Trump vs Beto

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The actual real issue for him is that he's not actually charismatic. He's nowhere near Bill Clinton in that department, not even close.

Who is? (Among Dems?)

Everyone has their own style of charisma, that’s what makes it charisma. 

cha·ris·ma

/kəˈrizmə/

noun

1. 1. 

   compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.

    

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Fuck off troll

[JBJ 3647]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Since when is Beto a centrist? 

He's an actual liberal, which puts him left of centrist and right of progressive.

He's not winning enough liberals in the Dem party to carry him against a Warren type, and he's fucked if a blue dog flanks him.

Kamala Harris has the same problem, but I think she's more apt to draw away from a progressive candidate especially if it's someone like Sanders.  But also less able to shore up against a blue dog candidate.

 

They'd both be great general election candidates though.

[Goredho 17302]

Uh, the need to get rid of Trump no matter what notwithstanding, shouldn’t Beto have a few more stepping stones of experience before he is President of the US?  One thing I take away from the Trump presidency is that as much as politicians get rightfully criticized, a President with no major political experience is worse.  It’s why I would have a hard time getting on an Oprah bandwagon.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

2 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

If Beto had shown he could carry Texas as a Democrat he'd be a lock - that's game, set, and match. But that didn't happen, even against a loathsome toad, so I don't know what he brings to the table in terms of a national ticket; not sure he has the experience to make the sale.

So 50-49 would be "a lock" but 48-51 changes the discussion entirely?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

2 hours ago, CHEF DIESEL said:

Beto would not even carry Texas if running against Trump

No Dem currently would, so it’s irrelevant. I would normally agree that you don’t add somebody on the ticket if they can’t carry their own state (just ask Al Gore in 2000).  

But Trump basically lost 46 electoral votes last night, and has no path to really make those up between now and 2020.  

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

No Dem currently would, so it’s irrelevant. I would normally agree that you don’t add somebody on the ticket if they can’t carry their own state (just ask Al Gore in 2000).  

But Trump basically lost 46 electoral votes last night, and has no path to really make those up between now and 2020.  

how did he lose 46 EVs?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

18 minutes ago, Goredho said:

 shouldn’t Beto have a few more stepping stones of experience before he is President of the US?  One thing I take away from the Trump presidency is that as much as politicians get rightfully criticized, a President with no major political experience is worse.  It’s why I would have a hard time getting on an Oprah bandwagon.

Trump isn’t really a good barometer for determining the relationship between experience and good governance on the presidential level.

A better barometer would be Obama and he did okay, not great but his inexperience certainly showed.

And no amount of experience can prepare a person for the weight of the presidency. 

[Js1 85056]

27 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Uh, the need to get rid of Trump no matter what notwithstanding, shouldn’t Beto have a few more stepping stones of experience before he is President of the US?  One thing I take away from the Trump presidency is that as much as politicians get rightfully criticized, a President with no major political experience is worse.  It’s why I would have a hard time getting on an Oprah bandwagon.

Also matters who you surround yourself with.  I think Obama benefitted greatly from Rahm Emmanuel.  I think Trump fucked up early with Reince Preibus.

[Huckleberry 32685]

3 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

This will be good.  Obama got obliterated much worse than this his 1st term but won even bigger the 2nd time.  

In what world is 332-206 bigger than 365-173? Obama got 33 fewer electoral votes in his second election.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Js1 85056]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

In what world is 332-206 bigger than 365-173?

Hurrr durrr liberal common core math.

[washparkhorn 9931]

45 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Call me a classist but the last thing we need is another NY billionaire as president.

I’ll hear Bloomberg and Steyer out but they’ve already got a strike against them, at least with me.

Amen.

Bloomberg is a meddler. "People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right."

Steyer is like Trump. No thanks. His hedge fund under his leadership invested in the private prison industry. That alone should disqualify him. 

[Mole 4318]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

 

The actual real issue for him is that he's not actually charismatic. He's nowhere near Bill Clinton in that department, not even close.

Agreed. He’s refreshing and compelling but he isn’t charismatic. He comes across as a genuine, normal person. 

[RayDog 682]

1 minute ago, Mole said:

Agreed. He’s refreshing and compelling but he isn’t charismatic. He comes across as a genuine, normal person. 

Did you actually read the definition posted above? He may not be everyone's ideal of charismatic, but he is to a lot of people.

[Spankytoes 1735]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

Dumb take. 

Beto came within 2 points of beating a Republican senator in Texas.  Name any other Democrat that comes within 2 points of a Republican senator.

Dumb comparison.

Beto won Dallas, El Paso, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, the RGV and the surrounding areas. He lost pretty much the rest of the State. As we know, the Electoral College doesn't work like that. There's a lot of flyover country that Beto has little shot to burrow into. The same places where Hillary, a noted candidate rather than the latest trend du jour, couldn't make headway in. Trump would cream him where it counts. Especially since 2020 is a long ass time away, hence my Wendy Davis comparison. 

[Mole 4318]

4 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Did you actually read the definition posted above? He may not be everyone's ideal of charismatic, but he is to a lot of people.

Fair enough, but I think the comparisons to Clinton or Obama are really premature. He’s not in their league yet. Of course they both had to grow into that as well.

He’s compelling in his element, grinding out town halls and having normal human conversations, but he hasn’t figured out the big stage or debates yet.

[RayDog 682]

6 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Dumb comparison.

Beto won Dallas, El Paso, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, the RGV and the surrounding areas. He lost pretty much the rest of the State. As we know, the Electoral College doesn't work like that. There's a lot of flyover country that Beto has little shot to burrow into. The same places where Hillary, a noted candidate rather than the latest trend du jour, couldn't make headway in. Trump would cream him where it counts. Especially since 2020 is a long ass time away, hence my Wendy Davis comparison. 

What's your point?

Trump won't win PA, WI, and MI again, so whoever gets the Democratic nomination will be the president in 2021. It could be Beto.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

43 minutes ago, NowThis said:

how did he lose 46 EVs?

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  He won those three in 2016 by under 90,000 votes combined, but last night they rejected the R’s, including several he personally campaigned for, including a high-profile US Senate race. 

39 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

This will be good to see this response.  Obama got obliterated much worse than this his 1st term but won even bigger the 2nd time.  So did Clinton.

Obama got 365 EVs in 2008 and 332 in 2012.  How is that winning bigger?

It will be good to see your response. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[Bat Guano 359]

56 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So 50-49 would be "a lock" but 48-51 changes the discussion entirely?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

He lost. To Ted fucking Cruz.

Don't make me bring up aggy.

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

Beto should not be a VP candidate. He’d be more popular than the actual Dem presidential candidate, so let’s scratch that idea.

i actually think Beto could beat Trump in Texas. Our state doesn’t worship Trump. That, plus Cruz’s unlikability, plus Beto’s strong campaign made this such a tight race. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

3 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

He lost. To Ted fucking Cruz.

Don't make me bring up aggy.

Ted Cruz throttled Donald Trump in Texas.  I don't know why the weasel is this popular, but he is.

[Jack 51]

Jesus..  just stop with this BETO shit.  He's not going to be able to challenge Trump.  Cruz was vulnerable as fuck and Republicans were abstaining for voting for him.  Even then, he lost by around ~250k votes.  That wasn't close considering how energized the Dem base was.  They poured millions into making him a rock star and lost.  No lessons learned from 2016.

Beto failed for the same reasons I said before the election.  He's keeping his track record too far left.  Obama started as a centrist and moved left after he was elected. 

I get really sick of the "at least he has principles" shtick because it's 100% bullshit.  He told his base what they wanted to hear just like every other politician has for hundreds of years in this country.  They are all fucking liars.  You can go back and look at speeches from 6-10 years ago and see the same senator, congressman and/or governor completely flipping their stances on all the hot topic issues.  The only reason why no one can claim he hasn't flipped flopped yet is because he hasn't been in politics long enough.  When the party message shifts again, you'll see all these clowns fall in line and change their opinion too. It's pathetic the way people are propping these opinion whores up. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Are you aware the complete fraud Abraham Lincoln lost a Senate race just before being elected president?

[David Dennison 18605]

4 minutes ago, Jack said:

Jesus..  just stop with this BETO shit.  He's not going to be able to challenge Trump.  Cruz was vulnerable as fuck and Republicans were abstaining for voting for him.  Even then, he lost by around ~250k votes.  That wasn't close considering how energized the Dem base was.  They poured millions into making him a rock star and lost.  No lessons learned from 2016.

Beto failed for the same reasons I said before the election.  He's keeping his track record too far left.  Obama started as a centrist and moved left after he was elected. 

I get really sick of the "at least he has principles" shtick because it's 100% bullshit.  He told his base what they wanted to hear just like every other politician has for hundreds of years in this country.  They are all fucking liars.  You can go back and look at speeches from 6-10 years ago and see the same senator, congressman and/or governor completely flipping their stances on all the hot topic issues.  The only reason why no one can claim he hasn't flipped flopped yet is because he hasn't been in politics long enough.  When the party message shifts again, you'll see all these clowns fall in line and change their opinion too. It's pathetic the way people are propping these opinion whores up. 

The Democrats learned a ton of lessons from 2016.

That's one reason why Donald Trump and his party lost so badly last night.

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

No, it won't be him, even though he has an Obama like following (which is good). 

I don't get the sense that he wants to. 

Why do you think that?

If there was one thing that annoyed me about a lot of Beto supporters it was the belief that’s he’s somehow better and/or different than the basic politician.  He’s your standard politician. He’s interested in achieving power and status. You’re crazy if you think he’s not interested in something like the Presidency.  

Why do you think he did so much national TV?  Specifically the shows he did. Do you think it helped him get any closer to winning? I don’t. He knew he had almost no chance from the beginning. That was all about upping his profile nationally and it worked. Good for him. 

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, GRHorn said:

Why do you think that?

If there was one thing that annoyed me about a lot of Beto supporters it was the belief that’s he’s somehow better and/or different than the basic politician.  He’s your standard politician. He’s interested in achieving power and status. You’re crazy if you think he’s not interested in something like the Presidency.  

Why do you think he did so much national TV?  Specifically the shows he did. Do you think it helped him get any closer to winning? I don’t. He knew he had almost no chance from the beginning. That was all about upping his profile nationally and it worked. Good for him. 

It got him much closer to winning.

[Jack 51]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democrats learned a ton of lessons from 2016.

That's one reason why Donald Trump and his party lost so badly last night.

Not even the most left leaning news source is claiming such a thing.  Last night was a major disappointment because the maps were pretty much identical to the 2016 election and a vast majority of the seats up for election this time were Republicans.  Next time, it's the Dems that have seats at risk and areas Trump won in 2016.  Senate might go to 60 in 2020.  Dems need to get their shit together and fast.

[Hank Scorpio 17712]

The reason Beto lost is because he didn't read my posts on a message board telling him what to do. What a fucking idiot. 

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, Jack said:

Not even the most left leaning news source is claiming such a thing.  Last night was a major disappointment because the maps were pretty much identical to the 2016 election and a vast majority of the seats up for election this time were Republicans.  Next time, it's the Dems that have seats at risk and areas Trump won in 2016.  Senate might go to 60 in 2020.  Dems need to get their shit together and fast.

The Democrats control the House of Representatives.

Last night was terrible for Donald Trump.

[Js1 85056]

 2020 is Dem 12, GOP 21 seats. Dems have 1 scary seat (Alabama).  GOP has at least 2 (Colorado and Maine) and also AZ Special, NC, GA, Iowa.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

6 minutes ago, Jack said:

Not even the most left leaning news source is claiming such a thing.  Last night was a major disappointment because the maps were pretty much identical to the 2016 election and a vast majority of the seats up for election this time were Republicans.  Next time, it's the Dems that have seats at risk and areas Trump won in 2016.  Senate might go to 60 in 2020.  Dems need to get their shit together and fast.

Trump lost bigly in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin last night.   Multiple candidates that he personally campaigned for lost.

He won those states by less than 90,000 votes combined in. 2016, and he cannot win in 2020 without those states.  He cannot make those EVs up elsewhere, especially since last night saw other states he won come into potential play for the Dems.  

And Trump losing the House means they get to run a train on he and his family, and they get to make Republican Senators either completely own Trump’s bullshittery, or roll the dice and try and save their careers by siding against Trump.  

Edited November 7, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[Huckleberry 32685]

2 minutes ago, Jack said:

Not even the most left leaning news source is claiming such a thing.  Last night was a major disappointment because the maps were pretty much identical to the 2016 election and a vast majority of the seats up for election this time were Republicans.  Next time, it's the Dems that have seats at risk and areas Trump won in 2016.  Senate might go to 60 in 2020.  Dems need to get their shit together and fast.

Huh? Initial forecast was for D+35 in the House. Current forecast is D+36.

In the Senate there were 26 D seats up for reelection (including the two "independents") and 9 R seats. In 2020 that will be 11 D seats and 21 R seats.

Based on specific areas it's not exactly a great map for Democrats in 2020 but it's certainly not any worse than this year's.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Huh? Initial forecast was for D+35 in the House. Current forecast is D+36.

In the Senate there were 26 D seats up for reelection (including the two "independents") and 9 R seats. In 2020 that will be 11 D seats and 21 R seats.

Based on specific areas it's not exactly a great map for Democrats in 2020 but it's certainly not any worse than this year's.

They are trying to put lipstick on a pig. It's amusing.

[texastough 1128]

Posted in the Trump thread and I was sent over here. I've been thinking about an ideal democratic candidate. I think its someone from the military with a strong personality that can effectively call out Trump's bullshit. Like a McRaven. Someone who's integrity and dignity starkly contrast to Trump's childish/evil antics. The military angle & Washington outsider-ness should bring back at least some of the rednecks from the edge of the abyss. 

If that person does not exist, maybe there's hope for Hickenlooper and the idea of an R as a running mate.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

You didn't get the memo.  The military is part of the Deep State.

[Newy25 7638]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Plug in Beto/Gillum to run on/message with Elizabeth Warren's anti-corruption platform (which resonates with literally everyone except the corrupt corporate class). 

There's your presidency. 

 

Elizabeth's Warren message resonates with just about no one outside of the extreme left. If Democrats take the Trump troll bait and go far to the left, you better be banking on a recession. Hinkenlooper was an absolute outstanding governor here in Colorado. I realize it's a pipe dream that he would make it through the Democratic primary (assuming its not going to be fixed this time) but he would absolutely get my vote. 

As a conservative that hates Trump I am pulling for the Democrats to not take the bait and go far left and run a racial identity platform. 

[Huckleberry 32685]

I apologize to all the Democrats on this forum that I thought were being silly when they kept complaining about how conservatives always suggest that Democrats should run a Republican if they want to win. I am sorry for doubting you.

[Newy25 7638]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I apologize to all the Democrats on this forum that I thought were being silly when they kept complaining about how conservatives always suggest that Democrats should run a Republican if they want to win. I am sorry for doubting you.

Party affiliations are kind of fuzzy these days. Trump was a life long democrat after all. 

[RayDog 682]

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 2020 is Dem 12, GOP 21 seats. Dems have 1 scary seat (Alabama).  GOP has at least 2 (Colorado and Maine) and also AZ Special, NC, GA, Iowa.

After last night I would ad Kansas to that list, and with the proper candidate maybe Florida.

[Js1 85056]

1 minute ago, RayDog said:

After last night I would ad Kansas to that list, and with the proper candidate maybe Florida.

FL is not up in 2020

[RayDog 682]

6 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

Elizabeth's Warren message resonates with just about no one outside of the extreme left. If Democrats take the Trump troll bait and go far to the left, you better be banking on a recession. Hinkenlooper was an absolute outstanding governor here in Colorado. I realize it's a pipe dream that he would make it through the Democratic primary (assuming its not going to be fixed this time) but he would absolutely get my vote. 

As a conservative that hates Trump I am pulling for the Democrats to not take the bait and go far left and run a racial identity platform. 

The left leaning base won't come out for a Republican-lite Democrat. The Republicans win by exciting their base. Democrats need to do the same.

[RayDog 682]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

FL is not up in 2020

Right, i was thinking ahead.

[Tom 2959]

1 hour ago, Spankytoes said:

Dumb comparison.

Beto won Dallas, El Paso, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, the RGV and the surrounding areas. He lost pretty much the rest of the State. As we know, the Electoral College doesn't work like that. There's a lot of flyover country that Beto has little shot to burrow into. The same places where Hillary, a noted candidate rather than the latest trend du jour, couldn't make headway in. Trump would cream him where it counts. Especially since 2020 is a long ass time away, hence my Wendy Davis comparison. 

 

Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton won with rural Texans either, so I'm still not sure what your point is.  A Democrat shouldn't depend on Texas to win the presidency.  Saying Beto is a bad candidate because he didn't win Texas is setting an impossible standard that practically no Democrat can meet. 

He came closer than anyone in decades while openly being to the left of the average Democrat.  He's already admired nationally.  I personally don't think he's experienced enough, but that doesn't seem to stop people from becoming president these days.

[Newy25 7638]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I apologize to all the Democrats on this forum that I thought were being silly when they kept complaining about how conservatives always suggest that Democrats should run a Republican if they want to win. I am sorry for doubting you.

If you just wanted to extend last night's election results into a strategy for 2020,  running Hinkenlooper/Kasich as an example would really be the worst case scenario for Trump. 

Suburban white voters voted in style against Republicans and those votes are easily up for grabs. Uneducated white votes are not going to vote anywhere but Trump and an Elizabeth Warren/Beto style campaign does not get those suburban voters on your side. Nor does it add any states to you in the electoral map. 

[Huckleberry 32685]

My side isn't going to win, dude. The Libertarians have a habit of nominating not actually libertarian candidates who also happen to suck in general.

 

2020 will be a referendum on Trump if nothing major changes. The best bet for Democrats is to feed the beast that was slightly awakened yesterday. We just saw Presidential turnout for a midterm. Both sides will be rabid. The GOP will paint the Democrat candidate as an anti-Trump socialist devil no matter who it is.

 

You don't win that kind of election by appealing to the middle. That's exactly how you lose. You need to get your base just as rabid as the other side's base and try to give the middle slightly fewer bad reasons to vote against you.

 

 

[Js1 85056]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

2020 will be a referendum on Trump if nothing major changes. The best bet for Democrats is to feed the best that was slightly awakened yesterday. We just saw Presidential turnout for a midterm. Both sides will be rabid. The GOP will paint the Democrat candidate as an anti-Trump socialist devil no matter who it is.

You don't win that kind of election by appealing to the middle. That's exactly how you lose. You need to get your base just as rabid as the other side's base and try to give the middle slightly fewer bad reasons to vote against you.

A proud female Democrat is going to win.  Big-time.

Women have to clean up this mess.  Especially women on the left.

[Hank Scorpio 17712]

It's pretty simple if you just think about it. The Democrats should run an old socialist Jew in 2020. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

Beto running would have nothing to do with winning Texas. Sure the Dems are not opposed to it but Beto shows that he can raise money and people like his positive message. Beto needs to learn more about campaigning within a larger strategy and he can definitely improve on better short explanations but then again most Dems struggle with the last point. 

[JBJ 3647]

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You don't win that kind of election by appealing to the middle. That's exactly how you lose. You need to get your base just as rabid as the other side's base and try to give the middle slightly fewer bad reasons to vote against you.

It's a bit of both.  The strategy should probably depend on the candidate and landscape, and not vice-versa.

15M swing voters in 2016 = 6% of 250M eligible voters.  That'd be a larger than normal turnout bump, but that is also a larger than normal number of swing voters.

 

Beto seems like the candidate who should go after swing votes, Warren doesn't.

Edited November 7, 2018 by JBJ

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

Elizabeth's Warren message resonates with just about no one outside of the extreme left.

What about Elizabeth Warren’s message doesn’t resonate?