Fox News Poll of potential 2020 matchups

[Pommer]

That poll is further evidence that the democrat candidate will be chosen based on identity politics over anything else.

Care to define that?

 

[Aldebaran]

Care to define that?

People using their skin color, sexual activity, etc. to bring in the votes from those who identify with them based on those aspects of their life.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

People using their skin color, sexual activity, etc. to bring in the votes from those who identify with them based on those aspects of their life.

Would it be better if those candidates hid those aspects of their lives?

 

[Aldebaran]

Would it be better if those candidates hid those aspects of their lives?

Is that the only alternative to exploiting those aspects in others as a method of getting votes?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Is that the only alternative to exploiting those aspects in others as a method of getting votes?

Is that your answer to the question?

Would it be better if those candidates hid those aspects of their lives?

 

[Aldebaran]

Is that your answer to the question?

It was in response to your post, so it's pretty obvious that it was my response to your question.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It was in response to your post, so it's pretty obvious that it was my response to your question.

It was a yes or no question. Your avoidance of it says enough.

How is a candidate supposed to come across as sincere if they are expected to hide large aspects of their personal lives to not appear as pandering?

 

[Aldebaran]

It was a yes or no question. Your avoidance of it says enough.

How is a candidate supposed to come across as sincere if they are expected to hide large aspects of their personal lives to not appear as pandering?

Is "hiding large aspects of their personal lives" the only alternative to exploiting those aspects in others as a method of getting votes?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Is "hiding large aspects of their personal lives" the only alternative to exploiting those aspects in others as a method of getting votes?

No.

Now, can you directly answer either of my questions without posing another question of your own?

 

[Aldebaran]

No.

Good. Then they should focus on things of value rather than, "Vote for me, for I am black/gay/a woman/young/hispanic (even when they aren't)." It would be far more genuine to expect people to vote for them based on values and policies than on skin color/age/sexual activity, etc.

Now, can you directly answer either of my questions without posing another question of your own?

Both questions you asked were based on something I didn't even suggest. Therefore, the obvious answer (which is "no") would only allow you to take a misunderstanding of my point and run in a different direction. Answering you would have also validated your misunderstanding.

 

[cow451]

People using their skin color, sexual activity, etc. to bring in the votes from those who identify with them based on those aspects of their life.

Guns don’t count?

 

[Aldebaran]

Guns don’t count?

If a gun throws its hat into the ring to run for president as a democrat, then they would.

 

[cow451]

If a gun throws its hat into the ring to run for president as a democrat, then they would.

Ok. A gun counts if it runs as a Republican?

 

[Aldebaran]

Ok. A gun counts if it runs as a Republican?

At least if it was a Republican, it could count. 57 states in the USA, and all that.

 

[cow451]

At least if it was a Republican, it could count. 57 states in the USA, and all that.

We gotta stop Obama! Advise all your friends to vote for Romney in 2020.!!!!

 

[Aldebaran]

We gotta stop Obama! Advise all your friends to vote for Romney in 2020.!!!!

Oh, I keep forgetting that we're not supposed to learn from what past dems have done and said.
They'd no doubt be better than the current crop of contenders. Very conservative by comparison. The 20 that have taken part in the debates didn't have much to do other than try to prove they're further left than the next guy, and hate Trump.

 

[cow451]

Oh, I keep forgetting that we're not supposed to learn from what past dems have done and said.
They'd no doubt be better than the current crop of contenders. Very conservative by comparison. The 20 that have taken part in the debates didn't have much to do other than try to prove they're further left than the next guy, and hate Trump.

Any candidate not named Trump has a shot.

 

[Aldebaran]

Any candidate not named Trump has a shot.

That all depends on whether or not the dem candidates can make an actual case for why they should be elected other than "I'm not Trump!" I watched part of the "debate" last night and it wasn't very substantive. Right off the bat, Kamala Harris dodged questions by talking about Trump and the Republicans instead of addressing the questions. Of course the MSM moderators let it go and the democrat base that made up the audience cheered. I'm confident that the audience attending the democrat "debates" represent everyday Americans.

 

[cow451]

That all depends on whether or not the dem candidates can make an actual case for why they should be elected other than "I'm not Trump!" I watched part of the "debate" last night and it wasn't very substantive. Right off the bat, Kamala Harris dodged questions by talking about Trump and the Republicans instead of addressing the questions. Of course the MSM moderators let it go and the democrat base that made up the audience cheered. I'm confident that the audience attending the democrat "debates" represent everyday Americans.

Merely not being Trump captures an easy 1/3 of the Electorate. Trump’s likely ceiling is mid-40’s unless the Dems repeat the failure to campaign in all 57 states. Then throw in the 3 million Mexicans and any Dem has a shot

 

[Kentonio]

At least if it was a Republican, it could count. 57 states in the USA, and all that.

As long as it’s not counting the size of an inauguration crowd, right?