Are yer Bidens, Harrises, Buttigiegs or Pelosis any more unifying? With the added hindrance that their principles seem less solid and more dispensable.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Trump's Card
Collapse
X
-
Nobody is 'unifying' this early in the process. There isn't even desire for unity until the party's candidate is chosen. Look what happened when the party 'unified' behind Hillary so early; it was considered an undemocratic coronation. You're all making yourselves nuts by worrying about it this early in the game.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I guess that's a question for pollsters. I was just alluding to the stories I've read on the spat between Pelosi and AOC. If the party leader is against or annoyed with you, you're probably not unifying. The "face of the party" is eventually going to be the nominee, but Trump's goal is to make that person beholden to "the Squad."
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 19090
- Revelling In The Hole
- England, Chelsea and Tooting and Mitcham. And Surrey CCC. And Wimbledon Dons Speedway (RIP)
- Nairn's Cheese Oatcake
Looking from a distance, wouldn't a Trump message of "the economy's in great shape, our soldiers aren't fighting in any new conflicts and I've made every attempt to make good on my 2016 election promises" go down well with at least a sizable chunk of the electorate?
Comment
-
Originally posted by BrunoI'm not "worrying" about it, I'm just talking about it. I've washed my hands of this country as a long-term enterprise, but I have to live/work eat/sleep here.
Comment
-
I'm sure that many GOP strategists would agree with you, NS.
The most significant problems with it are that the economy isn't in great shape for many people, that he hasn't really delivered on any of his promises other than judges and that he is in capable of message discipline.
He also has a foreign policy structure in place that very much wants new conflicts.
Comment
-
Indeed. And there's already a "Don't go too mental about Trump's racism, it's what he wants you to do" line being developed by liberals. Here's an example, from the UK commentariat's most hardcore Clinton-worshipper
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I don't know what unity I expect of them, but AOC isn't just any 29-year-old, and the fact that she's so high-profile at only 29 is a big part of the story.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BrunoIf ANY of the current candidates are unable to defeat Trump, our doom is sealed, and that being apparently the case, I think our doom is sealed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sporting View PostWell, the next election hangs on five or six states, doesn't it? Let's hope the Dems start making inroads in those,
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Trump is so bad that we should be able to run my dentist for president and see him win. My assumption is that if we nominated at least 10 of the current candidates, all of whom are more viable than my dentist, we'd have a decent chance of losing. It's the fact that it's even close.
Where are your poling numbers showing hypothetical matchups with the current 10 leading candidates VS Trump in a hypothetical general election? My assumption is that Biden will take the nomination and walk the election. But if someone is suddenly more appealing and electable than Biden, so much the better. But again, 18 months out....
Comment
-
If you look at current match-up polling (which is usually piss-poor at this stage, but it's the best we have), Biden, Harris, Warren and Sanders all beat Trump. Trump's numbers basically stick between 42 and 44% with an economy that is superficially looking in great shape. The Democrats numbers basically align with their public profile - despite what we think, there are still a good chunk of the public who have no idea about Kamala Harris, and a fair few who don't know about Elizabeth Warren. So, there's more "don't knows" for those candidates, but Trump's numbers never improve.
Even a minor recession (of the sort that I feel is just around the corner) should completely scupper Trump, because the economy is literally the only thing that people who aren't the racist hardcore don't despise about him.
Comment
-
There are too many variables this far out. The economy is buoyant by no means booming, jobs are insecure and another flurry import of restrictions could change things rapidly. OTOH there's no overseas conflict right now but one could easily be manufactured. And, in the short term, it's a time-tested method method of "bringing people together for the sake of the country."
Comment
-
But Trump "beat" Clinton 46-48%. If Trump can't poll better than 44% against relatively unknown candidates who haven't really campaigned yet, and with a decent economy, he's probably not going to win again. Of course there's a chance that he'll win, but right now isn't the time for the feelings of doom. Right now, you'd expect any of the top 10 Democrats to beat him in a general election.
Comment
-
Originally posted by E10 Rifle View PostIndeed. And there's already a "Don't go too mental about Trump's racism, it's what he wants you to do" line being developed by liberals. Here's an example, from the UK commentariat's most hardcore Clinton-worshipperLast edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 17-07-2019, 17:09.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View PostThere are too many variables this far out. The economy is buoyant by no means booming, jobs are insecure and another flurry import of restrictions could change things rapidly. OTOH there's no overseas conflict right now but one could easily be manufactured. And, in the short term, it's a time-tested method method of "bringing people together for the sake of the country."
For the sake of American democracy, it's quite important that this disaster happens before the next election, so Trump loses and the blame is put on him. Because if a) trump wins re-election, and then the economy crashes, the republicans will use it to finally finish off much of the federal govt, b) if a democrat wins, they will be blamed, and at the next election 60% of americans will vote for the reanimated corpse of Himmler at the next election.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sporting View PostHow is the gerrymandering going (there's a thread for the election btw but here's as good as anywhere I suppose)? Or are the courtrooms already packed with GOP nominees?
That said, the Supreme Court deciding that political gerrymandering is outside of their remit is very unhelpful.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Picking up on this (and not having read your link yet) I don't think anyone on the left should necessarily base their decisions on a fear of playing into Trump's Machiavellian hands, but calling out racist people and statements doesn't strike me as an effective way to move the political needle.
Comment
Comment