US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2 · 21-07-2018 2:45pm #1

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.:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Donald Trump wrote:

If elected I will give tax breaks to elderly people

An interesting policy by Trump

Has context.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

OMG Trump just wiped the floor with Sleepy Joe

Does not.

Happy hunting!

Rjd2 · 21-07-2018 2:49pm

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!

StringerBell · 21-07-2018 2:56pm

Can you add an other option to the poll?

Rjd2 · 21-07-2018 3:21pm

StringerBell wrote: »

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.

Pkiernan · 21-07-2018 3:29pm

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

StringerBell · 21-07-2018 3:36pm

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.

Inquitus · 21-07-2018 4:30pm

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

Rjd2 · 21-07-2018 4:48pm

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.

Inquitus · 21-07-2018 4:56pm

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.

Rjd2 · 21-07-2018 5:57pm

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.

badtoro · 21-07-2018 6:13pm

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....

briany · 21-07-2018 6:37pm

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.

Infini · 21-07-2018 6:54pm

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.

Townton · 22-07-2018 11:05am

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.

Gbear · 22-07-2018 7:41pm

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.

James Brown · 23-07-2018 3:58pm

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.

Laois_Man · 23-07-2018 6:12pm

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.

rossie1977 · 23-07-2018 6:55pm

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

Igotadose · 23-07-2018 7:01pm

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.'

Laois_Man · 23-07-2018 8:57pm

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!

rossie1977 · 23-07-2018 11:08pm

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.

ELM327 · 24-07-2018 11:10am

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.

pixelburp · 24-07-2018 11:41am

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.

derb12 · 25-07-2018 12:02am

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.

Townton · 25-07-2018 9:42am

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.

Quin_Dub · 25-07-2018 1:20pm

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) ?

LuckyLloyd · 25-07-2018 1:37pm

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.

MadYaker · 27-07-2018 6:59pm

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.

Overheal · 28-07-2018 7:35pm

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.

For Forks Sake · 28-07-2018 8:28pm

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.

blackwave · 28-07-2018 8:53pm

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.

Overheal · 28-07-2018 9:00pm

blackwave wrote: »

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.

I hadn't even though about that. Johnson's experience at WWF/WWE would suit him well there. I don't think he has to stoop to calling Trump a hermaphrodite mind you, but he knows how to respond to Trump's debate style.

An Ciarraioch · 28-07-2018 10:15pm

Joe Kennedy III seems to be somewhat in the Democratic centre, and capable of reaching out to blue-collar voters, but is he too establishment to be a contender?

2 Scoops · 28-07-2018 11:37pm

Biden should have ran last time and is probably too old now, he would have won and honesty I could have gotten behind it. The Democrats need to cut out the identity politics / back away from socialism extremities that exist in their party and get back to a basic message that appeals to the middle class voter. The reason I was happy Trump won was a) Clinton is horribly corrupt and has gotten away with so much and b) most importantly, from a culture standpoint he's the most anti PC candidate there's ever been. When you go too far left a populist candidate like Trump becomes very appealing.

WinnyThePoo · 29-07-2018 1:08am

What sort of qualities do you want a democratic candidate to have SNIP?

Racism, Bigotry, Dishonesty, Transphobia & Stupidity ?

I know these where the big pluses for you regarding Trump.

edit: forgot about him being a sexist pig. I know from your comments on Beyonce, that's a major plus aswell.

2 Scoops · 29-07-2018 1:37am

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What sort of qualities do you want a democratic candidate to have hank?

Racism, Bigotry, Dishonesty, Transphobia & Stupidity ?

I know these where the big pluses for you regarding Trump.

edit: forgot about him being a sexist pig. I know from your comments on Beyonce, that's a major plus aswell.

I have no idea why you're referencing Beyonce. One time I quoted him and agreed with him saying "We don't need Jay'z or Beyonce" ( to fill an area ). I don't think you should use celebrities to garner votes.

WinnyThePoo · 29-07-2018 1:49am

You called Beyonce a whore ...for one reason. She played a Clinton election. Kinda goes over your head that Trump used music acts as well.

Do you want that sort of unpleasantness in a democratic candidate ?

2 Scoops · 29-07-2018 2:19am

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You called Beyonce a whore ...for one reason. She played a Clinton election. Kinda goes over your head that Trump used music acts as well.

Do you want that sort of unpleasantness in a democratic candidate ?

I don't remember calling Beyonce a whore, and if i did I meant it in the terms of her whoring for the Democratic party.

Got a link?

eagle eye · 29-07-2018 2:30am

The standout candidate for me even though he will be young is Joe Kennedy. He has the name recognition to have a head start and I think he would win it by a landslide.

WinnyThePoo · 29-07-2018 2:45am

2 Scoops wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You called Beyonce a whore ...for one reason. She played a Clinton election. Kinda goes over your head that Trump used music acts as well.

Do you want that sort of unpleasantness in a democratic candidate ?

I don't remember calling Beyonce a whore, and if i did I meant it in the terms of her whoring for the Democratic party.

Got a link?

Your the gift that keeps giving SNIP. I'll give you that.

Overheal · 29-07-2018 5:31am

eagle eye wrote: »

The standout candidate for me even though he will be young is Joe Kennedy. He has the name recognition to have a head start and I think he would win it by a landslide.

The Kennedys have good name recognition but they are also one of those dynasties I discussed earlier. Any Kennedy running would run carrying the baggage of every modern Kennedy, good and bad. The Kennedy family is well liked in Democratic strongholds but I honestly feel he would have a difficult run of it in swing states and the south. He has insider status too.

There is also the bigger issue that he is quite young by presidential standards, who though legally can be as young as 35 (Joe is 37), most Presidents have been at least into their 40s or more. Joe Kennedy just hasn’t had enough time in his own spotlight, and he will get gnawed at for his youth, framed as a lack of qualifying life experience. He’s served better by hanging back and considering a 2024 run at the earliest, I don’t think he could necessarily unseat Trump, assuming Trump hasn’t been impeached or something, and if he lost a presidential campaign in his late 30s/early 40s the trend has clearly been that it hurts his chances of securing a successful bid later. Successfully elected presidents tend not to be those who run repeatedly (sorry Cruz, Giuliani, and Vermin Supreme).

ancapailldorcha · 29-07-2018 9:23am

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What sort of qualities do you want a democratic candidate to have SNIP?

Racism, Bigotry, Dishonesty, Transphobia & Stupidity ?

I know these where the big pluses for you regarding Trump.

edit: forgot about him being a sexist pig. I know from your comments on Beyonce, that's a major plus aswell.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You called Beyonce a whore ...for one reason. She played a Clinton election. Kinda goes over your head that Trump used music acts as well.

Do you want that sort of unpleasantness in a democratic candidate ?

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your the gift that keeps giving SNIP. I'll give you that.

This isn't serious debate so cut it out please.

Agricola · 29-07-2018 12:15pm

I'd like to see Avenatti, the Stormy Daniels lawyer throw his hat in the ring. He's already said, and he's right, that whoever goes up against Trump in 2020 has to be a bruiser who thrives on conflict and won't diminish or allow themselves to be labelled and belittled by Trump. Aside from Putin, Avenatti is about the only public figure I haven't heard Trump taking a pot shot at. The guy is a consummate media performer and is equally if not more adept at controlling the narrative via twitter than the president himself.

I think he'd have a far better shot than any of these establishment figures and media personalities that Trump could easily knock down.

SimonTemplar · 29-07-2018 12:24pm

Agricola wrote: »

I'd like to see Avenatti, the Stormy Daniels lawyer throw his hat in the ring. He's already said, and he's right, that whoever goes up against Trump in 2020 has to be a bruiser who thrives on conflict and won't diminish or allow themselves to be labelled and belittled by Trump. Aside from Putin, Avenatti is about the only public figure I haven't heard Trump taking a pot shot at. The guy is a consummate media performer and is equally if not more adept at controlling the narrative via twitter than the president himself.

I think he'd have a far better shot than any of these establishment figures and media personalities that Trump could easily knock down.

The problem with Avenatti (and any non-political candidate) is that we don't really know his political views on a lot of issues and of course he has zero experience and has never held office. I agree he seems very shrewd and strategic. He would be best suited as a campaign manager than an actual candidate

batgoat · 29-07-2018 12:34pm

Harris would be my top pick at the moment however I think it's pretty probable we'll see a bunch of entirely unexpected names towards the end of next year. Focus at moment is midterms.

Agricola · 29-07-2018 12:40pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

He would be best suited as a campaign manager than an actual candidate

Yep he definitely would be a very shrewd campaign manager but I just think a large section of America has gone down an "anti establishment, anti millionaire celebrity" rabbit hole and if the Dems put one of these people up against Trump in 2020, it will be grist to his mill. Maybe they need a showman to unseat a showman.

I don't know Avenatti's politics but he seems a typical democrat, centre left type. I imagine for many voting in two years time, his politics will be secondary to seeing an end to this freakshow.

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-07-2018 1:00pm

Way too early to call yet, Mr Facepages has (had) a slight chance, and his marketing spend would be very little, having deep reach to 1bn+ people.
No to mention huge wealth and vast metric profiling of the general public (globally). Likely too some deep AI-VR projects up his sleeve for later release.

Think he was considering it previously, perhaps encouraged now as shares are tanking (20% wipeout in 1 day).
Some analysts reckon FB/stock (as it stands) is in a death spiral, and at the end of a natural product lifecyle etc.

However he is severely lacking in any personality/charisma, and privacy issues will be even more of an issue by 2020.

Musk might be a better option, free space travel and hyperloop coast to coast would see him in.
Highly creative, he is also now showing a similar Tw' style to Donald, the new normal.

batgoat · 29-07-2018 1:03pm

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Way too early to call yet, Mr Facepages has (had) a slight chance, and his marketing spend would be very little, having deep reach to 1bn+ people.
No to mention huge wealth and vast metric profiling of the general public (globally). Likely too some deep AI-VR projects up his sleeve for later release.

Think he was considering it previously, perhaps encouraged now as shares are tanking (20% wipeout in 1 day).
Some analysts reckon FB/stock (as it stands) is in a death spiral, and at the end of a natural product lifecyle etc.

However is severely lacking in any charisma, and privacy issues will be even more of an issue by 2020.

Musk might be a better option, free space travel and hyperloop coast to coast would see it.
Highly creative, he is also now showing a similar Tw' style to Donald, the new normal.

Musk was born in South Africa so he can't run(thankfully not tbh). Zuckerberg killed any chance of himself running given all his scandals as of late.

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-07-2018 1:13pm

batgoat wrote: »

Musk was born in South Africa so he can't run(thankfully not tbh). Zuckerberg killed any chance of himself running given all his scandals as of late.

Didn't prevent HC, and that small matter of a missing email server. :pac:

Indeed unless Zuckerberg re-invents himself as a Gates Foundation type, up to his arms in 'chardy work' he currently has a limited chance.

Musk would've been a better option, more practical, yet outside of the box solution driven.

Afterall, if he starts to get people in e-cars, 1200kmph pheunnamic vacum tube transport systems, and space flight, what else can he do?

batgoat · 29-07-2018 1:18pm

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Didn't prevent HC, and that small matter of a missing email server. :pac:

Indeed unless Zuckerberg re-invents himself as a Gates Foundation type, up to his arms in 'chardy work' he currently has a limited chance.

Musk would've been a better option, more practical, yet outside of the box solution driven.

Afterall, if he starts to get people in e-cars, 1200kmph pheunnamic vacum tube transport systems, and space flight, what else can he do?

Don't particularly want to go down that line of discussion but pretty comfortable in fact Zuckerberg won't run. Musk in technology does not mean he's a capable politician. I personally don't think anyone with zero political experience should run.

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-07-2018 1:28pm

batgoat wrote: »

Don't particularly want to go down that line of discussion but pretty comfortable in fact Zuckerberg won't run. Musk in technology does not mean he's a capable politician. I personally don't think anyone with zero political experience should run.

That's what everyone thought about DT when he was 125/1.

You should read the old thread called Trump POTUS 25/1 from 2016. One mad lad said he spent the day driving around bookies wads at for HC @1.2 he was so sure of her win.

On actual election night I got some Trump at 9/1. Expect the unexpected.

If Musk is unable due to place of birth, he's out. Zuckerberg will only not run if he chooses not to, and if FB shares collapse, he'll need a new hobby. Oprah said she won't, but it only takes 1second to have a change of mind.

A non-politican can be a breath of fresh air in many cases, rather than a default option of wives of former presidents. Wasn't Barry a Chicago law lecturer or something before running?

Again all too early to discuss, best to waiting until mid 2019.

US Presidential Election 2020

Who Will The Dems pick in 2020 830 votes

Comments