pete-buttigieg-2020-democratic-nomination/

Ticks a lot of Dem boxes, but also a risky one by the sound of things:

2 Term Mayor from Indiana (so covers the Midwest states)
Only 37 years old
Son of Immigrants
Attended Harvard
Took time out to serve on the Naval Reserve
Is openly Gay
His home town has had a resurgence in population, etc... so could have a genuine case to argue that he has actually brought jobs back to small town America

The Dem field is really getting stretched at this stage, with plenty of time still left

pixelburp · 23-01-2019 6:11pm

If there are any question marks about whether or not a woman could be voted President of the US, those odds would be a Sure Thing in comparison to those for of an openly gay man succeeding.

I know nothing of the man and certainly those bullet points sound great, but yikes, could you imagine the attack ads?

When does the nomination process 'officially' kick off anywaY? Just so we have an idea of a timeline of how long to expect these no-hope candidates?

rossie1977 · 23-01-2019 6:24pm

February 3rd 2020 is first scheduled vote in primary

Itssoeasy · 23-01-2019 6:30pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

February 3rd 2020 is first scheduled vote in primary

So just over a year of this democratic candidate shadow boxing then ? Brilliant they(the democrats) will be weary by the time the election happens.

Muahahaha · 23-01-2019 6:59pm

Going by Joe Bidens PAC spending it looks like he is going to enter the race

Former Vice President Joe Biden raised more money for a PAC that supports Democrats in 2018 than any of his likely White House competitors did. But unlike many of them, he spent the lion’s share of that haul on himself.

Biden’s PAC gave Democratic candidates just a quarter of the more than $2 million he raised and spent during the midterms. At the same time, he spent half a million dollars on websites and digital ads that could help him bolster his online presence and raise money from small donors for a 2020 primary campaign, and more of his PAC funds went to travel and other expenses.

And

Spokespeople for Biden didn’t provide any comment on his 2018 PAC activity, but he has the highest name identification with voters and the strongest relationships within the party of any potential 2020 contender. Federal disclosures show he focused heavily on a different priority: building a profile online. Democrats expect the 2018 surge in small-dollar donations to continue in the presidential race, giving an advantage to candidates who can capitalize on it.

Biden reported expenses marked as “digital consulting,” “website development” and “email services.” Much of that business went to Blue State Digital, a firm founded by former campaign staff to President Barack Obama.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/08/joe-biden-2020-election-pac-1086016

Also Biden would presumably get an endorsement from Obama as well as Obama being on the campaign trail rallies shouting for him.

I had a look on PP and Biden is 12/1 to win in 2020. It is effectively a triple bet- that he runs, that he gets the nomination and then that he beats Trump. Stuck a few quid on it, I reckon if he runs he has the ability to beat Trump. If the US is in recession in 2020 as predicted by many then a Biden presidency becomes even more likely.

The Phantom Jipper · 23-01-2019 10:47pm

spacecoyote wrote: »

Another name has been thrown into the already packed Dem field:

Pete Buttigieg

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pete-buttigieg-2020-democratic-nomination/

Ticks a lot of Dem boxes, but also a risky one by the sound of things:

2 Term Mayor from Indiana (so covers the Midwest states)
Only 37 years old
Son of Immigrants
Attended Harvard
Took time out to serve on the Naval Reserve
Is openly Gay
His home town has had a resurgence in population, etc... so could have a genuine case to argue that he has actually brought jobs back to small town America

The Dem field is really getting stretched at this stage, with plenty of time still left

I've heard him on a couple of podcasts and he comes across very well in my opinion, but like Castro and a few others, it doesn't seem like much more than a profile raising exercise.

Fr Tod Umptious · 23-01-2019 11:02pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Going by Joe Bidens PAC spending it looks like he is going to enter the race

And

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/08/joe-biden-2020-election-pac-1086016

Also Biden would presumably get an endorsement from Obama as well as Obama being on the campaign trail rallies shouting for him.

I had a look on PP and Biden is 12/1 to win in 2020. It is effectively a triple bet- that he runs, that he gets the nomination and then that he beats Trump. Stuck a few quid on it, I reckon if he runs he has the ability to beat Trump. If the US is in recession in 2020 as predicted by many then a Biden presidency becomes even more likely.

But he would be carrying the baggage of the two term Obama administration.

An awful lot of Americans did not like the Obama administration.

Obamacare was not very popular among the voting classes.

He was a foreign policy wimp. ISIS and Putin ran loose under his watch and he reopened diplomatic ties with Cuba with nothing in return, not a single political prisoner released.

Under Obama's watch the Dems went from controlling both houses to record losses in both.

That was not by accident.

The Phantom Jipper · 23-01-2019 11:16pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But he would be carrying the baggage of the two term Obama administration.

An awful lot of Americans did not like the Obama administration.

Obamacare was not very popular among the voting classes.

He was a foreign policy wimp. ISIS and Putin ran loose under his watch and he reopened diplomatic ties with Cuba with nothing in return, not a single political prisoner released.

Under Obama's watch the Dems went from controlling both houses to record losses in both.

That was not by accident.

For some reason, I don't think Biden will be the candidate who has a problem regarding Putin.

Professor Moriarty · 24-01-2019 10:43am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But he would be carrying the baggage of the two term Obama administration.

An awful lot of Americans did not like the Obama administration.

Obamacare was not very popular among the voting classes.

He was a foreign policy wimp. ISIS and Putin ran loose under his watch and he reopened diplomatic ties with Cuba with nothing in return, not a single political prisoner released.

Under Obama's watch the Dems went from controlling both houses to record losses in both.

That was not by accident.

Compared to The Donald's baggage? Yeah, no.

eagle eye · 24-01-2019 12:33pm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Compared to The Donald's baggage? Yeah, no.

Trump had piles of baggage before his first term. That stuff doesn't affect his supporters, it's those that didn't vote the last time that you need to get on your side and to vote.
Thus is why I'm a huge fan of a man who isn't even in the radar but who made a name for himself when he went straight Sessions. A guy who is young but had no skeletons and a great presence about him. I mentioned his name earlier on the thread, Martin Heinrich.
I'm 100% certain that he would beat Trump. Even as a running mate with plenty of exposure he would be very good.

pixelburp · 24-01-2019 12:52pm

The other factor is that for all the dogged support, Trump is NOT the outsider anymore; it's relatively easy to talk big and promise the Earth, Moon & Stars from the sidelines, but as if often the case, the boisterous anti-establishment rhetoric becomes hollow when one becomes the establishment. IMO it's a potentially huge factor in 2020 because unlike 2016, and being at a loss for a better word, Trump won't be a loud gimmick anymore.

He has had 2 full years & control of both houses: no wall & Mexico won't be paying; the swamp remains undrained (if anything it's worse due to DeVos et al);, Hillary is not in an orange jumpsuit; Obamacare limps on (for now). Nearly all his signature bluster has turned out to be empty promises - even by the metric of Campaign Promises.

Intermittent vox-pops have shown a dissatisfaction and disillusionment from former Trump supporters (I recall one egregious example where a woman declared that "Trump was hurting the wrong people" with the shutdown, which gives insight).

Itssoeasy · 24-01-2019 1:24pm

pixelburp wrote: »

The other factor is that for all the dogged support, Trump is NOT the outsider anymore; it's relatively easy to talk big and promise the Earth, Moon & Stars from the sidelines, but as if often the case, the boisterous anti-establishment rhetoric becomes hollow when one becomes the establishment. IMO it's a potentially huge factor in 2020 because unlike 2016, and being at a loss for a better word, Trump won't be a loud gimmick anymore.

He has had 2 full years & control of both houses: no wall & Mexico won't be paying; the swamp remains undrained (if anything it's worse due to DeVos et al);, Hillary is not in an orange jumpsuit; Obamacare limps on (for now). Nearly all his signature bluster has turned out to be empty promises - even by the metric of Campaign Promises.

Intermittent vox-pops have shown a dissatisfaction and disillusionment from former Trump supporters (I recall one egregious example where a woman declared that "Trump was hurting the wrong people" with the shutdown, which gives insight).

Surely the hurler on the ditch is the easiest thing to do. You can say what you like and Trump as you say isn't a hurler on the ditch any more, he's playing midfield and being roasted by his opposite number(I realise I'm using hurling analogies to describe US politics but...) and I wonder if he could go back to 2015, and not run for president knowing what he knows now ?

ancapailldorcha · 24-01-2019 1:43pm

pixelburp wrote: »

The other factor is that for all the dogged support, Trump is NOT the outsider anymore; it's relatively easy to talk big and promise the Earth, Moon & Stars from the sidelines, but as if often the case, the boisterous anti-establishment rhetoric becomes hollow when one becomes the establishment. IMO it's a potentially huge factor in 2020 because unlike 2016, and being at a loss for a better word, Trump won't be a loud gimmick anymore.

He has had 2 full years & control of both houses: no wall & Mexico won't be paying; the swamp remains undrained (if anything it's worse due to DeVos et al);, Hillary is not in an orange jumpsuit; Obamacare limps on (for now). Nearly all his signature bluster has turned out to be empty promises - even by the metric of Campaign Promises.

Intermittent vox-pops have shown a dissatisfaction and disillusionment from former Trump supporters (I recall one egregious example where a woman declared that "Trump was hurting the wrong people" with the shutdown, which gives insight).

I don't really see it though. Your post makes perfect sense. The problem is that once Trump's support base feels vindicated, they'll vote for him. Doubly so if he can peddle the narrative that the shutdown is down to recalcitrant Democrats. People who have voted Republican all their lives will continue to do so. The only way I see him being ousted is if the Democrats come up with a candidate with a fresh narrative. I can't see an Establishment Democrat winning in 2020.

rossie1977 · 24-01-2019 2:50pm

Looking at States in play for 2020:

Arizona..Trump won 4.1 percentage points
Florida..Trump won by 1.3%
Michigan..Trump won by 0.3%
North Carolina..Trump won by 3.8%
Pennsylvania..Trump won by 1.2%
Wisconsin..Trump won by 1%

Colorado..Clinton won by 2.8%
Maine (3 electoral votes)...Clinton won by 2.7%
Nevada.. Clinton won by 2.4%
New Hampshire..Clinton won by 0.4%

Everything else was 8+ point winning margin or above for either candidate so I can't see a Democrat flipping a state Trump won convincingly in 16 or Trump flipping say one Clinton won easily. If O'Rourke ran he might have a chance of getting closer in Texas than Clinton did (she lost by 9.2%) but O'Rourke lost to Ted Cruz who is far more unpopular than Trump so Texas would stay with Trump imo.

Colorado and Nevada have become more Democrat since 2016 so it would be highly unlikely Trump takes either in 2020. Depending on candidate Trump could flip NH and Maine. I think he takes both if Harris is the nominee.

As for where the Dems can make in-roads. Arizona is becoming more Democrat but I think it stays in Republican column for 2020 given the leading candidates Biden, Sanders, Warren or Harris don't really have anything in common with the Dem voters in the state.

Dems ran a progressive and an establishment candidate in midterms in Florida and lost both so that's a bad sign. Trump's beating Sanders, Warren or Harris by bigger margins than he beat Clinton in Florida more than likely. Highly unlikely Dems win North Carolina regardless of candidate.

That leaves us back again to Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Dems need to win them all and signs during midterms were positive given Dems won all three Senate and governor elections in those states. I think Biden or Sanders can win all three. Not convinced Harris or Warren can.

Rjd2 · 25-01-2019 2:27am

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1088531713649713153

Excellent stuff from Tulsi who has been treated with contempt mainly from the left since she announced going hard on any potential regime change when it comes to Venezuela.

The silence from the other front runners so far is unacceptable. Bernie had a twitter thread, but it was a mess.

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 9:24am

https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/1088557052287479808

Not sure if Harris doing so much better because most of the others haven't formally announced yet, but it's very interesting to see her lead over those who actually have - particularly Warren and (thankfully) Gabbard; Gillibrand not even polling?

realdanbreen · 25-01-2019 9:30am

I've often wondered why the Reps and dems don't have a leader that you know is going to run for election next time round. Right now trump has an advantage in that we know(or think we know)that he is standing next time round but we don't know who the Dem candidate will be. The only certainty is that the candidates will be rich!

pixelburp · 25-01-2019 11:17am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/1088557052287479808

Not sure if Harris doing so much better because most of the others haven't formally announced yet, but it's very interesting to see her lead over those who actually have - particularly Warren and (thankfully) Gabbard; Gillibrand not even polling?

Surprising figures, because others I'd briefly seen (don't have them to hand unfortunately) suggested Harris is practically unknown outside of the coastal states.

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 3:12pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Surprising figures, because others I'd briefly seen (don't have them to hand unfortunately) suggested Harris is practically unknown outside of the coastal states.

Well in fairness, as of the last census about 54.8% of the US population lives in the (traditional) coastal States - i.e. East / West and not including the newly "hip" "third coast" rebranding of the Gulf States

theguzman · 25-01-2019 5:14pm

Trump's intervention in Venezuela is likely to resonate well amongst Latino voters most who support the ousting of Maduro, that coupled with Orinoco oil coming on stream to the market will further lower oil prices. If Maduro won't leave peacefully Bolsonaro in Brazil will invade for Bolton. Joe Biden or Sanders are the only hope for Democrats in 2020, there isn't a hope in hell American's will send a black woman to the White House, Obama is widely seen as America's worst ever President and Racial prejudice runs deep in America and in the secrecy of the Ballot box people will vote this way.

oscarBravo · 25-01-2019 5:15pm

theguzman wrote: »

...Obama is widely seen as America's worst ever President...

Only among people who wear MAGA hats.

pixelburp · 25-01-2019 5:32pm

theguzman wrote: »

Trump's intervention in Venezuela is likely to resonate well amongst Latino voters most who support the ousting of Maduro, that coupled with Orinoco oil coming on stream to the market will further lower oil prices. If Maduro won't leave peacefully Bolsonaro in Brazil will invade for Bolton. Joe Biden or Sanders are the only hope for Democrats in 2020, there isn't a hope in hell American's will send a black woman to the White House, Obama is widely seen as America's worst ever President and Racial prejudice runs deep in America and in the secrecy of the Ballot box people will vote this way.

Citation please. If you're going to talk in hyperbole, then at the very least you can provide some stats to back it up.

rossie1977 · 25-01-2019 5:50pm

Obama's is sitting 11th overall in president aggregate ranking based on 4 scholar surveys undertaken, Trump is 44th in his one survey inclusion.

For reference
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Harry S. Truman
7. Woodrow Wilson
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Andrew Jackson
10. John F Kennedy
11. Barack Obama
12. James K. Polk
13. Lyndon B. Johnson
14. James Madison
15. John Adams
16. Ronald Reagan
17. James Monroe
18. Bill Clinton
19. William McKinley
20. Grover Cleveland

eagle eye · 25-01-2019 5:54pm

oscarBravo wrote:

Only among people who wear MAGA hats.

Well I'm a fan of Barack Obama and I was all for him becoming President but I think he was very poor.
He is too nice of a guy to be a President I think.
I expect him to do great things in the future and he was a great man before he became POTUS but he was poor as President.
Certainly not the worst by stretch but still not good.

oscarBravo · 25-01-2019 6:06pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I'm a fan of Barack Obama and I was all for him becoming President but I think he was very poor.

I'm a fan too, and I don't think he was particularly poor. His legacy faces a number of challenges: among them the sheer weight of expectation, which led to inevitable disappointment; and Mitch McConnell's determination to ensure that Obama achieved absolutely nothing whatsoever (and he still achieved ACA).

If the USA was a normal functioning democracy, he could have achieved greatness. I would lay relatively little (note: not none) of the blame for his failures at his own feet.

As for him being the worst President ever, I stick by my earlier statement. The only people who think that are the kind who let the overgrown toddler in the White House do their thinking for them.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments