Who would you vote for in 2020?

[Linc]

At this point continuing to stand with trump in spite of his comments this week seems to be a nail in said coffin.

If the Alabama senate race becomes a match between former Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy moore and the Democratic candidate Doug jones, we might be in for a shocker.

Doug jones was a prosecutor during the 1960s who prosecuted the case that put the two men responsible for bombing a Birmingham church and killing four African American girls. He might be the candidate who could actually win in Alabama.

I lost a long post to you in that Corker thread when my battery died.

Moore has a strong base in AL that votes; as per him being elected twice to Chief Justice. Brooks' voters, especially in his Huntsville based CD, hate Strange over the McConnell smear ads on his behalf.

Strange was given the senate in a dirty deed by now disgraced former governor Bentley. As Attorney General, Strange refused to prosecute Bentley.

Jones will come close in December to Moore. AL isn't ready yet but the Tide is turning. I feel Jones can beat Strange ...

 

[Perotista]

If Doug jones runs on his reputation, I think he has a chance.

We'll see. I just took it for granted that the Republican would win regardless of whom he is. So far I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

 

[Linc]

We'll see. I just took it for granted that the Republican would win regardless of whom he is. So far I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

The Trafalgar Group out of your Georgia has the ultimate pulse on polling right now, hitting Moore and Strange exactly at 40-32.

This is the GOP Georgia firm that had the trump/Clinton election correct in 47 states. You should be able to get more on them than I can because they're local for you.

I see Moore winning easily with 55% or so. Jones will come close, as the Crimson Tide is turning even in AL ...

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Apparently Obama has moved back to Hawaii or has he? I'd take Hawaii any day over Illinois or Chicago, just because of the weather.

Hell, if I was finally done with eight years of the Presidency, I'd want to retire to Hawai'i too!

 

[vesper]

Hell, if I was finally done with eight years of the Presidency, I'd want to retire to Hawai'i too!

Last I read they are living in DC. Rented a mansion, had it renovated and are staying in the swamp for personal reasons.

 

[Bodi]

Let's just enjoy this election a bit longer before we start looking ahead.

 

[Perotista]

The Trafalgar Group out of your Georgia has the ultimate pulse on polling right now, hitting Moore and Strange exactly at 40-32.

This is the GOP Georgia firm that had the trump/Clinton election correct in 47 states. You should be able to get more on them than I can because they're local for you.

I see Moore winning easily with 55% or so. Jones will come close, as the Crimson Tide is turning even in AL ...

If by turning you mean going more moderate, I agree. Georgia has been on that path for a couple of decades. If you mean going Democratic as in political party, not so fast or going liberal, slow down. One has to remember that from FDR until Reagan the Democratic Party averaged 45% of the total electorate identifying with them. That was back in the days when the Democratic Party was the big tent party. No political ideological test. The GOP average upper 20's to lower 30's all during that time frame. It took an Eisenhower to win the presidency. It took Vietnam tearing the Democratic Party apart and LBJ refusing to run again for Nixon to win in 1968. This was the era where the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 40 straight years and 56 out of 60 years. The Democrats also controlled the senate in 50 out of these 60 years.

Beginning with Reagan, the democratic party fells to around 35% average and the GOP remain in the mid 20's to lower 30's. Today according to Gallup the Democratic Party has 28% of the total electorate identifying with them while the GOP has 25%. Independents has soared to 45%, the center, center left and center right for the most part political ideological wise as both party now have ideological tests one must pass.

It's interest to note, it hasn't been the GOP that benefited or gained from the Democratic Party's loss. They have remained fairly constant since FDR to today. We Georgians turn out backs on what I call Atlanta liberals, same liberal ideology as the Northeastern liberals and opt for the lesser of two evils aligning with the Republican Party. We are still fairly conservative, fiscal wise. A lot more socially liberal than Alabama, but a lot more socially conservative than the northeast or Atlanta.

A Jim Webb or even a Joe Manchin would win Georgia especially against a Trump, something a Hillary Clinton could never do and her husband Bill did back in 1992. Candidates matter, the one thing I have never understood is why the Democratic party in Georgia always insist on running Atlanta liberal statewide. Where fairly conservatives Democrats like Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, Max Cleland were winning a senate seat down here, liberal Democrats were losing. But with today's ideological tests applied to Democratic candidates, I doubt if a Democrat wins statewide in Georgia for a long time. Georgia has been long ripe and always has sided with a fairly conservative Democrat over a conservative Republican, but that is something the Democratic Party hasn't taken advantage of and goes against their ideological pureness.

 

[Captain America]

We'll see. I just took it for granted that the Republican would win regardless of whom he is. So far I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

Democrats took much for granted last election as well. Food for thought.

 

[Perotista]

Democrats took much for granted last election as well. Food for thought.

That they did. When the Republicans nominated a candidate disliked by most Americans, not to be outdone, the Democrats did the same thing. I really don't think to this day that either side, either party knows or will acknowledge how much their candidates were disliked by America as a whole.

 

[Surrealistik]

That they did. When the Republicans nominated a candidate disliked by most Americans, not to be outdone, the Democrats did the same thing. I really don't think to this day that either side, either party knows or will acknowledge how much their candidates were disliked by America as a whole.

The brass of the Dem party refuses to acknowledge it (though I'm sure most do know better in truth); the rank and file are not so willfully blind.

 

[Perotista]

The brass of the Dem party refuses to acknowledge it (though I'm sure most do know better in truth); the rank and file are not so willfully blind.

Clinton also ran a very inept campaign. The worst one I seen since G.W.H. Bush in 1992. Bush acted like he didn't care if he won or lost until the last two weeks of the campaign. Then it was too late. Clinton was in my view a bit lazy. From 1 Sep through 8 Nov Trump made 116 campaign stops without taking a day off. Hillary on the other hand made but 71 and some of those were fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. She took several days off. Trump plainly out campaigned her and out worked her.

I am left with the impression that Hillary thought she was next in line and that was enough. She found out the hard way that there were no super electors like there were super delegates.

 

[Surrealistik]

Clinton also ran a very inept campaign. The worst one I seen since G.W.H. Bush in 1992. Bush acted like he didn't care if he won or lost until the last two weeks of the campaign. Then it was too late. Clinton was in my view a bit lazy. From 1 Sep through 8 Nov Trump made 116 campaign stops without taking a day off. Hillary on the other hand made but 71 and some of those were fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. She took several days off. Trump plainly out campaigned her and out worked her.

I am left with the impression that Hillary thought she was next in line and that was enough. She found out the hard way that there were no super electors like there were super delegates.

I think the flipped 'blue wall' says it all really, both in terms of her horrid messaging and her lackluster campaign.

 

[Perotista]

I think the flipped 'blue wall' says it all really, both in terms of her horrid messaging and her lackluster campaign.

The numbers were quite interesting when it came to Hillary Clinton and the exit polls. Comparing her to Obama in 2012, Obama 92% of the Democratic base, Hillary 89%. Union House holds Obama 58%, Clinton 51%. Blacks, Obama 95%, Clinton 89%, Hispanics Obama 71%, clinton 65%. Whites Obama 39%, Clinton 37%. Age, 18-29 Obama 60%, Clinton 55%. women, Obama 55%, Clinton 54%. Women is about the only voting group that Clinton came close to matching Obama's 2012 performance. Income under 50,000 Obama 60%, Clinton 55%. Independents, Obama 45%, Clinton 42%.

I could go on, but one of the biggest difference was Obama exerted enthusiasm, Clinton was more ho hum. That was another difference between her and Trump, Trump supporters were full of energy, will to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Not so with a lot of Clinton supporters.

 

[Surrealistik]

The numbers were quite interesting when it came to Hillary Clinton and the exit polls. Comparing her to Obama in 2012, Obama 92% of the Democratic base, Hillary 89%. Union House holds Obama 58%, Clinton 51%. Blacks, Obama 95%, Clinton 89%, Hispanics Obama 71%, clinton 65%. Whites Obama 39%, Clinton 37%. Age, 18-29 Obama 60%, Clinton 55%. women, Obama 55%, Clinton 54%. Women is about the only voting group that Clinton came close to matching Obama's 2012 performance. Income under 50,000 Obama 60%, Clinton 55%. Independents, Obama 45%, Clinton 42%.

I could go on, but one of the biggest difference was Obama exerted enthusiasm, Clinton was more ho hum. That was another difference between her and Trump, Trump supporters were full of energy, will to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Not so with a lot of Clinton supporters.

It was a lot of things, and given how close it was, many, many flaws and complications pushed Clinton over the edge into electoral oblivion.

I think by far one of the most significant things, especially so far as the rust belt/blue wall was concerned, was Trump's emphasis on economic populism and his ideas for improving the lot of the working class which Clinton largely avoided.

 

[Perotista]

It was a lot of things, and given how close it was, many, many flaws and complications pushed Clinton over the edge into electoral oblivion.

I think by far one of the most significant things, especially so far as the rust belt/blue wall was concerned, was Trump's emphasis on economic populism and his ideas for improving the lot of the working class which Clinton largely avoided.

Yes. The difference was Trump went into Wisconsin, Michigan talking about addressing the fears of the working class. Whether he can do anything about that remains to be seen. Clinton was too busy promising to be an Obama third term instead of addressing their worries. Like that was some form of cure all.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yes. The difference was Trump went into Wisconsin, Michigan talking about addressing the fears of the working class. Whether he can do anything about that remains to be seen. Clinton was too busy promising to be an Obama third term instead of addressing their worries. Like that was some form of cure all.

Actually, Hillary spent a huge amount of time doing nothing but attacking Trump. Her whole campaign theme seemed to be, "You think I'll be bad, Trump will be worse", not "Stronger Together".

 

[Perotista]

Actually, Hillary spent a huge amount of time doing nothing but attacking Trump. Her whole campaign theme seemed to be, "You think I'll be bad, Trump will be worse", not "Stronger Together".

I don't think I ever heard her use her campaign slogan of "Stronger Together." All I heard her say over and over is that she would be an Obama third term. Last years election was nothing but personal attacks and name calling. Substance, ideas, visions, problem solving, none of that applied except for Trump's last week or two in the midwest when he stayed on message and talked about the fears and worries of the working class.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I don't know about you. But I would rather lose by voting for someone I agree with and has a history of standing by those views than to win by voting for someone I do not trust.

I'm not sure that electing someone you don't trust is really "winning" at all.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think it is very likely. There is no question Trump is not a politically correct party puppet of the rich and powerful that own both parties. The rich and powerful naturally will back any politically correct democrat puppet in attempt to get rid of Trump. It will also help to pull as much of the republican vote away from Trump as possible by running either a strong republican candidate or multiple candidates. Maybe the big bucks such as Chase and Bank of America etc. may actually put all their money on one party instead of backing both parties equally. Risky because they will not own both parties and could actually lose. Right now they still own congress and the supreme court with Trump being held in check with their media and both parties.

You really don't think Trump is just as much a puppet of the rich and powerful as any other candidate of either the Tweedledumocrats or the Tweedledeeblicans?

 

[Puigb]

Definitely won't vote for Trump. I could potentially vote Republican depending on who the candidate is, Kasich for instance is a decent choice. As for the Democrats, should be interesting to see who runs in 2020 now that Clinton (hopefully) is out the picture. I suspect (and hope) they'll have several decent candidates who will run and could potentially win and reverse the damage Trump and his minions will be doing in the next few years (assuming Trump completes the four years).

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

You really don't think Trump is just as much a puppet of the rich and powerful as any other candidate of either the Tweedledumocrats or the Tweedledeeblicans?

Without a doubt.

The republican party was against him even after he clearly beat out all their puppets. He was never supposed to be a candidate and clearly he was never supposed to win.

Look how the DNC railroaded Bernie. They rammed Hillary down the peoples throat and the people said no. Clearly it is about their bought and paid for party puppets not who the people want.

Trump beat them at their own game. The rich and powerful are clearly using their media to control him since he will not bow to their will. The only reason Trump is a republican is because he knew he had no chance of winning as a 3rd party. He would have run as a democrat if the DNC had not already picked their candidate. The republican party was wide open and his best opportunity. He was brilliant in the way he destroyed the republican puppets. The DNC showed their lack of any knowledge of what the people wanted by running Hillary.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Without a doubt.

The republican party was against him even after he clearly beat out all their puppets. He was never supposed to be a candidate and clearly he was never supposed to win.

Look how the DNC railroaded Bernie. They rammed Hillary down the peoples throat and the people said no. Clearly it is about their bought and paid for party puppets not who the people want.

Trump beat them at their own game. The rich and powerful are clearly using their media to control him since he will not bow to their will. The only reason Trump is a republican is because he knew he had no chance of winning as a 3rd party. He would have run as a democrat if the DNC had not already picked their candidate. The republican party was wide open and his best opportunity. He was brilliant in the way he destroyed the republican puppets. The DNC showed their lack of any knowledge of what the people wanted by running Hillary.

The Republican Party was indeed against him until he won. Many prominent Republicans wouldn't endorse him until it became clear that they would have to in order to further their own political careers.

And now that we see the results, fewer and fewer Republicans actually support his administration. He did upset the applecart, so to speak, but the results haven't been positive thus far.

Trump really isn't a Republican. He's like tofu: He takes on whatever flavor is in the stew.

 

[Ikari]

You mean, who wins the primary.

In the case of the Democrats, it was the candidate that the party picked.

 

[Dittohead not!]

In the case of the Democrats, it was the candidate that the party picked.

And the Republicans didn't pick their own candidate?

Who did, then?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

In the case of the Democrats, it was the candidate that the party picked.

Isn't it always the party that picks the candidate in primary's, you know, by voting for the candidate that best represents the interests of the party?