Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Bernie leads Trump by 9 points. Does ANYONE really believe that Bernie Sanders would annihilate Trump by 9 points?

It's far too early to pay any real attention to general election matchup polling. Note that Trump numbers don't really vary based on who the matchup is and the Dem numbers really only differ a point or two (well within the margin of error). You might as well just poll Trump vs. Generic Democrat. Trump is driving the general result and name recognition is the only thing fueling the very slight differences.

So it seems we all agree on this. There is no actual policy agenda and no ideas that Joe Biden represents that anybody can articulate. He represents "normalcy" and "reliability." His entire appeal is based on the electability argument and that he isn't one of those wacky libs. It's rare to come to such agreement on Letsrun, so I consider this a sign of progress.

agip wrote:

this, this, this, a thousand times. The lefties talk about passion and need for wild change...that's not where the Dem electorate is at. Not even close. The Dem electorate wants a return to normal, reliable government and doesn't want to keep upturning the apple cart like with bernie and warren. They want Biden.

I'm going to save the below and refer to it around a thousand times, so get ready. 72-25. Stop listening only to the loudest voices, warren and bernie people.

Fox News poll:

By a 74-23 percent margin, (Democrats) prioritize nominating a candidate who will “unite Americans around shared beliefs” over “fight against extreme right-wing beliefs.”

They also prefer, by a 72-25 percent margin, their nominee provide “steady, reliable leadership” rather than “a bold, new agenda.”

agip wrote:

Right now, it's starting to look like the dem battle will be white people (the lefties) vs. the moderates and black people.

In other words, Warren for the lefties and biden for everyone else.

Which in spirit sounds good - two qualified candidates battling it out for the future of the Dem party and nation.

but

Trump could probably beat warren. So this become very serious.

Early days though.

The enthusiasm for warren has built to a wave though - she has the most enthusiastic supporters, by quite a bit.

At the moment, my support is behind Warren.

I want someone to fight for progressive policies.

I chose Hillary over Bernie last time because I thought she was more electable.

I do think think Bernie would have won but I did not think Trump was going to even be the nominee.

I still don't know if Trump will be the 2020 nominee for the Republicans.

L L wrote:

At the moment, my support is behind Warren.

I want someone to fight for progressive policies.

I chose Hillary over Bernie last time because I thought she was more electable.

I do think think Bernie would have won but I did not think Trump was going to even be the nominee.

I still don't know if Trump will be the 2020 nominee for the Republicans.

This was agip's argument as well. There were lots of people (including me) telling him he was wrong (so this is not second-guessing).

Making a mistake is completely OK. Failing to learn from it is not. At least you learned from yours.

Often wrong but never in doubt wrote:

L L wrote:

At the moment, my support is behind Warren.

I want someone to fight for progressive policies.

I chose Hillary over Bernie last time because I thought she was more electable.

I do think think Bernie would have won but I did not think Trump was going to even be the nominee.

I still don't know if Trump will be the 2020 nominee for the Republicans.

This was agip's argument as well. There were lots of people (including me) telling him he was wrong (so this is not second-guessing).

Making a mistake is completely OK. Failing to learn from it is not. At least you learned from yours.

are you the same guy who thinks I am a highly paid investment banker and glad trump won?

Of course I did not favor HRC over bernie because I thought she was more electable.

I am a genuine moderate. I like capitalism, but tempered

I think our country is flawed, but not a cancer on the globe

I think a good role for gov't is to stay out of it much of the time. Not all the time.

I think politics should be down the middle of the road, not whipsawing from right wing authoritariansim to left wing populism.

I am an Obama democrat, and HRC was too. I am for highly qualified people who have proven themselves at work.

As it turns out, my way of looking at things is the dominant Democratic way. Hence we get moderates Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. We never elect sharp left wingers on the national stage.

I don't see Elizabeth Warren as very far left.

Even Bernie is not extreme.

But they are painted that way.

Moderates win because they appeal to the average.

People fear too much change.

If Warren or Bernie got into high office there would not be much change, really.

Medicare for all could never happen in an 8 year period. But there now is a shot at a public option that Obama could not get in.

Tuition free college is being implemented at the state level already. They could lead the charge for federal assistance to states that go that route.

There still will be private insurance.

There still will be private schools and students will still have to pay for their own housing and food.

It is the tone of what we can effectively do for each other that will change.

Capitalism will rule. But under more fair rules.

L L wrote:

I don't see Elizabeth Warren as very far left.

Even Bernie is not extreme.

But they are painted that way.

Moderates win because they appeal to the average.

People fear too much change.

So-called liberal priorities poll very well. Majorities of voters support a large increase in the minimum wage, more labor protections, limiting corporate power, raising taxes on the top income bracket (and corporations), and universal health care.

The idea that it is some kind of radical agenda to want to see the fruits of our society benefit more people is what is nuts.

of course not wrote:

L L wrote:

I don't see Elizabeth Warren as very far left.

Even Bernie is not extreme.

But they are painted that way.

Moderates win because they appeal to the average.

People fear too much change.

So-called liberal priorities poll very well. Majorities of voters support a large increase in the minimum wage, more labor protections, limiting corporate power, raising taxes on the top income bracket (and corporations), and universal health care.

The idea that it is some kind of radical agenda to want to see the fruits of our society benefit more people is what is nuts.

Moderate Democrats win national elections.....Obama...Clinton....neither ran on dramatic change other than slogans (Hope and Change!).

The General is all about the general.

Alan

of course not wrote:

L L wrote:

I don't see Elizabeth Warren as very far left.

Even Bernie is not extreme.

But they are painted that way.

Moderates win because they appeal to the average.

People fear too much change.

So-called liberal priorities poll very well. Majorities of voters support a large increase in the minimum wage, more labor protections, limiting corporate power, raising taxes on the top income bracket (and corporations), and universal health care.

The idea that it is some kind of radical agenda to want to see the fruits of our society benefit more people is what is nuts.

eh, sorta

you rephrase the question, and opinions change quickly.

Raising the minimum wage is fraught - there are views all over the map on its effect.

increased labor protections = increased government regulation and red tape, harder to start businesses.

limiting corporate power = pushing companies to leave the country and cutting jobs and the tax base

universal healthcare = government takeover of health care and losing your private insurance.

that said, even a lot of Rs favor D policies.

One of the most terrifying parts of all this is that when you spell out the R agenda of taking money from poor and middle class people and giving it to rich people, many deplorables don't believe it. Tell deplorables that Rs want to cut their health care and they don't believe it. Many refuse to believe the very nature of R policies because the truth seems to absurd and exaggerated.

agip wrote:

that said, even a lot of Rs favor D policies.

One of the most terrifying parts of all this is that when you spell out the R agenda of taking money from poor and middle class people and giving it to rich people, many deplorables don't believe it. Tell deplorables that Rs want to cut their health care and they don't believe it. Many refuse to believe the very nature of R policies because the truth seems to absurd and exaggerated.

Yes, what you don't need is a corporatist democrat saying that his election will lead to a return of bipartisanship among Republicans. It plays right into the policy agenda as well as the politics.

of course not wrote:

agip wrote:

that said, even a lot of Rs favor D policies.

One of the most terrifying parts of all this is that when you spell out the R agenda of taking money from poor and middle class people and giving it to rich people, many deplorables don't believe it. Tell deplorables that Rs want to cut their health care and they don't believe it. Many refuse to believe the very nature of R policies because the truth seems to absurd and exaggerated.

Yes, what you don't need is a corporatist democrat saying that his election will lead to a return of bipartisanship among Republicans. It plays right into the policy agenda as well as the politics.

actually Democrats and a lot of Republicans are desperate for bipartisanship. Much of the disapproval of congress stems from that. Most Americans just can't believe that Ds and Rs can't compromise and make things work smoothly. Most Americans don't want this hard line between the parties.

In a sense, it doesn't really matter if Biden is right about bipartisanship returning. much of a campaign is aspirational, and making bipartisanship an aspiration is good, honorable and appropriate. if it doesn't happen, fine whatever, but it has to be tried. one reason Obama was elected is that he called for bipartisanship between parties and ethnic groups. Americans long for that. E pluribus Unum, dudettes.

You really say that Bernie is not extreme? He is a socialist. A self-avowed socialist and a damn proud one. How is a socialist not extreme? I really thought Obama was going to be much more left-leaning than he actually was. I would considerate him a slight-to-left moderate. Bernie and Warren are WAY to the left extremists.

The basic argument that Warren and Bernie aren't radical is that given the structure of our government and the 60 vote necessity in the senate to do anything and the 50 states...Bernie and warren wouldn't be able to do anything radical anyway. but they would be more foreceful voices for reform to help the poors and middles than a Biden would be.

In other words, very little will get done either way - Sanders/warren will get something done and be very loud and Biden won't get anything done and will not be very loud.

If socialism means that the government controls the means of production, then Bernie is in no way a socialist.

Bernie does not have a plan where doctors, nurses and hospital administrators are government employees paid by our taxes.

He is at best trying to replace insurance companies which is not the production of healthcare.

The fact that there are forces in place in our government to prevent radicals like Warren and Bernie from implementing their extreme measures does not make them any less radical. It just makes them impotent. If Biden was to win and the Democrats were able to capture the Senate, then Biden could do quite a bit BECAUSE he is seen as a moderate. Perhaps the longest-lasting would be nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court justices.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Moderate Democrats win national elections.....Obama...Clinton....neither ran on dramatic change other than slogans (Hope and Change!).

The General is all about the general.

Alan

Show me where the Democrats nominated a far left candidate that lost the election.

The losers have been Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Hillary.

They were all moderate Democrats.

I'm beginning to like Warren, as well; she is probably the most qualified candidate. At one time, I thought the American Indian thing was a knockout blow, but the story has grown stale. Trump referring to her as "Pocahontas" 10 times a day would backfire on him at this point. I thought that Reagan was a lesson learned about someone being too old and Warren turns 70 next week, but Biden, Sanders and Trump are even older. Ridiculous.

Biden was terrible candidate in 2008 and dropped out after receiving 1% of the vote in Iowa. I don't see why he is suddenly a great candidate as he nears 80. Though he won't say as many dumb things as Trump, he doesn't have Trump's magic force field. He also has decades of videos and quotes for the Republicans to comb through.

The early polls are meaningless and I believe that Klobuchar will move up quickly once the debates start. I followed the Republican campaigns because of Trump, and Bush, the early front-runner, cratered early and I don't think Trump's clever nickname had anything to do with it; people just didn't like him. The moran Carson even led for awhile and Fiona was gaining traction at one point.

Buttigieg's education is as good as it gets and his military experience adds to that. However, a 37-year old mayor of a city with a population of 100,000 has no chance. A better strategy for him would be to wait 10 years, or so, and become a senator or a governor in the interim. I thought Rubio had the potential to become President someday, but he wasn't ready in 2016 and I believe he ruined any chance of winning in the future.

People talk "teams" of President/VP picks but the the VP will have no effect on the election. There is a theory that VP picks can deliver home states, but that is not supported by the data. Most of the candidates for VP are from blue states and if the pick was Harris, for example, California was delivered decades ago.

L L wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Moderate Democrats win national elections.....Obama...Clinton....neither ran on dramatic change other than slogans (Hope and Change!).

The General is all about the general.

Alan

Show me where the Democrats nominated a far left candidate that lost the election.

The losers have been Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Hillary.

They were all moderate Democrats.

Is your that if a lefty is supported by a majority of Ds... then he or she would also be supported by Rs and Indies?

In other words, cynically, you are saying 'if only the lefties would support a lefty...then the righties and indies would too'

Mayor Pete is doing horribly with Blacks. Blacks generally are not too fond of gays. I had not known that Mayor Pete was graduated from Harvard and a Rhodes Scholar. Quite impressive.