|
Post by BØRNS on Aug 1, 2019 4:10:56 GMT -5
Is there already a thread for this? There have been 4 debates now, does anyone care to discuss them here?
|
|
Old Zeke
Main Eventer
'Fraid old Zeke, he rides up here with me. Can't trust a pig with watermelons, you know.
Joined on: Jun 24, 2019 13:46:50 GMT -5
Posts: 3,322
|
Post by Old Zeke on Aug 1, 2019 4:13:51 GMT -5
Mmm, yeah, politics never goes down well on here.
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Aug 1, 2019 6:18:26 GMT -5
Mmm, yeah, politics never goes down well on here. No they don't. The last presidential election thread got locked
|
|
|
Post by LaParka on Aug 1, 2019 6:55:50 GMT -5
Sadly to many people get up in arms over politics. It's a shame that we can't discuss this topic like civil adults, because everyone has their opinions on it which is fine.
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Aug 1, 2019 9:08:22 GMT -5
I'll be honest, I haven't watched a one yet. I've caught highlights, but I tossed in early on with a candidate, and I'm sticking with them come hell or high water. My candidate has performed well through two debates now, which lends itself quite well to my confidence in my pick. There are others who I'm mildly into, but I'd be considerably surprised, given how I already tend to follow politics, if anyone up for consideration could use a debate stage to alter what I already think of them.
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Aug 1, 2019 10:01:39 GMT -5
I have pluses and minuses with all candidates and a couple favorites but basically I would vote for any of them even if they were headless at this point. The octopus that correctly predicts sports playoffs would be better than what we have now
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 8:16:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 10:37:28 GMT -5
I don't think it matters. The economy is doing so well and the Dems have gone so far left, with no real platform to run on but "we don't like Trump" that it looks like an easy victory for DJT.
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Aug 1, 2019 10:58:53 GMT -5
I don't think it matters. The economy is doing so well and the Dems have gone so far left, with no real platform to run on but "we don't like Trump" that it looks like an easy victory for DJT. I'm typically the pessimist when it comes to national politics, but if 2016 taught me, or rather, reinforced in me anything, it's that everything up to the final call on election night is little more than speculation and conjecture. I said right from the primaries that Trump's victory would hinge on the collective presumption that it wasn't possible. I feel that the same is entirely true of 2020, but by the same token, I can't write off the Democrats next year, solely because I don't think the "rules" really exist anymore. Trump ran on a mostly hard right platform, largely structured around "everything the last guy did is bullsh*t", and it worked out pretty well for him. Ideally, the best course forward would be that everyone with a stake in the matter who is able simply get out and vote, but ultimately, it's going to come down to a) the Dems selecting a candidate with the least amount of potential for internal polarization, and b) which side can best galvanize their base into action on November 3. As a sidebar, this month, I'll be filing my own candidacy for the top election official at my polling place. I'm currently finishing up a two-year term as a lower tier election official. If I'm elected to head up my polling location for the next two years, my first election at the helm will be the primaries. During the 2018 midterm primaries, I didn't go to bed until close to 2am the next morning. I can't wait to see how much these next two shatter that record.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Aug 1, 2019 12:01:02 GMT -5
Mmm, yeah, politics never goes down well on here. Mmm, yeah, politics never goes down well on here. No they don't. The last presidential election thread got locked Let's see how it goes. The Republicans don't really have much to do right now. So unless Weld forces Trump into a Republican debate, this thread can remain for discussion on the Dem Debates, and OPEN, unless it gets too bad. If it stays civil, I'll change this to the 2020 thread when the time comes for primaries. KEEP IT CIVIL. KEEP IT CLEAN. I am NOT afraid to hand out warning bars, bans, and removal of the thread when/if it gets out of hand. Capice?
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Aug 1, 2019 12:15:18 GMT -5
That said, my stance hasn't changed from 2016. I still support Bernie, and boy he's lit a fuse under himself this go around. He may be saying similar stuff to 2016, but it's like Election 2: Electric Boogaloo with him...this time it's personal and he's pissed as hell. When he went after Congressmen Ryan and Delaney about how he'd pay for M4A and how he knows where the money will come from because, and I quote, he "Wrote the damn bill" I laughed so hard at their faces. Sure, it's a massive issue up for debate but in that moment, I almost died laughing.
That said, I really like what I'm hearing from Buttigieg, Gabbard, and Yang. Yang won't make it to the end, and I think he knows he's playing for a Cabinet seat, but still. Gabbard calling out Harris on her shady prosecution before becoming Senator was brilliant. And I just love Buttigieg's platform. It's very similar to Bernie's, just slightly more passive. That's gonna be his downfall though. He can go toe to toe with Trump, but once the herd has thinned to Biden, Harris, Bernie, Warren, and him...his passiveness towards his own party will be his downfall. He doesn't want to create the hell that the 2016 Republican primary turned into, but it's kinda gonna have to so the Dems can decide who they feel stands the best chance to take the White House back.
That said, I really hope at some point either he or Bernie call out Tom Perez and the DNC. It's VERY clear they're tossing around either Biden or Harris. DNC should stay the hell out of it and just back who the American people choose. Not hijack the campaign trail to give one candidate the edge like they did in 2016 with Clinton. Sure, there's a great chance she still beats Bernie without the DNC's help. But the (very likely) greased palms of the Superdelegates didn't hurt her chances either.
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Aug 1, 2019 12:48:36 GMT -5
Mmm, yeah, politics never goes down well on here. No they don't. The last presidential election thread got locked Let's see how it goes. The Republicans don't really have much to do right now. So unless Weld forces Trump into a Republican debate, this thread can remain for discussion on the Dem Debates, and OPEN, unless it gets too bad. If it stays civil, I'll change this to the 2020 thread when the time comes for primaries. KEEP IT CIVIL. KEEP IT CLEAN. I am NOT afraid to hand out warning bars, bans, and removal of the thread when/if it gets out of hand. Capice? L O L I have the luxury of living in a state with same-day registration, so as an undeclared voter, I enjoy the luxury of declaring party lines solely when I go to collect my ballot, and signing the roll to remove myself from their ranks immediately after casting. Following 2016's completely uninspiring slate of candidates (on either side), I was kicked down into the mud enough that my plan for 2020 ultimately ironed out to voting in the primary for whoever would mount even the most feeble of primary challenges to Trump. Fortunately, a candidate I'd long hoped would make a long shot attempt threw in, and so I was able to alter course, because voting, in part, for Bill Weld once has already caused me enough headache for one lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Old School Collector on Aug 1, 2019 12:58:29 GMT -5
Trump 2020 🇺🇸
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 8:16:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 14:41:49 GMT -5
I don't think it matters. The economy is doing so well and the Dems have gone so far left, with no real platform to run on but "we don't like Trump" that it looks like an easy victory for DJT. I'm typically the pessimist when it comes to national politics, but if 2016 taught me, or rather, reinforced in me anything, it's that everything up to the final call on election night is little more than speculation and conjecture. I said right from the primaries that Trump's victory would hinge on the collective presumption that it wasn't possible. I feel that the same is entirely true of 2020, but by the same token, I can't write off the Democrats next year, solely because I don't think the "rules" really exist anymore. Trump ran on a mostly hard right platform, largely structured around "everything the last guy did is bullsh*t", and it worked out pretty well for him. Ideally, the best course forward would be that everyone with a stake in the matter who is able simply get out and vote, but ultimately, it's going to come down to a) the Dems selecting a candidate with the least amount of potential for internal polarization, and b) which side can best galvanize their base into action on November 3. As a sidebar, this month, I'll be filing my own candidacy for the top election official at my polling place. I'm currently finishing up a two-year term as a lower tier election official. If I'm elected to head up my polling location for the next two years, my first election at the helm will be the primaries. During the 2018 midterm primaries, I didn't go to bed until close to 2am the next morning. I can't wait to see how much these next two shatter that record. I don't think it's really fair to say Trump ran on far right policies. Anti illegal immigration was a non-partisan issue until recently, much of what Trump ran on was almost exactly what Democrats ran on in the 90s almost verbatim (he's not very good at expressing himself in a dignified manner). The political climate, media, celebrity activists have forced themselves so far left that Trump only seems right by comparison. By all accounts he's not even that conservative. He's the first president in history to be pro-gay marriage prior to assuming office. He's done tremendous work for black unemployment rates. The economy is booming. He's fulfilled nearly all his campaign promises. I would be very surprised if anyone from the current pool of Dems will topple him. The best chance is Biden, but he has some pretty serious sexual deviancy issues that Democrats will be hard to overlook considering what they've been doing with regards to Trump and Kavanaugh and the people who accused them. Plus, people would have to overlook Obama's policies to elect him. They weren't happy enough with Obama to elect Hillary to run on the same agenda last time.
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Aug 1, 2019 15:08:19 GMT -5
I'm typically the pessimist when it comes to national politics, but if 2016 taught me, or rather, reinforced in me anything, it's that everything up to the final call on election night is little more than speculation and conjecture. I said right from the primaries that Trump's victory would hinge on the collective presumption that it wasn't possible. I feel that the same is entirely true of 2020, but by the same token, I can't write off the Democrats next year, solely because I don't think the "rules" really exist anymore. Trump ran on a mostly hard right platform, largely structured around "everything the last guy did is bullsh*t", and it worked out pretty well for him. Ideally, the best course forward would be that everyone with a stake in the matter who is able simply get out and vote, but ultimately, it's going to come down to a) the Dems selecting a candidate with the least amount of potential for internal polarization, and b) which side can best galvanize their base into action on November 3. As a sidebar, this month, I'll be filing my own candidacy for the top election official at my polling place. I'm currently finishing up a two-year term as a lower tier election official. If I'm elected to head up my polling location for the next two years, my first election at the helm will be the primaries. During the 2018 midterm primaries, I didn't go to bed until close to 2am the next morning. I can't wait to see how much these next two shatter that record. I don't think it's really fair to say Trump ran on far right policies. Anti illegal immigration was a non-partisan issue until recently, much of what Trump ran on was almost exactly what Democrats ran on in the 90s almost verbatim (he's not very good at expressing himself in a dignified manner). The political climate, media, celebrity activists have forced themselves so far left that Trump only seems right by comparison. By all accounts he's not even that conservative. He's the first president in history to be pro-gay marriage prior to assuming office. He's done tremendous work for black unemployment rates. The economy is booming. He's fulfilled nearly all his campaign promises. I would be very surprised if anyone from the current pool of Dems will topple him. The best chance is Biden, but he has some pretty serious sexual deviancy issues that Democrats will be hard to overlook considering what they've been doing with regards to Trump and Kavanaugh and the people who accused them. Plus, people would have to overlook Obama's policies to elect him. They weren't happy enough with Obama to elect Hillary to run on the same agenda last time. Not necessarily "far right"...just hard right. Paint-by-Numbers right, if you will. I always saw Trump's campaign as a marketing strategy geared toward a certain segment of the population that would be easily galvanized into a base that felt mis-or-under represented. To set aside the whole immigration thing, a good chunk of his broader position throughout the 2016 sort of fell in line with the standard fare buffet of conservative stances - school vouchers, climate change, repealing ACA, reduced firearm regulations, pro-life, etc. He's certainly not moderate enough, at least in stated position, to be considered a RINO, but as a person, I do think he fits the mold of an atypical conservative. Whether that's a matter of playing to his audience or a lack of genuine conviction, I do not know. I do agree that the Dems have one hell of an uphill battle ahead of them. I stated above that I'm an undeclared voter - it's probably not too hard to figure out most of my leanings, but it's so hard for me to throw in with a party, regardless of any shared ideology, solely based on what the world finally saw in 2016. I hope upon hope that the machine can recognize the trappings it set for itself and see the merit in an organic nomination process over a manipulated, systemic approach, but just because I've found a candidate I quite like doesn't mean I've lost any of the pessimism that has plagued me well before the last Presidential election.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Aug 1, 2019 16:02:49 GMT -5
Here's a question posed by many over the years, Bernie most recently, but it really should be a bipartisan issue. One of the bigger issues regarding ANY election, from Presidential down to dog catcher, is it's always on a Tuesday, and absentee ballots are a pain in the ass to get ahold of in some states.
I'm not advocating for mandatory voting like in Australia, but what about making primary days in individual states a state holiday since aside from Super Tuesday every other state has their own Constitutionally bound primary day, and the main election day a federal holiday? So many schools have to shut down anyways on Election Day because in smaller, or super large areas, gymnasiums are polling places.
Sure, there'd be people who still wouldn't vote because they just don't care (and are usually the first to complain when something goes awry) but it'd make the voting process much easier for millions of Americans who work in places that run on the Federal schedule like schools, banks, certain government agencies that don't handle safety and security and the like.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Aug 1, 2019 16:21:28 GMT -5
I don't think it's really fair to say Trump ran on far right policies. Anti illegal immigration was a non-partisan issue until recently, much of what Trump ran on was almost exactly what Democrats ran on in the 90s almost verbatim (he's not very good at expressing himself in a dignified manner). The political climate, media, celebrity activists have forced themselves so far left that Trump only seems right by comparison. By all accounts he's not even that conservative. He's the first president in history to be pro-gay marriage prior to assuming office. He's done tremendous work for black unemployment rates. The economy is booming. He's fulfilled nearly all his campaign promises. I would be very surprised if anyone from the current pool of Dems will topple him. The best chance is Biden, but he has some pretty serious sexual deviancy issues that Democrats will be hard to overlook considering what they've been doing with regards to Trump and Kavanaugh and the people who accused them. Plus, people would have to overlook Obama's policies to elect him. They weren't happy enough with Obama to elect Hillary to run on the same agenda last time. Not necessarily "far right"...just hard right. Paint-by-Numbers right, if you will. I always saw Trump's campaign as a marketing strategy geared toward a certain segment of the population that would be easily galvanized into a base that felt mis-or-under represented. To set aside the whole immigration thing, a good chunk of his broader position throughout the 2016 sort of fell in line with the standard fare buffet of conservative stances - school vouchers, climate change, repealing ACA, reduced firearm regulations, pro-life, etc. He's certainly not moderate enough, at least in stated position, to be considered a RINO, but as a person, I do think he fits the mold of an atypical conservative. Whether that's a matter of playing to his audience or a lack of genuine conviction, I do not know. I do agree that the Dems have one hell of an uphill battle ahead of them. I stated above that I'm an undeclared voter - it's probably not too hard to figure out most of my leanings, but it's so hard for me to throw in with a party, regardless of any shared ideology, solely based on what the world finally saw in 2016. I hope upon hope that the machine can recognize the trappings it set for itself and see the merit in an organic nomination process over a manipulated, systemic approach, but just because I've found a candidate I quite like doesn't mean I've lost any of the pessimism that has plagued me well before the last Presidential election. Uphill battle is putting it mildly. During the 2016 cycle, I had a college course with a state rep as my Professor. As such, we watched the primary debates. His exact words were "Not that this matters, Hillary and Trump won't even win their party nominations." My response to him was "Yes they will, and Trump will probably win. Too many closet Trump supporters that skew polls." On election day, I got a call from him (because I'd worked with him closely outside of class for now-PA Lt. Governor Fetterman's then US Senate campaign), stating he owed me an apology. This election is a VERY dangerous one. Like you said, the polls are useless. Quinnipiac, USC, Times, they're all useless. Die hards on either side will proudly say they're voting party lines, but the middle ground? They're either gonna say undecided or not answer which skews the data results, likely in Trump's favor. Because while you have the diehards who wave their Dixies and shout obscenities to minorities (I live in a very red, rural region...I just had to toss a Pagan Rider out of my station this passed weekend because he was harassing one of my regulars, a Southern Baptist preacher, using every stereotype and word under the sun because he felt he could), the rest of Trump's support is going to come from people who agree with his policies but have a distain for his person. They'll vote for him, but never admit it because of the negative connotation it tends to bring about. The Dems CAN beat Trump. Bernie can beat Trump. Biden (blech) would make it close race. Gabbard has a decent shot at being competitive because of her military background. Bernie/Gabbard/Buttigieg in any combination would make a very solid ticket. Mobilize the youth vote, which is the most important. Millenials can easily counteract the Boomer vote. They may be living longer, but there's more of us. Mobilize the minority vote if Gabbard is on the ticket. Mobilize (a solid bit of) the military vote because of Gabbard and Buttigieg. Mobilize the female vote (who outnumber the male vote) in theory with Gabbard. The LGBTQAI+ already support Bernie but Buttigieg would put them in a frenzy. The pieces are there for the Dems to win. It's just up to the DNC to not eff it up like they did handing Clinton the nom on a silver platter, and to not fall into the Trump trap. Despite the catchphrase "when they go low, we go high," sometimes you have to go low against this guy, but you have to make him go and sink lower and expose it.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Aug 1, 2019 16:35:41 GMT -5
I'm typically the pessimist when it comes to national politics, but if 2016 taught me, or rather, reinforced in me anything, it's that everything up to the final call on election night is little more than speculation and conjecture. I said right from the primaries that Trump's victory would hinge on the collective presumption that it wasn't possible. I feel that the same is entirely true of 2020, but by the same token, I can't write off the Democrats next year, solely because I don't think the "rules" really exist anymore. Trump ran on a mostly hard right platform, largely structured around "everything the last guy did is bullsh*t", and it worked out pretty well for him. Ideally, the best course forward would be that everyone with a stake in the matter who is able simply get out and vote, but ultimately, it's going to come down to a) the Dems selecting a candidate with the least amount of potential for internal polarization, and b) which side can best galvanize their base into action on November 3. As a sidebar, this month, I'll be filing my own candidacy for the top election official at my polling place. I'm currently finishing up a two-year term as a lower tier election official. If I'm elected to head up my polling location for the next two years, my first election at the helm will be the primaries. During the 2018 midterm primaries, I didn't go to bed until close to 2am the next morning. I can't wait to see how much these next two shatter that record. I don't think it's really fair to say Trump ran on far right policies. Anti illegal immigration was a non-partisan issue until recently, much of what Trump ran on was almost exactly what Democrats ran on in the 90s almost verbatim (he's not very good at expressing himself in a dignified manner). The political climate, media, celebrity activists have forced themselves so far left that Trump only seems right by comparison. By all accounts he's not even that conservative. He's the first president in history to be pro-gay marriage prior to assuming office. He's done tremendous work for black unemployment rates. The economy is booming. He's fulfilled nearly all his campaign promises. I would be very surprised if anyone from the current pool of Dems will topple him. The best chance is Biden, but he has some pretty serious sexual deviancy issues that Democrats will be hard to overlook considering what they've been doing with regards to Trump and Kavanaugh and the people who accused them. Plus, people would have to overlook Obama's policies to elect him. They weren't happy enough with Obama to elect Hillary to run on the same agenda last time. To your final bit about the Obama policy not being enough to elect Hillary. I don't inherently disagree. But, despite being Hillary, she had a MAJOR flaw in her campaign strategy. She completely ignored the rust belt. Take Ohio out because that state flip flops, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana should have been just as critical to stump as any other state. Instead she focused on New England and a little bit of Pennsylvania and assumed the rest was safe because she obviously had New York and the whole west coast. Ohio and Florida were the battlegrounds for her. And it cost her. She thought the norm would continue so she didn't campaign at all there. And here we are. The biggest oddity is Pennsylvania. No Dem is ever gonna win the middle of the state. But the votes in the counties of Allegheny, Erie, Adams, Philadelphia, Luzerne, Centre, and Montgomery EASILY have a democratic population to outnumber the rest of the state combined. But she didn't rally enough to get out the vote. Why she didn't follow that model, that's worked for every Dem that didn't run against Reagan for 50+ years, I'll never understand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 8:16:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 17:00:17 GMT -5
I don't think it's really fair to say Trump ran on far right policies. Anti illegal immigration was a non-partisan issue until recently, much of what Trump ran on was almost exactly what Democrats ran on in the 90s almost verbatim (he's not very good at expressing himself in a dignified manner). The political climate, media, celebrity activists have forced themselves so far left that Trump only seems right by comparison. By all accounts he's not even that conservative. He's the first president in history to be pro-gay marriage prior to assuming office. He's done tremendous work for black unemployment rates. The economy is booming. He's fulfilled nearly all his campaign promises. I would be very surprised if anyone from the current pool of Dems will topple him. The best chance is Biden, but he has some pretty serious sexual deviancy issues that Democrats will be hard to overlook considering what they've been doing with regards to Trump and Kavanaugh and the people who accused them. Plus, people would have to overlook Obama's policies to elect him. They weren't happy enough with Obama to elect Hillary to run on the same agenda last time. To your final bit about the Obama policy not being enough to elect Hillary. I don't inherently disagree. But, despite being Hillary, she had a MAJOR flaw in her campaign strategy. She completely ignored the rust belt. Take Ohio out because that state flip flops, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana should have been just as critical to stump as any other state. Instead she focused on New England and a little bit of Pennsylvania and assumed the rest was safe because she obviously had New York and the whole west coast. Ohio and Florida were the battlegrounds for her. And it cost her. She thought the norm would continue so she didn't campaign at all there. And here we are. The biggest oddity is Pennsylvania. No Dem is ever gonna win the middle of the state. But the votes in the counties of Allegheny, Erie, Adams, Philadelphia, Luzerne, Centre, and Montgomery EASILY have a democratic population to outnumber the rest of the state combined. But she didn't rally enough to get out the vote. Why she didn't follow that model, that's worked for every Dem that didn't run against Reagan for 50+ years, I'll never understand. People forget that Hillary's health was (is?) pretty poor. Despite it being classed as a conspiracy theory she collapsed at the 9/11 memorial, was constantly seen coughing, odd mannerisms that indicated she could have some sort of neurological issue, and balance issues. She was probably physically unable to rally the rust belt. I also think people forget how charming and charismatic DJT is. He came off extremely well in the debates, few people can really match his sharpness. It's almost The Rock-esque. People like how candid he is, whereas career politicians speak that kind of stereotypical language that ordinary people just hate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 8:16:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 17:10:12 GMT -5
The Dems CAN beat Trump. Bernie can beat Trump. Biden (blech) would make it close race. Gabbard has a decent shot at being competitive because of her military background. Bernie/Gabbard/Buttigieg in any combination would make a very solid ticket. Mobilize the youth vote, which is the most important. Millenials can easily counteract the Boomer vote. They may be living longer, but there's more of us. Mobilize the minority vote if Gabbard is on the ticket. Mobilize (a solid bit of) the military vote because of Gabbard and Buttigieg. Mobilize the female vote (who outnumber the male vote) in theory with Gabbard. The LGBTQAI+ already support Bernie but Buttigieg would put them in a frenzy. The pieces are there for the Dems to win. It's just up to the DNC to not eff it up like they did handing Clinton the nom on a silver platter, and to not fall into the Trump trap. Despite the catchphrase "when they go low, we go high," sometimes you have to go low against this guy, but you have to make him go and sink lower and expose it. Maybe if Democrats would stop calling everyone racist and falling into Trump's traps they'd stand a chance. Problem is, they're so desperate to disagree with him about EVERYTHING that it won't happen. The guy got them to defend MS13, more recently Baltimore and Al Sharpton. It's been 3 years of it now. This is their problem. No actual platform or policies, just a bunch of highly unlikeable, crooked career politicians who pander to identity politics and dislike Trump.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Aug 1, 2019 17:39:13 GMT -5
To your final bit about the Obama policy not being enough to elect Hillary. I don't inherently disagree. But, despite being Hillary, she had a MAJOR flaw in her campaign strategy. She completely ignored the rust belt. Take Ohio out because that state flip flops, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana should have been just as critical to stump as any other state. Instead she focused on New England and a little bit of Pennsylvania and assumed the rest was safe because she obviously had New York and the whole west coast. Ohio and Florida were the battlegrounds for her. And it cost her. She thought the norm would continue so she didn't campaign at all there. And here we are. The biggest oddity is Pennsylvania. No Dem is ever gonna win the middle of the state. But the votes in the counties of Allegheny, Erie, Adams, Philadelphia, Luzerne, Centre, and Montgomery EASILY have a democratic population to outnumber the rest of the state combined. But she didn't rally enough to get out the vote. Why she didn't follow that model, that's worked for every Dem that didn't run against Reagan for 50+ years, I'll never understand. People forget that Hillary's health was (is?) pretty poor. Despite it being classed as a conspiracy theory she collapsed at the 9/11 memorial, was constantly seen coughing, odd mannerisms that indicated she could have some sort of neurological issue, and balance issues. She was probably physically unable to rally the rust belt. I also think people forget how charming and charismatic DJT is. He came off extremely well in the debates, few people can really match his sharpness. It's almost The Rock-esque. People like how candid he is, whereas career politicians speak that kind of stereotypical language that ordinary people just hate. Charming is very low on the list of qualities I'd give Trump. Charismatic though, I'll give you that. And it's fine to be candid. Hell, it's good when someone calls it like it is. But the phrasing could be...a lot better. Call it like ya see it, but be the damn President, not a yokel from the middle of no where with the language, name calling, and harassment. And before the response comes, yes. He's been attacked. Yes he's been attacked with language he uses. I don't condone either. You can still be honest and a straight shooter (in your opinion) and be respectable at the same time. Look at Sarah Sanders. I despised the woman, but she fielded the same questions he fields in front of reporters, or addresses at rallies, and did so in a dignified manner. Him...uhh...no. And I wouldn't call "Lyin' Ted, Lil' Marco, Crooked Hillary" sharp. Say what you need to say to remain a straight shooter but have SOME shred of dignity when doing so. And regarding the Rust Belt and her health? Maybe she wasn't healthy. But the campaign could have still sent Kaine, Bernie, Obama...hell, me, to the Rust Belt. They didn't send anyone. Assumed blue collar states were safe for Dems because that's the one thing Dems have going for them if nothing else. I'm not talking any specific politician here, mind you. Their talking points are ALWAYS about the working man and what they need. Republicans focus their talking points way too much on taxation and things that blue collar workers don't necessarily care quite as much about as long as their jobs are safe. Now talking politicians, when Trump jumped into the "help the working man" Dem territory, the DNC should have gone to DEFCON 5 red alert all hands on deck. They didn't. They were cocky and confident, and got punished. Trump may well win again. But if the DNC doesn't go full stupid, and learned ANY lesson from 2016 (jury is still out on that seeing the Biden/Harris push when no one wants them), it's gonna be a VERY close race. Trump isn't lambasting anyone this time. If the DNC learned their lesson, Trump either wins by a slim margin, or loses by a slim margin. No other outcome. This has been Nostradamus, coming to you live from WF.
|
|