Do you think Trump will be reelected in the 2020 election?

It depends on what polls you read. Some say that any Dem candidate will beat Trump. Polls are unreliable but at this point, I could really see it going either way.

@janbb: Source for the Dems winning?

A country dumb enough to elect drumpf once, is dumb enough to elect him twice.

I think he’ll win.

I guarantee that he’ll win.

No, as more and more of the truth is sorted out it will become obvious of the mistake in voting him in.
It seem that the truth is hidden through his constant tweets in order to divert the general public on thinking more deeply.
This motive is ingrained in his persona all along to divert by changing the narrative to constantly
keep the Public confused.
He is a major manipulator , learned though his TV experience with “Your Fired”.

Trumpers, don’t care about his behavior. They care about his/their agenda.

@MrGrimm888
And that is the problem, blind to the truth staring them in the face.
Unfortunately it may take after the fact for them to realize that they have been duped,used and thrown away, for his own use.

He has been impeached. Are we really THAT stupid?

@Dutchess_III
Stupid? I wouldn’t say that but manipulated and kept in doubt, yes, that is what he does.

@Dutchess_III: We are talking about more or less 400 million people, you, what do you say?

@Dutchess_III
I say that Trump will go down.
And the first sign that he realizes it it will show in his health..downturn.

I haven’t been manipulated and kept in doubt. I have never had any doubt that he was completely unfit to be a telemarketer, much less hold such an office as the president. I knew that before he was elected.

@luigirovatti? That’s higher than the total population of the US. Most of those would be minors too. So I’m not sure what you’re saying.

I would opine, that ALL of us, have been duped, a few times. It doesn’t mean we’re stupid.

@Dutchess_III: The total population of the US is 327.2 million. So I rounded it up a bit.

I still don’t understand your point. Not everyone in the US is eligible to vote.

@Dutchess_III: Ah, yes, you’re right. Let’s say 250 million then.

Only 128,824,833 people voted, and the majority voted for Hillary.
The Electoral College has got to go.

Gawd, not ALL have been mesmerized by Trumps bombastic tweets on media of course.
Some of us look deeper into his manipulations while others prefer or are afraid to question him.

^ Ha ha. Pelosi is not one of those!

@Dutchess_III: As I said, if you find a source of the 2020 general election polls favouring Dems, I’m all in. :-)

Dude. I can find a source that says UFOs and mermaids are real. But I’ll go find one for you.

On another note of interest on TV last night a commentator guest mentioned that in the 2016 Election 6 million Democrats didn’t vote!
So that is how Trump got voted in.
I remember that many were unsure of who to vote for so some never voted at all.

Here is one @luigirovatti. Are you in now?

Yes, I do think he will be re-elected. Really, I think only a recession could derail his re-election at this point. In the same way that Clinton’s impeachment and acquittal boosted his popularity, I think the same will happen for Trump. And I think we are not likely to see many one-term presidents anymore.

@Dutchess_III: Yeah, you got me right. The research I do on polls mostly involves online news articles, because they certainly are tackling with more descriptions about past polls than a day-to-day basis raw data.

As of yet, he has not been impeached.
The House has voted but it has not delivered Articles of Impeachment to the Senate as of yet.
Noah Feldman, the Democrat’s own impeachment lawyer has stated, “The Articles of Impeachment need to be delivered to the Senate in order to actually impeach President Trump,”
As for the 2020 election, there is a very good chance he could win.

@luigirovatti, you said _”...if you find a source of the 2020 general election polls favouring Dems, I’m all in.” Well, I found you one.

“The research I do on polls mostly involves online news articles, because they certainly are tackling with more descriptions about past polls than a day-to-day basis raw data.” I don’t understand your point. Could you give me an example?

@Dutchess_III: If a poll is sponsored by a newspaper, they also tend to contextualize it, giving it more background information. If you look at raw data, instead, one day, Democrats are favoured, the next, Republicans are.

Oh. Well. You didn’t put those parameters around it originally. Any particular newspaper? I’ll go find one.

@Dutchess_III: It doesn’t tell you specifically who the people prefer in Dem vs GOP, but it’s an example, so here it is:

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-12-19-2019/index.html

While Democrats may be hoping for a record turnout to boot Trump from office, there’s no guarantee of that. About the same percentage of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents (53%) and Republican and Republican leaning independents (52%) say they are extremely enthusiastic about voting next year. ”

Actually, at this point, the main concern is who is going to be chosen by the GOP or the DNC, so they’re mostly focusing on who’s ahead in the primaries.

Are there even any republicans running against trump?

He will win!
This despite the hysterical ramblings of his haters.
Your incessant whining achieved nothing :D

No, he won’t win. The turnout for the 2018 elections is proof he has no chance. He has angered too many people who sat out in 2016. Do not underestimate the younger generation. They have been working hard the past three years to get new voters registered. Turnout will be large and it won’t favor Trump.

Absolutely yes he will win. If you look at what he’s accomplished.

@ihavereturned He may not in my state (North Carolina) there are fifth generation farmers that are getting ready to liquidate because of lost business with China because of the tariffs and China has found new sources and probably never come back to these farmers. They were stanch Trump backers.

trump wins (with the help of Putin) again? Only if Dems and indies in swing states stop giving a damn about the whole country. Now what are the chances of that happening?

I am in no position to make any predictions at this time.

Polls mean shit, especially at this point.

@ihavereturned “Absolutely yes he will win. If you look at what he’s accomplished.”

What has he accomplished? I mean, other than getting world leaders to openly mock him.

I agree @Darth_Algar. I hope the 2018 elections are sign. We actually elected a Democratic Governor last year. Gasp.

@lucillelucillelucille “As of yet, he has not been impeached.”

Yes, he has.

@Darth_Algar
– We are currently in the longest economic expansion in US history
– Wages have risen faster, middle class families have received thousands in the form of tax reductions (WSJ)
– Record unemployment for minorities and youth
– Had the balls to stand up to China and sign a historic Phase One deal recently
– Reduce reliance on China and become more vertically integrated (like Apple or Tesla :))
– Largest decline in drug prices in 50 years!!
– Middle class income is highest on record!!!
– America is energy independent
– Autism care act
– Extreme animal cruelty is now a felony
– Right to Try act is saving lives
– USMCA agreement
– First president to set foot in North Korea (I believe this is PROGRESS despite what you’ll hear in the media)
and sooooo much more

Also what other leaders think of him is none of our concern. The president is supposed to work for American interests.

@Darth_Algar Also no he has not been impeached:

“Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial.” (Bloomberg)

@ihavereturned Economic turnarounds take 5 to 8 years; so what year was Trump elected 2011 or 2013 ? ? ?

@Tropical_Willie Who said anything about a turnaround? And since you allude to the economy before the Trump admin consider this:

“during 7½ years under President Obama—starting from the end of the recession in June 2009 through January 2017—the median household income rose by only about $1,000… the weakest recovery from a recession since the 1930s… [Under Trump] real median household income—the amount earned by those in the very middle—hit $65,084 (in 2019 dollars) for the 12 months ending in July. That’s the highest level ever and a gain of $4,144, or 6.8%, since Mr. Trump took office” (WSJ)

Also consider that Obama bought the market at a low.

Let’s try to be “logical* 5 years to 8 to to get a turnaround AFTER Bush trashed it ! Trump is only running for his own gain in fossil fuels and hurting anything to do with liberal and clean earth !

Recycling Nyet

Solar energy Nyet

Putin is Best friend FOREVER ! yes

And such charges as: Disgrace to his office, perpetual embarrassment to his country, laughing stock before the world, ethically equivalent to sewage, dumb as a brick, petty, dishonest, crude, narcissistic, vindictive, shallow, illiterate, puffed up caricature of a hollow man devoid of honor, character or intellect.

No one is deceived by the coup efforts, but many re trying to make it a reality in others’ minds.

That’s your view and let’s assume you are correct. What leads you to believe that the conspirators in the coup are out of material with which to level further charges? And which side do you expect to prevail—-the turd or those tasked with proving the turd stink free?

Have there been any evidences for anything they have alleged?

@Tropical_Willie The farmers in Wisconsin aren’t happy as well.

North Korea, has given the US, an ultimatum. We have until Christmas, to lift sanctions, or receive a “Christmas gift.”
Whatever that means, and how Trump reacts, may actually have an affect, on the 2020 elections…
We’ll soon find out, how Trump’s diplomacy, really works…

Can you imagine Buttigieg, Mastuer Beto, or Bernie handling that?

I can… Every POTUS, has to deal with such issues. I can tell you that NK, hasn’t behaved quite like this, before. Leading me, to believe Trump fucked up…

I know that he’s in a rough situation here. There may not be a right action. But, he has expressed, to me, that he makes terrible decisions, in such cases.

In this case, he has been involved in a volatile situation. With limited, shitty ways, of dealing with it. I understand that.
But, he has clearly enraged Kim. To the point where we don’t know what will happen…
Former POTUSs, have kept it from this. It may be that this was inevitable. But, he pushed NK, and now we’re here. If you’re keeping up, on the situation, NK may have the ability to strike the US, with an ICBM.
We were always, still at war with NK, but Trump threw gas on the fire.
He will now be faced with the decision to make a military move, or wait to see what happens, and make a military move. In any case, thousands, maybe more, will die…

That’s our “great deal maker,” at work.

North Korea, will soon have the ability to hit, the US mainland…
Then what?...

@Darth_Algar -The House is holding on to the Articles of Impeachment.
They have merely voted.
Until the Articles have been submitted to the Senate, the process has not been completed and therefore he has not yet been formally impeached.
The Democrat’s own impeachment lawyer, Noah Feldman and notables such as Alan Dershowitz have stated this very point.

As much as I’d love to have Trump removed from office, I doubt that’s actually going to happen.

In fact, I think the likelihood of Trump being re-elected is probably higher since he is being impeached. The likelihood of getting a ⅔ vote to remove him from office seems pretty unlikely. And this whole impeachment business will just make him more of a martyr to his supporters.

Sigh.

I disagree. There are just too many things stacked against the turd for his possible survival. The reckoning is upon him. It will be nearly as relentless as his own big mouth

I really really hope I’m wrong.

@stanleybmanly His base of voters include “skinheads” and KKK members, I don’t think you understand the mindset of White Supremacists that love love love what he is doing to the USA.

I understand their mindset. I simply don’t believe there are yet enough of them.

There may not be a majority of skinheads and KKK members. Yet look at it this way, has the impeachment process changed the opinion of any Trump supporter that you know? If anything, they have double downed on this.

We live in an age where facts and science have the same weight as opinions. The impeachment process will be seen through the same filter.

Without actually removing him from office, the whole process just adds fuel to their fire.

Agreed. I have no idea what happened to this country. It seemed like we were making progress. Now. It’s like a lot of people made NO progress.
Bigotry, nationalism, hate, racism, and intolerance, have come back, with a bang. Even liberals, are now intolerant, of the right. WTF happened to America?

trump happened. Proof that the trickle down effect works.

Pfft…

No, I feel like people will be way smarter this time around.

I can’t believe were so dumb the first time around.

The Democrats that thought they didn’t have to vote because the polls said Hillary would win anyway won’t let that happen again.

I hope not @kritiper. But I have yet to hear one regret from someone who didn’t vote. The only person who commented on it was my grandson, who was 22 at the time. He didn’t vote because Bernie didn’t get the nomination….but he read something that he felt exonerated him and the millions of others that didn’t vote….and place the blame on the Democrats.

De we really still need to explain that Hillary Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes than Donald Trump? He’s not in office because people didn’t get out and vote for Hillary.

I agree with that too. I mean, how hard is it to understand that, whether your liked it or not, either Hillary or Trump was going to become president, period, and vote accordingly. People may not like Hillary, but we’d be in a far better place now if she’d won.

@Darth_Algar and @Dutchess_III Do we really still need to explain that Hillary Clinton got 71 electoral votes less than Trump? That means people in most states didn’t get out and vote for her. What is that called? Oh yeah…she lost.

It means that people who live states where your vote is worth more didn’t vote for her. A bunch of votes for her in California doesn’t mean as much as votes in Ohio or Wisconsin.

@Demosthenes the electoral college is so that New York and California don’t get all the attention from the gov. So it’s probably useful

@ihavereturned But then they only pay attention to the swing states, so…kinda just trading one area of focus for another.

@Demosthenes hmm but I’m talking about after an election. Or did I misunderstand? I view it as leveling the playing field for small and large states. The more stake a state has in an election the more attention they will get all the time. If a swing state gets attention during an election it doesn’t mean other states have less of a stake?

@ihavereturned That’s precisely my point; swing states have more stake in an election, thus they get more attention all the time (this is evidenced by the continued reference to the importance of the “white working class”, a demographic that makes up a significant portion of the population in swing states, and was largely responsible for turning those swing states red in the last election). I agree that without the electoral college, the attention would shift to the most populated states, but either way only a small subset of states receives the most attention from campaigns and the government.

@Demosthenes “either way only a small subset of states receives the most attention from campaigns and the government”

I think where we disagree is the amount attention/stake a state would get if they were a swing state vs a low pop state in an election without the electoral college. This is something worth both of us considering further, but it’s my opinion that attention/stake would be much more unequal in a popular election vs swing/notswing.

@Demosthenes oh maybe you’re also implying that certain states always stay the same color, which give all the focus to the swing states? The thing is they don’t always stay the same color

@Dutchess_III Maybe you didn’t hear from any body that regretted not voting but not all voters are represented here.

Is there any proof that Hillary lost because certain people thought what I said earlier? More votes from Democrats would have equaled more electoral votes for her and (maybe) not for “him.”

@ihavereturned

A couple of questions…

- Do you think it right or fair that 1 voter in Wyoming counts for as many as many as 14 voters in California? Is this fair representation to you?

- If the Electoral College is so good then why do we not use that style for any other election in the nation?

@kritiper Yes, more Democrat voters could effect the electoral college vote. But you are overlooking the very high number of voters, I knew seventeen people, who would not vote for Trump in 2016 because they had been told he was a Russian agent, and there were hundreds of media sources and virtually all of the high-ranking intelligence officials around Obama who were pushing Hillary’s Russian dossier. Also, the Democratic congress hasn’t really done anything but obstruct and try to impeach Trump or push false narratives.

@Darth_Algar hello Darth,

We have a different opinion on what is more fair. Is it more fair that voices are never heard because they live in a rural area? There are also other benefits to the decentralization. Give me an argument in terms of concrete outcomes and I will reconsider my thinking

@ihavereturned

Hence my question. If the EC is so good, why do we not use it for other elections?

The one absolutely concrete argument is that such schemes as the electoral college directly defy the principle of one man one vote. For the corresponding argument of voices never being heard because they are in a rural area you have the spectacle of those who flee being penalized because they prefer life elsewhere. Why should the Redlands be subsidized simply because no one wants to live there?

@stanleybmanly the EC was set up specifically to give a voice to those in lower population areas when it comes to electing the POTUS. It was set up so that the high population density areas don’t always automatically win, so that the people living in the smaller states or less populated ones get to have a say in who leads the country. After all, ALL the states are impacted, not just those with high population density, by who is POTUS. So it is actually a compromise between one-state-one-vote and one-man-one-vote.

@Darth_Algar why we don’t use the EC for other elections is a simple answer: no other election (other than for POTUS) directly impacts all the states at once. All other elections are impacting only one state or a subset of a state (county, city, etc). The Constitution is pretty clear about why to use the EC. It also allows the states to set up their own methods of voting and tallying. If a state decided to set up some sort of EC for other elections they could.

And this is not merely the case when it comes to the Presidency. The huge elephant in the room of disproportionment is of course the Senate where California, Rhode Island and Montana each have the same weight. In the case of the Senate, you wind up with the vote of an Idaho potato farmer equivalent to that of some 20 California PhD s.

@stanleybmanly So, your argument is kind of like the argument against blacks and women not being allowed to vote?
That’s the good ole Democrats for ya. It’s 2020, we’re all created equal, Stan, no more voter suppression of blacks and poor whites so Dems can get ‘their way’.

On the list below, ranked by intelligence, Missouri is 16 and Cali is 34, so…...sorry to burst that bubble with facts. So is Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Kansas and Oklahoma-all higher intelligence rankings than Cali.

https://www.al.com/news/2016/06/50_states_ranked_by_intelligen.html

I hate to make the anti-Trump folks cry but Trump will win 2020. This is all I’ll say because it’s not worth the argument.

@seawulf575

I’m not asking if states could or couldn’t set up an Electoral College-type system. I’m asking why don’t they. If it’s such a great system then why is there only one election that uses it? Why is, for example, it not used for gubernatorial elections? Why should Cook County decide who becomes governor of Illinois? Why shouldn’t Pope County get just as much of a say? I mean, if you look at an electoral map of Illinois the vast majority of the state is red. Granted, nobody lives in those red counties, but still…

I think the electoral college is representative of the awkward balance between the sovereignty of individual states and the federation as a whole. The EC is a result of the emphasis placed on states as opposed to the nation as a whole and the U.S. is continuously caught up in conflicts between states’ rights and federal laws and policies and has been since its inception. The EC was founded on the idea that states determine the election, not individuals (though obviously individuals have more say at the state level). More Republicans favor the EC because they dominate in rural areas (which are advantaged by the EC) and more Democrats disfavor it because they dominate in urban areas (which are disadvantaged by the EC).

The EC attempts to even things out on a geographic basis. So it becomes a question of whether we want presidential elections determined primarily by states and geography as opposed to population and individuals. Perhaps this makes sense in a presidential election because the president is intended to be a leader of the entire extent of the nation (this of course fails on many levels, given the way in which Trump, for example, focuses on his base and denounces the areas of the country that did not elect him). It’s an imperfect system; is it the least imperfect of the options we have?

@KNOWITALL My argument is NOTHING like prohibiting blacks or women from voting. In spite of the fact that blacks and women were clearly denied the right to vote for most of our history, I do not claim their vote should count more if they live in Joplin than if they live in Chicago , which is the way the setup is now rigged. And if indeed, one’s vote should be gauged by levels of intelligence, that too would be woefully discriminatory. My point is that if a man or woman can win an election with 3 million fewer votes than the losing candidate SOMEBODY’s votes are indisputably more valuable than others. There’s no way around it. And the truth is as this effect becomes ever more pronounced as demographic shifts currently indicate, the country becomes less representative of the will of its voters.

@stanleybmanly Really? The demeaning and disparaging language is eerily similar. Not cool.

Granted, I might be more polite. So I will tell you that I am discriminated against simply because of where I choose to live. Do you dispute this?

“he EC was set up specifically to give a voice to those in lower population areas when it comes to electing the POTUS. It was set up so that the high population density areas don’t always automatically win, so that the people living in the smaller states or less populated ones get to have a say in who leads the country. ” It was also set up at a time when there were vast tracts of country between voters and voting places. A farmer couldn’t take a week off just to go vote. That no longer applies. It served its purpose, now it’s done. Get rid of it.

You know, the implication that every person in a particular state will vote the same way is just weird.

@Dutchess If we pay taxes online, we should vote online-at least. The EC has served its purpose, but the concept of equality should remain imo.

The EC is creating inequality @KNOWITALL. It’s giving favoritism to certain parts of the country for reasons that no longer apply.

The Electoral College was set up at a time when 90% of the US population lived in rural areas. Huge megalopolises like modern New York and Los Angeles were inconceivable to them at the time. Even the largest cities were about as big as your average small city today. New York, at the time, was around 30,000 people. Philadelphia around 28,000 and Boston around 18,000. The notion that these cities alone could decide the president is laughable.

@Darth What is your solution thats fair?

Simply go with the popular vote @KNOWITALL. The person with the most votes wins.

At this point, there are so many people who feel their vote doesn’t matter…and in a way they’re right. Hillary won by 3 million votes….that means my vote didn’t matter.

@Demosthenes i find you to be a very reasonable person. Great answer!

@KNOWITALL

Popular vote, just like every other election on the planet.

@ihavereturned

What?

In the end, the elimination of the electoral college would probably have little effect on the bottom line defining the country—the people get screwed. Clearly the advantage given the rural population has in no way enhanced the viability of earning a living in rural Ameirca. Closer attention should be paid as to what it is about our system of government that has allowed farming to be the domain of corporate agriculture with independent farmers reduced to the debt laden serfs of the banks.

I think what is being missed by the idea of doing away with the EC is that that view point only looks at the individual. The EC isn’t about the individual as much as the state. Each state offers something to the whole, but more importantly, they are supposed to be sovereign states that work in conjunction with the federal government…not for the federal government. And there are other aspects that play in as well. The federal government owns large chunks of land that aren’t available for use by the states or individuals. And it is not a fair distribution. For instance, approximately 25% of Alaska is national park whereas only 10% of California or 0% of NY are national park. So the federal government controls how the land of the state is used, limiting industry and potentially population. So doing away with the EC would effectively allow NY and CA to dictate to the rest of the country how the country will be run. How is that fair to the other 48 states?
Want a variant of the EC? How about this: each county in the country, as it is drawn today, is an electoral vote. And no state has winner take all. In a situation like NYC, each burough can be considered a county.

@Yellowdog I don’t see how anyone could rule that in or out with any accuracy. That is what I think, moot or not.

@seawulf575 I find it very interesting when a professed conservative decides it’s necessary that the vote must be doctored in the interests of “fairness”. It would seem to me that such doctrine flies directly in the face of the capitalist touchstone concerning meddlesome Federal government doctoring state affairs. Were this not suspicious enough, we have the additional purely socialist trope that the prosperous places where the population flocks and concentrates must subsidize those places where no one wants to live. These are the sorts of inconsistencies to what passes for conservative “thinking”. And the consequences?

@seawulf575 “Want a variant of the EC? How about this: each county in the country, as it is drawn today, is an electoral vote. And no state has winner take all. In a situation like NYC, each burough can be considered a county.”

And why should Kalawao County, HI (population 88) have as much say as Los Angeles County, CA (population 10,163,507)? Plus states don’t exactly divide their counties in proportion to their population. So you’d end up with some states having an even more lopsided number of electoral votes than now.

Hawaii, for example, has 5 counties. Wyoming has 23. This would give Wyoming 18 more electoral votes than Hawaii, despite having only around one-third the population that Hawaii does. California has 58 and nearly 40 million people. South Dakota has 66 and less than 1 million. The state of Texas has a ridiculous 254 counties. Surely you see the problem with that idea.

—————————————————————————
As an aside: each borough in New York City is a county.

@Darth_Algar let me give you an example of how popular vote is a bad thing. Back in the late 80’s or early 90’s, people in LA were upset at the cost of their water. Some enterprising politician, playing to the mob, suggested a plan to reroute the Sacramento River down to LA to help supply more water and lower prices. Of course LA residents thought this was a grand idea and, because they outnumbered all the people that would be wiped out by the loss of their livelihoods that depended on that river, it was moving towards becoming a done deal. The only thing that stopped it was that some environmentalists knew of some endangered species that would be wiped out if the plan was to happen.
Now, picture that sort of mentality, except on the whole country. A couple high population areas deciding what is best for them…only. Screw the rest of the country, right?

That idea was merely an outgrowth of the concept of eminent domain, the established, necessary and often abused power of a government (the will of the collective majority) to supercede the rights of the, individual. But what you have just illustrated is how those pesky inefficient government regulations that conservatives despise can be utilized to protect the public good. The “mob” (10 million water hungry residents settled in a desert) may have been stirred up by what appeared to be some enterprising politician, but the actual enterprise of course was with the contractors and business conglomerate behind the proposal that stood to pocket billions in the scheme which in actuality meant more expensive water for residents to offset the costs. But forget about LA and let’s get back to the much more dubious proposition of the turd as a viable argument for ignoring the popular vote.

@seawulf575

Under your proposal what’s to stop a state from dividing its area into several hundred little counties to give itself a larger share of electoral votes?

Let me give YOU a reason why the EC is a bad thing @seawulf.
1) GW Bush
2) trump.

I have absolutely no doubt Trump will win again. I have several bets riding on it.

@Darth_Algar because what I suggested is taking every county as it is drawn today. re-drawing the county lines would take a whole lot of time and would not show up as a county today. Want to put something in place about making new counties? I guess you could do that. But remember, that can go for both liberals and conservatives. But in the end, every county you create would need a whole new governmental structure…county commissioners, sheriffs, clerks etc. That’s an awful lot of work just to get one extra electoral vote.

I’m just thinking about a pickup game of basketball. The Captains, select the best available players. No politics. The captains, select the best player available, to obtain victory. The two captains, pick the players available, to knock out the opposing team. They go on the prospect’s ability to win a game. There’s no politics involved. The captains, go by talent. Who, will help us win, the contest? No political science, and based solely on who will help us win.
When you line up, for the captains to choose from, they judge by the best talent, not but the political views of the teammates. In other words, who will reach our objective? They judge, by skill set, but none other. That happens, on the streets, but not on a political scale. Usually, the captain who picks the best teammates, wins…

I think that there is an analogy, here.

Winning, is the ultimate goal. Not, who will help us, win the crowd. Performance, should outweigh, all else…

Anybody?

@MrGrimm But you can’t take the bias out of politics (especially at this level) and there is no objective, other than winning for many involved, I believe.
In a perfect world, your scenario is great, but there is too much money and far too many ego’s at play to make it feasible.

I get your point.

@MrGrimm888

Have you ever actually played a pick-up game, of any sport? It’s all about politicking, not necessarily talent.

I’ve played thousands of pick up games. They pick you by presumed athletic skills.

In my old neighborhood, I was often 1st pick. That’s how I tore my ACL. That was football. I recovered a fumbled punt, on the first play. Then I was handed the rock, on the first offensive play. It was a muddy field, and my foot got stuck. Then five guys got on me. I felt a snap , in my calf, while trying to move forward. Under better ground, I would have got 4 yards, or so. But, my knee buckled. I went down, with a lot of guys on me.
When I got up, I knew something was wrong. A friend lent me, a knee brace. I finished the game. I actually scored the touchdown, leadind us to overtime. 24–24. We won the game, 30–24. I haven’t played since.

In basketball, I still play, but, I am afraid to jump, too high…

The surgery required for my ACL, MCL, tear, took 8 months, for me to even run again.
It cost me my job, although they rehired me, and almost made me homeless.

Yes. I’ve played pick up games.

Still do.

I played catcher, for a local team, that won the championship. They were called “The Handfulls.”

You can probably look that up…

Pick up games, are awesome. It’s one of my favorite things to do..

Captains, are selected randomly. Then, we all line up, and the captains, of both teams select their team.

Do you not live in America? That’s how most things work.
You show up, at a court, or field, and are picked to play. Bit, you establish that you can play.

You work your way up….

It’s all about your contribution.

For instance, I am not chosen, on fool court. But, heavily favored, on half court basketball…

I was always one of the first picks too. And it wasn’t because I was demented.

Prepare to lose those bets @caravanfan. You are not in tune with the common people in the swing states in the Midwest. I’m in Wisconsin and I can guarantee he won’t win our state this time. Trump will lose. He won by a slim margin thanks to Hillary haters. These people have been replaced by Trump haters. Republicans are even turning on him.

^^Thanks heavens. You made my day.

Oh, I hope you’re right @Jonsblond! Kansas made a swing at turning blue in the midterms, by electing a democratic governor. I hope that trend continues.

@Jonsblond Oh I hope you’re right. But it’s not true that I am not in tune with “common people in the swing states”. Half my family are from a couple of rural swing states and most of them are rabidly pro-Trump.

I really the truth is that no one knows at this point who will win. I doubt that any polls are valid either since we know what polls predicted in the last election.

So. How many votes, against another candidate, would it take to overcome the EC?

Just saying the “we need to overcome the EC” makes me feel queasy.

Ya.

@MrGrimm888 Well, in Wisconsin at least it was just a few thousand.

That doesn’t answer my query. Hillary won, by almost 3 million votes. How many millions, would it take to get the EC, to say, “okay, this is the candidate that America wants?

The EC is the collection of states, so it depends on the getting the collection states votes to add up to 270, the number of votes in the EC to elect the president. It is not more votes in Texas or California.

Yes. I get that. But, by how many millions of votes, will override the EC? 3 million, isn’t enough. Would 4 million be enough? 5?

I don’t think you get it !

If several “Rust Belt” states had gone Dem; Hillary would have won, it is not 15 million more votes, it which states were GOP.
If 3 million more people voted for Hillary in California it wouldn’t matter or make her President.

Well. I don’t get “it.”.

Maybe you don’t either…...

Wisconsin (10 EC votes), Missouri (10 EC votes) and Ohio (18 EC votes) if these three stated had been Democrat states. Trump would have lost only receiving 266 EC votes (270 needed to win). 50,000 more votes in Wisconsin for Hillary, 600,000 more votes in Missouri for Hillary and 500,000 more votes in Ohio for Hillary; she would have won. That is less than 1,200,000 votes.

The EC is a convoluted mess, just ripe for medling with @MrGrimm888. I guess it made sense at one, long gone time in the history of our nation, but there is not excuse for it anymore. For one thing, it assumes Every. Single. Person. In. The. State. will vote the same way.

I really do believe that there is an excellent chance that Trump will not see the next election as a viable candidate, and if I’m wrong on that one, the turnout at the polls to topple him will be of landslide proportions.

Can he even run after being impeached???

Yes he can run – walk – crawl to the next election.

Only if he is removed from office by the Senate would he be blocked from running. “Moscow Mitch” is not going to let that happen; besides Mitch is ready to collude with the Defense during the trial.

@Tropical_Willie There is no way the working class of the Rustbelt would have elected Hillary in 2016, nor a snowball’s chance in hell will they vote for a democrat in 2020.

These are the people the democrats ridicule and despise and screwed over for at least two decades, in spite of their previous loyalty to the democratic party.

@Tropical_Willie again: The articles and evidence or lack thereof have already been acquired. If this goes to trial, there is nothing to deliberate. The Dems want to stranglehold the senate but have no constitutional authority to influence the senate. The Senate is balanced politically and will abide by rules of evidence.

The evidence and the witnesses that testified all showed that drumpf is guilty.
It also showed that that slimeball Nunes was part of the criminal scheme.
Moscow Mitch also said that he will not be impartial.

It is like if you got raped by a fratboy, with multiple witnesses and cumstains, but the jury on the trial consists of the rapist’s fratbro friends.

Never say never, @Yellowdog he has made sure to beat them down (Rust Belt states), there are other states, that due to China tariffs have lost revenue and business in international trade, while taxes are climbing!
Looking only at the Stock Market works if you are in the top one percent.

Your definition of ” Senate is balanced politically and will abide by rules of evidence” is GOP bogus ! !
“Moscow Mitch” is ready to vote him not guilty, no evidence required. Mitch has said that repeatedly.

Meanwhile further evidence of malfeasance on the part of our turd bubbles up from the myriad of investigations world wide on his syndicated criminality. Eventually, the Senate’s hand will be forced. My only question is whether it is before or after the Republican Party lies in ruin.

Dutch. I’m just asking, how many votes, should it take to override the EC?

@MrGrimm888 That’s not the way EC works ! ! !

@MrGrimm888 You need to do some reading, kid. It’s a state by state vote. The problem is in most states it’s winner takes all EC votes, not proportional. Do some homework and then go and vote!

@MrGrimm888

trump won the EC winning in 3 states by 80K votes total. Divide that into three. What are the chances trump will win again in each of those states by that much unimpressive numbers? After all the assholery that he has done?

That’s why the orange blob is showing up in his orange tour in those states (and more) with his filthy mouth spitting out the same garbage that got him elected, to make sure he wins again. Which I strongly doubt will happen.

Actually, the Rustbelt states have experienced tremendous economic growth, particularly manufacturing and the steel industry—jobs Obama promised would never come back. Those blue collar workers you democrats mock as low class, smelly Walmart shoppers are strongly pro-Trump, even though about half were in doubt back in 2016.

It’s laughable that @Yellowdog thinks Dems have mocked the working class. That’s just plain stupid. I bet Fox News did its propaganda job very effectively. Truth is it’s trump who is mocking the working class. He gives jobs?

Yeah, well guess what, if getting a job is all it takes for you to ignore assholery, vanity, cruelty, corruption and taking a dump on your Constitution, all I have for you is deep sadness that you don’t seem to mind the absence of this thing called conscience.

I hope not. If you want to make America great again, don’t elect Trump. He is not the right person for the job.

I’ll try to remember that!

We didn’t elect him in the first place @Bootsiebaby.

It’s going to be a crazy one, that’s for sure, and anyone who “knows” how it’s going to go is deluding themselves, or just trolling you.

One common way of looking at this is that the stars basically had to align for Trump to win against a very unpopular opponent, so it wouldn’t happen again, especially now that everyone knows he has a real shot, and won’t be as petty or apathetic in their decision to vote (or not vote).

Trumps approval rating is low, but he is the incumbent, and his EC cushion could probably withstand losing the popular vote by 5% or more.

He is more of a known quantity now, and it’s harder for people to think magically about what he might accomplish, but the right wing media machine is pretty good at controlling the message and whitewashing reality.

And the campaign hasn’t really started yet, either. What surprises are in store? New revelations? A national emergency? Financial collapse? Something more symbolic than concrete? Clare Malone recently speculated that a candidate dying would be a wild “October Surprise” and not implausible, consider most candidates are in their 70s.

Ugh, predictions are hard, but I’m going to going to go on the record with “No, Trump will not win a second term.”

Unless he faces Biden.

@MrGrimm888

No amount of popular votes can override the Electoral College. The way it is set up currently each state gets X amount of electoral votes, depending on population (though no less than 3, regardless of how low the population may be).

The individual states are free to allot their electoral votes in whatever manner they choose. Most, however, go with a winner-takes-all allotment. Say State A has 1,000,000 votes cast. Candidate X gets 500,001 votes, Candidate Y gets 499,999 votes. This means that Candidate X receives all of State A’s electoral votes, while Candidate Y receives zero.

Oh, and here’s another little twist: the electoral votes aren’t actually awarded automatically. Each state has a small group of appointed “representatives” who meet and cast their votes for who gets the states electoral votes. For the most part the group will cast their individual votes in favor of the candidate who won that state’s popular vote, but “faithless electors” have been a thing from time-to-time.

As has been pointed out: Donald Trump won the Electoral College by less than 80,000 popular votes across three states. An extra 1,000,000 votes in California or New York would not have made any difference.

@Smashley Only Bloomberg has a chance at beating Trump. He has lots of money, more credibility than any of the current Democrat candidates, will say ANYTHING to win, and is the most similar to Avenotti, who was immensely popular as a contender.

@Yellowdog And a lot of financial backing. You’re right.

I think you die hards are in for a shock in predicting which Democrat stands a chance against the fool. What you term the “hatred” of Trump will be at a pitch by November that his own “anything but Trump” declaration will be incentive enough and duly reflected at the polls. There is a sobering truth to the influence of “those who have learned their lesson.” Let’s watch & see.

@stanleybmanly Ah but the polls showed Hillary winning, too.
I thought he was getting impeached anyway?
Frankly you underestimate the loyalty of his voters, I believe.

He is indeed getting impeached. He will be under impeachment on the day you cast your ballot if the Senate fails to remove him. There is no way out for the fool short of the disgrace befitting a lifetime of turpitude and sleaze.

@stanleybmanly I don’t see it playing out quite that way but we shall see.

@Yellowdog

Bloomberg? Michael “well shucks, I guess I’d like to be President” Bloomberg?

Man, just when I think you couldn’t be less in touch with Earth…

@KNOWITALL

Trump is not being impeached, he has been impeached.

@Yellowdog – you’re making predictions that can’t be tested.

@KNOWITALL – it is a fiction that the “polls were wrong” in 2016. People who believed that were listening to brainless pundits, or misreading the actual data. Real analysts were sounding alarm bells, but were admonished by trendier media outlets as too paranoid. Polls were within their normal error range. People’s impressions of what the polls meant is what was so warped in 2016.

@Smashley I remember many were stunned, including Hillary. It was beautiful to see.

@KNOWITALL
I was laughing at the collective colonial imbecility. Still am.

@ragingloli I think we even shock ourselves, but there’s a method to the madness.

@KNOWITALL
I should put one caveat in there. Slate did some pretty irresponsible early exit polling that showed Clinton killing it, which may have contributed to the public shock factor.

@Smashley Here’s a good article, apparently Bill and Hillary both had doubts she’d win.

She did deliver, in all three debates. And those wins gave Clinton such a boost in the polls that as October closed, confidence in her camp spilled more easily into the open. The Democratic nominee looked happy, almost as if she were enjoying it.

“I’ve got to deliver tonight,” she said in her final prep before the first debate (“the moment of maximum peril,” one aide called it), awkwardly but strikingly for aides surprised by how scared she was feeling about being the last person to stop a person she genuinely thinks is unfit to serve.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-loses-2016-election-214439

@KNOWITALL I know that I went to bed that night, smiling and happy, confident that Hillary had won. Imagine my total shock the next morning.

@chyna Will you be shocked if he wins again this year or like @ragingloli, are you resigned to it?

Unfortunately I’m resigned to it, but would be very happy if he lost. Of course, I’ll be voting for whichever democrat is left standing, but I’m not sure that will be enough.

@chyna Pence scares me to death. I’d rather Trump lose at the polls than be removed from office. Kind of similar to Pelosi’s train of thought.

I agree with you on that.

Don’t worry. If Trump is removed, Pence will go with him. If there is a single undisputed fact around Trump on which both his opposition and allies are compelled to agree it is this: those who surround him are doomed to share in his fate. The fool has a nasty habit of implicating all about him in his misadventures and the higher you are up the chain… well you get the picture. THIS time, everyone in the room at the time of that phone call is complicit. Pence, Barr, the works. It was equivalent to participating in a meeting to work out the plan to rob a bank! This is why even the Republicans of conscience MUST ignore said consciences and let the turd walk! Trump makes the entire Republican party complicit in his crimes, because if Trump goes, Pence goes with him and PELOSI becomes President of the United States. But you kiddies should just watch the show and pay close attention to the erstwhile destruction of the Republican party. The Repubs are in for a catastrophic lesson on the consequences of making a deal with the devil.

@stanleybmanly You must not be watching the same trial I am. Reps aren’t the only ones with some stink on their shoes.

Yes and it will be their ruin. They’ll let the fool off this time, but It’s equivalent to releasing a seasoned hooker on the hope that she’s seen the light.

The whole thing is a mess…

All of the “jurors,” had their minds set, before the impeachment. It’s a waste of money, and I’m 99.9% sure, that nothing will change the preconceived notions, already in place…
Before the hearings began.

Are they getting paid extra do do the hearings? How is it a waste of money?

It’s a waste of money, because of the costs it takes, to undergo such precedings, when the outcome, is already known….

Here’s what’s changed. The dirt has been formally aired. One side claims the turd not offensive ENOUGH in this instance to be removed from our civic sidewalk. Given the nature of our turd, how many more impeachments are required before the nature of what we’re up against sinks in? Just what do you imagine the dozens of current investigations currently underway world wide are going to turn up on Trump? Do you anticipate any GOOD news regarding our turd and criminality in the foreseeable future?

@MrGrimm888 I truly think taxpayers are being fleeced for political gain, personally.

Mueller alone was $25.2 million. Add Stormy, Kavanaugh, Ukraine/Impeachment.

I hope it’s worth it, because if you don’t find something to impeach him on, the people are going to hold this against the Dems in the long game.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/19/blog-posting/fact-checking-meme-about-costs-mueller-investigati/

@KNOWITALL….he was impeached on 2 counts.

@Dutchess_III Right.

Wasted taxpayer dollars? Perhaps, BUT all of his lawyers and most of his advisors are now either in prison or on their way. If anyone touching him winds up in jail, what do you suppose it says about the turd itself?

Well you said “I hope it’s worth it, because if you don’t find something to impeach him on…” Did you mean remove him from office @KNOWITALL?

@Dutchess_III Yep, sorry I’m multi-tasking.

@stanleybmanly I think it’s best you and I don’t talk politics, Stan, that way we can be friends.

^So. Extortion, for political advance, isn’t a misuse, of the executive branch?

@KNOWITALL. Honestly, you’re a decent person. What does it say if everyone you come in contact with goes to jail for the privilege? This has NOTHING to do with politics.

@stanleybmanly Well it would say that I had poor taste in associates, I suppose.
Do you think everyone who ever caught a ride on Epstein’s plane is guilty of sex crimes or trafficking?
Innocent until PROVEN guilty, seems logical.

Seriously people…. talking about wasting Uncle Sam’s money when it’s being spent on impeaching politicians you like is ridiculously childish. And when it’s politicians you don’t like what then? What about trump’s spending on his golf trips? He should be impeached just for that! Lol

@mazinger So you disagree with Pelosi and many others that impeachment is ursurping the legal vote of the American people?

It’s all taxpayer money.

@KNOWITALL “So you disagree with Pelosi and many others that impeachment is ursurping the legal vote of the American people?”

What? Jesus titty fucking Christ, this is such an idiotic parroting point. Impeachment is in the fucking Constitution. You know, that same Constitution that the Founding Fathers, in all their infinate divine wisdom, set as the foundation stone of this great nation.

@Darth_Algar Nope, you don’t get to use my Saviors name like that with me.

I’ll use it any goddamned way I please.

Impeachment, is not a sign of the system doing wrong. It’s a sign, that the system is doing right.

It’s not unlike an immune system. When something is going wrong, the immune system tries to keep it in check.

It’s not a failure of the system. It’s the system, doing what it is supposed to do.

It’s the same thing as with any corporation. When things are going sideways, it’s time to re-evaluate the person in charge…

^^This.