POLITICS - HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION

[SnakeTom]

With all this discussion to impeach or not to impeach (my view: The Dems should just concentrate on voting Trump out of office rather than an impeachment battle which they will not win), my question is would the GOP have a better chance of winning the 2020 election if their candidate is Trump or if they nominate another Republican candidate.

In my opinion with Trump as their candidate the GOP loses and quite possibly by a large margin because of all the moderates & independents that can not stand him personally. And yes personality is just as much a factor as issues are. On the other hand the Dem 10 candidates have shown that none of them are particularly strong. All have flaws. If Trump is out of the picture I think a candidate such as Nikki Haley could easily win this election if she could get the nomination.

Your thoughts ?

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Tom, it matters who he is running against and the state of the economy. If the economy is still humming and Warren is the candidate, I think that plays heavily to Trumps favor. The election is going to come down to the same six or seven states. Warren is pretty unlikable as well and policies are not going to play well in those states.

And FWIW, I do like Haley and think she would be a terrific choice as the first female President.

 

[Merge]

Given the hypothetical of someone else as the GOP nominee, I’m not sure a better candidate would want to jump into this dumpster fire.

Haley would be a good (maybe the best currently) choice if it comes to that though.

 

[donnie_baseball]

With all this discussion to impeach or not to impeach (my view: The Dems should just concentrate on voting Trump out of office rather than an impeachment battle which they will not win), my question is would the GOP have a better chance of winning the 2020 election if their candidate is Trump or if they nominate another Republican candidate.

In my opinion with Trump as their candidate the GOP loses and quite possibly by a large margin because of all the moderates & independents that can not stand him personally. And yes personality is just as much a factor as issues are. On the other hand the Dem 10 candidates have shown that none of them are particularly strong. All have flaws. If Trump is out of the picture I think a candidate such as Nikki Haley could easily win this election if she could get the nomination.

Your thoughts ?

Tom K

SnakeTom, you are a Democrat in the mold of all my family up to the current generation - reasonable, honest, and not a blind loyalist. I agree with you, but was surprised that Trump won the last time (I voted write-in, but in NJ, figured it wouldn't matter anyway), so if he somehow won again, with the help of the Democrats' ineptitude in producing a viable candidate, I wouldn't be shocked. HRC ignored the Midwest, was condescending to many of the undecideds, and held Cecille Richard's hand onstage at the DNC. She torpedoed herself (with an assist to Bill).

If I were in a swing state, I would have to go with whomever the Democratic candidate running against Trump is. I have Trump fatigue at this point -- I can't imagine another 4 years of him running the country, and the accompanying daily screed. He has already cost us moderates -- whether left or right of center -- much. Both parties are now in the hands of the far left/right wing nuts, and that's bad for everyone. Being a moderate conservative, I am pleased that the SCOTUS has been reshaped, but there's not another thing to like about this Presidency.

That said, the cast of characters vying for the Democratic nomination are not great -- though most are more likeable than HRC. Sanders now has health issues, and seems like his best chance was in 2016. Warren needs to back off her anti-corporation stance, and not align herself with PP like Clinton made the mistake of doing (at least not in such an overt manner). Joe Biden has some serious issues, and the rest of the crew have no chance, thank God.

I have no idea what Republicans are going to throw their hat into the ring, but I'm not sure the party has enough faith that they can win again without Trump. It really would be in their best interest to produce a different candidate, for the sake of the party, even if it means losing in 2020. Probably not going to happen.

 

[SnakeTom]

Something I rarely have said but I agree with Donnie's post very much. Regardless if you are a Dem or GOP Trump is bad for our nation. and quite honestly Hillary lost the last election much more than Trump winning it. To start off people did not like her and if that;s the case people find an excuse to not vote for that person.

Then thinking that she could not lose she totally ignored the rust belt states that usually vote DEM. I do not think that will happen again. For one thing HRC will not be the Dem candidate. While I'm not very impressed with the Dem candidates I think people are fed up with Trump & will vote for whichever Dem emerges. I do think the GOP would be in a much better position running someone other than Trump. I think a candidate such as Haley, Romney, Kaysich (sp) or Rubio could win the general election if they could get by the primaries. The problem is that in primaries both party's have been taken over by the extremes.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Tom, donnie,

Good points and in agreement with most of it. No doubt, there are a lot of people fed up with Trump, but there are also demographics that quite frankly approve of him because of his accomplishments/actions that weren’t necessarily in his camp in the last election. I work in a market that is about 30% Hispanic (Puerto Rican/Dominican), blue-collar. 80% of our workforce is Hispanic Looking out into our parking lot, I can count a dozen Trump/Pence bumper stickers that were not there in 2016....and the election is still over a year away. He raised $125 million last quarter. That money has to be coming from multiple places.

As I said earlier, it really comes down to the Democratic candidate, their vision and likability. And how they end up polling in those swing states.

Let’s face it. HRC it’s not only unlikable, but she may have ran the dumbest campaign I have ever seen. Her platform was based on “Not Trump” and she didn’t campaign in the states that she had to win. Then she decided to insult half the electorate. And just this week she is still in denial about her responsibility in losing. Unlikable, no sense of self-awareness and stupid. Not good qualities for a president.

To be honest, I am more fed up with the way Congress has behaved in the last 10 years then I am about Trump, Hillary or Obama. If Congress was doing their job, we wouldn’t be where we are.

Don’t know if I have the energy or patience to tolerate a Trump v. Warren debates, campaign, etc. May have to go on an extended 2020 summer vacation.

 

[Merge]

Regardless if you are a Dem or GOP Trump is bad for our nation.

Obviously I agree with that very much and am hopeful that more people start to come around to that idea after the latest example of why he is so bad.

I don't disagree about the Dems 2020 field. It is not very impressive but partly because I think Harris and Biden have performed horribly to date. I expected they would both make a much stronger case than they have been able to which makes the field look a lot weaker in my opinion.

That opened things up for Warren who has been performing very well so far but now has a target on her back as a(the?) front runner.

 

[SnakeTom]

Elizabeth Warren is a polarizing figure but not to the same extent that Trump is. Whether you agree with her positions or not she is an extremely bright person and probably the smartest of the contenders in either party. Of course intelligence alone does not make one a great leader.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Elizabeth Warren is a polarizing figure but not to the same extent that Trump is. Whether you agree with her positions or not she is an extremely bright person and probably the smartest of the contenders in either party. Of course intelligence alone does not make one a great leader.

Tom K

She is certainly not in the Hillary unlikable category, but be honest, she is a very tough listen. Not as polarizing as Trump, but who is??? But it only really matters to voters in PA, OH, FL, NC, etc.

Warren certainly has done better than the other candidates on defining her policy positions as well and I give her credit for being the loan voice that supported putting the HSBC executives in jail when they were found guilty of money laundering drug-money. It's criminal and disgusting what Holder and Obama let them get away with.

 

[shu09]

I've given Trump every chance even though I did not vote for him, but I'm starting to come around to the side that he just has to go.

I am honestly surprised that he did not make an attempt to move to the middle. I figured with his huge ego and need to be loved that he would work to do everything in his power to make more people like him in order to increase his poll numbers, especially because he isn't a traditional Republican. He has done the opposite. I was wrong.

 

[SPK145]

The issues with the Ukraine and now China are very problematic for Trump and a clear abuse of power, even if it is exposing Biden's clear abuse of power. There is an new allegation I learned about earlier in the week and in the Washington Post this AM about Trump possibly interfering with the IRS auditing his and Pence's income tax returns since taking office. This would also be a clear abuse of power.

Some thoughts:

- Would the republicant Senate really find him guilty? McConnell has his back at every turn.

- For some unknown reason, those going through the impeachment process gain in popularity.

I've always preached character and integrity in presidential candidates here, usually to no avail. Now we've got clear abusers of power in Trump, Biden, Warren, and Sanders. None should ever be president.

What do we do now?

 

[Merge]

The issues with the Ukraine and now China are very problematic for Trump and a clear abuse of power, even if it is exposing Biden's clear abuse of power.

Can you explain Biden's clear abuse of power?
On this issue it appears that Biden's position on the prosecutor had bipartisan support among politicians as well as international support.

Would the republicant Senate really find him guilty? McConnell has his back at every turn.

I don't expect they will unless public support for Trump drops below 30% or so.

For some unknown reason, those going through the impeachment process gain in popularity.

True with Clinton, but not true with Nixon. His approval rating never went above where it was when the senate began their hearings.

Now we've got clear abusers of power in Trump, Biden, Warren, and Sanders. None should ever be president.

What do we do now?

I think you hope for Trump to be removed from office and someone else is at the top of the republican ticket.

Short of that, I will be voting for any democrat running over Trump and hope for the best.

 

[Section112]

Agree 100% with SPK. I wish it would happen faster than slower so maybe a better candidate can emerge. And Tom may be right with Nikki Haley. She would certainly get my vote if she ran.

Biden clearly abused his power with his son on multiple trips. Sometimes you have to open your eyes and use common sense. It's clear on this one. And this is coming from someone who would vote for Biden at this point out of all of the candidates. The Senate and Congress have allowed the last 5 or 6 Presidents and VPs to gain way too much power. Part of their job is to balance the power and be more active and I know this sounds crazy but to work together to make sure there is in fact a balance of power even if it's with your own party. It's clear that Biden abused his power in setting up his unqualified son - why was he on these trips anyway? Gotta open your eyes sometimes and forget what you read and use your common sense.

And this is no different than Repubs not policing their President Trump and VP Pence either. It's a sad state of affairs and has gotten worse with each President IMO. Trump has to go. He picked a fight with the intelligence folks at both the FBI and CIA, did expose some bad stuff but he chose the wrong folks to pick on this time and there will be more bad stuff released no doubt.

 

[Merge]

It's clear that Biden abused his power in setting up his unqualified son

I really don't think that is clear at this point.
You can make the claim with any kids of politicians who become successful.

Hunter was appointed to the BOD of Amtrak in George Bush.
He worked as a lobbyist and founded a few investment firms. It's not like he did nothing and then was appointed to a board. He was clearly picked because he has influence but I don't think that it points to his father doing something inappropriate.

 

[Section112]

His investment firm experience was very limited. It doesn't strike you funny that VP Joe Biden was the point person for two countries Ukraine and China and lo and behold his son did huge business with those two countries with multiple huge cash transfers from both organizations tied very closely to their governments and multiple Swiss bank account transactions. He accompanied his VP Dad on those trips, introduced his Dad to his business contacts in both countries and one met Joe at the WH and somehow Joe said Hunter never spoke about the deals to his Dad and he knew nothing about it? Impossible Joe lied. And Hunter's experience in the investment industry was very little but two countries businesses gave him huge money and one paid him $83k per month to sit on their board after the US VP met with them? Common you are much smarter than this...

 

[Merge]

His investment firm experience was very limited.

I'm not saying that he was 100% qualified, but it wouldn't strike me as odd that someone would want to hire a VP's kid. Many board decisions are based on getting access to something. Hunter definitely benefited because of his name. No question about that, but what would Joe Biden have to gain here?

Is Joe Biden, really the kind of guy who would trade policy just to make his kid wealthy?

 

[donnie_baseball]

I'm not saying that he was 100% qualified, but it wouldn't strike me as odd that someone would want to hire a VP's kid. Many board decisions are based on getting access to something. Hunter definitely benefited because of his name. No question about that, but what would Joe Biden have to gain here?

Is Joe Biden, really the kind of guy who would trade policy just to make his kid wealthy?

You sound like a Biden shill. To answer your last question: probably.

 

[Section112]

You sound like a Biden shill. To answer your last question: probably.

It's what politician's do all the time. They use their power to make their family members rich and when they get out they share in the riches. Look up Harry Reid's family for example.

 

[Merge]

You sound like a Biden shill. To answer your last question: probably.

he’s not at the top of my list in the dem field. I’d be happy to see him drop out honestly. I just don’t think it makes sense he would risk that much for a kid with a Yale law degree and someone who Bush appointed to the board at Amtrak. It’s not like he wouldn’t have been able to find work elsewhere.

I’m sure Hunter was pitching he had access, how Joe handled that is another matter. I could be wrong but would be pretty surprised if Joe sold out his policy so his son could make a few bucks.

 

[Merge]

It's what politician's do all the time. They use their power to make their family members rich and when they get out they share in the riches. Look up Harry Reid's family for example.

Hiring someone who has access to people is not a problem. That does happen all the time.

If Joe Biden (or any other politician) let that relationship guide US foreign policy that that is a huge problem. Just not sure we have seen any evidence that Joe acted inappropriately.

 

[SnakeTom]

Trump is very good at accusing people of things when he has little or no evidence to back it up. Remember during his primary campaign when he accusingly suggested that Ted Cruz father was involved in the JFK assassination. You really can not give much credence to most anything he says.

Tom K

 

[sami]

The most reasonable political post I've read in a long time. It's pretty clear the system, if not broken, is pretty strained. The biggest question is can either party or, god forbid, both parties working together actually fix it?

Someone stated it earlier that Congress has failed us by not providing the proper checks and balances for many terms, not just this one. So true.

 

[SPK145]

Someone stated it earlier that Congress has failed us by not providing the proper checks and balances for many terms, not just this one. So true.

It's also the people (or as I like to call them, the sheeple) for not holding their congressmen/women accountable either.

 

[Merge]

It's also the people (or as I like to call them, the sheeple) for not holding their congressmen/women accountable either.

The problem is that we tend to focus on a narrow scope referendum with our votes each cycle. 2010 anti-Obamacare and 2018 anti-Trump as examples.

Not sure if it has always been like that, but having people who would be supportive or against the agenda that the president is pushing does factor into how many people vote and I don't think we have figured out how to hold our representatives accountable because of that unfortunately. Not to mention if a politician isn't fully on board with the party platform, they will get a primary opponent. The system is fairly broken and I think we need leadership at the top to find a way for politicians to find ways to work together.

When all is said and done, hopefully Trump's greatest contribution will be the collective recognition that the current political trajectory is untenable.

 

[Pirata]

It's also the people (or as I like to call them, the sheeple) for not holding their congressmen/women accountable either.

This is just one survey. I was surprised the number was as high as 37%

Anecdotally, I find the lower the person's income, education, job status, the higher the likelihood they don't have a clue.

Key Findings

• Less than half of Americans can name their Representative, yet 65% believe their Representative is overpaid.
• Just two-thirds of Americans who voted last November believe they had the opportunity to elect a U.S. Representative when they voted. Males are significantly more likely than females to believe they had this opportunity.
• Self-described conservatives are more likely than liberals or moderates to know their Representative’s name and/or party affiliation.
• Twenty-three percent of Americans who voted for a Representative last November cannot name their current Representative. Self-described liberals are more likely than conservatives or moderates to have voted “blind” in this manner.
• Self-described moderates are less likely than conservatives or liberals to have contacted their Representative.

The findings in this report are based on an April 2017 survey of 575 American citizens conducted by Haven Insights, a Washington DC-based survey market research firm.

Other similar surveys point inthe same direction.


In Fusion’s “Massive Millennial Poll”:

The number is even lower among younger millennials. Of those ages 18 to 24, only 18 percent knew the name of their senator.

Only 16 percent of Latinos and 10 percent of African-Americans were able to correctly identify one senator from his or her home state.

Fusion’s poll was taken between Jan. 6 and Jan. 11 among 1,000 people ages 18-34 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

 

[HALL85]

This is just one survey. I was surprised the number was as high as 37%

Anecdotally, I find the lower the person's income, education, job status, the higher the likelihood they have a clue.

Key Findings

• Less than half of Americans can name their Representative, yet 65% believe their Representative is overpaid.
• Just two-thirds of Americans who voted last November believe they had the opportunity to elect a U.S. Representative when they voted. Males are significantly more likely than females to believe they had this opportunity.
• Self-described conservatives are more likely than liberals or moderates to know their Representative’s name and/or party affiliation.
• Twenty-three percent of Americans who voted for a Representative last November cannot name their current Representative. Self-described liberals are more likely than conservatives or moderates to have voted “blind” in this manner.
• Self-described moderates are less likely than conservatives or liberals to have contacted their Representative.

The findings in this report are based on an April 2017 survey of 575 American citizens conducted by Haven Insights, a Washington DC-based survey market research firm.

Other similar surveys point inthe same direction.


In Fusion’s “Massive Millennial Poll”:

The number is even lower among younger millennials. Of those ages 18 to 24, only 18 percent knew the name of their senator.

Only 16 percent of Latinos and 10 percent of African-Americans were able to correctly identify one senator from his or her home state.

Fusion’s poll was taken between Jan. 6 and Jan. 11 among 1,000 people ages 18-34 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

That’s frightening!

 

[donnie_baseball]

When all is said and done, hopefully Trump's greatest contribution will be the collective recognition that the current political trajectory is untenable.

I certainly share your hope, but I fear that Trump's polarization and empowerment of the fringes -- for and against him -- will push any semi-centrist candidates/elected leaders further to the extremes.

 

[SPK145]

When all is said and done, hopefully Trump's greatest contribution will be the collective recognition that the current political trajectory is untenable.

The current political trajectory was untenable.long before Trump. Anybody that doesn't get that is probably an idiot.

 

[HALL85]

The current political trajectory was untenable.long before Trump. Anybody that doesn't get that is probably an idiot.

Personally, I think four things have gotten us to where we are today, all of which are inter-related.
1-The decline of the MSM news-For anyone over the age of 60, the news was never a profit center for the networks and there was integrity (and content) in print news. Cable TV and the internet has changed all that and ratings and speed are now driving the content and our behaviors. Ratings are best when you pit one side against another.
2-Social media-Essentially bringing out the worst in society. Ready, fire, aim...whoever shouts the loudest gets attention. Feeds off the MSM.
3-Congress/Politicians-They are not doing there job and the public does not hold them accountable. Very little meaningful legislation gets passed at the state or federal level. I could elect a monkey to vote partisan lines.
4-Money-It always drove the bus, but Citizens United made it worse. Congress spends half their time fund raising and the other half wasting time.

Trump didn't create this, but he used them all to his advantage, which is equally sad.

 

[Merge]

Personally, I think four things have gotten us to where we are today, all of which are inter-related.
1-The decline of the MSM news-For anyone over the age of 60, the news was never a profit center for the networks and there was integrity (and content) in print news. Cable TV and the internet has changed all that and ratings and speed are now driving the content and our behaviors. Ratings are best when you pit one side against another.
2-Social media-Essentially bringing out the worst in society. Ready, fire, aim...whoever shouts the loudest gets attention. Feeds off the MSM.
3-Congress/Politicians-They are not doing there job and the public does not hold them accountable. Very little meaningful legislation gets passed at the state or federal level. I could elect a monkey to vote partisan lines.
4-Money-It always drove the bus, but Citizens United made it worse. Congress spends half their time fund raising and the other half wasting time.

Trump didn't create this, but he used them all to his advantage, which is equally sad.

Exactly. I don't think Trump created the current environment. I think the environment created Trump... Being an optimist, my hope is that once we move on from Trump, politicians work towards improving the environment to prevent the next Trump (right or left version of him) from happening.

 

[HALL85]

Exactly. I don't think Trump created the current environment. I think the environment created Trump... Being an optimist, my hope is that once we move on from Trump, politicians work towards improving the environment to prevent the next Trump (right or left version of him) from happening.

I don’t see that happening because none of those four causes will change.

 

[Merge]

I don’t see that happening because none of those four causes will change.

Your doubts are perfectly reasonable but I remain optimistic we will see some post Trump improvements with social media and among politicians.

 

[HALL85]

Your doubts are perfectly reasonable but I remain optimistic we will see some post Trump improvements with social media and among politicians.

I hope for the best too, but see no evidence to support a change for the better..

 

[Pirata]

Being an optimist, my hope is that once we move on from Trump, politicians work towards improving the environment to prevent the next Trump (right or left version of him) from happening.

It won't happen unless we have term limits and eliminate big money lobbying.

I never understood why we limit the president to two terms yet we allow congressional reps and senators to go on indefinitely.

 

[shu09]

Personally, I think four things have gotten us to where we are today, all of which are inter-related.
1-The decline of the MSM news-For anyone over the age of 60, the news was never a profit center for the networks and there was integrity (and content) in print news. Cable TV and the internet has changed all that and ratings and speed are now driving the content and our behaviors. Ratings are best when you pit one side against another.
2-Social media-Essentially bringing out the worst in society. Ready, fire, aim...whoever shouts the loudest gets attention. Feeds off the MSM.
3-Congress/Politicians-They are not doing there job and the public does not hold them accountable. Very little meaningful legislation gets passed at the state or federal level. I could elect a monkey to vote partisan lines.
4-Money-It always drove the bus, but Citizens United made it worse. Congress spends half their time fund raising and the other half wasting time.

Trump didn't create this, but he used them all to his advantage, which is equally sad.

Can't like this post enough. Spot on.

 

[HALL85]

https://www.axios.com/focus-group-o...ent-00008092-fc50-4c09-aa0d-073d26ddbb2c.html

Interesting feedback from the focus group in Ohio.

 

[Pirata]

Going forward, i believe we can expect:

Fox and WSJ will support him and the rest will be on the attack.

We will see many polls, most of which will be skewed against him.

The House will move slowly but will eventually impeach him. I am split on whether they have enough votes to convict due to the swing districts not wanting to go on the record.

If it does get through the House, it will go nowhere in the Senate.

It down not matter whether the phone call was or was not a crime. The Pols will vote based on politics.

The other freight train coming down the track is Barr and how much and how fast he moves on Comey, Clinton, Biden, etc. If that gathers steam there could be a collision that Gomez Adams would be proud of.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, AOC introduces "A Just Society" legislation to fight economic inequality and climate change.

On a much happier note, the Jets prevailed over Dallas. In true Jet's fashion, they made it as interesting as possible.

 

[shu09]

The House will move slowly but will eventually impeach him. I am split on whether they have enough votes to convict due to the swing districts not wanting to go on the record.

If it does get through the House, it will go nowhere in the Senate.

The House simply votes to whether or not to impeach, which means to bring charges. The Senate conducts the trial. The House has nothing to do with conviction.

 

[Merge]

https://www.axios.com/focus-group-o...ent-00008092-fc50-4c09-aa0d-073d26ddbb2c.html

Interesting feedback from the focus group in Ohio.

I think most democrats realize the politics of moving forward with impeachment is not great. They are currently making the case to the American people why they are heading down that path. 18% of that focus group doubted Trump said what he admitted he said... so right now we are in a public awareness phase.

I would rather congress focus on what matters as well, but that doesn't mean that congress can or should ignore corruption by the president. They have to play the hand they are dealt.

 

[HALL85]

I think most democrats realize the politics of moving forward with impeachment is not great. They are currently making the case to the American people why they are heading down that path. 18% of that focus group doubted Trump said what he admitted he said... so right now we are in a public awareness phase.

I would rather congress focus on what matters as well, but that doesn't mean that congress can or should ignore corruption by the president. They have to play the hand they are dealt.

No reason Congress can't do both. The impression (and reality) is that they are consumed with the investigation. I have the good (or bad) fortune to have had direct conversations with members of Congress and stuff they said to expect to happen (lay-ups) isn't even close.