This is NOT gonna be a nice breakup….
Bolton is hard-core foreign policy hawk….
But his style and policy views had been rubbing just about EVERYBODY the wrong way, most importantly Donald Trump….
Trump and Bolton had a talk last night it’s reported….
Bolton came to work this morning….
He and everyone else found out he was out of a job via Trump tweeter later this morning….
Bolton being canned is going to have a LOT of people wondering where Donald Trump’s foreign policy is right now…
Donald Trump is looking for his FOURTH National Security advisor in less in than 3 years…
President Trump announced on Tuesday that he had fired John R. Bolton, his third national security adviser, amid fundamental disagreements over how to handle major foreign policy challenges like Iran, North Korea and most recently Afghanistan.
“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House,” the president wrote on Twitter. “I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service.”
Mr. Bolton offered a different version of how the end came in his own message on Twitter shortly afterward. “I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, ‘Let’s talk about it tomorrow,’” Mr. Bolton wrote, without elaborating.
Responding to a question from The New York Times via text message, Mr. Bolton said it was his initiative. “Offered last night without his asking,” he wrote. “Slept on it and gave it to him this morning.”
image,,,NYTimes…
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to annex part of the occupied West Bank if he is returned to office next week. (BBC, 9 minutes ago)
He would apply “Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea”, a policy certain to be backed by the right-wing parties whose support he would need for a coalition.
Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat said such annexation moves would “bury any chance of peace”.
Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 but stopped short of annexation.
Mr Netanyahu, who leads the right-wing Likud party, is campaigning ahead of general elections next Tuesday. Polls suggest Likud is neck-and-neck with the opposition centrist Blue and White party and may struggle to form a governing coalition.
Palestinians claim the whole of the West Bank for a future independent state. Mr Netanyahu has previously insisted that Israel would always retain a presence in the Jordan Valley for security purposes.
What did Mr Netanyahu say?
In a televised speech the PM said: “There is one place where we can apply Israeli sovereignty immediately after the elections.
“If I receive from you, citizens of Israel, a clear mandate to do so… today I announce my intention to apply with the formation of the next government Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea.”
Mr Netanyahu also said he would annex all Jewish settlements in the West Bank, but this would need to wait until the publication of US President Donald Trump’s long-awaited plan for a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.
The PM said Mr Trump’s so-called Deal of the Century was likely to be published within days of the elections and warned that his Blue and White opponents would not be able to handle its policies….
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49655226
Run against him, Ambassador Bolton!
His butt is gone….
Don’t matter how it happened …
The guy was actually to the right of Trump….
Anybody in the Republican Party would have been to the right of Trump on national security. Too many have just chosen to overlook it.
This is no different than what happened to General McMaster.
Trump wants a left-wing isolationist in that job. He might offer it to Tulsi Gabbard.
Or Justin Amash.
At least Justin Amash wouldn’t have invited them to dinner and posed in a photograph with them on the 9/11 anniversary.
Why not any Republican member of Congress?
Almost all of them are cowardly sycophants for the CultMaster.
Any of them could stand in front of the camera and dutifully nod as Trump babbles on.
At least Bolton finally had enough. In real terms, it did not take all that long I suppose.
Again with your “Trump is a secret Democrat/liberal” shit.
No one is buying it. He only wants boot lickers in that office. And why would he go to a Democrat for that. He has pretty much the entire Republican Party to do it!
I was specifically speaking about Afghanistan policy. He is to the left of Democrats on that.
Perhaps his best boot lickers in the Cabinet though (Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro) are Democrats.
Yeah. Wilbur Ross is a “Democrat”.
Just like Kim Davis in Kentucky was.
Sure.
It’s a matter of public record as it relates to Ross. (I notice you don’t challenge Navarro who ran for office, including Congress, several times as a Democrat.)
Ross’s views on trade matters is very much more aligned with Democrats than traditional Republicans.
Per Wikipedia Ross has donated to Republican candidates and organizations since 2011 and became a registered Republican in 2016.
He’s very old. If he was a Democrat until 2016, that was for a long time.
The point is that his views on trade (like Navarro’s and Trump’s) fit far more comfortably with Democrats than traditional Republicans.
Who cares about “traditional Republicans”. Like that means anything anymore in the GOP. A Republican is what Trump and hos acolytes say it is.
Well, I know you consider me different than them.
Republicans traditionally favoured high tariffs, protectionism, civil rights and monetary prudence (the Gold Standard rather than Free Silver), none of which has much support in the current White House or Senate.
It’s only the last (plus its own version of isolationism) that the current Administration supports.
On the other hand, they can cite historical GOP policies that favoured isolationism, high tariffs and limits on the number and birthplaces of immigrants (after welcoming and even recruiting them to fight for the Union).
As for Navarro I had to look tje guy up. You are really grasping here. He ran for San Diego City Council several times as a Democrat in the 90s and early 2000s.
And he was the Democrat nominee for Congress at least once. He addressed the national convention, etc.
Why? So his “principles conservatism” can get all of 5% against the anointed Republican Cult Leader?
That is if primaries are even to be held.
First Joe Walsh and now John Bolton, can’t Corey support a sane Republican to oppose his Republican President?
I am actually happy Trump got rid of that old warmonger.
Second, I see we spent another day trying to backhandedly proven that Trump isn’t a Democrat. Exhibit A, he appointed Wilbur Ross, a registered Democrat, to his Cabinet. Really? Presidents of both parties appoint members of the opposition party to their Cabinets. But more importantly, the Republican Party has a well established history of nominating former Democrats as their nominee. Wilkie, Eisenhower, and Reagan come to mind. And then the Party has a well established record of accommodating their political views to that nominee. Just compare the 1956 Republican Platform to the 2016 Platform.
Of course in 2016 the Republicans had to also accommodate Putin.
We have been going through this ridiculous drill since election night 2016. It is, in my opinion, this is a silly attempt by a Republican cultist, who by their own admission has never voted for a Democrat, to somehow justify the racist tendencies of their own Party. A party they periodically claim to no longer be a member of.
I know I am being redundant when I say that the Republicans created Trump (and our friend Corey did spend ample time blaming Hillary and the Democrats for Trump’s win). No the Republicans created him, not Harry Reid as it was bizarrely claimed here or any other Democrat for that matter. No, a party that was dealing with racist tropes for 50 years finally found its real racist to nominate.
And, as many prominent conservative columnists have written, the only way to remove this blight on our Democracy is to vote for the Democratic Party next year and force the Republicans to pay for their collusion with a demagogue. It’s the only way to put that genie back in the bottle.
Consider what a Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan would have done if Obama had invited the Taliban to Camp David? Then think back to the silence of the Party when Trump thought about doing it.
You really can’t try to characterize a prevailing political philosophy when your own party has its legs in the air for a petty pussy grabbing grifter. Now can we, although our friend keeps trying.
The Republicans sold their souls for tax cuts and judges who want to focus on what’s going on in a woman’s vagina. But, hey, Wilbur Ross was a Democrat!! I suspect he doesn’t know where he is half the time.
Obviously, Trump realigned the GOP under his values. . It is amazing that after 2.5 years, Corey is STILL arguing that Trump is really a Democrat. As if Navarro and Wilbur Ross (seriously, really) even deserve a footnote in the discussion is mind-boggling.
But when the main sucess of the GOP in the Reagan, Bush and Trump administrations is borrowing to pay for tax cuts that target the wealthy, and Republicans are outraged at being forced to use weird-shaped light bulbs and paper straws, is it really surprising that these same people don’t really have core principles and values? Corey can’t currently accept that GOP politicians don’t really have core principles, so he continues to use this weird “Trump is a Democrat” dsfence mechanism.. but at some point – whether it is next week or 20 years from now, even he will probably admit that republicans loved Trump exactly because they shared his values. Most, but not all, Republicans Never really hard core principles in the first place. And that has been obvious for decades.
Heck even I don’t believe Trump has a Democratic side anymore….
The guy IS one way….
All about him….
I keep repeating…
WTF are the GOPer’s gonna do when they wake up and realise that they have been following an inept flunky that pimped them and the American public BIG TIME?????
Despite what Scott tried to claim, I never used the word “Democrat” once.
This is such a dumb game. Ross became a Republican all of 3 years after the guy who now runs and dictates the party.
So what?
Just because longevity means something to you doesn’t make it so.
But his views on trade have not changed. You don’t seem to argue that point.
You don’t seem to argue the point that Trump’s views on Afghanistan policy are something you would have said (at least in the past) was too far to the left for you.
What’s funny is you claim Trump doesn’t actually believe anything–except when it comes to trade and having the Bush wars go on forever. Then his beliefs suddenly matter.
On the 90% of other issues where his views are verbatim Republican–tax cuts for the rich, deregulating business, gutting environmental protections and appointing anti choice judges.
Well he doesn’t”really” believe that.
Sure. Whatever.
I don’t believe one can any longer say that Trumps views on trade are not “Republican .”
Certainly,the Republican Party as it exists today, with a few exceptions, has essentially adopted Trumps views as their own
The vast majority of members of Congress who are Republican have expressed disagreement with Trump’s trade policy. They just try to tiptoe around it though because they are afraid of his base.
You call it “tiptoe” if you want.
The Trump “base” is the majority of the Republican Party and they support Trump and his policies.
The Trump base and “the Republican Party” are not the same thing.
The Trump base has taken control over the Republican Party in many ways but that still does not mean there is uniformity of views on any specific issue.
The vast vast majority of those who support Trump are Republicans.
And the vast majority of Republicans support Donald Trump.
That’s just the way it is.
The first part is very debatable.
Majority, maybe. “Vast” majority, not so sure.
Democrats need to acknowledge that Trump won and potentially could win again on the backs of those who did not consider themselves Republicans.
This could be a sign of longer-term realignment or it might not be. Too early to tell.
Stop pretending though like there were not a hell of a lot of Obama voters who switched to vote for Trump and who like Trump now.
I see nothing “debatable” about it.
You refusing to acknowledge that around 80-90% of Republicans actively support him and that ,even those who don’t ,will likely vote for him, doesn’t make such “debateable,” except in your own mind of course.
Well, the Rasmussen poll had it down at around 70, but again, you are conflating terms. You do this all the time. I cannot tell if you are doing it purposely or just can’t help yourself having been devoted to trying to beat all Republicans for 50 years plus (except the ones you decide to vote for.)
The point I am making is that Trump’s base and the Republican Party are not necessarily the same thing.
Plenty of people in Trump’s base detest the concept of the Republican Party, while others are only now ok with the Republican Party because Trump is leading it.
Yes, so some (a relatively small number ) of former Obama voters voted for Trump makes them “responsible” for Trumps election?
That’s funny.
It,of course, conveniently ignores that it was Republicans who voted for Trump in the primaries, it was Republicans that nominated Trump at their convention, it was Republicans who had voted with you for Romney who then voted to elect Donald Trump..
But yeah it’s all the Democrats fault.
Not that small of a number.
Yes, Trump did win the Republican nomination via the primaries (albeit with a much lower level of support than seen in modern times for a nominee).
He also did so in large part because a lot of people voted in the Republican primaries for the first time solely because of Trump.
Voting in a primary does not necessarily make someone a die-hard of a party.
If I vote in the Democrat primary in March because I want to vote against a local official, it won’t make me a Democrat. (though I will start getting all their mailings as a result)
Actually it is you who “detest” the Republican Party as it exists today and have spent hours here at various times, trying(amusingly) to claim you’re not one, then conceding maybe you are one, Well today ,not much of one,Well maybe tomorrow I’ll be one again.
And on and on and on.
We have all grown used to it
There were a good deal of Romney votes who voted for Hillary (or voted somehow other than for Trump) just like there were a good deal of Obama voters who voted for Trump.
In c0mparing those elections, the 2016 vote was much higher, which is not that surprising for an open election.
Trump received a smaller percentage of the total vote than Romney, which means that proportionally more Romney voters abandoned the ticket than vice versa, but Trump won where it matters, because the Democrats had a horrible strategy.
I assume you agree with all that.
I never said anything close to “it’s all the Democrats fault.”
Good grief. You can do better than that.
I think I have been very consistent during these times about my view on the Republican Party.
Some days you have said you understand where I am coming from. Some days you say you do not.
At the end of this,I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make.
As best I can determine you are simply trying to claim that most of Trumps supporters or his “base” if you will aren’t “really “ Republicans.
They say the same thing about anti Trump Republicans Like you.
Ok
Have at it.
Your argument is much more with those over @HHR than me, or Scott or anyone here.
I call all of you Republicans.
What does it matter?
I think it is fairly obvious to suggest that if in 2016, only the “Republican elite” or “Republican insiders” or for that matter solely the people who were chosen as delegates to the 2012 national convention got to pick the nominee for 2016, Trump would not have had a prayer.
The 2016 process was completely open though and Trump benefited by being able to bring all sorts of new people into the process (while at the same time complaining it was being rigged against him, thus scaring the party bosses off). That along with the inability of the last surviving GOP contenders to act strategically allowed him to be nominated.
Of course four years later, Trump is gleefully rigging the process for his own benefit.
It is legal for him to do it (though unethical) just as it would have been perfectly legal for the RNC to have determined in 2016 that he was not allowed to run as a Republican.
The term I took issue with was “vast majority.” I even conceded “majority.”
Somehow on here, that turns into people claiming that I am saying that only Democrats like Trump.
What “matters” is that you should be willing to and able to differentiate between me and them (not for me personally but for all those to whom it meets.)
It’s not very different than those who think it is important to differentiate between opposition to radical Islam and not wanting to castigate all Muslims by comparison.
I have said over and over that you detest Trump.
I don’t see why that has to be reiterated every discussion.
Where we differ is that I don’t believe there is significant opposition to Trump within today’s Republican Party.
If, as you, claim, there exists substantial opposition to Trump within the Republican Party I presume ,based on the Rasmussen numbers you quote ,that we will see a fairly large protest vote for his three opponents in the primaries.
We don’t have a national primary with guaranteed ballot access. so it’s not a good method to judge.
If we had a national primary. where every state voted at the same time, and Trump was on the ballot against those running against him, it might be.
If that were the scenario though, I think there might be other “stronger” candidates running in the first place though.
What keeps getting glossed over is that I am saying that there are plenty of “Democrats for Trump” and “Independents for Trump” and that your side is making a big mistake to pretend like they don’t exist.
By the same token, it might very well be that there could be a large amount of “Republicans for Biden”, but he seems to feel like he has to keep moving to the left.
Ideological purity (and somebody’s “record.”) is playing a hell of a bigger factor in the current Dem primary process than it did for Republicans four years ago. In a way, I am envious.
A outright National Vote would be the end of the GOP’s Presidential chances…
Hillary Won that by millions..
The EC isn’t going anywhere
David Frum: “Trump prefers to surround himself with grifters and weaklings. That has been harder for him to do in foreign policy, especially after the rapid end of the career of Trump’s first national security adviser, Mike Flynn. Men such as Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, H. R. McMaster, and now John Bolton have all had important pre-Trump careers—and all have post-Trump reputations to consider. Yet even after the unhappy culmination of their work for Trump, they have all continued to protect him. They know he is unfit for the job—morally, intellectually, psychologically. But they keep silent.”…
Politicalwire…
Ezra Klein
@ezraklein
I’ve said it before, but the best thing about Donald Trump is that he seems instinctually skeptical of going to war. His hiring of Bolton was a strike against that. His firing of Bolton is a rare bright spot in his presidency.
True. And besides, there have long been anti free trade Republicans. Pat Buchanan for instance.
Now what you won’t see in the modern Republican Party is any prominent member advocating for higher taxes on the wealrhy. NEVER.
No, Trump is opposed to the “Bush wars”, even the one you said you supported for years.
the discussion on HHR is pretty mind boggling.
For them it would be wrong for a Democrat to meet with the Taliban at Camp David because they can’t be trusted, but for Trump (at least for those who are willing to try to defend him on this), it’s ok because he can.
I assume that cultish leftists would be saying the same thing in reverse too though. (not suggesting anyone on this site has said this and I will not pretend to know exactly what you would think on the matter)
For me, something is either right period or wrong period. Most others have tribalist considerations to make though.
Speaking for myself, I would not support a hypothetical Democratic President meeting with the Taliban at Camp David or anywhere else for that matter.
Any negotiations with them should be done by a lower tier diplomat .
The ONLY person actually happy in the Trump admin is it turns out to be Trump….
NOBODY ELSE….
Pompeo and Bolton BOTH didn’t want it…
The word is neither did any high ranking GOPer’s…
The move was straight out of the Trump ‘ let’s make deal ‘ playbook…
and it hasn’t worked much of anyplace …
I agree with Jack. I would definitely not support a high level meeting with the Taliban in the US either. And if the US President was to become involved, it would have to mean that there was prior and real progress.with the taliban negotiaions.
In truth, given the Taliban beliefs, I have doubts that there can even be progress with minor level officials.
CG said there are “plenty of Democrats for Trump”
The last poll I saw showed Trump has 3% support among Democrats. 88% of Republicans support him.
CG IS CORRECT in pointing to SOME Democrats turning their backs on their party to vote for Trump in 2016….
Efforts by the Dem’s to get them back seem to have worked in the 2018 elections…
Actually Trump himself has helped by NOT coming thru on some promises…
I have been pushing the view that some GOPer’s ARE feed up enough to desert Trump even if his support numbers are anything from 70% to 90% depending on the time of the day…
What might be helpful in these rather circular and redundant discussions is a comparison with the Reagan Democrats, many of whom had voted for Carter-Mondale in 1976 (but against them in 1980).
After winning a shade over 50% in 1980 (as had Carter in 1976) in a three-way race with Carter-Mondale and John Anderson-Patrick Lucey, Reagan-Bush won nearly 59% of the popular vote and 49 states in the Electoral College in 1984 against Mondale-Ferraro (who carried only Minnesota & D.C.)
But if only 3% of Democrats support Trump now, that’s a little bit different.
(By the way, I think that Reagan Democrats differ significantly from Goldwater Democrats, whom I guess would largely have concentrated in the South & Border states).
Reagan Democrats eventually became Republicans. Jimmy Carter did well in the South, but since 1980, many of those voters never voted for a Republican for President again.
I mean never voted Dem for Pres again
This seems to be overlooking the entire concept of “swing voters.”
Experts often point to Macomb County in Michigan which is considered the home of the “Reagan Democrat.”
They have tended to go for the winner in every election, including the ones won by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.
https://www.michiganradio.org/post/long-time-democratic-pollster-takes-another-look-obama-trump-voters-macomb-county
I think committed left-wingers are just having a hard time admitting that if they are going to win (at least in 2020 for the short-term), they are going to need to flip Trump voters back into their column.
Realignments happen all the time. Missouri used to be the ultimate swing state. Now it’s red. One alignment we are seeing now is suburbs turning on Republicans. It was said in 2018 that suburbs of Dallas Atlanta and Phoenix are now voting like suburbs of Philly or Chicago. And at one time Cook County was the GOP stronghold of Illinois.
Those Obama/Trump counties of Ohio, Indiana Michigan may be shifting to resemble more rural counties. Most are also losing population. Meanwhile more educated suburban and exurban areas are getting bluer–and growing.
Look at what happened in NC 9 last night. A gerrymandered district that Republicans used to hold by double digits almost flipped because the suburban portion of the district heavily shifted to the Democrats.
If that is replicated next year those Obama Trump counties wont matter and their moment in the sun being the subject of countless NY Times articles and interviews of middle aged whites in rust belt diners will be a thing of the past.
Then it should be acknowledged that at least at the Presidential level, these “rural” or “blue collar” counties are going from Democrat to Trump. It remains to be seen if they will be Republican after Trump. They certainly seemed to have their issues with Romney and preferred Obama over him.
It is quite simple to see that downscale white voters, who have traditionally been Democrats, have supported Trump at higher margins than they have in the past for Republicans.
At the same time, upscale suburban and urban white voters who have for decades represented a major strength for Republicans have been turned off by the party because of Trump.
There are certainly “swing voters” though, Just going back 25 years, they are people who voted for Clinton, then Bush, then Obama, then Trump.
If the 2020 Democrat nominee does not make inroads with these voters, he or she will not win. Democrats have to do more than just give the finger to those who voted for Trump.
I take a much less analytical view of the contest.
I think Trump is likely to lose for the simple fact that over 55% or so of potential voters don’t “like” him.
Now such I know is anathema to those who style themselves political “analysts” of the professional type.
But yeah that’s my admittedly simplistic view of the matter.
They didn’t like him last time either.
It used to be, at least since Nixon, that the most likable candidate always won. That was one of the big reasons why I was always optimistic that Dubya was getting reelected, even though Scott and others insisted that Kerry had it wrapped up.
Times have changed though. Social media may have much to do with it. Being likable or “nice” is not considered a good thing to many people.
One can go look at the detailed exit polls, especially in the key states, and be absolutely astonished at how many people voted for Trump even though they didn’t like him, didn’t think he was up to the job, and didn’t agree with key policy positions he had.
If you can get the people to be afraid of your opponent and what might happen under them, that’s more than half the battle.
I never said beating Trump would be a cakewalk. If tbe econo.y bot toms out it might but otherwise a Democrat will have tl fight for it.
Right now Trump has his GOP base–and that’s it. He needs the “what the hell–why not” voters that made the difference in enough states in 2016 to do it again. For a lot of reasons Trump’s message is falling flat for those folks. They either don’t approvev of him or think his election should be a one time thing. These are folks generally unaligned with both parties and might just sit 2020 out.
I actually thought the Democrats would win a close race in NC-9. That did not happen. A rare “off prediction” for me. Oh well. Trump will take all the credit and people will give it to him, People on HHR for example are gleeful. They think it is a sign Democrats are doomed. Of course, that district would never have been close without Trump.
(NC 3 was a bigger blowout win for Republicans than anyone expected)
I think the results show that nothing has changed since 2018, meaning that Republicans are going to win red areas and Democrats are favored elsewhere.
I’m glad those people over @HHR are “gleeful.”
Of course a Republican winning in a district that hasn’t elected a Democrat in 57 years(when the Republicans barely existed in the south) ,by two percentage points (Trump himself won by 12 points three years ago),might cause more discerning people to reflect before being too “gleeful.”
Hey if Republicans want to hit the snooze instead of getting up and repairing their brand in the suburbs I’m fine with that.
Glee away!
Both parties need to repair their brand.
The Democrats had a pretty strong candidate in that district, with a great biography, and who tried to position himself as a centrist.
Needless to say, Elizabeth Warren is unlikely to do nearly as well in that district.
Democrats did make House gains in 2018 in marginal districts with strong “centrist” candidates and a very left-wing divisive nominee at the top of the ticket could put those seats at risk too.
What Democratic candidate do you believe could “win” the votes of these Trumpite rural voters?
I presume you have eliminated Sanders and Warren(see your comment above).
Who?Biden?
Potentially Biden but he has other vulnerabilities.
What I am suggesting is basically the main themes of both the Bullock and the Klobuchar campaigns- that people who voted for Trump and like Trump have also voted for them. They have a point, but are considered back of the pack.
Moving even more back, I certainly think Tim Ryan could win those Trump voters. He wins landslides in his CD, past Democrat candidates have won landslides in his CD, and then in 2016, Trump takes his CD. That ought to say something.
So a Democrat overperforms and a Republican underperformed and that shows both parties need to repair their brand
Right.
Well I’m living in the real world.
Ryan and Bullock aren’t even serious candidates.
Klobuchar might have a vague shot,if Biden stumbles.
So,essentially, since you have declared that the Democratic candidate must win back the rural Trump voters or they can’t win the election (see your post@11:08),then, by your reckoning, Biden is the only candidate out the serious ones, who even has a shot at Trump and he by your reckoning has “other vulnerabilities.”
Accordingly, you basically believe that Trump is certainly the favorite to win ,right?
Biden needs to get 70,000 or more votes in the four states Hillary lost….
He is not gonna get a lot of rural votes…
He Will get the votes he needs in the suburbs like 2018 and even yesterday…
I made a point of speaking of districts Democrats won in 2018.
They made ground in areas that could be lost from them if the national party is perceived as too far to the left.
Do you not agree?
I’m talking about the presidential election.
You have drawn yourself into a corner here.
You are now basically saying by your comments on this thread that ,except for maybe Biden, none of the potential candidates with any realistic chance at the nomination are not going to beat Trump.
I didn’t say they needed to win them all but, but they need to win some back. They need to win some Trump voters.
I would rate Biden as a favorite over Trump, although it cannot be denied that Biden has major, major political liabilities.
I know Bullock (or Delaney or Benett) have no chance of being nominated, but if they somehow were, it would pretty much be over for Trump.
I would say in spite of everything, Harris or Warren vs. Trump would be an absolute coin toss.
As unpopular as Trump is, should Democrats feel great about having a coin toss chance?
I have to say that I do not see Bernie Sanders winning a general election under any circumstance.
I win add my view on Biden here as i usually do each day….
Ole’ Joe IS the favorite to get the nomination….
As i posed?
His worst problem seems to be the negitivuty from the media….
His numbers are steady at 30% among the democratic field 2-1 over EVERYONE….
The age and gaffs stuff don’t matter…
Actually ?
Doing the gotcha against Biden don’t work either…
I KNOW we have 6 months before Super Tuesday
But if u are any of the others including Warren and Sanders?
Things do NOT look good for ya…
Are going to beat Trump.
I answered your question.
Coin-toss at best right now. (I think Warren is the most likely nominee.) This is only related to what you expect to be a traditional two-major candidate race as well.
My anti-Trump animus might be leading me to give Warren too much credit too on that. Remember, I thought Hillary would easily beat him.
My response was inadvertently posted on another part of this thread.
I have previously stated that I don’t see a major third party campaign.
What is missing from this conversation is Minority voters.
They voted in noticeably fewer numbers in 2016 relative to the Obama victories.
Had their vote been just slightly more, Hillary would likely have won.
If the Democrats learned their lesson ,and I think they have, you will see a much larger Minority vote in those three states.
Minority voters belong to Biden….
But i AM surprised the Sanders gets more than Warren in ur state Jack,…
Well, there some important states that Hillary ignored. She never even went to them. She thought she had them in the bag. So, of course she might have won otherwise.
I expect the next Dem nominee not to be that foolish. Another factor though is that Trump and Republicans were beyond massively outspent in the last election. That will not be the case this time and the infrastructure in terms of turning out their voters is much better than it was four years ago as well.
Turnout is always higher in an open election than one where an incumbent is seeking reelection. Thus, we may have a lower turnout in 2020, and maybe lower among minorities too. Clearly, Obama had his own effect on turning out the black vote that will never again be quite the same for a historic perspective.
I have repeated a million times here that Hillary Clinton was a lousy campaigner …
Big will be better and again?
Trump HAS a history this time ….
And?
Trump seems he’ll bent on making things worst for himself ….
Oh I think the turnout will be much higher and that the Minority vote will be significantly higher
So you’re contending that there were large numbers of pro Trump people who didn’t vote last time?
I’ve never heard anyone claim that.
Also,if Biden is the nominee,I think the odds are that a Minority will be the VP candidate.
And that will elevate the Minority vote even more.
james, I would not want to be you while you tell a minority voter that they “belong” to someone.
I feel pretty strongly that overall turnout in 2020 will be less than 2016. Time will tell.
Yes, there are people who did not vote Trump last time that will this time and vice versa.
In 2016, Missouri was certainly a swing state in the Senate election.
Unlike many other states, Trump ran well ahead of the Republican Senate nominee there. In fact, Blunt probably won because of Trump’s coattails (again in other states in 2016, the GOP Senate candidates tended to run ahead of Trump.)
Clearly, there were a lot of Trump/Kadner voters in Missouri in 2016. A traditional conservative Republican like Roy Blunt did not do as well as Trump did. I am sure Scott has actually thought about this and wondered why.
Needless to say, Missouri was also very close as a Senate contest in 2018. Scott seems to be overstating how red the state is. I know he mentioned he is looking to move away.
Yes, McCaskill lost in a nationalized election, but she certainly still received a lot of votes from people who voted for Trump in 2016. She ran on a message of appealing to them and that she wasn’t one of those “crazy Democrats” (her own words.)
I’m not saying Missouri is Alabama. I think Nicole Galloway has a decent shot at unseating GOPbGov
Mike Parson next year.
As far as me moving it has little to do with politics as I am in about the bluest city pound for pound in the Midwest.
Humidity and lack of mountains or coastline is what has always had me considering other locales. Though if I did make a move a bluer state like Virginia or the West Coast is probably where I would wind up.
FoxNews commentator and sometime Trump “Advisor” Tucker Carlson has declared that John Bolton, a well known conservative is actually a “leftist” and a “progressive.”
This ,of course, goes along with my contention that “conservative”no longer has any real philosophical meaning.Theyre just against”libruls.”
So what better way to demonize this latest casualty of the Cult Leader than to label him a”leftist?”Cultists can really grasp the evil inherent in that label!
Another example of how authoritarian the Cult has become.Now they are actively engaging in Orwellian language usage.Words no longer having actual meanings but change as the Cults line changes day to day.
Yesterday, Bolton is a revered conservative foreign policy expert.Today?A “leftist.”
On Bolton?
Hoe dear he insult King Donald????
I don’t know what’s goofier. Tucker claiming Bolton is a leftist or continuing th hear on here that Trump is and that “many Democrats support him”.
I agree with Jack that the chances of a significant third party candudate are melting quicker than a snowball in Havana.
Who will this phantom person be and how will they ramp up a national campaign and secure ballot access in time?
on beating Trump?
if the election was today?
Biden would win….
the election is 14 months from now….
Hillary was ahead until October…
Joe Biden is well aware of this…
But Trump is a KNOWN now…
His numbers below 40% in several polls…
A Trump next October at 30 something percent is NOT gonna get it…
Donald Trump IS in trouble right now…
Looking past his daily attention getting noise?
The bottom IS coming out from him…
I simply don’t see the rationale for a third party or Independent challenge.
CG has floated a Kasich candidacy.Kasich is an admitted conservative Republican.I don’t see him winning much beyond some anti Trump Republicans and even many of them would probably vote Trump to stop the “librul” Democrat.Remember that “conservatives “really don’t distinguish between Biden and Sanders in that regard.They are both “libruls.”
Kasich has made no moves toward a candidacy ,nor do I think he will.Howard Schultz tested the waters and wisely concluded there was no chance of victory in such a race.
I’ve been saying for a long time that it does not seem like anyone is mounting an effort but there certainly is a market for it.
People are disgusted with both major parties like never before and want another option,
Missed opportunity for the nation.
People are always “disgusted” with both parties.
Indeed, polls consistently show majorities favoring a “third party.”
Problem is every time a third party crops up.the voters aren’t there.
The two party system in this country is just too ingrained.
After third parties affected the 2000 race the percentage of non major party vote dropped from 4-5% in 2000 to around 1% in 2004.
Minor parties and independents accounted for 6% total vote in 2016. Similarly I think the share of non major party vote will drop in 2020. Possibly to 2 or 3% total.