19
   

What chances does Trump have to win the 2020 election?

 
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 04:10 pm
@revelette1,
John Lennon was a conservative when he was shot to death.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 05:38 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
Nevertheless, dropping atomic bombs which had the effect of killing thousands of innocent civilians was a terrible, terrible event which took place.

Collateral damage is always unfortunate. But we had to protect ourselves from Japan.

We're just lucky that the A-bombs shocked Japan into surrender. The invasion of Kyushu alone was projected to be worse than the entire Korean War and the entire Vietnam War combined.

The invasion of Honshu would have been even worse than the invasion of Kyushu.

Without the A-bombs, what we today think of as "WWII" would have only been "the first half of WWII".
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 09:10 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
I think they could forgive abortion,


I don't need your forgiveness, your sympathy, your moral outrage or even your approval.

My body, MY decision.

So if I'm taking care of a toddler and I want to leave and go to a party without him/her, that's 'my body and MY decision?'
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 09:15 pm
@livinglava,
Yes, because ALL parents of a toddler drop EVERYTHING to go party.




WTF???
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 09:23 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Forgiving student loans is a horribly regressive policy that will never pass the legislature if Warren becomes president.

If that hair-brained policy could ever pass and become law, then I would NOT support Warrens candidacy. As it stands it’s an impossible dream (and she knows it) so it won’t factor in my decision.

Every democrat always has such a scheme to bribe the public to vote for them, whether it's cash4clunkers car-subsidies, free/discount health insurance, low-interest loans, or whatever.

They never acknowledge that the money they are giving away will just add to inflation and waste to the benefit of the companies collecting the money as payments.

If you want to transform the economy to reform climate, stop advocating more money for the people, taxing the rich to pay for subsidies. All people are going to do with the money is keep driving more. If you want the people to transition to more affordable and thus more climate/environmentally-friendly forms of transportation, residences, products, etc. then allow market competition to discipline their incomes and spending so that they will apply sensibility and prudence to reforming and governing their own behavior instead of expecting government to do it for them.
livinglava
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 09:30 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

Yes, because ALL parents of a toddler drop EVERYTHING to go party.

Don't weasel out of the point I'm making. When you are pregnant, you are 'with child.' The fact that your body is yours is only relevant when your health is threatened by the pregnancy. It would be like if your baby stroller broke and rolled out in front of a car and there was no way for you to save the baby before it was hit by a car. You would still be investigated and probably tried for negligence, but the circumstances would show that you couldn't have saved the baby without getting yourself killed in the process and that would be taken into consideration in the trial.

Roe v. Wade is like a stand your ground law against fetuses, except stand your ground laws only allow you to attack someone with impunity if they are a reasonable threat to you. With Roe v. Wade a perfectly healthy mother can terminate a perfectly healthy pregnancy simply because she feels like it. That would be like having a stand your ground law that allows you to shoot anyone for whatever reason, provided they are on your property, in your vehicle, in your office, etc.

All this bickering about abortion really avoids the larger point, though, which is that male sexual partners bear no liability for causing abortions. Many women probably go through all the stress and trauma of unplanned pregnancy and abortion without even telling their sexual partner what's going on. Even if they do inform the father, how many men truly grasp the gravity of abortion instead of just feeling relieved at not having to deal with unplanned pregnancy/children?

How many men and women would be comfortable engaging in recreational sexual activity that could result in pregnancy if they respected pregnancy as an unborn child? How many people could have sex if they thought about abortion as infanticide, complete with all the criminalization that comes with murdering a newborn infant? It just doesn't make sense to have this abstract legal boundary between fetal life and infant life that determines whether people are murderers or law-abiding citizens.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 09:35 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
Every democrat always has such a scheme to bribe the public to vote for them, whether it's cash4clunkers car-subsidies, free/discount health insurance, low-interest loans, or whatever.


So, cash for a car that has a blown engine, electrical issues and bad brakes is a BRIBE?

Healthcare that isn't $5200 is a scheme?

Low interest loans lower than 39% is a rip-off?

livinglava
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 09:52 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Every democrat always has such a scheme to bribe the public to vote for them, whether it's cash4clunkers car-subsidies, free/discount health insurance, low-interest loans, or whatever.


So, cash for a car that has a blown engine, electrical issues and bad brakes is a BRIBE?

Cash4clunkers provided subsidies for new car purchases. It was a subsidy to the flailing auto industry. The government should have let more people transition to transit instead of affording them cars. Obama made the excuse that the subsidy would stimulate more fuel-efficient cars, but that ultimately prevented even more efficient and sustainable transportation technologies from becoming established.

Remember all the pedicabs at the 2008 Democratic convention? Those were better than cars in many ways, including affordability and sustainability but as long as driving and auto infrastructure are subsidized, people aren't fiscally disciplined to choose them as more affordable options, so alternative transportation and transit remain underutilized and oversubsidized for the sake of paying everyone involved a 'driving wage.'

Quote:
Healthcare that isn't $5200 is a scheme?

Mandating health insurance is a scheme to stimulate investor confidence in the insurance industry, which stimulated the insurance industry as well as health care providers to work harder to extract more money from the overall economic situation created.

Demand inelasticity is the opposite of freedom of choice. The more limited your choices are, the more confidence investors have that they'll be able to sell you a product. This is true of cars, car insurance, and parts where driving demand is relatively inelastic; and it is true of health insurance where there is a mandate for that. It is also, of course, true for health care service and products generally, because people have little choice but to seek medical care when they are sick or injured beyond their own capacity to care for themselves.

Quote:
Low interest loans lower than 39% is a rip-off?

38% percent is not a 'low interest loan.' Not even close.

neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 18 May, 2019 04:41 am
@livinglava,
You bounce from subject to subject, daring someone to actually make sense out of what you're saying. We call the "Dazzling with Bullshit." It's when nothing of importance gets conveyed but takes up a lot of character space to do it.

At no time has your post have any semblance of reality or even fact.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 May, 2019 06:33 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

You bounce from subject to subject, daring someone to actually make sense out of what you're saying. We call the "Dazzling with Bullshit." It's when nothing of importance gets conveyed but takes up a lot of character space to do it.

At no time has your post have any semblance of reality or even fact.

Apparently you just can't connect the dots. Maybe because you are afraid to think critically about what the Democratic party really does vs. what you imagine they do in order to believe in a hero against the GOP they've programmed you to fear.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 May, 2019 08:36 am
Are you noticing what I’m noticing?

Despite an uprising from the left, Hillary chose an anti-abortion VP. The DNC and Pelosi championed several Republican-Democrats who were anti-abortion over progressives

They know that some idiots only vote abortion. They have been attempting to create a state party, and they may do it. This is why they flaunt their hatred of the left. They will try to win with the abortion voters.


Leftward Swing 🌹🌻
@LeftwardSwing
·
3m
"Vote blue no matter who!" is a bunch of 💩

Proof? Meet Lousiana governor John Bel Edwards (D) who will be signing an abortion bill very similar to Alabama's! This is what tribalism does.

🔴Louisiana governor breaks with Democratic Party on abortion.

—————————
No, he *followed* the Democrat party on abortion.

This state party will rival the Nazis.

Don’t let it happen.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 May, 2019 08:49 am
What the Democrat party has put in place to stop democracy is actively working.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/4/26/18518485/marie-newman-lipinski-anti-abortion-dccc-vendors

In early April, the official campaign arm for House Democrats, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said it wouldn’t do business with political vendors — like direct mail companies, advertising firms, or political consultants — that also work for candidates challenging incumbent Democrats. They said it was an effort to protect incumbent Democrats, who they believe give the party’s best chance of keeping control in the House. Progressive lawmakers in Congress railed against what they saw as a “divisive” policy that effectively “blacklisted” groups and candidates.

Now, at least one candidate, Marie Newman — who is mounting a progressive primary challenge against moderate anti-abortion Rep. Dan Lipinski in one of the most hotly contested primaries in the 2020 election cycle — says the DCCC’s rule is actively hindering her ability to campaign.

“I’ve had four consultants leave the campaign,” Newman told Politico. “We’ve now had two mail firms say that they couldn’t work with us because of the DCCC issue, and then a [communications] group, a compliance group and several pollsters.”

Newman is a particularly noteworthy case. In 2018, she ran against Lipinski, an Illinois representative who is now in his eighth term, taking over from his father, as a first-time candidate with almost no name recognition, and almost won. Lipinski, one of the last remaining anti-abortion Democrats, eked out a two-point win in the primary. Now, Newman is running again, with a campaign that’s being championed by progressive activist groups.

This DCCC policy around political vendors has already caused friction within the party. When it was first made public, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the first-term progressive superstar, took to Twitter and told her nearly 3.8 million followers to “pause” their donations to the DCCC — the organization charged with keeping Democrats in the House majority.

“Give directly to swing candidates instead,” she tweeted, sharing the campaign websites of several of her vulnerable Democratic colleagues, who just won in previously Republican-controlled districts. Since, progressive lawmakers, and groups like the Bernie Sanders allied Our Revolution, have met with the DCCC chair Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill) to see if the organization is willing to change its mode of operation. Nothing’s happened so far.

That Newman says she’s now losing political consultants gives progressives more reason to fight with the party.

Progressives have been sounding the alarm bells about this policy all along.
Prioritizing incumbent Democrats is something the DCCC has always done. But in early April, the organization put it in writing, publishing its criteria for determining which political vendors it will do business with in 2020. And it made clear that won’t include vendors that work with candidates challenging incumbent Democrats.

The official policy change sparked outrage among House progressives, several of whom found their way to Congress by doing exactly what the DCCC appears to be discouraging: challenging sitting Democrats. Ocasio-Cortez is one extremely notable example. She beat out Joe Crowley, a New York Democratic Party boss who had even been tapped as a possible successor to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Another is Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), who beat out Boston Democrat Mike Capuano.

Both Pressley and Ocasio-Cortez, with the support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the DCCC’s decision a “divisive” policy and an effort to “blacklist” groups.

The DCCC has pushed back on the term “blacklist.” There is no active list of Democratic political vendors that are banned from the DCCC right now, and this has always been the unspoken policy, one Democratic Party aide familiar with the guidelines told Vox then.

But progressive House members called out what they see as an exclusionary policy that could cut off important coalitions within the party
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2019 07:41 pm
Quote:
Three analysts who set up and look at predictive models say President Donald Trump is likely to win reelection in 2020. The secret? A combination of favorable economic data as well as the normal advantage that incumbents enjoy, according to Steven Rattner, a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/models-predicting-trump-victory-2020.html
0 Replies
 
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 May, 2019 09:00 pm
What chance

45/43 on
0 Replies
 
RedOrchet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2019 08:35 pm
@coa999,
He'll win. The population had terrible instincts the first time he was elected, why stop now? I choose not to vote at all. **** it.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2019 09:29 pm
@RedOrchet ,
Oh no. You don't get to say **** it and back off.

Even if your vote gets cancelled out by a subsequent opposing vote, it's still YOUR voice, YOUR choice. There's honor in that.

This is the system we have. Make the most of it.

Vote.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 30 May, 2019 08:29 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

Oh no. You don't get to say **** it and back off.

Even if your vote gets cancelled out by a subsequent opposing vote, it's still YOUR voice, YOUR choice. There's honor in that.

This is the system we have. Make the most of it.

Vote.

If you vote for the GOP, they will not stop fossil fuels and the public's dependency on them, except by allowing the economy to naturally encourage saving, which the people tend to ignore anyway.

If you vote for the DP, they will preach about climate and pretend to invent regulations and taxes for reform, but all those regulations and taxes will really do is promote investment to drive economic expansion, which in turn will fund the economic/consumer activities that cause industrial waste and climate unsustainability.

Really the best thing you can do is vote GOP and then modify your own life choices to be the change you seek, but of course when you do you will be subject to all the harassment and discrimination Democrats feel they have a right to exact upon you for failing to vote against what they have deemed is an enemy to humanity.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2019 01:58 pm
@engineer,
Interesting (but not surprising) information on Obama-Trump voters. They're sticking with Trump.

Quote:
This is related to another set of Data for Progress findings that also bears on the party’s odds of taking the presidency in 2020: the results involving individuals in swing districts who voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. These Obama-Trump switchers are the voters who Joe Biden has said he’s targeting with his campaign, arguing that he can win them back with his middle-class affect and roguish across-the-aisle charm. Working against Biden, though, is that previous surveys have found that Obama-Trump voters were predominately won over by Trump’s reactionary positions on immigration and cultural diversity—positions that no Democrat, even a relatively moderate one, is going to try to co-opt in 2020 because they would alienate the Democratic base. In political science terms, Trump’s campaign realigned the parties around immigration and race, highlighting what were once relatively peripheral issues in a way that drew Democrats who were already conservative (or, you know, racist) on the subjects into the GOP. Biden skeptics have been arguing for a while that no candidate, no matter how personally charismatic, is going to be able to reverse the realignment given that Trump is certain to make race a central 2020 issue.


The new Data for Progress poll mostly supports the skeptics’ case. Trump’s favorability among the 215 Obama-Trump swing district voters who were surveyed is 71 percent—35 points ahead of Biden’s. And of all respondents, 45 percent view Trump very favorably, compared with only 4 percent who say the same for Biden. Only 19 percent of the Obama-Trump voters have soured on Trump to the point of saying they have a somewhat or very unfavorable view of him, with 9 percent saying they view him neutrally.

Estimates indicate that there were around 7 to 9 million Obama-Trump voters in the country as a whole in 2016. Assuming that Data for Progress’ favorability findings apply to that larger group would mean that only somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 million Obama-Trump voters would even be open to considering voting for a Democrat in 2020. And while it’s true that Biden has better favorable numbers with the Obama-Trump group than other potential Democratic candidates, they’re not vastly better: He’s at 36 percent, with Bernie Sanders at 26 and Elizabeth Warren at 17.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2019 03:49 pm
@engineer,
Interesting data. Thanks. These are certainly turbulent political times, both within and between the contending parties, and I don't feel very confident about any forecasts for future outcomes.

Trump's sometimes thoughtless and preemptory public comments ( social media and otherwise) are still a negative factor for him, even among those who support the actions he has taken as President. That, noted, many of his supporters, and opponents as well, are becoming accustomed to them, possibly reducing their negative effects.

Trump has a significant number of real actions on his part that have visibly improved our economic performance - even as much of the world outside slides into recession . That can go a long way towards limiting the effects of the usually vague progressive promises being made by the Democrat contenders. Nearly all are vague in the extreme regarding just how their promised outcomes will actually be achieved, and, from Obamacare to the Federal student loan issue,and others, the public is currently faced with some prominent ongoing progressive programs that failed to achieve their stated goals, even in several cases doing real harm instead. That opens the door for some possibly telling arguments by Trump and Republicans in the final election.

For the Democrats this issue will manifest itself in the ensuing struggle by the DNC & leading candidates to develop the Party Platform for the election. This process may force the party to focus on concrete proposals for so far vaguely described things like things the modified Green New Deal, promises of paid college tuition and Medicare for all, immigration reform , as well as details on several proposed actions such as "wealth taxes" and open borders might actually be implemented. Its generally easier to criticize that to propose and defend concrete alternatives, and many of these issues involve the dilemma of enthusiastic support from their committed electoral base and, at the same time, likely rejection by a more significant number of swing voters.

This dilemma will hit the so far most likely Democrat, Biden, particularly hard. Everything he does during the primary to attract support from the fairly zealous progressive candidates may hurt him in the final campaign if the wins the nomination. He has so far shown himself fairly inept in the difficult chore of rhetorically balancing the mandates of the aggressively progressive elements of the party with the issues that appear most to win over the very swing voters he will need to win. (and as you reported above, many of them appear to be so far loyal to Trump).

In short some tough choices for Democrats at a time when compromises within the party appear difficult to get.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2019 04:00 pm
@engineer,
I read this as over 20% of Obama-Trump voters (who voted for Trump 2016) definitely won't vote for Trump again.

I think the Democrats should have a laser focus on the economy (including healthcare).

I also think that Trump is going off the rails. Politically this is a very good thing for Democratic chances.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 11:30:13