2020 Presidential Election

[OldPhiKap]

Per Politico:

Warren, Sanders and Yang all threatened today to boycott the debate at Loyola Marymount University next week because they will not cross the picket lines of campus workers locked in a labor dispute.

To be continued . . . .

[JasonEvans]

Per Politico:

Warren, Sanders and Yang all threatened today to boycott the debate at Loyola Marymount University next week because they will not cross the picket lines of campus workers locked in a labor dispute.

To be continued . . . .

Actually, all the Democrats who made the debate have said they will not cross a picket line to take part in the debate. Looks like Loyola Marymount either needs to settle this thing with the restaurant workers or the Dems need to find somewhere else for their debate.

[SouthernDukie]

Something else that could have a huge impact on the 2020 election has gone POTUS’ way just now. The Supreme Court will take up the case concerning subpoenas for his financial records. My guess is they will rule with Trump and once more the President’s financial records will be kept under wraps. Trump has fought so hard to keep his tax records secret that I have to believe there is a potential major embarrassment there. He really, really doesn’t want anyone to see them. He may continue to get that wish granted.

[dudog84]

Something else that could have a huge impact on the 2020 election has gone POTUS’ way just now. The Supreme Court will take up the case concerning subpoenas for his financial records. My guess is they will rule with Trump and once more the President’s financial records will be kept under wraps. Trump has fought so hard to keep his tax records secret that I have to believe there is a potential major embarrassment there. He really, really doesn’t want anyone to see them. He may continue to get that wish granted.

Agree with everything in your post except the bolded. SCOTUS could rule against him.

Though honestly, just as I wrote that, I'm not sure I agree with the rest of the post (or my just-typed statement). I'm not sure anything in his tax returns would matter to his supporters.

Remember when he stated he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any support? That was January 2016, before he'd gotten a single vote. I think most people (even most of his supporters) rolled their eyes at that hyperbole. Nobody is rolling their eyes anymore.

Has anyone, on either side of the aisle, ever had this kind of following? Kinda fascinating, or horrifying, depending on your viewpoint.

[PackMan97]

Has anyone, on either side of the aisle, ever had this kind of following? Kinda fascinating, or horrifying, depending on your viewpoint.

Obama - Yes
Bush (GW) - Yes
Clinton - Yes
Bush (GH) - No
Reagan - Yes
Carter - No
Ford - No
Nixon - No
Johnson - No
JFK - Yes
Eisenhower - Yes
Truman - Yes
FDR - Yes

Obviously, everyone might have a differing opinion on each President, but I would say it's fairly common to have a President whose base was very loyal even in the face of scandals or other troubles. I don't think Trump is anything special in this regard.

[Nick]

Anyone ready to fire up the 2024 thread?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-beg...015357541.html

Sounds like a "thinking past the sale" persuasion technique. He can't run for a third term without winning for a second term. So by talking about a third term you're assuming he wins in 2020, which is (I'm guessing) the goal of making the 2024 remarks.

[dudog84]

Sounds like a "thinking past the sale" persuasion technique. He can't run for a third term without winning for a second term. So by talking about a third term you're assuming he wins in 2020, which is (I'm guessing) the goal of making the 2024 remarks.

Actually, he'd be allowed to run in 2024 if he loses in 2020. Hedging his bets? (I don't think so, just sayin'. I really think Huckabee is just trolling up some outrage.)

[CameronBornAndBred]

Obama - Yes
Bush (GW) - Yes
Clinton - Yes
Bush (GH) - No
Reagan - Yes
Carter - No
Ford - No
Nixon - No
Johnson - No
JFK - Yes
Eisenhower - Yes
Truman - Yes
FDR - Yes

Obviously, everyone might have a differing opinion on each President, but I would say it's fairly common to have a President whose base was very loyal even in the face of scandals or other troubles. I don't think Trump is anything special in this regard.

I've never seen people be fanatical about a politician in the way his base is about Trump. I've never seen vehicles literally plastered bumper to bumper in the way I have seen with Trump.(I'm talking literally no paint left to be seen.) I was just talking to my girlfriend about this the other day. I've not even seen fans of bands/singers/actors (the celebrities we are used to) idolize someone in the same way that some of his base do with the POTUS.
So to Dudog's question, I think the answer is no.
As per the possible effect a ruling against him from the SCOTUS would have, it of course depends on what is found. No, his supporters won't care, but his supporters alone aren't enough to win him the election. As far as I know, nobody has won the White House with only 30% of the vote.

[dudog84]

I've never seen people be fanatical about a politician in the way his base is about Trump. I've never seen vehicles literally plastered bumper to bumper in the way I have seen with Trump.(I'm talking literally no paint left to be seen.) I was just talking to my girlfriend about this the other day. I've not even seen fans of bands/singers/actors (the celebrities we are used to) idolize someone in the same way that some of his base do with the POTUS.
So to Dudog's question, I think the answer is no.
As per the possible effect a ruling against him from the SCOTUS would have, it of course depends on what is found. No, his supporters won't care, but his supporters alone aren't enough to win him the election. As far as I know, nobody has won the White House with only 30% of the vote.

Sorry CB&B, I just have to do this to you.

John Quincy Adams won the 1824 election with 30.92% of the vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1824_U...ntial_election

[CameronBornAndBred]

Sorry CB&B, I just have to do this to you.

John Quincy Adams won the 1824 election with 30.92% of the vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1824_U...ntial_election

Then I'm right! I said "only 30".

(That's a pretty cool bit of history.)

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Something else that could have a huge impact on the 2020 election has gone POTUS’ way just now. The Supreme Court will take up the case concerning subpoenas for his financial records. My guess is they will rule with Trump and once more the President’s financial records will be kept under wraps. Trump has fought so hard to keep his tax records secret that I have to believe there is a potential major embarrassment there. He really, really doesn’t want anyone to see them. He may continue to get that wish granted.

If the IRS is doing its job (which is a huge "if"), wouldn't any truly egregious violation by Trump already have been flagged? I guess there could be offenses that are outside of their purview? I also struggle to see what could turn up that would really move the needle (I also am a strong believer in the "shoot someone on 5th Ave." premise). The main problem I can think of is if his returns while he was president were released and there was evidence of business dealings that theoretically a sitting president shouldn't be engaged in, but I don't think this would move the needle, though it could weaken his efforts to go after Biden.

Trump knows exactly what is in his tax returns so worst case, if they are released, he has had a long time to figure out how to spin it.

[Jeffrey]

I've not even seen fans of bands/singers/actors (the celebrities we are used to) idolize someone in the same way that some of his base do with the POTUS.

Who are the Grateful Dead and why do they keep following me?

[CameronBornAndBred]

Who are the Grateful Dead and why do they keep following me?

Believe me, they were my top thought in my analogy, and even with the Dead, I've seen some Trump folks that are incomparable to die hard Deadheads.
With some of the ones that I have seen, it borders on a true cult following. These people live and breathe the man that they support.
Obviously I am not addressing everyone in his base, just backing up Dudog's initial assumption that no other President has had a following like Trump has.

[JasonEvans]

I saw an interview with a panel of Trump voters where they were being asked various questions about his conduct and the supporters were hesitant to express any criticism of the president. When they got to the "what if he shot someone on 5th avenue" question, one of the women said, "Well, I would need to know why he shot her. There has to be a reason. Maybe he had a good reason to shoot her."

I think that goes a long way toward understanding the mindset of the loyal Trump voter. They want an explanation for why he is doing what he is doing and are not going to prejudge him themselves. Trump is a savvy politician and knows how to give an answer that provides him enough cover not to lose his supporters.

Now, regarding the taxes...

If the IRS is doing its job (which is a huge "if"), wouldn't any truly egregious violation by Trump already have been flagged? I guess there could be offenses that are outside of their purview? I also struggle to see what could turn up that would really move the needle (I also am a strong believer in the "shoot someone on 5th Ave." premise). The main problem I can think of is if his returns while he was president were released and there was evidence of business dealings that theoretically a sitting president shouldn't be engaged in, but I don't think this would move the needle, though it could weaken his efforts to go after Biden.

Trump knows exactly what is in his tax returns so worst case, if they are released, he has had a long time to figure out how to spin it.

I don't think the tax issue is one of Trump potentially cheating on his taxes or even shady business dealings**. I think it is a matter of him doing something perfectly legal that nonetheless looks bad. For example, if he had income of $250 million but did not give a single penny to charity or if he had that income and did not pay a penny of taxes due to past business losses or depreciation or other methods of sheltering income. None of that would be illegal, but it could look pretty bad. I'm not saying it will sway his die hard supporters at all, but that sliver of folks who are on the fence could be troubled if they find out they paid more in taxes to the government than some guy who earned more in a year than they will in 10 lifetimes.

-Jason "I obviously have no knowledge of what Trump's taxes will show, but these seem like the most obvious things that might concern his campaign" Evans

**- There may be proof of some foreign entanglements on the taxes, especially to Russia, that could be problematic though I don't know that something like that will resonate very much with the general public

[dudog84]

Then I'm right! I said "only 30".

(That's a pretty cool bit of history.)

I just knew you were going to call me out on that 0.92%.

Honestly, I did not know that off the top of my head. But your post made me curious, and I figured if any President was a 30-percenter it was JQ Adams.

Just goes to show you, we think things have never been worse but politics has always been a blood sport. But can you imagine this scenario happening today? I think there would be actual blood.

[dudog84]

If the IRS is doing its job (which is a huge "if"), wouldn't any truly egregious violation by Trump already have been flagged? I guess there could be offenses that are outside of their purview? I also struggle to see what could turn up that would really move the needle (I also am a strong believer in the "shoot someone on 5th Ave." premise). The main problem I can think of is if his returns while he was president were released and there was evidence of business dealings that theoretically a sitting president shouldn't be engaged in, but I don't think this would move the needle, though it could weaken his efforts to go after Biden.

Trump knows exactly what is in his tax returns so worst case, if they are released, he has had a long time to figure out how to spin it.

But there is a reason he is so desperate to keep them away from the public, and I don't think it is a principled fight for privacy. So I'm not sure that is worst case for him. Taxes for someone in his position are almost certainly convoluted, and the public probably won't "get it". Therefore I doubt it will matter politically.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I just knew you were going to call me out on that 0.92%.

Honestly, I did not know that off the top of my head. But your post made me curious, and I figured if any President was a 30-percenter it was JQ Adams.

Just goes to show you, we think things have never been worse but politics has always been a blood sport. But can you imagine this scenario happening today? I think there would be actual blood.

What I think is trippy about that election is that Jackson won it, and not by a measly amount. 41.4% to 30.9%. And in the congressional congress nomination balloting, some guy named Crawford trounced everyone. (His health did him in.)
We think politics today is confusing...the 1800's say they have a beer to hold.

[Rich]

I saw an interview with a panel of Trump voters where they were being asked various questions about his conduct and the supporters were hesitant to express any criticism of the president. When they got to the "what if he shot someone on 5th avenue" question, one of the women said, "Well, I would need to know why he shot her. There has to be a reason. Maybe he had a good reason to shoot her."

I think that goes a long way toward understanding the mindset of the loyal Trump voter. They want an explanation for why he is doing what he is doing and are not going to prejudge him themselves. Trump is a savvy politician and knows how to give an answer that provides him enough cover not to lose his supporters.

Hopefully this won't get me into trouble, and I agree that Trump is savvy in this regard, but I think Trump is actually excellent at not giving answers or explanations. He speaks in platitudes and generalities without actually saying anything. In this example, I would fully expect "She was crooked and deserved it" as his explanation, and his supporters would accept that. Trump never really explains anything, IMHO, just that what he's doing is obviously correct or appropriate or defensible so you should support it. And his supporters just fall into line and agree there was probably a good reason, some good reason, without challenging it or asking "why."

[budwom]

I saw an interview with a panel of Trump voters where they were being asked various questions about his conduct and the supporters were hesitant to express any criticism of the president. When they got to the "what if he shot someone on 5th avenue" question, one of the women said, "Well, I would need to know why he shot her. There has to be a reason. Maybe he had a good reason to shoot her."

I think that goes a long way toward understanding the mindset of the loyal Trump voter. They want an explanation for why he is doing what he is doing and are not going to prejudge him themselves. Trump is a savvy politician and knows how to give an answer that provides him enough cover not to lose his supporters.

Now, regarding the taxes...


I don't think the tax issue is one of Trump potentially cheating on his taxes or even shady business dealings**. I think it is a matter of him doing something perfectly legal that nonetheless looks bad. For example, if he had income of $250 million but did not give a single penny to charity or if he had that income and did not pay a penny of taxes due to past business losses or depreciation or other methods of sheltering income. None of that would be illegal, but it could look pretty bad. I'm not saying it will sway his die hard supporters at all, but that sliver of folks who are on the fence could be troubled if they find out they paid more in taxes to the government than some guy who earned more in a year than they will in 10 lifetimes.

-Jason "I obviously have no knowledge of what Trump's taxes will show, but these seem like the most obvious things that might concern his campaign" Evans

**- There may be proof of some foreign entanglements on the taxes, especially to Russia, that could be problematic though I don't know that something like that will resonate very much with the general public

Interesting assumption by the woman regarding the Trump shootee on Fifth Avenue, i.e. it was a "her."
As for the taxes issue, there are some serious allegations (yet to be proved, of course) about bogus property evaluations on bank applications versus evaluations for tax purposes...e.g. going high on the former, low on the latter, legally perilous if true.
I guess we'll see. SDNY will have something to say about this.

[Indoor66]

Interesting assumption by the woman regarding the Trump shootee on Fifth Avenue, i.e. it was a "her."
As for the taxes issue, there are some serious allegations (yet to be proved, of course) about bogus property evaluations on bank applications versus evaluations for tax purposes...e.g. going high on the former, low on the latter, legally perilous if true.
I guess we'll see. SDNY will have something to say about this.

Are you assuming facts not in evidence or in any serious allegations much?