Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

There was a plan to buy tickets and then not show. My kids all bought tickets. Their plan was to have the Trump rally fail due to lack of attendance. Perhaps they had something to do with the lack of attendees. The Trump forces pre-bragged thousand and thousands. I don't think they got over 15 thousand. Broke the poor leader's heart! On the up side very few were wearing masks, they filled the hall with all sorts of virus and other disgusting things in their ongoing effort to worship their Lord and Master. I give them about 2 weeks before it starts to come apart. I wonder how many got to give him a little hug in this time of deseration?

Tulsa Fire Department estimated the crowd at 6200.

Certainly more than Biden has ever drawn.

But is it really about how many people come see you? Or is it about who will best guide the ship of state.

It's all very Jim Jonesy. Has there ever been a cult to emotionally invested in a POTUS?

Biden doesn't have to do any campaigning. Just cut devastating ads at the time of his choosing. He doesn't even have to debate Fat Donnie. Not a single person would change their vote if he didn't. "I'm not going to dignify the lies and insults with responses. The voters know my plans. They know the disaster that is Trump. They'll decide." Game over.

I agree that it should be about running the ship of state, who would be the best president and be able to do the most for the people. But it isn't. For roughly 2/3rds of all Americans it all about the letter behind the name. For 90% of those who affiliate or identify with both major parties, it's the R and or the D that decides their vote, not the best or worst candidate.

For the other third, call them independents, swing voters, the non-affiliated, whatever. They're all over the place as to the reason/s they vote the way they do. How they perceive the two candidates, their like or dislike of the candidates usually comes to the fore. Sometimes it's the one with the best slogan, the one who looks the most presidential, who their friends, family vote for, their stances on an issue or two, there's a lot of one issue voters out there. It's impossible to state all the reasons or to even quantify them.

I would say very few take into consideration who would be best at running the government. Then again among those who decide their vote on the letter behind the name actually think their candidate will be the best. Each individual views the two parties differently along with their candidates. It all boils down to how each individual views the candidates, their perception of the candidates, whether or not they did something to make folks angry or how they view the job they have been doing.

This election will be more about Trump than Biden which is probably a good thing for the Democrats. All we now need to do is to figure out how those pesky, finicky independents, swing voters view the two candidates.

I so tire of the "independent voter" arguments. I've never met an "independent" that actually votes for individuals of both parties every election.

If such an animal exists, these people are probably as rare as unicorns or pots of gold at the end of rainbows and not nearly as populous as one-third.

Call me a unicorn because I do exactly that. 2016 for example, third party for president, Republican for senate, democratic for congress. That's just on the federal level. 2018 we didn't have a senate race, but I voted Democratic for congress and Republican for governor and Lt. Governor.

What I see from studies of independents is you have approximately 40% who lean Republican and another 40% who lean Democratic. Now those numbers vary, go up and down. What's important is unlike those who call themselves Republicans and Democrats who will vote for their party's candidates 90% of the time. Independents who lean toward one party or the other will vote for the candidates of the party they lean toward 70%. Again this varies from election to election, going up and down, but on average it is 70%.

That leaves just 20% of independents with no leans, what I call true or pure independents. This is between 8-15% of the total electorate. This is also why or it is these true or pure independents why independents as a whole can vote for Democratic congressional candidates 57-39 over Republican congressional candidates in 2006, then reverse course and vote for Republican congressional candidate four years later in 2010 by a 56-37 margin. In 2014 independents voted for Republican congressional candidates 54-42 over Democrats, then in 2018 voted for Democratic congressional candidates by the same 54-42 margin.

If you want to look at the presidential races, 2000 independents went to Bush 48-46, in 2004 for Bush again 48-47, for Obama in 2008 52-44 over McCain, but switched to Romney in 2012 51-48 and for Trump in 2016 46-42 over Hillary. with 12% voting third party against both Trump and Hillary. You could take this back to 1996 when 50% of independents voted for Bill Clinton, 33% for Dole and 17% for Perot. In 1992 it was 43% for Bill Clinton, 28% Bush and 30% for Perot.Independents are much more apt to vote third party than the party faithful as seen in 2016 with 12% of independents voting third party compared to just 3% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans.

You don't see the wild swings in presidential election as you do in congressional elections. Usually wild swings among independents such as the 57% voting Democratic in 2006 falling to 37% in 2010, a drop of 20 points is caused by anger at the party in power more than who the candidates are. The party in power did something independents didn't like or passed something they didn't want and they took their revenge by switching their allegiance form the party they once voted for to the other party. In plain English, they became very unhappy campers and wanted revenge.

I almost was gonna do that...but then our otherwise decent governor flubbed the Corona test.

I'm a left leaning independent though so I always vote a straight Democratic ticket. The lesser of two evils as it were.

I think that's how most folks vote, none of the candidates are worth voting for, none of them represent my views. I wouldn't like most of them if I met them at a party. But they wouldn't be chatting with the likes of me anyway.

I know I voted for a Republiclown once. I forget who it was...but it was not a major office like governor or Prezzie.

61% of all Americans feels that neither party represents them or reflects their opinions today, while 38% disagree. This includes 77% of independents and 54% of Republicans and 46% of Democrats. This feeling is growing as both parties move further left and right leaving the average American without a political party to call home. This can be seen in the rise of independents from 30% in 2006 to 40% today. Even so, there realistically is no choice for those dissatisfied with both major parties to vote for. Our two major parties have a monopoly on our election system.

57% of Americans think a viable or major third party is needed.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx

But that isn't about to happen. The Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing the two major parties agree on, it's no viable third party will ever rise to challenge them.

Then there is the financial aspect of it. Corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist, Special interests Groups, mega money donors, all donate their tens of millions adding up to hundreds of millions to the two major parties, none to third parties. You can see this in the presidential race of 2016 where Hillary raised and spent 1.191 billion to Trump's 646.8 million while all third party candidates together raised and spent 6 million. When you're out spent approximately 2 billion to 6 million, you don't stand a chance. No way to get your message out or let the people know who you are.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

So yes, we're left with voting for the lesser of two evils, the candidates and political party we least want to lose, not win, but least want to lose. Isn't it strange that neither major party isn't one bit interested into moving toward the views and wants of 61% of Americans, only in their own ideology and political views and agenda. If one or the other did, they could become the dominant party for the next 40 years. But since they hold the power and the money, it doesn't matter if 60% or 80% of Americans desert them, they still control who gets on the ballot, who gets all the media attention, who gets into the debates, in short, they control our election system so to hell with the vast majority of Americans and their views and wants.