2020 Presidential Election

[sagegrouse]

As I understand it there are essentially three things that happened. If I'm wrong can someone correct/summarize for me?

1. Russia trolled the interwebs and made comments to make each side not like each other, but in general more in favor of Trump?

2. Russia hacked the DNC email server and made public emails that exposed all the things the DNC had been doing to help Clinton and hurt Sanders?

3. Some Trump campaign folks tried to meet with Russians to get the dirty dirt on Clinton and in general came up empty handed?

Is there more to it than my understanding of the story?

You mean, aside from such things as -- JASON EVANS DOES NOT WANT ME TO POST THE DELETED COMMENT.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I think for purposes of this thread, the question is: what do the Democrats do now?

I think that if you are a candidate, you do nothing. Your focus over the next year is not Donald Trump, it is those that are standing in your way on your march towards the nomination. My guess is that by the time that happens, this investigation will likely be a highlight point, but not the focus. The economy, foreign policy, and immigration will be front and center, along with a smattering of "he's not Presidential".
Americans will have had 3 years and a few months to make up their mind about DT's character; hounding on Mueller's findings won't change opinions.

I think if you are not a candidate, but are a Democrat with sway (congressperson/DNC rep/big donor) you do the same. The faster you can move on to shaping a platform to unify the party and to attract undecided voters, the better off you are.

I have a feeling the former group will move on faster than the latter group, though.

[bundabergdevil]

I'll reiterate my prediction that we're at the beginning of the third quarter. The Mueller report is a political gift for the Dems (and to a lesser extent, Trump, for the same reasons). It clearly puts the investigative ball in Congress' court and leaves unanswered questions of intent that Democrats can and should --- for political purposes --- seek to answer in public theater (er, hearings). My strategy: the DNC and Congressional dems should lean hard into this while the candidates mostly stay above the fray and focus on a vision for the country.

Winning an election has as much to do with money, defining your opponent (going negative/creating a villain), and organizing power as it does about positive messaging and appealing to moderates. For the former, keeping the Mueller topics in the public offers political value in terms of fundraising, rallying the base, impeding and distracting from Trump's agenda, and adding touch points to reinforce Democrats' narrative about Trump... Republicans have spent 40-years painting a picture of Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy, reinforced by conservative media and Republican congressional investigative hearings. There is decent evidence that without investing in things like the Benghazi hearings, Trump doesn't squeak out an electoral college victory in 2016. Point is --- drumbeats are effective for certain constituencies you need to win elections.

So, the best move for the DNC and congressional Democrats is start the hearings and update their messaging. The more hearings, the more bad stuff is in the news, the more likely bad stuff is to come out or someone commits a gaffe, the more opportunities to send fundraising emails, the more Trump stays off message. The more hearings, the more time and resources Trump and his officials have to invest in that and NOT in advancing their agenda. Those are all good things for the Dems in 2020.

That's why I'd do, anyway.

[CameronBornAndBred]

One has to remember that the White House isn't the only election. The Dems could risk looking like their only mandate is a vendetta against Trump, and I don't think that's the best path to maintain control of the House and pick up any seats in the Senate.
I have no doubt that they are going to take this road, however. I just don't think it's the smartest decision.

[OldPhiKap]

Biden to announce Wednesday, per the Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...sident/587560/

[Nick]

One has to remember that the White House isn't the only election. The Dems could risk looking like their only mandate is a vendetta against Trump, and I don't think that's the best path to maintain control of the House and pick up any seats in the Senate.
I have no doubt that they are going to take this road, however. I just don't think it's the smartest decision.

The 1998 elections are worth remembering--there was the Starr report and a slim Republican majority making life difficult for Clinton, yet the Republicans actually lost seats which iirc was the first time that had happened in a while for the non-presidential party.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The 1998 elections are worth remembering--there was the Starr report and a slim Republican majority making life difficult for Clinton, yet the Republicans actually lost seats which iirc was the first time that had happened in a while for the non-presidential party.

Folks talked about that on NPR this morning, how Clinton's impeachment actually bolstered support for him. Democrats would be wise to sharpen their memories of those days.

Also, remember, '98 was before the days of the internet and social media. The rallying cry can be at least twofold nowadays.

[OldPhiKap]

Elizabeth Warren tweeting that the House should initiate impeachment proceedings.

Have others taken positions yet? It would be interesting to see who is where. (While I think impeachment is a bad tactic for the general election, if I was running in the primary I guess I would lean towards saying this. Especially since it is unlikely to happen, so demanding impeachment is almost a freebie if you are a Dem running for president).

[dudog84]

Romney preparing for a primary challenge? He rips into the administration, this is pretty strong stuff:

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

[OldPhiKap]

Romney preparing for a primary challenge? He rips into the administration, this is pretty strong stuff:

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

I think Romney is content to fire shots from a safe seat in the Senate. He can act the elder statesman and give voice to what the Republican Party used to profess as its faith.

I don't see a big name stepping up to primary Trump. And not betting that William Weld will go very far absent some bombshell or economic collapse between now and the beginning of next March.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Elizabeth Warren tweeting that the House should initiate impeachment proceedings.

Have others taken positions yet? It would be interesting to see who is where. (While I think impeachment is a bad tactic for the general election, if I was running in the primary I guess I would lean towards saying this. Especially since it is unlikely to happen, so demanding impeachment is almost a freebie if you are a Dem running for president).

So much for my theory that the candidates will steer clear of impeachment talk..she's doubling down on it. I just don't think is a smart strategy, especially not for the primary. Focus on your current opponents, not the future one.

[OldPhiKap]

So much for my theory that the candidates will steer clear of impeachment talk..she's doubling down on it. I just don't think is a smart strategy, especially not for the primary. Focus on your current opponents, not the future one.

Agreed. But Warren is stuck in neutral, so . . . .

[mattman91]

Romney preparing for a primary challenge? He rips into the administration, this is pretty strong stuff:

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

Political suicide.

[sagegrouse]

So much for my theory that the candidates will steer clear of impeachment talk..she's doubling down on it. I just don't think is a smart strategy, especially not for the primary. Focus on your current opponents, not the future one.

Well, there are 20+ candidates. It may well make sense for one of the 20 to stand out from the crowd on a position that will be popular with many Dems.

[PackMan97]

Political suicide.

Romney is pretty safe in Utah, a state that is definitely not a fan of Trump.

That said, does Romney have any prominent committee placements? Too lazy to luck myself.

[sagegrouse]

Romney is pretty safe in Utah, a state that is definitely not a fan of Trump.

That said, does Romney have any prominent committee placements? Too lazy to luck myself.

From the Deseret News, January 4:

... the Utah Republican received his assignments:
Foreign Relations;
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions;
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

[OldPhiKap]

I think many Senate Republicans agree with Mitt, but don’t have the stones to say so.

[cato]

I think many Senate Republicans agree with Mitt, but don’t have the stones to say so.

Don’t have the political dynasty to say so.

[mattman91]

Romney is pretty safe in Utah, a state that is definitely not a fan of Trump.

That said, does Romney have any prominent committee placements? Too lazy to luck myself.

Sure, if he has no aspirations of running for POTUS again.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Sure, if he has no aspirations of running for POTUS again.

Romney is a lifer. His seat is his for as long as he wants it. And, he's not way old, so the White House is not out of his reach yet.
Mitt has appeal, and I could well see him being the guy that runs against the guy (or gal) than follows Trump. Hell, if Trump goes for 8, Mitt will be running to read his desk note. Bank on that.