US Presidential Election 2020

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 9:24am

https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/1088557052287479808

Not sure if Harris doing so much better because most of the others haven't formally announced yet, but it's very interesting to see her lead over those who actually have - particularly Warren and (thankfully) Gabbard; Gillibrand not even polling?

realdanbreen · 25-01-2019 9:30am

I've often wondered why the Reps and dems don't have a leader that you know is going to run for election next time round. Right now trump has an advantage in that we know(or think we know)that he is standing next time round but we don't know who the Dem candidate will be. The only certainty is that the candidates will be rich!

pixelburp · 25-01-2019 11:17am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/1088557052287479808

Not sure if Harris doing so much better because most of the others haven't formally announced yet, but it's very interesting to see her lead over those who actually have - particularly Warren and (thankfully) Gabbard; Gillibrand not even polling?

Surprising figures, because others I'd briefly seen (don't have them to hand unfortunately) suggested Harris is practically unknown outside of the coastal states.

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 3:12pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Surprising figures, because others I'd briefly seen (don't have them to hand unfortunately) suggested Harris is practically unknown outside of the coastal states.

Well in fairness, as of the last census about 54.8% of the US population lives in the (traditional) coastal States - i.e. East / West and not including the newly "hip" "third coast" rebranding of the Gulf States

theguzman · 25-01-2019 5:14pm

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

oscarBravo · 25-01-2019 5:15pm

theguzman wrote: »

...Obama is widely seen as America's worst ever President...

Only among people who wear MAGA hats.

pixelburp · 25-01-2019 5:32pm

theguzman wrote: »

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

Citation please. If you're going to talk in hyperbole, then at the very least you can provide some stats to back it up.

rossie1977 · 25-01-2019 5:50pm

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

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

eagle eye · 25-01-2019 5:54pm

oscarBravo wrote:

Only among people who wear MAGA hats.

Well I'm a fan of Barack Obama and I was all for him becoming President but I think he was very poor.
He is too nice of a guy to be a President I think.
I expect him to do great things in the future and he was a great man before he became POTUS but he was poor as President.
Certainly not the worst by stretch but still not good.

oscarBravo · 25-01-2019 6:06pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I'm a fan of Barack Obama and I was all for him becoming President but I think he was very poor.

I'm a fan too, and I don't think he was particularly poor. His legacy faces a number of challenges: among them the sheer weight of expectation, which led to inevitable disappointment; and Mitch McConnell's determination to ensure that Obama achieved absolutely nothing whatsoever (and he still achieved ACA).

If the USA was a normal functioning democracy, he could have achieved greatness. I would lay relatively little (note: not none) of the blame for his failures at his own feet.

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

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 6:06pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

eagle eye · 25-01-2019 6:12pm

oscarBravo wrote:

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

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

oscarBravo · 25-01-2019 6:21pm

eagle eye wrote: »

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

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

The Phantom Jipper · 25-01-2019 6:28pm

theguzman wrote: »

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

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

Muahahaha · 25-01-2019 9:28pm

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

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

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

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

Fr Tod Umptious · 26-01-2019 12:59am

Muahahaha wrote: »

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

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

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

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

A lot of confirmation bias in that.

Biden, charismatic ?

Are you serious ?

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

Brian? · 26-01-2019 12:01pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A lot of confirmation bias in that.

Biden, charismatic ?

Are you serious ?

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

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

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

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

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

oscarBravo · 26-01-2019 4:39pm

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

eagle eye · 26-01-2019 5:05pm

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

Fr Tod Umptious · 26-01-2019 5:22pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

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

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

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

pixelburp · 26-01-2019 5:49pm

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

ancapailldorcha · 26-01-2019 5:51pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

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

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

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

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

theguzman · 26-01-2019 5:54pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

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

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

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

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

eagle eye · 26-01-2019 5:55pm

ancapailldorcha wrote:

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

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

oscarBravo · 26-01-2019 7:40pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on Mayo, seriously ?

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

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

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

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

rossie1977 · 26-01-2019 10:18pm

eagle eye wrote: »

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

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

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

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

eagle eye · 27-01-2019 2:26pm

rossie1977 wrote:

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

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

rossie1977 · 27-01-2019 3:48pm

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

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

RobertKK · 27-01-2019 5:51pm

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

eagle eye · 27-01-2019 6:46pm

rossie1977 wrote:

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

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

batgoat · 27-01-2019 11:48pm

RobertKK wrote: »

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

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

Quin_Dub · 27-01-2019 11:49pm

RobertKK wrote: »

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

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

Not sure that this is really news.

Manic Moran · 28-01-2019 2:40am

Rjd2 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

RobertKK · 28-01-2019 11:50pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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

Not sure that this is really news.

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

skooterblue2 · 28-01-2019 11:58pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Can you add an other option to the poll?

Linda Sarsour.

batgoat · 28-01-2019 11:58pm

RobertKK wrote: »

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

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

Manic Moran · 29-01-2019 1:14am

batgoat wrote: »

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

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

pixelburp · 29-01-2019 10:22am

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

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

spacecoyote · 29-01-2019 10:29am

pixelburp wrote: »

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

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

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

Manic Moran · 29-01-2019 2:29pm

pixelburp wrote: »

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

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

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

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

pixelburp · 30-01-2019 6:22pm

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 · 30-01-2019 9:40pm

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 · 01-02-2019 1:27pm

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 · 01-02-2019 1:36pm

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 · 01-02-2019 2:03pm

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 · 01-02-2019 4:44pm

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 · 01-02-2019 4:49pm

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 · 01-02-2019 5:02pm

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 · 01-02-2019 5:15pm

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 · 01-02-2019 5:51pm

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.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments