truby20
Fighting like a girl
Is there any democratic nominee that you think could be Trump? Honestly curious.
Trump weighs in after writer's Andrew Yang tweet
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
Is there any democratic nominee that you think could be Trump? Honestly curious.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Top tier? No. They are carnival barkers at whom most realistic people laugh.
Tim Ryan? Maybe....I sincerely disagree with many of his policy statements, but he throws in just enough sanity to make him palatable as a potential. He's from Ohio, which helps greatly. He's not batshit left, but does not ignore leftist causes. If I were Trump, I would be afraid of a person like that. If I were Trump, I would donate heavily to a Warren campaign, or a Sanders, or a Biden one. Those would almost certainly result in his re-election.
To win the November election with the Electoral College, you have to be sane and reasonable. That's what made 2016 so difficult for so many Americans - neither candidate was sane and reasonable, and none of the "also rans" rose to the level of being more sane or reasonable. Many were on an issue or two, but not overall. Trump's results (not personality, not style) make him sane and reasonable. He's a carnival barker in his own right, but he's gotten things done even with the bulk of the media and Congress (even his own party) against him. That makes him appear a solid choice, even if he is not liked. Biden has been in Congress since the early 1970's. If he had any accomplishments, you'd think he'd be running on them. He's been in Congress for many more years than the months Trump has been in the White House, and he has nothing to show for it. Similar things could be said about Sanders, even though he's been in for two decades short of Biden. (I'm not sure why the Democrats let him run as a Democrat since he's not, but that's a whole separate issue.) Warren's biggest claim to fame is that she didn't try to oust Hillary last time. Harris' accomplishment is sleeping with a politician to be boosted up early. Buttigieg's only accomplishment is that he's gay.
So, Tim Ryan would be my only guess at who could beat Trump. Tim Ryan is not batshit crazy enough to win the nomination from the D's, so I think Trump sleeps comfortably at night (naked, next to a supermodel, as the joke goes).
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
And this is why we can't usually discuss stuff on here - I disagree. My opinion, buttressed by my perspective on the facts.
I'm not lying. Calling me a liar isn't going to help.
Ok, let me re-phrase - most people did not think he would be the eventual nominee, despite leading in the polls.
At this point in 2015, he had been running for a mere three months - and while he was running at 20%, he ALSO
had a "hell no" vote among Republicans of 30 percent. I mean, besides the fact that he was NOT getting 80% of
the vote, he had a movement of Never Trumpers within his own party.
Nate Silver - of Five Thirty Eight fame (or ignominy, depending on your opinion of him) had written a couple articles
at this point - here's one - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
where he claimed the candidacy was going nowhere.
In another I recall - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/
- he similarly ridiculed his candidacy as going nowhere.
Remember, after three short months, most of the punditry were STILL saying his candidacy was a joke and that he was
NOT serious. It was Donald Trump, and he is JUST doing this for his ego - he has NO desire to be President. I remember
people ON HERE wondering if he was faking.
He may have polled at the top - but many had very little doubt he would pull it off. I'm sure with a little digging I can find people
ON HERE that were sure Trump would not get enough delegates, and the convention would give it to someone else.
I'm also surprised that, of all items you chose to quote - you bring up that he promised not to run as an independent. Well,
why on Earth might someone make that pledge if their nomination was in the bag?
_
Strangely enough, what I am mentioning with Trump in 2015 is very similar to what is happening with the Democrats, THIS year
with Biden. Leads in all the polls - still leading now - and yet so very many are completely convinced he will NOT be the candidate
in November 2020 .
Including yourself - where despite the polls, you're convinced it will be Warren.
If you think that, then why might you be surprised that Republicans didn't think TRUMP would be the nominee in September of 2015,
even though he lead in the polls, when Biden is leading in the polls - and you don't think he'll be the nominee? Aren't the two the same?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I thought Howard Schultz had a shot. Too late now.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
So far this morning you said Pete Buttigieg was advocating that the government was coming for your guns, when I said that wasn’t accurate you blamed a “brain fart”.
Now when you said “no one believed Trump would be the nominee at the same time last election cycle” you contradicted a Fox News article I used as proof that yes, quite a few folks believed he’d be the nominee, with an article from Nate Silver an entire month (August 2015) earlier than where we are in this cycle.
You’re right, we can’t have a conversation when you play fast and lose with the facts.
he literally apologized and said he was incorrect and you are still whining about it
Typical Progbot. They're always bitching, whining or crying.
Its unavoidable and even when they get what they want... they bitch.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
On ignore now. I really thought I could have a decent conversation.
I give up, and there's others I can discuss with.
black dog
Free America
This...this is why on November 4, 2020 we’ll wake to the news that Warren is the president elect.
Trump only won Wisconsin by 22k votes, out of near 3mil cast. I know everyone in this forum will vote, we’re uniquely engaged in following politics. But I also think that most people aren’t engaged, and there are either 22k people who couldn’t stand Hillary, but will come out for Warren. Or 22k who this time just won’t come out for Trump and stay home. Similarly story for PA, MI, OH, AZ...
For comparison Romney got MORE votes in Wisconsin than Trump...ROMNEY!!!!
2016 United States presidential election in Wisconsin - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
2012 United States presidential election in Wisconsin - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I’ve never really dug too much into these numbers...2020 is looking like a landslide for Warren. You folks worship Trump like he’s a god. Hillary was just a terrible candidate.
Yeah, they said the same about Hillary.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
How can there be a conversation when I have to fact check every statement?
And yes, I understand that I’m on ignore now, but just a libtard progbot moment I’m having, still believing in that pesky thing called truth.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
Keep believing that map, it is what is giving this minority a false sense of mandate.
That one is actually how it would look, it’s not accurate to color in vast swaths of land where no one actually lives. If that’s how we should decide who is president, how much land a vote covers, then Alaska takes it every year.
Is the US Leaning Red or Blue? It All Depends on Your Map
Self-proclaimed "cartonerd" Ken Field published a gallery of alternative election maps designed to reveal markedly different stories about the US.
black dog
Free America
Keep believing that map, it is what is giving this minority a false sense of mandate.
That one is actually how it would look, it’s not accurate to color in vast swaths of land where no one actually lives. If that’s how we should decide who is president, how much land a vote covers, then Alaska takes it every year.
Is the US Leaning Red or Blue? It All Depends on Your Map
Self-proclaimed "cartonerd" Ken Field published a gallery of alternative election maps designed to reveal markedly different stories about the US.www.google.com
You smoke some really good weed, can you mail me some?
This_person
Well-Known Member
We actually decide by Electoral College, which combines both area and population together. Each state is given at least three votes, with more populous states getting more votes. Alaska, covering almost 700,000 square miles but around 740,000 people is given three votes. Rhode Island, on the other hand, has only about 1200 square miles, but over 1M people. Since they have many more people, they get 4 votes.
And, the great thing about the Electoral College is that the population has potentially NOTHING to do with how they vote. As was recently shown in the 10th circuit court ruling in favor of Mr. Baca, EC voters can vote however they want without regard to the popular vote - this was how it was written into the constitution and how it was implemented by the founders for decades.
You're optimism is to be envied but do you really think you're getting anywhere explaining the electoral college to a cat?
truby20
Fighting like a girl
And we will get rid of this obsolete practice too, just like we switched senators to a popular vote which was a repudiation of the founding fathers. We didn’t get to vote for a senator until 1913:
It will take decades to get rid of the electoral college, but it will happen and be made easier as TX and AZ flip to blue due to demographic changes over the next few decades.
black dog
Free America
And we will get rid of this obsolete practice too, just like we switched senators to a popular vote which was a repudiation of the founding fathers. We didn’t get to vote for a senator until 1913:
It will take decades to get rid of the electoral college, but it will happen and be made easier as TX and AZ flip to blue due to demographic changes over the next few decades.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that is your opinion. In my view, the 17th amendment is one of the worst things done to the Constitution, and needs to be repealed.And we will get rid of this obsolete practice too, just like we switched senators to a popular vote which was a repudiation of the founding fathers. We didn’t get to vote for a senator until 1913:
It will take decades to get rid of the electoral college, but it will happen and be made easier as TX and AZ flip to blue due to demographic changes over the next few decades.
Help me, please, to understand your opinion. Why is it a good idea to get the states out of the federal government? Why is it a good idea to have small areas of landmass control the presidency? Should we eliminate the House of Representatives, shifting our government from a republic to a democracy?
Those are three disparate questions.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
#1 - I’m not proposing getting the “states out of the federal government”. What our current situation is causing is for a president to only give attention to a handful of states anyway, what would it look like if instead of promising the rust belt new factories, the president had to promise new technology centers to Alabama? Does it make sense the PA, OH, FL get the vast majority of president elect attention?
#2 - Are you suggesting only landowners should get to vote? My mother owns over 100 acres in 7D, but my sister rents an apartment because she likes the flexibility...should my mother’s vote count 100x because it represents land?
#3 - I never suggested eliminating the House of Representatives.