I predict Trump will be primaried in 2020

[Bassman]

And the "correct" way to interpret the Constitution just so happens to be the way you interpret it, right?

It's spelled out in PLAIN English, not legalese, what the Federal government can and cannot do. For example. Article I Section 8 spells out what the functions are. There is no "nuance", no 'reading into". What it says is what you get.

 

[apdst]

Although voter approval ratings hover just below 40% in key states which is pretty bad those that wish him to be reelected is right around 30% and lower in the key swing States according to the latest NBC Marist poll.

Therefore, I predict he will be primaried and the likely candidate will be Kasich

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/polls-trump-approval-sags-trio-midwest-states-n894556

It won't be Kasich...lol

 

[Captain America]

Although voter approval ratings hover just below 40% in key states which is pretty bad those that wish him to be reelected is right around 30% and lower in the key swing States according to the latest NBC Marist poll.

Therefore, I predict he will be primaried and the likely candidate will be Kasich

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/polls-trump-approval-sags-trio-midwest-states-n894556

I was hoping for Kasich last go 'round.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Donald gets a clue, decides he is tired of living in that dump they call the White House, declares that unappreciative America is not worthy of his eminence and superiority and proclaim that any poll not reflecting a 99.999 percent approval rating is fake news put out by the deep state, libtards and Hillary, and decide not to run at all.

Then he will create a TrumpTV network featuring All About Trump TV, 24/7.

 

[OscarLevant]

Uh huh, that what you think eh? :lamo

Just wishful thinking, a wet dream on your part. Nothing even plausibly hints at that and it why I can be confident of successfully separating a wet dreamer from his moola.

Yano?

A prediction is not a dream, you should pay closer attention.

 

[OscarLevant]

Not so much if it leads to a far-left Democratic nominee. What happens in a three-way race where an Elizabeth Warren runs against a moderate Republican like John Kasich and Donald Trump and his followers, with each side getting about 30% of the vote is anyone's guess.

About 80% of Republicans support Trump maybe only 5% of Democrats supported a Trump. A third party w/ Trump would take away from the GOP much more than from Dem party.

 

[OscarLevant]

The overall approval rating of Trump come Republican primary times means nothing. It is how Republicans see or view Trump that counts. Right now Trump is view very favorable by 60% of all Republicans, 26% somewhat favorable. That has to change first.

LBJ was at 48% back in 1968 among Democrats when Eugene McCarthy challenge him, not an over all GOP favorable of 86% like Trump has now. After barely winning New Hampshire, LBJ withdrew. Ford was at 68% by Republicans in 1976 when Reagan challenged him. That spelled failure on Ronnie's party. But Reagan returned successfully in 1980. Carter was at 42% among Democrats when Teddy Kennedy challenged him. Carter fought him off only to lose to Reagan in a landslide.

Challenging a sitting president in the primary rarely works. I would say never if not for LBJ. It didn't work for McCarthy, Humphrey ended up with the Democratic nomination. But McCarthy did drive LBJ from the field.Chances are if Trump wants to be renominated, he will be. LBJ didn't and was more than willing to leave the turmoil of the presidency behind him. Both Ford and Carter who fought off challenges wanted to be re-nominated. LBJ withdrew in February long before the nomination or primaries really got started outside of New Hampshire, the first in the nation.

Losing the house this midterm could dampen GOP support for Trump or it could mean even more support as Republicans circle their wagons around him. Hard to tell.

LBG did not run for a second term because of the Civil Rights bill, he lost all the Dixiecrats and thus lost the South and he believed he had not a chance.

 

[OscarLevant]

And thank God the 22nd Amendment fixed that disaster.

The 22nd amendment wasn't ratified until 1951.

 

[Perotista]

LBG did not run for a second term because of the Civil Rights bill, he lost all the Dixiecrats and thus lost the South and he believed he had not a chance.

LBJ lost more that the Southern Democrats. If one is honest, it was Vietnam that drove him out. His decision was made after the New Hampshire Primary, hardly the epitome of the deep south. Here, from the history channel:

"McCarthy had been a contender to be President Lyndon B. Johnson’s running mate in the 1964 election, but since then he had become increasingly disenchanted with Johnson’s policies in Vietnam and the escalation of the war. In 1967, he published The Limits of Power, an assessment of U.S. foreign policy that was very critical of the Johnson administration. McCarthy announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in January 1968, saying that he hoped to harness the growing antiwar sentiment in the country, particularly among the young. His showing in the New Hampshire primary astonished most of the political pundits. Johnson, frustrated with his inability to reach a solution in Vietnam and stunned by his narrow victory in New Hampshire, announced on March 31, 1968, that he would neither seek nor accept the nomination of his party for re-election."

The rest or whole article is here.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-does-well-in-the-democratic-primary

 

[Cordelier]

About 80% of Republicans support Trump maybe only 5% of Democrats supported a Trump. A third party w/ Trump would take away from the GOP much more than from Dem party.

Agreed... but it's a fair assumption that Trump can solidly count on about 30% of the vote. If the other 70% gets divided between Warren and Kasich, for example, I can easily see Kasich picking up a lot of undecideds to go with his pro-establishment base. Maybe even a fair percentage of blue dog Democrats as well.

Nominating a Bernie Sanders clone isn't going to cut it for the Democrats.

 

[Cordelier]

LBJ lost more that the Southern Democrats. If one is honest, it was Vietnam that drove him out. His decision was made after the New Hampshire Primary, hardly the epitome of the deep south. Here, from the history channel:

"McCarthy had been a contender to be President Lyndon B. Johnson’s running mate in the 1964 election, but since then he had become increasingly disenchanted with Johnson’s policies in Vietnam and the escalation of the war. In 1967, he published The Limits of Power, an assessment of U.S. foreign policy that was very critical of the Johnson administration. McCarthy announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in January 1968, saying that he hoped to harness the growing antiwar sentiment in the country, particularly among the young. His showing in the New Hampshire primary astonished most of the political pundits. Johnson, frustrated with his inability to reach a solution in Vietnam and stunned by his narrow victory in New Hampshire, announced on March 31, 1968, that he would neither seek nor accept the nomination of his party for re-election."

The rest or whole article is here.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-does-well-in-the-democratic-primary

I think Johnson would have won the nomination if he stayed in the race... after all, Humphrey had a pretty hefty lead in delegates and he didn't even run in the primaries - he got something like 2% of the write-in primary vote. Whether or not Johnson would have beaten Nixon in the general election is another matter. I think he certainly would have done better than Humphrey did, though... and Humphrey only finished a single point behind Nixon in the popular vote.... so who knows? The Electoral College math would have been a big challenge for Johnson, but far from impossible.

 

[Perotista]

I think Johnson would have won the nomination if he stayed in the race... after all, Humphrey had a pretty hefty lead in delegates and he didn't even run in the primaries - he got something like 2% of the write-in primary vote. Whether or not Johnson would have beaten Nixon in the general election is another matter. I think he certainly would have done better than Humphrey did, though... and Humphrey only finished a single point behind Nixon in the popular vote.... so who knows? The Electoral College math would have been a big challenge for Johnson, but far from impossible.

I liked the big Texan. I was drafted while LBJ was president which was the best thing that happened to me. I went on to make a career out of the army. These what if events is impossible to say one way or the other with any certainty. Like you, I do believe if LBJ stayed in the race for his party's nomination, he would have received it. Challenges to sitting presidents don't succeed. What they succeed in doing is weakening the incumbent president.

Reagan did that to Ford in 1976 and Teddy Kennedy to Carter in 1980. Nixon held a substantial lead in the polls from August through October. It was LBJ's announced bombing halt on 31 Oct that narrowed the gap to where Humphrey almost pulled it out.

Now wouldn't that have been something if Humphrey had won. A president who received his party's nomination without even having entered a single primary. Of course back then, that was way before the modern primary system which begun in 1976. there were only 12-15 primaries and some of those were just beauty contests which no delegates were awarded to the winner.

Considering that old system gave us FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, ranked 2nd, 6th, 8th, 10th and 13th on the rankings of presidents. Nixon was the last president chosen by the old system. There's always one. Now that's impressive, four president's in a row ranked in the top 10 and a fifth at number 13. I'm not counting Ford since he inherited his presidency from Nixon and lost to Carter in 1976. Carter was the first president under our modern system of primaries.

Modern system has given us ranked beginning with Carter, 27, 16, 22, 18 and 32, G.W. Bush. I omitted Obama and Trump, as one just left office and the other just entered. Historians say you can't get a fairly accurate rating of a president until they been out of office for 20 years. That give it time to see the long term effects of a president's policies had on the nation. We don't know that for Obama yet.

 

[Cordelier]

LBJ lost more that the Southern Democrats. If one is honest, it was Vietnam that drove him out. His decision was made after the New Hampshire Primary, hardly the epitome of the deep south. Here, from the history channel:

"McCarthy had been a contender to be President Lyndon B. Johnson’s running mate in the 1964 election, but since then he had become increasingly disenchanted with Johnson’s policies in Vietnam and the escalation of the war. In 1967, he published The Limits of Power, an assessment of U.S. foreign policy that was very critical of the Johnson administration. McCarthy announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in January 1968, saying that he hoped to harness the growing antiwar sentiment in the country, particularly among the young. His showing in the New Hampshire primary astonished most of the political pundits. Johnson, frustrated with his inability to reach a solution in Vietnam and stunned by his narrow victory in New Hampshire, announced on March 31, 1968, that he would neither seek nor accept the nomination of his party for re-election."

The rest or whole article is here.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-does-well-in-the-democratic-primary

You got me curious... so I went back and looked at the results from 1968 - if you give Johnson a point and a half advantage over Humphrey (and assume Wallace's support to be solid), that means Nixon loses a point and half. Taking that as a base assumption, Nixon carried 5 states by less than 3% over Humphrey (Electoral Votes in brackets):

Missouri (12) - Nixon by 1.13%
New Jersey (17) - Nixon by 2.13%
Ohio (26) - Nixon by 2.28%
Alaska (3) - Nixon by 2.64%
Illinois (26) - Nixon by 2.92%
Total (84)

If you take those 84 Electoral votes and add them to the 191 that Humphrey got, it gives you 275 for Johnson - enough to eek out a narrow win (to Nixon's 217). As a sidenote, Johnson would have carried Illinois (and the election) by 0.08% (or about 3,700 votes)... *L* After 1960, how bitter do you think Nixon would have been toward Mayor Daley after that?

 

[Cordelier]

I liked the big Texan. I was drafted while LBJ was president which was the best thing that happened to me. I went on to make a career out of the army. These what if events is impossible to say one way or the other with any certainty. Like you, I do believe if LBJ stayed in the race for his party's nomination, he would have received it. Challenges to sitting presidents don't succeed. What they succeed in doing is weakening the incumbent president.

Reagan did that to Ford in 1976 and Teddy Kennedy to Carter in 1980. Nixon held a substantial lead in the polls from August through October. It was LBJ's announced bombing halt on 31 Oct that narrowed the gap to where Humphrey almost pulled it out.

Now wouldn't that have been something if Humphrey had won. A president who received his party's nomination without even having entered a single primary. Of course back then, that was way before the modern primary system which begun in 1976. there were only 12-15 primaries and some of those were just beauty contests which no delegates were awarded to the winner.

Considering that old system gave us FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, ranked 2nd, 6th, 8th, 10th and 13th on the rankings of presidents. Nixon was the last president chosen by the old system. There's always one. Now that's impressive, four president's in a row ranked in the top 10 and a fifth at number 13. I'm not counting Ford since he inherited his presidency from Nixon and lost to Carter in 1976. Carter was the first president under our modern system of primaries.

Modern system has given us ranked beginning with Carter, 27, 16, 22, 18 and 32, G.W. Bush. I omitted Obama and Trump, as one just left office and the other just entered. Historians say you can't get a fairly accurate rating of a president until they been out of office for 20 years. That give it time to see the long term effects of a president's policies had on the nation. We don't know that for Obama yet.

Johnson is my favorite President, bar none. It's not that I think he was the greatest President, but he's the one I identify with the most. He knew how to make the wheels turn, and that's something we've been sorely lacking ever since he left office. Plus, he had a clear vision on where he wanted to take the country - probably the only one we've had since with the same kind of depth of vision was Reagan.

I agree with you about the primary system... it only seems to spit out the lowest common denominator and gives us sub-par nominees in both parties. Say what you will about the smoke-filled rooms, but there's a lot to be said for the judgment of political bosses who spend their lives, day-in and day-out, living and breathing politics. We ignore their judgment to our peril. Primaries are where the Show Horses excel. Smoke-filled rooms are where the Work Horses shine.

 

[Puigb]

I was hoping for Kasich last go 'round.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Donald gets a clue, decides he is tired of living in that dump they call the White House, declares that unappreciative America is not worthy of his eminence and superiority and proclaim that any poll not reflecting a 99.999 percent approval rating is fake news put out by the deep state, libtards and Hillary, and decide not to run at all.

Then he will create a TrumpTV network featuring All About Trump TV, 24/7.

This is what he likely wanted to do in the first place, IMO. I'm still convinced that he NEVER thought he would win, or even wanted to win. I think he wanted to lose, and wanted to create some kind of T.V. Show or podcast where he could charge right wing idiots to listen to him complain about Hillary Clinton, Democrats/liberals, and the "powers that be" preventing him from winning the presidency and "Making America Great Again!".

 

[Casca XV]

Although voter approval ratings hover just below 40% in key states which is pretty bad those that wish him to be reelected is right around 30% and lower in the key swing States according to the latest NBC Marist poll.

Therefore, I predict he will be primaried and the likely candidate will be Kasich

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/polls-trump-approval-sags-trio-midwest-states-n894556

I predict most Leftist will suicide after President wins in a landslide in 2020.

Oh, America will be a better place after both events.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I predict most Leftist will suicide after President wins in a landslide in 2020.

Oh, America will be a better place after both events.

Another fraudulent "Libertarian" applauding the most authoritarian President in our lifetime. Tell us again how much you love the ****ing Constitution, I dare ya.

 

[ecofarm]

the most authoritarian President in our lifetime.

How? Honest question.

 

[Linc]

:lamo and :mrgreen: too funny — quality political fun — thanxxx be to #45 —

Another fraudulent "Libertarian" applauding the most authoritarian President in our lifetime. Tell us again how much you love the ****ing Constitution, I dare ya.

This version of the GOP has literally thrown the Emoluments Clause right out of the Constitution.

l’ve got a friendly one-month wager with Kal on #45 not making Labor Day. This technique is fun. In fact, I’m not even sure he’ll make it to the Major League Baseball trading deadline next Wednesday.

Would you trade #45 for #46?

We leave for Iowa Thursday; can’t wait. By then, the Manafort Trial will have Putin ROTF, laughing his ass off.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

A prediction is not a dream, you should pay closer attention.

Your predictions are simply that, a dream.

The reason I can wager with confidence is the very fact that I DO pay VERY close attention. And I have the courage of my own capacity not just to vainly hope, as you do, but to catenate, to connect the lined dots and then properly gauge them.

 

[Hedgology]

I doubt it. Trumpists love him too much. If he is still eligible to run, he'll rout any primary competition. Only exception would be if he destroys the economy by then, which is possible.

LMAO he's doing an awfully good job of destroying the economy thus far.

 

[Perotista]

You got me curious... so I went back and looked at the results from 1968 - if you give Johnson a point and a half advantage over Humphrey (and assume Wallace's support to be solid), that means Nixon loses a point and half. Taking that as a base assumption, Nixon carried 5 states by less than 3% over Humphrey (Electoral Votes in brackets):

Missouri (12) - Nixon by 1.13%
New Jersey (17) - Nixon by 2.13%
Ohio (26) - Nixon by 2.28%
Alaska (3) - Nixon by 2.64%
Illinois (26) - Nixon by 2.92%
Total (84)

If you take those 84 Electoral votes and add them to the 191 that Humphrey got, it gives you 275 for Johnson - enough to eek out a narrow win (to Nixon's 217). As a sidenote, Johnson would have carried Illinois (and the election) by 0.08% (or about 3,700 votes)... *L* After 1960, how bitter do you think Nixon would have been toward Mayor Daley after that?

curiosity is a good thing. One can find out many interesting facts and thing being curious. Of course these things could work in reverse, Texas went to Humphrey by less than a point and a half. Then the question arises, would Wallace have ran if LBJ was the candidate instead of Humphrey? Nixon finished second to Wallace in two of the five state Wallace won.

 

[Perotista]

Johnson is my favorite President, bar none. It's not that I think he was the greatest President, but he's the one I identify with the most. He knew how to make the wheels turn, and that's something we've been sorely lacking ever since he left office. Plus, he had a clear vision on where he wanted to take the country - probably the only one we've had since with the same kind of depth of vision was Reagan.

I agree with you about the primary system... it only seems to spit out the lowest common denominator and gives us sub-par nominees in both parties. Say what you will about the smoke-filled rooms, but there's a lot to be said for the judgment of political bosses who spend their lives, day-in and day-out, living and breathing politics. We ignore their judgment to our peril. Primaries are where the Show Horses excel. Smoke-filled rooms are where the Work Horses shine.

Exactly, Since 1976 we have had beauty contests more than thoughtful choices of candidates. Under the old system the only reason why Nixon won the GOP in 1968 was a lot of the Republican party leaders and office holders owed him. He campaigned hard for the GOP candidates in 1966, threw his heart and soul into it. The GOP picked up 47 seats in the house and 4 senate seats in that election. Nixon also hit the banquet circuit for fund raising before and after 1966. He could call in favors come nomination time. A lot of folks don't know that Reagan was one of Nixon primary foes in 68 along with Rockefeller. Nixon did however win 10 of the 13 GOP primaries that year. But Reagan did edge out Nixon in the total GOP primary vote by a mere 17,000 votes.

I think if the old system was in place in 2016 instead of the beauty contests we have today, there's no way Trump would have gained the nomination. Kasich or Rubio probably. Hillary, I think she had enough Democrats in the leadership positions owing her, that like Nixon in 68 she still would have been nominated. Especially following the secret meeting between Bill, Hillary and Obama prior to the 2012 election which they agreed on Hillary as the democratic nominee for 2016.

That was one draw back, if you as a candidate had enough state party leaders owing you, that gave you the inside track. But when looking at all the candidates since FDR through 1976 when the modern system began, there is no doubt which system produced the better candidates.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

How? Honest question.

Travel ban, "we don't need courts", "lock her up", the attacks on journalists, the attacks on protestors, the attacks on his own government, firing nonpolitical employees for doing their jobs, hiring Jeff Sessions.

I could probably think of more, but I'd need time.

A Libertarian who prefers Trump to Hillary has bad moral priorities, but a Libertarian who actually considers Trump a good President is a ****ing fraud who basically admits they're more about oligarchy than liberty. Question is, what percentage of the modern Libertarian Party do you think I just described?

 

[FreeWits]

Travel ban, "we don't need courts", "lock her up", the attacks on journalists, the attacks on protestors, the attacks on his own government, firing nonpolitical employees for doing their jobs, hiring Jeff Sessions.

I could probably think of more, but I'd need time.

A Libertarian who prefers Trump to Hillary has bad moral priorities, but a Libertarian who actually considers Trump a good President is a ****ing fraud who basically admits they're more about oligarchy than liberty. Question is, what percentage of the modern Libertarian Party do you think I just described?

A Libertarian more interested in labels than principles is a fraud.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

A Libertarian more interested in labels than principles is a fraud.

I cannot actually tell whether you're trying to agree with me or make some kind of wrong-headed point about moral equivalence.