2020 Presidential Election

[OldPhiKap]

Sends a clear message: "I've got beef with you."

Yup. No bull.

[Reilly]

That is a lot of moo-lah.

High steaks, in other words.

[Tripping William]

High steaks, in other words.

Can we please steer this discussion back on-topic?

[bundabergdevil]

Can we please steer this discussion back on-topic?

Or chuck it out all together?

(This thread has already influenced my dinner choices for tonight.)

[Phredd3]

Or chuck it out all together?

(This thread has already influenced my dinner choices for tonight.)

You guys are the cream of the crop, but you butter stop this now.

[OldPhiKap]

My entire Twitter feed has turned to cow puns, gifs and memes. Someone let me know when I can stop following the cow, please.

Mooooving back to the topic: Biden's team is floating the idea of naming a youngish VP candidate early and Stacey Abram's name has come up. FWIW. I think it would be really dangerous to commit to a VP early, especially one that has not been nationally vetted.

Reportedly, Joe's camp has also floated the idea of committing to a single term but Joe is supposedly not wholly on board with that.

All per Politico, IIRC -- gotten all of my sources mixed up since I have really been more in Brexit mode of late.

[dudog84]

My entire Twitter feed has turned to cow puns, gifs and memes. Someone let me know when I can stop following the cow, please.

Mooooving back to the topic: Biden's team is floating the idea of naming a youngish VP candidate early and Stacey Abram's name has come up. FWIW. I think it would be really dangerous to commit to a VP early, especially one that has not been nationally vetted.

Reportedly, Joe's camp has also floated the idea of committing to a single term but Joe is supposedly not wholly on board with that.

All per Politico, IIRC -- gotten all of my sources mixed up since I have really been more in Brexit mode of late.

Better cow puns than cow pies. Ok, I'm (well) done now.

[Reilly]

Can we please steer this discussion back on-topic?

Better cow puns than cow pies. Ok, I'm (well) done now.

I agree -- the pun thing has been run into the ground, 'round here that's frowned upon.

[bundabergdevil]

Well, big news today that the Mueller investigation has concluded and the report delivered to the AG. What happens from here - and the contents of the report - could obviously have significant ramifications for the 2020 election. Expect significant commentary by 2020 Democratic candidates in the coming days.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Well, big news today that the Mueller investigation has concluded and the report delivered to the AG. What happens from here - and the contents of the report - could obviously have significant ramifications for the 2020 election. Expect significant commentary by 2020 Democratic candidates in the coming days.

UNC investigation 2.0... that is all.

[Duke79UNLV77]

UNC investigation 2.0... that is all.

I had similar thoughts. For Trump supporters, like unc supporters, the summary of the report is vindication and proof of unfair treatment. For the other side, the public evidence alone seemed so strong and the anticipation was so great that the passionate opposition will just grow stronger.

[Nick]

I had similar thoughts. For Trump supporters, like unc supporters, the summary of the report is vindication and proof of unfair treatment. For the other side, the public evidence alone seemed so strong and the anticipation was so great that the passionate opposition will just grow stronger.

Matt Taibbi is not a Trump supporter. Nor is Glenn Greenwald.

Pelosi seems to have de-emphasized Russia stuff recently and famously said impeachment wasn't on the table. I suspect she knew what was coming in the report. Hopefully the report will give the primary candidates the chance to talk about other issues. Yang in particular seems to be getting a bit of internet buzz, I wonder if there's anything to it.

[Nick]

Nate Silver weighs in on the impact of the Mueller report:

What we can say, however, is that a number of really bad outcomes have been removed from the table for Trump:

• There’s no previously unknown smoking gun linking Trump to Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 campaign.
• Trump wasn’t indicted, and none of his family members were indicted.
• Trump didn’t pardon anyone before the investigation concluded.
• Trump didn’t fire Mueller.

The latter two outcomes are easy to overlook. Whether or not Trump himself committed any crimes or directly coordinated with Russia, there was always the possibility that — out of spite, paranoia, confusion, or the fear that Mueller would look into potential illegal activities other than Russia — Trump would fire him, as he reportedly came close to doing in late 2017. There was also the chance that Trump would pardon a subject of the investigation while the investigation was underway. There are several different ways that such moves could have ended badly for Trump, and with the Mueller investigation over, he’s dodged all of them for now.2
Removing these extremely negative outcomes is a pretty big win for Trump. It isn’t quite the same as predicting that he’ll gain immediate political upside from the conclusion of the investigation; it wouldn’t surprise me at all if his approval rating goes up by a couple of percentage points, for instance, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t. The impact of Russia-related matters on Trump’s polling hasn’t always been clear; his approval ratings dropped after he fired FBI Director James Comey (in an arguably Russia-related move) in May 2017, and he experienced a slump in late August and early September 2018 after former attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to fraud charges and campaign manager Paul Manafort was convicted on eight counts of fraud. But many other seeming bombshells — the several rounds of indictments that Mueller issued, for instance — came and went without any seeming effect on Trump’s polling. Somewhat contrary to programming decisions on cable news, the Russia investigation wasn’t a huge point of emphasis for Democrats in the 2018 midterm campaign, nor has it been during the presidential campaign so far.

Moreover, views of the Mueller investigation had become more and more polarized along partisan lines. And judging by Barr’s letter, there will probably be enough ambivalence in the report for people who didn’t like Trump in the first place to find more reasons not to like him.

But my guess is that where this will help Trump the most is not with traditional swing voters but with Trump-skeptical Republicans. Even Republicans who don’t love Trump tend to be critical of the news media, and they’d already thought that the media was devoting too much attention to Russia-related matters. If the investigation now looks to them like a wild goose chase — or a “WITCH HUNT,” to use Trump’s preferred term — it will create greater solidarity between them and the rest of the Republican Party. While this isn’t a huge group of voters, every little bit helps in an election that could shape up as another 50-50 affair.

[bundabergdevil]

Nate Silver weighs in on the impact of the Mueller report:

"But my guess is that where this will help Trump the most is not with traditional swing voters but with Trump-skeptical Republicans."

While he obviously doesn't speak for all Trump-skeptical Republicans, George Conway would beg to differ with Mr. Silver's take. There are an awful lot of truly bizarre sub-plots in this whole spectacle but George Conway tweet-trolling Trump while his wife serves as his chief spokesperson is surely near the top. Really makes my arguments with my wife over whose turn it is to unload the dishwasher seem low stakes...

With regard to Barr's summary, I agree with those commentators urging caution and patience. This was the conclusion of a phase and Barr's personal interpretation and summary, along with Trump's supporters trumpeting 'complete exoneration', is the opening salvo in the next phase. It's not a hot take but this thing is just getting started.

It should also be noted that, IIRC, Trump accepted Putin's statement that he and Russia did not interfere with the U.S. elections to hurt Clinton and help Trump. That's the premise upon which the collusion investigation was initiated. Despite claiming 'complete exoneration', I don't anticipate Trump suddenly changing his personal tune and publicly professing agreement with our national intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in a number of ways in our last presidential election.

[Acymetric]

While he obviously doesn't speak for all Trump-skeptical Republicans, George Conway would beg to differ with Mr. Silver's take. There are an awful lot of truly bizarre sub-plots in this whole spectacle but George Conway tweet-trolling Trump while his wife serves as his chief spokesperson is surely near the top. Really makes my arguments with my wife over whose turn it is to unload the dishwasher seem low stakes...

That family is either massively dysfunctional or the peak example of not bringing your work to the dinner table. I'd watch the 45 minute straight-to-Netflix documentary either way.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That family is either massively dysfunctional or the peak example of not bringing your work to the dinner table. I'd watch the 45 minute straight-to-Netflix documentary either way.

Ew. Not me.

[PackMan97]

That family is either massively dysfunctional or the peak example of not bringing your work to the dinner table. I'd watch the 45 minute straight-to-Netflix documentary either way.

IIRC, there was something similar during the Clinton (Bill) era. James Carville and Mary Matalin. Carville worked for Clinton's (Bill) campaign and later Hillary's while Mary worked on Bush's (George H). Though to be honest, James Carville seems like he'd be perfect for an evil villian on Game of Thrones. He just has that "look".

[Indoor66]

IIRC, there was something similar during the Clinton (Bill) era. James Carville and Mary Matalin. Carville worked for Clinton's (Bill) campaign and later Hillary's while Mary worked on Bush's (George H). Though to be honest, James Carville seems like he'd be perfect for an evil villian on Game of Thrones. He just has that "look".

You mean Serpenthead? (Matalan's nickname)

[bundabergdevil]

IIRC, there was something similar during the Clinton (Bill) era. James Carville and Mary Matalin. Carville worked for Clinton's (Bill) campaign and later Hillary's while Mary worked on Bush's (George H). Though to be honest, James Carville seems like he'd be perfect for an evil villian on Game of Thrones. He just has that "look".

James and Mary knew they were on different teams when they got married. George and KellyAnne's differences may have come as some surprise but, yes, otherwise good example. Here's Mary Matalin on living in a divided house.

From the DC gossip I've heard, KelllyAnne is not shy about talking about the uniqueness of this administration and is one of the many holes in the WH leaking information. I was surprised during my 8 years in DC at how many political professionals really didn't care all that much about who they worked for or even actively worked to advance policies with which they personally disagreed. This seemed strange to me but I guess it's just another corporate ladder to climb. Suffice to say, I doubt KellyAnne is a die hard Trump believer.

[Acymetric]

James and Mary knew they were on different teams when they got married. George and KellyAnne's differences may have come as some surprise but, yes, otherwise good example. Here's Mary Matalin on living in a divided house.

From the DC gossip I've heard, KelllyAnne is not shy about talking about the uniqueness of this administration and is one of the many holes in the WH leaking information. I was surprised during my 8 years in DC at how many political professionals really didn't care all that much about who they worked for or even actively worked to advance policies with which they personally disagreed. This seemed strange to me but I guess it's just another corporate ladder to climb. Suffice to say, I doubt KellyAnne is a die hard Trump believer.

I agree this seems surprising at face value, but people do this all the time in the business/corporate/management world. Possibly an even more apt comparison, the legal system where a lawyer might well end up defending a person they believe should go to jail or prosecuting someone for something they don't think should be a crime.

A discussion on the pros/cons of this type of behavior would probably be really interesting but also probably not permissible given the rules of the thread.