US Presidential Election 2020

is_that_so

And not before time, this phoney war has been dreary beyond compare.

ghost of ireland past

Is anyone reading 'Running against the Devil' by Rick Wilson?

I'm reading it and I think it's very enjoyable, and full of excellent info.

Rick would not be permitted to post on Boards. He is too aggressive, he uses too many names and nicknames but he is ruthlessly pragmatic and I think his advice on how to beat Trump is very good. Rick is suggesting that the Democrats need to make the election about Trump, and about nothing else. Constant attacks on Trump, and on his character, and on his lies and history, and on his cowardice and weakness, and on his appearance and his sex life, his small hands etc. Everything is fair game, according to Rick.

I more or less agree with him. Policies don't seem to be convincing to many Americans.

The next election could well be a war. That's what Trump intends.

I also read Rick Wilson's previous book, Everything Trump Touches Dies, that was also good but I think this one is better, and is entirely appropriate for this thread, on how the Dems should beat Trump.

The Phantom Jipper

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Is anyone reading 'Running against the Devil' by Rick Wilson?

I'm reading it and I think it's very enjoyable, and full of excellent info.

Rick would not be permitted to post on Boards. He is too aggressive, he uses too many names and nicknames but he is ruthlessly pragmatic and I think his advice on how to beat Trump is very good. Rick is suggesting that the Democrats need to make the election about Trump, and about nothing else. Constant attacks on Trump, and on his character, and on his lies and history, and on his cowardice and weakness, and on his appearance and his sex life, his small hands etc. Everything is fair game, according to Rick.

I more or less agree with him. Policies don't seem to be convincing to many Americans.

The next election could well be a war. That's what Trump intends.

I also read Rick Wilson's previous book, Everything Trump Touches Dies, that was also good but I think this one is better, and is entirely appropriate for this thread, on how the Dems should beat Trump.

There's certainly plenty of material to attack Trump on but was the personal stuff not already tried last time with Hillary? The guy owned up to being a sex offender and it wasn't enough for some people. People are aware he's a scumbag, I'd worry there's diminishing returns on that one.

The Phantom Jipper

I wonder if that Des Moines Register poll will ever be released, even after the caucus to sate people's curiosity. Pure speculation but I'd wonder if the Buttigieg campaign caught wind that it was going to have unflattering numbers for the candidate and sabotaged its release.

ghost of ireland past

For me now, if it's not Andy Yang, then Pete Buttigeig is the best bet.

Biden represents the past and there's nothing he can do about it. Warren is too extreme, as is Bernie. Andy Yang seems to be gone, and even if he isn't he's a little too asian for Americans I suspect.

That leaves Pete.

He's better than I thought. I saw him on Bill Maher last Friday, (Rick Wilson was also on), and Pete sounded very good. He even got some slagging in on Trump and I think that's essential. Pete said that the soldiers who suffered concussions in the Iranian attack, which Trump said were only headaches, and Pete said the concussions were more serious than bone spurs.


Trump can't be beaten on policy as he basically doesn't have any. I think if the election is fought on Trump's fitness to be president that's the best chance. The Dems need to pick a centrist, and not someone from the crazy wing, like Bernie or Warren, as they're too easy for Trump to misrepresent and attack. Pete is a centrist isn't he?

Also, Rick Wilson advises to completely forget about the popular vote. It means nothing. Ignore the deep blue states as they will vote Democrat anyway. Only campaign in the swing states in the Electoral College, about 15 of them, and hammer Trump incessently, by pointing out how his policies, like the Trade War, have been very damaging to people in the swing states, and also by attacking him personally.


There's quite a few videos going around now with Trump unable to speak correctly. If Trump starts to have problems when speaking he's in trouble. He tries to pronouce a word, he gets it wrong, so he immediately says 'look', and brings his hands together. That looks very bad, and people like Bill Maher are using videos like that on their shows. Bill also showed the infamous 'pee tape' video last Friday. (Its a fake obviously, but still damaging to Trump)

briany

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

There's certainly plenty of material to attack Trump on but was the personal stuff not already tried last time with Hillary? The guy owned up to being a sex offender and it wasn't enough for some people. People are aware he's a scumbag, I'd worry there's diminishing returns on that one.

"He may be a scumbag, but he's *our* scumbag!"

I agree, attacking Trump ad hominem is not a great strategy. If you go after him in this way, there's an implication that you have no great message of your own. Biden's whole thing appears to be, "Remember when the president was some guy who spoke dull political platitudes? Great times, eh?"

AbusesToilets

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

For me now, if it's not Andy Yang, then Pete Buttigeig is the best bet.

Biden represents the past and there's nothing he can do about it. Warren is too extreme, as is Bernie. Andy Yang seems to be gone, and even if he isn't he's a little too asian for Americans I suspect.

That leaves Pete.

He's better than I thought. I saw him on Bill Maher last Friday, (Rick Wilson was also on), and Pete sounded very good. He even got some slagging in on Trump and I think that's essential. Pete said that the soldiers who suffered concussions in the Iranian attack, which Trump said were only headaches, and Pete said the concussions were more serious than bone spurs.


Trump can't be beaten on policy as he basically doesn't have any. I think if the election is fought on Trump's fitness to be president that's the best chance. The Dems need to pick a centrist, and not someone from the crazy wing, like Bernie or Warren, as they're too easy for Trump to misrepresent and attack. Pete is a centrist isn't he?

Also, Rick Wilson advises to completely forget about the popular vote. It means nothing. Ignore the deep blue states as they will vote Democrat anyway. Only campaign in the swing states in the Electoral College, about 15 of them, and hammer Trump incessently, by pointing out how his policies, like the Trade War, have been very damaging to people in the swing states, and also by attacking him personally.


There's quite a few videos going around now with Trump unable to speak correctly. If Trump starts to have problems when speaking he's in trouble. He tries to pronouce a word, he gets it wrong, so he immediately says 'look', and brings his hands together. That looks very bad, and people like Bill Maher are using videos like that on their shows. Bill also showed the infamous 'pee tape' video last Friday. (Its a fake obviously, but still damaging to Trump)

He's another empty suit, the epitome of corporate Democrat. He stands for absolutely nothing, except his own self interest.

ghost of ireland past

People believe that the Democrats lost the last election, rather than Trump winning it, because the Democrats are so crazy.

Picking a candidate that Trump can attack incessently means you will lose. Maybe the Dems should pick someone like Jimmy Carr, who will simply attack Trump on a personal basis for ever.

I am serious about that. Who is an American version of Jimmy Carr?
Lisa Lampanelli.

Have you heard her sets?
Constant politically incorrect abuse. I find her very funny but she is incredibly offensive and abusive.

I don't think Trump would want to debate her. She would destroy him.

Maybe she should be Pete's running mate?
I'm thinking outside the box. There's problems with everybody else.

briany

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

People believe that the Democrats lost the last election, rather than Trump winning it, because the Democrats are so crazy.

Picking a candidate that Trump can attack incessently means you will lose. Maybe the Dems should pick someone like Jimmy Carr, who will simply attack Trump on a personal basis for ever.

I am serious about that. Who is an American version of Jimmy Carr?
Lisa Lampanelli.

Have you heard her sets?
Constant politically incorrect abuse. I find her very funny but she is incredibly offensive and abusive.

I don't think Trump would want to debate her. She would destroy him.

Maybe she should be Pete's running mate?
I'm thinking outside the box. There's problems with everybody else.

Trump's ability to verbally bully people is only one part of the story. While Trump only became politically active in the last few years, if you don't count his half-hearted runs for the likes of the Reform Party, he has been around politics for a long, long time, and has maintained a vested interest. I was just watching an interview of his from 1998 on Larry King where he describes himself as a Republican and bemoans the fact that neither party can really tap into the public mood. Not to forget that Trump was pretty much planning his 2016 run for a few years, and had his basic policies fairly set out. This is why you can't just put some mouthy celebrity against Trump and think they might do well. If they have no message, then they'll fail. Trump had a message. It might have been crass, regressive, un-statesmanlike and peppered with lies, but it tapped into what a subset of the American public was feeling all the same.

everlast75

One of the main things Trump ran on was the basis that he was an outsider and that he would revise Washington, do things his way, faster, cheaper, more effective, fresh ideas.

Basically the guy who flogged the Monorail to Springfield.

And people lapped it up.

Now he will have 4 years behind him, 4 years of failure and controversy, of ill thought out policies, of capitulation to foreign governments, his racism, his tax returns still haven't surfaced. He can be attacked on those.

Now I get it. There are about 30% of the voting public who don't give two sh1ts about all of those facts, they'll vote for him anyway.

But the key point here is that there may be people who voted for him last time who will vote for him again, but there will be no one voting for him this time who voted for him in 2016. He isn't winning people over. He's merely holding on to some of what he had.

People were conned by a snake oil salesman. Some continue to want to be conned. I'd say a good portion don't.

He's stated that he will cheat again in 2020. It's up to every right thinking individual to get out and vote.

The president of the United States thought Kansas City was in Kansas.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

He's stated that he will cheat again in 2020. It's up to every right thinking individual to get out and vote.

Vote for who though? A potentially dodgy man who looks like he is in the early throws of dementia?
Bernie and his free Medicare which won't get through Congress?
If they had a guy up there between 40-55 with good charisma then Trump would be gone in November but they don't, they have a bunch of 70 somethings who have no hope of winning an election. Of those old guys I think only Bloomberg has a chance at beating Trump.
Personally would much prefer to see Yang, Patrick or Bennett get the nomination but it's not going to happen. Imo they would all beat Trump. Yang is exciting and young with fresh ideas and a modern day profile. Patrick would have Obama firmly in his corner and Bennett beat cancer which is something everybody can relate to.

Yang might, but Patrick or Bennett? Comical. Trump would massacre them.


Bernie will be the next president of the U.S.

Manic Moran

eagle eye wrote: »

Of those old guys I think only Bloomberg has a chance at beating Trump.

Bloomberg's primary campaign policy seems to be gun control. He just spent $10m on a Superbowl ad for it. That has never yet proven to be a winning policy in the US.

BBC had a quick video up this week on a county in Iowa which saw the largest percentage of Obama voters vote for Trump in the country. They'll vote Democrat... but only if it's a moderate one.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-51330442/iowa-caucus-we-voted-for-obama-then-trump

Mancomb Seepgood

I was listening to Niall Stanage of The Hill newspaper on Eamon Dunphy's podcast talking about Bloomberg's candidacy. Essentially he sees Bloomberg as essentially depending on Joe Biden undergoing a catastrophic drop in support or committing a gaffe so outrageous that it calls his candidacy into question.If that happens,Bloomberg might be in a position to sweep up older,more centrist Democrat voters.Though if Pete Buttigieg is still in the race he might do the same.

pixelburp

Ye god's, I had forgot Bloomberg was even IN this race. How in all that is sensible could anyone reckon he has a hope in winning the nomination? The man has barely polled into double digits, has garnered almost as much airtime or media coverage, yet some might suggest he has a hope? It's a glorious vanity project and from what I've seen, first preference Biden voters don't slide straight into Bloomberg.

Brian?

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

For me now, if it's not Andy Yang, then Pete Buttigeig is the best bet.

Biden represents the past and there's nothing he can do about it. Warren is too extreme, as is Bernie. Andy Yang seems to be gone, and even if he isn't he's a little too asian for Americans I suspect.

That leaves Pete.

He's better than I thought. I saw him on Bill Maher last Friday, (Rick Wilson was also on), and Pete sounded very good. He even got some slagging in on Trump and I think that's essential. Pete said that the soldiers who suffered concussions in the Iranian attack, which Trump said were only headaches, and Pete said the concussions were more serious than bone spurs.


Trump can't be beaten on policy as he basically doesn't have any. I think if the election is fought on Trump's fitness to be president that's the best chance. The Dems need to pick a centrist, and not someone from the crazy wing, like Bernie or Warren, as they're too easy for Trump to misrepresent and attack. Pete is a centrist isn't he?

Also, Rick Wilson advises to completely forget about the popular vote. It means nothing. Ignore the deep blue states as they will vote Democrat anyway. Only campaign in the swing states in the Electoral College, about 15 of them, and hammer Trump incessently, by pointing out how his policies, like the Trade War, have been very damaging to people in the swing states, and also by attacking him personally.


There's quite a few videos going around now with Trump unable to speak correctly. If Trump starts to have problems when speaking he's in trouble. He tries to pronouce a word, he gets it wrong, so he immediately says 'look', and brings his hands together. That looks very bad, and people like Bill Maher are using videos like that on their shows. Bill also showed the infamous 'pee tape' video last Friday. (Its a fake obviously, but still damaging to Trump)

Hilary spent so little time in the rust belt blue states she turned them red. That's terrible advice. Rule 1 for the dems is to energise their base. The dem base is actually bigger than the GOP base, get out the young and minority vote and the general is in the bag. It worked for Obama and the GOP has shrunk every year.

StringerBell

pixelburp wrote: »

Ye god's, I had forgot Bloomberg was even IN this race. How in all that is sensible could anyone reckon he has a hope in winning the nomination? The man has barely polled into double digits, has garnered almost as much airtime or media coverage, yet some might suggest he has a hope? It's a glorious vanity project and from what I've seen, first preference Biden voters don't slide straight into Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is spending a lot of money in places where nobody else is right now and it will remain to be seen how that goes as we progress.

What is good about him is he has already committed to utilising his growing ground game and deep pockets to support whoever the nominee is, whether it's him or not.

Fr Tod Umptious

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

There's certainly plenty of material to attack Trump on but was the personal stuff not already tried last time with Hillary? The guy owned up to being a sex offender and it wasn't enough for some people. People are aware he's a scumbag, I'd worry there's diminishing returns on that one.

The problem with attacking Trump as a sex offender last time was that Hillary did not have a leg to stand on morally because she stuck by philanderer in chief Bill when it was politically expedient for her to do so.

eagle eye

Rjd2 wrote:

Well it looks like Iowa is in the bag for Bernie which is a nice start.

The biggest thing coming out of Iowa is the amount of undecideds. It doesn't bode well if this continues for whoever gets the nomination.

Rjd2

Iowa has been an absolute disaster. I think Bernie has won, but who the flying **** knows.:o

StringerBell

Not gonna be releasing reports until Tuesday.

sid waddell

What a complete joke.

America doesn't do democracy. Not now and not in November.

https://twitter.com/jaylencavil/status/1224531122354298881

America cracks me up.

pixelburp

The whole idea of a "caucus" is ludicrously outdated and archaic in 2020 anyway, but that could describe a huge chunk of the US's voting system by and large. The zeal with which they refuse to bend, change or develop a system so obviously quaint yet not fit for purpose, is eye-roll inducing. But the people are sucked into the myth of it all, coin tosses n' all. Jesus Christ.

What's the reason as to why the results are being delayed? A surge in interest?

Dytalus

pixelburp wrote: »

The whole idea of a "caucus" is ludicrously outdated and archaic in 2020 anyway, but that could describe a huge chunk of the US's voting system by and large. The zeal with which they refuse to bend, change or develop a system so obviously quaint yet not fit for purpose, is eye-roll inducing. But the people are sucked into the myth of it all, coin tosses n' all. Jesus Christ.

What's the reason as to why the results are being delayed? A surge in interest?

Double checking inconsistencies is one thing I've heard. They also had an app for caucus leaders to report the results...and it isn't working. They'll be keeping the paper trail though, so at least without the app they can still verify the results.

RobertKK

The Democrats must have been trying to rig their selection process again :P

2016 had the bias for Hillary over Bernie.

Then they get the start to their selection process off to a very questionable start.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

The Democrats must have been trying to rig their selection process again :P

Perhaps they should just ask for Russia's help in the main election....

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1224657196392370177?s=20

True, Trump won Iowa last night, 97.1%.
Democrats, who knows...

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1224657196392370177?s=20

True, Trump won Iowa last night, 97.1%.
Democrats, who knows...

1) When the ran the Country, the deficit shrank, jobs increased etc.

2) Criticising The Obamacare website for its difficulties when he is trying to remove the ACA is on brand for Trump