The Next President is...

[nsplayr]

17 hours ago, Blue said:

On the Left, I think they don't have a chance in hell of winning the general election.  It's incredibly hard to unseat an incumbent president, and I have to think it's going to be next to impossible considering the current crop of clowns on the debate stage.

As for Trump, I guess he could be called "unconventional," but I don't think he's entirely as unique as the news media would have you believe.  By all accounts, Lyndon Johnson was a boorish, loudmouthed asshole who you wouldn't want running your local grocery store, much less your country.  However, we didn't have the internet, cable news, and digital cameras in every pocket, so no one was the wiser.

I dunno, just perspective from flyover country, I guess.

I mean, we all have our own political views, but I'm not sure your analysis here is sound.

Democrats have won 4/5 national popular votes and every one since GWB won it in 2004. President Trump relied on a razor's edge strategy to barely win three key states and thus win the electoral college in 2016, and GWB's original victory in 2000 was decided at the Supreme Court. We're also somewhat overdue for an incumbent to lose a re-election bid, having had 3x two-term Presidents in a row (Clinton, GWB, Obama). The leading Dem candidates are all traditionally well-qualified (former VP, 2x Senators) and have net-positive personal approval ratings (i.e. unlike both Hillary and Trump in 2016).

That being said, the Republicans have a great chance at winning too! President Trump is an incumbent and that has is a meaningful advantage. The country is fairly closely divided and Trump could plausibly repeat his previous narrow path to victory. The economy is doing fairly well in broad strokes, which is good for an incumbent President.

Almost all indicators point to the 2020 election being close, and every recent election since the turn of the millenium has been close except 2008. Anyone who says the Dems (or Trump) don't have an ice cube's chance in hell are either lying to you, misinformed, or not putting forward an honest analysis IMHO.

Finally, very interesting that you choose LBJ as a parallel to Trump since he made the stunning decision to not run for reelection 🧐

[brickhistory]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean, we all have our own political views, but I'm not sure your analysis here is sound.

Democrats have won 4/5 national popular votes and every one since GWB won it in 2004. President Trump relied on a razor's edge strategy to barely win three key states and thus win the electoral college in 2016, and GWB's original victory in 2000 was decided at the Supreme Court. We're also somewhat overdue for an incumbent to lose a re-election bid, having had 3x two-term Presidents in a row (Clinton, GWB, Obama). The leading Dem candidates are all traditionally well-qualified (former VP, 2x Senators) and have net-positive personal approval ratings (i.e. unlike both Hillary and Trump in 2016).

That being said, the Republicans have a great chance at winning too! President Trump is an incumbent and that has is a meaningful advantage. The country is fairly closely divided and Trump could plausibly repeat his previous narrow path to victory. The economy is doing fairly well in broad strokes, which is good for an incumbent President.

Almost all indicators point to the 2020 election being close, and every recent election since the turn of the millenium has been close except 2008. Anyone who says the Dems (or Trump) don't have an ice cube's chance in hell are either lying to you, misinformed, or not putting forward an honest analysis IMHO.

Finally, very interesting that you choose LBJ as a parallel to Trump since he made the stunning decision to not run for reelection 🧐

Popular vote vs. Constitution...0 for 243 years, so a meaningless statistic.

Betting the undead Hillary jumps in again to "save" the country from the far-left that is everybody but Biden (and Gabbard who is being ignored).  Only she can "save" us from them and from Trump.  And this time, it really is her turn...

As LBJ was President by default when he ran for "his" first term in 1964, not sure I'll agree with your characterization.  He also realized, like former Senator Flake did, that he had absolutely no chance of winning and didn't want to be embarrassed.  Go out on his terms versus being humiliated.

Trump by 300+ electoral votes this time especially following any sort of actual impeachment attempt.  The great unwashed masses don't like being told, repeatedly, that they are stupid/racist/etc, etc, etc by their "betters" especially if the attempted coup fails.  Better make sure you kill the king if you try as the saying goes (not an incitement to violence, but a paraphrasing of an old canard.).

[mcbush]

4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Betting the undead Hillary jumps in again to "save" the country from the far-left that is everybody but Biden (and Gabbard who is being ignored).  Only she can "save" us from them and from Trump.  And this time, it really is her turn...

-break break-

Trump by 300+ electoral votes this time especially following any sort of actual impeachment attempt.  

If you're actually being serious and not just talking out your ass, I'll take both those bets at any price.

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, mcbush said:

If you're actually being serious and not just talking out your ass, I'll take both those bets at any price.

@brickhistory same here.

[brickhistory]

9 hours ago, mcbush said:

If you're actually being serious and not just talking out your ass, I'll take both those bets at any price.

Regarding Hildebeast, semi-serious.  Wouldn't be surprised if Biden continues to sink and/or drops out, then Hillary will think she's has another shot at being the "moderate" in a room full of crazies.  But no bet.  I absolutely didn't think she'd be the Democrat's nominee last time either.  So her uncanny ability to not accept political death is scary.  And sad.

 

Regarding Trump, I'll accept your challenge (yours only).  How about a gentlemen's bet of $5 (I assume the being right part is more important for you than the actual stakes) that:

1. If the House votes to impeach and sends articles of impeachment to the Senate and

2. The Senate conducts a trial and

3. Trump is not convicted and removed from office and

4. Trump runs again, then

5. Any electoral victory with a total starting with a "3" satisfies the condition of the bet and I win. Any electoral result for Trump starting with a "2" or less then you win.

No impeachment, no trial, a conviction, he declines to run again, then the wager is moot.

[mcbush]

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

How about a gentlemen's bet of $5....

Ah, so here's the rub. What was originally "Trump by 300+ electoral votes" is now "if the House votes to impeach and send articles of impeachment to the Senate and if the Senate conducts a trial and if Trump is not convicted and removed from office and if Trump runs again, then Trump will win not by 300+ electoral votes but by garnering at least a 300-238 margin of victory." For what it's worth, when I say Seahawks by 4, I mean that I expect them to win by a margin of at least 4 points, not that I think they'll win by a score of 4-2.

To move on from being a sarcastic dick for a second, I also don't think I buy the argument that impeachment strengthens Trump's re-election chances. The way I see it, the Republican base will turn out for the man 100%, and I just don't think there are many moderates or independents who will be moved off the fence by this, especially since I think we're underselling the potential for additional damaging info to spill out over the course of the investigation. On the other hand, there's already so much damaging info out there that I don't think there's much else that can push people toward the Democratic party either. Bottom line at the bottom: with very few exceptions, people are set in their ways, they already know who they're going to vote for, and there's not much that can change their mind at this point.

[dream big]

4 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

The great gamble is whether the moderate Democrats can gather behind Biden/Warren. Several swing states are showing Democrats losing registrations, with independents (and some republicans) gaining ground. NC is hemorrhaging registered D's in several areas, and seeing a lot of first time voters, just as an example. Large portion of those are Eastern NC blue collar Democrats who saw the textiles vaporize after NAFTA. You tell me who they're registering to vote for...

If it's Biden, Trump wins in a "biggly" way.
If it's Warren, Trump wins, but not so "biggly."
If it's Gabbard? It'll be a good fight and he'll lose by a large (historically) margin.
If it's Buttigegggg, Trump wins. 

The ultimate irony is that Tulsi would wipe Trump off the map, but the Democrats are too preoccupied with Socialistic posturing and nonsense to notice it. She's been my dark horse in this thing from day one, and that's before Hillary said she's a Russian operative! 

Gabbard may be the least crazy of the clowns but she’s still either A. Highly ignorant of economics / foreign policy for an Army Major or B. Pandering to the SJW crowd.  Also, she is a thorn in the democratic establishment’s side so they’ll never let her get that far.  I hope she runs as an independent, fragments the democratic vote and Trump wins in a landslide, embarrassing the left once again.  

Edited October 19, 2019 by dream big

[brickhistory]

32 minutes ago, mcbush said:

Ah, so here's the rub. What was originally "Trump by 300+ electoral votes" is now "if the House votes to impeach and send articles of impeachment to the Senate and if the Senate conducts a trial and if Trump is not convicted and removed from office and if Trump runs again, then Trump will win not by 300+ electoral votes but by garnering at least a 300-238 margin of victory." For what it's worth, when I say Seahawks by 4, I mean that I expect them to win by a margin of at least 4 points, not that I think they'll win by a score of 4-2.

To move on from being a sarcastic dick for a second, I also don't think I buy the argument that impeachment strengthens Trump's re-election chances. The way I see it, the Republican base will turn out for the man 100%, and I just don't think there are many moderates or independents who will be moved off the fence by this, especially since I think we're underselling the potential for additional damaging info to spill out over the course of the investigation. On the other hand, there's already so much damaging info out there that I don't think there's much else that can push people toward the Democratic party either. Bottom line at the bottom: with very few exceptions, people are set in their ways, they already know who they're going to vote for, and there's not much that can change their mind at this point.

From the post of mine that had you call me out: 

Quote

Trump by 300+ electoral votes this time especially following any sort of actual impeachment attempt.

 

To ensure no confusion on either part of the challenge I spelled out the terms and conditions.  Want it or not?  As you made the call out:

Quote

I'll take both those bets at any price.

 

 

I also hold fast to my opinion that an impeachment attempt will energize the re-election of Trump by both his supporters and others who recognize the sheer political attempt at overturning an election not via the ballot box and with the help of the new Preatorian (sp?) Guard.  Gonna be awfully hard for any future President to stay in office should this be the new normal.  Don't think the majority want that.

Also emboldens the infamous "Deep State" to openly revolt against anyone who doesn't have its best interests in mind.

I'm agin that...if severe punishments are not dealt to the minions who knowingly used the instruments of state against other Americans because of political differences - FBI senior leadership, CIA down to what appears fairly low-level-ish levels, the NSA, et al - then they and the next generation of them know they can do it successfully.

All fun and games unless it's turned on you for dissenting.

[mcbush]

Interested in Trump by 300+. Not interested in Trump by 62 with 4 caveats.

Interested in prosecuting crimes committed by anyone regardless of party or position. Not interested in debating the "Deep State."

[Lord Ratner]

I think Gabbard would be a slam dunk. Woman, minority, attractive, and military service. She doesn't appear to have lied to get where she is (Clinton, Warren, Harris), she isn't advocating for the most dangerous political philosophy in human history (Bernie, Warren), she doesn't act like your creepy/drunk Uncle (Biden, Booker), and she's not completely inexperienced with national politics (Buttigeg).

But if she's a third party candidate, Trump wins in a landslide.

[nsplayr]

Guys, just to be clear...as one of the few resident Democrats and as someone who follows politicos very closely as a hobby, there is just zero appetite for Tulsi Gabbard.

She’s been in all of the debates except one (ie not being “totally ignored”), is an elected member of Congress (ie at least has some traditional qualifications), and she’s polling at less than 2% on average. No one polling that low this late in the primary has ever made even a bit of difference in the race. Her fundraising is basically non-existent for a Presidential-level campaign, and anecdotally of all the Democrats I know, I don’t know of a single person supporting her.
 

I will give you than in an MFK of the Democratic primary, she gets my vote for the “F” category hands down. 
 

In all seriousness her oddly pro-Assad views are completely disqualifying in my book and I hope the good people of Hawaii make a difference choice for her seat in Congress in 2020.

If y’all wanna like her as Republicans or conservatives because she’s hot and currently shitting on Hillary, go for it.

Edited October 20, 2019 by nsplayr
Because "shitting IN Hillary" would be very different...

[nsplayr]

44 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

...the polls being done (you mention 2%) are typically done with voter rolls of people who have voted D in the last 3-4 presidential elections (aka “highly likely voters”) which means you’re asking the deepest blue folks how they feel, not the rest of the Democrats.

Her value is giving them a moderate base...

I'm very familiar with how polling works and your first sentence there simply isn't accurate. For example, the most recent Fox News poll (Oct 6-8) where Tulsi had 1% briefly describes how they got their sample,:

• "Interviews were conducted October 6-8, 2019 among a random national sample of 1,003 registered voters (RV). Landline (229) and cellphone (774) telephone numbers were randomly selected for inclusion in the survey using a probability proportionate to size method, which means phone numbers for each state are proportional to the number of voters in each state."

BL: Not just polling Democrats, not just polling likely voters, scientifically random sampling. To get the Dem primary question answered, they asked everyone in the sample a question like (sic), "Which party primary do you think you'll take part in?" and if the person answered Dem, they then asked them who they plan on supporting.

History tells us that at this point it'll very likely either be Warren or Biden, possibly Bernie but less likely so. To compare, for the 2016 GOP nomination, Trump led every poll except one from 1 Nov until he became the nominee and was pulling usually around mid-20s against the field (i.e. where both Biden and Warren are today). The 2012 GOP nomination was a bit weird in that Gingrich and Romney were both fairly strong at this point, but Santorum made a historically late surge and went from ~1% around Nov 2012 to being the last man standing other than the eventual nominee Romney.

To your second point that Tulsi is a "moderate," I also disagree. She's in favor of the same Medicare For All plan as Bernie, she backs an assault weapons ban, she's for free college, etc. She's in the leftward part of the party for sure apart from her...odd...foreign policy views. She's more left than me personally and I'm fairly progressive/liberal.

If y'all are looking for a non-Biden moderate Democrat in the current field, I'd recommend checking out Steve Bullock (governor or Montana), Michael Bennett (senator from Colorado), Amy Klobuchar (senator from Minnesota), or to some degree Pete Butigieg (mayor of South Bend, IN). Bullock and Bennett I actually like but they've gotten so little traction that they haven't even made the last 2 debates and they won't make future debates either at this rate. The field has to narrow at some point and if you can't poll above 1% I'm sorry, thanks for playing. Klobuchar is fine in my book and has been on every debate stage, but again, she hasn't really caught on above 2-3% ever. Pete has caught on more and is polling IVO 13% in Iowa specifically, but he probably doesn't have a realistic path to the nomination IMHO.

Interesting that you know some folks who might support Tulsi vs Trump...good to know!

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

shitting in Hillary,

phrasing

[Kenny Powers]

Didnt read any of the last 6-9 post but it's obvious this thread needs some of these:

 

[di1630]

The left will vote for whoever CNN/MSNBC tells them is good and can beat trump. Let’s not get too far into them caring about issues. Tulsi has no chance because the media hasn’t pushed her.

You guys are critically thinking about stuff when the reality is, the avg millennial dem wants to know what free stuff they are getting and who will make them feel better/scare them the least. They want this conveniently via social media or quick blurbs, nothing in depth.

Not a Trump lover but I hope he wins by a landslide. The dem platform flat out scares me.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

You guys are critically thinking about stuff when the reality is, the avg VOTER wants to know what free stuff they are getting and who will make them feel better/scare them the least. They want this conveniently via social media or quick blurbs, nothing in depth.

Fixed it for you.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

[Ghost of James Post]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 9:03 PM, nsplayr said:

To your second point that Tulsi is a "moderate," I also disagree. She's in favor of the same Medicare For All plan as Bernie, she backs an assault weapons ban, she's for free college, etc. She's in the leftward part of the party for sure apart from her...odd...foreign policy views. She's more left than me personally and I'm fairly progressive/liberal.

 

I'd love to see public opinion polls on it how popular a single-payer healthcare system is - but my gut tells me you underestimate how popular it is.

Regarding her foreign policy views, I would describe them as non-interventionist and in a similar camp to former Pres Carter's (and maybe Sen Rand Paul). Outside elite consensus ... yes, but when you loathe our political elite and the foreign policy prescriptions it champions, it's welcomed. Obviously it's anecdotal, but I plan on caucusing for her ...and I've only voted in 2/4 possible Pres elections (for Kerry in 2004 as a anti-Iraq War protest vote and Trump in 2016). 

 

 

[Lawman]

I'd love to see public opinion polls on it how popular a single-payer healthcare system is - but my gut tells me you underestimate how popular it is.

Regarding her foreign policy views, I would describe them as non-interventionist and in a similar camp to former Pres Carter's (and maybe Sen Rand Paul). Outside elite consensus ... yes, but when you loathe our political elite and the foreign policy prescriptions it champions, it's welcomed. Obviously it's anecdotal, but I plan on caucusing for her ...and I've only voted in 2/4 possible Pres elections (for Kerry in 2004 as a anti-Iraq War protest vote and Trump in 2016). 

 

 

 

There are plenty of public poles on Single Payer. What there aren’t a lot of and what fails miserably is positive polls when people are told what they will be taxed to pay for single payer.

 

Everybody thinks these pipe dream “lets be like Europe!” Ideas are great in space. Once you find out the VAT tax and lack of take home pay enjoyed in those countries the people who succeeded enough in life to not be sitting with 120k in debt and 3 years of college wasted while working as a barista realize really quickly they don’t like the idea of “we just need socialism to fix everything.”

 

Bernie is still mouthing “they have free college in Germany!” Yeah they do... for a select group of people identified by their 14th birthday as worthy of receiving that investment by the government. They also have a buttload of people working service jobs because they didn’t have rich parents to pay for the cost of sending them abroad to higher education. You don’t hear about that part in his speech. Probably because you can’t sell that as easy as “free college for everybody.”

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghost of James Post]

8 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

There are plenty of public poles on Single Payer. What there aren’t a lot of and what fails miserably is positive polls when people are told what they will be taxed to pay for single payer.

 

Everybody thinks these pipe dream “lets be like Europe!” Ideas are great in space. Once you find out the VAT tax and lack of take home pay enjoyed in those countries the people who succeeded enough in life to not be sitting with 120k in debt and 3 years of college wasted while working as a barista realize really quickly they don’t like the idea of “we just need socialism to fix everything.”

 

Part of me is like, yeah the public doesn't fully conceptualize the cost of such an overhaul, which would be vast (to say nothing of the already $1 Trillion a year we spend on healthcare) The other part of me sees this line of attack/rhetoric as disingenuous. Where were people arguing over the costs of OEF/OIF and our attempts to pacify the greater middle east? Where are the people arguing over the cost of maintaining a world-wide empire and garrisoning the entire planet? - At this point, we just sort of take that for granted. If you're going to bring economics into the equation, it shouldn't be selectively applied (not saying you do this … but in general, it is).

[viper154]

5 hours ago, Ghost of James Post said:

Part of me is like, yeah the public doesn't fully conceptualize the cost of such an overhaul, which would be vast (to say nothing of the already $1 Trillion a year we spend on healthcare) The other part of me sees this line of attack/rhetoric as disingenuous. Where were people arguing over the costs of OEF/OIF and our attempts to pacify the greater middle east? Where are the people arguing over the cost of maintaining a world-wide empire and garrisoning the entire planet? - At this point, we just sort of take that for granted. If you're going to bring economics into the equation, it shouldn't be selectively applied (not saying you do this … but in general, it is).

What’s the return on investment on a global empire though? Sure, we pay a fuck ton for our bases scattered all over the world but we should be getting a return on that investment with global security and leveraging our interest to our economic benefit. Ya OEF/OIF were debatable investments, I don’t really want to go down that rabbit hole. 
 

What’s the return on investment if granny lives to be 80 instead of 75? Or you get the sweet air cast and not the old school plaster one because that’s all you can afford. Paying for everyone’s healthcare is not a good investment, Europe is a great example of that. At the same time it’s not great to have a section of the population with massive medical debt, but I would debate that is a better option than investing trillions for “free” health care.

[Lawman]

Part of me is like, yeah the public doesn't fully conceptualize the cost of such an overhaul, which would be vast (to say nothing of the already $1 Trillion a year we spend on healthcare) The other part of me sees this line of attack/rhetoric as disingenuous. Where were people arguing over the costs of OEF/OIF and our attempts to pacify the greater middle east? Where are the people arguing over the cost of maintaining a world-wide empire and garrisoning the entire planet? - At this point, we just sort of take that for granted. If you're going to bring economics into the equation, it shouldn't be selectively applied (not saying you do this … but in general, it is).

Dude you completely glossed over half my post about the false statements being given by people selling this idea of governmental control and application services.

The countries we are constantly told to look at as examples of socialism working to the benefit of everybody have two major ignored factors they build that reality around.

1. Our idea of what is provided/required is wrong. Americans think there is some magic switch the “corporate fat cats” or whatever oblivious enemy just refuses to turn on. There isn’t. Resources are finite and even in those countries they are not the unending well of good fortune. There are plenty of people living in “free education” countries working service jobs with what we would consider an 11th grade education because they do not send everybody to free college.

2. Every single successfully applied socialist country is getting away with some combination not spending diddly on their military and/or massive energy exports. So until we can find somebody to provide us with that there is this huge hole in the budget that seems to be step two of the collect underpants + _____ = profit thinking being done in Washington.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dream big]

Even if we could afford free college for all, is it worth it or even necessary? Not everyone needs to go to college.  Unless you major in STEM, business, medicine, law and a few others, your degree alone is not of much use.  Now, trade schools? I’d be intrigued because we need more of that.  Guaranteed that the plumber makes more than the dude who majored in gender studies.   However, that doesn’t fit Bernie’s narrative because then he can’t brainwash our youth. 

[Lawman]

Even if we could afford free college for all, is it worth it or even necessary? Not everyone needs to go to college.  Unless you major in STEM, business, medicine, law and a few others, your degree alone is not of much use.  Now, trade schools? I’d be intrigued because we need more of that.  Guaranteed that the plumber makes more than the dude who majored in gender studies.   However, that doesn’t fit Bernie’s narrative because then he can’t brainwash our youth. 

 

And funny enough the countries he is claiming to emulate actually do that. We just dint hear that by the way it’s viewed/sold of “free college for everybody,” either because ignorance or false branding.

 

If you are in for example Germany, you know by the time most of us where ending puberty where your path will go. Those countries have quotas and caps for not just higher education, but skilled, and unskilled labor categories. They do tell people “we will pay to teach you.... to be an electrician/plumber/mechanic because that’s what you qualified for.” Your desire to be something else is on you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sim]

FYI: For those wondering WTF is going with ukraine/ spygate and impeachment..and given that journalism is dead... listen to this guy - Dan Bongino. 

 

[brickhistory]

Meanwhile on the Congressional side, a few interesting characters that don't seem to be getting enough attention.

 

Rep Illhan from MN was reputed to have married her brother in a citizenship scheme; then was found to be technically married to two guys at the same time (we were divorced under Islamic law!), and has numerous children between the two of them.  Now is named in the divorce proceedings of a DC- based Dr. who claims her husband is sleeping with Congresswoman Illhan.  And paying him $250k + in "consulting fees."

Congresswoman Hill from CA has admitted to an on-going threesome relationship between herself, her husband, and a female staffer.  Which broke up during the current, on-going divorce proceedings.  Which include her, the Congresswoman, sleeping with her male Chief of Staff.

And I thought deployed shenanigans could get weird...