2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Bear Stearns]

They put a moderate up against Trump last time. It didn't work. Biden's a terrible choice because he's too associated with Obama. Delaney's slightly better, but apart from having a cock he's broadly the same as Clinton.

Dude, people like Biden despite that.

Clinton lost due to disaffected Bernie voters(Which isn't just because a Progressive candidate), scandals true or not(Biden while having baggage isn't as vulnerable despite gaffes) , Trump's outsider image, Hillary seeming unlikable, 8 year Democrat advantage, Hillary's lack of campaigning in the Midwest, Hillary's incoherent slogans and messages(I know a Political Nominee from a major state who also was a Campaign Strategist and he agrees with this and elaborated on it), Hillary's me-centric message(Again, this political strategist, who also is helping me and other aspiring candidates from both parties to an extent but not to a paid extent[yet], pointed this out), her inauthenticity(same person also agrees), inauthentic feeling flip-flops(different from most flip-flops I should stress, same person agreed), lack of charisma(many including that person I'm mentioning but keeping private due to respect and professional courtesy agrees), and calling Trump supporters Deplorables, which backfired.

It wasn't any one thing, it was a perfect storm of mistakes, incompetencies, oversights, and circumstances that made Trump win.

And this is coming from a 2016 Bernie supporter who despised Clinton.

Stop looking at things so simplistically, campaigns and their failure is complex. I know this from personal experience working on one recently privately and my political contacts.

Why didn't Hillary campaign in Wisconsin?

[Trumptonium1]

Dude, people like Biden despite that.

Clinton lost due to disaffected Bernie voters(Which isn't just because a Progressive candidate), scandals true or not(Biden while having baggage isn't as vulnerable despite gaffes) , Trump's outsider image, Hillary seeming unlikable, 8 year Democrat advantage, Hillary's lack of campaigning in the Midwest, Hillary's incoherent slogans and messages(I know a Political Nominee from a major state who also was a Campaign Strategist and he agrees with this and elaborated on it), Hillary's me-centric message(Again, this political strategist, who also is helping me and other aspiring candidates from both parties to an extent but not to a paid extent[yet], pointed this out), her inauthenticity(same person also agrees), inauthentic feeling flip-flops(different from most flip-flops I should stress, same person agreed), lack of charisma(many including that person I'm mentioning but keeping private due to respect and professional courtesy agrees), and calling Trump supporters Deplorables, which backfired.

It wasn't any one thing, it was a perfect storm of mistakes, incompetencies, oversights, and circumstances that made Trump win.

And this is coming from a 2016 Bernie supporter who despised Clinton.

Stop looking at things so simplistically, campaigns and their failure is complex. I know this from personal experience working on one recently privately and my political contacts.

Why didn't Hillary campaign in Wisconsin?

Are you kidding? Moi? Visiting the farmer plebs? Do they even have people in Wisconsin? If my predecessors got it automatically so will I!

[Liriena]

Are you kidding? Moi? Visiting the farmer plebs? Do they even have people in Wisconsin? If my predecessors got it automatically so will I!

Again with the oversimplified viewpoint...

Trumpism wasn't built on nuance.

[Vassenor]

Dude, people like Biden despite that.

Clinton lost due to disaffected Bernie voters(Which isn't just because a Progressive candidate), scandals true or not(Biden while having baggage isn't as vulnerable despite gaffes) , Trump's outsider image, Hillary seeming unlikable, 8 year Democrat advantage, Hillary's lack of campaigning in the Midwest, Hillary's incoherent slogans and messages(I know a Political Nominee from a major state who also was a Campaign Strategist and he agrees with this and elaborated on it), Hillary's me-centric message(Again, this political strategist, who also is helping me and other aspiring candidates from both parties to an extent but not to a paid extent[yet], pointed this out), her inauthenticity(same person also agrees), inauthentic feeling flip-flops(different from most flip-flops I should stress, same person agreed), lack of charisma(many including that person I'm mentioning but keeping private due to respect and professional courtesy agrees), and calling Trump supporters Deplorables, which backfired.

It wasn't any one thing, it was a perfect storm of mistakes, incompetencies, oversights, and circumstances that made Trump win.

And this is coming from a 2016 Bernie supporter who despised Clinton.

Stop looking at things so simplistically, campaigns and their failure is complex. I know this from personal experience working on one recently privately and my political contacts.

Why didn't Hillary campaign in Wisconsin?

Because how the Electoral College works encourages candidates to neglect states where they're expected to pull with big margins.

[Hediacrana]

Trumpism wasn't built on nuance.

Fair but I'd argue that most Leftist viewpoints, and even Centrist, aren't either.

All are at fault for simplistic thinking when it comes to politics, except the professionals.

And no, Trump doesn't count as this type of Professional, not does someone who's elected, and no this isn't ideology specific.

Who does count in your view as a professional in politics, if not those who are elected?

[Trumptonium1]

Are you kidding? Moi? Visiting the farmer plebs? Do they even have people in Wisconsin? If my predecessors got it automatically so will I!

Again with the oversimplified viewpoint...

No, she's an elitist.

[Bear Stearns]

Who does count in your view as a professional in politics, if not those who are elected?

There is no formal education, Professionalism in this idea is more of a general title of "People who are skilled at this".

However, these professional types include these famous elected people, as a general idea:

Biden
Obama
Pelosi
McConnell
Gillibrand
Klobuchar
Harris
Bloomberg
Paul Ryan
Lindsey Graham



The reason you see so many unpopular people here, is because complex understanding has been lacked by most modern politicians, and often nowadays only flip-floppers and opportunists now understand such complexity. It's a sad day for politics.

I'd also include Mitt Romney.

[Liriena]

Paul Ryan
Lindsey Graham

Yikes.

[Bear Stearns]

I'd also include Mitt Romney.

I initially decided to, but decided against it. I'm already pushing it by including Biden, as is. Obama barely but definitely fits into this, but just barely, I would understand if people took him off.

Joe Liebermann would've been good as well. And Murkowski from Alaska.

[Valrifell]

Yikes.

I think personally they're incompetent, but they know it more than most.

The quality of these complex thinkers have decreased with time too.

We need to bring the complex type of thinking needed, back to politics.

I think it's a bit simplistic to argue that the politicians not listed don't understand complex systems. Rather, I suspect they know that the average American isn't exactly a technocrat or even well versed in American civics, so their rhetoric is simplified to attract the greatest number of people.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. For all the grief I give Trump about intelligence, him tweeting and speaking at an elementary school level isn't strictly a negative, that's that kind of thing that every American can understand and get a grasp on.

[Bienenhalde]

Unless Democrats choose a moderate like Biden or Delaney, Trump has already won.

They put a moderate up against Trump last time. It didn't work. Biden's a terrible choice because he's too associated with Obama. Delaney's slightly better, but apart from having a cock he's broadly the same as Clinton.

Not all "moderates'' are the same, though. Hillary was too far to the left on social issues and too right on economics. The ideal candidate for 2020 would be the opposite.

[Valrifell]

They put a moderate up against Trump last time. It didn't work. Biden's a terrible choice because he's too associated with Obama. Delaney's slightly better, but apart from having a cock he's broadly the same as Clinton.

Not all "moderates'' are the same, though. Hillary was too far to the left on social issues and too right on economics. The ideal candidate for 2020 would be the opposite.

From my perspective the ideal candidate would be someone further to the left on both issues.

[Vassenor]

They put a moderate up against Trump last time. It didn't work. Biden's a terrible choice because he's too associated with Obama. Delaney's slightly better, but apart from having a cock he's broadly the same as Clinton.

Not all "moderates'' are the same, though. Hillary was too far to the left on social issues and too right on economics. The ideal candidate for 2020 would be the opposite.

Why is being right wing on social issues so vital?

[Valrifell]

I think it's a bit simplistic to argue that the politicians not listed don't understand complex systems. Rather, I suspect they know that the average American isn't exactly a technocrat or even well versed in American civics, so their rhetoric is simplified to attract the greatest number of people.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. For all the grief I give Trump about intelligence, him tweeting and speaking at an elementary school level isn't strictly a negative, that's that kind of thing that every American can understand and get a grasp on.

Their maneuverings also have become far less complex, and electoral strategies.

I don't claim to be as skilled one of these what I called professionals, but I know enough that I can see lack of that skill in other candidates.

I don't see where this is coming from, in terms of electoral strategy everything seems pretty par for the course.

[Valrifell]

From my perspective the ideal candidate would be someone further to the left on both issues.

I'm personally not too hooked up on that this time around.

Gimme a Biden, Klobuchar, Bernie, Beto, or Bullock win, and I'm perfectly happy.

Give me any candidate with a "B" in their name and honestly we're set.

Well, except for Bloomberg, he's icky.

[Philjia]

Not all "moderates'' are the same, though. Hillary was too far to the left on social issues and too right on economics. The ideal candidate for 2020 would be the opposite.

Why is being right wing on social issues so vital?

Because a lot of swing voters aren't exactly progressive.

[Bear Stearns]

Why is being right wing on social issues so vital?

Because a lot of swing voters aren't exactly progressive.

If Democrats had the same racial views they had in like...2000, they'd easily be the national party.

[Valrifell]

I don't see where this is coming from, in terms of electoral strategy everything seems pretty par for the course.

Exactly. That's the issue.

Stagnancy.

They are playing it safe so much and entrenching ideological sides, not outmaneuvering them.

USA didn't use to be like this, used to flip.

The reason is a variety of factors, such as segregation, cold war end, internet, but especially lack of complex strategy.

They need to use radically unorthodox tactics.

Ironically Trump stupidly bumbled his way into such tactics.

Realignment elections (which is what I assume we're talking about when you say "used to flip") are rare by their nature, since the two big-tents would be very bad to lose one of their blocs to the opposition and have to seek for new ones.

In essence, desperation creates the need to use unorthodox campaign strategies. Like when Richard Nixon had to go for Dixiecrats since they were essentially isolated by an increasingly pro-Civil Rights Democratic Party. Extensive coalition building isn't something that's supposed to happen every election, if it does then your party stands for nothing and probably doesn't have that long left.

[Bienenhalde]

Not all "moderates'' are the same, though. Hillary was too far to the left on social issues and too right on economics. The ideal candidate for 2020 would be the opposite.

Why is being right wing on social issues so vital?

Because I assume that many Americans are rightly appalled by leftist support for legalized drugs, state atheism, murdering infants, and other types of immorality. And since Trump is not a very moral person himself, it would be nice if the Democrats could nominate someone who was at least somewhat better. Personally, I reluctantly voted for Hillary, but it seems many social conservatives thought she was just as bad as Trump.

[Valrifell]

Why is being right wing on social issues so vital?

Because I assume that many Americans are rightly appalled by leftist support for legalized drugs, state atheism, murdering infants, and other types of immorality.

Boo, noo! Be gay, do crime!

[Grenartia]

Why is being right wing on social issues so vital?

Because I assume that many Americans are rightly appalled by leftist support for legalized drugs, state atheism, murdering infants, and other types of immorality. And since Trump is not a very moral person himself, it would be nice if the Democrats could nominate someone who was at least somewhat better. Personally, I reluctantly voted for Hillary, but it seems many social conservatives thought she was just as bad as Trump.

How is legal weed and "state atheism" (which I can only assume is your loaded buzzphrase for "separation of church and state") immoral in any way?

[Ayytaly]

Damn shame Ginger Joe won't run. He's young yet of age, and comes off as very likeable, and not just because he's a Kennedy. At the very least he should be plucked as VP for whoever the Dems get elected as their 2020 candidate.

How is legal weed and "state atheism" (which I can only assume is your loaded buzzphrase for "separation of church and state") immoral in any way?

The problem is not weed itself. The problem is who "benefits" from it, and the culture surrounding it. By legalizing weed, you're "rewarding" the very demographic whom [ab]use welfare or commit the most crime, and not work at all. By not working, robbery becomes rampant, just to score some cheap weed.

As for Separation of Church and State - if the Church represents morality (i.e. anti-war), then the State will enforce further separation, and inevitably more chaos and crimes against humanity. Worked for France during the first revolution.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Of the people in the poll, probably Tulsi Gabbard, but like I said earlier, my vote doesn't matter because I'm deep in red country.

[Ayytaly]

Damn shame Ginger Joe won't run. He's young yet of age, and comes off as very likeable, and not just because he's a Kennedy. At the very least he should be plucked as VP for whoever the Dems get elected as their 2020 candidate.

Bernie-Klobuchar 2020, Biden-Kennedy 2020, and Beto-Bullock 2020 would all be amazing tickets.

Beto/Kennedy for me. Would make up for Boondock Saints III not being confirmed.

[Farnhamia]

Bernie-Klobuchar 2020, Biden-Kennedy 2020, and Beto-Bullock 2020 would all be amazing tickets.

Beto/Kennedy for me. Would make up for Boondock Saints III not being confirmed.

I still long for Al Franken and Jill Stein. *sigh*