Probable timeline of a Biden exit if elected?

[Kemp]

9 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

It's amazing how quickly parties can pivot. But they've got to take an electoral thrashing to do it.

Britain: Jeremy Corbin's Labour Party was a disaster. No sooner did they get crushed in an election than it pivoted back hard to the center.

USA: George McGovern's Democratic Party was a disaster. Lost 49 of 50 states. 4 years later Jimmy Carter won the election.

My take: the current coalitions that form the Democratic and Republican parties are inherently unstable.

Democrats: the party of POC, + highly educated/higher income whites

Republicans: the party of evangelical Christians, wealthy older whites, and poorly educated younger whites.

There really isn't a lot of unity of interest in these coalitions other than they hate the other side. That's typically not sustainable.

Under normal conditions, I would agree with you 100%. However, these are not normal conditions, because we now have a built-in base of Trump supporters that comprise about 30% of the entire electorate. Their allegiance is to Trump, the man. They have absolutely no allegiance to the Republican Party.

As I stated before, if Trump wins, that base obviously isn't leaving and they'll haul along with them most of the rest of Republican elected officials, who either agree with Trump or are too scared to cross him and his adherents.

If Trump loses, I do believe he will not sail into the sidelines, as all other Presidents have done. His ego and desire for money guarantees that he will remain incredibly visible to the public. He loves the adulation.

To me, his most logical step will be to create a media empire, something he should be great at because his followers would love to continue to follow him and would gladly pay to do so. For him to succeed with that, he would need to take Fox's followers. The best way to do that would be to start a new network and pry away their nighttime hosts. If they get paid, you know they'll want to go with him.

In either scenario, the mainstream Republican Party ceases to exist, at least for a while.

It might come back 4 years later, but only if 2022 is a Republican bloodbath. Even then, hardcore Trump supporters might be part of a new third party, revolving around Trump.

I just know that all of this is different than anything that has occurred in America since World War 2. The only thing that comes close was the McCarthy era, but this is far more embedded into what was the Republican Party. 

And let's not forget that the Internet didn't exist before. It has proved to be an invaluable tool for Trump. Disaffected people can now coalesce in social media. It has become incredibly easy to spread disinformation. Conspiracy theories now abound instead of being the sole property of the crazy uncle at the dinner table. Qanon could never have existed before and with Trump encouraging these crazy theories, they are here to stay.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Kemp

[SDS]

Political leaders are lagging indicators. Candidates are chosen by the people, the people aren’t lead by the candidate. 

As an example, look up the post-mortem plans after the Rs lost the 2012 election. In 2016, people chose the candidate that was the exact opposite of their moving forward goals agreed to in 2012. 

[SoTier]

15 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What's most peculiar about Joe Biden's ascent to the Democratic nomination is how little his historical and current views and positions align with ideals and objectives of the "core" constituents of the party in 2020.  Which at this point is a very left leaning agenda.  Very little Biden has stated and supported during the campaign provides any evidence that he personally supports many of these positions or plans on pursuing them if elected.  So either the potential Presidents positions needs to be modified or the expectations of the left need to move to center.  Otherwise something just isn't right here.  A cynical person might suspect the Party is running a Trojan Horse campaign with a moderate candidate to bamboozle the electorate into giving the far left power as being "honest" about their true intentions would likely lead to defeat.  

 

Note that Pelosi is pushing a 25th Amendment legislation designed to give the Congress powers that the 25th Amendment restricts to the Executive branch.  Powers to remove the President if the legislature deems him/her as "unfit" to hold office.  She herself has stated this is not intended to be used against Trump but in future situations where it might be necessary.  Such legislation removes the need for a change to be "voluntary".  So might it be necessary in the case of a President Biden?  

 

Which brings us to the topic of a potential Harris presidency.  I expect by the Summer of 2021 this will be reality.   

 

 

 

It's not peculiar at all.  Democrats flirted with nominating base candidates back in the 70s and 80s, and learned that success in winning the presidency stems from appealing to not only to Democrats but winning over independents and some disaffected Republicans.   Since 1992 -- 7 presidential elections -- the Democrats have won the popular vote in every single presidential election except 2004, although they lost the Electoral College in 2000 and 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kemp]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

Political leaders are lagging indicators. Candidates are chosen by the people, the people aren’t lead by the candidate. 

As an example, look up the post-mortem plans after the Rs lost the 2012 election. In 2016, people chose the candidate that was the exact opposite of their moving forward goals agreed to in 2012. 

 

That's true, however Trump isn't a cause unto himself. He tapped into the indicators that have been brewing since Reagan told us to not trust the government. I'm not blaming him, but that spawned the anti-government movement on the Right. It used to be the property of the Left in America.

 

Trump is the result of the indicators.

[SDS]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

That's true, however Trump isn't a cause unto himself. He tapped into the indicators that have been brewing since Reagan told us to not trust the government. I'm not blaming him, but that spawned the anti-government movement on the Right. It used to be the property of the Left in America.

 

Trump is the result of the indicators.

I think that’s what I said. 

[Kemp]

4 minutes ago, SDS said:

I think that’s what I said. 

 

Oh.

 

Never mind.

 

Sincerely,

 

Emily Littella

[All_Pro_Bills]

27 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

It's not peculiar at all.  Democrats flirted with nominating base candidates back in the 70s and 80s, and learned that success in winning the presidency stems from appealing to not only to Democrats but winning over independents and some disaffected Republicans.   Since 1992 -- 7 presidential elections -- the Democrats have won the popular vote in every single presidential election except 2004, although they lost the Electoral College in 2000 and 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

That's an interesting insight.  So simply "I might not mean it but I'm going to tell you want you want to hear so vote for me".  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...Thursday January 21, 2021 at high noon......right after his meds.......trusty Nurse Ukraine Jane at his side.............

Edited October 17, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[SoTier]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That's an interesting insight.  So simply "I might not mean it but I'm going to tell you want you want to hear so vote for me".  

 

No, it means that the Democratic Party's base is far closer to the center of the political spectrum than to the left wing, so the far left makes a lot of noise but doesn't control the party.  The Democratic base picked Biden through the primary process because he's centrist like they are.  He's too conservative in his views for most of the far left of the party to really like him, but unlike in 2016, they'll vote for him because he's better than Trump.   Only Republicans think Biden is some kind of hidden lefty, and that's because the Republican base has ceded the center to the Democrats and the just right of center to independents. 

[RochesterRob]

28 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

No, it means that the Democratic Party's base is far closer to the center of the political spectrum than to the left wing, so the far left makes a lot of noise but doesn't control the party.  The Democratic base picked Biden through the primary process because he's centrist like they are.  He's too conservative in his views for most of the far left of the party to really like him, but unlike in 2016, they'll vote for him because he's better than Trump.   Only Republicans think Biden is some kind of hidden lefty, and that's because the Republican base has ceded the center to the Democrats and the just right of center to independents. 

  You can holler conspiracy nut all you want at me but the 2020 Democratic Primary was 20 plus clowns and Biden.  Anybody who was serious about making a run was muted into silence such as Gabbard at the debates.  Trump was the white elephant (no pun intended) that none of the GOP elders wanted at all in the room.  Big difference.

[Kemp]

13 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  You can holler conspiracy nut all you want at me but the 2020 Democratic Primary was 20 plus clowns and Biden.  Anybody who was serious about making a run was muted into silence such as Gabbard at the debates.  Trump was the white elephant (no pun intended) that none of the GOP elders wanted at all in the room.  Big difference.

 

Breaking news.

 

A Trump supporter was rooting for a friend of the Russians on both tickets.

 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-25/tulsi-gabbard-russian-asset-republican

[RochesterRob]

33 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Breaking news.

 

A Trump supporter was rooting for a friend of the Russians on both tickets.

 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-25/tulsi-gabbard-russian-asset-republican

  You're quite the comedian.  You say breaking news when the tag has the word opinion in it.

[Kemp]

4 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  You're quite the comedian.  You say breaking news when the tag has the word opinion in it.

 

Breaking news was a joke. It's an old story. Gabbard is the only Dem I can remember who went onto Hannity to discuss the investigation.

 

Trump supporters love her. I wonder why.

 

Forgot to ask you if you looked up what censorship means, yet, since you have demonstrated on 2 separate occasions that you didn't. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Kemp

[RochesterRob]

Just now, Kemp said:

 

Breaking news was a joke. It's an old story. Gabbard is the only Dem I can remember who went onto Hannity to discuss the investigation.

 

Trump supporters love her. I wonder why.

  Maybe despite the idealogical differences we can appreciate that she sincerely believes in what she says.  Unlike Hillary who shifts like the wind on certain topics.

[Kemp]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Maybe despite the idealogical differences we can appreciate that she sincerely believes in what she says.  Unlike Hillary who shifts like the wind on certain topics.

 

I get it, now. You prefer people like Trump, who maintain a consistency in their statements. 

 

That's funny stuff.

 

So, where is that health plan he promised 4 years ago or that beautiful infrastructure plan he promised.

 

He's the only politician I've seen switch positions within one day.

 

Next, you'll tell me that Trump is anti-abortion despite his comments to the contrary or that he was against going into Iraq, even though he's on tape saying otherwise. Yeah, Trump's a religious man, too. Right?

 

To list more examples of this would take too long.

[The Frankish Reich]

On 10/17/2020 at 6:25 AM, SDS said:

Political leaders are lagging indicators. Candidates are chosen by the people, the people aren’t lead by the candidate. 

As an example, look up the post-mortem plans after the Rs lost the 2012 election. In 2016, people chose the candidate that was the exact opposite of their moving forward goals agreed to in 2012. 

 

On 10/17/2020 at 6:30 AM, Kemp said:

 

That's true, however Trump isn't a cause unto himself. He tapped into the indicators that have been brewing since Reagan told us to not trust the government. I'm not blaming him, but that spawned the anti-government movement on the Right. It used to be the property of the Left in America.

 

Trump is the result of the indicators.

Both very good points (or maybe the same point expressed in different ways). See, an intelligent conversation can break out here ...

Your point: the anti-government thread in American politics -- a strong one -- has been co-opted by the Republican Party after having been the province of the left since the late 1960s.  My addition to that point: as with the Democratic Party in the early 1970s, that is sufficient to create an energetic minority party, but not enough to build a ruling coalition. Ever since Reagan the Republicans have depended on that small government (now transmuted into anti-government) energy in combination with support of the party's traditional base: wealthy (mostly) whites concerned with low taxes and other pocketbook issues. We are now seeing that part of the base move away in significant numbers. There's an inherent contradiction here: the very language and focus of the anti-government Trump supporters offends the wealthy highly educated part of the base, which now votes against its pure economic interest for that reason.

The Democrats will face the same issue soon - for how long can you maintain a coalition based on wealthy educated voters voting against their economic interest? But the Trump era has delayed that particular reckoning.

My punditry skills took a big hit c. 2012, when I thought America was primed for a libertarian moment in which the Republicans would find the best way to compete against Obama would be to tack strongly in the limited government/expanded personal freedom direction. Needless to say that didn't happen. Maybe I wasn't wrong, I was just too early ...

 

[spartacus]

On 10/17/2020 at 9:01 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

That's an interesting insight.  So simply "I might not mean it but I'm going to tell you want you want to hear so vote for me".  

it's worked for the black vote since at least LBJ

[716er]

On 10/11/2020 at 11:41 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

Under easy.

 

President Harris will be sworn in by April.

 

 

 

 

 

Post of the year - way to go @B-Man

On 10/11/2020 at 11:47 AM, CarpetCrawler said:

I figure it becomes an "issue" by Memorial Day and it's done by the 4th of July.

 

Almost

 

On 10/11/2020 at 10:32 PM, mead107 said:

2 months top.  He be out. 

 

He be in.

 

On 10/12/2020 at 11:46 AM, Dragoon said:

Probably before April. 

 

Prob not

 

On 10/15/2020 at 8:34 AM, Reality Check said:

Biden will not win anyways. If he makes it to next Christmas with a pulse, I would be very surprised. Hunter has a bright political future though. He is young, has experience in international business, and his integrity is admirable.

 

He won

 

On 10/16/2020 at 3:55 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

 

Note that Pelosi is pushing a 25th Amendment legislation designed to give the Congress powers that the 25th Amendment restricts to the Executive branch.  Powers to remove the President if the legislature deems him/her as "unfit" to hold office.  She herself has stated this is not intended to be used against Trump but in future situations where it might be necessary.  Such legislation removes the need for a change to be "voluntary".  So might it be necessary in the case of a President Biden?  

 

Which brings us to the topic of a potential Harris presidency.  I expect by the Summer of 2021 this will be reality.   

 

 

 

#QANON is over there 

 

On 10/17/2020 at 9:56 AM, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...Thursday January 21, 2021 at high noon......right after his meds.......trusty Nurse Ukraine Jane at his side.............

 

Nurse Ukraine Jane must have missed work that day.

[716er]

On 10/12/2020 at 8:53 AM, SoTier said:

 

I think this thread is priceless: all these die-hard Righties already conceding their hero Covid Donnie is going down on November 3, so they have to distract themselves from their defeatism.  

It is priceless!

[Buftex]

2 minutes ago, 716er said:

It is priceless!

I am amazed, and amused, that so many Trump fans can't fathom how he lost the election.  They just don't get how many people hate him, and how much.  The cult... they think pointing out Biden's issues is somehow "scoring points".  What they fail to realize, people who voted for Biden don't hold him up as a messiah.  For most of us, he wasn't our first choice...but for the good of the country we voted for him.  There are still more patriots, than sociopaths in the electorate.