Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Name recognition at this stage of the election doesn't mean squat as far as how it's all going to end up.  In 2016, Bernie was a relative nobody at this point and he would have won the nomination if the Dems wouldn't have already promised the nomination to Clinton and would have actually ran an honest primary.

 

On the other side, nobody was taking Trump seriously at this point.  He was the goofy reality TV star that wasn't taken serious.  There were probably 10 other candidates on the R side with more name recognition in politics.  How did that turn out?

 

I don't have the disdain for Bernie like most conservatives do.  However, I honestly can not see him getting the nomination with who else I see getting into the race.  In fact, It's quite possible that the only reason why Bernie was so close in 2016 is the same reason why Trump ended up winning the general election.  He was running against the most pathetic candidate the Dems could have hitched their wagon to.

You could be right, but Bernie is the most popular politician in America right now for a reason. And the establishment media attacks against him won't be as effective this time IMO since he's not a newcomer.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

I too caught Gillibrand on Colbert and while her opening line came off as somewhat rehearsed, I thought displayed good passion and energy which would contrast well with Trump's lazy old man persona.

 

Gabbard seems alright, but she came from an ultra-conservative family (her dad proudly championed a fiercely anti-LGBT state bill in Hawaii) and I'm pretty uncomfortable with her coziness with Assad in Syria. She flew out there on his dime and then came back and offered up pro-Assad viewpoints. We'll have to see.

 

Both of them originally held much more conservative views (or represented much more conservative districts) before becoming progressives. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, just something to keep in mind.

 

Bernie also benefited from being the only other option in a two-person race with Clinton. Not sure how he'll do in a packed field of candidates.

 

I'd take Klobuchar in a second (folksy Midwestern woman with broad political appeal as a centrist seems like a winner), but not sure she wants to run. Maybe VP?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You could be right, but Bernie is the most popular politician in America right now for a reason. And the establishment media attacks against him won't be as effective this time IMO since he's not a newcomer.

I think the GOP would do the same thing to Bernie, that they did to Hillary. They picked a few things to smear her and repeated them feverishly until they became "True". Centrist voters ,republican lite, swing  etc voters bought the Benghazi, Emails, Crooked Hillary hype and recoiled from her. I think they would brand Bernie as a crazy old socialist who wants to give everyone free stuff , and those same voters would do the same thing. Without appealing to swing voters,  i'm not sure any candidate can, win the electoral college and  beat Trump   

53 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

I too caught Gillibrand on Colbert and while her opening line came off as somewhat rehearsed, I thought displayed good passion and energy which would contrast well with Trump's lazy old man persona.

 

Gabbard seems alright, but she came from an ultra-conservative family (her dad proudly championed a fiercely anti-LGBT state bill in Hawaii) and I'm pretty uncomfortable with her coziness with Assad in Syria. She flew out there on his dime and then came back and offered up pro-Assad viewpoints. We'll have to see.

 

Both of them originally held much more conservative views (or represented much more conservative districts) before becoming progressives. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, just something to keep in mind.

 

Bernie also benefited from being the only other option in a two-person race with Clinton. Not sure how he'll do in a packed field of candidates.

 

I'd take Klobuchar in a second (folksy Midwestern woman with broad political appeal as a centrist seems like a winner), but not sure she wants to run. Maybe VP?

Great info thanks .

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Big Red 40 said:

I think the GOP would do the same thing to Bernie, that they did to Hillary. They picked a few things to smear her and repeated them feverishly until they became "True". Centrist voters ,republican lite, swing  etc voters bought the Benghazi, Emails, Crooked Hillary hype and recoiled from her. I think they would brand Bernie as a crazy old socialist who wants to give everyone free stuff , and those same voters would do the same thing. Without appealing to swing voters,  i'm not sure any candidate can, win the electoral college and  beat Trump

I think the standard political talking point of appealing to swing voters implies a centrist or moderate stance that may not actually match how the swing voters are made up. Hillary discovered her center/moderate stance didn't appeal but that could also be because she's just not a good politician. Also, getting out the vote (typically the base of your party) has always been a winning strategy for Democrats, so the best candidate is going to be one that energizes the voters IMO, and we've seen Bernie is good at that.

 

The GOP is going to smear any candidate, so that's a terrible reason for picking or not picking a nominee. One advantage Bernie has is that he's leaned into the "socialist" label instead of running from it like Dems have done in the past, so it's not nearly as effective. The GOP called Obama a socialist and will do the same to any Dem candidate, which is losing it's effectiveness because they're basically the-boy-who-cried-wolf at this point. I think what you'll see instead is the Dem establishment smear Bernie as a sexist, but it's really hard for the GOP to use that as an attack.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Hillary discovered her center/moderate stance didn't appeal but that could also be because she's just not a good politician.

 

Let's be clear about something.  Hillary has been an extremely good politician.  I don't want her as President.  But, she's a very good politician.  That's how she and Billy have been able to stay in politics for so long and reach the levels they have.

 

The issue with her is that she is a worn out politician.  The public is sick and tired of her and it's easy to attack her with the mass amounts of baggage she carries along.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The GOP is going to smear any candidate, so that's a terrible reason for picking or not picking a nominee. One advantage Bernie has is that he's leaned into the "socialist" label instead of running from it like Dems have done in the past, so it's not nearly as effective. The GOP called Obama a socialist and will do the same to any Dem candidate, which is losing it's effectiveness because they're basically the-boy-who-cried-wolf at this point. I think what you'll see instead is the Dem establishment smear Bernie as a sexist, but it's really hard for the GOP to use that as an attack. 

 

Definitely. They're going to run whomever the Dems nominate through the right-wing smear machine. The best practice is probably just for the Dems to ignore whatever attacks they use until they have a nominee selected who can then pick and choose which attacks to counter and when to go on the offensive.

 

There's absolutely no way the Republican Party can credibly make accusations of sexism at this point. They're hemorrhaging women for a reason.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Definitely. They're going to run whomever the Dems nominate through the right-wing smear machine. The best practice is probably just for the Dems to ignore whatever attacks they use until they have a nominee selected who can then pick and choose which attacks to counter and when to go on the offensive.

 

There's absolutely no way the Republican Party can credibly make accusations of sexism at this point. They're hemorrhaging women for a reason.

 

Yep, it's not like they have Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton still hanging around.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Let's be clear about something.  Hillary has been an extremely good politician.  I don't want her as President.  But, she's a very good politician.  That's how she and Billy have been able to stay in politics for so long and reach the levels they have.

 

The issue with her is that she is a worn out politician.  The public is sick and tired of her and it's easy to attack her with the mass amounts of baggage she carries along.

You could be right, but I think Bill Clinton was a good politician (not a good person and I disagree with his policies but good at getting votes) and Hillary not so much. A big part of her problem is that she's just not likable in the way Obama and Bill Clinton are/were. She may have even been good at governing, so maybe I really mean she isn't a good campaigner.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I think the standard political talking point of appealing to swing voters implies a centrist or moderate stance that may not actually match how the swing voters are made up. Hillary discovered her center/moderate stance didn't appeal but that could also be because she's just not a good politician. Also, getting out the vote (typically the base of your party) has always been a winning strategy for Democrats, so the best candidate is going to be one that energizes the voters IMO, and we've seen Bernie is good at that.

 

The GOP is going to smear any candidate, so that's a terrible reason for picking or not picking a nominee. One advantage Bernie has is that he's leaned into the "socialist" label instead of running from it like Dems have done in the past, so it's not nearly as effective. The GOP called Obama a socialist and will do the same to any Dem candidate, which is losing it's effectiveness because they're basically the-boy-who-cried-wolf at this point. I think what you'll see instead is the Dem establishment smear Bernie as a sexist, but it's really hard for the GOP to use that as an attack.

People had all kinds of terrible reasons for voting for Trump but they did it anyway. From what i've seen average Joe voter is very uninformed on policies, and facts about who a candidate really is, and very easily manipulated into believing what they are told. They were told repeatedly that Hillary was a liar and without any research into whether that was true or not they believed is wholeheartedly. They also been told socialism is bad and reacted the same way. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Big Red 40 said:

People had all kinds of terrible reasons for voting for Trump but they did it anyway. From what i've seen average Joe voter is very uninformed on policies, and facts about who a candidate really is, and very easily manipulated into believing what they are told. They were told repeatedly that Hillary was a liar and without any research into whether that was true or not they believed is wholeheartedly. They also been told socialism is bad and reacted the same way. 

Remember that it's not effective unless it convinces someone who might have voted for Bernie, so throwing meat to their base might help Fox News ratings but won't matter for the election. The Hillary attacks partly worked because she's so evasive and isn't transparent at all. She also did monumentally stupid stuff like hosting her own email server and then having a changing story about it and giving speeches to Wall Street and refusing to release the transcript of those speeches. As for Bernie, it remains to be seen if the socialism attack will work or not - I think it's a worn out attack with minimal impact on voting.

Link to comment

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...