sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost. Nothing has changed. They would support him staying in the White House if he lost the 2020 election. I don't think they will go quietly. And what if his new allies, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey recognize him as the President after the election? Much like he did with Venezuela.
I don't think Trump will go gently into the night is he 'loses' in 2020.

---

If your pessimistic vision holds true, I'm confident the military commanders would be happy to forcibly remove Trump from office and usher in the winner, even if there are some local militias that get radical. That said, I don't think it gets that far. I think the economy gets worse by fall of 2020 (not a full-blown crisis, but it stalls), and I think Trump continues his BS, and his support falls to 35%, and the election is not that close, dampening enthusiasm on the right for armed support of Trump. Though, I do admit, if the elections don't go Trump's way, I do believe there will be one or two crazies that do something violent and dumb.

At this point I'll settle for a military junta.

Plum, Conservatory, Wrench.

golden sloth said:

---

You have Charles Shultz who is most like going to run as a centrist independent.

---

Even though he's dead?

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost. Nothing has changed. They would support him staying in the White House if he lost the 2020 election. I don't think they will go quietly. And what if his new allies, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey recognize him as the President after the election? Much like he did with Venezuela.
I don't think Trump will go gently into the night if he 'loses' in 2020.

---

If your pessimistic vision holds true, I'm confident the military commanders would be happy to forcibly remove Trump from office and usher in the winner, even if there are some local militias that get radical. That said, I don't think it gets that far. I think the economy gets worse by fall of 2020 (not a full-blown crisis, but it stalls), and I think Trump continues his BS, and his support falls to 35%, and the election is not that close, dampening enthusiasm on the right for armed support of Trump. Though, I do admit, if the elections don't go Trump's way, I do believe there will be one or two crazies that do something violent and dumb.

---

Remember that the majority of the military are from Trump states and are Trump supporters. AKA The South finally won the war...

Trump supporters (including the majority of those in the military) probably own 90% of the weapons in the US. The chances of their successfully resisting the Removal of the Trump are greater than you think. You don't need a majority to overthrow the Government, 10% of the population, passionate and armed are enough. At the end of the Revolutionary War, the Patriots were not in the majority, at least not until the Loyalists and British citizens were chased out of the country.

Oops, updated to Howard, thanks.

golden sloth said:

---

I still believe, a midwestern pragmatist (Klobuchar or Brown) paired with a Progressive VP is the route to go for Dem's. Sentiment is against Trump and all the D's need to do is lock up their traditional strongholds along the coast and the great lake states which I believe Klobuchar or Brown could do. I believe it is more important to have Trump not win re-election and restore normality to government than nominate a progressive that will bring sweeping change, it also gives the progressives some time to flush out their big ideas before attempting to implement them with policy.

---

Problem with this is that I don't know that such a candidate would actually excite the Democratic base, and secretly that was the real problem in 2016: Hillary just did not excite people. And of course you have the other problem that if they don't excite the base, how do they win the primary?

Basically I think the "most electable" candidate is whoever can gain the most support during the primary. The rest can and should sort itself out. The issue in 2016 was that everyone except Bernie cleared the decks for Hillary and you didn't have a real competition.

I agree there's something about an "establishment" Dem paired with a progressive VP that could have legs. It solves the problem of getting the progressive Dems involved. It generally makes sense but a lot of things are still in the air...and 2 years is a long, long, long time away given the unpredictability of Trump and what could happen between now and then.

For one, if impeachment gains traction due to Mueller, Russia, Saudi Arabia...and who knows what else, all bets are off. Things could peter out...or Trump farts on a lit match and a fire storm arises.

Today Trump declared a national emergency for his wall. I have no idea what that means but it sure seems the further Mueller screws down the clamps, Trump does another irrational, attention averting thing like declare a national emergency.

The other thing to watch is who shoots themselves in the foot and who survives.

In any case...to help get this started...Americans notoriously pick and back candidates based on personality first and policy second. It's a really FCCKED up way but it is what it is. So I say handicap the personalities of the candidates and what that means to the "typical" American, or Americans in different regions and demographics.

golden sloth said:

---

Morning All, 2020 election info is scattered throughout a few a different threads, thus I thought I'd open up a catch-all thread.

As of right now, the Dem's have:
1. Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota
2. Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts
3. Cory Book, Senator from New Jersey
4. Kamala Harris, Senator from California
5. Julian Castro, Mayor from San Antonio
6. Tulsi Gabbard, Representative from Hawaii
7. Richard Ojeda, State Senator from West Virginia
8. John Delaney, Representative from Maryland
9. Andrew Yang, Tech Business Dude
10. Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator New York
11. Pete Buttigieg, Mayor South Bend
12. Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke, Sherrod Brown, and Bernie Sanders have not announced.

You have Charles Shultz Howard Schultz who is most like going to run as a centrist independent.

On the Republican side you have the big news of the day:
1. Bill Weld, Former Governor of Massachusetts
2. Donald Trump

I still believe, a midwestern pragmatist (Klobuchar or Brown) paired with a Progressive VP is the route to go for Dem's. Sentiment is against Trump and all the D's need to do is lock up their traditional strongholds along the coast and the great lake states which I believe Klobuchar or Brown could do. I believe it is more important to have Trump not win re-election and restore normality to government than nominate a progressive that will bring sweeping change, it also gives the progressives some time to flush out their big ideas before attempting to implement them with policy. Schultz needs to be shamed and boycotted out of the election.

---

Cory Book and his daughters Rita and Retta are going to make a great first family.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I still believe, a midwestern pragmatist (Klobuchar or Brown) paired with a Progressive VP is the route to go for Dem's. Sentiment is against Trump and all the D's need to do is lock up their traditional strongholds along the coast and the great lake states which I believe Klobuchar or Brown could do. I believe it is more important to have Trump not win re-election and restore normality to government than nominate a progressive that will bring sweeping change, it also gives the progressives some time to flush out their big ideas before attempting to implement them with policy.

---

Problem with this is that I don't know that such a candidate would actually excite the Democratic base, and secretly that was the real problem in 2016: Hillary just did not excite people. And of course you have the other problem that if they don't excite the base, how do they win the primary?

Basically I think the "most electable" candidate is whoever can gain the most support during the primary. The rest can and should sort itself out. The issue in 2016 was that everyone except Bernie cleared the decks for Hillary and you didn't have a real competition.

---

Honestly, I don't know if exciting the base is going to be a requirement for the candidate for the dem's. I think Trump is enough motivation for them to vote. The problem is they need to secure the middle and the moderate republicans that don't like Trump. The dem's strategy should be to focus on the great lakes. I'd rather have them devote resources to winning less states overall, but the states they win, they win decisively, than going after more states, but having them all be toss-ups.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I still believe, a midwestern pragmatist (Klobuchar or Brown) paired with a Progressive VP is the route to go for Dem's. Sentiment is against Trump and all the D's need to do is lock up their traditional strongholds along the coast and the great lake states which I believe Klobuchar or Brown could do. I believe it is more important to have Trump not win re-election and restore normality to government than nominate a progressive that will bring sweeping change, it also gives the progressives some time to flush out their big ideas before attempting to implement them with policy.

---

Problem with this is that I don't know that such a candidate would actually excite the Democratic base, and secretly that was the real problem in 2016: Hillary just did not excite people. And of course you have the other problem that if they don't excite the base, how do they win the primary?

Basically I think the "most electable" candidate is whoever can gain the most support during the primary. The rest can and should sort itself out. The issue in 2016 was that everyone except Bernie cleared the decks for Hillary and you didn't have a real competition.

---

This is why I still think Harris (at this early point) makes the most sense. She can excite the base, but she doesn't have a crazy progressive platform that will alienate moderates.

If you do go with a Midwesterner, you almost have to choose Beto as your running mate to get the base/youth vote and to raise money.

People forget that grassroots fundraising is the name of the game now. Klobuchar and brown don't give you that.

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I still believe, a midwestern pragmatist (Klobuchar or Brown) paired with a Progressive VP is the route to go for Dem's. Sentiment is against Trump and all the D's need to do is lock up their traditional strongholds along the coast and the great lake states which I believe Klobuchar or Brown could do. I believe it is more important to have Trump not win re-election and restore normality to government than nominate a progressive that will bring sweeping change, it also gives the progressives some time to flush out their big ideas before attempting to implement them with policy.

---

Problem with this is that I don't know that such a candidate would actually excite the Democratic base, and secretly that was the real problem in 2016: Hillary just did not excite people. And of course you have the other problem that if they don't excite the base, how do they win the primary?

Basically I think the "most electable" candidate is whoever can gain the most support during the primary. The rest can and should sort itself out. The issue in 2016 was that everyone except Bernie cleared the decks for Hillary and you didn't have a real competition.

---

This is why I still think Harris (at this early point) makes the most sense. She can excite the base, but she doesn't have a crazy progressive platform that will alienate moderates.

If you do go with a Midwesterner, you almost have to choose Beto as your running mate to get the base/youth vote and to raise money.

People forget that grassroots fundraising is the name of the game now. Klobuchar and brown don't give you that.

---

Yes, my current gut feeling is that Kamala/Beto is the ideal ticket. But of course it's still early.

I wonder if this helps or hurts her.

If I had to pick right now, I'd take Mayor Bloomberg1
Joe Biden2
Amy Klobuchar as Vice President

sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost.

---

Perhaps the biggest question I have had throughout the Trump nightmare, like a lot of Liberals, is that I do not understand the loyalty of his base.

I completely concur with the Strict Father Ethical Model and how this explains the value system he represents and his supporters "decision tree", but it still doesn't explain: why him? And why still him?

There are any number of men who fit the Strict Father description and check all the boxes in terms of policy, but they masses don't revere them. Just this guy. For him they are willing to say and believe anything. It is cult-like.

So, how do a mass of less-educated and lower income people decide that this strange looking rich guy from New York who can so obviously be shown to not be like them at all or believe a thing they believe or a thing he says, not only garner their support, but maintain their unchangeable loyalty?

I can not make sense of it.

If I had to guess it is some combination of the following:

1) Income inequality and changing society has left them feeling so marginalized or worthless (and unable to admit this in themselves) that being part of Trump's base gives them a feeling of having a voice and power. So the loyalty to Trump is actually just tribal identity that defines itself not in what it believes but what it hates or feels threatened by. In this way Trump and who he really is doesn't matter. It's all about feeling like the world is listening to them now, even if all they are doing is kicking over other people's sandcastles.

2) The mix of political propaganda and religious indoctrination has them brainwashed to the point that to now back away from Trump is to admit to the choice they made, the lies they have listened to, or the fallibility of their religion (god). This is all too much to accept, so they just go further. If they admit to one flaw then the house of cards falls apart and they are left with the fact that they have been duped and that they probably are not very bright.

3) That these are just really horrible small minded people. They are "losers" in our society precisely because of a lot of bad traits and so the worst in Trump is just a mirror of their own shortcomings: bigotry, bullying, vindictiveness, greed, irrationality, etc. Seeing their own worst nature succeed on a world stage makes them feel like their faults are strengths and they are taking the same vicarious victory lap we all take when our sports team wins for example. They are all-in with Trump the same way we might be all in with Cal and have our excuses for failure and our crowing for victory.

4) This is just the typical cycle of society, and we are witnessing the rise of authoritarianism and these are the types of people that buttress the rise of every totalitarian regime throughout history. This group is just part of all societies and they remain silent or reduced in number under certain conditions and then explode into voice and expression under other circumstance. They are the underbelly of Republican power and control. If they harness this gullible group that takes things on "faith" you get to put corrupt law, policy, and tax systems in place (the rich get richer), but if you exploit it too much these people will latch onto an authoritarian and put the whole sham system you built on these people at risk. The balancing act (I promise that I really do believe in your God, so if you would please just sign off on this tax policy that makes me rich....) is the great Republican con.

Ultimately, I guess I am glad they adopted such a hideous man, because if he was any slicker he would be that more difficult to unseat. As it is, they will disown him like Nixon a few years down the road...I hope.

The worst scenario is this man on the sidelines of our society, a victim of a "coup", continuing to tear down and attack legitimate governance as we try and repair the damage he has caused. No, I take that back, the worst scenario is that the world is on the verge of another purge and that it will require global conflict to make us all remember how to coexist and put society back in order.

blungld said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost.

---

Perhaps the biggest question I have had throughout the Trump nightmare, like a lot of Liberals, is that I do not understand the loyalty of his base....

---

His supporters could care less what he does or what lies he tells. tRump has CONNED them into believing he is their Messianic standard bearer in the Fox News manufactured Culture War. No tRump Crime Family member will ever serve a day in prison because there will always be at least one tRumpist sympathizer on the jury wiling to engage in jury nullification.



If the disappointed tRumpists act out when he loses in 2020, I am sure the National Guard will be more than happy to apply force commensurate with the level of displeasure they display, up to and including drone strikes.

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I still believe, a midwestern pragmatist (Klobuchar or Brown) paired with a Progressive VP is the route to go for Dem's. Sentiment is against Trump and all the D's need to do is lock up their traditional strongholds along the coast and the great lake states which I believe Klobuchar or Brown could do. I believe it is more important to have Trump not win re-election and restore normality to government than nominate a progressive that will bring sweeping change, it also gives the progressives some time to flush out their big ideas before attempting to implement them with policy.

---

Problem with this is that I don't know that such a candidate would actually excite the Democratic base, and secretly that was the real problem in 2016: Hillary just did not excite people. And of course you have the other problem that if they don't excite the base, how do they win the primary?

Basically I think the "most electable" candidate is whoever can gain the most support during the primary. The rest can and should sort itself out. The issue in 2016 was that everyone except Bernie cleared the decks for Hillary and you didn't have a real competition.

---

This is why I still think Harris (at this early point) makes the most sense. She can excite the base, but she doesn't have a crazy progressive platform that will alienate moderates.

If you do go with a Midwesterner, you almost have to choose Beto as your running mate to get the base/youth vote and to raise money.

People forget that grassroots fundraising is the name of the game now. Klobuchar and brown don't give you that.

---

Yes, my current gut feeling is that Kamala/Beto is the ideal ticket. But of course it's still early.

---

Yeah, that's how I see things working out as well. To be clear though, Harris is not my personal first choice. I honestly don't know who I would vote for at this point

Klobuchar/Biden are too moderate for me
Bernie too progressive
Beto not enough experience
Warren too weak

I guess if I had to vote, I'd go with the furdie, I like his stance on criminal justice much more than Harris.

I'd love for rahm Emanuel to get involved in the campaign for whoever the democrats choose. He's an awful politician, but just what you need behind the scenes. He came off extremely well on bill maher last night. I think he's the no nonesense, f you attitude that the Democratic Party needs right now to combat trump.

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I still believe, a midwestern pragmatist (Klobuchar or Brown) paired with a Progressive VP is the route to go for Dem's. Sentiment is against Trump and all the D's need to do is lock up their traditional strongholds along the coast and the great lake states which I believe Klobuchar or Brown could do. I believe it is more important to have Trump not win re-election and restore normality to government than nominate a progressive that will bring sweeping change, it also gives the progressives some time to flush out their big ideas before attempting to implement them with policy.

---

Problem with this is that I don't know that such a candidate would actually excite the Democratic base, and secretly that was the real problem in 2016: Hillary just did not excite people. And of course you have the other problem that if they don't excite the base, how do they win the primary?

Basically I think the "most electable" candidate is whoever can gain the most support during the primary. The rest can and should sort itself out. The issue in 2016 was that everyone except Bernie cleared the decks for Hillary and you didn't have a real competition.

---

This is why I still think Harris (at this early point) makes the most sense. She can excite the base, but she doesn't have a crazy progressive platform that will alienate moderates.

If you do go with a Midwesterner, you almost have to choose Beto as your running mate to get the base/youth vote and to raise money.

People forget that grassroots fundraising is the name of the game now. Klobuchar and brown don't give you that.

---

Yes, my current gut feeling is that Kamala/Beto is the ideal ticket. But of course it's still early.

---

Yeah, that's how I see things working out as well. To be clear though, Harris is not my personal first choice. I honestly don't know who I would vote for at this point

Klobuchar/Biden are too moderate for me
Bernie too progressive
Beto not enough experience
Warren too weak

I guess if I had to vote, I'd go with the furdie, I like his stance on criminal justice much more than Harris.

I'd love for rahm Emanuel to get involved in the campaign for whoever the democrats choose. He's an awful politician, but just what you need behind the scenes. He came off extremely well on bill maher last night. I think he's the no nonesense, f you attitude that the Democratic Party needs right now to combat trump.

---

Isn't Booker tied to charter schools, Wall Street and Mark Zuckerberg? (Also, I just generally dislike him, and not because he's Furd. He just seems way too phony.)

Beto is too new. We had no idea who he was a year ago. This was also my problem with Bernie Sanders in the last election (although I'm not a fan of his). As much MSNBC as I watched and political blogs I've read, I've never heard of this guy.

blungld said:

---

3) That these are just really horrible small minded people.

---

There's a lot of cleanup needed in the gene pool.

ducky23 said:

---

Klobuchar/Biden are too moderate for me
Bernie too progressive
Beto not enough experience
Warren too weak

---

Not Trump/Not Trump
Not Trump
Not Trump
Not Trumpahontas

Trump's MAGA fan base? More than half of the GOP believe GOD WANTED TRUMP AS POTUS.

That's all you really need to know. Trump's base is a fccking theocracy...and yet he's a demigod, criminal and traitor.

Another Bear said:

---

Trump''s MAGA fan base? More than half of his base believe GOD WANTED TRUMP AS POTUS.

That's all you really need to know. Trump's base is a fccking theocracy...and yet he's a demigod, criminal and traitor.

---

Half? Way more than half IMO.

Half is enough...because that's one of the most ridiculous and stupid things I've heard in a long time. The other half...sit on their hands and look the other way GOP.

...in related news, the DCCC announced their targeting 33 GOP congressional seats in 2020, mostly suburban and concentrating on Texass. Methinks Texass is ready to flip blue.

Trump 40%
Candidate to be Named later, 60%

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Trump is so unique to the point that I just don't think you can rely too much on these polls.

I think there's a lot of people (not just a handful) who are too embarrassed to admit to a pollster that they are going to vote for trump

Just look at this board. I doubt you will get a single person here who says they are going to vote for trump in 2020. And yet, I guarantee you that a bunch will.

?quality=80&w=970

https://res.cloudinary.com/format-magazine-production/image/upload/c_limit,w_540,h_540,f_gif,f_auto/dpr_1.0/c_scale,w_420,h_420/jjjjjohn-skeleton-trump

ducky23 said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Trump is so unique to the point that I just don't think you can rely too much on these polls.

I think there's a lot of people (not just a handful) who are too embarrassed to admit to a pollster that they are going to vote for trump

Just look at this board. I doubt you will get a single person here who says they are going to vote for trump in 2020. And yet, I guarantee you that a bunch will.

---

There wasn't much evidence of "shy Trump" effect in the 2016 election, as the national polls were pretty accurate as to the final result (if you remember that Clinton won the popular vote). The bigger reason to discount these is that it's so early and some of these people haven't even declared yet.