< 1 2
 
   
 

Categories of voters whose support Trump needs for success in the 2020 election

 
Hitchens Immortal
 
Avatar
 
 
Hitchens Immortal
Total Posts:  447
Joined  19-06-2016
 
 
 
18 August 2017 16:47
 

Assuming that Trump doesn’t outright resign (more realistic than you might think), here’s who can beat him in 2020:

Al Franken.

You don’t have the decades in the business of politics, so dirt isn’t an issue. What you have is a refined satirist that can field Trump’s unhinged insults and throw them back even harder - like a Jedi flinging back blaster bolts and killing the guy who shot them. You also have a guy well educated in civics and can take Trump to school on any topic that comes to head.

A great running mate would be California’s LT Governor, Gavin Newsom. That man looks like he was designed in a lab where they make Calvin Klein models. Or if you’re looking for honey to sway the men rather than the women, Kirsten Gillibrand.

The point isn’t to detract Trump’s base; most of them are beyond redemption and their hate for liberals and liberal ideals is the strongest emotion they have. Your Alex Jones viewers, your alt-right nationalists, your Oxybillies, your holier-than-thou Evangelicals, your science deniers… INDIVIDUALS from those groups can grow the fuck up and get it together, but to expect them to as a group? No chance.

The better tactic is to get a pair out there to run against him that isn’t old hat, and one that has enough appeal to drag both centrists and Berniecrats out of bed on election day. Obama’s sex appeal and youthful vigor is what won him his terms as president.

Trump’s base won’t get him re-elected. It’s just not that big. Don’t put out a candidate that Wikileaks can do their partisan hack job on and the ‘undecideds’ won’t be so easily swayed into his corner again. Oh, and do NOT invite Bernie to the party this time. Hopefully that old crank opts out and doesn’t force millions of voters to take their ball home when he loses another primary.

Edit: Conveniently, both of these guys are going to be on Real Time this week. That’s weird.

[ Edited: 18 August 2017 19:07 by Hitchens Immortal]
 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
19 August 2017 08:35
 
Hitchens Immortal - 18 August 2017 04:47 PM

Assuming that Trump doesn’t outright resign (more realistic than you might think), here’s who can beat him in 2020:

Al Franken.

You don’t have the decades in the business of politics, so dirt isn’t an issue. What you have is a refined satirist that can field Trump’s unhinged insults and throw them back even harder - like a Jedi flinging back blaster bolts and killing the guy who shot them. You also have a guy well educated in civics and can take Trump to school on any topic that comes to head.

A great running mate would be California’s LT Governor, Gavin Newsom. That man looks like he was designed in a lab where they make Calvin Klein models. Or if you’re looking for honey to sway the men rather than the women, Kirsten Gillibrand.

The point isn’t to detract Trump’s base; most of them are beyond redemption and their hate for liberals and liberal ideals is the strongest emotion they have. Your Alex Jones viewers, your alt-right nationalists, your Oxybillies, your holier-than-thou Evangelicals, your science deniers… INDIVIDUALS from those groups can grow the fuck up and get it together, but to expect them to as a group? No chance.

The better tactic is to get a pair out there to run against him that isn’t old hat, and one that has enough appeal to drag both centrists and Berniecrats out of bed on election day. Obama’s sex appeal and youthful vigor is what won him his terms as president.

Trump’s base won’t get him re-elected. It’s just not that big. Don’t put out a candidate that Wikileaks can do their partisan hack job on and the ‘undecideds’ won’t be so easily swayed into his corner again. Oh, and do NOT invite Bernie to the party this time. Hopefully that old crank opts out and doesn’t force millions of voters to take their ball home when he loses another primary.

Edit: Conveniently, both of these guys are going to be on Real Time this week. That’s weird.

Good post. Could not agree more about Sanders.

I would love to see Kamala Harris get the nod. Seeing a black woman run to replace Trump would be delicious. Also, she’s a real mover in the party so I think she could be an effective party leader which is an underrated quality for a POTUS. And the fact that she’s a pragmatic Dem would drive the Bernie Bros batty which would also make me happy.

But either of your choices would be acceptable although running the Newsom when Pelosi is still House leader might be too much San Francisco for the voters. But who knows. I didn’t think the GOP would go for an amoral New Yorker, either.

 

 
 
Hitchens Immortal
 
Avatar
 
 
Hitchens Immortal
Total Posts:  447
Joined  19-06-2016
 
 
 
19 August 2017 08:53
 
bigredfutbol - 19 August 2017 08:35 AM

Good post. Could not agree more about Sanders.

I would love to see Kamala Harris get the nod. Seeing a black woman run to replace Trump would be delicious. Also, she’s a real mover in the party so I think she could be an effective party leader which is an underrated quality for a POTUS. And the fact that she’s a pragmatic Dem would drive the Bernie Bros batty which would also make me happy.

But either of your choices would be acceptable although running the Newsom when Pelosi is still House leader might be too much San Francisco for the voters. But who knows. I didn’t think the GOP would go for an amoral New Yorker, either.

 

I like Kamala Harris, but we can’t have this next election be about breaking down boundaries. We just need set the bar back to where it was in 2012. I’m sure a lot of people didn’t vote for Clinton out of a silent disdain for women, and I REALLY doubt they’ll be quiet about that fact in 2020. We’ll win that battle when we’ve put the chaos unleashed by this WH back into the proverbial Pandora’s box. This next election is a battle for the survival of the republic, all ideological purity tests need to be put aside until the ship is righted.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8055
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
19 August 2017 09:38
 
Hitchens Immortal - 19 August 2017 08:53 AM
bigredfutbol - 19 August 2017 08:35 AM

Good post. Could not agree more about Sanders.

I would love to see Kamala Harris get the nod. Seeing a black woman run to replace Trump would be delicious. Also, she’s a real mover in the party so I think she could be an effective party leader which is an underrated quality for a POTUS. And the fact that she’s a pragmatic Dem would drive the Bernie Bros batty which would also make me happy.

But either of your choices would be acceptable although running the Newsom when Pelosi is still House leader might be too much San Francisco for the voters. But who knows. I didn’t think the GOP would go for an amoral New Yorker, either.

 

I like Kamala Harris, but we can’t have this next election be about breaking down boundaries. We just need set the bar back to where it was in 2012. I’m sure a lot of people didn’t vote for Clinton out of a silent disdain for women, and I REALLY doubt they’ll be quiet about that fact in 2020. We’ll win that battle when we’ve put the chaos unleashed by this WH back into the proverbial Pandora’s box. This next election is a battle for the survival of the republic, all ideological purity tests need to be put aside until the ship is righted.

Let’s not forget one of the main reasons why Trump was elected.  After all, why elect someone whose carbon footprint might be 1000 times bigger than the average world citizen?  Sam Harris spells it out in the introduction to his 2006 book, LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION:

QUOTE:  “The truth, however, is that many of us may not care about the fate of civilization.  44% of the American population [a huge block of voters] is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.  According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth.  It is therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ.  It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically.  Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious.  The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.  The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency.  It is my sincere hope that you will find it useful.”  - Sam Harris, May 1, 2006, New York (end quote)

Ask yourself, why else would Americans elect a president who trumpeted that human-caused global warming was a hoax?  Who promised to dramatically weaken the Environmental Protection Agency?  Answer - they elected him because their religion has convinced them we don’t need to worry about global warming or protecting the planet for our children - it’s all going to end anyway. 

Q:  Did Trump know he was playing to this evangelical 44%?  (plus 99% of Republicans, of course).  Notice that this 44% had already revealed their cards . . . they had voted to put Sarah Palin in the White House as next in line to be president.

[ Edited: 19 August 2017 09:49 by unsmoked]
 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
19 August 2017 09:41
 
Hitchens Immortal - 19 August 2017 08:53 AM
bigredfutbol - 19 August 2017 08:35 AM

Good post. Could not agree more about Sanders.

I would love to see Kamala Harris get the nod. Seeing a black woman run to replace Trump would be delicious. Also, she’s a real mover in the party so I think she could be an effective party leader which is an underrated quality for a POTUS. And the fact that she’s a pragmatic Dem would drive the Bernie Bros batty which would also make me happy.

But either of your choices would be acceptable although running the Newsom when Pelosi is still House leader might be too much San Francisco for the voters. But who knows. I didn’t think the GOP would go for an amoral New Yorker, either.

 

I like Kamala Harris, but we can’t have this next election be about breaking down boundaries. We just need set the bar back to where it was in 2012. I’m sure a lot of people didn’t vote for Clinton out of a silent disdain for women, and I REALLY doubt they’ll be quiet about that fact in 2020. We’ll win that battle when we’ve put the chaos unleashed by this WH back into the proverbial Pandora’s box. This next election is a battle for the survival of the republic, all ideological purity tests need to be put aside until the ship is righted.

I agree that it’s all about defeating Trump—I felt that way in 2016—but I don’t see anything ideological about Harris. She’s a Black woman so, yeah, there’s two reasons for a lot of people to refuse to support her but Clinton’s problem, as you noted, was partly that some of the dirt flung at her stuck to her, rightly or wrongly, and therefore really demoralized some potential support.

I don’t see that happening with Harris. And frankly—Black women ARE the “base” of the Democratic party. Nominating Harris might be the best chance to recreate the so-called “Obama coalition” only this time around a candidate who might be a tad less standoffish with the party as a whole. YMMV.

EDIT: For me the real key to avoiding ideological purity tests would be to stop trying to overdo pandering to the Sanders voters and re-energize Dem voters. I think the challenge is overcoming apathy and the enthusiasm gap. Aggressive voter registration drives, etc. There are a LOT of people out there who don’t vote all the time, or ever. First, rally the base, then go after all those potential voters. Forget appeasing Trump voters or winning them over.

My two cents. I really appreciate your point of view.

[ Edited: 19 August 2017 09:44 by bigredfutbol]
 
 
Hitchens Immortal
 
Avatar
 
 
Hitchens Immortal
Total Posts:  447
Joined  19-06-2016
 
 
 
19 August 2017 10:02
 
bigredfutbol - 19 August 2017 09:41 AM

My two cents. I really appreciate your point of view.

Thank you, and I yours smile

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8055
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
20 August 2017 11:45
 
unsmoked - 19 August 2017 09:38 AM
Hitchens Immortal - 19 August 2017 08:53 AM
bigredfutbol - 19 August 2017 08:35 AM

Good post. Could not agree more about Sanders.

I would love to see Kamala Harris get the nod. Seeing a black woman run to replace Trump would be delicious. Also, she’s a real mover in the party so I think she could be an effective party leader which is an underrated quality for a POTUS. And the fact that she’s a pragmatic Dem would drive the Bernie Bros batty which would also make me happy.

But either of your choices would be acceptable although running the Newsom when Pelosi is still House leader might be too much San Francisco for the voters. But who knows. I didn’t think the GOP would go for an amoral New Yorker, either.

 

I like Kamala Harris, but we can’t have this next election be about breaking down boundaries. We just need set the bar back to where it was in 2012. I’m sure a lot of people didn’t vote for Clinton out of a silent disdain for women, and I REALLY doubt they’ll be quiet about that fact in 2020. We’ll win that battle when we’ve put the chaos unleashed by this WH back into the proverbial Pandora’s box. This next election is a battle for the survival of the republic, all ideological purity tests need to be put aside until the ship is righted.

Let’s not forget one of the main reasons why Trump was elected.  After all, why elect someone whose carbon footprint might be 1000 times bigger than the average world citizen?  Sam Harris spells it out in the introduction to his 2006 book, LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION:

QUOTE:  “The truth, however, is that many of us may not care about the fate of civilization.  44% of the American population [a huge block of voters] is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.  According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth.  It is therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ.  It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically.  Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious.  The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.  The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency.  It is my sincere hope that you will find it useful.”  - Sam Harris, May 1, 2006, New York (end quote)

Ask yourself, why else would Americans elect a president who trumpeted that human-caused global warming was a hoax?  Who promised to dramatically weaken the Environmental Protection Agency?  Answer - they elected him because their religion has convinced them we don’t need to worry about global warming or protecting the planet for our children - it’s all going to end anyway. 

Q:  Did Trump know he was playing to this evangelical 44%?  (plus 99% of Republicans, of course).  Notice that this 44% had already revealed their cards . . . they had voted to put Sarah Palin in the White House as next in line to be president.

This morning on ABC’s ‘The Week with George Stephanopoulos’ it’s reported that Trump chose Jerry Falwell Jr. to defend the ‘good people’ who joined the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, with their swastika flags, torches, guns, and anti-semitic chants.  ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked Falwell something like, “If you are a good person, and you saw the swastika’s flying, would you join them?  Is President Trump correct that there were good people marching under the swastikas with the Nazis and white supremacists?”  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-20-17-jerry-falwell-jr-jeh/story?id=49313824

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6472
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
20 August 2017 14:27
 

There’s only one thing Trump needs to get reelected: Hillary for an opponent. Otherwise, he doesn’t have a chance.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5609
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2017 08:09
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 20 August 2017 02:27 PM

There’s only one thing Trump needs to get reelected: Hillary for an opponent. Otherwise, he doesn’t have a chance.

At this point, maybe. But if we’re looking backwards, I think the notion that only Hillary Clinton could have lost to Trump in 2016 is a bit of a comforting myth. I think a lot of us would like to believe he was a “weak candidate” who could not have beat a stronger candidate. But I think Trump tapped into something a lot of us wish weren’t so.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8055
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
22 August 2017 11:31
 
bigredfutbol - 21 August 2017 08:09 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 20 August 2017 02:27 PM

There’s only one thing Trump needs to get reelected: Hillary for an opponent. Otherwise, he doesn’t have a chance.

At this point, maybe. But if we’re looking backwards, I think the notion that only Hillary Clinton could have lost to Trump in 2016 is a bit of a comforting myth. I think a lot of us would like to believe he was a “weak candidate” who could not have beat a stronger candidate. But I think Trump tapped into something a lot of us wish weren’t so.

Yes.  Say it isn’t so.  Here’s Madison Square Garden in 1934 - http://mashable.com/2016/07/27/nazis-madison-square-garden/#YAK7HnC8haqG

For a quick historical review of white supremacy and anti Semitism in the U.S. (after Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House until today), see August 28, 2017 Time Magazine article by Jon Meacham, ‘AMERICAN HATE, A HISTORY’.

http://time.com/4904290/american-hate-a-history/

quoted from this article:

“Perennially latent, extremist and racist nationalism tends to spike in periods of economic and social stress like ours. Americans today have little trust in government; household incomes woefully lag behind our usual middle-class expectations. As the world saw in Charlottesville — and in the alt-right universe of the Web — besieged whites, frightened of change, are seeking refuge in the one thing a shifting world cannot take away from them: the color of their skin.

“If the current climate of grievance is of ancient origin, though, the white supremacists’ sense of urgency — indeed of increasing legitimacy — seems new. Today’s fringe sees itself not as a fringe but as the tip of the spear for the incumbent President’s nationalist agenda. “We are determined to take our country back,” said David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK, in Charlottesville. “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump. Because he said he’s going to take our country back. That’s what we gotta do.”

 

[ Edited: 22 August 2017 11:42 by unsmoked]
 
 
 < 1 2