2020 Presidential Election

[Bostondevil]

Facts and truth seem to matter less and less in politics.

Are you implying there was a time when they did?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Are you implying there was a time when they did?

Less and less

[Mike Corey]

Are you implying there was a time when they did?

Facts and truth in politics have been uniquely under assault. And not just from elected officials.

While this obviously did not happen in a vacuum, we aren’t bucking those trend lines with our current lot.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Cory Booker is in

[OldPhiKap]

Good article and poll data on independent candidates:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ocrats-1144286

(Bottom line: many people are open to considering a third party candidate, particularly anti-Trumpers. Few actually vote independent though historically, with Ross Perot being an outlier so far in recent years. The article does not poll Schultz personally as best I can tell).

[PackMan97]

(Bottom line: many people are open to considering a third party candidate, particularly anti-Trumpers. Few actually vote independent though historically, with Ross Perot being an outlier so far in recent years. The article does not poll Schultz personally as best I can tell).

I think this has more to do with not wanting to waste your vote and as Trump says, "Everyone loves a winner". If a strong third party candidate were to emerge and poll well enough to get into the debates (currently 15%) and perhaps start getting mentioned in stealing a state or two you would find more people willing to vote for them.

It seems like in Presidential elections folks are almost voting AGAINST someone as much as they are voting for the candidate. I know I've done that at least once in a Presidential elections and many times in NC elections. If someone can break through an be a legitimate threat to win, they can be someone you can both vote for while at the same time keeping "that awful person" out of office. The third party/independent narrative right now is if you vote for Z, you guarantee the election of X (or Y depending on your politics).

[OldPhiKap]

^^ it would seem that 2020 is shaping up to be a referendum on the incumbent, for sure. A third party candidate is by contrast a referendum on the two-party system.

Iowa Caucus is one year from today. I’m stocking up on liquor.

[left_hook_lacey]

The next two years will be a never ending nanny nanny boo boo fight with the whole world watching.

[Indoor66]

^^ it would seem that 2020 is shaping up to be a referendum on the incumbent, for sure. A third party candidate is by contrast a referendum on the two-party system.

Iowa Caucus is one year from today. I’m stocking up on liquor.

Isn't every election that pits an incumbent against a challenger a referendum on the incumbent?

[OldPhiKap]

Isn't every election that pits an incumbent against a challenger a referendum on the incumbent?

True, although the current incumbent seems particularly polarizing. It’s hard to not have an opinion.

At least, it seems to me.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The Trump campaign is taking preliminary steps to ensure that he won't face a challenger in the GOP.

It is an acknowledgment that Trump, who effectively hijacked the Republican Party in 2016, hasn't completely cemented his grip on the GOP and, in any event, is not likely to coast to the 2020 GOP nomination without some form of opposition. While any primary challenge would almost certainly be unsuccessful, Trump aides are looking to prevent a repeat of the convention discord that highlighted the electoral weaknesses of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter in their failed re-election campaigns.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/t...-politics.html

[Mike Corey]

True, although the current incumbent seems particularly polarizing. It’s hard to not have an opinion.

At least, it seems to me.

Polling and the mid-term results support this assertion.

[dudog84]

First out: Elizabeth Warren is toast. I don't see how she recovers from this, and she needs to take a lower profile for a while.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s7c?li=BBnb7Kz

Edit: We're all mutts, but you can't do this in politics.

[CameronBornAndBred]

First out: Elizabeth Warren is toast. I don't see how she recovers from this, and she needs to take a lower profile for a while.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s7c?li=BBnb7Kz

Edit: We're all mutts, but you can't do this in politics.

Meh.
I'm currently researching my own DNA (I'm adopted), and I have a distinct advantage over Elizabeth Warren. Until two weeks ago, I had NO CLUE as to what I was. I was never told by people in my family that I was Indian, Chinese, Eskimo, English. I literally could be anything I wanted to be.
Warren was told by her family that she was Native American. How was she to know different? She grew up believing it and put it on a piece of paper. Probably with pride. It's not like she lied intentionally. People will make a deal of it, but it won't make a dent, especially with the months between now and the primaries for this to fade away to some new headline maker. Think of that commercial with the guy switching from lederhosen to a kilt, thinking he was way German.

FWIW, I now know that I can wear a kilt with pride.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

First out: Elizabeth Warren is toast. I don't see how she recovers from this, and she needs to take a lower profile for a while.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s7c?li=BBnb7Kz

Edit: We're all mutts, but you can't do this in politics.

I honestly don't know how much things like this matter anymore. And by "things like this," I mean lies/facts/mistakes/half-truths. It wasn't that long ago that infidelity or gaffes or even an exuberant scream would make the voters either put you on the back burner or dispose of you altogether. Remember when Rick Perry spaced on naming a federal agency?

I honestly don't know what voters see as "disqualifying" anymore. Clearly the goalposts have shifted. I really think Trump said it correctly when he said he could walk down 5th Avenue and shoot someone and a large portion of people would still vote for him.

I'd like to think this is some sort of shift in the populous of America towards forgiveness or second chances, but I suspect it just speaks to how polarized we are and how unwilling to consider the other side of the aisle.

In other words, if Warren were to become the nominee, I am certain there are people who would easily put aside this particular untruth to vote against the other guy, much as many voters in 2016 decided to ignore the infamous tapes of Donald's crass discussion of fame and women.

In an effort to keep this from being partisan (which I hope I have done) I hope that we someday soon return to a time when we hold all candidates on both sides more accountable for their words and actions and find the most qualified people for the job.

Coming full circle, I will be very curious to see how this affects Warren's candidacy, and, peripherally, what the H-E-Hockeysticks shakes down in the gubernatorial shenanigans in Virginia, because I truly don't understand what does or does not matter to the American people anymore.

[Indoor66]

I honestly don't know how much things like this matter anymore. And by "things like this," I mean lies/facts/mistakes/half-truths. It wasn't that long ago that infidelity or gaffes or even an exuberant scream would make the voters either put you on the back burner or dispose of you altogether. Remember when Rick Perry spaced on naming a federal agency?

I honestly don't know what voters see as "disqualifying" anymore. Clearly the goalposts have shifted. I really think Trump said it correctly when he said he could walk down 5th Avenue and shoot someone and a large portion of people would still vote for him.

I'd like to think this is some sort of shift in the populous of America towards forgiveness or second chances, but I suspect it just speaks to how polarized we are and how unwilling to consider the other side of the aisle.

In other words, if Warren were to become the nominee, I am certain there are people who would easily put aside this particular untruth to vote against the other guy, much as many voters in 2016 decided to ignore the infamous tapes of Donald's crass discussion of fame and women.

In an effort to keep this from being partisan (which I hope I have done) I hope that we someday soon return to a time when we hold all candidates on both sides more accountable for their words and actions and find the most qualified people for the job.

Coming full circle, I will be very curious to see how this affects Warren's candidacy, and, peripherally, what the H-E-Hockeysticks shakes down in the gubernatorial shenanigans in Virginia, because I truly don't understand what does or does not matter to the American people anymore.

With some, it appears, it is only disqualifying if your disfavored opponent does it.

[camion]

With some, it appears, it is only disqualifying if your disfavored opponent does it.

Could one see it as similar to rooting for/against a particular team in some random sport such as, oh, basketball?

[Indoor66]

Could one see it as similar to rooting for/against a particular team in some random sport such as, oh, basketball?

Maybe, but different planes of seriousness.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I honestly don't know how much things like this matter anymore. And by "things like this," I mean lies/facts/mistakes/half-truths. It wasn't that long ago that infidelity or gaffes or even an exuberant scream would make the voters either put you on the back burner or dispose of you altogether. Remember when Rick Perry spaced on naming a federal agency?

I honestly don't know what voters see as "disqualifying" anymore. Clearly the goalposts have shifted. I really think Trump said it correctly when he said he could walk down 5th Avenue and shoot someone and a large portion of people would still vote for him.

I'd like to think this is some sort of shift in the populous of America towards forgiveness or second chances, but I suspect it just speaks to how polarized we are and how unwilling to consider the other side of the aisle.

In other words, if Warren were to become the nominee, I am certain there are people who would easily put aside this particular untruth to vote against the other guy, much as many voters in 2016 decided to ignore the infamous tapes of Donald's crass discussion of fame and women.

In an effort to keep this from being partisan (which I hope I have done) I hope that we someday soon return to a time when we hold all candidates on both sides more accountable for their words and actions and find the most qualified people for the job.

Coming full circle, I will be very curious to see how this affects Warren's candidacy, and, peripherally, what the H-E-Hockeysticks shakes down in the gubernatorial shenanigans in Virginia, because I truly don't understand what does or does not matter to the American people anymore.

Very well put - I would spork you if I could. The traditional norms of behavior have largely been thrown out the window, and it is unclear what is acceptable anymore. And in many cases there are two different news organizations reporting opposite things so no one believes each other anymore. As one who thrives on rules, predictability and order, I found this change to be very stressful and disorienting. I also feel like this country is wasting a lot of bandwidth of things that are trivial while largely ignoring direct responses to issue that really impact people's daily lives.

[Jeffrey]

The traditional norms of behavior have largely been thrown out the window, and it is unclear what is acceptable anymore. And in many cases there are two different news organizations reporting opposite things so no one believes each other anymore. As one who thrives on rules, predictability and order, I found this change to be very stressful and disorienting. I also feel like this country is wasting a lot of bandwidth of things that are trivial while largely ignoring direct responses to issue that really impact people's daily lives.

It sounds like you don't really have a favorite Kardashian.