Jump to content

2020 US Presidential election discussion


coffee_rules

Recommended Posts

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.  

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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:  

Link to comment
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 

Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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 

 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

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

Ford was never on an election ticket as a VP candidate, and IIRC he is the only guy to serve as President without ever being elected.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...