US Presidential Election 2020 - The Democratic Candidate for President

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
The Democrats need to find a new, young political leader who will 'bring the country together'.
They need policies for the betterment of the working people of the USA and not the enrichment of the elite.
 


owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,327
The Democrats need to find a new, young political leader who will 'bring the country together'.

I would imagine some in the party would be looking at Conor Lamb's recent victory with interest. He's charismatic, has an impressive pedigree (US Marines, Federal Prosecutor), and every time I saw him interviewed he handled himself very well.

He also, crucially, is a moderate who could attract many Republican voters sickened by Trump.

Lamb is only 33 so 2020 is too soon for him, but give him a few years.
Lamb is a pro-choice Democrat who is pro-life personally, but does not want to foist his personal beliefs on to women.

Actually, Doug Jones (who beat Roy Moore in Alabama) was a similar type of Democrat - centrist enough to attract Republicans leaning that way.

Running "horses for courses" is not a bad idea, though at the moment The Force is with the Left among the Democrats.

Elections are best won by coalitions, and a Left-of-Centre Democrat with the right message and skills would have a good chance of unseating Trump.

Trump is not invincible, even in what is supposed to be his "heartland". He only won "Trump Country" by a few thousand votes last time out. He lost the popular vote that time, and has made no outreach to people who did not vote for him in 2016. It is a pretty safe bet that Hilary voters will still vote Democrat next time out.
 

PC Principle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
4,828
They need policies for the betterment of the working people of the USA and not the enrichment of the elite.
Virtue signalling nonsense which you can't verify or back up.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
Lamb is a pro-choice Democrat who is pro-life personally, but does not want to foist his personal beliefs on to women.

Actually, Doug Jones (who beat Roy Moore in Alabama) was a similar type of Democrat - centrist enough to attract Republicans leaning that way.

Running "horses for courses" is not a bad idea, though at the moment The Force is with the Left among the Democrats.

Elections are best won by coalitions, and a Left-of-Centre Democrat with the right message and skills would have a good chance of unseating Trump.

Trump is not invincible, even in what is supposed to be his "heartland". He only won "Trump Country" by a few thousand votes last time out. He lost the popular vote that time, and has made no outreach to people who did not vote for him in 2016. It is a pretty safe bet that Hilary voters will still vote Democrat next time out.
You are still rambling on about the popular vote after 16 months from the election. It seems you never studied why the current electoral system is in place. The next presidential election will use the same system and there is no debate about changing it, yet you waste our time with it here.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
They need policies for the betterment of the working people of the USA and not the enrichment of the elite.
I agree, the difficulty is how you make the workers wealthy without making the elite even more wealthy
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,619
You are still rambling on about the popular vote after 16 months from the election. It seems you never studied why the current electoral system is in place. The next presidential election will use the same system and there is no debate about changing it, yet you waste our time with it here.
It’s bizarre that people still don’t seem to understand the rules of the contest. Despite them not significantly changing in over 200 years.

That said, Trump’s approval ratings would indicate a tough road ahead for re-election. If he actually goes for it. I still think the best solution for him is to hobble along for another year and then state he’s done with it all.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,327


Interesting that Mitch McConnell is hated almost equally by Democrats and Republicans alike, while everyone loves Nurses and Working People.

Trump and Clinton bear the burden of been most hated by Democrats and Republicans solely.

Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are roughly 3 times more popular with Republicans than Trump is with Democrats, something that no doubt adds to their attractiveness as candidates. No other Democrat candidate has yet achieved national name recognition.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/17134328/mcconnell-popularity-nurses-poll-bartels-chart-republicans-democrats
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,453
It’s bizarre that people still don’t seem to understand the rules of the contest. Despite them not significantly changing in over 200 years.

That said, Trump’s approval ratings would indicate a tough road ahead for re-election. If he actually goes for it. I still think the best solution for him is to hobble along for another year and then state he’s done with it all.
It's not about not understanding the system. The two times I've seen the popular vote loss raised here are:

(1) people pointing out that any claim that Clinton was 'not wanted' or 'rejected' doesn't hold water since she got more votes than Trump. So best we can tell, she was more wanted and less rejected than Trump was. That doesn't mean she should be President*, and it certainly isn't a denial or failure to understand the system. It is simply a case of pointing out that being the winning candidate in the US is not the same as being the most wanted or popular candidate.

(2) people pointing out that Trump has very little room for manouvre to lose any support, given that his entire win was based on thousands of voters in three states. Unless he consolidates elsewhere, his margin is small enough in those states to put him at real risk if there's any slippage in his 2016 vote. And demographics alone suggest that those margins could be eroded (quite apart from whether he loses any 2016 voters). Pointing out that candidates who lose the popular vote are in a more precarious position for reelection isn't not understanding the system.



*of course there are others (I'm one of them) who think a system that produces a President who won fewer votes than his or her opponent is inherently undemocratic. Again, though, that's not a failure of understanding the system, or a denial of its legitimacy.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,327
It's not about not understanding the system. The two times I've seen the popular vote loss raised here are:

(1) people pointing out that any claim that Clinton was 'not wanted' or 'rejected' doesn't hold water since she got more votes than Trump. So best we can tell, she was more wanted and less rejected than Trump was. That doesn't mean she should be President*, and it certainly isn't a denial or failure to understand the system. It is simply a case of pointing out that being the winning candidate in the US is not the same as being the most wanted or popular candidate.

(2) people pointing out that Trump has very little room for manouvre to lose any support, given that his entire win was based on thousands of voters in three states. Unless he consolidates elsewhere, his margin is small enough in those states to put him at real risk if there's any slippage in his 2016 vote. And demographics alone suggest that those margins could be eroded (quite apart from whether he loses any 2016 voters). Pointing out that candidates who lose the popular vote are in a more precarious position for reelection isn't not understanding the system.



*of course there are others (I'm one of them) who think a system that produces a President who won fewer votes than his or her opponent is inherently undemocratic. Again, though, that's not a failure of understanding the system, or a denial of its legitimacy.
Trump is the first President I have seen who makes no bones about being President for his base only. Everyone else can eff off, as far as he is concerned.

He assumes that the next election will be a facsimile of this one, and he does not need to win over voters who picked Clinton over him. Every reference to "Crooked Hilary" just pushes them away even more.

That is actually a good thing for Democrats - they have to hold their 2016 vote, and win a new generation of voters, and persuade some Republicans (especially women) to come across.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,880
(1) people pointing out that any claim that Clinton was 'not wanted' or 'rejected' doesn't hold water since she got more votes than Trump. So best we can tell, she was more wanted and less rejected than Trump was. That doesn't mean she should be President*, and it certainly isn't a denial or failure to understand the system. It is simply a case of pointing out that being the winning candidate in the US is not the same as being the most wanted or popular candidate.
The last election result is a good example of why the electoral college was set up and why it suits a federal republic. Much play is made of the fact that Clinton won (or Trump lost) the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, Clinton won California by almost 5 million votes which means she got fewer votes than Trump outside of California. Imagine the reaction if a simple majority meant that pandering to Lala land meant you would be president?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,327
The last election result is a good example of why the electoral college was set up and why it suits a federal republic. Much play is made of the fact that Clinton won (or Trump lost) the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, Clinton won California by almost 5 million votes which means she got fewer votes than Trump outside of California. Imagine the reaction if a simple majority meant that pandering to Lala land meant you would be president?
I doubt if Republicans felt that way when Reagan and Bush Snr were winning California by majorities.

California is the largest single economy in the US, and is the 6th largest economy in the world (add in Washington and Oregon and you get the world's 5th largest). Demographically, it pretty well reflects the US, and there would be nothing inherently undemocratic about a popular vote election in which California could be decisive (but so could Texas, New York or Florida).

That being said, I am happy enough with the system the Founding Fathers left. I think it has served the US reasonably well.

However, I think Presidents that lose the popular vote should be wary of thinking the electorate has given them a clear mandate. Imho, the mandate is ambiguous, and they should run the country from a centrist perspective. Bush Jnr ignored that advice, and it backfired. The same will probably happen to Trump.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
I doubt if Republicans felt that way when Reagan and Bush Snr were winning California by majorities.

California is the largest single economy in the US, and is the 6th largest economy in the world (add in Washington and Oregon and you get the world's 5th largest). Demographically, it pretty well reflects the US, and there would be nothing inherently undemocratic about a popular vote election in which California could be decisive (but so could Texas, New York or Florida).

That being said, I am happy enough with the system the Founding Fathers left. I think it has served the US reasonably well.

However, I think Presidents that lose the popular vote should be wary of thinking the electorate has given them a clear mandate. Imho, the mandate is ambiguous, and they should run the country from a centrist perspective. Bush Jnr ignored that advice, and it backfired. The same will probably happen to Trump.
If you won by virtue of 70 000 votes across a handful of swing states, that sir, was no landslide endorsement of your mandate.
 

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
348
The last election result is a good example of why the electoral college was set up and why it suits a federal republic. Much play is made of the fact that Clinton won (or Trump lost) the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, Clinton won California by almost 5 million votes which means she got fewer votes than Trump outside of California. Imagine the reaction if a simple majority meant that pandering to Lala land meant you would be president?
If Texas becomes a blue state watch how fast republicans will start to lobby for a change to whoever wins the most states or some new system. A health warning must be added to this as Texas was supposed to be "trending blue" for a long time and it has never really happened. Realistically Texas is not really in play for Dems until 2024. If the projected change in the electoral college vote happens Texas is poised to gain 4 votes and go from 38 to 42. Add in California's 55 and you get 97 out of 270, which is 35.9% of the required target.
 

Mick Mac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
7,851
Don "Capone" Drumf didn't have to spend much money; his campaign was getting dosh and other aid from the Russians.

How convenient.
Seems like everyone was
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top