2020 Presidential Election

[elvis14]

Yup. And if I was a Dem, I would not be so quick to assume that his testimony will be all roses.

I am having trouble understanding the end game here. There is zero possibility of Trump being removed by the Senate. The whole impeachment thing to date has barely moved the needle, and there is no reason to think that further testimony is going to move the needle any more. I think the Dems have gotten all the mileage out of this that they ever are going to and they are at the point of diminishing returns. Further embarrassing Trump through a prolonged impeachment proceeding does not win any new voters and maybe turns off some who are tired of both parties just playing politics instead of actually governing.

Stop flailing the dead horse, go show why your platform and candidates are worth following. Let the Senate kill the impeachment, and then go argue that "the only way to remove Trump and his enablers* is at the ballot box."

$0.02



*Stated from their rhetorical position; not a statement of any personal political view.

This seems to make the assumption that the only reason the Dems are impeaching is to get votes. Could there be more at play than simply garnering votes before we even know who the Dems candidate will be?

[OldPhiKap]

This seems to make the assumption that the only reason the Dems are impeaching is to get votes. Could there be more at play than simply garnering votes before we even know who the Dems candidate will be?

If not that, though, what is the end game? He won't be removed. I don't think it helps get votes. Folks are talking about the impeachment instead of the Dem candidates and their ideas. I don't think that just keeping this in limbo helps politically at all.

What tangible benefit do the Dems see?

But again, I am coming from the view that the Dems have hit the point of diminishing returns and the polls seem to reflect that as well. I am also of the view that the Dems make a serious mistake if they continue to focus on Trump, instead of focusing on why their policies and candidates should garner votes. I of course could be wrong in all of that.

[Acymetric]

I think you're misreading Trump's base, I don't think Bernie can peel off any Trump voters. Not saying Biden can either. This election will come down to the middle.

I don't know what it looks like today because Trump's presidency has further hardened already pretty set lines. However, in 2016 something like 1 in 10 Sanders backers ended up voting Trump. I think the general observation was that Trump and Sanders (while obviously not aligned on a LOT of policy issues) deploy some pretty similar rhetoric and arguments in many cases. They share some fairly protectionist views, for example. Most politicians use some sort "fix the system so it works for the common man/woman" rhetoric but Trump and Sanders both take this to extreme, really tapping into an awful lot of deeply held grievances about the state of the world (whether or not those grievances are justified or not is obviously not for this thread).

I'll expand on this and point out that not everyone who did or would in the future vote for Trump is part of his "base". There is certainly a core group that is solidly and probably unchangeably in Trump's corner, but I don't think it could be anything greater than 25-30% of those who voted for him. Maybe less.

[Troublemaker]

Interesting take, I would be curious to know your thinking on it. (I sort of think Trump beats both although Biden has the better shot).

Well, I'm trying to *persuade* pie bets, not *dissuade* them. Already got a couple of suckers to bite -- see down below ;-) (I also would love to give cato a chance at revenge, since I got a pie off of him during the 2018 midterms).

Hopefully those who are long-time readers of mine know that I can put together a persuasive case for whatever I'm backing, especially when it comes to gambling. And I'll promise this -- once the election is done and I have won my many, many pies off of many, many posters in this thread, I will do a full writeup about how the conventional wisdom could be so wrong.

I'll take that pie bet, but you have to arrange for two elections to prove you are right.

Bernie wins, I will take that bet...

[dudog84]

I'll expand on this and point out that not everyone who did or would in the future vote for Trump is part of his "base". There is certainly a core group that is solidly and probably unchangeably in Trump's corner, but I don't think it could be anything greater than 25-30% of those who voted for him. Maybe less.

Clarification please. Don't you mean 25-30% of the population? I don't think he loses 70% of those who voted for him.

[Acymetric]

Clarification please. Don't you mean 25-30% of the population? I don't think he loses 70% of those who voted for him.

Yeah, sorry that wasn't very clear. I meant 25-30% of the population (or, 25-30% of voters, if you prefer). Upon further reflection that's still probably too low though.

He got 46.1% of the popular vote in 2016. I would say of that 46.1%, 30-35 is a flat lock for him but the other 11-16 is on a spectrum ranging from "almost certain to vote for him but could be plied away" to "could fairly easily be convinced to vote for the right opposing candidate".

[JasonEvans]

Yeah, sorry that wasn't very clear. I meant 25-30% of the population (or, 25-30% of voters, if you prefer). Upon further reflection that's still probably too low though.

He got 46.1% of the popular vote in 2016. I would say of that 46.1%, 30-35 is a flat lock for him but the other 11-16 is on a spectrum ranging from "almost certain to vote for him but could be plied away" to "could fairly easily be convinced to vote for the right opposing candidate".

It is worth noting that there is also a small segment of the population who claim to be folks who did not vote for Trump in 2016 but who now like him. Also, there are many electoral analysts who think that Trump has fundamental electoral college advantages that could allow him to win the election even while losing the popular vote by 4 or 5 points (he lost by 2.1 percentage points in 2016).

[OldPhiKap]

It is worth noting that there is also a small segment of the population who claim to be folks who did not vote for Trump in 2016 but who now like him. Also, there are many electoral analysts who think that Trump has fundamental electoral college advantages that could allow him to win the election even while losing the popular vote by 4 or 5 points (he lost by 2.1 percentage points in 2016).

As well as some percentage who do not really like Trump, but would vote for him over [given opponent]. Or, who don't like Trump but like their 401(k) statements.

Both candidates were historically disliked in 2016; just because you don't like Trump doesn't mean that you don't find him to be the better alternative all things considered.

[Highlander]

If not that, though, what is the end game? He won't be removed. I don't think it helps get votes. Folks are talking about the impeachment instead of the Dem candidates and their ideas. I don't think that just keeping this in limbo helps politically at all.

What tangible benefit do the Dems see?

But again, I am coming from the view that the Dems have hit the point of diminishing returns and the polls seem to reflect that as well. I am also of the view that the Dems make a serious mistake if they continue to focus on Trump, instead of focusing on why their policies and candidates should garner votes. I of course could be wrong in all of that.

Best argument I have seen for why to impeach with no expectation of removal is on principle. Dems were elected by large margins in 2018 to be a check against Trump, and in response to his first two years in office. By failing to investigate him and (if the evidence warrants it) impeach, they are failing in that regard, and their public disapprovals amounts to nothing more than grandstanding.

Second, during the first two years of Trump's presidency, Republicans could "show concern" about Trump's actions, but were spared having to make most difficult votes to explicitly support or reject his policies. Impeachment changes that. By Dems taking a stand, they force all Republicans to vote on the record for Trump's conduct. If R's refuse to hear witnesses, Dems will use it as an argument why they should hold the Senate because the Republican party is incapable of objectivity with Trump.

I think one possible reason for holding out the articles of impeachment now is the State of the Union address in early February. If a Senate trial is complete by the SOTU, Trump will use the opportunity to take a victory lap and gloat. If it's still underway or hasn't started, he's liable to be in a rotten mood because he can't do that. And Trump in a bad mood usually leads to sound bytes for the Dems. Nothing Dems would like better than for Trump to shoot himself in the foot on national television.

As for talking about the Dem candidates and their plans for America, I see your point. Most Dems are not that engaged on their candidates at the moment. Election is still 9 months away. Maybe it's fatigue considering there have been a dozen candidates campaigning for a year already with no real separation, or maybe they aren't all that different or inspiring. I honestly don't know. For me (as a Dem), it's time consuming to compare and contrast so many different candidates and their many different proposal minutiae, and it's just not a priority for me. Plus I think it's largely irrelevant to many when Trump is the alternative.

[dudog84]

As for talking about the Dem candidates and their plans for America, I see your point. Most Dems are not that engaged on their candidates at the moment. Election is still 9 months away. Maybe it's fatigue considering there have been a dozen candidates campaigning for a year already with no real separation, or maybe they aren't all that different or inspiring. I honestly don't know. For me (as a Dem), it's time consuming to compare and contrast so many different candidates and their many different proposal minutiae, and it's just not a priority for me. Plus I think it's largely irrelevant to many when Trump is the alternative.

Prepare for more fatigue, the election is 10 months away.

Being from NC, you have to make a decision in 8 weeks. Prepare to be inundated.

[Devilwin]

Can you say, "Come on, November!"

[Tripping William]

Can you say, "Come on, November!"

I’m already tired of 2020, and we are only 7 days (and apparently a dozen missiles) in.

[OldPhiKap]

We’re about to find out how baked in the cake Trump’s support/opposition is or not.

[Indoor66]

We’re about to find out how baked in the cake Trump’s support/opposition is or not.

Baked in needs to join chedder and sizzle in the graveyard of phrases. It is overused.

[OldPhiKap]

Baked in needs to join chedder and sizzle in the graveyard of phrases. It is overused.

Even for an #influencer like me?

[bundabergdevil]

Baked in needs to join chedder and sizzle in the graveyard of phrases. It is overused.

This post would do well in the words phrases you like/don’t like thread, too.


Cheddar as in money? Sizzle as in...? Not sure I know what your referring to with that one.

[budwom]

what the heck is "chedder?"

[cato]

what the heck is "chedder?"

It’s got sizzle.

[CameronBornAndBred]

what the heck is "chedder?"

It’s got sizzle.

Lunch was the wrong time to catch up on this thread. Now I'm starving for a grilled cheese sammich.

[OldPhiKap]

Lunch was the wrong time to catch up on this thread. Now I'm starving for a grilled cheese sammich.

You could probably top it off with a well-baked cake.