US Presidential Election 2020

FreudianSlippers

rossie1977 wrote: »

Obama's is sitting 11th overall in president aggregate ranking based on 4 scholar surveys undertaken, Trump is 44th in his one survey inclusion.

For reference
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Harry S. Truman
7. Woodrow Wilson
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Andrew Jackson
10. John F Kennedy
11. Barack Obama
12. James K. Polk
13. Lyndon B. Johnson
14. James Madison
15. John Adams
16. Ronald Reagan
17. James Monroe
18. Bill Clinton
19. William McKinley
20. Grover Cleveland

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-worst-president-presidential-greatness-survey-presidents-day-obama-george-washington-a8218721.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

eagle eye

oscarBravo wrote:

As for him being the worst President ever, I stick by my earlier statement. The only people who think that are the kind who let the overgrown toddler in the White House do their thinking for them.

Well it's in my post, I agree that he wasn't the worst ever by any stretch.

oscarBravo

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it's in my post, I agree that he wasn't the worst ever by any stretch.

Sure, I saw that. It wasn't directed at you.

The Phantom Jipper

theguzman wrote: »

Trump's intervention in Venezuela is likely to resonate well amongst Latino voters most who support the ousting of Maduro, that coupled with Orinoco oil coming on stream to the market will further lower oil prices. If Maduro won't leave peacefully Bolsonaro in Brazil will invade for Bolton. Joe Biden or Sanders are the only hope for Democrats in 2020, there isn't a hope in hell American's will send a black woman to the White House, Obama is widely seen as America's worst ever President and Racial prejudice runs deep in America and in the secrecy of the Ballot box people will vote this way.

Polling has shown that people think Obama did a better job than Trump is currently doing. Obama's popularity has actually increased since he left office as people see how his successor is getting on. Obama's intervention in the 2020 campaign will be a net positive to the candidate whether they be black or otherwise.

Muahahaha

Some here might be interested in Allan Licthmans "Keys to the White House". Its a prediction model based on research for predicting earthquakes. It has been largely accurate at predicting the next president over the last 30 years since it was created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House
From Wiki

The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.[7]

Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. (Negative- GOP lost seats in 2018 compared to their 2014 results)
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (Looking negative if recession predictions play out)
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (turning negative with Russia revelations)
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (Arguably negative unless counting N.Korea as a major success)
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (Unknown but if he runs Biden would be considered very charismatic)

For me five of the keys are negative at the moment and if a charismatic challenger runs for the Dems or another statement turns negative that would make it six which the model then says would give the Dems the WH in 2020

Fr Tod Umptious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Some here might be interested in Allan Licthmans "Keys to the White House". Its a prediction model based on research for predicting earthquakes. It has been largely accurate at predicting the next president over the last 30 years since it was created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House
From Wiki

The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.[7]

Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. (Negative- GOP lost seats in 2018 compared to their 2014 results)
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (Looking negative if recession predictions play out)
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (turning negative with Russia revelations)
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (Arguably negative unless counting N.Korea as a major success)
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (Unknown but if he runs Biden would be considered very charismatic)

For me five of the keys are negative at the moment and if a charismatic challenger runs for the Dems or another statement turns negative that would make it six which the model then says would give the Dems the WH in 2020

A lot of confirmation bias in that.

Biden, charismatic ?

Are you serious ?

Trump has had neither success nor failure in military affairs and the short term economy may very well remain good between now and the election.

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A lot of confirmation bias in that.

Biden, charismatic ?

Are you serious ?

Trump has had neither success nor failure in military affairs and the short term economy may very well remain good between now and the election.

Confirmation bias? People in glass houses horse..........

Joe Biden may not be everyone's cup of tea, but he's extremely charismatic and affable. I'd love to meet him. People love him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVGkHO-jUgc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oRxqoiTF4E

oscarBravo

Completely agree. You don't have to like him to acknowledge that he's charismatic. He drew large crowds when he visited Mayo a couple of years ago.

eagle eye

This videos are from a while back. He was old then, he is ancient now.
The way you take advantage of Trump's age is to put up a young charismatic figure who looks more capable of being the POTUS.
You don't put up an old guy or girl against Trump, that failed the last time.

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

Completely agree. You don't have to like him to acknowledge that he's charismatic. He drew large crowds when he visited Mayo a couple of years ago.

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

What did he do guarantee them the All Ireland just like Joe Namath guaranteed victory for the Jests in Superbowl III ?

Mike Pence's grandfather was Cawley from the Mayo/Sligo border just beyond Charlestown.

I wonder would be get a big crowd if he visited.

pixelburp

If the DNC push for Biden then it'll be proof they've learnt nothing since 2016. I don't know who's the best candidate, but Biden, while charismatic, is equally emblematic of the same establishment that Clinton represented. It'll turn people away in droves, again, like Clinton.

ancapailldorcha

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

What did he do guarantee them the All Ireland just like Joe Namath guaranteed victory for the Jests in Superbowl III ?

Mike Pence's grandfather was Cawley from the Mayo/Sligo border just beyond Charlestown.

I wonder would be get a big crowd if he visited.

Given some of his frankly repugnant views, I'd say Pence would simply attract protesters.

theguzman

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

What did he do guarantee them the All Ireland just like Joe Namath guaranteed victory for the Jests in Superbowl III ?

Mike Pence's grandfather was Cawley from the Mayo/Sligo border just beyond Charlestown.

I wonder would be get a big crowd if he visited.

There would be a big crowd of typical rent a mob, LGTB, Antifa, Sinn Fein, PBP, labour, various Trotskyite trade unions and ever other sort of crusty and pot smoker lame excuse for a human being would probably show up. A few Irexit lads wearing MAGA hats would show up to troll the rabid left also.

eagle eye

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Given some of his frankly repugnant views, I'd say Pence would simply attract protesters.

The people who normally protest are on his side. Pro-life, anti gay marriage. They all love him.

oscarBravo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

What did he do guarantee them the All Ireland just like Joe Namath guaranteed victory for the Jests in Superbowl III ?

Mike Pence's grandfather was Cawley from the Mayo/Sligo border just beyond Charlestown.

I wonder would be get a big crowd if he visited.

OK. You don't like Joe Biden, therefore he's not charismatic. Got it.

rossie1977

eagle eye wrote: »

This videos are from a while back. He was old then, he is ancient now.
The way you take advantage of Trump's age is to put up a young charismatic figure who looks more capable of being the POTUS.
You don't put up an old guy or girl against Trump, that failed the last time.

Clinton easily beat Trump in younger vote:
18-29 age group Clinton won 55% to Trump's 36%
30-44 age group Clinton won 51% to Trump 41%

Trump won the 45 and over age group..same group who watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox!

Sanders has a much bigger younger following particularly online and at rallies than Clinton did.

eagle eye

rossie1977 wrote:

Clinton easily beat Trump in younger vote: 18-29 age group Clinton won 55% to Trump's 36% 30-44 age group Clinton won 51% to Trump 41%
Trump won the 45 and over age group..same group who watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox!
Sanders has a much bigger younger following particularly online and at rallies than Clinton did.

I didn't mention age groups and how they voted.
I'm talking about how to beat Trump.
Stats my ass, you get a younger charismatic person who appeals to all.
It's not that hard, I've mentioned one in this thread but the dumbo's at the top of the chain in the Dems will never be brave enough to go there.
If they opened their eyes, looked at history and seen how they picked a 47 year old Governor to run for President and he won by a landslide twice it might help them realise that old fogies are not the way to go.

rossie1977

Bill Clinton won because he was more fiscally and socially conservative than Bush Sr. Democrats after getting their asses kicked for most of previous 25 years turned around and beat Republicans at their own game.

Picking a socially conservative candidate this time around like Martin Heinrich wouldn't work. Trump won on a faux left wing platform last time around in rust-belt.

RobertKK

Former mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown who is 84 years old says he had an extramarital affair with Kamala Harris aged 54 and boosted her career.

eagle eye

rossie1977 wrote:

Picking a socially conservative candidate this time around like Martin Heinrich wouldn't work. Trump won on a faux left wing platform last time around in rust-belt.

Trump won because middle America didn't care enough to go vote. Everybody said Clinton was going to win and so many stayed at home and didn't bother voting. And many just saw two old people and didn't care who won.
You need abyoung candidate to leave get things up and that person will win and convincingly.

batgoat

RobertKK wrote: »

Former mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown who is 84 years old says he had an extramarital affair with Kamala Harris aged 54 and boosted her career.

He was estranged from his wife at the time, they split in early 80s and he publicly dated including Harris in early 90s, for seven months. There's literally nothing of note in the story tbh and it's cropped up for Harris a few times with no notable effect.

Quin_Dub

RobertKK wrote: »

Former mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown who is 84 years old says he had an extramarital affair with Kamala Harris aged 54 and boosted her career.

That was 25 years ago, and the relationship was not a secret. They attended lots of public events together.

Not sure that this is really news.

Manic Moran

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1088531713649713153

Excellent stuff from Tulsi who has been treated with contempt mainly from the left since she announced going hard on any potential regime change when it comes to Venezuela.

The silence from the other front runners so far is unacceptable. Bernie had a twitter thread, but it was a mess.

Mmm... It's a thorny issue. I'm inclined to stay with 'leave them alone', but its not as simple as that. Not all US intervention has been for the worst, nor detremental. The intervention in Liberia in 2003 seemed to go well for all concerned, and Panama's situation in '89 isn't that far removed from Venezuela's barring the drug trafficking bit, that country seems to have come out OK for it.

There will be a tipping point at which the Venezuelan people will be able to regain control of their own destiny, even if they aren't the ones with the guns, but if it's going to happen anyway, why not make it happen sooner and save folks the misery in the meantime? Basically it's the moral debate between "it's not our problem, what is it to us?" and "if we have the capability to help, shouldn't we?"

It will be very interesting to see what would happen if Guaido makes a public call for asssitance.

RobertKK

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That was 25 years ago, and the relationship was not a secret. They attended lots of public events together.

Not sure that this is really news.

Not a great look to be in a relationship and to have the person she was in a relationship with, to say he used his position to boost her career.

skooterblue2

StringerBell wrote: »

Can you add an other option to the poll?

Linda Sarsour.

batgoat

RobertKK wrote: »

Not a great look to be in a relationship and to have the person she was in a relationship with, to say he used his position to boost her career.

Quick glance indicates only the tabloids got particularly excited about it. If you're reaching into her late 20s/early 30s to find dirt then there's really not much to find. Pretty sure a 7 month relationship is unlikely to have brought substantial career gains...

Manic Moran

batgoat wrote: »

Quick glance indicates only the tabloids got particularly excited about it. If you're reaching into her late 20s/early 30s to find dirt then there's really not much to find. Pretty sure a 7 month relationship is unlikely to have brought substantial career gains...

You may underestimate the influence that Willie Brown has in San Francisco, even today. The whole structure is very Chicagoesque. That said, living in San Francisco most of the last two decades it just hasn't been a topic of any conversation. Either it hasn't actually been an issue, or the locals in SF just see it as par for the course and not worth remarking upon. That's not to say that she hasn't taken her own advantage of the opportunities presented on her merits, but I would be surprised if there were no benefits at all to it. Either way, whatever San Franciscans may think of it, it's free ammunition to her opponents

pixelburp

Given the current President's own personal life & controversies, specifically over the apparent affair he had with a porn star not long after a son was born, is it really a likely angle to attack a Democrat candidate?

Clearly for the right person the voters just don't care about cheating or affairs. Conventional, political controversies just don't apply at the moment.

spacecoyote

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the current President's own personal life & controversies, specifically over the apparent affair he had with a porn star not long after a son was born, is it really a likely angle to attack a Democrat candidate?

Clearly for the right person the voters just don't care about cheating or affairs. Conventional, political controversies just don't apply at the moment.

There also seems to be a very different opinion on it depending on the sex of the candidate, Trump (man) does it, OK, these things happen. Harris (woman) does it, Slut trying to sleep her way to the top!

Manic Moran

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the current President's own personal life & controversies, specifically over the apparent affair he had with a porn star not long after a son was born, is it really a likely angle to attack a Democrat candidate?

Clearly for the right person the voters just don't care about cheating or affairs. Conventional, political controversies just don't apply at the moment.

I would qualify that last statement with two comments,
1) Given the alternative candidates proposed, they thought it less of a factor. Granted, this could now work against Trump as it did against Clinton.
2) People who ignored it to vote for Trump anyway are not necessarily the same people who will ignore it to vote for Harris.

Out of interest, I wonder if historically governors have had a better success rate than Senators?