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

Since I'm an independent I'm not privy to inside Democratic plans to steal the election....

o come on Dems .... if Tom Fitton knows of your plans, I think everyone should know about them

Now, how are ya going to put Rep Pelosi in the WH???

Trump can steal the Presidential election but he can't affect house and senate races. So the Senate flips, they impeach Trump and Pence, then seat Pelosi as Prez...

All the hystrionics and grandstanding from the blue check crowd. It’s as though the Iowa caucus never happened. Limiting voting booths in poor neighborhoods or reducing the numbers on college campuses, etc.

Now comes the righteous anger and angst about the general. What’s the saying?
Democrats steal primaries while Republicans steal the general? Gawd, this play gets old with this corrupt two faction Weimar gerontocracy we pretend is a democracy

Democrats would have to win almost every single Senate seat now held by a Republican to have enough Senate votes to remove impeached President Trump and his VP. That voting requirement is not a Senate rule, it's in the Constitution. The odds of that happening are infinitesimal.

If you look at the logic of Mr. Market, wouldn’t Trump not be so bad in terms of the fund raising grift of Democrats?
Similar to the “It may not be good for America but It’s damn good for CBS (Democrats)” kind of logic? The fund raised capital and blue check conspiracy broadcast ratings would give evidence that Trump has been very good to the Democratic Party.
Trump also governs like a traditional republican from an economic sense so theirs not much to be opposed to by Democrats from a legislative sense.
With the exception of cultural differences to be annoyed about, I see the Trump administration as a windfall for the liberals. The fact that they’re running an empty campaign except for a restoration of ‘norms and values’ makes me think they’re not so ideologically split with trump on more important economic issues as they would have voters believe.
Culture wars are cheap, offering resources and provisioning to people is hard. Unless your a bank or military industry etc.

I don't know much about markets. But I do know a lot of the regular big, mega Republican donors haven't given Trump a red cent. They don't like him. Whether this is due to his obnoxious personality and childish antics or how he handles the market issues, I think of the trade war with China, I don't know.

I think it may be a combination of factors. His foreign policy isn't what the moneyed folks were looking for. The money raised so far, Trump 680 million to Biden's 730 million. Although I haven't the faintest idea how each has handled and spent their moneyed assets.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race

One thing for sure, the money race is much more even this year than in 2016 where Hillary almost doubled Trump, 1.191 billion to 646.8 million.

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

If I've been reading the polls correctly, it seems 90% of the electorate have had their minds made up who'll they vote for way back in May and haven't deviated much from that. So money may be irrelevant at this point with a bit over two weeks to go. We'll see.

Sheldon Adelson just gave some Trump PAC $75M. I guess Trump reminded him how Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and got some arab states to normalize relations with Israel. Add the inherent fact Palestine was frakked in the deal and That is how much $75M is worth.

So Between the two candidates, there's less than 10% that separates them?
Looks fairly evenly split to me on this surface pass. I suppose there might be more to say drilling deeper into individual donations and average size but I can't be bothered to read the entrails as there doesn't seem to be much difference between these two men except their style of corruption, hubris and greed.

This run up to the election has the same atmosphere as the run up to the Iraq invasion. It has the same surreal hypernormalization of reality that those earlier naked imperial days had. Fantastic myths talked about in place of any reality that could pass the sniff test but everyone resigned to the outcome.

So one side thinks Trump is a genius businessman that's been kicking butt and taking names as well as fighting sexual preverts in underground tunnels where the adolescent sex slaves are held.

Meanwhile Libs are self-flagellating in front of the altar of the security state for protection from the preternatural social media manipulations of the red Ivans lest the country be turned into Putin Manchurian candidates.

There has been some attempts to talk about what happened in 2016 in a more detailed reality driven way. Bob Urie published a good piece in Counterpunch recently that distilled down much of whats been discussed in more critical venues than infotainment media:

"The question of elections is typically answered through demographic analyses of the people who voted. This view assumes that not voting by people who are eligible is either immaterial, or that the implied politics is irrelevant or indeterminate. Additionally, given the income and wealth skew amongst those who vote, the contention that the rich elected this candidate or that implies inclusive representation of the polity that simply isn’t the case. These are more than abstractions. As is illustrated below, voters who didn’t vote in 2016, or who switched from one party to another in ways that are inexplicable within the official view, had a large impact on the outcome."

Who elected Donald Trump

A good perspective bringing receipts, IMO.

Most of that 100 million strong voting bloc gets dismissed in various ways in Liberal oriented media. Derisive dismissal or misdirection seems most common to me.

The Sanders campaigns "theory of change' strategy failed to tap that enormous pool of voters. It's a shame really as that lane will be left for the far right to make inroads into. The Liberal class seems unwilling to try for it as FDR could and did. That would inconvenience their world view on the way to brunch I guess.

I don't dwell much into demographics when they're included in the three major groups. Republicans, democrats and independents. All demographics are covered there, they're included in just those three groups of voters without have to do a ton of delving into it.

I have a simple formula to figure out the popular vote, 90% of republicans will vote for Trump, 90% of democrats for Biden. That's the historical average of how those who affiliate or identify themselves with the two major parties.

Independents is a bit tougher, I take 75% of independents lean Republican as voting for Trump, 75% of independents that lean Democratic as voting for Biden. That leaves just the pure or true independents with no leans which is anyone guess. As of 28 sep, Gallup had the numbers of 42% of independents lean Republican, 48% lean Democratic with but 10% with no leans. With the above figures one can come up with a good approximation of the vote totals. But Gallup party affiliation figures are old. But they do give me a good indication that Biden will win the independent vote this go around. Hillary lost independents in 2016.

Being the Democratic party is still the larger party, winning the independents also, Biden should win fairly easily, by 7-8 points, perhaps 10.