Who will face Trump in the election of 2020?

[hobie]

President Trump formally launched his 2020 re-election campaign saying "We are going to keep making America great again and then we will indeed keep America great..We are going to keep it better than ever before and that is why I stand before you tonight to officially launch my campaign for a second term as president of the United States"

The Democrats just seem to intent on tearing each other down in the latest debates, with some sharp jabs focused on Biden.
"Julián Castro harshly accused Joe Biden of contradicting himself and questioned whether his memory was faltering. "Are you forgetting what you said two minutes ago," he asked. He later slammed Biden for embracing his role in the Obama administration only when it was convenient....
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/t...imary-candidates-health-care-and-immigration/

So who will face Trump, it certainly wont be Biden as everyone sees him as too weak and indecisive no matter what the polls say. Will it be Elizabeth Warren who is rising in the polls or can Bernie Sanders who has been loosing ground in the polls so it doesn't look good, so who will it be?

 

[Lamb]

Good question! So far none of the ones you listed are strong enough candidates to get the votes. In order to beat Trump the person can't lean heavily to the left or have crazy ideas for the country. People want security and assurances, not wild ideas that could worsen our country and jobs.

 

[tango]

It seems to me that the candidates are pushing harder and harder to the left, as if trying to appeal to the sillier fringes of the left wing. Which is great for attracting cheers from the party faithful but isn't going to do anything to attract moderates or swing voters and certainly won't draw any moderate Republicans who are uncertain about Trump. It reminds me when John McCain nominated Sarah Palin as his running mate - the party faithful cheered but they are the ones who would vote for a turnip if it had the right colors on it, and Palin never seemed like someone who would appeal to moderate Democrats who were unsure about Obama.

 

[Josiah]

It seems to me that the candidates are pushing harder and harder to the left, as if trying to appeal to the sillier fringes of the left wing. Which is great for attracting cheers from the party faithful but isn't going to do anything to attract moderates or swing voters and certainly won't draw any moderate Republicans who are uncertain about Trump. It reminds me when John McCain nominated Sarah Palin as his running mate - the party faithful cheered but they are the ones who would vote for a turnip if it had the right colors on it, and Palin never seemed like someone who would appeal to moderate Democrats who were unsure about Obama.

I agree.

And nothing will help Trump more.

 

[Albion]

Biden remains the most likely. But if it is someone else, the most probable would be Warren unless someone starts attacking her way of avoiding specifics when it comes to most of the hot button issues. If not her, then it's anyone's guess at this stage.

When we start assessing these people's chances, it is important to keep in kind that the primary elections matter, and not just for the delegates won. Many a front-runner was shot down because he did not do well in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, EVEN THOUGH he probably would have done well if the first states had instead been California or New York or Maryland. Remember Howard Dean? He looked invincible...until Iowa. Then Pffft.

 

[hobie]

Good question! So far none of the ones you listed are strong enough candidates to get the votes. In order to beat Trump the person can't lean heavily to the left or have crazy ideas for the country. People want security and assurances, not wild ideas that could worsen our country and jobs.

What about the middle of the pack such as Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., or Senator Kamala Harris of California or Andrew Yang .

I don't think there is much of a chance for the rear of the pack such as Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota or former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas and Julián Castro, the former housing secretary.

 

[tango]

One interesting thing I've come across (I don't follow political news all that closely since most of it doesn't interest me) is the way those on the left seem to still be obsessing over identity politics. When there's chatter about whether it's better to push for a female president or a gay president it's clear it's all about identity rather than politics. If gay people are seriously debating whether they should vote for the gay male (gay = good, male = bad) candidate or the straight female (straight - bad, female = good) based on identity rather than politics it rather destroys any claim people make of wanting to be treated equally. Since identity seems to trump everything among the silly fringes of the left I wonder why they don't just find themselves a non-white disabled transgender lesbian and be done with it - even if they had no policies of any description they could jump on every identity-related bandwagon and accuse people of -isms and -phobias for voting for anyone else.

 

[Bluezone777]

With the way it's going, it's almost as if the Democrats want Trump to win a second term. They clearly aren't willing to offer up any candidate that has a serious shot at winning. The polls will say otherwise all the way to the end much like last time but it's likely Trump will win again. We haven't tossed out a president after one term of office since George H.W. Bush and that was mostly because of a major campaign promise(to not raise taxes) he reneged on that caused a split among Republicans that led to the rise of Ross Perot who ultimately sank Bush's chances for a second term. I don't see such a move happening as of yet so unless it does then it's likely Trump will win again.

The previous times a president has been kicked out after one term was Ford and Carter. Ford was sunk by his pardoning of Nixon and Carter was sunk by a combined bad economy and a poorly managed hostage crisis in Iran. Johnson refused to run again though he could because of the Vietnam war going badly and for Hoover it was the great depression which started on his watch. Before Hoover, it was Taft who was sunk by a rift between him and Teddy Roosevelt that split the vote between Taft and TR attempting to run for a third term. As you can see a historical pattern of presidents losing reelection and what it took for it to happen. Can you really say something along the lines described her is going to happen soon or is already happening?

 

[Albion]

We haven't tossed out a president after one term of office since George H.W. Bush and that was mostly because of a major campaign promise(to not raise taxes) he reneged on that caused a split among Republicans that led to the rise of Ross Perot who ultimately sank Bush's chances for a second term. I don't see such a move happening as of yet so unless it does then it's likely Trump will win again.

The previous times a president has been kicked out after one term was Ford and Carter. Ford was sunk by his pardoning of Nixon and Carter was sunk by a combined bad economy and a poorly managed hostage crisis in Iran.

Bush, Sr....Carter...Ford. That's three incumbents out of the previous seven. Statistically, that doesn't seem insignificant.

 

[Josiah]

Bush, Sr....Carter...Ford. That's three incumbents out of the previous seven. Statistically, that doesn't seem insignificant.

All 3 ran for re-election in the midst of SEVERE economic downfall in the USA that happened on their watch. As Bill Clinton said over and over and over and over, "It's the economy stupid!" According to the Liberal Saint Bill, there's only one issue that matters: the economy. And they are on to something; has there been a time in 100 years when an president failed to get re-elected in very good economic times - or at least better than when elected the first time?

Ford ran in the shadow of Watergate and actually never ran for re-election. He was an incumbent but did not run for re-election.

Carter brought a deep recessiion..... he made the USA a joke abroad and we had hostages in Iran....

Bush Sr. while very popular for most of his term, suddenly found himself running for re-election in a very serious recession.

The best example would be LBJ. In 1968, he choose not to run for re-election because he knew he could not win. The economy was not good but not really in a recession. But there was another issue in 1968 - Vietnam and a VERY fractured Democratic party with many already running against him within his own party. When Bobbie Kennedy entered the race, LBJ knew he'd never get the renomination of his party - and likely could not win the general election if he did. All this when the economy was okay (not great but okay).



IMO, yes - the Democrats probably could take back the White House. Perhaps never before have they had the Press so much in their pocket and perhaps not since Hoover and FDR has their been so much personal hatred for presidents. But I'm pretty sure they'll blow it. The Democrat Party has gone SO leftist, so socialist/communist, that the independents will run (even some Democrats will). Unless a recession hits hard, I suspect Trump will win.... he'll be seen as the lesser of evils, the only American running.

 

[tango]

When "it's the economy, stupid" things are risky. I can't see how the economy can possibly avoid an enormous meltdown at some point, possibly on a scale that make 1929 look like a picnic. I'm certainly expecting something orders of magnitude worse than 2008 to happen, it's just a question of when. The way the system "works" is little more than kicking a can down the road until you run out of road and, when you run out of road, things implode in a big way.

If the collapse happens between now and 2020 (possible, although I'm not sure how likely) it won't be Trump's fault. Maybe something he does will trigger people blaming him, and of course those on the left would say it was his fault if an asteroid struck the earth, or maybe something he does will exacerbate an already bad situation. But for all the talk of this "longest ever recovery" in a lot of areas it's just not producing jobs. Clever financial engineering can make all sorts of things look good, even when they are really not good at all. Ultimately if people don't have jobs they don't spend, if they don't have disposable income they don't spend, and if people stop spending then sooner or later the economy implodes.

 

[NewCreation435]

President Trump formally launched his 2020 re-election campaign saying "We are going to keep making America great again and then we will indeed keep America great..We are going to keep it better than ever before and that is why I stand before you tonight to officially launch my campaign for a second term as president of the United States"

The Democrats just seem to intent on tearing each other down in the latest debates, with some sharp jabs focused on Biden.
"Julián Castro harshly accused Joe Biden of contradicting himself and questioned whether his memory was faltering. "Are you forgetting what you said two minutes ago," he asked. He later slammed Biden for embracing his role in the Obama administration only when it was convenient....
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/t...imary-candidates-health-care-and-immigration/

So who will face Trump, it certainly wont be Biden as everyone sees him as too weak and indecisive no matter what the polls say. Will it be Elizabeth Warren who is rising in the polls or can Bernie Sanders who has been loosing ground in the polls so it doesn't look good, so who will it be?

That's because Castro's campaign is failing and he has to go after the guy who is polling the best which is Biden. But, to answer your question it seems like a three or four candidates now realistically are in the Democrat field, Biden, Warren, Harris and Sanders

 

[Albion]

That's because Castro's campaign is failing and he has to go after the guy who is polling the best which is Biden. But, to answer your question it seems like a three or four candidates now realistically are in the Democrat field, Biden, Warren, Harris and Sanders

While watching the Castro attack, I was reminded of the 2016 Republican debates in which Gov. Chris Christie tried to jump-start his campaign by attacking Marco Rubio's comments and speech patterns. The consequence was that it basically finished off Rubio but did nothing for Christie other than make him look unattractive. That's probably going to be Castro's fate too.

 

[Josiah]

The following link is SATIRE..... purely and solely in jest.... but does make a point about the left these days and those trying to get the nomination: https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5801-JOSIAH-for-PRESIDENT-2020

 

[tango]

I'd really like to see Donald Trump announce he identifies as female. Think of the political implosions that would cause. The Democrats would have to either drop their transgender silliness or hail him (sorry, her) as the first female president. The Republicans would have to either drop a lot of excessive hostility to the transgendered or abandon their candidate.

I'd buy an extra large bag of popcorn if that one ever went down.

 

[hobie]

When "it's the economy, stupid" things are risky. I can't see how the economy can possibly avoid an enormous meltdown at some point, possibly on a scale that make 1929 look like a picnic. I'm certainly expecting something orders of magnitude worse than 2008 to happen, it's just a question of when. The way the system "works" is little more than kicking a can down the road until you run out of road and, when you run out of road, things implode in a big way.

If the collapse happens between now and 2020 (possible, although I'm not sure how likely) it won't be Trump's fault. Maybe something he does will trigger people blaming him, and of course those on the left would say it was his fault if an asteroid struck the earth, or maybe something he does will exacerbate an already bad situation. But for all the talk of this "longest ever recovery" in a lot of areas it's just not producing jobs. Clever financial engineering can make all sorts of things look good, even when they are really not good at all. Ultimately if people don't have jobs they don't spend, if they don't have disposable income they don't spend, and if people stop spending then sooner or later the economy implodes.

The economy will do fine, just scare tactics to try and get the stock exchanges to tank, but not much to it. Now war is the real danger, as Iran is basically trying to get one started. For what reason, I still haven't figured out, as if its a Shite/Sunni issue, we really don't need any of that.

 

[tango]

The economy will do fine, just scare tactics to try and get the stock exchanges to tank, but not much to it. Now war is the real danger, as Iran is basically trying to get one started. For what reason, I still haven't figured out, as if its a Shite/Sunni issue, we really don't need any of that.

Not scare tactics at all, merely an observation that when you devalue the global reserve currency on an ongoing basis you shouldn't be surprised if other nations decide to seek out a different reserve currency, at which point many of the supports that help your currency hold its value go away. If the dollar slides fast because of heavy selling then imports become more expensive and all the chickens come home to roost at once. If oil producing nations (many of which hate us) decide to sell their oil in euros or roubles, instead of other nations having to buy dollars to buy oil, we have to sell dollars to buy oil. At a stroke that puts downward pressure on the value of the dollar, which in turn means all the Chinese junk we import goes up in price.

In many ways stock markets tanking isn't a major concern for many people. Unless you are invested in the stock market it has a limited effect on you (I know pension funds are invested in the stock market but unless you're planning on retiring within the next few years there's probably time for the markets to recover). To the average working person who isn't putting money into the stock market (either directly or through pension funds) because they simply can't afford it, a stock market crash matters little. A crash in the value of the dollar matters a lot because now just about everything they need to buy goes up in price, even if their income does not. So many things are ultimately dependent on imports, whether it be because they are made abroad and shipped in or merely transported using imported oil to get them to the stores, if the dollar slides then prices rise.

For now the US can fund its deficits by issuing bonds. At some point the international market may decide it isn't interested in lending money to a government that not only can't control its spending but is also likely to face a currency devaluation, at which point either the deficits have to be addressed and fast, or interest rates rise. Whatever the Fed wants to do fiddling with domestic rates, when it comes to issuing bonds you can only sell them if someone is willing to buy them. If there are no buyers you have to reduce the price, which increases the yield, which breaks any desire to keep interest rates low.

It's never entirely clear whether Iran is trying to start a war or just rattle cages. Just as Ben Bernanke was quoted as talking about the credible threat of currency production being enough to move markets, in the Middle East it sometimes seems that the credible threat of ongoing attacks is enough to move other markets. If there's a credible threat to the oil supply, the price of oil goes up with all the associated aftereffects.

 

[Albion]

I'd really like to see Donald Trump announce he identifies as female. Think of the political implosions that would cause. The Democrats would have to either drop their transgender silliness or hail him (sorry, her) as the first female president. The Republicans would have to either drop a lot of excessive hostility to the transgendered or abandon their candidate.

I'd buy an extra large bag of popcorn if that one ever went down.

One thing you can take to the bank is that the Dems will never be caught short when they need a phony scandal. Just look at how the likelihood of Biden and Biden, Jr.'s shenanigans in Ukraine being revealed has been--with the ever-present help of the media-- turned by the Dems into a Trump scandal even though there was actually no whistleblower and no wrongdoing by the president! No matter, it's "impeach him!"