2020 Presidential Candidates

[LDAHL]

I think the media has convinced them they must embrace flat out goofiness in order to appease the Socialists, but I think that will only guarantee an ultimate loss in the General election.

I think it’s possible that the Democrats may venture beyond what is acceptable to mainstream America, even to the point of losing to Trump. Again. Especially if the economy fails to tank for them on cue.

[LDAHL]

The candidates names were drawn at random to see which night you would debate. It just so happened that warren ended up in a second rate group. I don’t think this country will vote for a woman or a gay guy unfortunately.

Our “systemically racist” country elected a black man twice. Our “systemically misogynistic” country would have elected a woman had she been better at concealing her contempt for large swathes of voters.

[Ultralight]

Our “systemically racist” country elected a black man twice. Our “systemically misogynistic” country would have elected a woman had she been better at concealing her contempt for large swathes of voters.

My dream ticket is still Kamala and Pete.

A big group of my coworkers and I talked about this yesterday. They said: "This country and the straight, white men who run it are just not ready for a woman of color or a gay man to president and vice president."

I pointed out: "I remember when they said similar stuff about Obama. And then he came back and whipped their asses twice."

The thing is, my coworkers were not saying that the country and white straight guys are not ready to elect a WOC and a gay man to convince me to vote for Biden. They were saying it as a near whole-sale condemnation of America and straight white dudes."

[jp1]

Our “systemically misogynistic” country would have elected a woman had she been better at concealing her contempt for large swathes of voters.

Or if we didn't use a "little states are more important than big states" method of selecting our president.

[Ultralight]

Or if we didn't use a "little states are more important than big states" method of selecting our president.

Suppose we had used the popular vote instead of the electoral college.

Suppose Hilary had been elected.

Would The Left then be like: "We arrived! We conquered straight, white, male privilege! From now on we judge people by the content of their character, not by their immutable characteristics!"

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think barring a recession or Miami drowning before the next election, it's actually TOUGH for ANYONE to beat Trump because it's ALWAYS tough to beat an incumbent. Maybe only elder Bush has not served 2 terms in the last 40 years. I know this is the most depressing thought imaginable, 4 more years of Trump. It is a horror. Almost the worst person imaginable (I'd take Jeb in a heartbeat at this point) is in office when we need real leadership. It's horrible, but incumbents often do have an advantage.

So it's an uphill fight regardless of the candidate. If Trump wins everyone will blame it on their candidate not being the chosen one (could be, but such counterfactual claims are usually unprovable - all leading candidates are polling well against Trump last I heard) or the candidates ALL being bad or something (as if bad didn't need a whole new definition after Trump). But it might just be incumbent advantage. So I'll play to win and not just not to lose, and vote for whoever I think has the best chance of making the significant changes we need.

[jp1]

Suppose we had used the popular vote instead of the electoral college.

Suppose Hilary had been elected.

Would The Left then be like: "We arrived! We conquered straight, white, male privilege! From now on we judge people by the content of their character, not by their immutable characteristics!"

Indeed not. But 2016 and the sad aftermath of trump's "presidency" has certainly put to rest the idea that all candidates are equally bad. Or that elections don't matter.

[jp1]

I think barring a recession or Miami drowning before the next election, it's actually TOUGH for ANYONE to beat Trump because it's ALWAYS tough to beat an incumbent. Maybe only elder Bush has not served 2 terms in the last 40 years. I know this is the most depressing thought imaginable, 4 more years of Trump. It is a horror. Almost the worst person imaginable (I'd take Jeb in a heartbeat at this point) is in office when we need real leadership. It's horrible, but incumbents often do have an advantage.

So it's an uphill fight regardless of the candidate. If Trump wins everyone will blame it on their candidate not being the chosen one (could be, but such counterfactual claims are usually unprovable - all leading candidates are polling well against Trump last I heard) or the candidates ALL being bad or something (as if bad didn't need a whole new definition after Trump). But it might just be incumbent advantage. So I'll play to win and not just not to lose, and vote for whoever I think has the best chance of making the significant changes we need.

Normally the incumbent does have a significant advantage. But trump is not a normal president. His approval rating has never even hit 50% and he's not doing anything even remotely to try and change that. It's difficult to imagine that anyone who didn't vote for him last time will vote for him this time. Not to mention that 4 years worth of his base from 2016 will be dead and 4 more years worth of young people will be eligible to vote by election day 2020.

[Yppej]

It's difficult to imagine that anyone who didn't vote for him last time will vote for him this time.

He has made several pro-Israel moves that may win some voters who care about such things over to him.

[LDAHL]

Suppose we had used the popular vote instead of the electoral college.

Suppose Hilary had been elected.

The Form 1040 would be longer and the Bill of Rights would be shorter.