TheCid

2020 Election

465 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, mr6666 said:
 
 
John Hickenlooper, the former Colorado governor who ended his presidential campaign last week, announced he would run for a United States Senate seat.
 
It instantly makes him one of the Democrats’ best hopes in their quest to retake the chamber next year.

Yes,  current GOP Colorado Senator Cory Scott Gardner is up for re-election in 2020 and he barely won in 2014 (while Colorado has continued to move to the left).

This is a seat the Dems should be able to gain.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Interesting article.  Apparently Individual One is bleeding support from all over including 300 plus swing counties ...

Trump may be a lot more vulnerable than you think
Opinion   By Jennifer Rubin  Read more »

OK, I read it and have read Rubin's columns before.  While supposedly a neoconservative and hard right, she is also very, very anti-Trump.  This is an opinion piece, but I don't place much faith in her conclusions or even the polling data upon which she bases them.  In 2015-16, Hillary Clinton was polling extremely well and look where she ended up.

I hope Rubin and the pollsters are correct this time, but it still comes down to who the voters vote for in Nov. 2020.  Trump or a Democrat they really don't like?  That was the deciding factor in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

".....Joe Biden is running on electability. The only drawback to electability is, you have to win. And if you don't win Iowa and you don't win New Hampshire, then your electability, even though it looks good in November, is undermined.

I think anybody who looks at the Democratic race has to be impressed by what Elizabeth Warren has done. She came in under the worst circumstances, self-created, and forswore any big money. She's managed to…

Took a lot of criticism, has raised — has raised money, has generated enthusiasm and great response. And her numbers are up.

And Kamala Harris' numbers, she went after Joe Biden. She was the one that hit them. She belled that cat. And she's paid for it. I mean, — she's her own numbers have shrunk in the meanwhile....."

-Mark Shields (PBS)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-shields-and-ramesh-ponnuru-on-trumps-trade-war-and-bidens-lead

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mr6666 said:

".....Joe Biden is running on electability. The only drawback to electability is, you have to win. And if you don't win Iowa and you don't win New Hampshire, then your electability, even though it looks good in November, is undermined.

I think anybody who looks at the Democratic race has to be impressed by what Elizabeth Warren has done. She came in under the worst circumstances, self-created, and forswore any big money. She's managed to…

Took a lot of criticism, has raised — has raised money, has generated enthusiasm and great response. And her numbers are up.

And Kamala Harris' numbers, she went after Joe Biden. She was the one that hit them. She belled that cat. And she's paid for it. I mean, — she's her own numbers have shrunk in the meanwhile....."

-Mark Shields (PBS)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-shields-and-ramesh-ponnuru-on-trumps-trade-war-and-bidens-lead

I could be mistaken, but we haven't had Iowa or New Hampshire YET.

Bottom line as always is that winning the Democratic primaries and caucuses is one thing; winning the election in November is another.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This editorial, originally from USA Today, has been on the Yahoo main page for the last few days. While I don't agree with the writer's sentiments, it does express some things that others around here, like TheCid, have been mentioning.

No one votes to be despised. If Democrats don't change their pitch, I may switch to Trump.

I am not a President Trump supporter. But if the alternative to him in next year’s election is open borders and the Green New Deal, I may become a Trump voter. It’s a distinction without an electoral difference, but hear me out.

The president has earned a lot of the heat that comes his way. His reluctance to condemn the white nationalists at Charlottesville in 2017 was inexcusable. He questioned Barack Obama’s citizenship even after the man produced a birth certificate. His feuds with kneeling NFL players and other black celebrities serve no purpose except to stir the pot.

The full list is long and ugly. It would speak for itself if Trump’s opponents would let it.

They haven’t. Instead they’ve trafficked in hysteria and hyperbole, particularly in their response to the El Paso, Texas, shooting. Democrats fell over themselves to implicate the president’s rhetoric and policies. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pronounced Trump “directly responsible” for the massacre because of his rhetoric.

Imagine. Having never met the gunman, the freshman congresswoman looked into his heart and determined that he wouldn’t have killed if not for Trump.

Is it any wonder the president’s defenders reacted? Not that they had to look far for material: Thirteen hours after the Texas shooting, a self-described anti-borders leftist and Elizabeth Warren supporter killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio.  

You can guess how many Democrats acknowledged apparent parallels between their own ideas, some of which was echoed by the Dayton shooter, and the ideas they blamed for 22 deaths in El Paso.  

Its current trajectory gives the Democratic Party two problems in 2020. First, the agenda: a spending spree like no country has ever attempted, supposedly financed by a handful of wealthy taxpayers. What could go wrong?

Second, the message to voters. Progressives have long denounced America as hopelessly retrograde and racist. Naturally, they’re talking about everyone except themselves.

The insult-them-until-they-join-our-side strategy has gained devotees since the mass shootings. While at least seven presidential candidates have called Trump a white supremacist, the president's supporters don't want to be called the same simply for voting for Republicans.    

The contempt descended into incoherence even before the shootings. Candidate Andrew Yang matter-of-factly predicts the disappearance of millions of low-skill jobs. Yet he and his party argue for essentially allowing millions of low-skill workers to enter the country without consequences.

If you work in an industry likely to absorb some of that labor, you might wonder if this is how the Democrats plan to revive their brand as champion of the little guy. Are you the little guy they have in mind, or have you slipped a bit on their list?

Today’s party seems to answer: You only ask because you don’t like brown skin.

Partisans who can’t imagine anything worse than losing history’s quintessential hold-your-nose election should picture coming to the rematch with a perfectly pleasant candidate, finding the opponent as nasty as ever, and losing again anyway.

Which could happen. The swing voters who will decide the next election won’t care whether Democrats rate Donald Trump a racist or a white nationalist or a white supremacist. With the left’s favorite epithet flying around the political sphere more freely than ever, and the definition of racism facing possible expansion, they’ll want to know what Democrats think of them.  

No one deliberately votes to be despised.

Michael Smith is a contributor to the Louisville Courier Journal, where this column first appeared. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-one-votes-despised-democrats-110029696.html

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

This editorial, originally from USA Today, has been on the Yahoo main page for the last few days. While I don't agree with the writer's sentiments, it does express some things that others around here, like TheCid, have been mentioning.

No one votes to be despised. If Democrats don't change their pitch, I may switch to Trump.

I am not a President Trump supporter. But if the alternative to him in next year’s election is open borders and the Green New Deal, I may become a Trump voter. It’s a distinction without an electoral difference, but hear me out.

The president has earned a lot of the heat that comes his way. His reluctance to condemn the white nationalists at Charlottesville in 2017 was inexcusable. He questioned Barack Obama’s citizenship even after the man produced a birth certificate. His feuds with kneeling NFL players and other black celebrities serve no purpose except to stir the pot.

The full list is long and ugly. It would speak for itself if Trump’s opponents would let it.

They haven’t. Instead they’ve trafficked in hysteria and hyperbole, particularly in their response to the El Paso, Texas, shooting. Democrats fell over themselves to implicate the president’s rhetoric and policies. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pronounced Trump “directly responsible” for the massacre because of his rhetoric.

Imagine. Having never met the gunman, the freshman congresswoman looked into his heart and determined that he wouldn’t have killed if not for Trump.

Is it any wonder the president’s defenders reacted? Not that they had to look far for material: Thirteen hours after the Texas shooting, a self-described anti-borders leftist and Elizabeth Warren supporter killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio.  

You can guess how many Democrats acknowledged apparent parallels between their own ideas, some of which was echoed by the Dayton shooter, and the ideas they blamed for 22 deaths in El Paso.  

Its current trajectory gives the Democratic Party two problems in 2020. First, the agenda: a spending spree like no country has ever attempted, supposedly financed by a handful of wealthy taxpayers. What could go wrong?

Second, the message to voters. Progressives have long denounced America as hopelessly retrograde and racist. Naturally, they’re talking about everyone except themselves.

The insult-them-until-they-join-our-side strategy has gained devotees since the mass shootings. While at least seven presidential candidates have called Trump a white supremacist, the president's supporters don't want to be called the same simply for voting for Republicans.    

The contempt descended into incoherence even before the shootings. Candidate Andrew Yang matter-of-factly predicts the disappearance of millions of low-skill jobs. Yet he and his party argue for essentially allowing millions of low-skill workers to enter the country without consequences.

If you work in an industry likely to absorb some of that labor, you might wonder if this is how the Democrats plan to revive their brand as champion of the little guy. Are you the little guy they have in mind, or have you slipped a bit on their list?

Today’s party seems to answer: You only ask because you don’t like brown skin.

Partisans who can’t imagine anything worse than losing history’s quintessential hold-your-nose election should picture coming to the rematch with a perfectly pleasant candidate, finding the opponent as nasty as ever, and losing again anyway.

Which could happen. The swing voters who will decide the next election won’t care whether Democrats rate Donald Trump a racist or a white nationalist or a white supremacist. With the left’s favorite epithet flying around the political sphere more freely than ever, and the definition of racism facing possible expansion, they’ll want to know what Democrats think of them.  

No one deliberately votes to be despised.

Michael Smith is a contributor to the Louisville Courier Journal, where this column first appeared. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-one-votes-despised-democrats-110029696.html

Thank you.  I'm a little confused by the last sentence as to the author's meaning.  Who is "them" and does it relate to "racism" or some other factor?  One take is that he is saying insulting swing voters will not get them to vote Dem.

The more I have read lately, for many swing voters it still gets back to Bill Clinton's winning strategy - "It's the economy stupid."  Although I think it is more than that for most voters.  But, if Trump can postpone his recession until after Nov. 2020 he may pull it out.

As I have said before, most of the current Dems running for president are in the favorite American voting position - not him or her.  Voters vote against someone more so than for someone or a position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:
 
 
 
 
a619f20e38e78fe305c4d8772195299a-500-0-70-8-VNNWE7GEIII6TC7XZXRNTYEQKU.jpg
 

Mark Sanford, former governor of S.C., is still mulling it over, but neither has a snow balls chance.  Sanford admitted that, but said that by running for president he gets a lot more media coverage for his ideas.  His primary position is to balance the budget and lower the deficit, mostly by cutting spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Thank you.  I'm a little confused by the last sentence as to the author's meaning.  Who is "them" and does it relate to "racism" or some other factor?  One take is that he is saying insulting swing voters will not get them to vote Dem.

Yes, I think that's what he's saying. He's implying that many of the Dem candidates label all independents and Republicans/conservatives as racist. It's like the "deplorables" argument from the last election. Instead of realizing that the comment is about a certain subset of people, some more sensitive people believe that such condemnations refer to anyone (all whites, or all conservatives).

I recall shortly after the 2004 election, a respected Republican congressman was on Bill Maher's show, and this was the kind of quiet, classy statesman type of guy that was not given to vitriol or anger. When Maher voiced befuddlement over Bush's re-election, this congressmen went on an apoplectic tirade about the "Left" ridiculing and disrespecting those on the right, and that it outraged enough of them to make sure Bush won, just to stick it to those who they viewed as "mocking" them. I think this type of (largely wrong-headed) thinking on the Right has only become more pronounced since then, and to ignore it would be to any candidate's peril.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:58 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yea,  I understand pandering to people-of-color is the way to win the Dem nomination (say reparations 3 times!)

You sound like an undercover repedlican shill placed on the TCM boards. You do it so nonchalantly and believable. You might as well go ask for a job at Faux News. 😉

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Yes, I think that's what he's saying. He's implying that many of the Dem candidates label all independents and Republicans/conservatives as racist. It's like the "deplorables" argument from the last election. Instead of realizing that the comment is about a certain subset of people, some more sensitive people believe that such condemnations refer to anyone (all whites, or all conservatives).

I recall shortly after the 2004 election, a respected Republican congressman was on Bill Maher's show, and this was the kind of quiet, classy statesman type of guy that was not given to vitriol or anger. When Maher voiced befuddlement over Bush's re-election, this congressmen went on an apoplectic tirade about the "Left" ridiculing and disrespecting those on the right, and that it outraged enough of them to make sure Bush won, just to stick it to those who they viewed as "mocking" them. I think this type of (largely wrong-headed) thinking on the Right has only become more pronounced since then, and to ignore it would be to any candidate's peril.

You are correct.  It is ironic that Dems lose more voters by insulting them, whereas GOPers lose very few.  It comes down to the moderates and independents who are more likely to feel insulted by the Dems than by the GOPers.  As you note, there may even be some on the "right" who could be won over if the Dems. were more careful in how they perceived others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

You sound like an undercover repedlican shill placed on the TCM boards. You do it so nonchalantly and believable. You might as well go ask for a job at Faux News. 😉

You're in such a bubble you can't handle reality.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

You're in such a bubble you can't handle reality.

 

Yea sure...... whatever you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

You sound like an undercover repedlican shill placed on the TCM boards. You do it so nonchalantly and believable. You might as well go ask for a job at Faux News. 😉

While I occasionally disagree with James, I think he is correct (maybe offensive) here.  Saw an episode of Veep the other night and they were campaigning for the Dem primary in South Carolina.  Julia Louis-Dreyfus asked about the white male vote (or maybe white vote).  Gary Cole responded that it was statistically insignificant.  A stretch, but not by much.  So, they have to go for the African-American vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheCid said:

While I occasionally disagree with James, I think he is correct (maybe offensive) here.  Saw an episode of Veep the other night and they were campaigning for the Dem primary in South Carolina.  Julia Louis-Dreyfus asked about the white male vote (or maybe white vote).  Gary Cole responded that it was statistically insignificant.  A stretch, but not by much.

I can see the post being offensive if one assumed I meant that pandering is only done by Dem politicians towards black voters,  because black voters fall for such stunts.   NOT.    Pandering is done by both parties during the primaries and it often 'works' well with all types of voters.    E.g.  GOP candidates pandering to evangelicals in Iowa.   

Joe is like the repubs he despises;  he wants an echo chamber.   He knows I'm in the anyone-but-Trump camp.  Oh well. 

Anyhow,   Harris tried pandering to black voters and while she got a bump it didn't last.  Unless she pulls off a miracle in the next debate,  I expect her to drop out after that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Joe is like the repubs he despises;  he wants an echo chamber.   He knows I'm in the anyone-but-Trump camp.  Oh well. 

You don't know Jack who Joe is like pal.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meet the Press

'A deep and boiling anger': NBC/WSJ poll finds a pessimistic America despite current economic satisfaction

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they're angry at the political establishment

 

.........“Four years ago, we uncovered a deep and boiling anger across the country engulfing our political system,” said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey in partnership with the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. “Four years later, with a very different political leader in place, that anger remains at the same level.”

The poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they feel angry “because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington.” Forty-three percent say that statement describes them "very well.".....

“I think it's a step forward in the way that people are becoming more aware of the differences between them, but I think it's a step back when you bend over so much and become politically correct that you take away a person's right to think or say how they feel,” said one suburban man from Hawaii who supported Trump in 2016. ....

Those changes come amid a stark generational divide over which values are seen as most important.

Among those who are either Millennials or Generation Z (ages 18-38), only 42 percent rate patriotism as a “very important” value, while 79 percent of those over 55 say the same.

Just 30 percent of the younger group cite religion or belief in God as very important, while 67 percent of the older group does.

And just 32 percent of those under 38 years old call having children very important, while 54 percent of those over 55 agree.

“There is an emerging America where issues like children, religion, and patriotism are far less important,”.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/deep-boiling-anger-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-pessimistic-america-despite-n1045916?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard a commentator on one of the news channels this morning state that almost all of new Dems elected to House in 2018 are moderate, not progressive/liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Meet the Press

'A deep and boiling anger': NBC/WSJ poll finds a pessimistic America despite current economic satisfaction

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they're angry at the political establishment

 

.........“Four years ago, we uncovered a deep and boiling anger across the country engulfing our political system,” said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey in partnership with the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. “Four years later, with a very different political leader in place, that anger remains at the same level.”

The poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they feel angry “because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington.” Forty-three percent say that statement describes them "very well.".....

“I think it's a step forward in the way that people are becoming more aware of the differences between them, but I think it's a step back when you bend over so much and become politically correct that you take away a person's right to think or say how they feel,” said one suburban man from Hawaii who supported Trump in 2016. ....

Those changes come amid a stark generational divide over which values are seen as most important.

Among those who are either Millennials or Generation Z (ages 18-38), only 42 percent rate patriotism as a “very important” value, while 79 percent of those over 55 say the same.

Just 30 percent of the younger group cite religion or belief in God as very important, while 67 percent of the older group does.

And just 32 percent of those under 38 years old call having children very important, while 54 percent of those over 55 agree.

“There is an emerging America where issues like children, religion, and patriotism are far less important,”.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/deep-boiling-anger-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-pessimistic-america-despite-n1045916?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

"The [NBC/WSJ] poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they feel angry “because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington.”   And far, far too many still believe that enabling the wealthy American corporationists will cause money to flow downhill to them because Trump and the Republican Party says it will.  So, once again they will vote Republican in 2020.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

"The [NBC/WSJ] poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they feel angry “because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington.”   And far, far too many still believe that enabling the wealthy American corporationists will cause money to flow downhill to them because Trump and the Republican Party says it will.  So, once again they will vote Republican in 2020.

"If God did not want them sheared He would not have made them sheep."

- Calvera

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

"If God did not want them sheared He would not have made them sheep."

- Calvera

 

The capitalistic sheep will pay attention when their 401ks dwindle, when inflation takes their Savings and paycheck--

Greedy, materialistic, superficial people can only be affected and concerned about their own  personal well-being.

History has shown us that that may be too late to keep the ship from sinking.

But painting chairs on the deck of the Titanic will make the eventuality more attractive and take your mind off possible negative outcomes. And The Beat Goes On .....LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Princess of Tap said:

The capitalistic sheep will pay attention when their 401ks dwindle, when inflation takes their Savings and paycheck--

Greedy, materialistic, superficial people can only be affected and concerned about their own  personal well-being.

History has shown us that that may be too late to keep the ship from sinking.

But painting chairs on the deck of the Titanic will make the eventuality more attractive and take your mind off possible negative outcomes. And The Beat Goes On .....LOL

Unfortunately far too many of them will blame it on the Democrats and their "progressive/liberal" programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘The rock star’ vs. ‘The rock’: Warren and Biden hurtle toward collision

A clash of opposites was on full display on the campaign trail the past week.

"......Warren roused her supporters with calls for “big, structural change,” and the crowd roared with chants of “Two cents! Two cents” while waving two fingers in the air as Warren discussed her 2 percent "wealth tax.” Biden pounded away at President Donald Trump, his campaign subtly and overtly reminding voters that polls consistently show him as the party's best general election candidate and the primary’s front-runner.

The parallel displays by two of the three leading Democratic candidates offered a possible preview of the collision course looming if Biden and Warren maintain their current trajectory.

It would be a clash of opposites: the progressive firebrand against the establishment favorite; the cerebral candidate of big, bold plans vs. the elder statesman offering himself as a safe haven for people who simply want a return to pre-Trump normalcy........

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/26/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-2020-1475220

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received an invitation to contribute letter and a survey from Nikki Haley today.  It comes from the new Stand For America organization, which was founded by Nikki Haley.  The "survey" is a checklist against "socialism."  The body of the letter specifically mentions Sanders and Ocassio as examples of the socialists trying to take over the US.  The Green New Deal, free college, Medicare for All and 70% tax rates are specific examples of socialism.

Haley is also planning to start a "non-profit" in South Carolina next year to promote education and so forth.

She says she has no plans to run for president in 2024, much less in 2020.

While this request and "survey" may actually be to obtain information, it also an example of how the Republicans will campaign in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us