Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

Options
  • 21-07-2018 2:45pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,026 ✭✭✭✭


    I thought a thread focusing entirely on how the Dems take back the white house might be interesting:o

    Firstly the obvious, its not a cert that Trump will be president in 2020, but for the sake of the thread we will assume he is and to be fair I assume plenty of the Dems who are in power expect so.

    So what I want is for everyone to pick someone who you'd be very confident of beating Trump and someone not so much.:)

    So we will go off the bookie odds. Harris and Sanders are favourites while Biden and Warren a little behind. Gillibrand and Brooker behind them.

    https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/winner


    Anyway the good news for the Dems is Trump is very beatable to say the least and pretty all listed would be solid favourite against him. I'd be temped to go with Biden and maybe Harris as vice.

    Sanders is to old and I think Biden would do well in the rust belt where Trump excelled last time. Harris on the ticket makes sense as nature of the beast will dictate that the two front people of the campaign can't be old white men.

    So what should Trump hope for?

    Some might suggest Harris as she is dull and not trusted by progressives, but while flawed she should have enough to beat Trump, I don't think she would scare the centre and Trump's awfulness would make the hard left vote for her in a way that Macron beat Le Pen.

    Its dull but the fact that Clinton is still floating about is Trumps best chance,she proved last time she was a horrible candidate, while she would be fav v Trump, its not the slam dunk the likes of Biden would be to win.

    Mod EDIT FOR 2020:

    Ok folks, as the primaries are now over and the election proper is heating up, the former "Beating/Losing to Trump in 2020" Thread is now the official US Presidential Election 2020 Thread.

    Remember there are other elections going on too with the Representatives and Senate. If anyone wants to discuss these, they can be done in a separate thread.

    All the usual rules still apply - keep it country, no link dumps, no personal abuse, soapboxing or trolling etc. Try to keep the one liners to a minimum, and if, for example, you are commenting live on a debate, please post the context of your comment e.g.:
    If elected I will give tax breaks to elderly people

    An interesting policy by Trump

    Has context.
    OMG Trump just wiped the floor with Sleepy Joe

    Does not.

    Happy hunting!

    Who Will The Dems pick in 2020 830 votes

    Harris
    58% 484 votes
    Bernie
    3% 27 votes
    Clinton
    9% 76 votes
    Brooker
    1% 13 votes
    Biden
    0% 3 votes
    Gillbrand
    16% 136 votes
    Oprah!
    0% 5 votes
    Warren
    2% 20 votes
    Klobuchar
    4% 35 votes
    Michelle Obama
    0% 2 votes
    Cuomo
    3% 29 votes


«134567306

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,026 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Ideally I'd like this not to turn into whether you think Trump is good/bad as we have plenty of places to debate that here! :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,083 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Can you add an other option to the poll?

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,026 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Can you add an other option to the poll?

    Up to the mods:)

    Any suggestions? I just looked at oddschecker and picked who they had named.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    The democrats have no-one to run against Trump.
    If the economy holds he'll get a second term.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,083 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    Up to the mods:)

    Any suggestions? I just looked at oddschecker and picked who they had named.

    Nope, none really that stick out right now. Mitch Landau (sp?) Is a potential one but really it's too early to think about a serious candidate or should I say it's there is so much time left for someone to step forward which is what will happen.

    I don't think any of the options I read will be the Democratic candidate.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,748 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Here's the current odds from oddschecker

    Kamala Harris 9/2
    Joe Biden 11/2
    Bernie Sanders 6/1
    Elizabeth Warren 7/1
    Gavin Newsom 7/1
    Kirsten Gillibrand 12/1
    Amy Kloubchar 14/1
    Joe Kennedy III 14/1
    Kirsten Gillbrand 14/1
    Tom Steyer 16/1
    Oprah Winfrey 16/1
    Eric Holder 20/1
    Mark Cuban 20/1
    Michelle Obama 25/1
    Amy Klobuchar 20/1
    Andrew Cuomo 25/1
    Cory Booker 33/1
    Tulsi Gabbard 33/1
    Hillary Clinton 33/1
    Eric Garcetti 33/1
    John Hickenlooper 33/1
    Sherrod Brown 33/1
    Christopher Murphy 33/1
    Mitch Landrieu 33/1
    Mark Warner 40/1
    Terry McAuliffe 40/1
    Al Franken 50/1
    Julian Castro 50/1
    Mark Zuckerberg 50/1
    Tim Kaine 50/1
    Martin OMalley 50/1
    Bill de Blasio 50/1
    John Kerry 50/1
    Jerry Brown 50/1
    Jim Webb 66/1
    Joe Manchin 66/1
    Steve Bullock 66/1
    Tammy Duckworth 80/1
    Jay Nixon 80/1
    Al Gore 100/1
    Chelsea Clinton 100/1
    George Clooney 100/1
    Lady Gaga 100/1


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,026 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Cheers. :)

    Its interesting when Obama was in charge Brooker was considered by many a serious candidate for presidency, but at the moment I don't see it happening. The progressives don't trust him and the centre left have Harris to get behind.

    Julien Castro was the bookies fav to be vice instead of Kaine also, but his stock seems to have fallen also.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,748 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    Cheers. :)

    Its interesting when Obama was in charge Brooker was considered by many a serious candidate for presidency, but at the moment I don't see it happening. The progressives don't trust him and the centre left have Harris to get behind.

    Julien Castro was the bookies fav to be vice instead of Kaine also, but his stock seems to have fallen also.

    I think Joe Biden is probably their best bet, but he is too old I think, he would have beaten Trump last time had he gone for and got the Democratic Nomination.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,026 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    I assumed Biden was in his late sixties, but 75? That's really old:eek:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/absent-joe-biden-where-do-centrist-democrats-turn-in-2020.html

    For those who don't want to read, the centre left of the Dems party will be hoping Biden runs as there isn't many noteworthy alternatives.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    Oprah would be my pick from that list. Michelle Obama has the weakness of he husband being used against her imo. Not sure of possible skeletons in Oprahs closet tbh. She said earlier in the year she didn't want to run but....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,578 ✭✭✭✭briany


    badtoro wrote: »
    Oprah would be my pick from that list. Michelle Obama has the weakness of he husband being used against her imo. Not sure of possible skeletons in Oprahs closet tbh. She said earlier in the year she didn't want to run but....

    Oprah wouldn't have a hope, IMO. The way Trump won the nomination was that he was able to verbally sledgehammer and belittle his opponents, and propose stuff to an extreme that his opponents felt was too divisive. Celebrity alone did not carry him through. I don't see Oprah using the same tactic, and I don't see her having much in the way of policy that more experienced politicians on the Democratic side can't offer like Sanders and like Warren.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    The democrats have no-one to run against Trump.
    If the economy holds he'll get a second term.

    I doubt the economy will hold if he keeps going the way he is with his trade war carryon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Townton


    So everyone running against him is a favorite to beat him. Can't help but think such a prusumtion may prove to be as true as it was when people said similar things before he ever even announced his candidacy back in 2015. One thing he does have over the dems is a the solid support of not just his base but according to new polls 90% of republicans. 2016 also proved he can nab voters that may go either way.

    Also last time he ran on rhetoric this time he has a record, you might point to the trade wars and Paris agreement or Iran deal ect, but the fact is he said he would do all that, people voted for him and he did it, hard to see how the promises people voted for would be any use in combating him. I think he can be beaten but it won't be in anyway predictable until the votes are in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    This all seems a bit pointless to be honest OP.

    The variability between different political landscapes that might occur between now and 2020 is absolutely enormous.

    Anything from the Dems controlling both houses and a sizeable chunk of Trump's campaign team, Trump himself (impeached), and a dozen or more Republican Senetors and Congressmen, all indicted on various charges, all the way to total control of the government by the Republicans with Trump managing to hold on and coasting into a second term on the back of a steady economy, and the degrees between those two potential realities are innumberable, significant, and each seemingly as likely as any other.

    It could be a show of the system in action, finding everything is above board or there has been criminal activity. There could be an ordinary transition into a new presidential term, civil war, or an overt blooming of outright fascism.

    Sometimes there's a nice steady run up to the elections and everyone knows, or thinks they know what the lay of the land is, but this time US politics has completely gone off the deep end.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Like Irish politics, giving the electorate the choice between a rock and another rock isn't going to help anything.

    The Democrats should give Sanders a go, but he isn't right wing or corporate enough for them.
    Chances are they'll pick someone like Warren. It would be handing it to Trump to pick Clinton again.

    Trump is bigly popular with conservatives who simply don't want the democrats in. Trump can and does what he likes as long as he keeps up the rhetoric and vested interests happy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    We can totally forget any notion of Hillary Clinton running again, or her daughter, or the likes of Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama.

    Bernie Sanders will be 79, Joe Biden will be 78 - forget them too.

    As someone has said, to say anyone "should have enough to beat Trump" is very presumptuous. Not only do I believe he will be there until 2024, I also believe the Reps will find themselves running with someone similar to him in 2024 - maybe even another Trump!

    But back to the point - it'll be Harris - and she'll encounter many of the same misogynistic problems HRC did, and she'll lose. So many Americans don't want a female leader, although they won't admit it and they'll pretend other issues are at play. On the other hand, the democrats will be much more highly motivated to campaign and vote. But she'll still lose.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Trump is only 3 years younger than Biden and four younger than Sanders so why are they too old and not Trump who looks in worse physical shape.

    As far as race goes it comes down to a handful of states, Trumps not winning somewhere he didn't win in 16 unless a major world event takes place and the Dems aren't winning any of the deep South/great plain states which probably means only Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin are up for grabs


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,099 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Booker not Brooker. Personally would vote for Tim Kaine, he should've been a choice.

    Another useful poll option is 'someone not already on this list.'


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Trump is only 3 years younger than Biden and four younger than Sanders so why are they too old and not Trump who looks in worse physical shape.

    He’s 7 and 8 years younger than them as a first term president. They want someone who’ll serve 8 years!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    He’s 7 and 8 years younger than them as a first term president. They want someone who’ll serve 8 years!

    Electorate might just want Trump out so bad come 2020 and Biden would be seen as someone who could steady the ship for four years and then hand it over in 2024.

    It's all speculation right now of course.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,639 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Most on that list haven't a hope of winning in 2020.

    From the conservative side I'd be wary of only maybe Sanders from that list. But the GOP would decimate him as he's a socialist and the US is "not too fond" shall we say of socialism.

    The ridiculous candidates like Oprah, Michelle Obama etc would be a cakewalk for Trump.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Until the November midterms, any discussion is the height of premature; I doubt even the Democrats are strategising too heavily at this juncture. Why would they? There are a lot of things in flux - political and legal - and it won't be until the midterms that any sense of the new status quo will present itself. If the Democrats take control of congress, it changes the conversation utterly, as opposed to currently when they're on the backfoot and reactive.

    Internally, the increasing number of openly progressive candidates such as the feted Ocasio-Cortez is also a big issue. An issue that might become much larger if said progressives are successful in November. There's a circle to be squared in getting all the party onside when it comes to the Primaries: the Sanders-Clinton battle was ugly enough, another Progressive vs. Establishment battle could kill the 2020 challenge before it even started IMO. I wouldn't say I feel sympathy for the Democrat leadership, as they've dug their own hole by & large, but I don't envy the horsetrading that'll be required either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭derb12


    Eric holder (ex attorney general) is also considering a run. He was on colbert recently.
    I agree with last poster - no point speculating until after the midterms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Townton


    pixelburp wrote: »

    Internally, the increasing number of openly progressive candidates such as the feted Ocasio-Cortez is also a big issue. An issue that might become much larger if said progressives are successful in November. There's a circle to be squared in getting all the party onside when it comes to the Primaries: the Sanders-Clinton battle was ugly enough, another Progressive vs. Establishment battle could kill the 2020 challenge before it even started IMO. I wouldn't say I feel sympathy for the Democrat leadership, as they've dug their own hole by & large, but I don't envy the horsetrading that'll be required either.

    Not to mention that ocasio-cortez is proving to be a bit of a PR disaster at the moment given some of her recent interviews. There are also a number of establishment Democrats encouraging those who loose out to the so called new "progressives" to run anyways.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Townton wrote: »
    Not to mention that ocasio-cortez is proving to be a bit of a PR disaster at the moment given some of her recent interviews. There are also a number of establishment Democrats encouraging those who loose out to the so called new "progressives" to run anyways.

    Do you mean the Parody interview that people thought was real ,that was faked by a right wing site (Daily Caller I think) ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,227 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    We have a 11 months to go to reach the point Trump entered the fray for the 2016 election. So that's an indication of when things could be said to become serious in terms of nomination. One year down the line we'll have had midterms; another few thousand man hours of investigation into Russian interference in the last election; another full year of Trump and the reactions he creates.

    There are three key differences this time round:
    • Trump will not be underestimated by the Democrats and the campaign team of the eventual nominee
    • There will be a surge of activist engagement way in excess of anything Clinton was able to inspire
    • The tactics employed by Trump will have been studied and well understood

    I don't anticipate huge difficulty within the Democratic party uniting around a contender this time round. More than ever before, just winning is what matters. I expect a consensus candidate to emerge relatively early in the primary process ala John Kerry in 2004. I would suggest that it will become clear who that player is around Christmas of next year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,170 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    I think they need to go for some fairly moderate Democrat as opposed to an out and out lefty like sanders or warren. There’s a lot of unknowns at the moment and things currently progressing that could really effect trumps chances. As things stand if the economy holds up he probably has a good chance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,996 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It would be a complete outsider - people like Dwayne Johnson, or Tom Hanks. Maybe even a primary challenge from Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    The right wing has singled out most of the people on this poll as tangible political threats and have engineered attacks against them - and frankly, in the Trump era, those attacks work to shut down sanity and rationale. Under normal political circumstances I would have voted for a ticket that included Sen. Warren, but her odds are not good owing in large part to how much static the right-wing has made about her being "Pocahontas," accusations which frankly, her rebuttals have been less than concrete against. It's another wave of Birtherism. Even if she did produce a DNA analysis, the right would try to argue the results are bogus as they did with President Obama's birth certificate. Bernie will not (or should not) run again either, I don't think enough voters take him seriously not just for his Democratic-Socialist platform (which will pick up steam in coming years anyway) but because he doesn't strike the average person as a strong leader, he is seen as a cranky old man that is up in his post-retirement years.

    While it would make sense for the policy and the stability to elect someone like Michelle Obama I don't fancy her chances either. The US has no interest in dynasties. Al Gore came real close, but his competition was also the son of the then-newest former president, GHWB. I don't think given the choice Americans really want that at all. For that and other aforementioned reasons Clinton, Gore, Biden, and anyone else that was a direct insider of a prior administration need not apply, the "Deep State" conspiracy would ruin their message. That's why I think it is going to be another Washington outsider, to compete with a "Washington outsider."

    It would be really hard to accuse The Rock of being a Deep State operative, or to find something wrong with him when Americans from all sides have found reasons to like and follow the man's career, from his fake wrestling "Candy Ass Jabroni," People's Elbow days to his work in films ranging from Disney characters to action movie heroes that just jump out of hospital beds, arm-flex their casts off, and go beat the crap out of bad people. And that's how he got rich, not by making curious real estate deals with Russian oligarchs or working his way through state government and enriching himself dubiously along the way. His work with Disney especially will work for him. The House of Mouse doesn't tolerate anyone who doesn't exude a wholesome image, and I doubt there are any James-Gunn-like tweets hanging out in his closet that are going to torpedo him with static in a campaign. Johnson has already made it clear he's considering a run and it honestly seems like one of the least absurd choices out there. The most anyone could try to attack him for is being an actor, and thus untrustworthy - but given not just the fact that Reagan is a former president, but the fact that Trump is a demonstrably pathological liar himself, I think this would be a really desperate vector to hit him on. I don't know. I'd like to hear what others think, as I can't think what oppo is really going to injure him if he did try to run.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    Overheal wrote: »
    It would be really hard to accuse The Rock of being a Deep State operative, or to find something wrong with him when Americans from all sides have found reasons to like and follow the man's career, from his fake wrestling "Candy Ass Jabroni," People's Elbow days to his work in films ranging from Disney characters to action movie heroes that just jump out of hospital beds, arm-flex their casts off, and go beat the crap out of bad people. And that's how he got rich, not by making curious real estate deals with Russian oligarchs. His work with Disney especially will work for him. The House of Mouse doesn't tolerate anyone who doesn't exude a wholesome image, and I doubt there are any James-Gunn-like tweets hanging out in his closet that are going to torpedo him with static in a campaign. Johnson has already made it clear he's considering a run and it honestly seems like one of the least absurd choices out there. The most anyone could try to attack him for is being an actor, and thus untrustworthy - but given not just the fact that Reagan is a former president, but the fact that Trump is a demonstrably pathological liar himself, I think this would be a really desperate vector to hit him on. I don't know. I'd like to hear what others think, as I can't think what oppo is really going to injure him if he did try to run.


    I like it.

    Also would come with the added benefit of him being able to physically eject each and every member of the current administration from the WH.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 822 ✭✭✭blackwave


    Overheal wrote: »
    It would be a complete outsider - people like Dwayne Johnson, or Tom Hanks. Maybe even a primary challenge from Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    The right wing has singled out most of the people on this poll as tangible political threats and have engineered attacks against them - and frankly, in the Trump era, those attacks work to shut down sanity and rationale. Under normal political circumstances I would have voted for a ticket that included Sen. Warren, but her odds are not good owing in large part to how much static the right-wing has made about her being "Pocahontas," accusations which frankly, her rebuttals have been less than concrete against. It's another wave of Birtherism. Even if she did produce a DNA analysis, the right would try to argue the results are bogus as they did with President Obama's birth certificate. Bernie will not (or should not) run again either, I don't think enough voters take him seriously not just for his Democratic-Socialist platform (which will pick up steam in coming years anyway) but because he doesn't strike the average person as a strong leader, he is seen as a cranky old man that is up in his post-retirement years.

    While it would make sense for the policy and the stability to elect someone like Michelle Obama I don't fancy her chances either. The US has no interest in dynasties. Al Gore came real close, but his competition was also the son of the then-newest former president, GHWB. I don't think given the choice Americans really want that at all. For that and other aforementioned reasons Clinton, Gore, Biden, and anyone else that was a direct insider of a prior administration need not apply, the "Deep State" conspiracy would ruin their message. That's why I think it is going to be another Washington outsider, to compete with a "Washington outsider."

    It would be really hard to accuse The Rock of being a Deep State operative, or to find something wrong with him when Americans from all sides have found reasons to like and follow the man's career, from his fake wrestling "Candy Ass Jabroni," People's Elbow days to his work in films ranging from Disney characters to action movie heroes that just jump out of hospital beds, arm-flex their casts off, and go beat the crap out of bad people. And that's how he got rich, not by making curious real estate deals with Russian oligarchs or working his way through state government and enriching himself dubiously along the way. His work with Disney especially will work for him. The House of Mouse doesn't tolerate anyone who doesn't exude a wholesome image, and I doubt there are any James-Gunn-like tweets hanging out in his closet that are going to torpedo him with static in a campaign. Johnson has already made it clear he's considering a run and it honestly seems like one of the least absurd choices out there. The most anyone could try to attack him for is being an actor, and thus untrustworthy - but given not just the fact that Reagan is a former president, but the fact that Trump is a demonstrably pathological liar himself, I think this would be a really desperate vector to hit him on. I don't know. I'd like to hear what others think, as I can't think what oppo is really going to injure him if he did try to run.

    The live debates would be interesting anyway, Dwayne is a very charismatic speaker to be fair and would be well able for Donald's crap.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement