Donald Trump

[Trumo]

20 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Who do you think will win among the Democrats?

 

They're gonna end up splitting the vote and pissing off the pro-Bernie brigade like last time.

[SasaS]

Don't quite get what you mean, how can Democrats split the vote at the Democratic primaries? Isn't "splitting the vote" the point of party elections for the presidential candidate?

[Trumo]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Don't quite get what you mean, how can Democrats split the vote at the Democratic primaries? Isn't "splitting the vote" the point of party elections for the presidential candidate?

 

Maybe I should have phrased it 'split the voters'. There are too many nominees with a lot of different messages, and several building up supporter bases that will be less than thrilled if their chosen one is tossed aside for one of the other candidates. There isn't one overriding important message other than 'beat the GOP' or 'beat Trump'.

[SasaS]

I guess what you mean is they will antagonize other Democratic voters so they won't support the winner at the presidential elections?

[TheHowieLama]

The problem is Democrats are shite at collectively getting behind the candidate with the best chance to win, then shite at turning up when it matters.

 

This year we will see a young gay fella, a black fella, two or three powerful women and at least two over the hill gray hairs. Not alot of focus in that field and their messages are now, and will become, even more diluted as the process drags through the primaries.

 

Republicans (as they proved with Trump) do not give a rats ass - whomever is the nominee they are all in.

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

 

Who do you think will win among the Democrats?

No idea pal - for me a guy like Bloomberg would have a great chance if they would push him to the front. Sanders can't even get a majority in his own party - so by definition he is un-electable.

[Scooby Dudek]

I think Sanders has the best change of beating Trump. He appears the only one with policies that are not just anyone but Trump.

He has name recognition this time and was leading the race, until Biden entered.

Biden is just a male version of Clinton and comes with all the same baggage, IMO he only entered the race because the Democratic party are scared Sanders will win the nomination. 

 

On Trump vs Sanders polling;

 

 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

[Jairzinho]

8 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

No idea pal - for me a guy like Bloomberg would have a great chance if they would push him to the front. Sanders can't even get a majority in his own party - so by definition he is un-electable.

I'm not sure "can't even" is particularly accurate. He faces predictable resistance from right wingers in his own party, just as Corbyn did. Not because they don't think he can win, but precisely because they fear he might.

[SasaS]

But party candidate primaries are not just a process to select a presidential candidate most likely to bring the party a win in presidential elections, they also serve to define or determine the overall political orientation or identity of the party.

[Trumo]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But party candidate primaries are not just a process to select a presidential candidate most likely to bring the party a win in presidential elections, they also serve to define or determine the overall political orientation or identity of the party.

 

What they're supposed to be, and what they've become, are two different things.

[Pureblood]

10 minutes ago, Trumo said:

 

What they're supposed to be, and what they've become, are two different things.

A bit like some of the efforts on the fry-up thread. 

[SasaS]

The problem as I see it is that this two-party system looks increasingly antiquated in many aspects, it's just too narrow, which can also be said for the UK.

 

I don't fully agree with Howie that Republicans just fall behind who ever is elected, it that's what he meant, the emergence of Trump as a bona fide right wing populist caused a lot of divisions, same as the emergence of Sanders as a socialist or a "socialist" (depending how you chose to define socialism) was met with an understandable push back from the establishment of the party which has traditionally been a centrist or a progressive centre right party for decades.

[Jose Jones]

The problem for the Democrats is that Bernie and Biden are both too old, sub-Trumpy candidates.

Biden is handsy, Bernie is shouty, with little policy clarity.  They are both old, full of skeletons and Trump will batter them into submission.

 

A sound youngish centre left good orator type candidate would easily win, I think, but the two old fellas will hoover up too much attention to let them have a decent run at it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

19 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I don't fully agree with Howie that Republicans just fall behind who ever is elected, it that's what he meant, the emergence of Trump as a bona fide right wing populist caused a lot of divisions, same as the emergence of Sanders as a socialist or a "socialist" (depending how you chose to define socialism) was met with an understandable push back from the establishment of the party which has traditionally been a centrist or a progressive centre right party for decades.

I think the Trump Presidency proves the ability of the Republicans to fall in line. During the primaries, other senior Republicans literally  (and correctly) said he was unfit to serve as President: not just that he wasn't their preferred candidate, but that he must not become President.  As soon as he won the nominations, the cunts fell in line.

 

I don't think any senior Democrats went as far as calling Sanders unfit for office; and we'll probably never know the degree to which his opponents in the Democratic Party would fall in line if he were to win the nomination.

[SasaS]

Well, even if his own supporters often didn't, Sanders himself "fell in line" behind Clinton once he lost the primaries. Must admit I don't follow American politics extensively on a daily basis, so it's difficult for me to say how much of Trump's policies would have been implemented under any other Republican president and how much of this was already agreed once he was nominated.

 

With Trump there is a constant wag-the-dog effect with his twitter shenanigans, there is seemingly huge turnover of various appointees and general lowering of standards in public appearances, so it would be difficult for me to say is he actually running things, or is there some "regular" Republican administration working in the background.

[Gooch]

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

The problem for the Democrats is that Bernie and Biden are both too old, sub-Trumpy candidates.

Biden is handsy, Bernie is shouty, with little policy clarity.  They are both old, full of skeletons and Trump will batter them into submission.

 

A sound youngish centre left good orator type candidate would easily win, I think, but the two old fellas will hoover up too much attention to let them have a decent run at it.

Andrew Yang is that guy based on what I've seen. Once he gets a platform in a debate, I have a feeling he will gain some serious traction. He is the only one out of the existing candidates with any chance of beating Trump.

[TheHowieLama]

3 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

I don't fully agree with Howie that Republicans just fall behind who ever is elected

The party that built itself on being holier than thou, family morals etc got behind and elected a self confessed paedo/rapist.

 

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, Gooch said:

Andrew Yang is that guy based on what I've seen. 

The Dividend is going to be a tough sell.

[SasaS]

14 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The party that built itself on being holier than thou, family morals etc got behind and elected a self confessed paedo/rapist.

 

 

I don't remember that as part of his platform.

[TheHowieLama]

Which part?

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

a self confessed paedo/rapist

 

[TheHowieLama]

 

I may have read between the lines of him admitting to attending certain parties and "grabbing them by the pussy."

Certainly we can agree that at best he has acknowledged and settled extra marital affairs his entire life. We can also conclude that at least a few of those instances have been with girls under the age of 18. The facts seem pretty straightforward there.

Pretty sure he and Tiger visited the Waffle House after rounds of golf for quite a few years - know what I mean, nudge, nudge.

 

All - and even any - of these things should be very hard for the majority of Republicans, based on the core platforms of the party - to come to terms with. Seems to not pose a problem.

[SasaS]

Maybe it's the new "strong man" thing with the Right, leader's virility trumps family values?

 

I'd say the main difference is that with Democrats, since Sanders and now with the new post-Sanders candidates even further to the left, you have for the first time candidates not after reforming Capitalism, but standing opposed to it, whilst with Republicans, ideological difference was not so big between Trump and other leading candidates. "Democratic church" may now be just too broad, this is why it's harder to fall behind a candidate you fundamentally oppose.  

[TheHowieLama]

I agree there -- both parties have allowed themselves to be re-defined away from center. Makes it easier to identify the other team. My point was the Republican side has sacrificed their core values to do so (other than guns). Dems maybe not so much. 

Hence my statement about a fella like Bloomberg being the best option. The caveat is if he has to run as an Independent because he knows the Dems won't fall behind him that precludes any chance of a Democratic nominee getting elected. 

[moof]

Bloomberg? Kinell mate