2020 Presidential Election

[BmorePat87]

(02-20-2020, 04:58 AM)Benton Wrote: Trump only won last time because of the electoral college. That could work against him this go round, as he's taken a mallet to a few of his groups that make up big voters in some states. Farmers, for one. Flip a couple of those fly over states and give the usuals to the Dems and he could win the popular but lose the EC. Which would be hilarious.

108,000 votes in 4 states out of the 137 million votes cast decided the election. 

[CJD]

(02-19-2020, 10:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Apparently Trump is going to lose no matter who wins the Democrat primary.

Hypothetical general-election matchups:

Biden 52%, Trump 44%
Bloomberg 50%, Trump 43%
Sanders 50%, Trump 46%
Buttigieg 48%, Trump 44%
Klob 48%, Trump 45%

Feb 14-17, RVs, MOE +/- 3.3%

— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) February 18, 2020

I am skeptical about this result. (Not that he can be beaten, but that they all can beat him.)

For what it's worth, the polls apparently have a Margin of error of 3.3%, so that means Buttigieg, Klob and Sanders are right on the edge of that margin of error.

The Bloomberg +7 result is the one I'm actually most confused about haha. Who is voting for this guy? He's Donald Trump Lite (with more money).

[CJD]

(02-20-2020, 04:58 AM)Benton Wrote: Trump only won last time because of the electoral college. That could work against him this go round, as he's taken a mallet to a few of his groups that make up big voters in some states. Farmers, for one. Flip a couple of those fly over states and give the usuals to the Dems and he could win the popular but lose the EC. Which would be hilarious.

I hope that people vote based on what Trump did (not) do for them rather than just sticking with party but, eh, I'm biased haha. A recent poll said that like 83% of farmers support Trump, even though there have been multiple reports about farmers being royally screwed by Trump's tariffs so I'm not sure what's going on there, but I think it's safe to say it's hard to predict what makes people vote a certain way.

[BmorePat87]

Bloomberg was grossly unprepared for that debate. That #MeToo back and forth was tee ball for Warren.

[CJD]

(02-19-2020, 09:41 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I haven't read the entire thread so if what I'm about to ask has already been discussed, I apologize. I have often wondered if the Bernie supporters are trying to vote him in to get rid of college debt and/or relieve the future college debt? Bernie speaks a lot about free, free, free. Yet I don't think he has yet stated how to pay for it? I also feel if he was elected, it would be similar to and independent gaining the seat and neither side would work with him. I know he claims to be democrat, but the democrats dislike him it seems.

"Free" is just a short hand term. Nothing is free. Bernie is not proposing giving things away for nothing. He is talking about adding taxes and redirecting existing taxes to more helpful and useful things, such as eliminating college debt and supplementing medicare for all.

He is also in favor of ending American imperialism and getting out of the endless wars and global interference campaigns the US has been involved in for decades. This will allow him to lower the military budget and redirect it to the American people.

I think Warren said last night that her 2 cent wealth tax on any money made past 50 million dollars per person would single handedly pay for all student debt in America right now, or something along those lines.

Bernie has proposed a 4% payroll tax to pay for about half of his medicare for all plan (in theory). The other half will be dealt with by a combination of things:

1. Fixing the price of healthcare in the country by forcing the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies to deal with a single payer (you can't compete insurance companies' prices against each other if there is no competition), which could potentially cut the cost of healthcare in half (America pays more for healthcare and drugs than virtually any other country in the world). The other benefit of single payer systems run by the government is they are not taking out profits like private insurance companies do. That alone will drastically reduce the cost of healthcare to the consumer.

2. The contributions that employers were previously paying on behalf of employees for their private insurance is converted to a public tax.

3. Increasing the tax brackets on the ultra rich, in addition to a wealth tax somewhere along the lines of Warren's 2 cent tax (I think Bernie's goes up to more once you reach certain benchmarks, so it's more progressive).

4. Re-establishing the estate tax for inheritances above 1 billion dollars.

5. Closing tax loop holes such as shell corporations and raising corporate taxes back up to, at a minimum, where they were before Trumps' tax cut.

And I imagine he has some other ideas as well.

It isn't clear if these measures will raise all the money he needs for every single venture he plans on undertaking, but they're going to be huge steps in the right direction.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-20-2020, 01:08 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: ?

Where were these questions when Trump said Mexico would pay for our border wall?

So now that you’re not buying a plan involving Mexico paying for our shit, well do I have a plan for you.

Tariffs.

We’re going to declare a trade war against China. Impose tariffs on Chinese imports. China will pay trillions directly to the US government which we will use for free education. And a border wall. And mansions. Everyone will get a mansion. The best mansion they can imagine. Well, a mansion or free Medicare For Life. You pick which one you want.

[Benton]

(02-20-2020, 07:22 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, it would be fairly hilarious because of how Trump hated the EC before he got elected by it and how much he suddenly liked it after. Meanwhile we'd get  to watch Democrats in another Comey situation where they would cheer that they won the election, almost certainly ignoring how they railed against the EC and for a straight popular when they lost it.

There'd be so much flip flopping from both sides it would be like looking at a lake full of fish if the water suddenly vanished.

I'm just hoping that the Democrat who wins the primary will settle down a little bit on the race-to-the-left and then maybe I can vote for them. I am happy going Weld in the primary, but not-Trump is as far as I have gotten with who I will vote for in the general election.

I think depending on who he chooses as his VP, I could see Ohio go back to blue for Biden. I think Bernie is a non-starter for Ohio, and not sure how the rest would fare. Just laughed at the idea that polls say no matter who wins the primary, they win.

- - - - - - - - -
(Also weird to say he "only" won last time because of the electoral college when that's the only method of winning available. Like "only" winning a football game because you scored more points while the other team gained more yards.)

Well it's the method we use, but not the only method available. There's also, off the top of my head, the popular vote. We use the EC, but there are other options. 

To me it's more like: each team is allotted the same number of points based on yards. One team scores more and loses because the other team covered more dirt.

I'm not opposed to either system as both have some pros and cons. Just 10 years ago I was in favor of a straight up 'you get more votes, you win' system, but America has become amazingly dumb and easy to fool in that time. 

(02-20-2020, 10:33 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I hope that people vote based on what Trump did (not) do for them rather than just sticking with party but, eh, I'm biased haha. A recent poll said that like 83% of farmers support Trump, even though there have been multiple reports about farmers being royally screwed by Trump's tariffs so I'm not sure what's going on there, but I think it's safe to say it's hard to predict what makes people vote a certain way.

I've been curious how that particular group is going to play out. I'm in a big soybean growing area, and that group has been hit hard by the tariffs. Drive by any of the local banks or auctions and your going to see a lot of farm equipment. I used to do a lot of stories with our state soybean council because it's in my coverage area. The last time I asked the director how things were going, her response was "our people have been devastated.'

[GMDino]

Could have posted this in the "pike" thread too..


https://scontent.fpit1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/86766374_10222535852972207_3522065249362509824_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ohc=zqF_zxdDg0MAX-zuFTp&_nc_ht=scontent.fpit1-1.fna&oh=1d6c9b0b73be7ed4830917f6db56833a&oe=5EC0B07A

Quote:Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats Will Exploit Its Support


A classified briefing to lawmakers angered the president, who complained that Democrats would “weaponize” the disclosure.

WASHINGTON — Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.

During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and strengthened European security. Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error, saying that had the official who delivered the conclusion spoken less pointedly or left it out, they would have avoided angering the Republicans.

Though intelligence officials have previously told lawmakers that Russia’s interference campaign was continuing, last week’s briefing did contain what appeared to be new information, including that Russia intended to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries as well as the general election.


The intelligence official who delivered the briefing, Shelby Pierson, is an aide to Mr. Maguire who has a reputation of delivering intelligence in somewhat blunt terms. The president announced on Wednesday that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and long an aggressively vocal Trump supporter.

Though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in the removal of Mr. Maguire, who had told people in recent days that he believed he would remain in the job, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.

Spokeswomen for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its election security office declined to comment. A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A Democratic House Intelligence Committee official called the Feb. 13 briefing an important update about “the integrity of our upcoming elections” and said that members of both parties attended, including Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the committee.

In a tweet on Thursday evening, Mr. Schiff said that it appeared that Mr. Trump was “again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling” by objecting to Congress being informed of interference attempts.


ImageJoseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, is planning to leave government, according to an American official.
Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, is planning to leave government, according to an American official.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Mr. Trump has long accused the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s 2016 interference as the work of a “deep state” conspiracy intent on undermining the validity of his election. Intelligence officials feel burned by their experience after the last election, where their work became subject of intense political debate and is now a focus of a Justice Department investigation.

Part of the president’s anger over the intelligence briefing stemmed from the administration’s reluctance to provide delicate information to Mr. Schiff. He has been a leading critic of Mr. Trump since 2016, doggedly investigating Russian election interference and later leading the impeachment inquiry into the president’s dealings with Ukraine.

After asking about the briefing that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other agencies gave to the House, Mr. Trump complained that Mr. Schiff would “weaponize” the intelligence about Russia’s support for him, according to a person familiar with the briefing. And he was angry that no one had told him sooner about the briefing, the person said.

Mr. Trump has fixated on Mr. Schiff since the impeachment saga began, pummeling him publicly with insults and unfounded accusations of corruption. At one point in October, Mr. Trump refused to invite lawmakers from the congressional intelligence committees to a White House briefing on Syria because he did not want Mr. Schiff there, according to three people briefed on the matter.

The president did not erupt at Mr. Maguire, and instead just asked pointed questions, according to the person. But the message was unmistakable: He was displeased by what took place.

Ms. Pierson, officials said, was delivering the conclusion of multiple intelligence agencies, not her own opinion. The Washington Post first reported the Oval Office confrontation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Maguire but not the substance of the disagreement.

The intelligence community issued an assessment in early 2017 that President Vladimir V. Putin personally ordered an influence campaign in the previous year’s election and developed “a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” But Republicans have long argued that Moscow’s campaign was intended to sow chaos, not aid Mr. Trump specifically.

And some Republicans have accused the intelligence agencies of opposing Mr. Trump, but intelligence officials reject those accusations. They fiercely guard their work as nonpartisan, saying it is the only way to ensure its validity.

At the House briefing, Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of Utah, who has been considered for the director’s post, was among the Republicans who challenged the conclusion about Russia’s support for Mr. Trump. Mr. Stewart insisted that the president had aggressively confronted Moscow, providing anti-tank weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russia-backed separatists and strengthening the NATO alliance with new resources, according to two people briefed on the meeting.

Mr. Stewart declined to discuss the briefing but said that Moscow had no reason to support Mr. Trump. He pointed to the president’s work to confront Iran, a Russian ally, and encourage European energy independence from Moscow. “I’d challenge anyone to give me a real-world argument where Putin would rather have President Trump and not Bernie Sanders,” the nominal Democratic primary race front-runner, Mr. Stewart said in an interview.



Under Mr. Putin, Russian intelligence has long sought broadly to stir turmoil among adversaries around the world. The United States and key allies on Thursday accused Russian military intelligence, the group responsible for much of the 2016 election interference in the United States, of a cyberattack on neighboring Georgia that took out websites and television broadcasts.

The Russians have been preparing — and experimenting — for the 2020 election, undeterred by American efforts to thwart them but aware that they needed a new playbook of as-yet-undetectable methods, United States officials said.


They have made more creative use of Facebook and other social media. Rather than impersonating Americans as they did in 2016, Russian operatives are working to get Americans to repeat disinformation to get around social media companies’ rules that prohibit “inauthentic speech,” the officials said.

And the Russians are working from servers located in the United States, rather than abroad, knowing that American intelligence agencies are prohibited from operating inside the country. (The F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security can, with aid from the intelligence agencies.)

Russian hackers have also infiltrated Iran’s cyberwarfare unit, perhaps with the intent of launching attacks that would look like they were coming from Tehran, the National Security Agency has warned.

Some officials believe that foreign powers, possibly including Russia, could use ransomware attacks, like those that have debilitated some local governments, to damage or interfere with voting systems or registration databases.

Still, much of the Russian aim is similar to its 2016 interference, officials said: search for issues that stir controversy in the United States and use various methods to stoke division.

One of Moscow’s main goals is undermining confidence in American election systems, intelligence officials have told lawmakers, seeking to sow doubts over close elections and recounts. Confronting those Russian efforts is difficult, officials have said, because they want to maintain American confidence in voting systems.

Both Republicans and Democrats asked the intelligence agencies to hand over the underlying material that prompted their conclusion that Russia again is favoring Mr. Trump’s election.


Although the intelligence conclusion that Russia is trying to interfere in the 2020 Democratic primaries is new, in the 2019 report of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, there is a reference to Russian desires to help Senator Bernie Sanders in his presidential primary campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The report quoted internal documents from the Internet Research Agency, a troll factory sponsored by Russian intelligence, in an order to its operatives: “Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest except for Sanders and Trump — we support them.”

How soon the House committee might get that information is not clear. Since the impeachment inquiry, tensions have risen between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the committee. As officials navigate the disputes, the intelligence agencies have slowed the amount of material they provide to the House, officials said. The agencies are required by law to regularly brief Congress on threats.

While Republicans have long been critical of the Obama administration for not doing enough to track and deter Russian interference in 2016, current and former intelligence officials said the party is at risk of making a similar mistake now. Mr. Trump has been reluctant to even hear about election interference, and Republicans dislike discussing it publicly.

The aftermath of last week’s briefing prompted some intelligence officials to voice concerns that the White House will dismantle a key election security effort by Dan Coats, the former director of national intelligence: the establishment of an election interference czar. Ms. Pierson has held the post since last summer.

And some current and former intelligence officials expressed fears that Mr. Grenell may have been put in place explicitly to slow the pace of information on election interference to Congress. The revelations about Mr. Trump’s confrontation with Mr. Maguire raised new concerns about Mr. Grenell’s appointment, said the Democratic House committee official, who added that the upcoming election could be more vulnerable to foreign interference.

Mr. Trump, former officials have said, is typically uninterested in election interference briefings, and Mr. Grenell might see it as unwise to emphasize such intelligence with the president.

“The biggest concern I would have is if the intelligence community was not forthcoming and not providing the analysis in the run-up to the next election,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former intelligence official now with the Center for New American Security. “It is really concerning that this is happening in the run-up to an election.”


Mr. Grenell’s unbridled loyalty is clearly important to Mr. Trump but may not be ideally suited for an intelligence chief making difficult decisions about what to brief to the president and Congress, Ms. Kendall-Taylor said.

“Trump is trying to whitewash or rewrite the narrative about Russia’s involvement in the election,” she said. “Grenell’s appointment suggests he is really serious about that.”

The acting deputy to Mr. Maguire, Andrew P. Hallman, will step down on Friday, officials said, paving the way for Mr. Grenell to put in place his own management team. Mr. Hallman was the intelligence office’s principal executive, but since the resignation in August of the previous deputy, Sue Gordon, he has been performing the duties of that post.

Mr. Maguire is planning to leave government, according to an American official.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-20-2020, 08:40 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm not opposed to either system as both have some pros and cons. Just 10 years ago I was in favor of a straight up 'you get more votes, you win' system, but America has become amazingly dumb and easy to fool in that time. 

America was always that amazingly dumb, we just didn't have the ability to fully appreciate without social media putting it all simultaneously on public display to the world.

Same opinion with fooling people. It's not easier to fool people, but it's just way way easier to fool huge numbers of people at the same time now. You used to have to put work into it and go community-by-community. Now one submit button on your phone and you have access to tens of millions of people to fool at once all from the comfort of your couch.

I've been riding the "social media will be the downfall of civilization" train for awhile. Pshaw to meteors, plagues, and nukes. Lol

[BmorePat87]

I went to the Buttigieg rally in VA yesterday. Just outside of DC.

Pretty great experience. Over 7,000 there. It's easy to see how he appeals to such a broad base after hearing him speak.

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2020, 08:40 PM)Benton Wrote: I've been curious how that particular group is going to play out. I'm in a big soybean growing area, and that group has been hit hard by the tariffs. Drive by any of the local banks or auctions and your going to see a lot of farm equipment. I used to do a lot of stories with our state soybean council because it's in my coverage area. The last time I asked the director how things were going, her response was "our people have been devastated.'

In middle Ohio (around Columbus) there are fields of soybeans that were not even harvested.

Another group that is probably disappointed is coal miners.  They loved Trumps support of fossil fuels, but did not realize he did not care about coal.  Cheap newly available natural gas is what is driving the economy and that will just keep driving coal miners out of business.

[CJD]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/01/buttigieg-dropping-out-of-presidential-race-118489

Interesting turn of events.

I'm curious why he chose to drop out before Super Tuesday.

Did his campaign just see the writing on the wall that it was a 2 man race following the South Carolina primary?

Did he not want to endure the potential embarrassment if he didn't win a single Super Tuesday primary (which I don't think he was going to, based on polling)?

Did he drop out to help another candidate? And if so, who?

Was it based on a deal he made for a cabinet position with another candidate?

It'll be interesting to see if he comes out with an endorsement before tomorrow. That may give us more insight into why he chose now to drop out.

[CKwi88]

(03-02-2020, 12:49 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/01/buttigieg-dropping-out-of-presidential-race-118489

Interesting turn of events.

I'm curious why he chose to drop out before Super Tuesday.

Did his campaign just see the writing on the wall that it was a 2 man race following the South Carolina primary?

Did he not want to endure the potential embarrassment if he didn't win a single Super Tuesday primary (which I don't think he was going to, based on polling)?

Did he drop out to help another candidate? And if so, who?

Was it based on a deal he made for a cabinet position with another candidate?

It'll be interesting to see if he comes out with an endorsement before tomorrow. That may give us more insight into why he chose now to drop out.

Probably did it for the greater good of the moderate sect of the party. Look for him to have a cabinet position if Biden prevails.

Edit: Klobuchar is out. Immediately endorses Biden. The moderates are falling into line.

[CJD]

Amy Klobuchar has now dropped.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-drops-out.html

It seems clear that the moderates are doing some wheeling and dealing to gain the majority over Bernie.

It'll be interesting to see if they can entice Bloomberg to drop and endorse Biden.

I doubt it, since Bloomberg is running purely on ego and dropping would be admitting he was wrong, something I don't think he'd be willing to do.

But Amy and Pete dropping within 24 hours of each other seems to be the final stand for Moderates.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2020, 04:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Amy Klobuchar has now dropped.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-drops-out.html

It seems clear that the moderates are doing some wheeling and dealing to gain the majority over Bernie.

It'll be interesting to see if they can entice Bloomberg to drop and endorse Biden.

I doubt it, since Bloomberg is running purely on ego and dropping would be admitting he was wrong, something I don't think he'd be willing to do.

But Amy and Pete dropping within 24 hours of each other seems to be the final stand for Moderates.

So this leaves:

Biden
Bloomberg
Sanders
Warren

Just keeping track so when I hit the polls at 6 am I know what I'm doing, lol.

[CJD]

(03-02-2020, 04:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So this leaves:

Biden
Bloomberg
Sanders
Warren

Just keeping track so when I hit the polls at 6 am I know what I'm doing, lol.

Yep.

I really hope that Bloomberg and Warren drop, because then we can avoid the whole brokered convention thing and the people can legitimately select the nominee they want to run against Trump.

It'll also completely remove the "Bernie got ******" narrative that really created some issues in 2016.

But I doubt either one will drop in the next 24 hours.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2020, 04:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yep.

I really hope that Bloomberg and Warren drop, because then we can avoid the whole brokered convention thing and the people can legitimately select the nominee they want to run against Trump.

It'll also completely remove the "Bernie got ******" narrative that really created some issues in 2016.

But I doubt either one will drop in the next 24 hours.

Bloomberg definitely won't, mostly because this will be the first time he is on any ballots. Warren potentially could. The writing is on the wall for her. I would not be surprised to see that announcement, today.

[CJD]

(03-02-2020, 04:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bloomberg definitely won't, mostly because this will be the first time he is on any ballots. Warren potentially could. The writing is on the wall for her. I would not be surprised to see that announcement, today.

I hope she does. Obviously, I'm biased though. I imagine moderates are hoping she stays in and continues to split the progressive vote, even if by just minor amounts.

It seems like Pete and Amy may have made some deals with Biden and, perhaps, Obama regarding Biden's cabinet. I wonder if Warren has as well (in exchange for staying in the race longer).

But that's just my conspiracy theorist brain working. Just a passing thought more than anything.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2020, 04:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It'll be interesting to see if they can entice Bloomberg to drop and endorse Biden.

Bloomberg could be like the high school dweeb who always got invited to parties because he was rich and bought lots of drugs, alcohol, and women.

How big of a check would it take to get a Vice President Bloomberg?

[CKwi88]

(03-02-2020, 04:48 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But that's just my conspiracy theorist brain working. Just a passing thought more than anything.

This is what worries me most about it all. I fear that Sanders supporters will see this as a "fixing" of the nomination and hold that grudge in November.

It's why I would really like to see the ticket reduced to Sanders and Biden yesterday. Let em have at it, and then make sure whoever loses still vocally supports the winner.

It's the left's fatal flaw. While the right compromises on their standards and falls into line quick, the left is stubborn and sticks to their guns.