• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2020 presidential predictions

Perotista said:
I can't think of any election where one candidate seemed to have it all and still lost. Some may point to 1948 in the Dewey/Truman contest, but Truman was a sitting president. Truman had incumbency going for him along with being a dynamic campaigner. Clinton certainly wasn't dynamic or a good campaigner. But the numbers were all on her side.

Heck, a week or two before the election the talk was could Clinton carry Georgia and Arizona and perhaps even Utah. No one ever gave it a thought that she could lose Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin. It was how many red states she might capture. I'll be honest, I never gave Trump a chance.

But I noticed the last two weeks of the campaign Trump got off twitter, he stayed on message and hammered home his ideas. Clinton went off to California and back to New York to fund raise. Trump stayed on the trail. Perhaps if Trump had done that from day one, he might have romped. But who knows?
Click to expand...

The problem you had...and a lot of other people, too...is that you believed the numbers. They were bogus.
 
Perotista said:
Being an old fart, I remember the death knell of the GOP after Goldwater in 1964. The Republican Party was dead again after Watergate. The Democrats will never win the presidency again during Reagan with his southern lock. If you look at the numbers, the Democrats didn't do great, but they didn't suck either this election. Clinton received more votes than Trump, the Democrats picked up two senate seats and seven House seats. It wasn't like they were trounced like the GOP in 1964 or 1974 or the Democrats in 1980 and 84.

It was about as close as one can get. Clinton lost in my opinion because she took certain voting blocks for granted. I heard on the news that she never set foot in Wisconsin and only once in Michigan. That she ignored Bill's advice when he sense she could lose this thing a week or so before the election.

My only advice to the Democrats is, Don't pick your presidential nominee four years in advance and then rig the primaries to insure that nominee wins. Wait to see how the electorate has changed and what the total electorate has in mind.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Good advice, and actually seeing first hand how it made a difference in this election season! :thumbs:
 
Do you suppose all the candidate will be rich old white people again?
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Good advice, and actually seeing first hand how it made a difference in this election season! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'm still surprised Trump won. Not that I wanted Clinton either. This election was so unique in the overall dislike of the two candidates by the majority of Americans, that anything conventional went out the window. But that is the way it goes. I wish him luck and hope he has a good presidency. If he does, the good old USA will be doing just fine.
 
Fishking said:
That and also not pick literally the worst presidential candidate of all time. I mean, she literally could not have had more things going for here and she still blew it. I don't think there was ever a matchup that had such a lopsided dynamic and still have the underdog win.
Click to expand...

That's just a stupid argument. Republicans would have manufactured garbage to attack whoever the democratic nominee was. They got lucky that they'd been fabricating a case against her for over a decade.
 
Absentglare said:
That's just a stupid argument. Republicans would have manufactured garbage to attack whoever the democratic nominee was. They got lucky that they'd been fabricating a case against her for over a decade.
Click to expand...

rofl...it's not a stupid argument. It's a statement of fact. She had the media behind her, the party behind her from the start, the money behind her, and one of the worst opponents to have ever have the pleasure to run against and she still lost.

If you cannot see these realities that says a lot.
 
Fishking said:
rofl...it's not a stupid argument. It's a statement of fact. She had the media behind her, the party behind her from the start, the money behind her, and one of the worst opponents to have ever have the pleasure to run against and she still lost.

If you cannot see these realities that says a lot.
Click to expand...

No she didn't, you're lying. The media was reporting on her emails like it was actual controversy when it was a political witch hunt.

The "media behind her" was the semblance of sanity that shone through the sensationalization for viewership. You're mistaking fact for fiction left and right.
 
Trump. Kanye.

When is this bad acid trip going to stop?
 
Fishking said:
rofl...it's not a stupid argument. It's a statement of fact. She had the media behind her, the party behind her from the start, the money behind her, and one of the worst opponents to have ever have the pleasure to run against and she still lost.

If you cannot see these realities that says a lot.
Click to expand...

Because she forgot to get the voters behind her.:mrgreen:
 
Absentglare said:
No she didn't, you're lying. The media was reporting on her emails like it was actual controversy when it was a political witch hunt.

The "media behind her" was the semblance of sanity that shone through the sensationalization for viewership. You're mistaking fact for fiction left and right.
Click to expand...

Ummm...no. The media was always covering for her. The fact that you think her being under investigation by the FBI for violating multiple laws and regulations is telling and indicative of a very loose grasp on reality.
 
11Bravo said:
good morning,

in this thread we will analyze the 2020 presidential candidates. the rules are that insult flinging is not permitted.
1. Donald trump- i dont see it being very difficult for him to have a 2nd term
2. Elizabeth warren. shes a crazy old lady with a lot of anti american views, but every now and then she says something thats not too stupid. the left would likely run her based on gender
3. jeb bush: appeals to our friends down south because of his wife
4. kanye west: good stance on foreign and domestic policy and lyrical genius


who will come out on top?
Click to expand...

IMO this thread is at least two years early

But if you must....

I think this election has changed some minds about who could/should run next go around. I really don't see Trump going for a second term....and I don't see Pence as a top of the ticket type of guy

So in my mind, the next presidential race is wide open. I think both sides will try again to run the establishment candidates, but the primaries will go to underdogs. We need new ideas, and fresh blood in both parties. People that actually want to solve issues, and stop pointing fingers at the other guys.

And look for younger candidates.....mid 40's to mid 50's tops. I see the country wanting a Kennedyesqe type....good looking, intelligent, charming....completely different than the old geezers we have seen lately. And I have no idea on whether it will be the dems or pubs on top...a lot will depend on how well Trump does in his four years

Do we have a better economy? Better race relations? Better standing in the world?

Or are we on the brink of a world/national disaster?

Too early to tell....way too early
 
Fishking said:
Ummm...no. The media was always covering for her. The fact that you think her being under investigation by the FBI for violating multiple laws and regulations is telling and indicative of a very loose grasp on reality.
Click to expand...

The FBI wasn't investigating her on the basis of evidence of wrongdoing. They were investigating her because of the witch hunt.
 
gdgyva said:
IMO this thread is at least two years early

But if you must....

I think this election has changed some minds about who could/should run next go around. I really don't see Trump going for a second term....and I don't see Pence as a top of the ticket type of guy

So in my mind, the next presidential race is wide open. I think both sides will try again to run the establishment candidates, but the primaries will go to underdogs. We need new ideas, and fresh blood in both parties. People that actually want to solve issues, and stop pointing fingers at the other guys.

And look for younger candidates.....mid 40's to mid 50's tops. I see the country wanting a Kennedyesqe type....good looking, intelligent, charming....completely different than the old geezers we have seen lately. And I have no idea on whether it will be the dems or pubs on top...a lot will depend on how well Trump does in his four years

Do we have a better economy? Better race relations? Better standing in the world?

Or are we on the brink of a world/national disaster?

Too early to tell....way too early
Click to expand...

thank you for this post. it was both intelligent and friendly.

do you think Kanye could ease race relations? hes a great hit with the ladies and hes a lyrical genius
 
11Bravo said:
thank you for this post. it was both intelligent and friendly.

do you think Kanye could ease race relations? hes a great hit with the ladies and hes a lyrical genius
Click to expand...

Wasn't Kanye just admitted into a psyche ward for a 5150?

Anyway... a swearing rapper being President means a Kardashian is next and that means the USA is frickin dead.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wasn't Kanye just admitted into a psyche ward for a 5150?

Anyway... a swearing rapper being President means a Kardashian is next and that means the USA is frickin dead.
Click to expand...

omg shes good lookin though. (shes got a killer caboose)
 
Absentglare said:
The FBI wasn't investigating her on the basis of evidence of wrongdoing. They were investigating her because of the witch hunt.
Click to expand...

Yep...like I said, loose grasp on the reality of the matter.
 
Fishking said:
Yep...like I said, loose grasp on the reality of the matter.
Click to expand...

Oh? What evidence of a crime was there? Did they find classified information in a state enemies hands? No? But that would mean that you're completely wrong!!
 
Absentglare said:
I didn't say it did, i said they had no evidence. That was true. They had no evidence.
Click to expand...

They had lots of evidence and you did link it to information falling into state enemy hands and now you're trying to backtrack.
 
Fishking said:
They had lots of evidence and you did link it to information falling into state enemy hands and now you're trying to backtrack.
Click to expand...

No, they did not find evidence of a crime and work from there to find Hillary responsible.
 
Absentglare said:
No, they did not find evidence of a crime and work from there to find Hillary responsible.
Click to expand...

Whoops...

Sucks when you get caught by your own strawman, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom