The Official 2020 Election Thread!

[PeteHulbert37]

So, is it to early to start talking about the 2020 presidential election? I think not! Which ever boob wins will reign for a single term.

 

[Saint Peter]

Michelle Obama

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

Bill Maher bro.

Stew

 

[Hypoxia]

Toonces the cat.

 

[RoryN]

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

 

[PeteHulbert37]

Ryan on the GOP ticket to oust the incumbent bitch!!

 

[Tryharder62]

I felt like I could puke when I read the title of this thread. I can't think past getting this election over with.

 

[Hypoxia]

I felt like I could puke when I read the title of this thread. I can't think past getting this election over with.

Parliamentary systems have indeterminate terms and snap elections. Our republic has fixed dates which means campaigns must start long ahead of time to scoop-up enough cash to proceed. The 2020 campaign started sometime around 2014. And it costs zillions.

 

[sr71plt]

And it costs zillions.

This always sounds like it's being considered money down the drain when I see it in a post. It's money sinking back into the U.S. economy in goods and services. There isn't much of it that's filtering away from the U.S. economy--well, depending on how much Trump is paying Russia to hack the Dems' e-mails.

 

[Inverter]

So, is it to early to start talking about the 2020 presidential election? I think not! Which ever boob wins will reign for a single term.

http://up7.xhcdn.com/000/118/817/216_1000.gif

I'm busy right now... Could you call me later?

 

[lovecraft68]

Be interesting to see who the republicans will have to face whoever takes over when Hillary dies in office. She's barely surviving the stress of the campaign, wait until she's in office.

She'll probably have a heart attack and die in a hallway and Bill will step over her while leading the latest 19 year old intern to his bedroom.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

She'll probably have a heart attack and die in a hallway and Bill will step over her while leading the latest 19 year old intern to his bedroom.

it's not unprecedented to have a spouse take over for the president bro.

Stew

 

[PeteHulbert37]

it's not unprecedented to have a spouse take over for the president bro.

Stew

This is about 2020 damn it, not 01//09/2017.

Also, since we're not hijacking this thread can someone start a dead pool so we can crown a winner when the next president gets whacked? I'm feeling lazy.

 

[Christobal]

Hillary running against president Trump. It was so much fun the first time so let's do it again.

Ugg.......

 

[sr71plt]

Hillary running against president Trump. It was so much fun the first time so let's do it again.

Ugg.......

Suits me. There's soooo much else to learn about Donald, and even fewer will care about what the Republicans dig up on Hillary next time than have this time. Of course, I don't see the Republicans running Donald again. He'll have to run on the Hate Party. Unforunately, there will still be enough deplorables around to make that a viable party.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, is it to early to start talking about the 2020 presidential election? I think not! Which ever boob wins will reign for a single term.

That's what I've been saying...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This always sounds like it's being considered money down the drain when I see it in a post. It's money sinking back into the U.S. economy in goods and services. There isn't much of it that's filtering away from the U.S. economy--well, depending on how much Trump is paying Russia to hack the Dems' e-mails.

Fallacy of the Broken Window.

You never ask where that money would have gone and how it would have stimulated the economy as Capital. Instead all that you see is spending, but it is demonstrably not the most efficient and productive method of spending which is a true for government as it is it's electoral antics.

 

[sr71plt]

Fallacy of the Broken Window.

You never ask where that money would have gone and how it would have stimulated the economy as Capital. Instead all that you see is spending, but it is demonstrably not the most efficient and productive method of spending which is a true for government as it is it's electoral antics.

Well, no. The fact is that Republican administrations outspend Democratic ones. And I've certainly been thinking about where the money comes from. I've thought a lot about getting Trump and the other 1 percenter fat cats to contribute a fair share to the nation's needs. I don't have the hate problem you have,nor do I live behind the race and gender prejudices you do, so I'll be fine between now and 2020 and even in 2020. Thanks for asking.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Parliamentary systems have indeterminate terms and snap elections. Our republic has fixed dates which means campaigns must start long ahead of time to scoop-up enough cash to proceed. The 2020 campaign started sometime around 2014. And it costs zillions.

This always sounds like it's being considered money down the drain when I see it in a post. It's money sinking back into the U.S. economy in goods and services. There isn't much of it that's filtering away from the U.S. economy--well, depending on how much Trump is paying Russia to hack the Dems' e-mails.

Fallacy of the Broken Window.

You never ask where that money would have gone and how it would have stimulated the economy as Capital. Instead all that you see is spending, but it is demonstrably not the most efficient and productive method of spending which is a true for government as it is it's electoral antics.

Well, no. The fact is that Republican administrations outspend Democratic ones. And I've certainly been thinking about where the money comes from. I've thought a lot about getting Trump and the other 1 percenter fat cats to contribute a fair share to the nation's needs. I don't have the hate problem you have,nor do I live behind the race and gender prejudices you do, so I'll be fine between now and 2020 and even in 2020. Thanks for asking.

1). You've morphed from your original contention about campaign spending.

2). What hate, race and gender prejudices?

3). Define fair; define fair share.

4). The fat cats are all pretty much in Hillary's corner, they are "fixing" the election because she is a pay-to-play girl and they are counting on calling the shots when it comes to protecting their turf, after all, she will still have another election to win after this one.

5). You have no crystal ball.

 

[sr71plt]

1). You've morphed from your original contention about campaign spending.

No I haven't. What does campaign expenses (from any party) going back into the economy being a good thing for the economy have a damn thing to do with anything you've brought up about an administration spending money?

It's getting to be fun watching you squirm around on losing arguments.

Not going down your desperate rat hole on the rest. Anyone posting here knows your posting behavior.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No I haven't. What does campaign expenses (from any party) going back into the economy being a good thing for the economy have a damn thing to do with anything you've brought up about an administration spending money?

It's getting to be fun watching you squirm around on losing arguments.

I went from the specific point about campaign spending and took a moment to note that what was true in the specific was also true in the general. People who think government spending makes us richer and has a net positive influence on government are always the first ones to blame something else when the rich get richer and the middle class stagnates. It is your economic sophisms such as the one that says dollar for dollar government spending is the equal of or the superior of private sector spending.

That is simply not true. To spend, the private sector has to take risks, loans or sell stock. To spend the government steals it from the people or inflates the money supply. Both are brakes on the economy.

For the most part campaign spending is done at the expense of corporate Capital by way of protection money, or the little guy who is conned into giving politicians money to protect his turf when he could have directly used that money now, or banked it for the future. Those people are no better than lotto players. At least the lotto players play for big stakes and not just to maintain sustenance benefit from the government.

 

[sr71plt]

I went from the specific point about campaign spending and took a moment to note that what was true in the specific was also true in the general. People who think government spending makes us richer and has a net positive influence on government are always the first ones to blame something else when the rich get richer and the middle class stagnates.

I didn't read your crap. And campaign spending is not government spending, so whatever you were saying was irrelevant to what I posted about campaign money spending going back into the U.S. economy (other than, maybe, printing costs. Everyone's taking that to Singapore these days).

So, you were just being irrelevant to what I posted in addition to puffing yourself up about something I still didn't read. I don't pay much attention to rats scurrying around on a sinking ship. But I do enjoy your whining about drowning in the Trump filth.

 

[smoothg103rd]

Kanye West

 

[Setanta84]

In the--unfortunately--likely event Clinton wins this time, there is just no way she's avoiding the primary after pissing off the base to the degree that she did and that she failed to pull significantly away from Donald Trump. That's all just blood in the water.

On who would run against her, the Democratic Party bench is unfortunately thin and the people who have been groomed to run by the party are Clintonistas for the most part. Having said that, people I could see running against her--especially if she gets us into as many wars as she seems to want--follow:

Tulsi Gabbard
Alan Grayson
Elizabeth Warren--she has the pull to do this and knows it but her relationship with both Obama and Clinton so far makes me doubt she's the kind of insurgent force in the party that she sold herself as being, so 50/50 at best.
Joe Biden--he's been too vocal about regretting not running to rule him out.
Nina Turner
Mark Dayton
Bernie Sanders--I don't know if he'd actually run again but doubt it for reasons that different than the reasons I doubt Warren would.

With the Republicans, it's hard to say. They have a deeper bench than the Democrats because the GOP actually prioritized leadership development at all levels of the party over the last 30 years--but Trump mangled and embarrassed pretty much every "rising star" in the party groomed for the national spotlight. I don't think anyone is ever going to give more money to Jeb, for example.

I'd look for conservative commentators and union leaders to come forward. It's clear Trump's basic populist, pro-worker message resonated--it's his history as an employer and racialist history of his entire family that compromised that. But it's hard to know which would actually run. With known political actors, my bets are these:

Arnold Schwarzenegger--if a Canadian can run, why can't an Austrian?
Ted Cruz
Nikki Haley
Rand Paul
Sarah Palin--I don't think she has serious ambitions but I would place bets on her running just to keep her brand alive and capable of pulling in money, like Gingrich or Carson this year
George P. Bush--he's a Bush, there aren't open slots in Texas politics to ascend into without challenging an incumbent Republican, the Establishment might see him as their best hope of undoing the damage Trump did to their Latino outreach efforts, etc.
John Kasich--why not?
Michele Bachmann--assuming Trump may encourage her to think her brand of crazy isn't an actual liability.

 

[sr71plt]

In the--unfortunately--likely event Clinton wins this time, there is just no way she's avoiding the primary after pissing off the base to the degree that she did and that she failed to pull significantly away from Donald Trump. That's all just blood in the water.

The blindness of you and others like you is to believe your own Swiftboating. Clinton's too smart not to do at least as well as Obama did. She's already talking with Republicans on the coming administration (if she wins and enters office--I don't discount any possibility), she's more grounded than Obama was on what she can get from a Republican-controlled Congress (although she might not have that problem), and she's largely subsumed the portion of the Bernie movement that wasn't all ridiculously starry eyed. She could lose the DNC, yes, but she has a lock on it now--and did, as we all learned--have a lock on it during the primary campaign. It was earned. She did the work. Bernie just walked in and tried to steal the goods without having done the party work (or being in the party). Maybe some of the other Democratic possibilities will learn from that.

On your list of Democratic possibilities, you realize that both Sanders and Biden will be dead or doddering and being hand fed in four-eight years, don't you? (Did you even bother to look how old these people were?) Some of the others are possibilities in that time frame. I'd be looking at Evan Bayh (assuming he wins this election). He comes from a solid background, and the DNC, despite what some think, respects paying dues.