2020 Presidential Election

[elvis14]

So, any thoughts of the effects of the government shutdown on the election? I'm surprised there's not more discussion on it. I've started seeing and feeling very real and tangible negative effects in my area of work. If it gets to the point of having serious effects on air travel, I think it could be a major issue for the election (I mean, it's a major issue now, but I could see it being essentially forgotten by 2020 if it were to end tomorrow). Polling shows more people blame Trump than Democrats.

I think that 57% number which seems low but is actually quite high is what it is because of the shutdown and I think as the shutdown drags on it may go higher. As you suggest, having it be 57 or 60% in Jan/Feb of 2019 may not matter in Nov of 2020. If this shutdown has a significant effect on the economy, I could see it having a more lasting negative effect which could still have an impact in Nov 2020.

[PackMan97]

If I am a Republican, though, the window to launch a primary challenge only lasts so long and this is a hugely worrying number.

I'm of a mixed mind on this. I think a different candidate would give Republicans the best chance at winning.

However, a primary battle will only weaken the eventual winner (Trump or Citizen X) such that they'll all but be doomed to lose. I'm not sure a party has won an election in modern times after a significant primary challenge to a sitting President. This usually means a deep dissatisfaction within the President's own party, which isn't a recipe for winning.

The window isn't to launch a primary challenge (which I feel will end in defeat in the General regardless of the result) but the window is for President Trump to shutdown his 2020 campaign and indicate he isn't running for re-election.

[JasonEvans]

The window isn't to launch a primary challenge (which I feel will end in defeat in the General regardless of the result) but the window is for President Trump to shutdown his 2020 campaign and indicate he isn't running for re-election.

I am largely inclined to agree with you with one caveat... if Trump starts to look utterly unelectable, I think there is a slight chance someone (Romeny or Kasich would be the most likely contenders as they have strong name rec already and could come in late in the process as a result) could rise up as a "we must have a viable candidate or we are certain to lose" alternative.

Put another way, you could love Trump and everything he has done and you could desperately want another 4 years of him in the White House, but if you know with almost absolute certainty that he won't win it is a pretty compelling argument to pick someone who actually stands a chance against Beto/Biden/Booker/Kamala/Gillibrand/whoever. That's how McCain won the nomination in 2008... everyone felt Mike Huckabee was unelectable and folks were not willing to back a Mormon (Romney) at that time.

[CameronBornAndBred]

So, any thoughts of the effects of the government shutdown on the election? I'm surprised there's not more discussion on it. I've started seeing and feeling very real and tangible negative effects in my area of work. If it gets to the point of having serious effects on air travel, I think it could be a major issue for the election (I mean, it's a major issue now, but I could see it being essentially forgotten by 2020 if it were to end tomorrow). Polling shows more people blame Trump than Democrats.

There is an article out now about how his campaign aides are essentially doing their best to "turn lemons into lemonade". They have little doubt that the shutdown and border security it setting up to be the first significant rallying point, and they are none too happy about it. Right now, it is not an issue that favors their candidate, especially with him beginning to lose some support among his base. (Specifically the white non college educated group that has been mentioned this week.)

I don't have a link...but it is on at least one of the major web news sources.

[OldPhiKap]

So, any thoughts of the effects of the government shutdown on the election? I'm surprised there's not more discussion on it. I've started seeing and feeling very real and tangible negative effects in my area of work. If it gets to the point of having serious effects on air travel, I think it could be a major issue for the election (I mean, it's a major issue now, but I could see it being essentially forgotten by 2020 if it were to end tomorrow). Polling shows more people blame Trump than Democrats.

My initial thought was that it would be forgotten by 2020, but I sure did not expect it to go this long. This is gonna leave a mark, and so far Pelosi has played the hand better. (And I am one of those who was criticizing the Dems for not replacing her -- I'll own up to my bad on that, she has pwned Trump for the most part so far although the press is generally giving her a favorable shine for the time being).

I'm of a mixed mind on this. I think a different candidate would give Republicans the best chance at winning.

However, a primary battle will only weaken the eventual winner (Trump or Citizen X) such that they'll all but be doomed to lose. I'm not sure a party has won an election in modern times after a significant primary challenge to a sitting President. This usually means a deep dissatisfaction within the President's own party, which isn't a recipe for winning.

The window isn't to launch a primary challenge (which I feel will end in defeat in the General regardless of the result) but the window is for President Trump to shutdown his 2020 campaign and indicate he isn't running for re-election.

In addition to Jason's points (with which I agree), someone may feel that there will be a return to more orthodox Republican practices after Trump is gone and they want to be the leader of that movement when it happens. A good example is Ronald Reagan, who took on Gerald Ford in '76 declaring a return to conservative roots. While Ford beat Reagan, it set Ronnie up well for his run in 1980.

While it is true that sitting presidents often do not survive serious challenges, it is usually the case that the sitting president was in deep doo doo anyway. Ford was toast after he pardoned Nixon and was going to lose to the house-cleaning Carter. Carter's economy and the disaster of the Iran Hostage Crisis doomed Carter whether Ted Kennedy ran against him or not. It's not like Trump is riding high right now and that a challenger would suddenly make him less popular. I've never seen a candidate like Trump where there is so little middle ground -- you love him or you hate him -- and those positions seem to be incredibly fixed in cement.

I think a Republican challenger likely fails absent some huge (but possible) curve ball or Mueller Report bombshell. But if someone wants to run in 2024 as the "Return to Orthodoxy" candidate, it's a good way to get your name out there and say that you stood tall for your principles despite the long odds.

[dudog84]

I think that 57% number which seems low but is actually quite high is what it is because of the shutdown and I think as the shutdown drags on it may go higher. As you suggest, having it be 57 or 60% in Jan/Feb of 2019 may not matter in Nov of 2020. If this shutdown has a significant effect on the economy, I could see it having a more lasting negative effect which could still have an impact in Nov 2020.

I read/heard somewhere (don't want to go find it) that every week of the shutdown will cost the economy 0.13 percent growth. Doesn't sound like much, but we're already over 0.5 percent and when a big deal is made about 3% growth vs. 2%...

This on top of most economists (I believe) predicting a slowdown in 2019.

Edit: Okay, so I went and found it. I don't like to post such things without back-up. This isn't where I read it (I run out of NYT free articles too fast) but does confirm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/u...n-economy.html

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I read/heard somewhere (don't want to go find it) that every week of the shutdown will cost the economy 0.13 percent growth. Doesn't sound like much, but we're already over 0.5 percent and when a big deal is made about 3% growth vs. 2%...

This on top of most economists (I believe) predicting a slowdown in 2019.

Fair point but as discussed above, I am not totally sure who is taking the blame for the shutdown. I think that Pelosi is generally outplaying Trump on this, but I think there are still a lot of Trump supporters who are blaming the Dems for the situation.

There are a lot of people in America who believe that Trump can do absolutely no wrong - I always refer back to the "shoot someone on 5th Avenue" quote. And, getting back to the rest of this interesting thread, this group of people is large enough that Trump will always have a fighting chance in the general election, regardless of what the national poll numbers say. I am struggling to think of something that could happen or that he could do that would make these voters abandon him, and it would take a really compelling candidate to make them do so.

The rules of engagement as we had known them for many years have been completely changed, and nothing is predictable based on historical events anymore.

[dudog84]

Fair point but as discussed above, I am not totally sure who is taking the blame for the shutdown. I think that Pelosi is generally outplaying Trump on this, but I think there are still a lot of Trump supporters who are blaming the Dems for the situation.

There are a lot of people in America who believe that Trump can do absolutely no wrong - I always refer back to the "shoot someone on 5th Avenue" quote. And, getting back to the rest of this interesting thread, this group of people is large enough that Trump will always have a fighting chance in the general election, regardless of what the national poll numbers say. I am struggling to think of something that could happen or that he could do that would make these voters abandon him, and it would take a really compelling candidate to make them do so.

The rules of engagement as we had known them for many years have been completely changed, and nothing is predictable based on historical events anymore.

Every single poll disagrees with you by a large margin. The rest of your post makes sense .

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Every single poll disagrees with you by a large margin. The rest of your post makes sense .

Trump is definitely taking the majority of the blame, but there are plenty of people out there who blame the Democrats (or don't blame anyone).

Here are some polls from Nate Silver. As with all such polls, I take them with a huge grain of salt. The polls on who to blame don't vary that much with Trump's approval rating, which has declined since the shutdown began.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...p-is-to-blame/

[Mike Corey]

Re: the election and the latest bombshell, I’ll reiterate: It’s not wise to assume Donald Trump will be on the ballot come November 2020.

[TruBlu]

An open letter:

Dear Political Parties,

For the love of our country, please find some less disgusting candidates for 2020. My nose is still sore from the multiple clothespins I had to wear in the 2016 election.

Seriously,

TruBlu

[lotusland]

Buzz Feed reporting that the special council has evidence that President instructed Cohen to lie to congress. This is a game changer if true and provable


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...n?ref=hpsplash

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

[OldPhiKap]

Buzz Feed reporting that the special council has evidence that President instructed Cohen to lie to congress. This is a game changer if true and provable

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...n?ref=hpsplash

Pretty big if true. Will wait for confirmation from another source (I do not personally doubt the story, but have no metric on Buzzfeed’s reliability in this regard).

Re: the election and the latest bombshell, I’ll reiterate: It’s not wise to assume Donald Trump will be on the ballot come November 2020.

AG-designee Barr testified this week, as he must, that counseling someone to commit perjury constitutes an obstruction of justice. FWIW.

Interesting times.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Per the allegations brought forth by Buzzfeed, the Democrats are obviously quickly on this and seeking corroboration. I've not heard any public statements from Republicans, and wouldn't really expect to, because until proven true this is more of a PR campaign. "We're gonna do our job, just like we were elected for, blah, blah".
However, I can only imagine that Republicans are doing the same without stating as much. IF this is true, then their candidate will have a very hard time lasting until the election, much less being electable, and I'd think they would like to know if they need to get another person out there running before it is too late.

Right now, the reporting from legitimate news sources is "Congress is investigating Buzzfeed report", or "Buzzfeed says...". Nobody else has independent confirmation yet. If and once they do, or Congress does, it becomes a game changer for the election.

PS...I was watching one of the news channels last night when the news broke. It always fascinating to see a news cycle switch in real time on big events like that.

[OldPhiKap]

I can only imagine that Republicans are doing the same without stating as much. IF this is true, then their candidate will have a very hard time lasting until the election, much less being electable, and I'd think they would like to know if they need to get another person out there running before it is too late.

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

[Wander]

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

Agree with this take. Things could get to the point where Trump loses the general election in a landslide, but there is no possibility of Trump not winning the R nomination if he wants to go through with it. I do think Mitt Romney is setting himself up as the "handcuff runningback" candidate if Trump is impeached or voluntarily does not run (remember when people made fun of him for saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical foe of the US? Yeah...)

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen an analysis of the likelihood of different Republicans flipping against Trump. I don't think it is that big of an analysis - there are only 50-odd Senators. To your point, those who are not up for re-election in 2020 are higher probability. As are those in more purple states who need to be closer to the middle to get re-elected (though they might risk getting taken out in a primary). And since this is largely boiling down to two issues (border security/immigration and getting federal employees back to work), some constituencies, such as those with a higher percentage of federal workers, might react differently than others.

I'm not sure how I would feel about putting myself out there as a Republican on this only to find out you are a few votes short, but I am very curious what types of conversations are being held to broker a consensus. My guess is that if they flip, it will be a carefully crafted group and it will either be unanimous (highly unlikely) or one more vote than they need.

I am flying this weekend and I am very curious to see the morale of the TSA agents at the airports.

[dudog84]

Agree with all you say, but here is the problem if you are a Republican elected official:

1. Trump, at least for now, still commands the base. So opposing him (at least prior to the end of the 2020 primary season) means that you risk your chances of re-election.
2. Trump won't take the Nixon route and gracefully bow out. Telling Trump he should resign or not run for re-election will just make him dig in more.
3. Therefore the path of least resistance is: support Trump so your base is happy; let Trump take a drubbing if that is to be; and then morph to support whoever comes next.

It seems a foregone conclusion that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment at some point after the Mueller report comes out. For Trump to be ousted, about 20 Republican Senators will have to vote against him. It is difficult to prejudge the likelihood of that without seeing the Mueller report and the public reaction to it, but that's a big hill to climb unless Trump's base turns on him.

This is what disgusts me about politicians. IF Trump can be shown unambiguously (tapes, written documents, not just hearsay) to have conspired with the Russians (or any other foreign government), or if his campaign did to tamper with our democracy, he has to go. The Rs should not give a crap about what the base says, this is about our country.

IF NOT, the Ds need to shut up and try to beat him in 2020. Proving perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, violation of the emoluments clause, lying...these are terrible things, set a terrible example and precedent, but I'm just not sure it matters to 30% of the country. Yes it's breaking the law and the Constitution, but I don't think any of these things will get a conviction in the Senate. Some would say unfortunately, but in the spirit of the board I'm not going to opine on that.

Many call this "interesting times". I call it sad times. Honestly, this must be what it felt like in 1860. We are so divided. Whether Trump is involved with Russia or not, Putin is gleeful.

[jimsumner]

Re: the election and the latest bombshell, I’ll reiterate: It’s not wise to assume Donald Trump will be on the ballot come November 2020.

I'll try to put this as dispassionately as possible.

Donald Trump is 72 years old.

He is morbidly obese.

He has a terrible diet.

He does not exercise.

He is under enormous stress.

According to numerous sources, he is prone to frequent outbursts of rage.

He has few, if any, real friends.

He appears to be showing signs of cognitive decline.

This is not the profile of a healthy person.

I'm not sure it's wise to assume he'll even be alive for the next election.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm not sure it's wise to assume he'll even be alive for the next election.

Obviously hugely hypothetical, but if Trump kicks the bucket before the election, do republicans rally around Pence or put forth a new candidate? I would assume they go with the incumbent.