Election 2020

[Electromatic]

What do you guys think about Amy Klobuchar? I kind of like her, which historically means she has zero chance.

[digster]

I read this today, which had me thinking about something; https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... on-1230495

I think the article is a kind of off, but it does seem like the conventional wisdom is that Trump has a 50/50 shot of winning again, maybe slightly in his favor due to the economy or the benefits of incumbency. Do you think that's underrating or even overrating his chances? I sometimes feel like people are underselling some of the problem spots he has in order to be able to win, maybe in part because segments of the media were accused of bombing so thoroughly in the 2016 election. But I'm not sold on that line of thinking, either (that he's in very bad shape). Is he more fucked than people are willing to say, or is he cruising to reelection with a certainty people are underselling?

[B]

I can get behind a few of the reforms that candidates are throwing out there.

Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC:
(although, technically, PR should decide for themselves. I'm just assuming they'd choose statehood)
Eliminate the Electoral College:
Add seats to the Supreme Court:
Term limits for the Supreme Court: meh
Drop voting age to 16:

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

I read this today, which had me thinking about something; https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... on-1230495

I think the article is a kind of off, but it does seem like the conventional wisdom is that Trump has a 50/50 shot of winning again, maybe slightly in his favor due to the economy or the benefits of incumbency. Do you think that's underrating or even overrating his chances? I sometimes feel like people are underselling some of the problem spots he has in order to be able to win, maybe in part because segments of the media were accused of bombing so thoroughly in the 2016 election. But I'm not sold on that line of thinking, either (that he's in very bad shape). Is he more fucked than people are willing to say, or is he cruising to reelection with a certainty people are underselling?

The presidential election is the Super Bowl of politics, and it only happens every four years. So don’t expect any media, pro-Trump or not, to sell this as anything other than a toss-up. There’s also zero point speculating until there’s a Democratic candidate.
I get why political junkies get on board so early but the reality is there’s no real movement until the last few weeks of the election.
All that said, Trump should be cruising towards re-election based on the state of the economy. He’s his own worst enemy though, so whether or not he stays on message is up to him. While he may have an advantage going in, I don’t expect him to try and appeal to anyone outside his base, and that’s certainly an opening for his opponent. Time will tell.

[McParadigm]

He’s at his least flattering and most offensive when he is in conflict, and it’s worth remembering that in 2016 he was both seen as (although offensive) a relative political moderate (NYT: “Donald Trump, Moderate Republican;” BBC: “Think Again, Donald Trump is Moderate;” Gallup: “Trump Seen As Less Conservative Than Other GOP Candidates;” WAPO: “Donald Trump is a Textbook Example of a Moderate Candidate;” NYT: “Donald the Dove”), and up against a candidate who had some of the worst polling among moderates in modern politics. He had no political history, so any sweeping claim he made or promise he offered had no historical fact check to recoil against, and the FBI loudly legitimized for voters the idea that his opponent was corrupt, just days before the election.

I guess as long as he can do all that again I’ll worry

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

There’s also the possibility that the Mueller report exonerates him and he’s able to play the victim card and the winner card at the same time. That would give him a pretty big advantage.

[digster]

I think the Mueller stuff is likely already baked into the cake, regardless of the outcome. I don't see someone who's invested in not voting for him swayed to switch their preference or vice versa.

But one thing I read that struck me about Trump's chance; even at this early outset, are there any states that seem likely that he would be able to flip in order to offset Democratic victories in states he won last time? There aren't really any options for him (it's not like he has a fighting chance in a place like Virginia or Minnesota). So he'll be starting from a situation where he's only playing with the states that he won last time; he can lose one or two of them, but he can't lose more than that. That is coupled with the fact that he is doing very, very poorly in the three Rust Belt states that turned the election last time, along with the assumption that whoever the Democrats pick, they're not going to be picking someone who is unpopular among Independents and Republicans as Hillary Clinton.

[McParadigm]

He’s his own worst enemy though

[bune]

ha! ha! ha!

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

That was fantastic.

[Green Habit]

Add seats to the Supreme Court:
Term limits for the Supreme Court: meh

If I were a Democrat, what I would suggest the next time they have the power to do so is to credibly threaten to pack the Court, but offer to back down in exchange for passing the "single 18 year term limit rotated every two years" constitutional amendment I've suggested on here before.

Drop voting age to 16:

for me. I'd go even further and say there's no good reason to have a minimum voting age at all.

[B]

Drop voting age to 16:

for me. I'd go even further and say there's no good reason to have a minimum voting age at all.

I am open to debate. But this is definitely the lowest priority of the items I listed.

[B]

Where do we get 438 members of the House? Can that number be increased to give more representation to NY, CA, TX, etc without an amendment?

Or, also, support Californians efforts to split into multiple states. That'll bump up Democratic representation in the Senate too.

[Green Habit]

Drop voting age to 16:

for me. I'd go even further and say there's no good reason to have a minimum voting age at all.

I am open to debate. But this is definitely the lowest priority of the items I listed.

That's fair, considering that the youngest eligible to vote right now are already notorious for having low turnout anyway. I doubt abolishing age limits altogether will change much.

But here's how I'd do it: everyone gets automatic voter registration at birth. However, one has to be physically and mentally capable to cast a vote independently, without any assistance from another human. As a practical matter, this would exclude all newborns, likely all toddlers, and the grand majority of young primary school age kids, of which then more would gradually be able to do it throughout primary school, and all should be good to go by teenage years. This would also practically exclude a few adults like the comatose or those stricken with dementia of which there's little controversy about.

[Green Habit]

Where do we get 438 members of the House? Can that number be increased to give more representation to NY, CA, TX, etc without an amendment?

Yep, the Constitution doesn't say, a simple act of Congress can get it done. I've always liked the Wyoming Rule where the number of citizens per representative is is set at the population of the smallest state.

Or, also, support Californians efforts to split into multiple states. That'll bump up Democratic representation in the Senate too.

The problem with this is that if/when the GOP gets power, they'd retaliate by splitting off a bunch of microstates from Texas, and you're back to where you started, or even worse.

[Norah]

Add seats to the Supreme Court:
Term limits for the Supreme Court: meh

If I were a Democrat, what I would suggest the next time they have the power to do so is to credibly threaten to pack the Court, but offer to back down in exchange for passing the "single 18 year term limit rotated every two years" constitutional amendment I've suggested on here before.

Drop voting age to 16:

for me. I'd go even further and say there's no good reason to have a minimum voting age at all.

i'm all for dropping the voting age to 16

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

There’s also the possibility that the Mueller report exonerates him and he’s able to play the victim card and the winner card at the same time. That would give him a pretty big advantage.

Welp. Congratulations on your second term Mr. President.

[Rob]

There’s also the possibility that the Mueller report exonerates him and he’s able to play the victim card and the winner card at the same time. That would give him a pretty big advantage.

Welp. Congratulations on your second term Mr. President.

I disagree. Certainly possible he wins again, but I think this forces Dems to talk about other things (the issues) and back off a bit on the anti-Trump stuff. I think people understand that it can't be all anti-Trump all the time, but I haven't really trusted them to strike a good balance. Now they'll have to win on real substance, as it should be. Not accepting this report, after 2 years of defending its integrity, is the worst thing the left can do, imo.

And while I don't support Trump, the Mueller report is being talked about as being good for Trump, bad for Dems, for obvious reasons. But if the summary is accurate, then it was a good outcome for the country as a whole. Our leader may be corrupt in ways (among other flaws) but it seems he's not a traitor.

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

LOL @ anyone who ever mentioned Michael Avenatti and “presidential candidate” in the same sentence.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politi ... index.html

[verb_to_trust]

Given that Trump is in the White House it still doesn't seem out of line to think Avanetti could have a political career.