2020 Presidential Election

[cato]

None of that is historic. A President is going to be impeached for only the 3rd time in 230 years. Doubtful he'll be removed (and I'm not even sure the Ds want him removed, he's their best chance of winning in 2020), but it's an event and will have huge ramifications whichever way it goes. Because if these are the new rules, watch out. The Rs won't hold the White House forever. (Trump will leave if he loses an election or dies, right? )

On the bolded point above, the Dems would prefer to face anyone other than Trump.

People are speculating that Dem primary candidates in the Senate do not want to spend a few weeks sitting as jurors in an impeachment trial, since that would take the candidates away from the campaign trail.

If Trump were removed from office, some unknown Rep soul would have to *start* their campaign *after* the most consequential transfer of power in history.

Republicans are all in on Trump. Democrats would love to get him in the rear view mirror.

[dudog84]

On the bolded point above, the Dems would prefer to face anyone other than Trump.

People are speculating that Dem primary candidates in the Senate do not want to spend a few weeks sitting as jurors in an impeachment trial, since that would take the candidates away from the campaign trail.

If Trump were removed from office, some unknown Rep soul would have to *start* their campaign *after* the most consequential transfer of power in history.

Republicans are all in on Trump. Democrats would love to get him in the rear view mirror.

My thought is that he's a good boogeyman for the Ds, in much the same way HRC was for the Rs. Just say the name and you'll get a strong negative reaction.

So that drives turnout. While it is still important who the Ds nominate, Trump is going to be the main motivator for that constituency. I also believe there are a lot of Rs and independents that would vote for a Romney or Haley that might decide to stay home, or even vote D despite their voting tendency/history.

[LasVegas]

On the bolded point above, the Dems would prefer to face anyone other than Trump.

People are speculating that Dem primary candidates in the Senate do not want to spend a few weeks sitting as jurors in an impeachment trial, since that would take the candidates away from the campaign trail.

If Trump were removed from office, some unknown Rep soul would have to *start* their campaign *after* the most consequential transfer of power in history.

Republicans are all in on Trump. Democrats would love to get him in the rear view mirror.

I disagree. Trump gets removed and EVERY single trump supporter will turn out and then some. It would be a huge turnout for the Rs. Trump supporters plus the R candidate picking up more moderates.

[Jeffrey]

I disagree. Trump gets removed and EVERY single trump supporter will turn out and then some. It would be a huge turnout for the Rs. Trump supporters plus the R candidate picking up more moderates.

How can you possibly make such a definitive statement without even knowing who the replacement candidate would be? For example, insert Romney and your argument falls apart.

I agree with Cato. Take out Trump and the Dems have better odds. Many Rs would first have to turn on Trump to support his removal. United they may stand, but divided they fall.

[LasVegas]

How can you possibly make such a definitive statement without even knowing who the replacement candidate would be? For example, insert Romney and your argument falls apart.

I agree with Cato. Take out Trump and the Dems have better odds. Many Rs would first have to turn on Trump to support his removal. United they may stand, but divided they fall.

I stand by my statement. Even if Romney would be the candidate, the trump supporters wouldn’t care, IMO. They would just want revenge vs. the dems. Could probably nominate a turd sandwich. (South Park reference for those that don’t know)

[esl]

I stand by my statement. Even if Romney would be the candidate, the trump supporters wouldn’t care, IMO. They would just want revenge vs. the dems. Could probably nominate a turd sandwich. (South Park reference for those that don’t know)

Don’t forget that in order for Trump to be removed, almost 45% of the Senate republicans would have to vote to remove him. His supporters likely would not support a different republican. They would want to try to find a way to punish both parties.

[LegoBatman]

Don’t forget that in order for Trump to be removed, almost 45% of the Senate republicans would have to vote to remove him. His supporters likely would not support a different republican. They would want to try to find a way to punish both parties.

Was this all an elaborate scheme by the Libertarians and/or Green party to finally have a chance? Talk about 4d or 5d chess...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Was this all an elaborate scheme by the Libertarians and/or Green party to finally have a chance? Talk about 4d or 5d chess...

It would be interesting to see what a legitimate run by a Libertarian candidate might do to this race. In years past, I've felt it would doom democrats. This cycle, I'm not so certain. Probably depends a lot on the particular candidate I suppose.

[JasonEvans]

It would be interesting to see what a legitimate run by a Libertarian candidate might do to this race. In years past, I've felt it would doom democrats. This cycle, I'm not so certain. Probably depends a lot on the particular candidate I suppose.

Until we have ranked choice voting, 3rd party candidates will never get any real traction because many, many, many people think a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote.

[PackMan97]

Until we have ranked choice voting, 3rd party candidates will never get any real traction because many, many, many people think a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote.

I think a legit third party contender would need to be an independent. They'll need to be wealthy enough to do what Perot did in 1992 and just pay for 30 minutes of airtime so folks can get to know them. They'll need to be free of any political or personal baggage. We'll also need to have uninspiring candidates and lesser known candidates on the D and R side of things. Perot worked in '92 because few had heard of Clinton and GH Bush didn't seem to be campaigning hard for re-election. Once an independent candidate is seen as a legit contender, they can get the numbers they need, though it is a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

What a candidate does not need is to be affiliated with a minor party, that will doom them. See any Green/Libertarian that has ever run. They also need to not do anything stupid. See Perot's in/out/in/out dance that cost him support plus a horrid pick for VP (they rarely help, but they can certainly hurt). Gov. Johnson in 2016 also flubbed a few questions so badly they cost him what seemed to be a growing base of support inching toward 10%.

[dudog84]

Until we have ranked choice voting, 3rd party candidates will never get any real traction because many, many, many people think a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote.

I turned 18 a few months before the 1980 election, and my first Presidential vote was for John Anderson. And last vote for a 3rd party. I'm a quick learner.

[SouthernDukie]

Until we have ranked choice voting, 3rd party candidates will never get any real traction because many, many, many people think a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote.

Exactly. I have friends from South Africa who talked about their ability in years past to "spoil the ballot" and how that was counted - if I understood them correctly. I often wonder what 2016 would have looked like if that system were in place here. An option for "None of the Above" that was actually counted. Surely it would have been higher than ever last time around. It also would give voice to those that do NOT like the binary choice syndrome everyone drones on about now.

[PackMan97]

Exactly. I have friends from South Africa who talked about their ability in years past to "spoil the ballot" and how that was counted. I often wonder what 2016 would have looked like if that system were in place here. An option for "None of the Above" that was actually counted. Surely it would have been higher than ever last time around. It also would give voice to those that do NOT like the binary choice syndrome everyone drones on about now.

I would support a Contitutional Amendment that added "None of the Above" as an option, and if that choice wins the other candidates are permanently barred from running for federal office.

[Indoor66]

I would support a Contitutional Amendment that added "None of the Above" as an option, and if that choice wins the other candidates are permanently barred from running for federal office.

Sounds like a nihilist approach to me.

[OldPhiKap]

Sounds like a nihilist approach to me.

"Nice marmot."

[OldPhiKap]

Roger Stone found guilty on all seven counts.

Yet another close associate headed to the big house to the extent minds are not already set.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Roger Stone found guilty on all seven counts.

Yet another close associate headed to the big house to the extent minds are not already set.

If you lie down with dogs...

[OldPhiKap]

If you lie down with dogs...

Of note, five counts were lying to Congress; one of witness tampering; and one count was obstruction of Congress.

[dudog84]

Sounds like a nihilist approach to me.

"Nice marmot."

"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos."

[cspan37421]

Roger Stone found guilty on all seven counts.

Yet another close associate headed to the big house...

There's an old quip, I forget where it originated, but it goes "Say what you want about ____________, but his friends have convictions."