US Presidential Election 2020

[a_majoor]

The hysteria surrounding President Trump actually conceals a much different story - a gradual change of the political demographics. This actually explains the direction of the Party as the demographic shift to the Republicans encompasses most of the groups that support modern Populism, while the Democrats court those who believe they benefit from globalism. Similar changes can be seen when you look carefully at other events like the Brexit, shift to Populist provincial governments in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, election of Nationalist governments in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy and Brazil.

Trump is more of a symptom than a cause, the underlying changes have been happening for a long time (arguably first documented in the 1994 book "The Revolt of the Elites"). Movements like Pat Buchanan's Populist campaign in 1996, the rise of "Talk radio", the "Contract with America" and the TEA Party movement all reflect the changes over time. This WSJ article looks at this in more depth:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-normalcy-of-trumps-republican-party-11598047363

The Normalcy of Trump’s Republican Party
His unusual personality obscures the GOP’s basic continuity and gradual pace of change.
By Michael Barone
Aug. 21, 2020 6:02 pm ET

But when you look away from the public figures and toward the voters, you don’t see such a sharp break with the past. Mr. Trump has won over some voters who never supported a Republican before and repelled others who previously never voted Democratic. But not in enormous numbers: You see much greater oscillations in party percentages nationally and in particular states and demographic groups in the 1960s and 1970s than you do when you compare the 2016 numbers with those of 2012 or 2008 or 2004.

As for the question of whether the Republicans will return to normal, it’s based on a mistaken premise. What’s normal for the major American political parties is change—adjusting issue positions and emphases to changed situations and challenges, attracting new demographic constituencies while losing ground among old ones, adapting to the cues and clatter in a competitive political marketplace while maintaining their basic character. . . .

The emergence of Mr. Trump is the latest example of this pattern. It is widely asserted that he executed a hostile takeover of the party, winning less than a majority of primary and caucus votes (45%, compared with John McCain’s 47% in 2008), insulting his opponents and previous Republican presidents. He took sharply different positions from those of Republican nominees (as well as Democratic ones) over the past half-century on trade and immigration—positions popular with blue-collar voters who had reason to believe Chinese competition had closed down American factories and that low-skill immigrants, especially from Mexico, tend to drive down native-born Americans’ wages. He decried the toll of military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Naturally these stands antagonized some Republican leaders and pundits who supported these policies and some Republican voters who defended them. Even so, the president has enjoyed the near-unanimous support of self-identified Republicans, with percentages rivaling or exceeding those supporting Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower in their times.

Trump Republicans’ downscale strength in 2016 was an amplification of a decadeslong trend. The core constituency of the Republican Party has been moving downscale for decades, first in response to cultural issues like abortion. The state of Pennsylvania provides examples. Metro Pittsburgh, with its steel-and-coal economy, never warmed to Ronald Reagan; George H.W. Bush, running to succeed him, won only 40% there in 1988. But by 2004 the younger George Bush raised the Republican percentage there to 48%, and Donald Trump carried it with 50%. The Republican percentage in Pennsylvania beyond its two big metropolitan areas remained static, at 58% in 1988, 57% in 2004 and 59% in 2016.

As Newton’s third law says that there is in nature for every action an equal and opposite reaction, so in American politics, for every demographic group trending toward one party, there is usually another with opposite views trending toward the other. In Pennsylvania, the four affluent suburban counties around Philadelphia voted 61% for Bush 41 in 1988, 46% for Bush 43 in 2004 and 41% for Donald Trump in 2016.

The increasingly downscale Republican and increasingly upscale Democratic constituencies are increasingly reflected in policy. While Mr. Trump orders a payroll-tax suspension, with dollars benefits flowing mostly to modest earners, Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats demand increased deductions for state and local taxes, which would mainly favor those with income of more than $650,000.

The rest of the article is behind the paywall, but this covers the most important points.

 

[stellarpanther]

Did anyone else watch the speech given by Kimberly Guilfoyle (Trump Jr's) girlfriend?  IMO, that woman was out of control and sound like she was becoming unhinged.

Watch in full screen, it's much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQPG0Bmo7D8

Edit: added video

 

[Remius]

She sounded like she was summoning something to kill snow White.

That was a crazy angry speech.

 

[FJAG]

Did anyone else watch the speech given by Kimberly Guilfoyle (Trump Jr's) girlfriend?  IMO, that woman was out of control and sound like she was becoming unhinged.

:rofl: or  :facepalm:  ?

Not sure which. Maybe both. Definitely both.

 

[stellarpanther]

You should be careful, you could be accused of sexism. On the other hand that only applies to conservatives, saying "that woman" is an automatic trip to the penalty box for them.

I guess I could have replaced "woman" for "person" but I hope it didn't come across like that.  Some of the thinks that person has said just make me shake my head in utter disbelief.  I wonder how long it will be before the real reason for her departure comes out.

 

[Donald H]

:rofl: or  :facepalm:  ?

Not sure which. Maybe both. Definitely both.

I didn't watch it but I've found it on the web and have now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErSd_YiRCAs
Sic minutes and a bit of very passionate speech at a very high  volume.

It's worth spending the six minutes!
Question: Would that have been received by the American people favourably or would it be more like something Donald and junior would appreciate?

 

[Remius]

Twitter is having a field day with the pics lol.

It likely made an impact on some of the base but I’m willing to bet some of them cringed a bit.

It was a lot of yelling at an empty room.

And yes, it is worth the watch.

 

[shawn5o]

I suspected Nancy Pelosi was <edit> and now I know she is.


Pelosi: Trump and congressional Republicans are 'enemies of the state' by scaring people from voting

by Anthony Leonardi, Breaking News Reporter
August 24, 2020 06:20 PM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pelosi-trump-and-congressional-republicans-are-enemies-of-the-state-by-scaring-people-from-voting

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated she believes President Trump and his Republican allies are trying to decrease voter turnout in the general election, characterizing them as "enemies of the state."

The escalation in rhetoric, which the White House criticized, came during a Monday interview with MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin who asked Pelosi if she thinks the public need not be concerned about the integrity of the general election that is just over 70 days away.

"Thank you for the opportunity to say. One thing I’ll say to the American people: Do not pay any attention to Donald Trump. It is his goal to scare people from voting, to intimidate them by saying he’s going to have law enforcement people at the polls, to welcome, in fact, Russian intervention into our election," Pelosi responded.

The California Democrat claimed the president, and his Republican allies in Congress, want a lower voter turnout in the November election, alluding to Trump's remarks that he intends to employ law enforcement to monitor voting during the election. "We don’t agonize, we organize," Pelosi said.

"We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., with their allies in the Congress of the United States," she continued, adding "diminishing the role of the Postal Service" makes them "enemies of the state."

Article here

From Townhall

'Disgusting': Lawmakers React to Pelosi's New Slur Against Republicans

Ellie Bufkin  Aug 25, 2020 9:00 AM

The Speaker of the House found herself in hot water with Republican lawmakers on Monday after she concocted a brand new, ugly term for her colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Following a brutal congressional hearing in which the House Oversight Committee questioned Postmaster General Louis DeJoy over a sloppy Democratic conspiracy theory, Pelosi lost her temper on live TV.

Article here

Read the twitter comments in the article

FWIW Trump can’t legally send police or troops to polling stations

- Staff edit to comply with political posting guidelines.

 

[Remius]

FWIW Trump can’t legally send police or troops to polling stations

Doesn't stop him from saying he will though.

 

[Good2Golf]

FWIW Trump can’t legally send police or troops to polling stations

Technically, if they’re housed in a Federal building he can.

 

[shawn5o]

My bad

I apologize to everyone  for describing a US political figure with a word . Honestly, I didn't think the word was out of bounds but here I am.

I will do better. Have to as I don't want any tickets

Thanks for listening

 

[shawn5o]

This could be unsettleling


Hillary Clinton Sets the Stage for Chaos: 'Joe Biden Should Not Concede Under Any Circumstances'

By Joe Saunders, The Western Journal
August 25, 2020 at 11:04am

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/hillary-clinton-sets-stage-chaos-joe-biden-not-concede-circumstances?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-FP&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=federalist-papers&ats_es=a8dc8f9cb5a2f9d8677fda1ae17c5e21

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,” Clinton declared in a clip posted Monday, stressing the last two words in the sentence, “because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

I like this quote (author u/k) from the article:
The projection is amazing… the same people who are warning that Trump won’t concede are on the record advising Biden not to concede

The Federalist Papers

 

[brihard]

My bad

I apologize to everyone  for describing a US political figure with a word . Honestly, I didn't think the word was out of bounds but here I am.

I will do better. Have to as I don't want any tickets

Thanks for listening

We’ve most of us accidentally caught at least one. The level of discourse used to be pretty horrendous. It’s improved considerably.

 

[Brad Sallows]

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,” Clinton declared in a clip posted Monday, stressing the last two words in the sentence, “because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

That should play well.

 

[tomahawk6]

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,” Clinton declared in a clip posted Monday, stressing the last two words in the sentence, “because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

That should play well.

Doesnt sound like democracy to me !!

 

[FJAG]

Doesnt sound like democract to me !!

Maybe if she had been properly quoted above it would make more sense:

Hillary Clinton has some advice for Joe Biden: If it is a close race on election night, do “not concede under any circumstances.”

Clinton speculated the GOP would try “messing up absentee balloting” and would launch lengthy legal battles with an army of lawyers to contest the result. The Trump campaign has already begun suing states like New Jersey over their mail-in ballot plans.

“We’ve got to have a massive legal operation, and I know the Biden campaign is working on that,” Clinton says — predicting a bitter and messy election and urging fellow Democrats to not give “an inch.”

“We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidate that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places,” she continued.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” she said.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/25/clinton-biden-should-not-concede-under-any-circumstances/

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to take in the circumstances that this dog and pony show will become.

:cheers:

 

[stellarpanther]

Watching the RNC tonight, it seems more like a low budget reality TV show with Trump popping in from time to time to say a few words. They even had a citizenship ceremony tonight with Trump walking out of the office to oversee it, Marines saluting as he walked by.  I can't wait to see the how it all ends on Thursday night!

edit: grammar

 

[mariomike]

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,” Clinton declared in a clip posted Monday, stressing the last two words in the sentence, “because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

Doesnt sound like democract to me !!

Maybe if she had been properly quoted above it would make more sense:

Thank-you, FJAG.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to take in the circumstances that this dog and pony show will become.

I agree.

Watching the RNC tonight, it seems more like a low budget reality TV show with Trump popping in from time to time to say a few words.

Looks like they are keeping the fact checkers busy! 

https://www.google.com/search?q=fact+check+rnc&sxsrf=ALeKk007hUE9rz8U_-HoraISY3lypSlz5g:1598410773548&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE7PKS8LfrAhXKg-AKHWL3BqMQpwV6BAgLEBw&biw=1280&bih=641#spf=1598410786631

 

[stellarpanther]

I feel somewhat bad for Melania watching her give a speech right now.  She's reading word for word from the teleprompter and looks like she's struggling.  Trump sitting in the crowd with his arms folded watching with a bored look on his face which I'm sure isn't offering his wife any comfort.
I'm waiting for her to say the hell with it and walk off the stage. lol

 

[Brad Sallows]

"under any circumstances"

Not really any ambiguity there.  A state result close enough to trigger mandatory recounts with the EV count hanging in the balance is one version of "close election", but that's not what she was talking about.  If she's encouraging holding up a concession for some region of closeness, someone should ask her - or better yet, Biden - to commit to how big that region is.

But really the best part - and the main point - is that this is coming from a member of the team that got its knickers twisted - a second time, already - because the other candidate refused to do what they won't do: declare in advance that they will respect the result.