Page 1 of 7

2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:45 pm
by Robbie
Yes, it's still very early from the next U.S. Presidential Election scheduled for November 3, 2020. But in light of the fact that Trump has indicated that he will run for re-election and the Democrats are now planning for their primaries and determining who will be the Presidential candidate with the first debate happening.

So first things first. I'd say in many cases, choosing the party's nomination would be just as interesting as the election itself. Who do you want to win the Democratic Party's nomination? I'll add a poll I'll choose the 10 candidates who I think are the top-10 most popular. One major omission is that Hillary Clinton decided not to run for President again.

It looks like in the last ~30 years with regards to the Primaries, there's always a closer race among the Democrats compared to the Republicans. In 2000, sitting VP Al Gore won the nomination easily but the last three were much closer races.

In 2004, while John Kerry eventually won he was certainly now the front-runner, who was Howard Dean with John Edwards and Wesley Clark having a good chance of winning as well. In 2008, it was close race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And in 2016, it was a close race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

But among the Republican primaries, starting in 1988 with sitting VP George H.W. Bush winning the nomination, all the subsequent years in which there was a Republican nomination years of 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016 the respective winners did so with relatively ease with very little competition: Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:06 pm
by Toppy Vann
It was refreshing to see 10 talented politicians on the stage each with their own progressive views and histories versus the kind of idiots the GOP assembled who Trump took down. There was not one person last night who doesn't have some sort of record for progressive views including the Washington Gov, Jay Inslee.

My heart says Elizabeth Warren but my head keeps saying Joe Biden as someone who might have the better chance to beat Trump. Biden with Warren as his running mate might work for me too.

Warren-Julian Castro might be my dream ticket.

The sad thing is that the USA with the GOP in power are a threat to the global and world peace and Canada.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:10 pm
by Robbie
If you've seen both debates, has that swayed your thoughts and opinions on the Democratic candidates?

The biggest debate issue was certainly when California senator Kamala Harris criticized Joe Biden over busing:


If Biden eventually wins the nomination, then we know for sure who he will NOT choose as a running mate.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:32 pm
by Gridiron Ernie
Interesting selection of candidates chosen for your Lionbackers poll Robbie. The various State-side polls that I'm aware of consistently have had Kamala Harris, 'Mayor Pete' Buttigieg, and Beto O'Rourke toward the top in behind the front-runners Biden, Sanders, and Warren. I like Mayor Pete's youth and his 'breath of fresh air' compared to some of the Democrat's old horses. But whoever matches up best against Trump is the critical thing on the long run. A lot of ground to cover before they get there. I sincerely wish them luck. Anyhow, despite my slight puzzlement at the candidates you included/excluded, thanks for creating the poll. Interesting times, yes? That much we can agree on.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:25 am
by Robbie
Gridiron Ernie wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:32 pm
Interesting selection of candidates chosen for your Lionbackers poll Robbie. The various State-side polls that I'm aware of consistently have had Kamala Harris, 'Mayor Pete' Buttigieg, and Beto O'Rourke toward the top in behind the front-runners Biden, Sanders, and Warren. I like Mayor Pete's youth and his 'breath of fresh air' compared to some of the Democrat's old horses. But whoever matches up best against Trump is the critical thing on the long run. A lot of ground to cover before they get there. I sincerely wish them luck. Anyhow, despite my slight puzzlement at the candidates you included/excluded, thanks for creating the poll. Interesting times, yes? That much we can agree on.
Yeah, I'll admit that I may have created the poll without carefully researching all the Democratic candidates, Gridiron Ernie. If I created the poll after watching both debates, I would have definitely included Kamala Harris. In any case, the Democratic candidates will eventually drop out one by one and when there are 10 candidates remaining, I'll revise the poll to include the remaining 10 and of course, once the winner is determined there will be a final poll with the Democratic winner vs. Donald Trump.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:52 am
by Gridiron Ernie
It'll be fascinating to see how it all unfolds, eh. It'll be an enormously important election IMO - pretty pivotal for the history of the States and their reputation in the world. Thereby making the run-up to that, i.e. selecting the best candidate for the Democrats, all the more important. Thanks Robbie, I look forward to your future polls as the field becomes clearer.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:01 pm
by WestCoastJoe
Warren or Kamala. Either could kick Trump's butt in debate. If he loomed. lurked or stalked behind them in the debate, they would tell him to get out of their space.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:41 pm
by Robbie
Hello everyone, in light of the fact that round 1 of the Democratic debates are over, I've edited the poll to include these three candidates that may have an impact:

Kamala Harris (Senator from California)
Eric Swalwell (Representative from California)
Pete Buttigieg (Mayor of South Bend, Indiana)

replacing three others who didn't have any votes yet and who didn't have as much of an impact.

I've also allowed the option to change your selection as well. So for those who voted for Warren, if you want to change it to these three candidates in the poll you can do so now.

--------------------------------
Gridiron Ernie wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:52 am
It'll be fascinating to see how it all unfolds, eh. It'll be an enormously important election IMO - pretty pivotal for the history of the States and their reputation in the world. Thereby making the run-up to that, i.e. selecting the best candidate for the Democrats, all the more important. Thanks Robbie, I look forward to your future polls as the field becomes clearer.
Just wondering, Gridiron Ernie, were you satisfied with the party nomination winners over the last couple of U.S. elections? If not, would you have preferred the other finalists? Just to summarize since 2000:

2000
Democratic: Incumbent VP Al Gore over Bill Bradley
Republican: George W. Bush* over John McCain

2004
Democratic: John Kerry over John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark

2008
Democratic: Barack Obama* over Hillary Clinton
Republican: John McCain over Mitt Romney

2012
Republican: Mitt Romney over Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich

2016
Democratic: Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders
Republican: Donald Trump* over Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich

* Won the subsequent U.S. Presidential Election

I stated in the original post that the incumbent Vice President would almost automatically win his party's nomination if he chooses to run for the Presidency as demonstrated with the examples from 1960 to 2000. That said, one would wonder if in 2008 incumbent VP Dick Cheney decided to run then would he win the Republican nomination over eventual winner John McCain. Or if Joe Biden decided to run in 2016 as sitting VP instead of now, then would he have automatically won the Democratic nomination over eventual winner Hillary Clinton and runner-up Bernie Sanders.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:01 pm
by Gridiron Ernie
You asked about the past: In hindsight, now knowing the decent man and quick-witted savvy politician John McCain was, when I look back at the 2000 election, I'd say it was a crying shame for the Republicans to have chosen George W. Bush over him! Yes Bush went on to win the presidency but that's a double shame for everybody IMO. Things would have been so different under McCain. But back in 2000 I admit I didn't know much about McCain's character and ability to work to bipartisan purposes. So that's one that readily comes to mind when you ask the question about rethinking the party selections of the past .

And of course most recently, I still can't believe that Donald Trump the reality show host (among other dubious "credentials") was the Republican nominee and eventual presidential winner. I'm hoping that nightmare will soon be over, but I'm not counting on it. These are crazy times. But it saddens me to think among all the solid citizen-type folks who could have risen to the top it was a man such as he.

As far as the Democrats go, in the last election one could argue they'd have been better off with Bernie Sanders, rather than Hillary Clinton. It seems the party wasn't correctly reading the zeitgeist, i.e. that people wanted change. Yes, Clinton would have been a change in the sense of a woman head of state in America, but there was baggage, being the wife of Bill Clinton, so in that sense she wasn't new blood or a breath of fresh air.

Anyhow, currently, in the here and now, as I said in the previous post, I'm liking young Mayor Pete Buttigieg for now. But on the long run I suspect someone like Elizabeth Warren might be the better match up against Trump, and that's the important thing. While I respect both Biden and Sanders, I feel their time may have passed them by, even though they currently are considered the leaders. We shall see how it all unfolds. This is all just my opinion of course! An interested bystander. Hoping for the best for everyone concerned. Cheers.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:51 am
by Sir Purrcival
What I don't understand about many of these candidates is why don't they team up after the nominee has been chosen. Did Hillary ask Bernie Sanders to be her running mate? That would have likely put the Dems over the top the last election. Are they that stupid or is there some time worn logic that you shouldn't ask a former competitor to work with you as Vice President? Bottom line I think the US system is badly broken and what we have seen here with Trump and Co is the norm. Has been really since the 2nd term of Obama. Obstruction, partisanship taken to the extremes of dysfunction, power brokers in the background funding initiatives to support their causes, not what is necessarily good for the country. Self interests wrapped up in a flag of hypocrisy called patriotism.
I have a hard time believing that any future President is going to be able to function effectively with the current arrangement and eventually the whole thing is going to collapse.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:55 pm
by Robbie
Gridiron Ernie wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:01 pm
While I respect both Biden and Sanders, I feel their time may have passed them by, even though they currently are considered the leaders.
That's what California Rep. Eric Swalwell said to Joe Biden: It's time to pass the torch.

Sir Purrcival wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:51 am
What I don't understand about many of these candidates is why don't they team up after the nominee has been chosen. Did Hillary ask Bernie Sanders to be her running mate? That would have likely put the Dems over the top the last election. Are they that stupid or is there some time worn logic that you shouldn't ask a former competitor to work with you as Vice President?
There still has to be some kind of balance when choosing a running mate who you can get along with vs. one that is very popular as the runner-up. History states that choosing the runner-up in the party nomination does not necessary mean it will increase their chances of winning the election and in fact, can ruin the party as the supporters are afraid of in-party fighting. In the case of the Democrats in 2016, we can all agree that this mathematical state is definitely incorrect:

Total Democratic supporters = H. Clinton supporters + B. Sanders supporters

As possible good examples, in 2016 the Democratic primaries had these states choose Bernie Sanders: Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, and Michigan. But when Hillary Clinton won the nomination instead, it's quite possible that the residents of those states were upset about that and as a result, decided to change their minds and take their chances on Donald Trump and that's why the Republicans won those states.

So that's why B. Obama in 2008 didn't choose H. Clinton as his running mate either. In the list that I created above about the party nomination winners and runner-ups, the only time that the party winner chose the #2 place finisher was in 2004 when John Kerry chose #2 finisher John Edwards as his running mate but in the end it didn't help the Democrats win the election. Another case in which a party winner chose the #2 finisher as the VP was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy chose #2 Democratic finisher Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. They won of course but history knows that the two didn't get along at all and conspiracy theorists would state the LBJ may have had something to do with JFK's assassination.

While choosing a running mate may have an influence in swaying a voter's decision, it may not be as much as the candidate is hoping for and two great examples come into mind when it comes to the gender card. In 1984 when the women's liberation movement was still very much in its prime, Democratic candidate Walter Mondale chose a woman running mate for the very first time in American history by choosing Geraldine Ferraro. And of course more recently in 2008 when Republican candidate John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. In both cases, it didn't sway the minds of American women as in the end more women choose their all-men team opponents.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:34 pm
by KnowItAll
I fear that a second round of Trump will be a lot more aggressive on his issues and that does not bode well for any of us. Things he just talks about he may feel emboldened to act on.

Who is most likely to be able to defeat him?

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:39 pm
by Sir Purrcival
Well, Palin was a complete freaking idiot and many to this day wonder if a more credible choice of running mate might have ended in a different result. As I recall, it was the Republican brain trust on that occasion that foisted that choice on McCain.

Clinton had a popularity problem especially with younger voters. It was also seen to be the case that the nomination process was skewed in her favour. Yet another thing that caused her to have a credibility gap. I don't doubt that some Bernie supporters voted for her anyway but I also think that a lot didn't or didn't vote at all in disgust in order to send a message. Had she chosen him as a running mate, many might have overlooked her ethical/moral record that seemed to be the source of misgivings about her. Voters were looking for something new and something that they could stick in the eye of the establishment. The Democrats could have had both with the right choice of running mate. Instead, did anyone get excited about Tim Kaine? About as exciting as a bag of weed killer.

I'm sure that it wouldn't work every time but damn, the Vice President is supposed be the person who takes over if for some reason the President fails to finish a term. Making a credible choice is far more sensible that finding some kind of sycophant the likes of which is Mike Pence. Can you imagine him as President? Even Trump wouldn't go so far as to endorse him if he were to choose to run in future when asked the other day. I get what you are saying but in this round of 20 nominees with some good primary candidates, hopefully whoever wins this will have the good sense to look carefully at some of his/her vanquished foes before choosing a running mate.

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:55 pm
by Robbie
Sir Purrcival wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:39 pm
I'm sure that it wouldn't work every time but damn, the Vice President is supposed be the person who takes over if for some reason the President fails to finish a term. Making a credible choice is far more sensible that finding some kind of sycophant the likes of which is Mike Pence. Can you imagine him as President?
I suppose the worst U.S. Vice President in recent history would be definitely be Dan Quayle under George H.W. Bush. First, he easily lost a debate to Democratic VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen whom he stated: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. Most Americans viewed him as an intellectual lightweight and an incompetent individual with his contradicting or confusing statements. In 2000 he decided to run in the Republican Party presidential primaries but despite being a former VP he never stood a chance and withdrew before the primaries.

I'm quite sure George H.W. Bush made a mistake in choosing Quayle as his VP and as such, his son George W. Bush wouldn't make such a mistake by choosing Dick Cheney who was a former Secretary of Defence under his father's administration and had a lot of saviness in foreign affairs. Overall, Americans would definitely prefer Cheney over Joe Lieberman whom most Americans would put in the same category as Quayle - a useless, non-future President.

In the case of George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama, their VP's were older than them and they served more like close advisers instead of replacements and it looks like Americans respected that.

In the case of President Trump, I knew for sure he would never choose #2 Republican finisher Ted Cruz have he clearly stated numerous times times that he wouldn't endorse him for the longest, and only finally did so reluctantly. He made critical statements of Trump: Vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution". I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father. That pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I'm going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say, 'Thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father.'"

Re: 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:13 am
by Sir Purrcival
Trump is in a league all by himself. One would like to think that respectable Republican's would have nothing to do with that train wreck. In some cases, there appears to be some truth in that. The result in part is the cobbled together administration that has hundreds of positions unfilled, acting directors all over the place, an apparent revolving door for administration members and so on. The smart ones politely declined, the ones who weren't so smart but still had some integrity either left or got fired. And the rest including Ted (I have no guts) Cruz, fell in line after enduring ridiculously offensive comments and behaviour from Trump. So of course you get Mike Pence, the best impersonation of a wooden marionette I have ever seen.
A President certainly must be able to work together with a VP. but as President, you should also be thinking about what would happen if you should fall and that should trump (forgive the word play) some of the personal considerations. If you really care about how the country carries on, you should be looking at who is the best suited, not who you get along with the best. There has to be some wriggle room in there but with primary competitors, you should have a pretty good grasp of who they are, what they stand for and whether or not they would be a good second in command. My guess is that no one with real sense would want anything to do with Mr Trump and Trump for his part would want nothing to do with anyone who might have so much as an inclination towards having a genuine independent thought.