Will Blasphemy be Trumps Undoing???

redleghunter said:

A block of voters her husband won and the Democrats kept until 2016. And this current batch of candidates are not going to get those votes.

Click to expand...

Why do you think not? Do you think that if they voted for Trump only because he was slightly less reprehensible--a matter of personality, not politics--that none of the other candidates--not bearing Clinton's personal baggage--can't win their votes?

I agree.

A Democratic candidate COULD beat Trump, especially if there we are in a recession on Election Day. For me, the open question is whether the Democrats will self-destruct by nominating someone from the far left, and running on such policies as Medicare for All, decriminalization of illegal border crossings, free medical care for the undocumented, free college for all, paying off all student debt, an assets tax, and large increases in the acceptance of asylum seekers.

I have thought that 2024 would be the "swing year" for the Electoral College, including Texas and Georgia turning Democratic. Also, Democrats have a habit of turning to the left after losing a presidential election (and then losing). I think that Warren is likely to win the nomination. My preference is Biden or Bullock. Even if the don't win, having a moderate at the top of the ticket will help retain House seats. Also, Bloomberg's millions will be backing candidates who favor gun legislation. I think his candidates won 21 of 25 seats last time.

RDKirk said:

Why do you think not? Do you think that if they voted for Trump only because he was slightly less reprehensible--a matter of personality, not politics--that none of the other candidates--not bearing Clinton's personal baggage--can't win their votes?

Click to expand...

NightHawkeye said:

Oh, I get it. You don't like Trump. (To be honest, I didn't vote for him either.) You want his voters to stay home so that your candidate can win. Hey, isn't that what many Democrats have accused Republicans of doing for years? Might I suggest you work on getting Democrats to field a better candidate instead. That would be a win-win.

It won't take much really. Someone with high moral character, someone who likes all Americans, someone who isn't angry all the time at some group or another. That guy or gal could crush Trump in an election. Doesn't seem that difficult, really. What do you think?

Click to expand...

The key difference is that in certain states, Republicans have passed legislation to impede the ability of voters who are likely to vote Democrat to cast their ballots. The complaint isn't "wanting people to stay home", it's passing laws which prohibit certain groups from voting.

RDKirk said:

Why do you think not? Do you think that if they voted for Trump only because he was slightly less reprehensible--a matter of personality, not politics--that none of the other candidates--not bearing Clinton's personal baggage--can't win their votes?

Click to expand...

The 25 or so candidates have their own baggage to deal with. Most are espousing platforms neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton would support. So I see it as a further regression to get that Bill Clinton coalition back.

zephcom said:

Texas is on the cusp of turning Democrat and should that happen, it will become nearly impossible for Republicans to win the presidency.

Click to expand...

Is that why there are two US Senators, a Governor and a House and Senate in Texas is that is majority Republican?

whatbogsends said:

The key difference is that in certain states, Republicans have passed legislation to impede the ability of voters who are likely to vote Democrat to cast their ballots.

Click to expand...

That's a talking point of Democrats. It appears to be unfounded ... as well as off-topic to this thread.

whatbogsends said:

The complaint isn't "wanting people to stay home", it's passing laws which prohibit certain groups from voting.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

I was specifically responding to the poster who overtly stated that he wanted a group of voters to stay home.

zephcom said:

On the cusp is not the same thing as being Democrat.

But, hey, I'm good with Republicans thinking Texas is safely in their pocket. That means they won't spend much money in Texas during the campaign.

Click to expand...

Texas has never been safely Republican. Never.

Texas has an independence thing going on and Texas voters will reject either party, or even both parties, when appropriate. Texas is the nation's largest swing state ... and that seems unlikely to change in the near future.

zephcom said:

On the cusp is not the same thing as being Democrat.

But, hey, I'm good with Republicans thinking Texas is safely in their pocket. That means they won't spend much money in Texas during the campaign.

Click to expand...

I have seen in the past four election cycles the "turn TX Blue" tens and now hundreds of millions being dumped here. Good for the local economy.

NightHawkeye said:

That's a talking point of Democrats. It appears to be unfounded ... as well as off-topic to this thread.

Click to expand...

You brought it into the conversation in the post I quoted. You can't make a false claim, and then, when your false claim is addressed, make the argument that it's "off-topic".

NightHawkeye said:

Incorrect.

I was specifically responding to the poster who overtly stated that he wanted a group of voters to stay home.

Click to expand...

You specifically claimed in your response to the poster

Republican Voter Suppression Efforts Are Targeting Minorities, Journalist Says

How the GOP Candidates Are Blocking the Vote

You're free to press people as to why they believe "wanting voters to stay home" is appropriate, but when you make the false claim that "this is what Democrats have accused Republicans of doing", you will be corrected. Correcting false claims presented in a thread isn't "off topic".

The key is that the presidency is not determined by the number of votes nationally. Yes, Biden/Bulloch or Biden/Klobuchar would lose many base voters in CA, OR, Washington, ILL and in the Northeast. The resulting loss in electoral votes is likely to be exactly ZERO.

The question is votes in swing districts in swing states. Here Warren, Sanders and Harris would be likely to get many fewer votes than Biden/Bulloch or Biden/Klobuchar.

As a Democrat, I am not worried about losing coast electoral votes with Biden. However, he would give the Democrats a much better chance in the MidWest, VA, NC, GA and even in the farm belt.
======
My BOTTOM LINE is that I am NOT very concerned with the base. If they really would prefer to help elect Trump by voting 3rd party or staying home, then that is their choice. And yes, they could succeed in defeating the moderate Democrat. This has happened many times in the past. However, this time, the key is the flyby states, those states not on the coasts. The Democrats need those electoral votes. IMO, Biden (and even Bullock) could deliver. Warren, Sanders and Harris would not. Some have been so bold as to say that Trump would take 40 states against Warren or Sanders. I tend to agree.

zephcom said:

I think the Democrats risk losing the support of their base if they choose to go moderate and I don't think they will pick up enough moderate votes to compensate for the loss of the base voters.

Click to expand...

That's fine. It is a matter of process and time. Several house seats switched in 2018. More will switch this time. I had always thought that 2024 was the year for Texas to be truly competitive in a presidential race.

redleghunter said:

I have seen in the past four election cycles the "turn TX Blue" tens and now hundreds of millions being dumped here. Good for the local economy.

Click to expand...

NightHawkeye said:

That's a talking point of Democrats. It appears to be unfounded

Click to expand...

That's false

... as well as off-topic to this thread.

Click to expand...

Not if voter turn out is actually Donald's undoing, thus answering the question posed in the OP.

I was specifically responding to the poster who overtly stated that he wanted a group of voters to stay home.

Click to expand...

Which poster was that, in which post?

mark46 said:

I agree.

A Democratic candidate COULD beat Trump, especially if there we are in a recession on Election Day. For me, the open question is whether the Democrats will self-destruct by nominating someone from the far left, and running on such policies as Medicare for All, decriminalization of illegal border crossings, free medical care for the undocumented, free college for all, paying off all student debt, an assets tax, and large increases in the acceptance of asylum seekers.

Click to expand...

This is a great list of things that Fox News seems to want to tar a potential D candidate with. I don't see it being very influential - mainly because the voters who matter in this election are not a good overlap with people who watch and believe Fox News, RT, or the other sources that target people with far-right spin.

Ok, the left believes that proposing far left policies will succeed because swing voters don't watch FOX, go for it. I see the following all as losing issues that will offset the gains that will be made by candidates who favor strong gun legislation

1) Medicare for All
2) Paying off all student debt
3) Free college for all
4) decriminalizing illegal entry into the US
5) free medical care for undocumented and new illegal crossers
6) wealth tax (increases in income tax rates for the rich is a winning issue)
7) increase in corporate tax rates (removing loopholes and minimum taxes is a winner)
8) large increases in the number of asylum seekers being allowed into the US
9) opposing the Trump rule favoring immigrants who will not immediately need welfare or other aid

KCfromNC said:

This is a great list of things that Fox News seems to want to tar a potential D candidate with. I don't see it being very influential - mainly because the voters who matter in this election are not a good overlap with people who watch and believe Fox News, RT, or the other sources that target people with far-right spin.

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

Ok, the left believes that proposing far left policies will succeed because swing voters don't watch FOX, go for it. I see the following all as losing issues that will offset the gains that will be made by candidates who favor strong gun legislation

1) Medicare for All
2) Paying off all student debt
3) Free college for all
4) decriminalizing illegal entry into the US
5) free medical care for undocumented and new illegal crossers
6) wealth tax (increases in income tax rates for the rich is a winning issue)
7) increase in corporate tax rates (removing loopholes and minimum taxes is a winner)
8) large increases in the number of asylum seekers being allowed into the US
9) opposing the Trump rule favoring immigrants who will not immediately need welfare or other aid

Click to expand...

Decriminalizing illegal entry would be a winner, too, if it was made clear what was meant by it.

Making illegal entry a non-criminal offense like a traffic ticket is just not a winner.
Folks understand that you can be arrested of a traffic ticket, and even deported.
Do you really believe that the public will think that such a designation would increase the number deported, (which is what the voters want).

Obama opposed this change and deported many, many more that Trump has. The winning position is to pledge to stop everyone and give them a hearing within 72 hours and deport those who don't qualify for asylum or a further asylum hearing within a week. The left has attacked Obama's immigration policies. I think that this is a major mistake.

Speedwell said:

Decriminalizing illegal entry would be a winner, too, if it was made clear what was meant by it.

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

Making illegal entry a non-criminal offense like a traffic ticket is just not a winner.
Folks understand that you can be arrested of a traffic ticket, and even deported.
Do you really believe that the public will think that such a designation would increase the number deported, (which is what the voters want).

Click to expand...

Not if we let Republicans control the issue. Right now they've pretty much got the public thinking that decriminalizing illegal border crossing means letting anybody in who wants to come and not doing anything about it.

Obama opposed this change and deported many, many more that Trump has. The winning position is to pledge to stop everyone and give them a hearing within 72 hours and deport those who don't qualify for asylum or a further asylum hearing within a week.

Click to expand...

That's only possible if you decriminalize illegal border crossing. Otherwise a criminal trial is required with all of the inherent delay and cost. These trials are costing us something like seven billion a year and tying up courts that could otherwise be processing asylum claims. And if being an illegal alien is so awful, why aren't visa overstays regarded as criminals as well?

hmm

Obama had no trouble deporting lots of criminals.

Also, you act as if the right to a speedy trial must mean years of delay. That simply isn't true. If there were enough immigration judges, there could be hearing for everyone within 72 hours. Those with a valid asylum claim would then be held for future action. Others would be found guilty and be subject to immediate deportation. I am stating this as a political position. Much of this can be done without legislation. If not, if this process would take longer because the Democrats in Congress won't agree to the process, the detention until trial would be necessary. But make no mistake, the votes do not want to accept large numbers of illegal crossers ( I am being polite; the proper term is "criminals", or even large numbers seeking legal asylum ("not criminals".
====
The BOTTOM LINE is that I believe that the voter wants illegal crossers (not discussing asylum seekers) to be immediately detained and deported. If Democrats are willing to say that they wish to deport illegal crossers within a month, perhaps nuances could be understood.

Speedwell said:

Not if we let Republicans control the issue. Right now they've pretty much got the public thinking that decriminalizing illegal border crossing means letting anybody in who wants to come and not doing anything about it.


That's only possible if you decriminalize illegal border crossing. Otherwise a criminal trial is required with all of the inherent delay and cost. These trials are costing us something like seven billion a year and tying up courts that could otherwise be processing asylum claims. And if being an illegal alien is so awful, why aren't visa overstays regarded as criminals as well?

Click to expand...