2020 Presidential Election

[PackMan97]

This is why The Onion has lost market share...

You win the internet today.

[howardlander]

You win the internet today.

To quote one of my favorite poets: "You know it's gonna get stranger, let's get on with the show"

[OldPhiKap]

To quote one of my favorite poets: "You know it's gonna get stranger, let's get on with the show"

Let's go!

[Wander]

Yes, it will!

No, it won't. Walsh will be unceremoniously crushed. Many on DBR consistently underestimate Trump's popularity with Republicans – I guess in an effort to convince oneself that the two parties are in a similar place right now.

[OldPhiKap]

No, it won't. Walsh will be unceremoniously crushed. Many on DBR consistently underestimate Trump's popularity with Republicans – I guess in an effort to convince oneself that the two parties are in a similar place right now.

Walsh will lose, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

I read Walsh as standing up for the Republicans who dislike Trump for a variety of substantive and personal reasons. While that group is a minority, it is not insubstantial. And no matter how popular Trump is, there will come a day when he is off the stage and some folks are lining up to be the next voice of the party.

The danger of Walsh to Trump isn't that Walsh will win. It's that Walsh is a voice from within the base who cannot be written off as a liberal Democrat. He is anti-spending, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-climate concerns, anti-Obama. Walsh's attacks have been extremely personal to the point that typing them out here would likely get me a vacation and get me labeled an anti-Trumper, but essentially boil down to his assertion that Trump lacks the personal/moral character to lead our country.

Walsh is going right to the heart of the problem some Republicans have with Trump. And he knows how to work the media to make his attacks from within very public.

[Truth&Justise]

Denying the public the option to choose a different candidate does not seem constitutional to me. As JE said, I would expect court cases to make that point.

I believe that the Constitution does not deal with political parties, let alone how to pick the nominee for each party. The fact that something seems unfair or unwise does not make it unconstitutional. any court case will likely fail.

I suppose that depends on the state party rules. If it's allowed within the rules, I can't see a court battle being successful.

There is some precedent for courts weighing in on political primaries. In Smith v. Allenwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), the Supreme Court held that states could not allow racially exclusive political primaries. The case arose out of Texas, where the Democratic party held all-white primaries. Importantly, the Plaintiff did not sue the Democratic Party, but instead sued the State of Texas, arguing that the state had ceded its job to regulate elections to the parties. The Supreme Court agreed, explaining that "where the primary is by law made an integral part of the election machinery," the state has a duty to ensure equal access.

So, while not saying how a case about state party leaders choosing the nominee would turn out, it's not as simple as "the parties are private and can set their own rules." Where the role of primaries is reflected in state law you have sufficient state action to trigger the 14th Amendment -- and through it, most of the Bill of Rights. Would be an interesting case.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Walsh will lose, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

I read Walsh as standing up for the Republicans who dislike Trump for a variety of substantive and personal reasons. While that group is a minority, it is not insubstantial. And no matter how popular Trump is, there will come a day when he is off the stage and some folks are lining up to be the next voice of the party.

The danger of Walsh to Trump isn't that Walsh will win. It's that Walsh is a voice from within the base who cannot be written off as a liberal Democrat. He is anti-spending, anti-immigration, anti-Obama. Walsh's attacks have been extremely personal, to the point that typing them out here would likely get me a vacation and get me labeled an anti-Trumper. But Walsh is going right to the heart of the problem some Republicans have with Trump.

Yep. Nobody is going to primary Trump and win, and it won't be even close. But, Trump is in a position where he cannot afford anyone that is right leaning to stay home during the election, and voices such as Walsh, Weld, and Scaramucci may just influence enough to choose the couch over the polling booth. Trump is so dependent on his base, that if they do not all turn out, he has very little hope of keeping his job.

[Troublemaker]

Walsh will lose, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

I read Walsh as standing up for the Republicans who dislike Trump for a variety of substantive and personal reasons. While that group is a minority, it is not insubstantial. And no matter how popular Trump is, there will come a day when he is off the stage and some folks are lining up to be the next voice of the party.

The danger of Walsh to Trump isn't that Walsh will win. It's that Walsh is a voice from within the base who cannot be written off as a liberal Democrat. He is anti-spending, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-climate concerns, anti-Obama. Walsh's attacks have been extremely personal to the point that typing them out here would likely get me a vacation and get me labeled an anti-Trumper, but essentially boil down to his assertion that Trump lacks the personal/moral character to lead our country.

Walsh is going right to the heart of the problem some Republicans have with Trump. And he knows how to work the media to make his attacks from within very public.

But attacking Trump's character and unpresidential-ness is what every Never Trump Republican does. It would be more interesting if he attacked Trump for not being tough enough on immigration and trade, for example. That would be more a "voice from within the base."

Not sure Walsh is famous enough to really trouble Trump. This isn't Rush Limbaugh. Given that there were always going to be ill-fated primary challenges to Trump and eventually 3rd-party challenges, not sure why at this point Walsh will be more bothersome than Weld or McMullin in 2016 or David French if Kristol had been able to convince him to run, etc.

What would be interesting would be if Biden got the nomination and chose for his VP a Never Trump Republican. If "centrism" is what is going to win this election, go all in on that.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

But attacking Trump's character and unpresidential-ness is what every Never Trump Republican does. It would be more interesting if he attacked Trump for not being tough enough on immigration and trade, for example. That would be more a "voice from within the base."

This is a good point. People on the left seem to keep pointing to Trump's character and saying "how can you vote for that?" rather than criticizing actual policy. I mean, yes, you can point to the humanitarian crisis on the border and say "don't do that please," but it isn't much of a policy.

It would be quite interesting if someone came in right of Trump (I don't know him that well) and called out Trump for what he has NOT accomplished rather than for his character. For someone who ran on bringing back coal, bringing jobs back from overseas, building a wall, etc - precious little of that has been done. And sure, Trump can point at a Congree that dug its heels in, but if your biggest accomplishment to date is the stock market... That's nice but not much of a resume after 4 years.

[Troublemaker]

I am skeptical that the trade war will have a big impact on the election, but since it *has* been a theme of this thread, it really should be mentioned that Japan has agreed to buy agricultural products from the USA. A couple of links:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...075851225.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...eal-g7-1474461

In the first link, a couple of Japanese analysts seem to imply that the USA got the better of this trade deal announced at the G7.

[CameronBornAndBred]

What would be interesting would be if Biden got the nomination and chose for his VP a Never Trump Republican. If "centrism" is what is going to win this election, go all in on that.

Given Joe's age, I wouldn't bet a pie that the Republicans have the White House back before 2024.

[bundabergdevil]

But attacking Trump's character and unpresidential-ness is what every Never Trump Republican does. It would be more interesting if he attacked Trump for not being tough enough on immigration and trade, for example. That would be more a "voice from within the base."

Not sure Walsh is famous enough to really trouble Trump. This isn't Rush Limbaugh. Given that there were always going to be ill-fated primary challenges to Trump and eventually 3rd-party challenges, not sure why at this point Walsh will be more bothersome than Weld or McMullin in 2016 or David French if Kristol had been able to convince him to run, etc.

What would be interesting would be if Biden got the nomination and chose for his VP a Never Trump Republican. If "centrism" is what is going to win this election, go all in on that.

Yeah, I'm not sure what voters Walsh thinks he's targeting. HRC and every 2016 Republican primary opponent tried the unfitness for office argument. It didn't work on the Republican base voters then.

A lot of career and professional conservatives didn't and don't like Trump because they understand he wasn't actually advancing a conservative philosophy in many areas (he obviously delivered in spades in others) and most national security professionals regardless of party tried to sound the alarm. But those are all experts and professionals, not the lay voters that put him in office. I don't see any reason with Trump's approval rating among Republicans to think Walsh has any real shot at convincing them Trump is unfit for office.

And with Walsh's conservative bona fides, he isn't winning moderates or independents or Dems. So, who does he think he's winning over? Beats me.

[OldPhiKap]

But attacking Trump's character and unpresidential-ness is what every Never Trump Republican does.

True, but Walsh is far from a never-Trumper. He tweeted before the election last time that if Trump didn't win, it was time to grab the muskets (or something like that).

Walsh was all-in for Trump.

[PackMan97]

There is some precedent for courts weighing in on political primaries. In Smith v. Allenwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), the Supreme Court held that states could not allow racially exclusive political primaries. The case arose out of Texas, where the Democratic party held all-white primaries. Importantly, the Plaintiff did not sue the Democratic Party, but instead sued the State of Texas, arguing that the state had ceded its job to regulate elections to the parties. The Supreme Court agreed, explaining that "where the primary is by law made an integral part of the election machinery," the state has a duty to ensure equal access.

So, while not saying how a case about state party leaders choosing the nominee would turn out, it's not as simple as "the parties are private and can set their own rules." Where the role of primaries is reflected in state law you have sufficient state action to trigger the 14th Amendment -- and through it, most of the Bill of Rights. Would be an interesting case.

Of course state law would take precedence over party rules. However, if a state law reads something along the lines of, "A party shall nominate one candidate in a manner they decide"...that would be a tough nut to crack if they decide "no primary this year".

[dudog84]

Trump now saying the presidency has cost him 3 to 5 billion dollars. Heh. Since there is a lot of doubt that he is a billionaire to begin with, I'm sure many people would like to see his math. And if he keeps harping on this, doesn't that just bring more attention to him not releasing his tax returns? There would certainly be more calls to see them, but we're never going to see them short of a court order. Maybe not even then.

[budwom]

Clearly Trump beats back any primary challenge...but to me it will be most interesting to see what kind of turnout his opponents can gin up...will there be a sizable "protest vote?"

It may help tell us, to some extent, how firm his support really is among those 80+% in the GOP who approve of him.

[howardlander]

And sure, Trump can point at a Congree that dug its heels in, but if your biggest accomplishment to date is the stock market... That's nice but not much of a resume after 4 years.

Check out the chart of the DJIA in the last 10 years. Does it really look like something to pin your re-election hopes on?

https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow...-last-10-years

[budwom]

D'oh! Joe Biden was campaigning in Keene, New Hamster, and when asked how he liked it, he gushed over the beauty of Vermont. (He's right of course, but still...)

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...nt/2118505001/

[Truth&Justise]

D'oh! Joe Biden was campaigning in Keene, New Hamster, and when asked how he liked it, he gushed over the beauty of Vermont. (He's right of course, but still...)

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...nt/2118505001/

To be fair, if he had gushed about the beauty of a new hampster, that too would have been an addition to his gaffe reel.

[nmduke2001]

What would be interesting would be if Biden got the nomination and chose for his VP a Never Trump Republican. If "centrism" is what is going to win this election, go all in on that.

I hadn't considered that, but a Biden/Kasich ticket would be interesting. I wonder if the gained votes from the never-Trump Republicans would be offset by young Dems not voting at all.