Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
You're right! Look at his photo after his presidency and before his presidency. He looks at least eight years younger!hepcat wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:59 pm Obama? Your nuts. He looked almost the same leaving his presidency as the day he took office. The man rejuvenated while serving.
You've got to give them enough time to finish writing up the psych evaluation.Holman wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:09 pm All presidents age at a double rate, but Obama seemed to do it without getting tired. That's what makes him seem young.
A propos: Trump's official physical exam was five days ago. We haven't had any real data from it, just the fairy-tale letter that he is fit and superhumanly healthy and will definitely never not be.
Normally, the president's health report would be released the same day.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is almost certain to enter the 2020 presidential race, according to sources familiar with his plans.
“It’s pretty clear he’s jumping in,” said one source with direct knowledge of the would-be campaign’s moves, adding that Biden is “95 percent there.”
In recent days, Biden has sought to build support from grass-roots activists and is specifically asking donors for their help in the lead-up to an announcement, according to sources.
Doesn't stand a chance and based on his history, he will bow out once that's clear.Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:55 am Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld announces plan to challenge President Trump for Republican nomination
Why. Did he bow out when it became clear that the libertarian party couldn't win the election in 2016?stimpy wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:00 amDoesn't stand a chance and based on his history, he will bow out once that's clear.Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:55 am Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld announces plan to challenge President Trump for Republican nomination
Reads like his only goal is to weaken tRump not actually win the nom. I'd think that makes even less of a splash in the primaries then a real run would and may even have the opposite impact from his intent.stimpy wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:00 amDoesn't stand a chance and based on his history, he will bow out once that's clear.Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:55 am Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld announces plan to challenge President Trump for Republican nomination
If I know the Republican base well, the one thing they really love is pro-choice politicians who were governor of Massachusetts a couple decades ago. He's pretty much a lock to win, I would say.Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:11 amWhy. Did he bow out when it became clear that the libertarian party couldn't win the election in 2016?stimpy wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:00 amDoesn't stand a chance and based on his history, he will bow out once that's clear.Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:55 am Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld announces plan to challenge President Trump for Republican nomination
Of course he doesn't stand a chance, but he could, theoretically, pull in enough votes in the primary to be embarrassing for a sitting president. Not that Trump ever embarrasses.
I agree. Jumping into the race while stating upfront that he doesn't care if he wins as long as it hurts Trump is not going to play well.Remus West wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:12 amReads like his only goal is to weaken tRump not actually win the nom. I'd think that makes even less of a splash in the primaries then a real run would and may even have the opposite impact from his intent.stimpy wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:00 amDoesn't stand a chance and based on his history, he will bow out once that's clear.Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:55 am Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld announces plan to challenge President Trump for Republican nomination
The three 2020 Democrats Trump's campaign is watching most closelyThe president's campaign is collecting opposition research on Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. Trump himself has his eye on Joe Biden.
I don't think he is, but I do look forward to seeing him and Trump square off. Should make for entertaining debates.malchior wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:51 am Bernie is finally in. You have to consider him a serious contender, especially in this crowded field.
The linked story sums up his advantages and challenges pretty well, so I won't go off on that...except to emphasize that he's 77 years old. I generally prefer older, more seasoned candidates, but 77 is beyond even my comfort level.malchior wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:51 am Bernie is finally in. You have to consider him a serious contender, especially in this crowded field.
This, for me, too. When you're past the national life expectancy before the election much less the end of your term, that's kinda not a great look.Kraken wrote:The linked story sums up his advantages and challenges pretty well, so I won't go off on that...except to emphasize that he's 77 years old. I generally prefer older, more seasoned candidates, but 77 is beyond even my comfort level.malchior wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:51 am Bernie is finally in. You have to consider him a serious contender, especially in this crowded field.
Which is also why I think Biden is also a poor choice. I don't understand peoples' excitement over his running. I mean, I like the guy quite a lot. Whatever his politics and/or gaffes, he seems genuine and down to earth in a way that is rare these days in national politicians, I just think his opportunity has passed.Zaxxon wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:20 pm This, for me, too. When you're past the national life expectancy before the election much less the end of your term, that's kinda not a great look.
But will he go for speed?
linkWe previously worked for Senator Klobuchar and some of us were among the former staffers contacted by the New York Times and other media outlets to share our experiences about working in her office. Unfortunately, the positive anecdotes and stories we experienced have not been fully reported by the Times and other media. We do not believe these reports adequately describe our thoughts on Amy Klobuchar, many of which we shared with the authors.
Their goal, for now, is to divide centrist and progressive Dems and make each side's candidates anathema to the other.A wide-ranging disinformation campaign aimed at Democratic 2020 candidates is already underway on social media, with signs that foreign state actors are driving at least some of the activity.
The main targets appear to be Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), four of the most prominent announced or prospective candidates for president.
A POLITICO review of recent data extracted from Twitter and from other platforms, as well as interviews with data scientists and digital campaign strategists, suggests that the goal of the coordinated barrage appears to be undermining the nascent candidacies through the dissemination of memes, hashtags, misinformation and distortions of their positions. But the divisive nature of many of the posts also hints at a broader effort to sow discord and chaos within the Democratic presidential primary.
The cyber propaganda — which frequently picks at the rawest, most sensitive issues in public discourse — is being pushed across a variety of platforms and with a more insidious approach than in the 2016 presidential election, when online attacks designed to polarize and mislead voters first surfaced on a massive scale.
“All the infrastructure we’ve seen in 2016 and 2018 is already in full force. And in 2020 it’s only going to get worse,” Kellner said, pointing to negative memes attacking Warren on her claims of Native American heritage and memes surrounding Harris’ relationship with Brown.
The proliferation of fake news, rapidly changing techniques by malicious actors and an underprepared field of Democratic candidates could make for a volatile primary election season.
“Moderates and centrists and Democratic candidates still don’t understand what happened in 2016, and they didn’t realize, like Hillary Clinton, that she wasn’t just running a presidential campaign, she was involved in a global information war,” Horvath said. “Democratic candidates and presidential candidates in the center and on the right who don’t understand that aren’t just going to have a difficult campaign, they’re going to allow their campaign to be an unwitting amplifier of someone else’s attempts to further divide Americans.”
As it stands, the state of the economy next year remains unknowable, as does the identity of Trump’s challenger (Trump himself remains very likely to be the GOP nominee, although there’s always the possibility that someone else may ultimately be the candidate). So what’s there to say about the Electoral College right now?
A lot, actually.
Take a look at Map 1. Over the past five presidential elections, states and districts containing 374 of the nation’s 538 electoral votes (70%) have voted the same way in each election. Map 1 shows the recent history of Electoral College voting, with places containing 195 electoral votes consistently voting Democratic this century and those containing 179 electoral votes consistently voting Republican. That may even understate the inelasticity of the current Electoral College alignment:
The Safe Republican electoral votes (125)
The Leans Republican electoral votes (123)
The Safe Democratic electoral votes (183)
The Leans and Likely Democratic states (61)...
...The Toss-ups (46)
We close with the final 46 electoral votes, the Toss-ups. They come from four states — Arizona, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — as well as one congressional district, Nebraska’s Second, which is based in Omaha. Clinton carried New Hampshire by less than half a point in 2016; Trump won the rest, by less than a point in the case of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and by 3.5 points in Arizona. If it seems like we’re splitting hairs by rating Michigan as Leans Democratic and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as Toss-ups, we have to admit that we are. But Trump’s margin in the latter two were a tiny bit bigger than his margin in Michigan, and we think the Democrats’ path to victory in Michigan is more solvable based just on slightly better turnout, whereas the Democrats may have a little more persuasion work to do in the other two former “Blue Wall” states. Also, Democrats have generally done a little bit better in Michigan than in the other two over the past couple of decades.
Yeah, that, and that Trump won MI, WI, and PA *very* narrowly under pretty unique circumstances (democrats running for a third term, wildly unpopular D candidate, Comey letter, and a few other things). 2020 should be materially more blue than 2016 (will feature an unpopular R presidential incumbent, Republican scandals, economy is reasonably likely to be worse). Going into 2020 I would put all of those states as "lean blue", as long as Democrats don't wind up with a brutal convention fight leading to the nomination of a wildly unpopular nominee under criminal investigation.Holman wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:22 am Doesn't 2018 suggest that PA, WI, and AZ will be blue in 2020? I wouldn't count out OH either.
The rest is the same map we've been living with for a long time.
I think 2020 will be an outlier election where the long-established patterns are tested by the stress Trump puts on the country. In 2017-18 many traditionally red districts went blue, and Trump is why. Many of the those will go blue again this time, even if they return to the GOP as soon as it fields a less nauseating candidate.
We just (well, a bit over a year ago) moved from Omaha to Arizona so lose one/gain one I guess.They come from four states — Arizona, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — as well as one congressional district, Nebraska’s Second, which is based in Omaha.
I hope this is so. I think it is. If anything (beyond demographics and time) can pry a red state or two from the GOP's grip, Trump is that thing.Holman wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:22 am Doesn't 2018 suggest that PA, WI, and AZ will be blue in 2020? I wouldn't count out OH either.
The rest is the same map we've been living with for a long time.
I think 2020 will be an outlier election where the long-established patterns are tested by the stress Trump puts on the country. In 2017-18 many traditionally red districts went blue, and Trump is why. Many of the those will go blue again this time, even if they return to the GOP as soon as it fields a less nauseating candidate.
