Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coffee_rules

2020 US Presidential election discussion

Recommended Posts

Who will Indian Amercians vote for? Do they vote based on who is more pro-India? Or is it plain economics? And is there a rivalry between them and Pak people there? Like in UK, more Indians vote Conservative while more Pak vote Labor. Thus, most anti-India stuffs are from Labor MPs....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, someone said:

Who will Indian Amercians vote for? Do they vote based on who is more pro-India? Or is it plain economics? And is there a rivalry between them and Pak people there? Like in UK, more Indians vote Conservative while more Pak vote Labor. Thus, most anti-India stuffs are from Labor MPs....

Most IAs were voting dem. Hillary is believed to have got 77% of our vote. I believe it is because of social policies, immigration and pro choice.This time depending on the candidate, they might split the vote. A lot Indians are anti illegal migrants, if they voted on who is better for India, they should vote for Republicans, who are proH1B and also pro Nuclear India. Unlike the progressives who hate Hindus dominating.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

She will lead the world to its end.  After all, she has predicted that it will end in 12 years.  This is why scientists cringe at politicians.  Nowhere in the UN IPCC report did it predict a doomsday in 12 years, but she had to go there.  It is a recurring theme - politicians cannot survive if there is no fear-mongering.  

 

Trump: Beware the Mexicans

Sanders: Beware the big corporations, beware nuclear power, beware doctors

Marianne Williamson: Beware chemicals.

AOC: Beware the end of the world

 

They find things that their demographic is a bit worried about, amplify them to ridiculous extents and in the process, lose credibility.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, riya said:

Very simple Trump will get re elected in 2020...The more the press attacks him the more he becomes popular among common people...Same as Modi effect...

There's a difference,  Trump doesn't have to deal with the likes of Pappu.  There are reasonably competent alternatives available to voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, riya said:

Very simple Trump will get re elected in 2020...The more the press attacks him the more he becomes popular among common people...Same as Modi effect...

Not really. 2016 was the combination of anti-Obama & Clinton. The pro Trump or even anti-Trump fActors werent enough to win.

 

In 2020, its not the same situation, and the pro-Trump is simply not enough for win. He still needs and has to create the anti-votes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Who ? Comrade Bernie, Biden, Warren, Kamala or Tulsi will win the Dem ticket?

Personally, I hope Warren is the candidate, but not a given.  I think she has the same problem as Hillary - She's competent and intelligent, and thus "unlikeable" because she makes people uncomfortable and unconsciously intimidated.    

 

Bernie and Biden are dinosaurs, they are done.  Tulsi is a never was, Kamala is too Obama-y - too new, too black, too inexperienced, too outsidery.  

 

Unless there is a major terrorist attack on American soil, or even outside of the mainland, but on US personnel, Republicans are not winning in 2020.  Its simple as that.  In fact, the republicans best chance may be to ditch Trump, but its too late for that.  They will sink with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Personally, I hope Warren is the candidate, but not a given.  I think she has the same problem as Hillary - She's competent and intelligent, and thus "unlikeable" because she makes people uncomfortable and unconsciously intimidated.    

 

Bernie and Biden are dinosaurs, they are done.  Tulsi is a never was, Kamala is too Obama-y - too new, too black, too inexperienced, too outsidery.  

 

Unless there is a major terrorist attack on American soil, or even outside of the mainland, but on US personnel, Republicans are not winning in 2020.  Its simple as that.  In fact, the republicans best chance may be to ditch Trump, but its too late for that.  They will sink with him.

I really dont agree with you,as a guy who lives in a red state i can say that 99% of all republicans will vote for him.The democrats wont win Florida,all trump has to do is hold one of the states like Wisconsin and its done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cowboysfan said:

I really dont agree with you,as a guy who lives in a red state i can say that 99% of all republicans will vote for him.The democrats wont win Florida,all trump has to do is hold one of the states like Wisconsin and its done.

Trump got a big bump in the "purple" states thanks to anti-incumbency factor.  Don't underestimate the '* you'  factor, and also, a lot of people (democrats) assumed that Hillary would win anyway.  It was a perfect storm that led to Trump winning - he's not going to win PA or Wisconsin.  Maybe even Florida.  

 

That is, if he is the nominee.  He is currently in realistic danger of being forced to resign a la Nixon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 2:57 PM, coffee_rules said:

Bernie will not get elected if he tweets stuff like this..

 

 

 

Is it because temporarily embarassed billionaires feel that could be me one day. Better let billionaires exploit everyone, otherwise I won't be able to do that when I'm a billionaire? 

Edited by Sachinism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sachinism said:

Is it because temporarily embarassed billionaires feel that could be me one day. Better let billionaires exploit everyone, otherwise I won't be able to do that when I'm a billionaire? 

 

even urban naxals and your fellow commies wont agree with you if you say bill gates is exploiting everyone :lol:  

probably he donated more to the charity than by your commie/U N/socialists combined  :p:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Trump got a big bump in the "purple" states thanks to anti-incumbency factor.  Don't underestimate the '* you'  factor, and also, a lot of people (democrats) assumed that Hillary would win anyway.  It was a perfect storm that led to Trump winning - he's not going to win PA or Wisconsin.  Maybe even Florida.  

 

That is, if he is the nominee.  He is currently in realistic danger of being forced to resign a la Nixon.  

Well yes, if he is forced to resign it’s a different story. But in US politics anti incumbency only works for the outgoing Presidents party after two terms. This is why 3 consecutive Democrat or Republican presidency is so rare but majority of first term presidents defend their title for second term. Incumbency actually favours the re election campaign of 1 term presidents 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

But in US politics anti incumbency only works for the outgoing Presidents party after two terms.

Might want to ask Jimmy Carter or George Bush Sr about that tall claim.  I.e. circumstances and context matter. 

 

Ponga Punditry can be delivered with as much confidence as you can muster, but myths and personal theories don't turn into facts like that.  You are free to believe otherwise though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Might want to ask Jimmy Carter or George Bush Sr about that tall claim.  I.e. circumstances and context matter. 

 

Ponga Punditry can be delivered with as much confidence as you can muster, but myths and personal theories don't turn into facts like that.  You are free to believe otherwise though.  

1992 was because of Ross Perot. 1980 was an exception, Reagan used the Iran crisis very well in campaign. If Bush can win a second term, a wiser Trump will definitely win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

1992 was because of Ross Perot. 1980 was an exception, Reagan used the Iran crisis very well in campaign. If Bush can win a second term, a wiser Trump will definitely win. 

Bush won  because voters were  averse to change due to 9/11. Trump will either get Nixoned or Cartered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Bush won  because voters were  averse to change due to 9/11. Trump will either get Nixoned or Cartered. 

Good amount of democratic voters have voted republican last election. Pennsylvania and Michigan flipping should have woken up Democrats. But they don’t understand these simple things on why they flipped. There is a growing resentment in America about Democrats. Highly doubt they will win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sandeep said:

Trump got a big bump in the "purple" states thanks to anti-incumbency factor.  Don't underestimate the '* you'  factor, and also, a lot of people (democrats) assumed that Hillary would win anyway.  It was a perfect storm that led to Trump winning - he's not going to win PA or Wisconsin.  Maybe even Florida.  

 

That is, if he is the nominee.  He is currently in realistic danger of being forced to resign a la Nixon.  

Michigan is as blue as it can get. It called the blue wall. Trump was able flip that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Bush won  because voters were  averse to change due to 9/11. Trump will either get Nixoned or Cartered. 

Trump will probably attack Iran to win 2020. He doesn't have to, the impeachment failure will get him across. They got no Mueller, Ukraine phone call is weak. They will not get 67 votes in the senate. There will be too much focus on Trump to garner whitw American patriot votes

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sandeep said:

Might want to ask Jimmy Carter or George Bush Sr about that tall claim.  I.e. circumstances and context matter. 

 

Ponga Punditry can be delivered with as much confidence as you can muster, but myths and personal theories don't turn into facts like that.  You are free to believe otherwise though.  

Do you understand basic English or are you one of the illiterate illegals ?? I said the following: 

“  But in US politics anti incumbency only works for the outgoing Presidents party after two terms. This is why 3 consecutive Democrat or Republican presidency is so rare but majority of first term presidents defend their title for second term. Incumbency actually favours the re election campaign of 1 term presidents. “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

 

jimmy carter, GH Bush and Gerald Ford are the only one term presidents in the list since WWII  and the first two are the only time since that period that the party in power has flipped after one term. 

 

So you citing a few oddball examples do not counter the point that majority first term presidents defend their presidencies 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Do you understand basic English or are you one of the illiterate illegals ?? I said the following: 

“  But in US politics anti incumbency only works for the outgoing Presidents party after two terms. This is why 3 consecutive Democrat or Republican presidency is so rare but majority of first term presidents defend their title for second term. Incumbency actually favours the re election campaign of 1 term presidents. “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

 

jimmy carter, GH Bush and Gerald Ford are the only one term presidents in the list since WWII  and the first two are the only time since that period that the party in power has flipped after one term. 

 

So you citing a few oddball examples do not counter the point that majority first term presidents defend their presidencies 

 

Technically, Ford took over after Nixon fiasco, so was never a first term "elected" President to lose after 1 term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Trump will probably attack Iran to win 2020. He doesn't have to, the impeachment failure will get him across. They got no Mueller, Ukraine phone call is weak. They will not get 67 votes in the senate. There will be too much focus on Trump to garner whitw American patriot votes

They don't have to "get 67 votes in the Senate". 

 

If there is clear cut evidence that Drumpf broke the law - and the fact that senior govt employee took a personal risk in filing that whistleblower complaint implies that there is - then the Republicans themselves will make Drumpf resign, like Nixon.  Because that gives them some semblance of a shot for 2020.  Replace Drumpf with Pence, claim that a house-cleaning is done, and then fight the Democrats on the traditional turf of high-tax, high spending "socialist" liberals.  

 

Even Pelosi knows this, and that's why she didn't bother going for impeachment earlier - it was not in the democratic party's interest to get an impeachment that the Senate won't follow through on.  It would either galvanize support for Drumpf, or push the Republicans into jettisoning him and becoming a stronger opponent.   But Drumpf's stupidity and the whistle-blower have forced matters now. 

 

Remains to be seen whether Pence becomes collateral damage, or remains unscathed enough to ascend to the Presidency.   I suspect this is the reason why Drumpf dragged Pence's name into the Ukraine mess, by bringing up his conversations.  If he's going down, he wants to take Pence down with him, because that could mean President Pelosi - and that would force the Republicans to back him even if they are reluctant.  

 

56 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

, Ukraine phone call is weak.

Btw, the Whistleblower apparently was not aware of this particular phone call.  His complaint is apparently a lot more damning.  So even if you buy the Faux News spin that the phone call is "weak", which its not btw - that's not the only evidence against Drumpf. 

 

The simple fact is that most interactions between heads of state are highly choreographed and planned meticulously in  advance.  Even phone calls.  So there were several rounds of discussions and negotiations between underlings that essentially decided the agenda and talking points for the phone conversation, before the phone was ever dialed.  Those discussions and negotiations will have a gigantic paper trail, not to mention several witnesses who would have to take grave personal risk to lie under oath.  And once the realization sets in that this issue can't be brazenly wished away by tweeting denials and Fox News trash, the lemmings will start jumping the ship and self-preservation starts kicking in.  

 

In fact, I would bet there are serious meetings going on within the Republican party right now, to chalk out the template for the post-Drumpf months leading to November 2020.   Mitt Romney is going to be a player in this, I suspect, before long.

 

 

 

 

Edited by sandeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Do you understand basic English or are you one of the illiterate illegals ?? I said the following: 

“  But in US politics anti incumbency only works for the outgoing Presidents party after two terms. This is why 3 consecutive Democrat or Republican presidency is so rare but majority of first term presidents defend their title for second term. Incumbency actually favours the re election campaign of 1 term presidents. “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

 

jimmy carter, GH Bush and Gerald Ford are the only one term presidents in the list since WWII  and the first two are the only time since that period that the party in power has flipped after one term. 

 

So you citing a few oddball examples do not counter the point that majority first term presidents defend their presidencies 

 

Just like circumstances led to Carter and Bush being one term presidents, in spite of being reasonably decent Presidents, Drumpf's stupidity has finally caught up to him, and his circumstances doom him to a single term, if that.  That is my point.  Your silly attempt at provoking me isn't going to work.  Try harder next time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Just like circumstances led to Carter and Bush being one term presidents, in spite of being reasonably decent Presidents, Drumpf's stupidity has finally caught up to him, and his circumstances doom him to a single term, if that.  That is my point.  Your silly attempt at provoking me isn't going to work.  Try harder next time!

Unless he gets impeached, he is a favourite to retain his Presidency. Last time I voted for Hillary, this time will be for Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gattaca said:

Good amount of democratic voters have voted republican last election. Pennsylvania and Michigan flipping should have woken up Democrats. But they don’t understand these simple things on why they flipped. There is a growing resentment in America about Democrats. Highly doubt they will win. 

I don't disagree.  But those 'swing' voters are going to have to swing blue this time around.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. I am. I am dual citizen.

2. I love how you pass of your wishes as facts like a typical rabid left/right winger.

"wishes"??  Naah, just slightly more up to date with my information, and a bit of analysis.  Let me remind you that you weren't even aware that Pelosi had decided to move forward with impeachment proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sandeep said:

They don't have to "get 67 votes in the Senate". 

 

If there is clear cut evidence that Drumpf broke the law - and the fact that senior govt employee took a personal risk in filing that whistleblower complaint implies that there is - then the Republicans themselves will make Drumpf resign, like Nixon.  Because that gives them some semblance of a shot for 2020.  Replace Drumpf with Pence, claim that a house-cleaning is done, and then fight the Democrats on the traditional turf of high-tax, high spending "socialist" liberals.  

 

Even Pelosi knows this, and that's why she didn't bother going for impeachment earlier - it was not in the democratic party's interest to get an impeachment that the Senate won't follow through on.  It would either galvanize support for Drumpf, or push the Republicans into jettisoning him and becoming a stronger opponent.   But Drumpf's stupidity and the whistle-blower have forced matters now. 

 

Remains to be seen whether Pence becomes collateral damage, or remains unscathed enough to ascend to the Presidency.   I suspect this is the reason why Drumpf dragged Pence's name into the Ukraine mess, by bringing up his conversations.  If he's going down, he wants to take Pence down with him, because that could mean President Pelosi - and that would force the Republicans to back him even if they are reluctant.  

 

Btw, the Whistleblower apparently was not aware of this particular phone call.  His complaint is apparently a lot more damning.  So even if you buy the Faux News spin that the phone call is "weak", which its not btw - that's not the only evidence against Drumpf. 

 

The simple fact is that most interactions between heads of state are highly choreographed and planned meticulously in  advance.  Even phone calls.  So there were several rounds of discussions and negotiations between underlings that essentially decided the agenda and talking points for the phone conversation, before the phone was ever dialed.  Those discussions and negotiations will have a gigantic paper trail, not to mention several witnesses who would have to take grave personal risk to lie under oath.  And once the realization sets in that this issue can't be brazenly wished away by tweeting denials and Fox News trash, the lemmings will start jumping the ship and self-preservation starts kicking in.  

 

In fact, I would bet there are serious meetings going on within the Republican party right now, to chalk out the template for the post-Drumpf months leading to November 2020.   Mitt Romney is going to be a player in this, I suspect, before long.

 

 

 

 

All good, if it happens. But Drumpf is so thick-skinned, that he will not let GOP strong-arm him to resign. He will still go through senate to garner sympathy, like Clinton. What has he got to protect like other political families? Legacy? C'mon , it is Drumpf we are talking about. He is an opportunistic person. He will cut a deal, somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sandeep said:

"wishes"??  Naah, just slightly more up to date with my information, and a bit of analysis.  Let me remind you that you weren't even aware that Pelosi had decided to move forward with impeachment proceedings.

Yawn. 

I will believe it when I see it. Till then I have no interest in discussing any rep candidate than Trump because we all know that without impeachment, the incumbent always has default support of the party. So it is not really adding any value to the actual election discussion.

 

The day he is impeached/resigns is only when we can discuss another rep candidate except Trump. Till then, it’s Trump vs the Dems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

All good, if it happens. But Drumpf is so thick-skinned, that he will not let GOP strong-arm him to resign. He will still go through senate to garner sympathy, like Clinton. What has he got to protect like other political families? Legacy? C'mon , it is Drumpf we are talking about. He is an opportunistic person. He will cut a deal, somehow.

Oh he's shameless and will go down fighting because impeachment won't be the end of his troubles.  His only card right now is to drag Pence down with him, which means Nancy Pelosi is next in line to be President.  I don't think that can save him if evidence exists that conclusively nail him.  I got to be honest, that its not just my gut telling me that there's evidence, its also me wanting it to be the case.  So let's see.  I just saw some tweets claiming that the whistleblower complaint is going to be de-classified and released.  Maybe Trump's taking a shot at making everything public, make it a trial by media, and trying to ride it out as the evidence against him not being strong enough.  Just like he was able to ride out the Mueller investigation with "no collusion" nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Unless he gets impeached, he is a favourite to retain his Presidency. Last time I voted for Hillary, this time will be for Trump. 

Agree with your first sentence.  From what I can see, the Dem candidates are cannibalizing the party; they are tilting further and further left. The younger moderate candidates have no clout.  

 

The second sentence elicits a question.  Why?  

 

Last time I voted Libertarian.  Will probably do so again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...