US Presidential Election 2020

pixelburp

John Podesta, speaking to CNN, confirmed that Clinton won't run in 2020. Now this really shouldn't be particularly shocking or revelatory news, but there was persistent chatter and way more speculation than the rumour deserved.

Eric Cartman

pixelburp wrote: »

John Podesta, speaking to CNN, confirmed that Clinton won't run in 2020. Now this really shouldn't be particularly shocking or revelatory news, but there was persistent chatter and way more speculation than the rumour deserved.

this warms my heart to know that she'll never get that title.

Penn

Cory Booker has thrown his name in the hat
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/01/cory-booker-announces-run-for-presidency-in-2020?CMP=twt_gu

I think he could be a strong candidate.

pixelburp

Not surprising given some of his grandstanding, media friendly performances during various Hearings; and while it sounds like a daft thing to say - and in any other country it probably would be - but I can't shake the glib feeling that his veganism would count against him in the more rural or conservative Red states. While becoming more mainstream, vegans definitely suffer from an image problem, be it earned or otherwise.

rossie1977

Recent poll conducted in Michigan has Biden 13 points clear of Trump and Sanders 11 clear https://www.clickondetroit.com/michigan-politics/wdivdetroit-news-poll-trump-faces-uphill-re-election-battle-in-michigan

Professor Moriarty

rossie1977 wrote: »

Recent poll conducted in Michigan has Biden 13 points clear of Trump and Sanders 11 clear https://www.clickondetroit.com/michigan-politics/wdivdetroit-news-poll-trump-faces-uphill-re-election-battle-in-michigan

FFS, Biden will 78. I wouldn't vote for him on that basis alone.

pixelburp

Polls seem completely redundant until the Primaries truly begin; you're only going to reveal the obvious, ie, the most currently well known, national politicians are the most popular. Ergo, Biden and Sanders are so far the top nominations. That's only going to change the first chance Warren, Harris and Booker get more publicity and traction. Where was Trump in equivalent polls during 2014, 2015?

briany

Whoever it is, it cannot be some bland centrist. That's not someone who'll engage voters. It cannot be someone who's there because they shook all the right hands and are getting their 'turn'. It has to be someone who'll tap into the anger on the left, as Trump tapped into the anger on the right. Someone who'll actually speak the language of the people rather than in soundbites. Someone who'll go off script because they really believe in what they're saying, not just meticulously trying to cobble a message together that makes them electable.

Someone like Jesse Ventura, who has political experience and was successful in his offices, would be my pick. Ventura/Sanders 2020.

The Phantom Jipper

Penn wrote: »

Cory Booker has thrown his name in the hat
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/01/cory-booker-announces-run-for-presidency-in-2020?CMP=twt_gu

I think he could be a strong candidate.

Im hoping he doesn't end up being the candidate. He comes across as incredibly insincere and rehearsed e.g. his "Spartacus moment".

spacecoyote

briany wrote: »

Whoever it is, it cannot be some bland centrist. That's not someone who'll engage voters. It cannot be someone who's there because they shook all the right hands and are getting their 'turn'. It has to be someone who'll tap into the anger on the left, as Trump tapped into the anger on the right. Someone who'll actually speak the language of the people rather than in soundbites. Someone who'll go off script because they really believe in what they're saying, not just meticulously trying to cobble a message together that makes them electable.

Someone like Jesse Ventura, who has political experience and was successful in his offices, would be my pick. Ventura/Sanders 2020.

A lot of talk currently about the risk of an independent running on a centrist democratic style ticket if the dems run someone deemed to be too far to the left.

Some of the thinking appears to be that the rich dem types are enjoying their trump tax cut, and would ultimately rather risk 4 more years of trump than have someone too far left come in & look to introduce a high end wealth tax.

So could be a risk of a dilution of the dem voting group if there is a dem candidate & an independent dem centrist running, which would massively improve Trumps odds.

briany

spacecoyote wrote: »

A lot of talk currently about the risk of an independent running on a centrist democratic style ticket if the dems run someone deemed to be too far to the left.

Some of the thinking appears to be that the rich dem types are enjoying their trump tax cut, and would ultimately rather risk 4 more years of trump than have someone too far left come in & look to introduce a high end wealth tax.

So could be a risk of a dilution of the dem voting group if there is a dem candidate & an independent dem centrist running, which would massively improve Trumps odds.

Jesse Ventura, I believe, left his previous political office with a surplus in the budget. I don't think he's a big tax & spend guy. His big political platforms have been on things like further legalisation of marijuana and alternative energies. There are other ways to be left wing without saying to tax more. That must be the biggest fallacy going. All Bernie or Ventura have to ask is, "Why have we all the money for the bombs, but not enough for university?"

batgoat

briany wrote: »

Jesse Ventura, I believe, left his previous political office with a surplus in the budget. I don't think he's a big tax & spend guy. His big political platforms have been on things like further legalisation of marijuana and alternative energies. There are other ways to be left wing without saying to tax more. That must be the biggest fallacy going. All Bernie or Ventura have to ask is, "Why have we all the money for the bombs, but not enough for university?"

I honestly don't think a person known for conspiracy theories and appearing on Alex Jones is an improvement upon the present. At the best I see such an independent sucking up a handful of votes from dems and GOP.

briany

batgoat wrote: »

I honestly don't think a person known for conspiracy theories and appearing on Alex Jones is an improvement upon the present. At the best I see such an independent sucking up a handful of votes from dems and GOP.

It probably wouldn't be Ventura, but I would say that the Democrats needs someone like him who can hit back at Trump, who can think on his feet, has a bit of street cred and genuinely believes in what he/she is saying. In my opinion Jesse Ventura has those types of qualities, and it's not that hosting a conspiracy TV show would harm his chances (not these days, anyway. Conspiracies have kind of gone mainstream), it's that his profile just isn't high enough.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, while having lots of political experience, is just another old white guy with nothing interesting or engaging to say.

Manic Moran

Warren's candidacy just suffered another PR setback, given the new evidence that she actively claimed she was American Indian under a registration card for the Texas Bar.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american/index.html

Rjd2

With the STOU and what is happening in Virginia (lunacy) and the usual Trump craziness, at least its getting somewhat buried for now.
Gabbard is going to lead with attacking the wars overseas and spotlighting how dire they have been for the US.
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1092977776066527232

Been the most vocal on Venezuela, while the rest have been very timid, Harris I think has said nothing on it which is unacceptable for a candidate who is running from the left. Gabbard getting the Russian smears but sadly that was to be expected. She is not going to win, but she will boil a lot of piss on both sides and hopefully start a conversation about Americas oversea "exceptionalism".

In other stories, O Rourke seems to be stalling.

Kloub will likely announce this week if she run, I know she is not the most exciting, but looking at the area of the country where she is formidable, she'd massacre Trump in a one v one. Obviously got to get past the other 249 Dems running firstly though.

Sad Professor

Very impressed with Gabbard. Standing up to all the liberal interventionist hawks in the US media can't be easy. She's not even anti-war like some on the left are claiming, more of a realist, but I guess in the US they are the same thing.

pixelburp

Trevor Noah made an interesting observation about one key element he reckoned propelled Trump to the forefront of the GOP Primaries; his soundbites & reductionism may be coming back to haunt him now, but there were nearly 20 candidates running to be the Rep. nomination - all those glib "lock her up", "build the wall" catchphrases made his candidature simple & stand out, in comparison with (say) Marco Rubio talking for 5 minutes with generic Republican blather.

If the Democrat campaign becomes as overcrowded as that 2015 variant, the winner will likely be the one who can reduce their talking points to catch-phrases and slogans the electorate can latch onto. Obviously it speaks volumes about where US public discourse finds itself these days, but I'm inclined to agree with Noah and suspect this may reflect on the Democrat's own process.

Sad Professor

pixelburp wrote: »

Trevor Noah made an interesting observation about one key element he reckoned propelled Trump to the forefront of the GOP Primaries; his soundbites & reductionism may be coming back to haunt him now, but there were nearly 20 candidates running to be the Rep. nomination - all those glib "lock her up", "build the wall" catchphrases made his candidature simple & stand out, in comparison with (say) Marco Rubio talking for 5 minutes with generic Republican blather.

If the Democrat campaign becomes as overcrowded as that 2015 variant, the winner will likely be the one who can reduce their talking points to catch-phrases and slogans the electorate can latch onto. Obviously it speaks volumes about where US public discourse finds itself these days, but I'm inclined to agree with Noah and suspect this may reflect on the Democrat's own process.

How about "soak the rich"? :pac:

Seriously though it probably depends on the issue and the audience. I was reading some research the other day which shows socially liberal politicians tend to use more complex language and conservatives use simpler, more communicative language. It suggests that on social issues the respective audiences respond very well to these strategies.

On economic issues however it seems most Americans respond very well to attacks on the rich, a strategy that Hilary more or less abandoned in favour of identity/cultural issues. I mean, the left in Ireland regularly attack Leo as privileged because he came from an upper-middle class background. Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and Hilary felt his sexism and racism was the bigger problem.

Like Bill Clinton's campaign strategist used to say, "It's the economy, stupid". But the Dems seem to have forgotten this and think they can beat the Republicans at their own game, but I don't think they can. And I'm not sure they've learned this lesson yet.

Quin_Dub

When it gets to the real campaigning though , what does Trump actually campaign on?

Last time round it was "Build the Wall" , "Drain the Swamp" & "Lock her up!" along with general petty name calling

Beyond the personal attacks , what can he actually campaign on for 2020?

He can't claim to be "draining the swamp" as there will be 3+ years of unavoidable evidence to the contrary.

He can't talk about "locking her up" as Hilary isn't running.

If he's still trying to raise a chant of "Build that wall" in 12-18 months time he has a major problem.

So , again beyond "Stupid Joe Biden" or "Pocahontas" or whatever stupid , infantile names he comes up with for whoever are the Democrat nominees , What does he have to put forward??

pixelburp

Quin_Dub wrote: »

When it gets to the real campaigning though , what does Trump actually campaign on?

Last time round it was "Build the Wall" , "Drain the Swamp" & "Lock her up!" along with general petty name calling

Beyond the personal attacks , what can he actually campaign on for 2020?

He can't claim to be "draining the swamp" as there will be 3+ years of unavoidable evidence to the contrary.

He can't talk about "locking her up" as Hilary isn't running.

If he's still trying to raise a chant of "Build that wall" in 12-18 months time he has a major problem.

So , again beyond "Stupid Joe Biden" or "Pocahontas" or whatever stupid , infantile names he comes up with for whoever are the Democrat nominees , What does he have to put forward??

Yup, this was something I said before; Trump won't be the plucky, boisterous outsider anymore & without the ability to promise everything & anything, he may struggle against a canny opponent. Of the sundry catchphrases shouted across the 2016 campaign, almost none of them have come to pass - it may explain why he has gone into override trying to get The Wall belatedly started.

This is literally uncharted territory for him personally too: I doubt Trump has ever had his job or position on the line before - maybe the closest could be the times banks have declined him for loans? - or indeed had his actions so thoroughly, aggressively analysed in public either. 2020 will be fascinating, not least because it may yield a new side to Trumps increasingly erratic temperament.

rossie1977

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So , again beyond "Stupid Joe Biden" or "Pocahontas" or whatever stupid , infantile names he comes up with for whoever are the Democrat nominees , What does he have to put forward??

SOTU was basically a campaign speech

* Economy is best ever..if you elect my opponent it will fall
* Peace in middle east, North Korea..if you elect my opponent they will go to war
* Socialism is terrible..elect my opponent and country will become Venezuela

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/mtredden/status/1094014884575092736

Stories of Kloub been a horror boss emerging. If their is any truth in these tales, then she is done, expect more and more people to come forward if they think she is going to ignore it and ride it out.

Going to get brutal the Dems campaign.

breatheme

Klobuchar is in officially now.

rossie1977

New poll just released this morning of 5,000 registered Democrat voters from Morning consultant https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

Showing clear gulf now between top 3 and the rest

Nationally Biden leading



Early voting states ie Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada Biden doing even better



Interesting to see who voters pick as second choice.



Age profile is also fascinating, Sanders overwhelming with a younger demo and the over 65 demo being very unfavourable towards him.

I wonder if Sanders wins how he appeals to the older Democrats specifically. He has the medium given cable news in the States is dominated by that age-group and Trump has used cable news very well to target that section of society.

Rjd2

Bernie seems to trigger a lot of the Clinton loving people on twitter. He has been called Putins useful idiot and the fact he is an old white man is a constant criticism from that base who are obsessed with identity politics. Rather oddly Biden won't have the same criticism.

He would face plenty of internal opposition not just from the Clinton base, but also from those who blame him for paving the way for AOC etc. Lets not forget Bloomberg was considering running if Bernie won the nomination in 2016, a lot of centre Dems loath the man.

I hope he runs though, he has dragged the party to the left and is incredibly popular and authentic unlike Gillibrand for example who would be advocating for slavery if she thought the public wanted it.

Also would be fascinating viewing watching the establishment Dems melt down if he was to run, AOC endorsing him would melt so many people's heads.

Brian?

Honestly, I hope Biden doesn't run. He's too old, as much as I love him.

I think Sherrod Brown would have a really good chance of winning the middle ground against Trump. But politics in the US has become such a populist shouting match, I doubt he has a hope of winning through the primaries.

pixelburp

Looks like the first debates will be split over 2 nights, to accommodate a maximum of 20 candidates. Presumably that glut will get quickly whittled down once the 'serious' candidates present themselves. The conditions for entry are interesting though:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/democratic-debates-2020.html

Party officials, anticipating a rush of candidates eager to grab a spot in the nationally televised forums, created a new set of standards that would accommodate a maximum of 20 candidates. To qualify, a candidate must either reach 1 percent in three approved polls or raise at least $65,000 from 200 donors in 20 different states. Each candidate’s slot will be selected by a random drawing.

spacecoyote

Well, its official, Bernie is running again:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-sanders/bernie-sanders-to-seek-u-s-presidency-again-in-2020-idUKKCN1Q819T

He's not going to be quite the outsider this time & will have a couple of candidates a bit closer to his ideology, so will be interesting to see how he fairs.

He does have the advantage of name recognition though.

I wonder would one of the younger up & coming candidates be happy to run under him as a VP on the ticket?

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

That makes it official that Trump will win 2020 if not impeached before then.

Sad Professor

spacecoyote wrote: »

I wonder would one of the younger up & coming candidates be happy to run under him as a VP on the ticket?

I’m sure Tulsi Gabbard would as she endorsed him in 2016. She’s currently being smeared for her criticism of US foreign policy though so won’t get far in her own campaign.