US Presidential Election 2020

pixelburp · 29-07-2018 1:48pm

Not just here, but seen it elsewhere too and just can't work out the repeated mention of Zuckerberg as a political candidate. The whole thing seems patently absurd. He has no credentials and AFAIK no outspoken political beliefs that might mark him for future political activity. Most crucially though, he has a personality that'd make Ted Cruz appear charismatic and personable. Zuckerberg is a charisma vacuum.

Trump tapped into a resting discontentment with the political establishment, the coast-inland, urban-rural divide already bisecting America; a discontentment that then slowly translated into a sober realisation that electing someone neither experienced or interested in even the most basic of political norms can backfire spectacularly. I'd be a little surprised if voters went back to that particular well of the Stunt Candidate. President Trump is the Trickle-down theory finally mutating into the swollen behemoth already lurking in the wings: the lingering belief that the bigshot Tycoon-CEO would run a country better than those wasteful Political Elites (parking the cognitive dissonance over the fact Trump was not only a chaotic and intermittently disastrous business leader - but one of those very wealthy, coastal Elites supposedly being punished in 2016)

Professor Moriarty · 29-07-2018 2:07pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Not just here, but seen it elsewhere too and just can't work out the repeated mention of Zuckerberg as a political candidate. The whole thing seems patently absurd. He has no credentials and AFAIK no outspoken political beliefs that might mark him for future political activity. Most crucially though, he has a personality that'd make Ted Cruz appear charismatic and personable. Zuckerberg is a charisma vacuum.

Trump tapped into a resting discontentment with the political establishment, the coast-inland, urban-rural divide already bisecting America; a discontentment that then slowly translated into a sober realisation that electing someone neither experienced or interested in even the most basic of political norms can backfire spectacularly. I'd be a little surprised if voters went back to that particular well of the Stunt Candidate. President Trump is the Trickle-down theory finally mutating into the swollen behemoth already lurking in the wings: the lingering belief that the bigshot Tycoon-CEO would run a country better than those wasteful Political Elites (parking the cognitive dissonance over the fact Trump was not only a chaotic and intermittently disastrous business leader - but one of those very wealthy, coastal Elites supposedly being punished in 2016)

Think of it this way. If an Obama, Bill Clinton or GW Bush were found and ran against Trump in 2020, how would they do?

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-07-2018 2:10pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Not just here, but seen it elsewhere too and just can't work out the repeated mention of Zuckerberg as a political candidate. The whole thing seems patently absurd. He has no credentials and AFAIK no outspoken political beliefs that might mark him for future political activity. Most crucially though, he has a personality that'd make Ted Cruz appear charismatic and personable. Zuckerberg is a charisma vacuum.

Agree on this, very dull. However he is very much goal orientated:

2009 - wear a tie everyday (wtf?)
2010 - learn Chinese
2011 - only eat animals he kills himself (wtf?)
2012 - code everyday
2013 - meet someone everday who's not on fb (hello there!)
2014 - write a thanks note everyday
2015 - read a new book every 2wks
2016 - code a new AI assistant
2017 - Visit all 50 states, meet community leaders
2018 - 'fix' facebook
2019?
2020? - Will become 36, thus allowed to run for POTUS

Has also recently hired a load of political goons (officials and ex-campaign managers) to run his foundation. He also gave away stocks/shares of fb (a new stock class), but is still in full control of fb - handy that if you were to, say 'resign due to aquiring a goverment position'.

Townton · 29-07-2018 7:00pm

batgoat wrote: »

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.

Ya an awful lot will depend on how the so called new "progressives" preform in the mid terms presuming they actually run a decent number of them. And even then simply winning solidly democratic seats will not be enough they will have to flip and preform well in swing seats presuming they even get the nominations for those seats, and of they do they will not have quite the same reception as in solid Democrat areas in fact some polls suggest they could have quite a hostil reception.

All that said if they do well then the candidates for 2020 will surly be more reflective of that grouping.

O'Neill · 29-07-2018 7:17pm

Surprised at the low number for Bernie to be honest

Dog Man Star · 29-07-2018 7:35pm

Elizabeth Warren is a fine Senator. I watched her lectures on the middle-class from 2008 before I knew who she was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

She just understands exactly where the US is going wrong, ripping off the middle classes, and is the very one who would actually help them.

Of course she won't be elected, but she is the only person who can reform America to grant universal health care and to grant free education.

Corporate America will hate her, hence any efforts to elect her will be thwarted, but the irony is because she understands exactly what is happening in the US, she will be nulled at the first hurdle.

Her lecture on YouTube lasts 57 minutes. Within 10 minutes, you will understand what she is trying to rectify. Sadly 10 minutes is 9.5 minutes more than voters have.

I will tell you this: if Elizabeth Warren was President, life would be a lot better for the vast majority of Americans.

PS: If you live in Dublin with your partner, are both working, and wondering why you are living hand-to-mouth, watch the link above. It explains everything.

PopePalpatine · 30-07-2018 12:31am

O'Neill wrote: »

Surprised at the low number for Bernie to be honest

Not when you consider his age.

2 Scoops · 30-07-2018 11:05pm

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Elizabeth Warren is a fine Senator.

Trump ( if he runs ) will rip her apart. Someone "strong" and articulate like Harris would be a much better choice imo.

Manic Moran · 31-07-2018 8:03pm

Overheal makes a reasonable point on a primary challenge. It is not beyond possibility that a different person will be running against the Democrat. There is precedent, President Pierce was not nominated for a second term by his own party, granted, in the 19th Century, but as we all know, in Trump USA, nothing can be taken for granted. Then again, I don’t believe that the Ds should run on “who can beat Trump” but “who will win the most EC Votes, no matter the opponent”

There is certainly an argument that Harris will be the D nominee, she is very popular with the folks who will select the nominee. However, she is also a San Francisco liberal, such as Pelosi. We have evidence from recent special elections that success is coming from candidates who are disassociating themselves from the coastal democrats, meaning that there is an inherent uphill battle for Harris in the various swing states. They should be nominating a Democrat from a more centrally viewed State. It’s not as if Democrats don’t exist in Montana, Pennsylvania, Colorado or the like, but the D party is beholden to the coastal states for their election funding. To that end, the Ds have an internal discongruence which inhibits them. Absolutely not beyond the ability to surmount, but a handicap nevertheless.

Fr Tod Umptious · 01-08-2018 7:29pm

As some have already stated they need someone who will appeal to the swing States rather than the Democratic strongholds of MA or CA

Warren is comfortable in liberal MA, Harris in CA, but take them out of there and they lose a lot of their appeal.

The American voting population remains predominalty white, straight, law abiding and christian with a small c.

Appleal to others at the expense of the above and they are on a hiding to nowhere

Dog Man Star · 01-08-2018 7:47pm

Elizabeth Warren is fantastic candidate. I was watching her lectures on YouTube on the demise of the middle class before I knew she was a senator.

Warren is the absolute best candidate they can vote for. A Harvard professor in Economics. Championing equality to all and a solution to the gap in middle class politics.

Nah, the US wants a wreckless moron in power, not an intelligent woman.

Infini · 05-08-2018 5:17pm

Honestly the key to getting Trump booted out ultimately is getting the Democrat vote out more so than anything and his BS certainly could help with that in the key swing states. Think the biggest problem with the 2016 election was people weren't motivated to vote for Hillary from the democrats unlike Obama to get out and vote enough and The Troll essentially managed to slip through where it mattered. The whole thing is though that if the Democrat's want to truly win they need to shift away from identity politics because that sort of crap does alienate people. Need to focus on the important stuff and sideline the idiotic crap.

breatheme · 06-08-2018 10:52am

It would've been interesting to see Warren run in 2016. I'd like to see someone younger in 2020, but I would still be totally behind her.

eagle eye · 06-08-2018 11:34am

What about Martin Heinrich? He is 46, no skeletons, very good history although I don't think there is any military service. His surname doesn't help him a great deal but he can talk and never seems to get rattled.

Imo Warren would make a great President but I don't think she'd get elected and I don't think the Dems would take a chance on another woman candidate after losing the last one with Hilary.

Wanderer78 · 06-08-2018 11:37am

Need to look into Warren, sounds like my kind of person, but with the wacky way American politics is going, I won't be surprised if trump gets a second term, as their system isn't exactly democratic.

ancapailldorcha · 06-08-2018 12:01pm

Infini wrote: »

Honestly the key to getting Trump booted out ultimately is getting the Democrat vote out more so than anything and his BS certainly could help with that in the key swing states. Think the biggest problem with the 2016 election was people weren't motivated to vote for Hillary from the democrats unlike Obama to get out and vote enough and The Troll essentially managed to slip through where it mattered. The whole thing is though that if the Democrat's want to truly win they need to shift away from identity politics because that sort of crap does alienate people. Need to focus on the important stuff and sideline the idiotic crap.

Mod: Dial back the name calling please.

Manic Moran · 06-08-2018 4:55pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Need to look into Warren, sounds like my kind of person, but with the wacky way American politics is going, I won't be surprised if trump gets a second term, as their system isn't exactly democratic.

Well, if they put up a good candidate, who has a reasonable message (I.e. something other than “I am not Trump”) and who campaigns somewhat intelligently, there is no reason why they cannot soundly defeat Trump. The system is about as democratic as any other representative system.

I am fairly sure they will not make mistake number 3 again (not campaigning intelligently), the problem is that items 1 and 2 thus far seem to be a bit lacking. Fail in those two items, and I don’t care what voting structure you have, you aren’t likely to win.

BonnieSituation · 14-08-2018 7:38pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Need to look into Warren, sounds like my kind of person, but with the wacky way American politics is going, I won't be surprised if trump gets a second term, as their system isn't exactly democratic.

You'd think that and then you see how "Zionistic" she can be. No dice.

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/06/expect-elizabeth-critical/

There's loads down the years on her.

She would be particularly unpalatable to GOPpers so no way she would get a sniff at the top job.

The Dems need another Clinton (Bill) type.

Manic Moran · 17-08-2018 6:46pm

You may not have caught this opinion/analysis piece on CNN a few days ago which also covers the attest of the split Democrat vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/12/opinions/democrats-have-to-choose-victory-over-ideology-opinion-harrop/index.html

But Ocasio-Cortez took the movement path, putting her energies into helping defeat, not Republicans in November, but "establishment" Democrats in the primaries. So she and Sanders jetted around the country, endorsing left-wingers sure to lose in a general election.
Democratic primary voters generally ignored them. <snip>

At some point, so-called establishment Democrats should stop trying to win the far-left's love -- unwinnable because they are not part of the movement -- and tell them this: If you didn't come to ultimately work for the party, you entered the party's primaries for the wrong reason.

This is something the Republicans have obviously figured out. Trump was not, and to this day I believe still is not, the preferred Republican candidate amongst their voters, but there is no denying that they are very willing to come out and support someone they don’t find ideal if it at least means their party will win.

Somewhat warren-related quote. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/opinions/democrats-mistake-abolish-ice-platform-zelizer/index.html

On a Saturday when Americans across the country took to the streets to protest President Donald Trump's hardline shift on immigration policy, more and more prominent Democrats -- from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Sen. Kristin Gillibrand -- used their voices to advocate for ending ICE as we know it. <snip> While focusing on ICE is an extremely important debate, and dismantling the agency might the be the best policy decision, it carries enormous short-term political risks for the Democrats going into the midterm elections

Again, this seems to be a case of the Democrats as a national body ignoring what is important to win the winnable states, but as the first article observed, the local voters are voting with local interests.

Rjd2 · 07-11-2018 5:15pm

So anybody any the wiser after the mid terms?:)

If the mods could add O Rourke, Avenatti, Holder, Newsom and Gabbard that would be great.

Looking at the betting think the poll will have all the contenders now!

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/democrat-candidate

mcmoustache · 07-11-2018 7:37pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

So anybody any the wiser after the mid terms?:)

Not at all. I still think that Biden offers the best chance of being elected POTUS but I still don't know if he'll go for it. Others there are going to have to overcome being black and/or female.

O Rourke could have a chance, given what he achieved in Texas. I'm not too impressed with his speaking style but it was clearly effective enough. I've no idea of his appeal outside of texas so it's hard to make a guess about his abilities on a national level.

I'd like to write off Avenatti but it's hard to write off anything anymore. I view him as a bit of a self-promoting clown. An intelligent clown but a clown none the less. He'd have no chance if the primaries and election were held tomorrow but in two years time, who knows.

In short. I haven't a clue.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-11-2018 8:04pm

Beto' has really shaken the market, and may be the Dems best hope.
He's now the 4th Fav for POTUS20, one bookie actually has him 2nd, after Donald.

Seems like a whiter version of Barry O', and O'Rourke has a genuine Irish surname, as opposed to what J'Kerry done in an attempt to market himself better.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-11-2018 10:14pm

Powers & Sky just moved Beto into 3rd fav position within the last few hours.

Gaining 48.3% in Tex is no mean feat. Looks like the Dems have found their man.
It's gets better, he's young, has a Mex nickname, along with Irish-American (4th gen) ancestry.

That would certainly secure the dreamers, not to mention a bag of Ire E-3's after '20.
However has a slightly checkerd past, and questions on ability to fundraise, and border control remain.

postername1 · 07-11-2018 10:17pm

democrats are unpatriotic
they are for open borders, crime
they hate our freedom and our Constitution

Pa8301 · 07-11-2018 10:20pm

postername1 wrote: »

democrats are unpatriotic
they are for open borders, crime
they hate our freedom and our Constitution

The Democrats hate Bunreacht na hEireann?

rossie1977 · 07-11-2018 10:44pm

Had he won Texas then O'Rourke would likely be favourite in 2020 to become president.

As it stands I don't see him being in the final shakeup for the Dems nomination. While it would be great to see an actual progressive in the White House I think we are a few decades away from that yet in the States.

rossie1977 · 07-11-2018 10:44pm

Had he won Texas then O'Rourke would likely be favourite in 2020 to become president.

As it stands I don't see him being in the final shakeup for the Dems nomination. While it would be great to see an actual progressive in the White House I think we are a few decades away from that yet in the States.

MadYaker · 07-11-2018 11:10pm

It was neither an endorsement or condemnation of trump really. Plenty of Americans are obviously quite happy with him.

breatheme · 08-11-2018 12:02am

I think O'Rourke would at least be a great pick for Vice President. He would make an ideal running mate if not the actual presidential candidate. If it's not him, whoever did run would be an idiot not to pick him.

VonZan · 08-11-2018 12:30am

breatheme wrote: »

I think O'Rourke would at least be a great pick for Vice President. He would make an ideal running mate if not the actual presidential candidate. If it's not him, whoever did run would be an idiot not to pick him.

I think 2020 is possibly too early for him. I think the problem for the DNC is that one of the big guns is probably going to throw their hat in the ring and want to take on Trump. They'll want to avoid diving the party again so you have to imagine someone like O'Rourke or Harris would be in with a good shot.

I think Sanders would have beaten Trump and a candidate like O'Rourke who doesn't have the political baggage of a Warren, Pelosi or even Harris would certainly be appealing but it's hard to believe that the Democrats in both houses would be able to really be able to pass on any of their policies as their is simply not the number of progressives in both houses. It will be 10+ years before you will see much change from the status quo unless you get another Obama.

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-11-2018 8:49am

Pa8301 wrote: »

The Democrats hate Bunreacht na hEireann?

I'm beginning to hate Bunreacht nahEireann with some of the stuff they have been putting in and taking out of it lately.

Podge_irl · 08-11-2018 8:55am

rossie1977 wrote: »

Had he won Texas then O'Rourke would likely be favourite in 2020 to become president.

Ah, if he had won there is no way he could have run in 2020 I think. Would have been way too quick with him basically spending no time actually being a senator at all.

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-11-2018 8:59am

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Powers & Sky just moved Beto into 3rd fav position within the last few hours.

Gaining 48.3% in Tex is no mean feat. Looks like the Dems have found their man.
It's gets better, he's young, has a Mex nickname, along with Irish-American (4th gen) ancestry.

That would certainly secure the dreamers, not to mention a bag of Ire E-3's after '20.
However has a slightly checkerd past, and questions on ability to fundraise, and border control remain.

What is Ire E-3 short for ?

Honest question

eagle eye · 08-11-2018 12:24pm

The smart move for the Dems is to give Trump a second term imo.
The longer he gets the more boring he becomes.
In six years time Joe Kennedy III will be 44, perfect age for a two term POTUS.

If they still want Kennedy's after that JFK's grandson would be around the right age to succeed him.

hill16bhoy · 08-11-2018 12:58pm

The argument for Beto O'Rourke in 2020 is this, and it's a persuasive one.

What the Democrats need above all to win is energy and excitement.

Turnout is key. It's all about turnout, turnout, turnout. If the Democrats push the turnout up, they win.

Hillary Clinton got 3.87 million votes in Texas in 2016.

O'Rourke pushed that up above 4 million. In a mid-term senate election. I don't have the stats for sure on this but I'd strongly wager that outside of California, that's the second biggest mid-term vote anybody has ever pulled, ever.

I strongly feel that to beat Trump, the Democrats need to be bold, positive and brave in their choice of candidate, with bold policy positions. Maybe a more traditional Democrat like Biden can win, but he would be a conservative choice, borne of fear and a defensive position, fighting on Trump's terms.

I think the whole point of O'Rourke is that he is the epitome of youth, boldness, energy, positivity and bravery who can offer a polar opposite to everything Trump is.

Michael Moore said yesterday that to beat Trump, you need "a beloved American". Is Biden "a beloved American"? He's respected for sure, but beloved? Obama, in that campaign in 2008, became beloved in America, and it's not difficult to see O'Rourke having a similar dynamic. He certainly had it in Texas this time.

For sure, he could wait until 2024, but maybe the Democrats will already the White House by then - O'Rourke is certainly not the only potential Democratic candidate who can win - and moments don't last forever. Sometimes when you see a chance you just have to go for it rather wait for one that might never arrive. For years Paul Ryan was seen as the future of the Republican party and a future president. Now he looks finished. Hillary Clinton was eight years in waiting after 2008 and when the time eventually came, things didn't go well.

Obama went for his chance early and took it because he was right for that moment in time. I suspect O'Rourke might be the right man at the right time for Democrats now.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-11-2018 2:20pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What is Ire E-3 short for ?

Honest question

Google: E3 Visa.

It really doesn't matter what it's called, it's a handy visa for a few thousand highly skilled locals that don't fancy half their net wages on rent, not to mention bad weather, poor public services, crime and tracksuit zombies.

Faugheen · 08-11-2018 2:39pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What is Ire E-3 short for ?

Honest question

It's a 2-year working Visa which is only offered to Australia.

However the Aussies only use half of their allocation so there's a bill before the House to expand its eligibility to Irish citizens.

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-11-2018 3:47pm

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Google: E3 Visa.

It really doesn't matter what it's called, it's a handy visa for a few thousand highly skilled locals that don't fancy half their net wages on rent, not to mention bad weather, poor public services, crime and tracksuit zombies.

But only citizens can vote in US elections so it does not matter how many of them like O'Rourke or hate Trump.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-11-2018 3:55pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But only citizens can vote in US elections so it does not matter how many people on time like O'Rourke or hate Trump.

That's irrelevant. The point was, that Beto would be of benefit to the young Irish here, that might want to spend a couple of years working somewhere else.

Then again Trump was considering changing the DV lottery, whether that means blacklisting certain countries, increasing the 'european share', or stopping the program altogether, is hard to know for sure.

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-11-2018 4:02pm

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

That's irrelevant. The point was, that Beto would be of benefit to the young Irish here, that might want to spend a couple of years working somewhere else.

Then again Trump was considering changing the DV lottery, whether that means blacklisting certain countries, increasing the 'european share', or stopping the program altogether, is hard to know for sure.

How so exactly?

That's a huge assumption to make.

I'd be far more confident of a republican administration being more favourable to Irish skilled workers than a democrat one.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-11-2018 7:50pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How so exactly?

I'd be far more confident of a republican administration being more favourable to Irish skilled workers than a democrat one.

That's a huge assumption to make.

Trump is (somewhat understandably) acting from a perspective of protectionism, he's already taking 5k from the DV in 2020, in fact he is considering scrapping it alogether.

He's really not a fan of steel dumping (imports), nevermind human imports.

Beto is Demo, and 4th Gen Ire-Amer, so there is a better chance of any or all benefits towards Ire, that otherwise wouldn't be.

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-11-2018 8:40pm

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

That's a huge assumption to make.

Trump is (somewhat understandably) acting from a perspective of protectionism, he's already taking 5k from the DV in 2020, in fact he is considering scrapping it alogether.

He's really not a fan of steel dumping (imports), nevermind human imports.

Beto is Demo, and 4th Gen Ire-Amer, so there is a better chance of any or all benefits towards Ire, that otherwise wouldn't be.

A lot of fourth generation Irish Americans could hardly find Ireland on the map.

The only reason they identify as Irish is to distinguish themselves from the Germans, Poles Lithuanian etc.

Ireland is at a huge disadvantage with the DV

I'll post the stats later but here is a snapshot

Kenya - Winning chances = 2.399
Nepal - 1.656
Moldova - 0.629

Ireland - 0.108
Belgium - 0.053
Netherlands- 0.076

So coming from a developing world country is better than coming from a western country when it comes to DV chances.

A points system that credits education and competence in English would be much more beneficial to us Irish.

There is nothing to suggest an democrat would be better for Irish than a republican would.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-11-2018 8:58pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A lot of fourth generation Irish Americans could hardly find Ireland on the map.

Politicans usually have 'a bit of an idea' as to the location of countries.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The only reason they identify as Irish is to distinguish themselves from the Germans, Poles Lithuanian etc.

Indeed extra votes from about +30m helps greatly.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ireland is at a huge disadvantage with the DV

Kenya - Winning chances = 2.399
Nepal - 1.656
Moldova - 0.629
Ireland - 0.108
Belgium - 0.053
Netherlands- 0.076

Kenya has many, many more applicants, hence they may have done better. Only 10,000 or so applied from Ire in the previous DV. Winning chances were 1.26%, reasonable in the scheme of things. There is a lottery element to it so odds of winning are low, but dynamic.

Point is, Trump was/is considering scrapping it altogether.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A points system that credits education and competence in English would be much more beneficial to us Irish.

There is nothing to suggest an democrat would be better for Irish than a republican would.

It's not really a points system, and it's not a global event, the E3 is simply the reminants/scraps of whatever the Aussies don't take. So there in no competition element to it, other than a degree etc.

As Trump is clearly understandably protectionist, he would be unlikely to increase the E3 beyond the proposed 5k, if it even makes it that far.

Podge_irl · 08-11-2018 9:14pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A lot of fourth generation Irish Americans could hardly find Ireland on the map.

The only reason they identify as Irish is to distinguish themselves from the Germans, Poles Lithuanian etc.

Ireland is at a huge disadvantage with the DV

I'll post the stats later but here is a snapshot

Kenya - Winning chances = 2.399
Nepal - 1.656
Moldova - 0.629

Ireland - 0.108
Belgium - 0.053
Netherlands- 0.076

So coming from a developing world country is better than coming from a western country when it comes to DV chances.

A points system that credits education and competence in English would be much more beneficial to us Irish.

There is nothing to suggest an democrat would be better for Irish than a republican would.

The diversity visa is different from any number of other visas that Irish people have a higher chance of attaining. There are already other ways to emigrate to the US.

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-11-2018 9:50pm

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Politicans usually have 'a bit of an idea' as to the location of countries.

But being 4th generation Irish does not guarantee any affinity to Ireland or it's people. It's merely a label at that stage.

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Indeed extra votes from about +30m helps greatly

There is a misconception that all Irish American voters vote Democrat
Many do of course but many don't

Many Irish Americans, especially the older ones tend to be conservative. They are not that favorable to LGBT issues, abortion etc. Items that are very much part of the liberal Democrat party agenda

A century and further ago the Democrat party was the party of choice for Irish Americans, and this continued through to the Kennedy era
Remember that this was a time when the Democrats were the party of the white South.
In the years since Kennedy many have left for the Republicans as they have seen the democrats become more liberal.

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-11-2018 9:52pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

The diversity visa is different from any number of other visas that Irish people have a higher chance of attaining. There are already other ways to emigrate to the US.

Yes but none are that easy to get

The H1B was simple 20 years ago but now it to is a lottery also.

There is no points based system like Australia, Canada or NZ

Such a system would be very attractive to Irish applicants

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-11-2018 9:56pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But being 4th generation Irish does not guarantee any affinity to Ireland or it's people. It's merely a label at that stage.

Maybe, maybe not.

It's certainly useful for marketing. Didn't John 'Kerry' have his name changed to become more 'sellable'? Having a Mex nickname may well help Beto also.

All am saying is that if the Dems want a decent shot at POTUS, this may be their best chance. Currently 3r Fav, and just 10/1.

Rjd2 · 08-11-2018 10:01pm

https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1060274370608648192

I'd agree with that. Amy would be a serious problem for Trump in the mid west also. Maybe stick O Rourke as VP and ideally he can run in the future.

Rjd2 · 03-01-2019 3:51pm

Bump.

Looks like Warren will run,doubtful if she has much of a chance, but American politics has not exactly been predictable over the last few years.

Other ladies we should know soon enough will be Amy Klobuchar who I think would be very formidable for Trump especially when you look at her base.

Tulsi Gabbard also floating the idea, while she may try to appeal to the progressive base more than most, some of her previous comments and occasional flirting with some pretty right wing beliefs probably would torpedo her.

Harris obviously the most likely women to win in 2020 though.

Ronaldinho · 03-01-2019 9:58pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Bump.

Looks like Warren will run,doubtful if she has much of a chance, but American politics has not exactly been predictable over the last few years.

Other ladies we should know soon enough will be Amy Klobuchar who I think would be very formidable for Trump especially when you look at her base.

Tulsi Gabbard also floating the idea, while she may try to appeal to the progressive base more than most, some of her previous comments and occasional flirting with some pretty right wing beliefs probably would torpedo her.

Harris obviously the most likely women to win in 2020 though.

+1 for Klobuchar

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments