Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[Paingod]

You could put a grapefruit up against Trump and I'd vote for it over him - but realistically all I want is someone with the best statistical probability of knocking him out of office so hard he bounces seventeen times before landing in a padded cell. I don't care what their platform is, where they're from, what skin tone or gender they identify with, etc.

[Fitzy]

Warren..., and she's just the first to announce.

Everyone keeps saying that but Delaney announced months ago

Dude was my congressman for a bit and on paper he should be exactly my kind of candidate but something creeps me out about him

[Carpet_pissr]

I like Warren and would be happy to have her as President. My main worry is that she's not especially charismatic (and in that sense I do get Hillary flashbacks from her as a very capable woman who lacks natural political charisma).

I agree 100% with every bit of this. My previous posts about Warren probably give the impression that I don’t think she would be a good President. But I do. I also thought Hillary would have made a good President. Unfortunately we aren’t in a position to vote with that idealistic mentality (again).

It used to be “vote for the best person for the job!” Now it seems to have morphed into “vote for whoever you think can win, period!”

[Fireball]

Warren..., and she's just the first to announce.

Everyone keeps saying that but Delaney announced months ago

Dude was my congressman for a bit and on paper he should be exactly my kind of candidate but something creeps me out about him

I like Delaney. He’s a good guy. I don’t think he’ll get a lot of traction in the primary, but I’ve been wrong on these things before.

[Lagom Lite]

I like Warren and would be happy to have her as President. My main worry is that she's not especially charismatic

Yeah. Grownups have learned not to vote for charismatics, but for the boring people who best represent their interests. Question is if grownups will outnumber the fanatics come election day.

Warren gives off a Merkel vibe, I think she'd make a great president for you guys.

[Jeff V]

I like Warren and would be happy to have her as President. My main worry is that she's not especially charismatic

Yeah. Grownups have learned not to vote for charismatics, but for the boring people who best represent their interests. Question is if grownups will outnumber the fanatics come election day.

Warren gives off a Merkel vibe, I think she'd make a great president for you guys.

Let me be the first to welcome you to the wonderful world of television, where camera presence has mattered for every president since JFK. It's not enough to be the most qualified if you can't sell it to the unthinking masses.

[gilraen]

Also the risk for Romney for being a visibly anti-Trump (or Trump skeptical) Republican is pretty low, since: (1) Romney's largely untouchable in Utah; and (2) Utah is possibly the only state with a significant constituency for anti-Trump Republicanism.

So, if Trump falls apart, Romney is well positioned to swoop in and pick up the pieces. If he doesn't, then Romney waits for 2024.

Romney's op-ed scared RNC enough that they want to change the rules and cancel the Republican primary in 2020.

[LordMortis]

Romney's op-ed scared RNC enough that they want to change the rules and cancel the Republican primary in 2020.

Read that a X days ago. I simply can't imagine any situation in which power brokers in the Grand Old White Man Party would seek to bybass elections and remove voters from the governing process. Inconceivable. Of course, the last few years have shown me the powerbrokers in the Democratic party aren't any better. They're just not as good at it and therefore less dangerous and much further away from the point of no return.

(I've been living in state where the SOS and GOP legal entities have consistently and effectively concentrated power for the GOP to the exclusion the voter every time the GOP has had power right up until 2018 and the GOP had been working very hard in lame duck fashion neuter every single will of the people measure specifically put on the ballot to bypass them.)

[Defiant]

Less than a day after Tulsi Gabbard announced that she was running, she's been hit for homophobic remarks she's said in the past.

She also continue's to personally oppose marriage equality, although she doesn't think it's government place to impose her brand of hatred.

Between that, her being an Assad apologist, being on Trump's short list for the cabinet, and her supposedly being a "progressive" with a voting record more conservative than the vast majority of the Democrats in the House, I don't think she'll do that well in the Democratic primary.

Julian Castro also announced he's running.

[El Guapo]

Less than a day after Tulsi Gabbard announced that she was running, she's been hit for homophobic remarks she's said in the past.

She also continue's to personally oppose marriage equality, although she doesn't think it's government place to impose her brand of hatred.

Between that, her being an Assad apologist, being on Trump's short list for the cabinet, and her supposedly being a "progressive" with a voting record more conservative than the vast majority of the Democrats in the House, I don't think she'll do that well in the Democratic primary.

Julian Castro also announced he's running.

Gabbard's a nut. It's baffling how she's a darling of the far left, but I think that's just because she's reflexively opposed to American power regardless of the situation or circumstances, to the point of embracing people like Assad. She's not going anywhere in the primary, especially with Warren (and probably Sanders) in.

[Defiant]

Trump actually makes a half-way decent joke about Warren's video that isn't offensive? I'm shocked...

Oh wait, he didn't write this particular tweet, did he?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0208333825

[GreenGoo]

When a spouse thanks their spouse for "being here" it's about being a part of their lives and supportive, not physically in attendance.

Anyone in any sort of marriage that isn't a complete sham would know this.

Disclaimer:. I have not actually witnessed the video in question, so if the context makes it clear that it is physically existing nearby she is thanking him for, then I apologize. Seems unlikely though.

[gilraen]

There was a Headliners special about Elizabeth Warren on MSNBC last night, going over her entire biography starting with when she was a kid...it's very likely that Trump watched it (as much as he denies ever watching MSNBC), since a large portion of his Warren-related tweetstorm came right after the programming ended. The Instagram video that he's so busy mocking is 12 days old, no other reason why he's suddenly so interested in it.

[Kraken]

Disclaimer:. I have not actually witnessed the video in question, so if the context makes it clear that it is physically existing nearby she is thanking him for, then I apologize. Seems unlikely though.

She does seem to be pleasantly surprised that he wandered into the kitchen. It doesn't look scripted.

[GreenGoo]

Lol, alrighty then. Consider me admonished.

[Alefroth]

Trump actually makes a half-way decent joke

One of the saddest parts of his presidency is how it has lowered our standards.

[Pyperkub]

An interesting look at how the GOP 2020 Primary could look:

Since 1964, nine sitting presidents have stood for re-election.

Five of them were challenged in the primaries.

If 2020 obeys the normal rules of political physics, President Trump will face a primary challenger.

These are their stories. CHUNK-KUNK!

Most intriguing, and evaluated as the toughest for Trump?

(2) Jim Mattis. When you go into an administration, be polite, be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet....

...Does Trump want Mattis to run against him? Because aside from shooting the guy’s dog, there’s basically nothing more he could do to bait the general into a run.

If Mattis were to run, it would be an existential threat to Trump because he would run not as an anti-Trumpite, but as a whistleblower. The message would be: I served this president. I was on the inside. I know what it looks like. And he’s not fit for office.

It’s one thing to have some undersecretary of agriculture making that argument. Having it come from a beloved general who is regarded as one of the great military minds of his generation? Yikes.

Chance of running: “Don’t make me do it . . .”

Threat level if he runs: DEFCON 1

[GreenGoo]

How many former high ranking military members have become president within, say, a decade of retiring from the military?

[Jaymann]

Grant, Ike, Washington and Jackson come to mind.

[GreenGoo]

So like, one in the last century and a half or so.

[Holman]

Quite a few 19th-century presidents had been generals, but that was a time when becoming a general didn't necessarily require a full military career beforehand. Several were politicians or influential private citizens before the Civil War, when they received appointments (quartermaster of New York, military governor of Tennessee, etc) carrying a general's rank as their first commission.

[Alefroth]

Are we not mentioning Ike for some reason?

[Jaymann]

Are we not mentioning Ike for some reason?

Grant, Ike, Washington and Jackson come to mind.

[Defiant]

Are we not mentioning Ike for some reason?

Listen, don't mention Ike. Someone mentioned it once, but I think they got away with it.

[Alefroth]

Are we not mentioning Ike for some reason?

Grant, Ike, Washington and Jackson come to mind.

Ha... I read that a couple times as Grant, like Washington and Jackson come to mind.

[El Guapo]

Are we not mentioning Ike for some reason?

Grant, Ike, Washington and Jackson come to mind.

Ha... I read that a couple times as Grant, like Washington and Jackson come to mind.

In addition to those four, there are also Harrison, Pierce, Taylor, and Hayes. So, about 18% of U.S. presidents have been former generals, which is not a small number.

It's true that Ike is the only one from within the past century or so. But it's a reasonable platform for running for the Presidency.

That said, I've been no indication that Mattis is even considering running. And I don't think that anyone could plausibly beat Trump in a Republican primary at this point - his intra- GOP approval number would need to drop *a lot* before that would come into play.

[GreenGoo]

It's true that Ike is the only one from within the past century or so. But it's a reasonable platform for running for the Presidency.

I'm not American, but I'm not sure that's true. Is it a reasonable platform? I understand military service is important to many in a president. But that's service. I don't think the work of a General is the kind of service most Americans think of when they think of military service in this context, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Putting military leaders in the white house has clearly gone out of fashion, with only 1 in the last 125 years or so. One time in over a century seems like an incredibly small number to me. Is it time to renew the tradition? That seems like a bad idea.

[El Guapo]

It's true that Ike is the only one from within the past century or so. But it's a reasonable platform for running for the Presidency.

I'm not American, but I'm not sure that's true. Is it a reasonable platform? I understand military service is important to many in a president. But that's service. I don't think the work of a General is the kind of service most Americans think of when they think of military service in this context, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Putting military leaders in the white house has clearly gone out of fashion, with only 1 in the last 125 years or so. One time in over a century seems like an incredibly small number to me. Is it time to renew the tradition? That seems like a bad idea.

I think it's gone out of fashion in large part because the U.S. hasn't had many large, popular wars since WWII. Pretty much just Korea and the first Gulf War, and the latter wasn't a terribly long war.

Also, while it's only one in the past centuryish, there have been only a dozen-ish Presidents during that time.

Anyway, Mattis isn't going to run, and if he runs he probably won't win, so it's mostly academic.

[GreenGoo]

Not going to argue American history with an American, but my count puts it at about 26 presidents between now and the last general-president who wasn't Eisenhower.

It's possible that a good, popular war will make generals more attractive in the WH.

[Remus West]

I think we are over looking the fact that being a general in the far past typically meant you were born to money. Name the last US President that wasn't born wealthy.

[Defiant]

Name the last US President that wasn't born wealthy.

Obama, Clinton, Reagan...

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Carter, Ford, Nixon...

[Remus West]

Name the last US President that wasn't born wealthy.

Obama, Clinton, Reagan...

I would dispute all of those. There is a difference between where they ended up and where they began but none of them were not wealthy. Hell, Obama attended Punahou

Punahou School is $19,950, and that's for grades K through 12.

thats per year not the whole price. Doesn't seem like his family was exactly struggling to make ends meet.

Maybe I need to clarify "wealthy" because what I meant was someone who would historically have been thought of as "upper crust".

[gilraen]

I would dispute all of those. There is a difference between where they ended up and where they began but none of them were not wealthy. Hell, Obama attended Punahou

Punahou School is $19,950, and that's for grades K through 12.

thats per year not the whole price. Doesn't seem like his family was exactly struggling to make ends meet.

That's ridiculous, he went to that school on a scholarship. His grandparents could never afford to pay tuition there.

[stessier]

Name the last US President that wasn't born wealthy.

Obama, Clinton, Reagan...

I would dispute all of those. There is a difference between where they ended up and where they began but none of them were not wealthy. Hell, Obama attended Punahou

Punahou School is $19,950, and that's for grades K through 12.

thats per year not the whole price. Doesn't seem like his family was exactly struggling to make ends meet.

Maybe I need to clarify "wealthy" because what I meant was someone who would historically have been thought of as "upper crust".

I don't know how Reagan's early life could be described as upper crust by anyone. Unless you consider anyone who's parents actually worked to be upper crust.

Edit: And after a quick search, Clinton's early life was similar.

Edit 2: Reagan was born to a traveling salesman and storyteller. Clinton's father died 3 months before he was born in a car accident and his mother left him with his grandparents so she could go to nursing school.

[GreenGoo]

Honestly, I think "born wealthy" is missing the point. Without money you aren't going to be president. How much money? More than most. More than 90% of Americans.

No one is going to argue that you can't be born in rags and die in riches in America (although we can argue about how easy that is or even how likely). Who's going to argue that anyone in rags can become president? Or even middle class tweed sweater vest wearers?

It just isn't going to happen. There are lots of reasons for this, and some of them are extremely valid. Just not all of them.

You just aren't going to become president as a middle class American, and you aren't going to become president without a lot of money or friends with a lot of money. And that's fine. Success in America is usually accompanied by money. Hell, it's the most prevalent score used to determine whether someone is a success or not. You're not going to be president if you're not successful at whatever you do.

That doesn't mean that the presidency and money are only tangentially related though.

[Holman]

Are we certain that Mattis is even a Republican?

He has kept his politics to himself (in the honored tradition of the American officer corps), but he was vocal and decisive in (e.g.) defending transgender troops and thwarting Trump's attempt at a ban. I'm not sure a typical conservative in his position would have done so.

[pr0ner]

Are we certain that Mattis is even a Republican?

He has kept his politics to himself (in the honored tradition of the American officer corps), but he was vocal and decisive in (e.g.) defending transgender troops and thwarting Trump's attempt at a ban. I'm not sure a typical conservative in his position would have done so.

Trump didn't seem to think Mattis was Republican, calling him "sort of a Democrat".

[Kraken]

Are we certain that Mattis is even a Republican?

He has kept his politics to himself (in the honored tradition of the American officer corps), but he was vocal and decisive in (e.g.) defending transgender troops and thwarting Trump's attempt at a ban. I'm not sure a typical conservative in his position would have done so.

Trump didn't seem to think Mattis was Republican, calling him "sort of a Democrat".

Was Trump a Republican before he decided to run for office?

[pr0ner]

Are we certain that Mattis is even a Republican?

He has kept his politics to himself (in the honored tradition of the American officer corps), but he was vocal and decisive in (e.g.) defending transgender troops and thwarting Trump's attempt at a ban. I'm not sure a typical conservative in his position would have done so.

Trump didn't seem to think Mattis was Republican, calling him "sort of a Democrat".

Was Trump a Republican before he decided to run for office?

The first time he ran for POTUS? No.

This time? Yes.

Wiki puts his political affiliations as: Democratic (until 1987), Republican (1987-1999), Reform (1999-2001), Democratic (2001-2009), Republican (2009-2011), Independent (2011-2012), and Republican (2012-present).