US Presidential Election 2020

Rjd2 wrote: »

Gillbrand is official. Its going to be an absolutely stacked field so I don't really see what she brings to the table that will really stand out over the current favs.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-kirsten-gillibrand-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/

An article 538 put up on her potential. They're not overly confident on her, based on polling, but make some good points around her potential

theguzman wrote: »

I'd love to see Ocasio-Cortez get the Democratic nomination, unfortunately the Dem's won't pick her and Trump would most likely easily defeat her despite opinion polls giving her a great shot. Bernie if he'd be up for it, the Dems need to just come straight out of the closet and reveal their true Socialist colours this time around. Trump looks undefeatable to me so far and he is his own biggest opponent thus far.

AOC is not old enough to be president according to the Constitution of the United States.

Rjd2 wrote: »

If Bernie runs and wins, then he'd highly likely he would want a female VP. Warren would be the obvious safe choice, but Tulsi would be his second choice, genuinely can't see who else he would want atm. Tulsi will definitely have thought about that in the last few months.

He will obviously have to pick his running mate before the general election so it may not be a good idea to go with a like minded VP candidate, i.e Warren.

Just like Pense appeals to the Christian base to counter Trumps lack of morals (three wives, affairs with porn stars eyc)

I have no idea who Tulsi is.

Edit - Ok I now see that Tulsi is Gabbard

Ok?

TBH most of the people in the US that just won't vote for a woman because she's a woman are already going to vote for Trump.

Penn wrote: »

Agreed, and I think even with moderates in 2016 it was more anti-Hilary than anti-woman.

Clinton also absolutely failed to gain any real traction with uneducated white women and didn't exactly smash the educated white women vote either. Unless there is evidence that women won't vote for women (and I know that's difficult because we haven't been in this position before - but I think we can look at the success of women in the midterms as evidence that this isn't true) then the answer must be Hillary herself as oppose to generic "women".

Penn wrote: »

Agreed, and I think even with moderates in 2016 it was more anti-Hilary than anti-woman.

It was anti Clinton for sure not anti woman. Republicans and right wing media have painted the Clinton's as the worst people in the world for 20 years. The irony of course is that Bill Clinton is probably most traditionally Republican president there has been since Eisenhower in many ways.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hubris, arrogance and overconfidence much? I thought they would have learned from the 'no chance' that Trump had back in 2016...

While I would agree, I think he is much more of a known quantity this time rather than previously so can be beaten.

But your right, to say he has no chance is bull****.

He has every chance to win.

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I've found her to be very impressive, in the limited amount of coverage/interviews that I've seen of her. I'd still say they'll go for a more experienced candidate, but it'll be interesting to see if she gains traction over the next year.

She'd be a much better VP candidate than POTUS candidate.

Stick her with Biden.

I think Harris would struggle in a national election in places like Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin given those places are about as far removed from Northern California and Silicon Valley as can be. They are also states the Dems must win to take election.

That Biden Harris ticket is a good shout. This way kamala Harris get to be VP and seeing how Obama let Biden operate as VP, you'd assume Biden would do the same as Obama and let kamala Harris learn the ropes so to speak. She'd have the local and federal chops then to make a run for president after Biden.

I don't fully agree that because of Clinton that the dems would resist another female candidate, it think Clinton is/was an unlikeable candidate who assumed she was liked in some states and it's obvious she wasn't liked as much as she assumed. I know she got more votes than Trump but that's not the way the US works.

Public policy polling survey released yesterday has Biden +12 ahead of Trump in a national election with Sanders +10. Harris is +7, O'Rourke +6, Warren +6.

rossie1977 wrote: »

February 3rd 2020 is first scheduled vote in primary

So just over a year of this democratic candidate shadow boxing then ? Brilliant they(the democrats) will be weary by the time the election happens.

spacecoyote wrote: »

Another name has been thrown into the already packed Dem field:

Pete Buttigieg

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pete-buttigieg-2020-democratic-nomination/

Ticks a lot of Dem boxes, but also a risky one by the sound of things:

2 Term Mayor from Indiana (so covers the Midwest states)
Only 37 years old
Son of Immigrants
Attended Harvard
Took time out to serve on the Naval Reserve
Is openly Gay
His home town has had a resurgence in population, etc... so could have a genuine case to argue that he has actually brought jobs back to small town America

The Dem field is really getting stretched at this stage, with plenty of time still left

I've heard him on a couple of podcasts and he comes across very well in my opinion, but like Castro and a few others, it doesn't seem like much more than a profile raising exercise.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But he would be carrying the baggage of the two term Obama administration.

An awful lot of Americans did not like the Obama administration.

Obamacare was not very popular among the voting classes.

He was a foreign policy wimp. ISIS and Putin ran loose under his watch and he reopened diplomatic ties with Cuba with nothing in return, not a single political prisoner released.

Under Obama's watch the Dems went from controlling both houses to record losses in both.

That was not by accident.

For some reason, I don't think Biden will be the candidate who has a problem regarding Putin.

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Compared to The Donald's baggage? Yeah, no.

Trump had piles of baggage before his first term. That stuff doesn't affect his supporters, it's those that didn't vote the last time that you need to get on your side and to vote.
Thus is why I'm a huge fan of a man who isn't even in the radar but who made a name for himself when he went straight Sessions. A guy who is young but had no skeletons and a great presence about him. I mentioned his name earlier on the thread, Martin Heinrich.
I'm 100% certain that he would beat Trump. Even as a running mate with plenty of exposure he would be very good.

pixelburp wrote: »

The other factor is that for all the dogged support, Trump is NOT the outsider anymore; it's relatively easy to talk big and promise the Earth, Moon & Stars from the sidelines, but as if often the case, the boisterous anti-establishment rhetoric becomes hollow when one becomes the establishment. IMO it's a potentially huge factor in 2020 because unlike 2016, and being at a loss for a better word, Trump won't be a loud gimmick anymore.

He has had 2 full years & control of both houses: no wall & Mexico won't be paying; the swamp remains undrained (if anything it's worse due to DeVos et al);, Hillary is not in an orange jumpsuit; Obamacare limps on (for now). Nearly all his signature bluster has turned out to be empty promises - even by the metric of Campaign Promises.

Intermittent vox-pops have shown a dissatisfaction and disillusionment from former Trump supporters (I recall one egregious example where a woman declared that "Trump was hurting the wrong people" with the shutdown, which gives insight).

Surely the hurler on the ditch is the easiest thing to do. You can say what you like and Trump as you say isn't a hurler on the ditch any more, he's playing midfield and being roasted by his opposite number(I realise I'm using hurling analogies to describe US politics but...) and I wonder if he could go back to 2015, and not run for president knowing what he knows now ?

Looking at States in play for 2020:

Arizona..Trump won 4.1 percentage points
Florida..Trump won by 1.3%
Michigan..Trump won by 0.3%
North Carolina..Trump won by 3.8%
Pennsylvania..Trump won by 1.2%
Wisconsin..Trump won by 1%

Colorado..Clinton won by 2.8%
Maine (3 electoral votes)...Clinton won by 2.7%
Nevada.. Clinton won by 2.4%
New Hampshire..Clinton won by 0.4%

Everything else was 8+ point winning margin or above for either candidate so I can't see a Democrat flipping a state Trump won convincingly in 16 or Trump flipping say one Clinton won easily. If O'Rourke ran he might have a chance of getting closer in Texas than Clinton did (she lost by 9.2%) but O'Rourke lost to Ted Cruz who is far more unpopular than Trump so Texas would stay with Trump imo.

Colorado and Nevada have become more Democrat since 2016 so it would be highly unlikely Trump takes either in 2020. Depending on candidate Trump could flip NH and Maine. I think he takes both if Harris is the nominee.

As for where the Dems can make in-roads. Arizona is becoming more Democrat but I think it stays in Republican column for 2020 given the leading candidates Biden, Sanders, Warren or Harris don't really have anything in common with the Dem voters in the state.

Dems ran a progressive and an establishment candidate in midterms in Florida and lost both so that's a bad sign. Trump's beating Sanders, Warren or Harris by bigger margins than he beat Clinton in Florida more than likely. Highly unlikely Dems win North Carolina regardless of candidate.

That leaves us back again to Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Dems need to win them all and signs during midterms were positive given Dems won all three Senate and governor elections in those states. I think Biden or Sanders can win all three. Not convinced Harris or Warren can.