|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 17 2016 13:36 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020
Are they going to implement super delegates or something? Because if it's a pure plebiscite I think it's going to be some Trump like candidate again in 2020
|
On October 17 2016 13:36 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020
Kasich can run on the "Trump spoiler" platform or talk about how good he was working for the Lehman Brothers.
|
United States43705 Posts
On October 17 2016 13:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:36 Nevuk wrote:On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020 Are they going to implement super delegates or something? Because if it's a pure plebiscite I think it's going to be some Trump like candidate again in 2020
What if it was literally Trump again? :D
|
Trump winning the 2020 primaries would appeal strongly to my own sense of wanting to spite the Republican Party.
|
On October 17 2016 13:42 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 12:34 ChristianS wrote:
Out of curiosity, what changes do you figure would be significant? I assume older folks are more pro-Trump, and younger ones more pro-Clinton, but I'd think the turnout projections are already pretty biased in favor of the older folks, since young people usually don't vote so much. So how much ground is left to gain for Trump there? Last I saw, Gary Johnson was ahead of both Trump and Clinton with the under 25 crowd.
But aggregators like 538 take that into account, and in fact, that would probably lend itself toward the polls favoring Clinton more, not less, since 3rd party supporters tend to move to main parties as the election gets closer. I think a lot of that has happened, actually, and Johnson support has dropped a lot in the last month or so (that's one of the reasons Clinton gained quite a bit after the first debate).
|
I don't think Trump can run again in 2020 if he isn't already President.
His entire image is built up on 'winning' so if he doesn't beat Clinton he just looks like a loser fraud
|
On October 17 2016 14:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't think Trump can run again in 2020 if he isn't already President.
His entire image is built up on 'winning' so if he doesn't beat Clinton he just looks like a loser fraud
Back when he was criticizing Romney for not winning, I thought, "man, this is going to backfire if you get slaughtered in the general election, which is the most probable result right now."
|
On October 17 2016 14:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 14:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't think Trump can run again in 2020 if he isn't already President.
His entire image is built up on 'winning' so if he doesn't beat Clinton he just looks like a loser fraud Back when he was criticizing Romney for not winning, I thought, "man, this is going to backfire if you get slaughtered in the general election, which is the most probable result right now."
Exactly. He's all-in at this point. If it doesn't work there's no come-back
|
On October 17 2016 14:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't think Trump can run again in 2020 if he isn't already President.
His entire image is built up on 'winning' so if he doesn't beat Clinton he just looks like a loser fraud
I tend to agree. There's something kind of clever in building your whole brand on "winning." People will want to undermine that narrative to beat you, but to undermine it they need to have already beaten you.
I do think that it makes it so when he's losing in the polls he kind of doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the widespread reporting says "Trump is losing," then he doesn't seem like so much of a winner, which is part of why he has to do so much of what basically equates to a little kid shouting "YOU CHEATED!" when they're behind. But at least if he comes back in polls then people can think it was all some n-dimensional chess and he was actually winning the whole time.
But most of the time when someone is the nominee and they lose, they can't get nominated again because everyone remembers them as that guy that lost. I think that effect will be greatly magnified for Trump, given that unlike someone like Romney, his whole thing was winning.
|
United States43705 Posts
Except we're talking about the RealityisRigged demographic. Trump won't be the loser who lost an unlosable year to them. He'll be the great leader who was clearly cheated by the electoral system which counts votes and not crowds. I think if he ran again in 2020 he'd probably be able to take the primary. Sure, half the Republican party and anyone not in the Republican party would be laughing at him. But the others, the deplorables, they'll stand by him until he tells them to stand down.
|
On October 17 2016 14:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:36 Nevuk wrote:On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020 Kasich can run on the "Trump spoiler" platform or talk about how good he was working for the Lehman Brothers.
Isn't that a plus for the GOP?
|
On October 17 2016 13:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:36 Nevuk wrote:On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020 Are they going to implement super delegates or something? Because if it's a pure plebiscite I think it's going to be some Trump like candidate again in 2020
It's possible, but probably not in 2020. What you have to understand is since the last time one party held the White House for more than two terms (Reagan->GHWB), there has been a latent understanding among the electorate that the government has no idea what it's doing and needs a severe overhaul. This is why Ross Perot had such wide appeal and after his failure so many people are still interested in pushing to elect an outsider and a billionaire and want to show it's possible.
Trump is one of the only people in America who has both the business empire and the star power to barge in like this. Whether you never liked him, he's an American fixture. It's not just chance that he won the nomination, his candidacy isn't random; that is, he's not an unknown, he's always wanted to run and people knew that. A similar person would be Arnold, if he were constitutionally eligible, but in a sad twist of fate he can only be president of The Apprentice. Really, other than Trump, if you look at anyone who has speculated or considered running, there's nobody else coming up on the Republican bench who isn't a politician.
There's some others like Bloomberg who could be (D) or especially go as an independent and fail, but Republicans, I'm not so sure. It would have to be some kind of Fiorina candidate who was actually good, it would be neat to try and brainstorm though. James Woods?
Trump has tried to be basically every recent candidate at once, this will be a simplification but I think it has some truth: Reagan, the old guy from TV who can Make America Great Again; Obama, the change candidate; GWB, the guy with a funny way of talking; Perot, the billionaire; maybe Nixon, the scandalous asshole. He's no JFK, these are just some quirks I can't help but notice.
I supremely doubt either candidate (or Sanders) can run again in 2020 except the incumbent (and whoever it is might face a party challenger too). Either challenging field will be wide. Republicans, because it was wide this season. Democrats, because they have nobody left, everyone has expired (Clinton, Kerry, Sanders, Biden, Gore).
|
|
|
On October 17 2016 11:06 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to. ...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it. I don't think i'ts unreasonable to expect someone to read the post they were responding to (and you can see the text of what that person was responding to as you look at it). And the presupposition was clearly established by the post I was responding to. useless interjections because someone didn't read at all on the thread they're responding to help noone. Actually, I read the post you were replying to, I wanted to initially respond to that but you seemed to be in agreement with him on the part I disagreed with (that betting on an election is morally wrong) so I replied to you instead. I don't post in this thread much because I don't know enough about politics to contribute, but I've read this thread continuously for the past month or so, it moves incredibly fast, to the point that I often end up wanting to write something only to find that there's 3 new pages by the time I've finished reading/digesting what I wanted to reply to. I say this to point out that I try not to frivolously interject into ongoing discussions. One thing I will say is that opening my post the way I did was a bad choice, because it reads a lot more antagonistic than it should (probably a case of me letting my bias show through in terms of how I view the topic of gambling compared to the original post). The original version of that post actually opened with "I love" so you got the less passive aggressive version!! 
I used to always have the chance to catch up,respond to three things, and follow my own discussion of interest, but now I'm having trouble even keeping up reading! Outside-of-livereport-debate hundreds and hundreds. It's like you're done composing and check the thread and not only is the topic done, but two more have been passed through and we're onto the fourth.
|
On October 17 2016 14:27 KwarK wrote:
Except we're talking about the RealityisRigged demographic. Trump won't be the loser who lost an unlosable year to them. He'll be the great leader who was clearly cheated by the electoral system which counts votes and not crowds. I think if he ran again in 2020 he'd probably be able to take the primary. Sure, half the Republican party and anyone not in the Republican party would be laughing at him. But the others, the deplorables, they'll stand by him until he tells them to stand down.
I dunno. At the end of the day, he didn't say "I'm the best candidate, so I should win." He said "I know how to win, I'm going to win." Even if the game was rigged, if he was as good as he says he is, he should have either not promised to win, or gone ahead and won anyway. Even to the deplorables demographic, there are promises Trump has made that they care about, and breaking those promises will undermine their support. And winning this election was one of the biggest ones.
|
On October 17 2016 14:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 13:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 17 2016 13:36 Nevuk wrote:On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020 Are they going to implement super delegates or something? Because if it's a pure plebiscite I think it's going to be some Trump like candidate again in 2020 It's possible, but probably not in 2020. What you have to understand is since the last time one party held the White House for more than two terms (Reagan->GHWB), there has been a latent understanding among the electorate that the government has no idea what it's doing and needs a severe overhaul. This is why Ross Perot had such wide appeal and after his failure so many people are still interested in pushing to elect an outsider and a billionaire and want to show it's possible. Trump is one of the only people in America who has both the business empire and the star power to barge in like this. Whether you never liked him, he's an American fixture. It's not just chance that he won the nomination, his candidacy isn't random; that is, he's not an unknown, he's always wanted to run and people knew that. A similar person would be Arnold, if he were constitutionally eligible, but in a sad twist of fate he can only be president of The Apprentice. Really, other than Trump, if you look at anyone who has speculated or considered running, there's nobody else coming up on the Republican bench who isn't a politician. There's some others like Bloomberg who could be (D) or especially go as an independent and fail, but Republicans, I'm not so sure. It would have to be some kind of Fiorina candidate who was actually good, it would be neat to try and brainstorm though. James Woods? Trump has tried to be basically every recent candidate at once, this will be a simplification but I think it has some truth: Reagan, the old guy from TV who can Make America Great Again; Obama, the change candidate; GWB, the guy with a funny way of talking; Perot, the billionaire; maybe Nixon, the scandalous asshole. He's no JFK, these are just some quirks I can't help but notice. I supremely doubt either candidate (or Sanders) can run again in 2020 except the incumbent (and whoever it is might face a party challenger too). Either challenging field will be wide. Republicans, because it was wide this season. Democrats, because they have nobody left, everyone has expired (Clinton, Kerry, Sanders, Biden, Gore).
Dems are likely to have a bunch of new figures in 4 years, especially with the seats they will win in three weeks. Also remember that Obama went from being unknown into being one of the most charismatic and gifted president in modern era in only a couple of years.
But anyway it will be Clinton in 2020 unless she loses which is possible but extremely unlikely.
The Reps are fucked. The reps that are not total clowns will have to win primaries, and it looks like the base is completely out if touch with reality. I think one will need to pull the same conspirational crap, the same white resentment trick and the same serial lies than Trump to win the GOP primaries.
No one knows how it will end but i don't see the gop winning a presidential election for at least a decade. The tea party and Trump have completely destroyed it.
|
On October 17 2016 14:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 14:36 oBlade wrote:On October 17 2016 13:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 17 2016 13:36 Nevuk wrote:On October 17 2016 13:36 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2016 13:11 ChristianS wrote:
Well I don't think I've ever sparred with you over it, but it's well-known you're quite a bit more negative about Hillary than most. Democrats don't have a lot of obvious 2020 challengers, so I'm not sure who they'd run instead. Bernie again? Biden? ...Tim Kaine? Considering the Democratic party I would expect Kaine but would prefer a more progressive option with less establishment backing. Clinton has to hash out the repatriation of all that off shore money in her first term or Republicans could walk away with the election in 2020. Without it there's no doubt she's the least favorable candidate in the race. I just hope I live long enough to see 2000-2020 from at least 30 years past. I suspect it will look quite different than it's interpreted now (my own interpretation included). I honestly think Trump will be a weight hanging around the Republicans' necks for years to come. Any time a Republican makes a character attack that seems even remotely uncivil, the Democrat can reply "You know, I think it's really a same what Donald Trump has done to your party." Kinda like how every Conservative had to try to prove they weren't Bush in 2008, everyone is going to have to try to prove they're not Trump in 2020 (and that case will be even harder if they endorsed Trump). This is particularly true, of course, if Trump actually wins somehow and gets to do all the damage he's trying to do. Kasich is pretty perfectly positioned on this front for 2020 Are they going to implement super delegates or something? Because if it's a pure plebiscite I think it's going to be some Trump like candidate again in 2020 It's possible, but probably not in 2020. What you have to understand is since the last time one party held the White House for more than two terms (Reagan->GHWB), there has been a latent understanding among the electorate that the government has no idea what it's doing and needs a severe overhaul. This is why Ross Perot had such wide appeal and after his failure so many people are still interested in pushing to elect an outsider and a billionaire and want to show it's possible. Trump is one of the only people in America who has both the business empire and the star power to barge in like this. Whether you never liked him, he's an American fixture. It's not just chance that he won the nomination, his candidacy isn't random; that is, he's not an unknown, he's always wanted to run and people knew that. A similar person would be Arnold, if he were constitutionally eligible, but in a sad twist of fate he can only be president of The Apprentice. Really, other than Trump, if you look at anyone who has speculated or considered running, there's nobody else coming up on the Republican bench who isn't a politician. There's some others like Bloomberg who could be (D) or especially go as an independent and fail, but Republicans, I'm not so sure. It would have to be some kind of Fiorina candidate who was actually good, it would be neat to try and brainstorm though. James Woods? Trump has tried to be basically every recent candidate at once, this will be a simplification but I think it has some truth: Reagan, the old guy from TV who can Make America Great Again; Obama, the change candidate; GWB, the guy with a funny way of talking; Perot, the billionaire; maybe Nixon, the scandalous asshole. He's no JFK, these are just some quirks I can't help but notice. I supremely doubt either candidate (or Sanders) can run again in 2020 except the incumbent (and whoever it is might face a party challenger too). Either challenging field will be wide. Republicans, because it was wide this season. Democrats, because they have nobody left, everyone has expired (Clinton, Kerry, Sanders, Biden, Gore). Dems are likely to have a bunch of new figures in 4 years, especially with the seats they will win in three weeks. Also remember that Obama went from being unknown into being one of the most charismatic and gifted president in modern era in only a couple of years.
Yes, a wide field, I said that. What's the point of Obama being unknown? He was a senator. All politicians are unknown until they run and people notice their faces on TV. If you're a complete outsider, so someone "Trumpian," you need mitigating factors, like being a magnate and celebrity. Not so if you're a politician.
On October 17 2016 14:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The Reps are fucked. The reps that are not total clowns will have to win primaries, and it looks like the base is completely out if touch with reality. I think one will need to pull the same conspirational crap, the same white resentment trick and the same serial lies than Trump to win the GOP primaries.
GOP politicians don't need to do, well, whatever that for the sake of argument I won't dispute you think Trump did, to win. Somebody always wins. And in this case, this means a Republican who, as you say, isn't a total clown, like Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz or Mike Pence, someone that all the anti-Trump people who never have and never will even consider voting Republican anyway, can be happy with.
|
United States43705 Posts
On October 17 2016 15:03 oBlade wrote:
this means a Republican who isn't a total clown like Ted Cruz or Mike Pence
I think it's not too early to start placing bets on the 2020 election.
|
I do not actually want them. One day Rand Paul will get his chance. Maybe the Trump children will also wander into politics.
|
On October 17 2016 15:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 15:03 oBlade wrote:
this means a Republican who isn't a total clown like Ted Cruz or Mike Pence I think it's not too early to start placing bets on the 2020 election.
Don't forget the 2020 election will have Lindsay Lohan and Kanye West running for the head of state!
Maybe sooner because I can't picture a world where either Trump or Clinton manage to go the full term without getting impeached,arrested or overthrown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
