Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Guardian goes live at 5:10 ET, over trump’s attempts to interfere in the sentencing of Stone & Flynn.

at this point if I could pick one person to be president it would be Amy. She seems normal, reasonable qualified and interested in the job.

Conundrum wrote:

I am going to make a prediction. Even though Klobuchar doesn't have the national ground organization, She will continue to shock everyone and challenge if not take the lead.

Many Democrat females were bitterly disappointed that a female was not elected in 2016. I think they will be voting in high numbers for Klobuchar. And her debate performances have become much stronger than they were at the beginning.

agip wrote:

February 10:

THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Among all registered voters, Democratic candidates lead President Trump in general election matchups by between 4 and 9 percentage points, with Bloomberg claiming the biggest numerical lead against Trump:

Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent;

Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 percent;

Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 percent;

Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 percent;

Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 percent;

Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 percent

Yes, I found myself rooting strongly for her as the NH results were coming in. My reaction almost surprised myself.

agip wrote:

at this point if I could pick one person to be president it would be Amy. She seems normal, reasonable qualified and interested in the job.

Conundrum wrote:

I am going to make a prediction. Even though Klobuchar doesn't have the national ground organization, She will continue to shock everyone and challenge if not take the lead.

Many Democrat females were bitterly disappointed that a female was not elected in 2016. I think they will be voting in high numbers for Klobuchar. And her debate performances have become much stronger than they were at the beginning.

agip wrote:

at this point if I could pick one person to be president it would be Amy. She seems normal, reasonable qualified and interested in the job.

This always seems to happen in primaries. It's a herd mentality. Groups support one candidate and then see a flaw so they run to another one and try him/her out.

First everyone was behind Biden. Then it looked like maybe he was showing his age. So let's run to Elizabeth. Nah, she gave a bad answer on taxes. So let's run to Bernie and Buttigieg. No wait, neither of them can unite the party.

Right now, it's Amy's turn.

Bloomberg is hoping it will happen to him on Super Tuesday.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

at this point if I could pick one person to be president it would be Amy. She seems normal, reasonable qualified and interested in the job.

This always seems to happen in primaries. It's a herd mentality. Groups support one candidate and then see a flaw so they run to another one and try him/her out.

First everyone was behind Biden. Then it looked like maybe he was showing his age. So let's run to Elizabeth. Nah, she gave a bad answer on taxes. So let's run to Bernie and Buttigieg. No wait, neither of them can unite the party.

Right now, it's Amy's turn.

Bloomberg is hoping it will happen to him on Super Tuesday.

Herd mentality is a label that degrades the decision process where an individual evaluates new information as it is received. Ideally the primary system should be a time to learn more about candidates and how they react to different situations and to modify one perception accordingly.

Knowing whether a candidate resonates with others is a important factor and can lead to the momentum shifts you describe. Klobuchar is a bit more attractive to me because of her gain in popularity. It she was stuck at 1%, I wouldn't be as big of a fan. The media promotes come from behind stories too.

It’s one massive feedback loop, favoring the headline grabbers of course. We’re in a big fog right now with little results to judge. If Bernie and Pete do well on Super Tuesday I’ll take it as evidence that people have been easily influenced by perceived momentum of candidates. The only prediction I’m willing to make is that there will be a female on the ticket.

you're both right of course - choosing a candidate to vote for is not as logical as we sometimes pretend it is.

I've said this a million times, but what makes democracy work...is not that the process chooses the best leaders. It doesn't. What makes democracy work is that we can (and usually do) vote out the bad leaders. In other systems you can't do that so rot sets in.

So democracy's success is sort of on the back end....when it prevents many bad leaders from entrenching themselves.

Sally Vix wrote:

The debacle that the House partisan impeachment was and the subsequent acquittal made every Dem in the House look like idiots.

I'd argue that Republicans saying that Trump is guilty of what he was charged with, but voted to acquit makes them look like idiots.

And Trump immediately abusing his power again with the Roger Stone sentencing doesn't help Republican's case that he learned any lesson, other than he can do whatever he wants because his party will never convict him of anything,

If a Democrat was charged with the same thing they would 100% vote to impeach and convict.

All we learned is that politicians are partisan.

We know the majority of Americans have disapproved of Trump his entire presidency.

We also know that any news cycles from now will be long forgotten by November.

And that Trump will make some major self inflicted wounds between now and then.

There was a momentary uptick in DJT's popularity (and "downtick" on his disapproval).

Just momentary, though. Disapproval is back at 52%, and approval is falling.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Trollminator wrote:

The only prediction I’m willing to make is that there will be a female on the ticket.

Yes. And if it's a white male candidate then the VP will probably be one of two black women, Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams. Both are terrific, btw.

Yes, I don't disagree for a moment that I am influenced by perceived momentum. But knowing that this candidate is pulling in more and more people to support them is an important factor in assessing their viability.

(No, I'm not just just intellectualizing and rationalizing my tendency to follow the crowd........OK maybe just a little bit I am)

I am very interested in learning more about Bloomberg too and seeing how he performs.

Conundrum wrote:

I am going to make a prediction. Even though Klobuchar doesn't have the national ground organization, She will continue to shock everyone and challenge if not take the lead.

Many Democrat females were bitterly disappointed that a female was not elected in 2016. I think they will be voting in high numbers for Klobuchar. And her debate performances have become much stronger than they were at the beginning.

agip wrote:

February 10:

THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Among all registered voters, Democratic candidates lead President Trump in general election matchups by between 4 and 9 percentage points, with Bloomberg claiming the biggest numerical lead against Trump:

Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent;

Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 percent;

Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 percent;

Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 percent;

Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 percent;

Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 percent

Klobuchar is my pick and I believe she would have the best chance of beating Trump, but she's still long shot. In the upcoming primary states she is still polling the single digits. I doubt if the voters in those states took notice of her 3rd place finish in NH and will now take a hard look at her.

interesting to think about how spanky would compete against Amy K. It's like evil vs good...his vileness would be thrown into high contrast by her nomalcy and decency. What nickname could be bestow? 'boring amy?' or maybe something ugly and sexualized. But she's perfectly normal looking, not short, not tall, etc.

It's easy to see how spanks would fight against bernie, joe, bloomberg, pete. But amy? She doesn't have any of the characteristics he can hammer away at.

although he is a genius at finding weaknesses in opponents.

agip wrote:

interesting to think about how spanky would compete against Amy K. It's like evil vs good...his vileness would be thrown into high contrast by her nomalcy and decency. What nickname could be bestow? 'boring amy?' or maybe something ugly and sexualized. But she's perfectly normal looking, not short, not tall, etc.

It's easy to see how spanks would fight against bernie, joe, bloomberg, pete. But amy? She doesn't have any of the characteristics he can hammer away at.

although he is a genius at finding weaknesses in opponents.

He doesn't find weaknesses; he just makes up stupid nicknames. It's all grade school level stuff.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

agip wrote:

interesting to think about how spanky would compete against Amy K. It's like evil vs good...his vileness would be thrown into high contrast by her nomalcy and decency. What nickname could be bestow? 'boring amy?' or maybe something ugly and sexualized. But she's perfectly normal looking, not short, not tall, etc.

It's easy to see how spanks would fight against bernie, joe, bloomberg, pete. But amy? She doesn't have any of the characteristics he can hammer away at.

although he is a genius at finding weaknesses in opponents.

He doesn't find weaknesses; he just makes up stupid nicknames. It's all grade school level stuff.

It's a weakness in an opponent if it resonates with his base. And "grade school level stuff" resonates with his base (as we've seen on this thread).

Trump won in 2016 by 80,000 votes, thanks in part to low Democratic turnout. There is scant evidence he has broadened his base, even as he solidifies it.

Trump ties or trails every leading Democrat in virtually every national poll, including a Fox News poll out Jan. 26.

In most swing-state polls, Trump is ... often well below 50% — despite a booming economy. In many cases, he trails most of the top-tier candidates.

Bloomberg has more money than Trump ever did, and unlike the president, plans to spend it, either on himself or the party’s nominee. Republicans would have no answer financially if he dumps several billion into ads and manpower.

There's a significant gap between the optimism about the economy (60%+) and Trump himself, an unusual decoupling for an incumbent. This data point worries top Republicans a lot.

Don’t forget 2018. Democrats enjoyed record turnout and won back the House.

This would be a great year for getting influenced by momentum. I am going to keep arguing that top priority for most Dem voters is to ensure trump doesn't win... so there will be magnetic pull toward any candidate who seems to be trending hot. It won't take a tremendous amount of unity to beat him, just the party showing support for the candidate that is performing and for that candidate to show genuine care for some ideas that may not be their own (widen the tent). Once we are down to the nominee the gloves are going to come off and we all know trump will be completely unhinged... so it's only going to fire up Dems.

I think when trump gets beaten we will have to applaud Bloomberg even if he's not on the ticket. He is throwing large sums of money at his own campaign but also at anti-trump ads and in support of other Dem candidates.

P wrote:

It's a weakness in an opponent if it resonates with his base. And "grade school level stuff" resonates with his base (as we've seen on this thread).

Unfortunately this is true and everyone else is still incorrectly assuming that voters are better than that but they really aren't. There are many Dems that are attracted to similar stuff - childish jokes to trigger the other side. I honestly don't know if Dems are better off trying to stay above it all. People love reality tv and want to see it in politics too. It's a sad situation.