Anonymous
07/20/2019 10:53
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Everything had to break Trump’s way for him to win in 2016. Everything has to break his way again to win in 2020 - I just don’t know how likely that is. I read the article in the NYT that someone mentioned just upthread and it was frightening as a person who thinks Trump and his cult are horrible, but it was also a little far-fetched ... plus the election is a million miles away, in political terms, and so much can change between now and then.
The Republican base is relatively steady in terms of voting numbers. The Democrats need to turn out their own voters. They don’t need to siphon votes from the R base (honestly not even possible, even the Never Trumpers vote Libertarian or write-in or just don’t vote for President) and the number of “swing voters” isn’t all that large. The Clinton campaign was bad at turning out the D base in key swing states and relied on bad polling data. Hopefully the 2020 nominee won’t make the same mistakes.
The Republican base is relatively steady in terms of voting numbers. The Democrats need to turn out their own voters. They don’t need to siphon votes from the R base (honestly not even possible, even the Never Trumpers vote Libertarian or write-in or just don’t vote for President) and the number of “swing voters” isn’t all that large. The Clinton campaign was bad at turning out the D base in key swing states and relied on bad polling data. Hopefully the 2020 nominee won’t make the same mistakes.
Anonymous
07/20/2019 10:47
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Thoughts from a center-right voter who would like to vote for a Democrat but will probably just end up writing someone in again:
1. Harris isn’t as moderate as this thread suggests. She literally proposed abolishing private insurance. I was skeptical of but largely okay with Obamacare. This next move scares me.
2. Mayor Pete is a joke. If Republicans nominated a staunch conservative mayor of, say, Huntsville, the commentariat would fairly be asking if this is a further sign of a party crack-up. He shouldn’t be in this convo.
3. I like Warren personally, but she’s way too liberal. If I were a Dem, though, I’d want to see her nominated. Clearly smart and probably very capable.
4. Biden wouldn’t be anywhere near this conversation if not for folks’ rosy views of Obama.
5. The debates seemed like raw meat for the base. It was really unsettling to me.
6. Trump will lose virtually regardless. 2016 was a fluke and no one wants to be caught off guard by his victory again. But flukes are sometimes flukes, and that’s what 2016 was.
7. Please don’t screw this up and, in particular, please don’t pick Bernie.
^ well you just dumped on all their front runners, so if none of them can beat Trump then who do you think can?
Anonymous
07/20/2019 10:15
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Thoughts from a center-right voter who would like to vote for a Democrat but will probably just end up writing someone in again:
1. Harris isn’t as moderate as this thread suggests. She literally proposed abolishing private insurance. I was skeptical of but largely okay with Obamacare. This next move scares me.
2. Mayor Pete is a joke. If Republicans nominated a staunch conservative mayor of, say, Huntsville, the commentariat would fairly be asking if this is a further sign of a party crack-up. He shouldn’t be in this convo.
3. I like Warren personally, but she’s way too liberal. If I were a Dem, though, I’d want to see her nominated. Clearly smart and probably very capable.
4. Biden wouldn’t be anywhere near this conversation if not for folks’ rosy views of Obama.
5. The debates seemed like raw meat for the base. It was really unsettling to me.
6. Trump will lose virtually regardless. 2016 was a fluke and no one wants to be caught off guard by his victory again. But flukes are sometimes flukes, and that’s what 2016 was.
7. Please don’t screw this up and, in particular, please don’t pick Bernie.
1. Harris isn’t as moderate as this thread suggests. She literally proposed abolishing private insurance. I was skeptical of but largely okay with Obamacare. This next move scares me.
2. Mayor Pete is a joke. If Republicans nominated a staunch conservative mayor of, say, Huntsville, the commentariat would fairly be asking if this is a further sign of a party crack-up. He shouldn’t be in this convo.
3. I like Warren personally, but she’s way too liberal. If I were a Dem, though, I’d want to see her nominated. Clearly smart and probably very capable.
4. Biden wouldn’t be anywhere near this conversation if not for folks’ rosy views of Obama.
5. The debates seemed like raw meat for the base. It was really unsettling to me.
6. Trump will lose virtually regardless. 2016 was a fluke and no one wants to be caught off guard by his victory again. But flukes are sometimes flukes, and that’s what 2016 was.
7. Please don’t screw this up and, in particular, please don’t pick Bernie.
Anonymous
07/20/2019 00:08
Subject: Re:Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Just f*cking nominate Biden, you idiots.
It’s really that simple unless you want a racist narcissist to be out of control as a president in his second term with no fear of trying to be re-elected.
It’s really that simple unless you want a racist narcissist to be out of control as a president in his second term with no fear of trying to be re-elected.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 23:57
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:+1. To the above. The Dems are running like the winner is going to be chosen by popular vote. It’s baffling to me.
The Republicans are running like you're going to anoint the winner at a KKK rally. It's baffling to me.
It shouldn’t be. There are a lot of (1) racists and (2) people who are extremely opposed to illegal immigration and (3) people who will accept anything from Trump as long as he’s for tax cutting and nominates conservative judges. And these people aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, so it’s not a bad strategy (obviously, as Trump won the presidency).
But the Democrats’ strategy truly is baffling. Most of them are advocating for positions far to the left of where most of the country, and the Obama administration is/was. When the states they have to win are (as always) swing states that are not bastions of coastal liberalism. Issues like racial justice, healthcare and other protections for undocumented immigrants, taking away private health insurance, etc. are not going to be winners there. They just aren’t. The 2020 candidates need to recognize this and change their messaging accordingly, but most of them aren’t grasping this. It’s truly baffling.
I think it's super baffling that Republicans think they can be as utterly repellent as they are being, right out in the open, and it won't have consequences!
Your default seems to be that Republicans win unless perfect Democrats come to challenge them. I do not subscribe to that default. I think Republicans are repellent and going out of their way to repel moderates, white suburban women, black voters, and anyone else beyond the Trumpiest of Trumpzis.
Do I feel confident that Trump will lose? F*ck no! 2016 blindsided me and I feel like I've still got PTSD. Do I feel more confident every time I see Trump being a disgraceful fool, and his Republican buddies falling in line? Yes, I sure do.
Poor little snowflake-
LOL! The snowflakes are the MAGA trash yelling "send her back" because they can't abide strong Democratic women.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 23:41
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:+1. To the above. The Dems are running like the winner is going to be chosen by popular vote. It’s baffling to me.
The Republicans are running like you're going to anoint the winner at a KKK rally. It's baffling to me.
It shouldn’t be. There are a lot of (1) racists and (2) people who are extremely opposed to illegal immigration and (3) people who will accept anything from Trump as long as he’s for tax cutting and nominates conservative judges. And these people aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, so it’s not a bad strategy (obviously, as Trump won the presidency).
But the Democrats’ strategy truly is baffling. Most of them are advocating for positions far to the left of where most of the country, and the Obama administration is/was. When the states they have to win are (as always) swing states that are not bastions of coastal liberalism. Issues like racial justice, healthcare and other protections for undocumented immigrants, taking away private health insurance, etc. are not going to be winners there. They just aren’t. The 2020 candidates need to recognize this and change their messaging accordingly, but most of them aren’t grasping this. It’s truly baffling.
I think it's super baffling that Republicans think they can be as utterly repellent as they are being, right out in the open, and it won't have consequences!
Your default seems to be that Republicans win unless perfect Democrats come to challenge them. I do not subscribe to that default. I think Republicans are repellent and going out of their way to repel moderates, white suburban women, black voters, and anyone else beyond the Trumpiest of Trumpzis.
Do I feel confident that Trump will lose? F*ck no! 2016 blindsided me and I feel like I've still got PTSD. Do I feel more confident every time I see Trump being a disgraceful fool, and his Republican buddies falling in line? Yes, I sure do.
Poor little snowflake-
Anonymous
07/19/2019 21:09
Subject: Re:Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Should anyone be elected that is promising "healthcare for all"..... it will be a promise not kept. Mark my words.
It's not sustainable.
The good docs will open boutique shops. Pay up front!
Why can't it be sustainable? If you open up medicare, the pool gets bigger. Most people won't get it for free. You pay on a sliding scale, as they do today. My parents are low income, but they still pay for medicare.
Medicare taxes on paychecks can also be raised a tiny bit to help sustain it. It's what Reagan did back in 1983. Yes, folks, a R raised taxes to help pay for government sponsored healthcare. Imagine that.
Medicare pays a fraction of what the charges really are. Private insurance currently pays a much greater percentage.
A few things will happen with Medicare for all.
1. People are going to stop going into medicine. It won't be worth it considering the cost of the education.
2. Doctors will stop or avoid taking Medicare. Right now, about 94% of doctors take Medicare patients - that willl likely become less. This assumes that people will still have private insurance, which is debatable under the Medicare for All plans.
3. Doctors will become "boutique." My former GP had such a practice. You paid an annual fee ($1500 or more) for the luxury of being his patient. He limited the number of patients he took and none were Medicare. He was an excellent doctor, so my family paid. Each adult is charged the annual fee. Kids were covered under that plan.
4. People will start paying in cash and probably get reduced charges for services.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 17:12
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:+1. To the above. The Dems are running like the winner is going to be chosen by popular vote. It’s baffling to me.
The Republicans are running like you're going to anoint the winner at a KKK rally. It's baffling to me.
It shouldn’t be. There are a lot of (1) racists and (2) people who are extremely opposed to illegal immigration and (3) people who will accept anything from Trump as long as he’s for tax cutting and nominates conservative judges. And these people aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, so it’s not a bad strategy (obviously, as Trump won the presidency).
But the Democrats’ strategy truly is baffling. Most of them are advocating for positions far to the left of where most of the country, and the Obama administration is/was. When the states they have to win are (as always) swing states that are not bastions of coastal liberalism. Issues like racial justice, healthcare and other protections for undocumented immigrants, taking away private health insurance, etc. are not going to be winners there. They just aren’t. The 2020 candidates need to recognize this and change their messaging accordingly, but most of them aren’t grasping this. It’s truly baffling.
I think it's super baffling that Republicans think they can be as utterly repellent as they are being, right out in the open, and it won't have consequences!
Your default seems to be that Republicans win unless perfect Democrats come to challenge them. I do not subscribe to that default. I think Republicans are repellent and going out of their way to repel moderates, white suburban women, black voters, and anyone else beyond the Trumpiest of Trumpzis.
Do I feel confident that Trump will lose? F*ck no! 2016 blindsided me and I feel like I've still got PTSD. Do I feel more confident every time I see Trump being a disgraceful fool, and his Republican buddies falling in line? Yes, I sure do.
That's precisely my point, though. YOU think Republicans are being utterly repellent, and I agree. But based on the demographics of this site (maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sorry), I'm going to make the assumption that you have at least a college degree, if not a graduate degree, and live somewhere in the DC metro area, which is a diverse area that skews very liberal. These (the above profile) are the kinds of voters to whom Trump is so repellent that they would vote for any D in 2020, perfect or not. I myself am among them. But while Trump's comments/behavior are horrible, but I don't think they're necessarily a dealbreaker to the white blue-collar voters who are going to make the key differences in the important EC states that Trump flipped and won in 2016. Racist comments don't affect your average middle-class white swing voter in any tangible way, so they are not going to vote for any Democrat on the grounds that they're a better/less racist/less abhorrent person than Trump.
I have strong doubts about the proposition that minority voters who sat out 2016 are going to come out in huge numbers to vote for anyone-but-Trump. I think minority turnout will be up a little bit, but not a huge amount, from 2016. Which means that white swing voters are still going to be the crucial constituency. And white swing voters are unlikely to be directly negatively impacted by Trump's policies, so they won't turn out in huge numbers to vote AGAINST him. So they will still have to actively vote FOR the Democratic candidate, and the way to get them to do that is by being moderate to be palatable. Otherwise, even if they refuse to actively vote for Trump, they just won't vote. And that's how he wins 2020.
Dems really need someone who is more moderate. Liberals on the coast will vote for a moderate liberal over Trump, no doubt. But it's the white midwest vote that is the swing vote, and agree, they are not as invested in racist issues as minorities. Healthcare and economy is where it's at. But, I do think that many of these folks are amenable to medicare for all. Remember this townhall by Sanders in PA, hosted by Fox News... they were shocked that so many people were for medicare for all. And that is why so many of these Dems are pushing medicare for all.. because folks in these swing states with diverse views want it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/sanders-fox-news/587239/
And by a show of hands, how many would be willing to switch to the health-care system that Sanders was proposing instead? Almost everyone appeared to raise a hand again—a result that seemed to surprise the moderators, who had already told viewers that the group in the auditorium was ideologically diverse.
I think Medicare for All is a good idea. But I think it should be structured as a public option, not as a required opt-in system, because many people are OK or happy with their private insurance. Many of those same town hall voters would probably reconsider if they were told "the government" was forcibly kicking them off of their private insurance for "socialized healthcare," which is 100% the way Republicans will characterize it as an election issue. Offering a public option that is actually cost-efficient and well-run will get people to voluntarily choose it and like it.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 17:01
Subject: Re:Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Should anyone be elected that is promising "healthcare for all"..... it will be a promise not kept. Mark my words.
It's not sustainable.
The good docs will open boutique shops. Pay up front!
Why can't it be sustainable? If you open up medicare, the pool gets bigger. Most people won't get it for free. You pay on a sliding scale, as they do today. My parents are low income, but they still pay for medicare.
Medicare taxes on paychecks can also be raised a tiny bit to help sustain it. It's what Reagan did back in 1983. Yes, folks, a R raised taxes to help pay for government sponsored healthcare. Imagine that.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 16:58
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:+1. To the above. The Dems are running like the winner is going to be chosen by popular vote. It’s baffling to me.
The Republicans are running like you're going to anoint the winner at a KKK rally. It's baffling to me.
It shouldn’t be. There are a lot of (1) racists and (2) people who are extremely opposed to illegal immigration and (3) people who will accept anything from Trump as long as he’s for tax cutting and nominates conservative judges. And these people aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, so it’s not a bad strategy (obviously, as Trump won the presidency).
But the Democrats’ strategy truly is baffling. Most of them are advocating for positions far to the left of where most of the country, and the Obama administration is/was. When the states they have to win are (as always) swing states that are not bastions of coastal liberalism. Issues like racial justice, healthcare and other protections for undocumented immigrants, taking away private health insurance, etc. are not going to be winners there. They just aren’t. The 2020 candidates need to recognize this and change their messaging accordingly, but most of them aren’t grasping this. It’s truly baffling.
I think it's super baffling that Republicans think they can be as utterly repellent as they are being, right out in the open, and it won't have consequences!
Your default seems to be that Republicans win unless perfect Democrats come to challenge them. I do not subscribe to that default. I think Republicans are repellent and going out of their way to repel moderates, white suburban women, black voters, and anyone else beyond the Trumpiest of Trumpzis.
Do I feel confident that Trump will lose? F*ck no! 2016 blindsided me and I feel like I've still got PTSD. Do I feel more confident every time I see Trump being a disgraceful fool, and his Republican buddies falling in line? Yes, I sure do.
That's precisely my point, though. YOU think Republicans are being utterly repellent, and I agree. But based on the demographics of this site (maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sorry), I'm going to make the assumption that you have at least a college degree, if not a graduate degree, and live somewhere in the DC metro area, which is a diverse area that skews very liberal. These (the above profile) are the kinds of voters to whom Trump is so repellent that they would vote for any D in 2020, perfect or not. I myself am among them. But while Trump's comments/behavior are horrible, but I don't think they're necessarily a dealbreaker to the white blue-collar voters who are going to make the key differences in the important EC states that Trump flipped and won in 2016. Racist comments don't affect your average middle-class white swing voter in any tangible way, so they are not going to vote for any Democrat on the grounds that they're a better/less racist/less abhorrent person than Trump.
I have strong doubts about the proposition that minority voters who sat out 2016 are going to come out in huge numbers to vote for anyone-but-Trump. I think minority turnout will be up a little bit, but not a huge amount, from 2016. Which means that white swing voters are still going to be the crucial constituency. And white swing voters are unlikely to be directly negatively impacted by Trump's policies, so they won't turn out in huge numbers to vote AGAINST him. So they will still have to actively vote FOR the Democratic candidate, and the way to get them to do that is by being moderate to be palatable. Otherwise, even if they refuse to actively vote for Trump, they just won't vote. And that's how he wins 2020.
Dems really need someone who is more moderate. Liberals on the coast will vote for a moderate liberal over Trump, no doubt. But it's the white midwest vote that is the swing vote, and agree, they are not as invested in racist issues as minorities. Healthcare and economy is where it's at. But, I do think that many of these folks are amenable to medicare for all. Remember this townhall by Sanders in PA, hosted by Fox News... they were shocked that so many people were for medicare for all. And that is why so many of these Dems are pushing medicare for all.. because folks in these swing states with diverse views want it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/sanders-fox-news/587239/
And by a show of hands, how many would be willing to switch to the health-care system that Sanders was proposing instead? Almost everyone appeared to raise a hand again—a result that seemed to surprise the moderators, who had already told viewers that the group in the auditorium was ideologically diverse.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 16:54
Subject: Re:Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:IMO the reason why so many of these Dems are focusing on healthcare for all is because for the Dem voters, this is their #1 issue.
Not surprisingly, immigration is the #1 issue for Rs. Interestingly, immigration is also an important issue for Independents, but I tend to think that most Independents are former Rs, like myself. But for me and my family, healthcare is the #1 issue.
Should anyone be elected that is promising "healthcare for all"..... it will be a promise not kept. Mark my words.
It's not sustainable.
The good docs will open boutique shops. Pay up front!
Anonymous
07/19/2019 16:47
Subject: Re:Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:IMO the reason why so many of these Dems are focusing on healthcare for all is because for the Dem voters, this is their #1 issue.
Not surprisingly, immigration is the #1 issue for Rs. Interestingly, immigration is also an important issue for Independents, but I tend to think that most Independents are former Rs, like myself. But for me and my family, healthcare is the #1 issue.
Should anyone be elected that is promising "healthcare for all"..... it will be a promise not kept. Mark my words.
ah.. but promises made during the election are almost never kept, but the fact that the candidate says this is what they believe is good enough. Trump promised better for healthcare for all, and many people bought into that. There were folks who voted for him specifically because of that promise, and oh of course, the promise to have Mx build the wall.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 16:47
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:+1. To the above. The Dems are running like the winner is going to be chosen by popular vote. It’s baffling to me.
The Republicans are running like you're going to anoint the winner at a KKK rally. It's baffling to me.
It shouldn’t be. There are a lot of (1) racists and (2) people who are extremely opposed to illegal immigration and (3) people who will accept anything from Trump as long as he’s for tax cutting and nominates conservative judges. And these people aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, so it’s not a bad strategy (obviously, as Trump won the presidency).
But the Democrats’ strategy truly is baffling. Most of them are advocating for positions far to the left of where most of the country, and the Obama administration is/was. When the states they have to win are (as always) swing states that are not bastions of coastal liberalism. Issues like racial justice, healthcare and other protections for undocumented immigrants, taking away private health insurance, etc. are not going to be winners there. They just aren’t. The 2020 candidates need to recognize this and change their messaging accordingly, but most of them aren’t grasping this. It’s truly baffling.
I think it's super baffling that Republicans think they can be as utterly repellent as they are being, right out in the open, and it won't have consequences!
Your default seems to be that Republicans win unless perfect Democrats come to challenge them. I do not subscribe to that default. I think Republicans are repellent and going out of their way to repel moderates, white suburban women, black voters, and anyone else beyond the Trumpiest of Trumpzis.
Do I feel confident that Trump will lose? F*ck no! 2016 blindsided me and I feel like I've still got PTSD. Do I feel more confident every time I see Trump being a disgraceful fool, and his Republican buddies falling in line? Yes, I sure do.
That's precisely my point, though. YOU think Republicans are being utterly repellent, and I agree. But based on the demographics of this site (maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sorry), I'm going to make the assumption that you have at least a college degree, if not a graduate degree, and live somewhere in the DC metro area, which is a diverse area that skews very liberal. These (the above profile) are the kinds of voters to whom Trump is so repellent that they would vote for any D in 2020, perfect or not. I myself am among them. But while Trump's comments/behavior are horrible, but I don't think they're necessarily a dealbreaker to the white blue-collar voters who are going to make the key differences in the important EC states that Trump flipped and won in 2016. Racist comments don't affect your average middle-class white swing voter in any tangible way, so they are not going to vote for any Democrat on the grounds that they're a better/less racist/less abhorrent person than Trump.
I have strong doubts about the proposition that minority voters who sat out 2016 are going to come out in huge numbers to vote for anyone-but-Trump. I think minority turnout will be up a little bit, but not a huge amount, from 2016. Which means that white swing voters are still going to be the crucial constituency. And white swing voters are unlikely to be directly negatively impacted by Trump's policies, so they won't turn out in huge numbers to vote AGAINST him. So they will still have to actively vote FOR the Democratic candidate, and the way to get them to do that is by being moderate to be palatable. Otherwise, even if they refuse to actively vote for Trump, they just won't vote. And that's how he wins 2020.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 16:45
Subject: Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Today's Upshot in the NYT lays out a plausible scenario where Trump wins the electoral college comfortably even if he loses the popular vote by 5 points.
That is such a nauseating possibility and the opposite of everything having to do with democracy.
yes and yes
And I'm sure if that possibility occurs, you'll blame Republicans (oh, and "Russians") rather than the EC - which is part of the Constitution. You people are too much.
Anonymous
07/19/2019 16:43
Subject: Re:Friedman column--Trump's Going to Get Re-Elected, Isn't He?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:IMO the reason why so many of these Dems are focusing on healthcare for all is because for the Dem voters, this is their #1 issue.
Not surprisingly, immigration is the #1 issue for Rs. Interestingly, immigration is also an important issue for Independents, but I tend to think that most Independents are former Rs, like myself. But for me and my family, healthcare is the #1 issue.
Should anyone be elected that is promising "healthcare for all"..... it will be a promise not kept. Mark my words.
Yeah, that’s why I think it a lose-lose. You risk alienating a segment of voters who don’t seem to realize how far fetched this all is. It is not going to get through Congress right now. I mean whatever, I’d still rather have lawmakers spinning their wheels for four years than the present situation, but I’d prefer someone with more modest proposals that actually have a chance of getting enacted while simultaneously being more appealing to a broader electorate.