2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Awesome pic! I initially misread your comment and thought that was Reggie Love in the picture and I was thinking he has really aged (no offense to whoever that is but I'm guessing he is over 38).

Hah. I did the same thing. If that was Reggie, he wouldn't be much value as Obama's workout buddy anymore. Fun picture though!

[Indoor66]

The problem is that "centrist" is a very broad term.

...that has NO meaning.

[dudog84]

I still say this could be a potentially dooming misstep for Trump in Texas. Taking private land for his border wall.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...S4O?li=BBnb7Kz

[CameronBornAndBred]

With Harris out of the race, Corey Booker has seen his fundraising surge. There's an irony there, since Harris dropped out due to lack of funds.
It appears, though, that with Booker making the lack of diversity in the race an issue, others are getting behind him. The problem is they are only getting behind him monetarily, and not in the polls, so he's very likely to not be on the stage for the next debate.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/polit...rge/index.html

[Jeffrey]

I still say this could be a potentially dooming misstep for Trump in Texas. Taking private land for his border wall.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...S4O?li=BBnb7Kz

Disagree on your “dooming misstep” theory. Texas, and even the wall construction, is a much more complicated situation than you may believe.

https://apple.news/AQWiJR1PcToSjxp6w6qKI6w

[dudog84]

Disagree on your “dooming misstep” theory. Texas, and even the wall construction, is a much more complicated situation than you may believe.

https://apple.news/AQWiJR1PcToSjxp6w6qKI6w

I typed "dooming misstep" because I originally typed "fatal..." and realized that is a poor choice of words when discussing a president. Sorry it didn't pass grammatical muster.

[Jeffrey]

I typed "dooming misstep" because I originally typed "fatal..." and realized that is a poor choice of words when discussing a president. Sorry it didn't pass grammatical muster.

The grammar doesn’t matter to me.

IMO, few Texans care, like you seem to believe, about the borderlands. Most of the border is very different than other parts of Texas. Getting over most of the river is easy, but getting past the interior checkpoints (50-75 miles into Texas) is much, much harder!

[dudog84]

The grammar doesn’t matter to me.

IMO, few Texans care, like you seem to believe, about the borderlands. Most of the border is very different than other parts of Texas. Getting over most of the river is easy, but getting past the interior checkpoints (50-75 miles into Texas) is much, much harder!

It's not about the borderlands. It's about taking private property. Americans are sensitive about the government doing that, and I don't think it's a stretch to say Texans are especially so.

The federal government is swooping in with lawyers and threats. Maybe you've never been to Texas, but I wouldn't want to be the official delivering those notices.

[Indoor66]

It's not about the borderlands. It's about taking private property. Americans are sensitive about the government doing that, and I don't think it's a stretch to say Texans are especially so.

The federal government is swooping in with lawyers and threats. Maybe you've never been to Texas, but I wouldn't want to be the official delivering those notices.

Eminent Domain has been around forever.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Eminent Domain has been around forever.

...and is rarely popular.

[Jeffrey]

Sorry, it’s a very complicated matter and I was quickly addressing many different points.

My point about the private organization doing it is there’s substantial pressure on Trump to honor his commitment to build a wall. There will never be a continual wall all the way from El Paso to Brownsville.

Different point understood by few Americans... the true wall is the interior checkpoints.

My point about Texan concern about the borderlands is there would be much, much more opposition (maybe even enough to actually move the vote in Texas) about the Federal Government taking substantial interior land than borderland. The current matter will not change which way Texas goes.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Sorry, it’s a very complicated matter and I was quickly addressing many different points.

My point about the private organization doing it is there’s substantial pressure on Trump to honor his commitment to build a wall. There will never be a continual wall all the way from El Paso to Brownsville.

Different point understood by few Americans... the true wall is the interior checkpoints.

My point about Texan concern about the borderlands is there would be much, much more opposition (maybe even enough to actually move the vote in Texas) about the Federal Government taking substantial interior land than borderland. The current matter will not change which way Texas goes.

I suspect this is vastly different than the understanding of most Americans on both sides of the aisle. And different than the picture Trump ran on in his campaign.

Regardless, I still say eminent domain is a quick way to make people question your policies.

[luvdahops]

...that has NO meaning.

Couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of Americans who are not fixed to a particular ideology, and prefer to look at issues and, to a lesser extent, candidates, one at a time. That doesn't mean that they don't identify with (and vote for) one party more often than not, but they are not locked in to voting a straight party line or reflexively for the candidate of a particular party in every election.

[Jeffrey]

I suspect this is vastly different than the understanding of most Americans on both sides of the aisle.

Unfortunately, that’s frequently true on many matters. IMO, our media isn’t helping the situation.

[IrishDevil]

Couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of Americans who are not fixed to a particular ideology, and prefer to look at issues and, to a lesser extent, candidates, one at a time. That doesn't mean that they don't identify with (and vote for) one party more often than not, but they are not locked in to voting a straight party line or reflexively for the candidate of a particular party in every election.

True, but I think you've just described independents, not centrists. I think the point was that term "centrist" is a moving target somewhere in the middle of an ill- or undefined continuum, and is therefore susceptible to so many interpretations depending on broader political landscape, party mechanics, and personal political beliefs as to lack a useful meaning. There is probably some overlap between centrists and independents, but the two groups are not co-extensive, as it seems likely that there could be independents at various points along the continuum, not just in the center.

[JasonEvans]

Some really good news for Trump in a series of battleground polls today. An organization known as Firehouse Strategies (gets a C/D rating by 538, so not super reliable but still, these numbers are worth reporting) gives the President a solid lead against all the Democrats in the key states of Michigan, Penn, and Wisconsin.







It is tough to jive these numbers with national polls that seem to show the President pretty far underwater on approval, but it seems to reinforce a narrative that while the coasts are angry at the president, the middle of the country seems to be supporting him.

-Jason "if these numbers hold up in the General, the Dems only chance would be to win Florida and Arizona or hoping for a miracle in some other state like NC or Ga or Tx" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

It is tough to jive these numbers with national polls that seem to show the President pretty far underwater on approval, but it seems to reinforce a narrative that while the coasts are angry at the president, the middle of the country seems to be supporting him.

-Jason "if these numbers hold up in the General, the election likely comes down to who can win Florida" Evans

Yup. It doesn't matter (for Presidential electoral purposes) if 75% of people in New York and California want Trump impeached or want him to lose. Which is why I go back to my main thesis -- the Democrats need to start talking about why folks should vote for them, not why folks shouldn't like Trump, if they want to win. Every day spent talking about Trump is exactly what Trump wants.

Impeachment may have been a necessity given Trump's flipping off of Congress, but the sooner it is behind the Democrats the better I think. Flip side, once this goes over to the Senate, the Dems lose control of the narrative and the Republicans get to go on the counteroffensive during the heart of primary season kick-off.

TL;DR -- Nancy was right when she resisted impeachment, but events overtook her.

[JasonEvans]

Yup. It doesn't matter (for Presidential electoral purposes) if 75% of people in New York and California want Trump impeached or want him to lose. Which is why I go back to my main thesis -- the Democrats need to start talking about why folks should vote for them, not why folks shouldn't like Trump, if they want to win. Every day spent talking about Trump is exactly what Trump wants.

Impeachment may have been a necessity given Trump's flipping off of Congress, but the sooner it is behind the Democrats the better I think. Flip side, once this goes over to the Senate, the Dems lose control of the narrative and the Republicans get to go on the counteroffensive during the heart of primary season kick-off.

TL;DR -- Nancy was right when she resisted impeachment, but events overtook her.

It is a looong time from Jan/Feb to November. I suspect the impeachment trial will be long done before Democrats even have a good idea who their nominee will be. There will be tons of time in the summer and fall to move to other issues that matter to the American people.

[OldPhiKap]

It is a looong time from Jan/Feb to November. I suspect the impeachment trial will be long done before Democrats even have a good idea who their nominee will be. There will be tons of time in the summer and fall to move to other issues that matter to the American people.

Yup. And for the Dems, the quicker the better IMO.

Note that funding for the government runs out in about eleven days. If there are no bills out of the House to fund the government by then, Reps will scream that the Dems are focused on impeachment instead of running the government. Worse still, if the House sends over Articles of Impeachment before the Senate takes up funding, the Senate by law (IIRC) must "lay aside all other business" and have an impeachment trial -- meaning theoretically that funding runs out because the impeachment action sent over by House Dems will legally prevent the passing of the funding bills in the Senate. At least, that's the spin from that side of the table.

Add to that: it is likely that the Articles of Impeachment will not get unanimous Democratic House support, and will not get any Republican support (except now-independent Amash). So it looks like a partisan ploy that will jam up the government for some period of time when it goes over to the Senate.

Again, TL;DR -- I think this is the high water mark for Dems on impeachment. The Reps get to take the offensive as soon as it goes over to the Senate and the Dems lose control over the narrative.

[Jeffrey]

I think this is the high water mark for Dems on impeachment. The Reps get to take the offensive as soon as it goes over to the Senate and the Dems lose control over the narrative.

As usual, I agree. I suspect the Rs will quickly flip this to their perceived need for a Biden investigation.

IMO, the better play is to save that move until when/if Biden wins the nomination. Biden isn't great at controlling his emotions, when Hunter is attacked, and there's no need to give him an extended time to learn emotional control. Trump is very capable of hitting a Biden nerve.