I think that few 2020 Democratic candidates are going to go after Trump on anything other than his really, really shit record and his inability to tell the truth on it.
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I think it hurts the Dems from this perspective. Many elected Dems have gone on news shows and over and over talked about Trump colluded with Russia to beat Hillary. They set the bar at direct collusion Trump and Russia , the word "treason" was thrown around a lot as well... and that is essentially gone now, it might discredit some other claims (true or false) ... and realistically beyond people that follow politics regularly, they look foolish and it helps make other investigations look 100% partisan and it may backfire on them. It also really takes impeachment off the table. Trump is a scumbag, but that part is really worked into swing voters minds, anything that makes him look less scummy is a win for Trump, especially after hearing about this pretty constantly since before he won the election, there are two years of messaging that just got wiped out. From a purely political perspective, there is no way to look at this beyond a win for Trump among the voter who will decide 2020, the strongly pro or anti Trump people were going to keep the same opinion of him no matter what
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Meanwhile, the dirty US government shows its stupid face again to the world:
Golan Heights: Trump signs order recognising occupied area as Israeli
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47697717
Golan Heights: Trump signs order recognising occupied area as Israeli
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47697717
Very few of those Dems are trying to get on the ballot in 2020, though. Most of the people who wanted to run kept saying things like Pelosi - wait for the Mueller report.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I'm not sure how much that matters, they will get lumped in with the more whack job elements of the party for moderates or be forced to disavow the fire bombers on the left, which will hurt them in the primaries. I don't think it is a make or break deal, but it will have an effect
The same effect that Trump himself has on the GOP moderates. It'll cancel out, unless one of the Democratic investigations gets really into Trump's sordid past.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
For sure, but I do not suspect the Dems will nominate anyone that would appeal to moderates. Questions then is, do they vote at all, do they go third party, or "come home"
Same questions Trump himself brings, really. Hillary caused enough Dems to stay home/vote Green anyway.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
It ends up coming down to who he runs against, if they are so far left, Trump may seem like less of a threat. I think we can all agree that a moderate has zero chance to win the Dem nomination. It will be another "lesser of two evils" kind of campaign
Mildly disagree in that Biden's the only moderate who has a chance of winning the nomination. Beto voted like a moderate, but seems likely to run as a progressive for the Dems.
Other than Biden there just aren't many moderates running who have a realistic chance.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
You are right, Biden has a shot and you are correct about Beto, he is making a really sharp left turn in his rhetoric. Biden's best shot is the left fragments ... but then you may run into a general election problem with the more progressive wings going Green, sitting it out, etc, pissed about an "old white guy", etc. In any case, it will be interesting. More interesting if Schultz runs and makes a legit push for the middle ... which might be open if the Dems go left and you have whatever Trump is.
The problem is that Schultz 1) is not qualified and 2) would probably ensure another 4 years of Trump, as the GOP is far less likely to fracture than the Dems. If they didn't fracture over Trump, I don't know what would make them do it.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I tend to think he is qualified, unless government experience is the qualification .. which most of the Dems running outside of Biden and Sanders to not really have tons of, they are a field of first or at best into their second term Senators (maybe not Gillibrand, she might be on her third term) and a House member, beyond Biden and the mayor of South Bend (forgot his name), does anyone really have executive experience? .. and I am asking that, because I might be missing someone
But, I do not think he ensures 4 years of anyone, it is up to the Dems running to make the case that they are the person to lead the country and not act like they are automatically entitled to a certain segment of votes based on their party label or the fact they are not Trump. If you were to end up with say Sanders v Trump, I would be a large portion of the electorate would be very happy to not vote for either of those two.
In any case, I do not care for the "someone else is stealing our votes" mantra both parties throw out there when someone else runs. They need to earn the votes on their own merit, if it is Schultz, the Green Party, the Libertarians or whoever that gets votes, it is because they actually earned them. Because really the last election came down to a lot of "at least he is not Hillary" and "at least she is not Trump" votes.
If the Dems do not win next time around or Trump does not win, it is really their own fault, not anyone else who ran. The 2 main parties really have every possible advantage from not having to gain ballot access, to automatic debate invites, to large established campaign and fundraising arms, and on and on and on.
.. and my last point, almost by definition the center really is the majority in this country (especially if you include little to moderately left or right of center), if neither of the two parties cannot come up with someone to appeal to that group, it is really on them and they deserve to lose "their" votes
Man there’s a lot to unpack here but I’m out right now and can’t respond the way I’d like. Couple quick points:
1: I can see Beto pivoting back to the center in the general. In fact, he seems to be the most likely to do that of the Democrats running from the left. He’s going to be big on running a unifying message.
2: I agree that a governor is more qualified than a senator for governing as president, but I also think senator is more qualified than company executive. There’s something to be said for being able to navigate politically and this is an area that Trump has failed the most as a “dealmaker.” Congresspeople know a thing or two about that.
1: I can see Beto pivoting back to the center in the general. In fact, he seems to be the most likely to do that of the Democrats running from the left. He’s going to be big on running a unifying message.
2: I agree that a governor is more qualified than a senator for governing as president, but I also think senator is more qualified than company executive. There’s something to be said for being able to navigate politically and this is an area that Trump has failed the most as a “dealmaker.” Congresspeople know a thing or two about that.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
1) It will be hard to pivot back, he (or whoever wins) will try, the problem is how far to the left they probably have to swing to win the primary .. and the slew of ads and stories that will revisit the primaries and not risk alienating those on the left that just nominated that person
2) You have a point, but I am not sure Trump is the guy to look it, he is a shitty "dealmaker". In any case, I think there are plenty of people not in government that would make good executives and there is something to be said that experience "in the real world" has advantages as well. But really my main point is that "not in a government job" does not equal "not qualified", it is a case by case deal.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
I think the problem with moderate politics in the U.S. is that it has come to be associated with corporatism, which is a cause of discontent among large portions of people in both sides of the spectrum. Populism is on the rise. Both parties are inclined to swing further away from center to appease those groups, which is a slippery slope, because you end up risking the moderate votes in the process.
This is one advantage for Trump in 2020, because he's still an appealing figure for the right-wing populist base but he's also governed closer to a traditional conservative than it was expected by many corporate Republicans. He has a better chance of consolidating the vote than whoever the Democrats nominate.
This is one advantage for Trump in 2020, because he's still an appealing figure for the right-wing populist base but he's also governed closer to a traditional conservative than it was expected by many corporate Republicans. He has a better chance of consolidating the vote than whoever the Democrats nominate.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Yeah, I agree with most of that, not sure how much corporatism comes into people's minds (at least those willing to vote center), but in any case if the Dem nominee is as far left as I suspect they may need to be to win the primary, there is an opening in the center .. combining that with an inherent dislike of Trump personally regardless of what he does actually governing. Might be a pipe dream, but there seems to at least be an opportunity in the center, but that person would need to be self funded, which is why Schultz may have a shot ... he seems like a more mentally stable version of Perot ,different focus on policy for sure, but not a whack job
Jer
A window to the west, a blazing star above
Bill Maher commented last weekend that as of now he’d have to vote for Amy Klobuchar because she’s the only one who isn’t running around apologizing to the nuttier part of the left wing. And she never got on board with any of the more fringe positions adopted by the left (“abolish ICE”, etc.), and she had a memorable exchange with Brett Kavanaugh where she looked like the adult in the room, and she has name recognition in Iowa. So you never know.
Until we start having some debates and a couple of early primaries we can’t predict anything in the Democratic field.
Bill Maher questions vaccines sometimes so I tend not to pay attention to him.