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

I was thinking today, that if Trump really had a chance for re-election, posters like MA_Republican would be here singing Trump's praises. But he's not - which makes me believe that Trump truly is one and done just like GHWBush. MA_Republican is a preverbal canary in a coal mine for me in that regard.



...now whether Trump leaves peacefully is another issue.

Kanye hasn't quit the race. He never left.

That question as far as I know has never been asked of independents. I receive around 10 major polls every week from major polling firms, I've never seen that question.

I can tell you this, not many independents are fixated on the November election as of yet. That's normal for any election this far out. Although they express their view of like, dislike of Trump. YouGov asks that question. According to them as of 14 July 9% of independents like Trump a lot, 12% like Trump somewhat, 9% dislike him somewhat and 41% dislike him a lot, question 83.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/hpupr0zhkl/econTabReport.pdf

For comparison, Biden, Question 92. Biden Likability - Regardless of whether you agree with him, do you like or dislike Joe Biden as a person? 9% of independents like him a lot, 19% like Biden somewhat, 9% dislike Biden somewhat, 21% dislike Biden a lot. Total likes are close between both Biden and Trump with Biden having a slight edge. But in dislikes, the dislike a lot column, Biden is much lower with 21% vs. trump 41%.

That last one means a lot as voters to include independents usually don't vote for someone they dislike. Now I haven't seen a question as of yet about those voters who disliked both candidates as was published by Gallup in 2016. But I think that is coming. But like I said, it's early, most independents haven't tuned into the presidential election yet. Way too many other things going on. It usually isn't until around the first part of October that independents start paying attention. In a normal year.

G.H.W.Bush is unique. Had that election been held in April/May of 1992 he would have been a landslide winner. The average of polls during that time show Bush 44%, Bill Clinton 25%, Ross Perot 24%. It wasn't until July after Perot had withdrawn and before he reentered it at the end of September that Bill took the lead. A lead he would never relinquish.

Bush's main problem was he campaigned like he didn't care if he won or lost. That is until the last two weeks of the campaign. For ineptness, Bush's and Hillary's campaign are right up there at the top. Who's going to vote for someone who doesn't care if he wins or loses?

Now Bush did narrow Bill Clinton's 12 point lead two weeks out to losing by 6 in the general. Perot also had reentered by that time.

One should also note that Bush was so popular prior to the primaries that all the big name democrats decided not to run in 1992 letting a little known Arkansas Governor win their nomination. Until April/May 1992 most Democrats thought they were in for a whipping. It was independents that gave Bill his win, 43% of independents voted for Bill, 30% for Perot and 28% for Bush. Bush's lackadaisical and I don't care campaign doomed him.

Apparently, Trump is going to be "unique" too.

Bush, Senior, really was a "man out of his time". I liked him (the last Republican presidential candidate I voted for), even though he allowed his domestic policy to be dictated by party leadership - a huge failure on his part. His greatest failure, in my book, though, was getting advice from Bill Barr to pardon the Iran-contra miscreants. He would have been drawn into the scandal, of course, but I think he would have weathered it, as he was, at bottom, an honorable man. It was the acceptance of "voodoo"/Republican economics, despite his better senses, that doomed him.

Wasn't GHWBush knee-deep in the Iran/Contra scandal himself?

Knee deep? No. Like Jesus he walked above the mire. He was an aristocrat, above the fray, so to speak.

"A man out of his time"

Indeed, the age of the aristocrat has passed. In their place we have billionaire fascists.

One of them resides on Pennsylvania Ave right now.

But not for long...A unionist is about to defeat him. An entirely different set of corrupt factions.

Ma Republican has said on several occasions that Trump is "not his cup of tea" but he is an unapologetic partisan and a conservative. He loves to see Democrats crash and burn.

If Trump wins re-election I can guarantee you that our colleague in Massachusetts will drop by to laugh at us. (If he still lives)

I think breaking his "No New Taxes," pledge is what doom Bush. But like everything else, it wasn't just one thing, That to me was the main thing, but everything else added to it, that was too much for Bush. It was independents that sent the elder Bush down to his defeat. After receiving 57% of the independent vote in 1988, Bush dropped down to just 28% in a three candidate race. It's interesting to note that 21% of Republicans deserted Bush and voted for Perot, only 15% of the Democrats deserted Bill Clinton by voting for Perot.

I don't think any of my favorites are unadulterated goodness and light. All are human. But, Republicans have been a disaster for over 50 years. Democrats, while having their own problems (especially in the 1970s), never held a candle to the corruption of the GOP. I think the fundamental issue, as this thread notes, is that, at bottom, their driving philosophy is contrary to good governance. It has been getting worse and worse since Reagan, until we finally got Trump, but he is a man OF his time... or the GOP's time. It is time to allow the GOP to fade into irrelevancy, like the Whigs before them.