The US 2020 Presidential Election & Attempts To Overturn It

[TopHatter]

Garland was blocked by McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP, not Trump. Similarly, it was the GOP Senate that filibustered for years, not Trump. The GOP-controlled House refused to take up the Senate's immigration bill, not Trump

And the point is still exactly the same. The Senate GOP doing those things was bad enough. Trump has cranked things up past 11 and broken off the knob.

Also, Obama pulled a crapton of end-runs around Congress because the elected Congress wouldn't give him what he wanted

The elected Congress made it clear that their Single Most Important Thing would be making Obama a one-term president, thus signaling loud and clear that they had no intention of negotiating with him.

I don't agree with what Obama did but given that kind of complete obstructionist attitude, what alternative did he have? Trump on the other hand, for his first 2 years....but more on that in a second...

It's why Trump has so easily stalled so much of it

,
And that's exactly why I was shaking my head and thinking "Enjoy it while it lasts Obama, because the next GOP president will simply undo all of that with the stroke of a pen"

whereas he couldn't just upend ACA since ACA is in law.

Odd that Trump couldn't manage that, or anything else of substance, given that he controlled both Houses for 2 years.

And Obama was the ideological moderate in comparison to the next generation of Democrats, who already started radicalizing long before Trump was in the picture. Whatever is in that cake was baked in long before Trump came down that escalator, though Trump may have added some orange extract and a couple of nuts.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Trump has gone so far beyond a little extract and nuts, it boggles the mind. The GOP had better hope that the Dems never, ever, get the Oval Office and both Chambers at the same time. Trump opened the floodgates and the Dems will have no problem using it against them.

[TopHatter]

Bloomberg will likely get Clinton'd in a dark alley, unless he chooses her as a running mate.

In which case, the inevitable will be pushed a few months into their term ;-)

*sigh* Conspiracy theories? Seriously? C'mon, get real.

[surfgun]

Air Force One arriving at Daytona.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFF6c8KPBAI

[ofelas]

Though meant in jest, it does appear inane, yes.

*sigh* Conspiracy theories? Seriously? C'mon, get real.

[ofelas]

Though I'm not a GM fan, I'll support Nemechek's ride, if only for the winning paint scheme.

Air Force One arriving at Daytona.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3tbBRJ5eE

[astralis]

Garland was blocked by McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP, not Trump. Similarly, it was the GOP Senate that filibustered for years, not Trump. The GOP-controlled House refused to take up the Senate's immigration bill, not Trump.

Also, Obama pulled a crapton of end-runs around Congress because the elected Congress wouldn't give him what he wanted, including the deal with Iran, trying to legalize millions of illegal immigrants, massive and expensive climate change reform, etc. It's why Trump has so easily stalled so much of it, whereas he couldn't just upend ACA since ACA is in law. And Obama was the ideological moderate in comparison to the next generation of Democrats, who already started radicalizing long before Trump was in the picture. Whatever is in that cake was baked in long before Trump came down that escalator, though Trump may have added some orange extract and a couple of nuts.

Obama bent over backwards and forwards for the GOP because he was soooo desperate in the beginning to live up to the "we're not red states and blue states, we're the United States" mantra.
he almost torpedo'd his own policies on account of it, and he was within a hair of internally melting down the Democratic Party from the inside with his whole Grand Bargain thing with Boehner. not to mention the ACA and the stimulus.

GOP scorched earth tactics basically showed the Dems that the GOP wasn't gonna negotiate worth a damn. Biden, the bloody moron, still thinks he can. or, more cynically, he knows he can't but he still says so out loud to show off his moderate chops.
add that with HRC's defeat and Trump basically doing his level best to personally and professionally piss off Democrats every chance he gets, and the whole Dem radicalization thing has sped up tenfold. the GOP -could- have chosen another route in 2009, one that could have led to less radicalization on BOTH sides, but they didn't.

i think it'll be just a matter of time and demographics, whether it's this election cycle or the next, when Dems take over, ram through the legislative filibuster, admit DC/Guam/Puerto Rico as states, and then add a few judges to the Supreme Court.
i don't think this is ideal for the Republic, but the partisan side of me will enjoy Mitch McConnell squirming in agony as he watches his own judge-packing legacy go down in flames.

[astralis]

GVChamp,

There's no way on God's Green Earth I'm voting for a Democrat, and there are tens of millions more exactly like me, which is the reason Trump is always going to get 40-45% of the vote.

He can get a few more % because the economy is good and there are no wars. The Democrats could take that, except their candidates are weak and it appears they might have a hard time uniting the party. At this point, it is highly likely the Democratic convention will either be contested, or Bernie will win it outright, both of which are going to piss off a lot of Democrats.

The only two candidates who should have a respectable chance at this point are Warren or Klobuchar. They are actual Democrats who have actual experience. Instead you have an ambitious, pretentious empty Ivy suit who only has experience running a college town, a lifelong America-hating socialist who IS NOT A DEMOCRAT and has a following more toxic than Trump's, and a multi-billionaire Republican WHO IS NOT A DEMOCRAT that might basically buy the nomination because Democratic primary voters hate all the other candidates even more.

These primaries have basically become a joke, but....I'm not going to lie, it makes for AWESOME television. The GOP primaries are better because they don't play with kids gloves, but even these Dem ones are getting good as the candidates get more desperate.

I think people underestimate Bernie's chances, but Bernie has not faced a national general election. Americans as a whole generally favor Capitalism over Socialism. Democrats as a whole now favor Socialism over Capitalism. So Democratic candidates cannot hammer Bernie on his socialism. But Trump can. And when I say Americans as a whole favor Capitalism over socialism, I mean socialism is one of the biggest liabilities in American politics.

i just wanted to mention here how much i no-kidding enjoy your commentary.

as you know i completely disagree with your political inclinations, but you are one of the few such posters where your arguments are sane, your analysis of the political opposition is sane, and you don't allow your political views to turn everything into conspiracy-laden vitriol.

[DOR]

Bloomberg will likely get Clinton'd in a dark alley, unless he chooses her as a running mate.

In which case, the inevitable will be pushed a few months into their term ;-)

Which Russian sources do you get your insights from?

[GVChamp]

GVChamp,



i just wanted to mention here how much i no-kidding enjoy your commentary.

as you know i completely disagree with your political inclinations, but you are one of the few such posters where your arguments are sane, your analysis of the political opposition is sane, and you don't allow your political views to turn everything into conspiracy-laden vitriol.

Ha, and likewise. The people in the real-world are...nuts. I'd describe more than half the Democrats I meet as conspiracy-addled socialists and more than half the Republicans I meet as conspiracy-addled racists. The private celebration of some over McCain's death was disgusting. Plus everyone still thinks it is a bad economy. It's not the 90s (yet) but this is a hell of a lot better than almost any other time!
Unfortunately, it's difficult to post as much, as I right-place-right-time'd at work and accidentally stumbled into being important, AND I had a baby at the same time. The last 8 months have been incredibly hectic. The only thing certain is the expansion of my waist-line.

Suffice to say my political inclinations must be off, because I was unsure Bernie would even run, and I thought Harris would be the likely nominee. I didn't think Trump was going to come out on top that 2016 GOP scrum, either. Not a great track record in predicting these races. HOWEVER, long-term trends are easier to see. That's not exactly comforting, because this is absurd, and neither side really has the class of politicians interested in re-building norms or agreeing on structural reform anymore, nor voter bases that are going to tolerate much else besides duking it out. That's not a Trump thing. The Trump thing is that he is watering down specifically anti-authoritarian norms and institutional guard-rails that can legitimately be concerning with more popular, more politically adept Presidents. Bloomberg can easily start buying some reluctant Senators just like he bought city officials, can dismiss investigations, and can pack the courts. God Only Knows what the next multi-billionaire will be able to get away with.

[astralis]

ironically, the troubling long-term trends you point out also demonstrate how much it is caused by short-term political imperatives. my own personal preference is Warren, but seeing how she's rapidly sinking, I'd go Bloomberg as second choice. the -sheer amount- of money he is bringing to the race is staggering; he literally needs to do -zero- fundraising, which has to be a new record in politics. everything that Trump bluffs about...Bloomberg can actually do.

i didn't realize the scale until i looked into the numbers myself. Sanders raised a very impressive $100 million last year, and $25 million in January alone. he's the most prolific fund-raiser in the whole Dem bunch.

except Bloomberg has said he's willing to spend $1 billion unseating Trump, and is open to spending considerably more than that if he had to. and he has, oh, another ...$61 billion...left after that.

well, if Bloomberg does win, one effect may very well be that the GOP re-looks their support for Citizens United. Kevin McCarthy mentioned earlier that it was hard for the GOP to compete in the House when Bloomberg can helicopter in $5 million...for starters...to any struggling Dem member.

and, Bloomberg has considerably more political experience than Trump has...even today. given what's coming down the pike, I think Trump did Bloomberg a real solid by expending so much energy on knocking on Biden.

[Firestorm]

firestorm,


the difference is that in 2016 Dems thought Trump was a clown and that HRC was gonna landslide the crap out of him.

now he's a sitting President with solid economic winds behind his back, and they've had 4 years of him actually -doing- stuff versus just saying it.

But that helps Trump as well. Some of the centrist voters who might have voted for Dems because Trump is a despicable person, might now be inclined to vote for him because of the solid economic winds. Trump's character flaws don't hit them as directly as the economy does.

no, other way around.

if the Dems win the Presidency but not the Senate, then they can push through personnel changes and a few judges. the threat of the government shutting down will mean the Dems will get SOME small-ball policies.

if Trump wins again but Dems take the Senate, then Trump can still do personnel and executive orders and push through some of HIS small-ball policies.

Supreme Court will likely be deadlocked unless one side wins both. right now the Dems are already talking about counter-acting the Merrick Garland fiasco by restructuring the Court; if RBG goes under a Dem President with a GOP Senate, and the GOP tries playing games again, then you won't see just talk the next time the Dems do win the Senate.

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. Winning the presidency might have more benefits than winning the Senate by itself for the Dems.

[Firestorm]

Michael Bloomberg will be an absolute disaster in the general election. Bigger than HC was. HC outspent Trump as well to no avail. All the money Bloomberg might spend won't get African American voters to vote for him. If HC had a problem getting out the black vote, Bloomberg will have a bigger one.

Plus, the Bernie bros will be absolutely livid if Bloomberg gets the nomination. Bloomberg is everything they hate - A multi-billionaire trying to buy the election on the back of his enormous personal wealth. They will stay at home (or protest on the streets against the evil capitalists).

The uber woke cancel-culturalists on the hard left are already crying about his sexist comments as well. There is simply no coalition he can build that can enable him to win against Trump.

Bernie has a similar problem (but reversed). The centrists who might be looking to switch might be put off by his loony socialist ideas - the same ones that the people on the left are looking for as absolutely necessary in any nominee.

If Pete Butigieg hadn't been gay he would have had the best chance of beating Trump I think. Alas, I believe that there are far too many people in the US who will still be reluctant to vote for a gay person, though I hope I'm wrong.

[astralis]

firestorm,

Michael Bloomberg will be an absolute disaster in the general election. Bigger than HC was. HC outspent Trump as well to no avail. All the money Bloomberg might spend won't get African American voters to vote for him. If HC had a problem getting out the black vote, Bloomberg will have a bigger one.

actually, Bloomberg is surprisingly popular with the black voting population. a good portion of Biden's recent decline in the polls have been from black voters defecting to Bloomberg.

this is under the very pragmatic rubric of "we don't have Obama on the ballot anymore, so the second best choice is having OUR rich old white guy beat THEIR rich old white guy."

for historical context, HRC actually did just fine with the black vote-- she was on par with John Kerry's support, for instance, at ~88%. it is a bit unrealistic to expect a future Dem candidate to replicate Obama numbers given the whole "first serious Black presidential nominee" thing that by definition can only be done once.

Plus, the Bernie bros will be absolutely livid if Bloomberg gets the nomination. Bloomberg is everything they hate - A multi-billionaire trying to buy the election on the back of his enormous personal wealth. They will stay at home (or protest on the streets against the evil capitalists).

that is true, but on the other hand i'm frankly convinced that the Bernie Bros are going to be livid if ANYONE other than their Bernie God gets the nom.

they hate Biden for being the supposed DNC puppet, they hate Warren for dissing their God (even though she's closest to Bernie in policy proposals, that hasn't stopped them from calling her a "snake" and using Trump propaganda on her), they deride Buttigieg as "Mayo Pete" the corporatist stooge...the only one I haven't heard them actively dump on is Klobuchar, on account that she's been a nobody up until very recently.

problem with Dems is that they've never been a truly disciplined political party; the whole "Democrats have to fall in love while Republicans fall in line" syndrome. with a gifted political leader like Obama, they can activate both their broad coalition AND deep support to win crushing victories; absent that leader, though, the very broadness of their base precludes fervent support (or vice versa, as Bernie shows).

[Firestorm]

firestorm,
actually, Bloomberg is surprisingly popular with the black voting population. a good portion of Biden's recent decline in the polls have been from black voters defecting to Bloomberg.

this is under the very pragmatic rubric of "we don't have Obama on the ballot anymore, so the second best choice is having OUR rich old white guy beat THEIR rich old white guy."

That is interesting. Maybe the news about African American's being angry at him because of stop-and-frisk might be overblown. Although I'm surprised they are going to him instead of Bernie. Bernie may not be rich but he is clearly popular, supports policies which might help them and has support of younger African Americans as well (and does not have Bloomberg's history). Would seem like a more natural choice.

for historical context, HRC actually did just fine with the black vote-- she was on par with John Kerry's support, for instance, at ~88%. it is a bit unrealistic to expect a future Dem candidate to replicate Obama numbers given the whole "first serious Black presidential nominee" thing that by definition can only be done once.

There is a lesson in there somewhere for dems. About Identity politics and its limitations.

that is true, but on the other hand i'm frankly convinced that the Bernie Bros are going to be livid if ANYONE other than their Bernie God gets the nom.

they hate Biden for being the supposed DNC puppet, they hate Warren for dissing their God (even though she's closest to Bernie in policy proposals, that hasn't stopped them from calling her a "snake" and using Trump propaganda on her), they deride Buttigieg as "Mayo Pete" the corporatist stooge...the only one I haven't heard them actively dump on is Klobuchar, on account that she's been a nobody up until very recently.

I agree but Bloomberg just fits everything that they absolutely hate. He will make more of them stay at home than any other candidate. And the Dems cannot win unless nearly all of Bernie's base turns up to vote.

Best case scenario for Dems I think is if Klobuchar suddenly surges on Super Tuesday and becomes a top performer. But that is unlikely. She isn't exactly the type of person who gets people charged up and excited.

[astralis]

firestorm,

Bernie may not be rich but he is clearly popular, supports policies which might help them and has support of younger African Americans as well (and does not have Bloomberg's history). Would seem like a more natural choice.

right, the younger black voters trend Bernie but the older ones trend Bloomberg.

There is a lesson in there somewhere for dems. About Identity politics and its limitations.

it's not that identity politics itself is the core problem to Democrat electability. it's merely a reflection of how the respective GOP and Dem patterns of power are structured.

Dem political power largely derives from urban areas and minorities. GOP political power largely derives from rural areas and whites. Trump, if anything, -leans in- on identity politics because the core GOP economic libertarian platform is very unpopular. he gets more bang out of the buck because GOP political power is more diffuse...and the US political system rewards that, because the Founders were largely rural aristocrats!

I agree but Bloomberg just fits everything that they absolutely hate. He will make more of them stay at home than any other candidate. And the Dems cannot win unless nearly all of Bernie's base turns up to vote.

Best case scenario for Dems I think is if Klobuchar suddenly surges on Super Tuesday and becomes a top performer. But that is unlikely. She isn't exactly the type of person who gets people charged up and excited.

that's what kills me about the Bernie folks, you'd think the whole Corbyn thing would be a prime lesson to them. some people just want to find out stuff the hard way.