2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Cannot think of a name]

(Image)





Nice racism there fox.

I wasn't aware that Mexico was 3 countries

You know. Mexico, Coffee Mexico, Portuguese Mexico...

[Liriena]

The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.

[Tarsonis]

The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.

Come on, the General is going to be hilarious

[Valrifell]

The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.

At this early on it's a pure name recognition thing. Like how in 2008 Clinton was the lead in the polls.

[Juristonia]

The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.

At this early on it's a pure name recognition thing. Like how in 2008 Clinton was the lead in the polls.

That's what I was thinking.
The top 2 are also the 2 most well known.

[Maineiacs]

The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.

Come on, the General is going to be hilarious

Can you think of anything more entertaining than a Trump/ Biden debate?

[Hediacrana]

The fact that Biden is polling this high for the primaries gives me the big oofs.

Come on, the General is going to be hilarious

With the GOP endlessly airing clips of Biden creepily hugging people? I don't think 'hilarious' is the word.

[Valrifell]

A pointless thought experiment, Biden is not gonna be the nominee

[Zurkerx]

Trump's Trap on Immigration: Does someone see it?

The premise of the article: while the 2020 Democratic Candidates are right to condemn Trump's treatment of immigrants, they're only focusing on improving the humane conditions at the border, and not much on the countries they come from. O'Rourke in this case seems to be proposing to address the humanitarian conditions at the border while also saying that we should give aid to these countries, which Trump wants to cut because they haven't done anything for else, or if you believe in Fox's gaffe, "Three Mexican Countries". Now, the article seems bias towards O'Rourke but the underlining argument still stands: focus aid on countries where immigrants come from, which in turn, will reduce immigration overtime. Not a bad approach I would say.

Your thoughts?

[Valrifell]

Trump's Trap on Immigration: Does someone see it?

The premise of the article: while the 2020 Democratic Candidates are right to condemn Trump's treatment of immigrants, they're only focusing on improving the humane conditions at the border, and not much on the countries they come from. O'Rourke in this case seems to be proposing to address the humanitarian conditions at the border while also saying that we should give aid to these countries, which Trump wants to cut because they haven't done anything for else, or if you believe in Fox's gaffe, "Three Mexican Countries". Now, the article seems bias towards O'Rourke but the underlining argument still stands: focus aid on countries where immigrants come from, which in turn, will reduce immigration overtime. Not a bad approach I would say.

Your thoughts?

A South American Marshall Plan doesn't sound like too bad of an idea, though I imagine there'd be a lot of corruption and pusback because US Imperialism.

[Cannot think of a name]

Trump's Trap on Immigration: Does someone see it?

The premise of the article: while the 2020 Democratic Candidates are right to condemn Trump's treatment of immigrants, they're only focusing on improving the humane conditions at the border, and not much on the countries they come from. O'Rourke in this case seems to be proposing to address the humanitarian conditions at the border while also saying that we should give aid to these countries, which Trump wants to cut because they haven't done anything for else, or if you believe in Fox's gaffe, "Three Mexican Countries". Now, the article seems bias towards O'Rourke but the underlining argument still stands: focus aid on countries where immigrants come from, which in turn, will reduce immigration overtime. Not a bad approach I would say.

Your thoughts?

A South American Marshall Plan doesn't sound like too bad of an idea, though I imagine there'd be a lot of corruption and pusback because US Imperialism.

Like The Good Neighbor Policy?

[Lynn Nation]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

[Tarsonis]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

Nope, the Contra Democratus vote is a real thing and should not be underestimated

[Cannot think of a name]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

The general election will not be against a whole bunch of democrats and Trump.

[Major-Tom]

(Image)





Nice racism there fox.

I wasn't aware that Mexico was 3 countries

It's Fox News, the channel with the collective IQ of a damp sponge.

[Major-Tom]

IMO, Missouri's Governor race could be interesting. Current Governor Parson (R) took over last year after Former Gov Eric Greitens (R) resigned less than halfway through his first term amid double scandals involving using an email list he built as the President of a 501c(3) charity, and an accusation of taking a non-consensual picture of an otherwise consensual extramarital affair. The Lt. Governor is elected on a separate ticket, so make no mistake that Parson was a Greitens ally or visa versa, Parson has undone several changes including re-hiring the education commissioner Greitens stacked a board to fire. If that wasn't enough to anger "Team Greitens" within the GOP, there's not been a whole lot of fallout from the shocking story that a solidly Republican leaning politician turned media figure paid the lawyer who released audio tapes of Greitens affair 50k in a bundles of cash. That person continues his journalism career despite the fact he reported on the Greitens scandal without revealing his own involvement in the story.

Parson has yet to really define himself in the Governor's office - the legislative session ended last year the day Greitens resigned so nothing has been happening legislatively until a few weeks ago. But stylistically he could not be any more different than Greitens. Greitens was above all else a fighter, and was combative on almost all fronts. It will be interesting how it all shakes out. Greitens left office above water with Republicans, and the recent events surrounding Trump/Russia cause Greiten's own "witch hunt" to age better. Parson, if he runs, seems like just the type of guy that will be easy to label an "establishment" Republican and pound his lights out, and with the big wild card out there that is Greitens and how he'll swing his weight.

And yes, you can count me in the group of MO Republicans with whom it does not sit well that Greitens was ran out of town for his issues, but there seems to be no consequences for the cash payment that is actually and obviously corrupt. Greitens two sins were having sex with someone other than his wife (and maybe taking a photo without permission, an allegation that was never substantiated and a photo which no one could produce) and for taking an email list with him when he left his charity. The first is obviously a personal issue. On the latter, it's not that he stole money, or something that is obviously wrong.. But just that he took the donor list he built with him when he left the charity he founded. I understand why that runs afoul of the law, as it violates what a charity is supposed to be, but seems like the type of law violation that it is easy to see any "regular Joe" making as to him it probably felt like "his charity" so it probably would seem like "his list". All in all, to me something that would be dealt with via a fine and be gone for anyone that wasn't such a target from both parties.

TL;DR The MO Governor that is up for re-election wasn't elected himself, but took over for the last one that resigned, and that could make that seat pretty open to a nasty primary fight.

Unless the Missouri GOP decides to run Greitens again (which would be ludicrous), Parson should survive the primary. His sort of demeanor seems cool, content, relaxed, and he might not put up a hell of a fight in the general, leading me to think his largest vulnerability would be a blue-dog, conservative Democrat running against him. Those types have seemed to fare well in Missouri.

[Shrillland]

IMO, Missouri's Governor race could be interesting. Current Governor Parson (R) took over last year after Former Gov Eric Greitens (R) resigned less than halfway through his first term amid double scandals involving using an email list he built as the President of a 501c(3) charity, and an accusation of taking a non-consensual picture of an otherwise consensual extramarital affair. The Lt. Governor is elected on a separate ticket, so make no mistake that Parson was a Greitens ally or visa versa, Parson has undone several changes including re-hiring the education commissioner Greitens stacked a board to fire. If that wasn't enough to anger "Team Greitens" within the GOP, there's not been a whole lot of fallout from the shocking story that a solidly Republican leaning politician turned media figure paid the lawyer who released audio tapes of Greitens affair 50k in a bundles of cash. That person continues his journalism career despite the fact he reported on the Greitens scandal without revealing his own involvement in the story.

Parson has yet to really define himself in the Governor's office - the legislative session ended last year the day Greitens resigned so nothing has been happening legislatively until a few weeks ago. But stylistically he could not be any more different than Greitens. Greitens was above all else a fighter, and was combative on almost all fronts. It will be interesting how it all shakes out. Greitens left office above water with Republicans, and the recent events surrounding Trump/Russia cause Greiten's own "witch hunt" to age better. Parson, if he runs, seems like just the type of guy that will be easy to label an "establishment" Republican and pound his lights out, and with the big wild card out there that is Greitens and how he'll swing his weight.

And yes, you can count me in the group of MO Republicans with whom it does not sit well that Greitens was ran out of town for his issues, but there seems to be no consequences for the cash payment that is actually and obviously corrupt. Greitens two sins were having sex with someone other than his wife (and maybe taking a photo without permission, an allegation that was never substantiated and a photo which no one could produce) and for taking an email list with him when he left his charity. The first is obviously a personal issue. On the latter, it's not that he stole money, or something that is obviously wrong.. But just that he took the donor list he built with him when he left the charity he founded. I understand why that runs afoul of the law, as it violates what a charity is supposed to be, but seems like the type of law violation that it is easy to see any "regular Joe" making as to him it probably felt like "his charity" so it probably would seem like "his list". All in all, to me something that would be dealt with via a fine and be gone for anyone that wasn't such a target from both parties.

TL;DR The MO Governor that is up for re-election wasn't elected himself, but took over for the last one that resigned, and that could make that seat pretty open to a nasty primary fight.

Unless the Missouri GOP decides to run Greitens again (which would be ludicrous), Parson should survive the primary. His sort of demeanor seems cool, content, relaxed, and he might not put up a hell of a fight in the general, leading me to think his largest vulnerability would be a blue-dog, conservative Democrat running against him. Those types have seemed to fare well in Missouri.

I don't think even a blue dog could beat him. Despite defeating right to work last year, Missouri is no longer a bellweather state that changes with the tide, it is a deep Red state with no serious possibility of Democratic victories statewide.

[Major-Tom]

Unless the Missouri GOP decides to run Greitens again (which would be ludicrous), Parson should survive the primary. His sort of demeanor seems cool, content, relaxed, and he might not put up a hell of a fight in the general, leading me to think his largest vulnerability would be a blue-dog, conservative Democrat running against him. Those types have seemed to fare well in Missouri.

I don't think even a blue dog could beat him. Despite defeating right to work last year, Missouri is no longer a bellweather state that changes with the tide, it is a deep Red state with no serious possibility of Democratic victories statewide.

Dems came close in 2016, despite Trump winning the state by 20 points. McCaskill lost in large part because of the Kavanaugh vote and because she was already deeply unpopular.

Missouri has become substantially more Republican in the last, say, decade, sure. But it's not a write-off for state level candidates. Gubernatorial candidates are scores more likely than Senate or House candidates to buck the trend of the state's overall partisan lean (see Red State Blue Governors in MT, LA and the inverse in New England).

[G-Tech Corporation]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

Nope, the Contra Democratus vote is a real thing and should not be underestimated

+1

I would like Trump to take a long walk off a short bridge into the Atlantic. But if literally no Democratic candidate is willing to put forward policy positions that are at least vaguely centrist, my hands are pretty much tied. Idiot in the White House or not, sacrificing the Executive Branch over personal dislike isn’t rational voting.

[Mystic Warriors]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

How is him in second place make him a front runner?

[Major-Tom]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.

In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.

[Telconi]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.

In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.

TFW Major Tom complains that people aren't homophobic enough.

[Hediacrana]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.

In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.

And let's not forget that NSG people aren't representative for the American electorate. For one thing, far more teenage males.

[Major-Tom]

Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.

In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.

TFW Major Tom complains that people aren't homophobic enough.

It would be an affront to decency for anybody to make out with Rudy Giuliani.

[G-Tech Corporation]

The results of the poll above really scare me. I mean, lets go Bernie, but the fact that Trump is a front runner? Have we not learned a thing? Is this some sort of joke that I'm missing out on?

Trump's approval ratings nationwide tend not to deviate from the 38% to 45% range (excluding outliers from unreliable pollsters such as Rasmussen). I'd argue that his base is about 40% of registered voters, and they'd stand by Trump if he was caught making out with Giuliani on live television.

In other words, scary, sure, but no surprise.

Honestly? That exact scenario would be firmly in the idgaf category. Trump empirically isn't a good person, obviously. Something like that is far less likely to make me change my vote than, say, his declaration of that border emergency.

Trying to run against a candidate's moral character when that candidate's character is 0% of their selling points seems a bit unproductive.