Revisiting 2020 - General Election

[The Blood]

@Beetlejuice @Cal @Cenzonico @ConservativeElector2 @DakotaHale @Dobs @Edouard @Entrecampos @Fbarbarossa @Hestia @jnewt @JohnGRobertsJr @Kitten @Magnus Rex @Mishfox @MrPotatoTed @Patine @pilight @Pringles@Rezi @Rodja @Sean F Kennedy @The Blood @themiddlepolitical @Timur @vcczar @WVProgressive @YVDyTaOxlzZr @Zenobiyl @themiddlepolitical @jvikings1

Hello everyone! We have made it to the General Election! It was no real surprise that Bernie pulled it off in the Democratic runoff, and with that he's now facing off against Bill Weld in the GE. I'm interested to see the result here, and thank you all for participating so far!

[MrPotatoTed]

Damn, that's a surprisingly close race.  I was torn between the two candidates, in part because the only thing I know about Weld is that he tried to stop Trump, and that's always a high five in my book.  But in the end, I went with Bernie -- which might be the deciding vote, if more don't trickle in.  Ha.

[Pringles]

20 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Damn, that's a surprisingly close race.  I was torn between the two candidates, in part because the only thing I know about Weld is that he tried to stop Trump, and that's always a high five in my book.  But in the end, I went with Bernie -- which might be the deciding vote, if more don't trickle in.  Ha.

Sad 😞 

Just shows how left leaning the forum is though, and that's fine. With respect to everyone elses views.

But I am glad that the reality would be Weld winning in the largest GOP landslide since 1988 😄 

[Timur]

Weld was a very successful MA governor.

If this scenario happened, I wouldn't be too surprised if Trump's voters  moved to the Democrats & Neoconservatives came back to the Republican Party.

[Cenzonico]

18 minutes ago, Timur said:

Trump's voters  moved to the Democrats

[Timur]

9 minutes ago, Cenzonico said:

Some of Trump voters are anti-establishment folks. (In fact, I noticed that the top three candidates in the 2020 Democratic primaries for Trump voters seemed to be 1st.Tulsi Gabbard 2nd.Andrew Yang, and a distant 3rd Bernie Sanders.

[Cenzonico]

Just now, Timur said:

Some of Trump voters are anti-establishment folks. (In fact, I noticed that the top three candidates in the 2020 Democratic primaries for Trump voters seemed to be 1st.Tulsi Gabbard 2nd.Andrew Yang, and a distant 3rd Bernie Sanders.

Fair enough I guess. But a majority of Trump voters going Dem just isn't happening. 

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Of course, you realize a Social Democrat and a Libertarian (even if a half-baked Libertarian) are ideological outliers in the U.S. political sphere, and this would be a REAL big example of how unrepresentative the main party primary system could get, and the degree of voter alienation that could be developed, and a very good point around one of the quite a few reasons by the Duopoly is a political failure, a bad idea to continue to support and preserve, and an electoral sham.

I'm not sure I fully understood your critique here.  This is a left & libertarian leaning forum, of course Weld and Bernie rose to the top.  In a universe where most American voters were similar to the individuals we have on this forum, Bernie and Weld being the nominees would suggest the duopoly was working quite well because that would be representative of what most voters wanted.

Of course, the reality is that most American voters are not similar to the individuals we have on this forum, and thus the fact that Bernie and Weld were never seriously even close to being the nominee suggests once again that the duopoly is working quite well.

But I might agree with your basic premise (if I understand it correctly), that the nominees being Weld and Bernie at the same time might leave a significant swath of America feeling unrepresented.  That's probably true!  But that's also why this is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.

If it did, there might indeed be a significant third party challenge.  But given that party nominees are selected by voters in the first place, you usually don't end up missing the mark by THAT much.  

2016 is kind of a weird, rare situation where the Democrat field was unpopulated and largely settled LONG before it occurred to anyone that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination.  But lessons were learned, and the 2020 Democrat field was EXTREMELY populated to ensure that we found the best counter to Donald Trump.  Whatever flaws Joe Biden might have, there's general agreement that he was the best bet for picking up the kind of voters who felt abandoned in Hillary vs. Trump.

[Dobs]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Damn, that's a surprisingly close race.  I was torn between the two candidates, in part because the only thing I know about Weld is that he tried to stop Trump, and that's always a high five in my book.  But in the end, I went with Bernie -- which might be the deciding vote, if more don't trickle in.  Ha.

This surprises me as a former Bush conservative. Weld seems perfect for you, particularly pitted against Socialism.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Dobs said:

This surprises me as a former Bush conservative. Weld seems perfect for you, particularly pitted against Socialism.

Yeah, like I said, I don't know much about Weld.  I was aware he was Johnson's VP, but didn't care, because I'm not a Libertarian and they were never going to win anyway.  Later, I was aware that he was running against Trump, and while I appreciated that anybody was going to try, it was also clear from the start that he was never going to come close to mattering in that election.

So it's entirely possible that if I put a ton of time into researching him, I might find some things I like.  But I don't agree at all with libertarianism in foreign relations, and don't think I generally support it domestically either.  

Admittedly, I have reservations about Bernieism as well.  I do think he's an honest guy, lots of integrity, who would do his best.  I just think he's naive and promises things he sincerely wants but could never deliver.

In the end, I considered the fact that we're talking about the 2020 election, which means that Trump and Trump supporters still exist.  Bernie's going to be more effective at countering them than Weld is.

[Timur]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

In the end, I considered the fact that we're talking about the 2020 election, which means that Trump and Trump supporters still exist.  Bernie's going to be more effective at countering them than Weld is.

Maybe. Maybe not.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/19/trump-bernie-sanders-1175611

[MrPotatoTed]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Once again, I think you have too much faith in the integrity of the American party nomination and electoral system. Even the election of Donald Trump you seem to just regard as an aberration. But I foresee more radical, volatile, unhinged candidates like him - running in both major party primaries and getting frightening amounts of traction - because the toxic, chaotic, irrational, viciously divided partisan culture and zeitgeist are not gone - and nor are the bigger issues facing your nation as crippling roots problems most major politicians cannot or will not tackle that Trump's Presidency - or him even electable, are just a symptom of, or just contained only within the ranks of, "Trumpists." Do not rest on your laurels!

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that part.  I won't be remotely surprised if the Republican party nominates Trump again in 2024.  Frankly, the only thing I think that would stop that would be Trump's death...and even in that scenario, there'd be another Trump (whether that's their actual name or not) who rises up in his place.  I expect the Republican Party to be the party of Trump for the next 50 years or more.   I have seen absolutely nothing that would suggest to me otherwise.

But where do the never-Trumpers GO?  Sure, they could form a third party, and part of me even hopes that they do.  But they'd be wasting their time and splitting their vote to ensure that they get nothing -- much like in 1912, the most recent example in history of one party truly fracturing in a meaningful way towards a third party candidate.  Of course, neither side of that party won -- instead, with the Republicans fractured, Democrat Woodrow Wilson easily coasted into a blowout victory.

More realistically, especially with Biden at the helm (potentially, health and elections permitting) for the next 8 years, I think the never-Trumpers slowly admit defeat in trying to reclaim the Republican party and instead join the moderate Democrats.  

This has two impacts:

1)  It keeps the country from going too far to the left, because the never-Trumpers are now voting in Democrat primaries and they're not going for Bernie or AOC.

2)  It weakens the Republican party so much so that, in a generation or two, they have to reform themselves again into something new if they intend to survive at all.  In this process, the Trumpers are slowly ousted (over the course of decades) in favor of something that is hopefully better.  

In this way, both parties will continue to grow, adapt, and change.  Because voters rejected by one party naturally gravitate to the other party and thus impact the other party's primaries, it's extraordinarily unlikely that both parties will be wildly far from center at the same time.  Balance.

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[Pringles]

While this is pure speculation on my part, there have been cycles of this throughout history. Where one man dominates a party until a large defeat, and a new mold takes its place.

Some examples:

Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats.

William Jennings Bryan and his populist takeover of the Democrats from 1896-1900, (wasn't nominated in 04), once again nominated in 1908. It took 3 defeats for Bryan to be out of action, at least in terms of an election. And after Woodrow Wilson, Republican dominance was restored until the depression.

If this is truly a cycle, and again, I am just speculating, but it's clear we've seen periods like this throughout our nations political history....

Trump or a Trumpist may get the nomination in 2024, and lose. And maybe, 2028 or 2032 is when we start seeing *some* normalcy come back. Slowly but surely it will come.

As it always has. 

[MrPotatoTed]

5 minutes ago, Pringles said:

While this is pure speculation on my part, there have been cycles of this throughout history. Where one man dominates a party until a large defeat, and a new mold takes its place.

Some examples:

Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats.

William Jennings Bryan and his populist takeover of the Democrats from 1896-1900, (wasn't nominated in 04), once again nominated in 1908. It took 3 defeats for Bryan to be out of action, at least in terms of an election. And after Woodrow Wilson, Republican dominance was restored until the depression.

If this is truly a cycle, and again, I am just speculating, but it's clear we've seen periods like this throughout our nations political history....

Trump or a Trumpist may get the nomination in 2024, and lose. And maybe, 2028 or 2032 is when we start seeing *some* normalcy come back. Slowly but surely it will come.

As it always has. 

You're a more optimistic man than I.  ;c)  In the age of social media and the 24 hour news cycle, our foes are not so easily defeated and forgotten.

[Pringles]

10 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

You're a more optimistic man than I.  ;c)  In the age of social media and the 24 hour news cycle, our foes are not so easily defeated and forgotten.

I did say some normalcy. But perhaps I am. I think we all know what it'll truly take for the cultists to fade... and that is simply time itself. On their leader, and themselves. If you know what I mean... 😕