Talk Elections

I get why you want to support Trump as even though I have been a Never Trumper from day 1, there have been many times I have considered leaving that Never Trump Train .

Yes I like many of his policies such as : Taxes  , Regulations, his economic policy in general, China, Judges and despise the direction the Democratic Party is going. So if I was just voting on policy, yes I would vote for Trump in 2020. So despite that I believe conservatives should not vote for Trump in 2020 and these are the reasons

1. His behavior has utterly disgraced the office of President of the United States in every way possible and now to add insult to injury over the past few months he has openly made it clear he believes he is above the law.

If you are a principled conservative that alone should disqualify them alone from getting your vote as that violates every basic conservative principle possible. Now if this isnt enough (which it should be) here is the political reason why you shouldnt support Trump in 2020


2. Imagine 2022 and 2024 in a Trump reelection

2022 and 2024 are very likely going to be bloodbaths for the GOP during Trump's 2nd term as there very likely will be a recession in that time period , Trump fatigue will be at all time levels. So if you are scared of a Democratic Presidency now imagine after 2024 when Dems win the Presidency in a 2008 style victory with massive majorities in Congress. That means with those majorities single-payer, massive tax hikes , amnesty etc will pass easily as unlike 2009-10 there are basically no blue dogs left and history has showsn when new programs are created its almost impossible to repeal them. Right now yes a Dem will win will move the nation to the left but they wont have the majoirty to pass the  far left agenda .

Oh and add Texas could be lost for the GOP in 2024 after 8 years of Trump which will throw the party wilderness for many years so tell me what has Trump done that will be worth all this. Now I am sure you would all agree that Bush winning a 2nd term in 2004 wasnt worth it

1. Socialism is worse. Even Biden supports a public option, which would be another disastrous entitlement program, bankrupt many insurers and hospitals, and throw tons of people off their healthcare plans (healthcare becomes less of a perk when it can also be gotten free, so businesses would stop offering it). Plus, it'd put too many lives into the hands of government and expand the role of government too much. People fail to talk about this, but even Biden would raise taxes by a trillion + more than Clinton would have, and I didn't vote for her either.

2. Yes, and this is all a major worry to me. But he's the only credible choice for my values, so I'm sticking with him. Better dead than red isn't just a slogan.

3. It was worth it. Bush 04 was a good thing - it was what happened after that wasn't.

Largely agree. Barring a Bloomberg nomination and Presidency, I do think a Biden win in 2020 followed by a DeSantis win in 2024 is the best win for Conservatism overall. The risks of Trump 2020 into AOC 2024 are near-apocalyptic.

And this is why I will refuse to vote for Biden if he is the nominee.

Biden doesnt need Texas to win the General anyway. Just taking MI, PA , WI or AZ will do the job

That is not anywhere close to the point I was making. A Biden victory would be a Pyrrhic victory at best for Democrats and would almost definitely result in Republican blowouts in 2022 and 2024 with nothing to show for it other than getting Trump out of office.

A re-elected Trump is preferable to a useless one-term Biden presidency. The Supreme Court is already f—ked anyway, so there’s not much risk there

1. How will they get socialist agenda passed with 50-52 senators (assuming they take majoirty) , as there are more than 3 Dems that oppose repealing filibuster.

2. Sacrificing Long Term for Short Term is not worth it

3. How can you say that now, its not like Bush got anything done in term 2 anyway and left the GOP in shambles and may have begun the process of the total destruction of Neo-Liberalism. If Kerry won in 2004 he would have had to work with a GOP congress , then in 2008 either Romney or McCain sweep in with huge majoirties.

I know, Im just saying Biden doesnt really need your vote to win . If you lived in one of those 4 states well then you would risk Trump getting in again

1. EOs and the big regulatory state

2. Until the short term becomes the long term maybe. But it's incredibly hard to repeal an entitlement program - see Obamacare - and the odds are that if a public option was passed, we'd be stuck with it - forever.

I know. If Biden is the nominee, I can only hope that he loses but keeps it close enough in the right places for Democrats to maintain their margin in the House and force both Georgia Senate seats to runoffs. A Collins retirement would also be a wonderful development.

1. Which can basically be reversed with a stroke of a Pen like Trump has done and Obama did to much of Bush's EO's. Same with regulations

2. Public Option> Single Payer and if Trump wins in 2020 , then dems will very likely have majorities to pass single payer in 2025. Its not a great choice but Trump's and the GOP massive failure on healthcare in 2017 is the reason why that is the remaining choice . Also with a small majority I think really the only things will pass on healthcare: are the restoration of Obamacare Mandate, price controls for prescription drugs, and expansion of Medicaid.

On taxes no way such a large tax increase passes with that small majority other than just raising corporate tax from 20%-28% which would still be lower than the Pre 2017 rates.

Literally sums up everything wrong with you guys. So “socialism”  and “entitlement” is a fundamental threat to democracy but Trump undermining the rule of law along with checks and balances isn’t? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Practically ever other western democracy from Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and the Scandinavias elect socialists into power all the time along with having a bigger nanny state then us and they are mostly healthy democracies. The idea that mainstream liberal positions on healthcare and welfare you think is more dangerous than Trump’s conduct shows how off the spectrum your ideological movement has gone

Conceding the battles of today so we can win the battles of tomorrow is stupid, because it'll just make them stronger and more aggressive for them. Plus, we can't truly ever predict the future, even if we can place odds on it. Who knows how the next few years will turn out? Who would have predicted in 2012 that Donald Trump would be President today?

No but I would have Predicted a Republican Trifecta after 2016

It's a much bigger one, and yes. As Alex Tocqueville once said, America will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe us with our own money. And besides, the fact that I wouldn't want Trump to babysit my family won't ever justify robbing those who work hard to pay for the takers and gimmes of this world.

Again that’s ridiculous. The rest of the Western world has completely debunked your insane notions. Also that last sentence is just a good reminder of what Scrounges your party 

People only tend to care about a candidate's demeanor when they don't like said candidate. Otherwise, it's just a "distraction." And I really don't think most partisan voters are interested in conceding one election to do better in the next. There were Democrats saying that it was a good thing that 2014 was so bad for Democrats, since it meant 2016 had to be better for them. And then every two years since then, at least someone has talked about conceding the current election in order to do better in the next cycle. It's not a good strategy.

And Republicans shouldn't assume that a Democratic President means a Republican wave in 2022 similar to 2010. Sure, it might happen, but it could end up only being a somewhat good year for Republicans. Either way, the 2022 Senate map isn't exactly great for Republicans, since the best they could hope for would be R+1 or maybe R+2, so if Democrats have the Senate, it's not even a given that they can take it back that year. While Democrats could take the Senate in 2022 with Trump as President, it's not going to be a slam dunk if they only have 46-47 seats, instead of 48-49.

Literally Bernie.

You're just making stuff up about Biden here.  Biden is not proposing to raise taxes by even as much as Clinton was, much less 1 trillion more than Clinton.  Meanwhile, a public option is not an entitlement, you are confusing it with single payer when they are two extremely different things.  People have to pay for the public option.

Is this true? That's messed up, and goes to show how unserious Biden is about tackling inequality and the deep social problems the US faces.

But Biden is “electable” you see, and that’s all that matters is that we beat Trump 🙄

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-tax-plan-would-raise-3-2-trillion-by-targeting-the-rich-amazon-and-netflix

Versus

https://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes

$2.2 trillion more.

It's time to reduce the size of government, not expand by trillions of dollars. Even the Democratic "moderates" are no moderates at all.

Ah, the difference here is that we're not taking the 2017 tax cuts into account.

I guess the more accurate thing to say is that Biden's proposed tax rates are lower than those that Clinton proposed.  But they would raise more revenue, relative to the current position, because since Clinton's proposals the taxes have been substantially cut.

For example (with made up numbers), if a rate was 20% under Obama and Clinton wanted to raise it to 30%, that's a 10% increase.  Then if Biden wanted it to be 27%, but Trump cut it to 15%, that's a 12% increase.  But Biden's 27% is less than Clinton's 30%.

Dude, winning the presidency is basically always a kind of pyrrhic victory, look at 2016 ; it was a big win for republicans on the short term but look at what was the cost of this win, we got trounced in 2018 when we lost 41 seats in the House and our dream of a 60 seats Senate majority never happened   

Yea, it's really ridiculous to see some journalists calling people like Conor Lamb or Elissa Slotkin ''moderate'', these people are to the left of Obama and should be called social-democrat, not ''moderate''

If Kasich or even Marco were President, the Republicans would still have control of the House today.

Does he support worker control of the means of production?

Yeah, but Kasich would have been a horrible president, over the last 5 years he has gone from a center right republican to a total RINO (vetoed the Heartbeat bill, endorsed gun control measures, backed tax increases on fracking, became a pro-immigration hack, wants the USA to move back inside the Paris agreement)

If I knew for certain that DeSantis or Haley would get the nomination in 2024, it wouldn't bother me if Trump lost, particularly to a far leftist who'll have trouble with moderate voters and getting their agenda through.  A hawkish, soft on China neoliberal like Biden scares me much more.

I was a libertarian from 2012-2016, I voted for Johnson twice and supported Rand in the primaries (in hindsight, Rand was a weaker GE candidate than I thought, and GJ is a loser).  

My political views have evolved since then. I support Trump's policy agenda (to an extent one exists) by and large because it addresses most of the weaknesses of the GOP establishment agenda from 2000-2015:

-Anti interventionist, a direct rebuke to the neocons that infests both parties.
-Tough on China.  To assume that China isn't our greatest geopolitical adversary is to be childishly naive.
-Secure the border.  The dreamers (who haven't committed a crime) should be allowed to stay.


Obviously, he hasn't been 100% successful, and perhaps not even 50% successful.  Some of this is on him, either shooting himself in his foot, bad political instincts or not expanding his coalition.  But his administration was kneecapped before it even began (discredited Steele dossier) and by saboteurs within his own party who would rather screw their own constituents if it meant "owning Trump" *Cough McCain*.

The GOP needs to go in a different direction than it was pre-2016 to remain a viable national party, one of economic populism and non-interventionalism (and I would prefer social moderation).  I can't count how many times the GOP clutched defeat from the jaws of victory during the Obama admin, and the GOP's failures (among smaller factors) are what allowed Trump's insurgent campaign to succeed in the first place.  

Thus, I fear Trump losing means the party going into the hands of people like Bill Kristol and George Conway.  The free market absolutists, neocon, bible thumpers have driven the party into the ground, and the last thing they need is to get back into power.

More or less, yeah
https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/reward-work-act-2019

I would make 2 points.

1. Politics and winning elections is the one area in which thinking long term never makes sense, party bases and voting behaviours by group change and realign so rapidly that absorbing a loss today for a potential gain tomorrow is never a good idea, in politics short termism makes sense, you try and win every election you can and don't worry about the negative consequences of victory. What's important is winning the next election, any kind of strategy based off losing today to win tomorrow is bound to fail owing again to the unpredictability of politics, the only safe and rational course of action is to try and win every election.

2. The party that controls the WH always loses races down-ballot, that's just a feature of politics, nobody has figured out a way around that, when a party takes the WH one trade-off it accepts is that it will lose races at the federal and state level. Independents always vote against the incumbent party excepting extraordinary circumstances such as those that occurred in 2002, having the presidency and losing seats is a the trade-off both parties accept and the potential gains from a presidency outweigh losses in seats owing to what a president can do, not least confirm judges with the Senate. 

This is pure speculation and you have no proof to back that up

Obviously no proof by that would be most likely outcome , Democrats make gains but not enough to take the house as suburbs such as Orange County would still be Republican today .


Trump is the reason that hard left trend happened

Kasich also signed a 20 week ban , supporting defunding PP etc. the gun control measures he supports or still less pro gun control than the measures Reagan supported.


Kasich on other hand would have gotten a good healthcare bill passed , an even better tax bill , actual immigration reform and the nation would be in much much better shape today

The political reason is absurd. It can make sense from a moral and personal reason but Ginsburg leaving her seat is just as likely. Getting 2/3 of the court and even possibly replacing Thomas by 2022 would mean a secure SCOTUS for a generation. That combined with general control of the senate for the next few decades means Trump is probably worth it from a GOP perspective.

Tocqueville didn't actually say this. It's not really something that could have even come up in 1835: the US didn't even have an income tax at the time and primarily relied on tariffs for revenue. Federal government programs aimed at popular needs weren't even really an idea that existed in the 1830s outside of the Whig push for building roads and bridges and ports and lighthouses and such, which are far from anything we'd think of as welfare today.

This is basically a parody. A 80/20 Left/Right forum where the 20% right-wingers are already 15% NeverTrump and Kasich-type Republicans and 5% Trump-supporting. There is no need for this thread, you can already count genuine Trump-supporting Republicans on this forum on a hand.

Amen

The ''ante-2015'' Kasich was great, but after 2015 Kasich became a RINO and no, you're delusionnal if you think that he would have passed any good reform. On healthcare Kasich would have left the ACA mostly intact as he would have tried to play cozy with Pelosi and Schumer, on the immigration issue, he would have signed a amnesty bill (with the blessing of Koch Brothers) passed with the votes of democrats. As for the Tax bill we would have ended up with a 2001 kind of tax cut, the marginal income tax rate would have been lowered a bit, but under the pressure of democrats/medias Kasich would have not lowered the corporate tax rate because it would have been seen as a ''gift to the richs and wealthy''. Nah, Kasich would have been a waste of political capital

No longer right leaning but still considering to vote Trump again.

Yes, Emmanuel Macron is a Social Democrat. /s

??????

Where did I said that Macron is a social democrat ? Macron is a centrist-neoliberal like Bloomberg, not a social democrat.

You said left of Obama and Obama is a Neo-Liberal and Macron is a Social Liberal, and he was part of the Socialist Party of France.

Yeah, Lamb/Slotkin are to the left of Obama, just look at the minimum wage issue, Obama never supported a 100% increase while both of them are backing a such increase. As for Macron, no you're wrong ; he is clearly to the right of Obama on most issues, look at some of the reforms he did :
-slashing the wealth tax by half
-lowering the corporate tax from 31% to 25%
-easing working laws
-the pension reform he is trying to do as of now is clearly not social by any standard
-lowering taxes on capital gains
Macron in the US would be close to Bloomberg from an ideological perspective

We get it because you complain about it a lot. This forum is left-leaning, and you don't like that. If it bothers you so much, then leave.

I'm no fan of the OP, by the way.

You're yelling into a void, Old School Republican. That ship sailed even before he won the 2016 primary. And clearly you learned very little from that time if you think the party is going to redeem itself with a more mainstream candidate in 2024. I don't know what a post-Trump GOP is going to look like, but I imagine that it will take longer than four years to truly outgrow Trumpism.

The fact that Bush 43 turned a generation against the GOP supports OSR’s argument.

Thank you, OSR, for making this post. It's hard to resist the temptation to join the Trump train, as so many of your fellow Republican posters have done. The fact that you haven't already joined them really shows your commitment to actual conservative ideals and decency. I wish more Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) were like that in their commitments.

Bush 43 turned Republicans and conservative independents agains the GOP by totally abandoning the agenda he promised us in the 2004 primary convention, following it up by bungling Iraq, losing the messaging war on Katrina, and violated conservative principles in 2008. No GOP could have won after that.

The long-term argument is BS. I believed that crap in 2008 and didn’t care about McCain’s loss. (I wasn’t eligible to vote back then yet anyway.) Then Romney campaigned like a wimp and we got the worst 8 years since I moved to this country. Trump won because we were tired of Obama, and we were tired of conservatives always giving in to the Democrats, and we were tired of people thinking that Bush, McCain, Romney and Kasich are conservative. We wanted someone who would make everyone mad and fight for what they believed in, regardless of his total lack of political niceties.

He will win again because he hasn’t stopped fighting, and the best he can do is keep fighting for four more years, and the next GOP has a better chance in this scenario, because people will be ready for someone who is more politically sensitive, but won’t feel like they have to give up their principles to win.

Trump needs to win for these reasons:

He needs to outlast Ginsburg and flip more circuit courts.
We can’t let the Dems dictate immigration policy, until the problem is fixed.
If we do have a recession, we don’t want a president thinking he can spend his way out of it. Even if it happened after Trump left office, he would still get blamed for it in the media, so that argument is DOA.
We can’t let the Dems dictate military policy, since every one who’s been president since FDR has been incompetent at it.

I wish someone would cut spending, but since everyone goes ape-@#$% whenever someone tries, it has become a non-issue to me, because they always give up.
I was hesitant on his trade policies, but they seem to be close to success, and it is another example of him not giving up due to backlash.
I’d hate to see corporate taxes go up again, even after it’s the main reason the economy hasn’t failed.

I was born during his Presidency, only thing he did wrong was TARP/not taking Iran for a ride

This. Also, he's the only guy with a chance in hell of beginning the mass deportations that we need, continuing to cut regulations, and defending the tax cuts.

There were many  times I considered joining the Trump train but eveytime I was close to , Trump did something that pulled me out and after the Ukraine thing , I am fully done with Trump.


DeSantis , Haley would be great Presidents and I would support either of them enthusiastically

If you want to see a "horrible president," look at the garbage we have now.
I mean, one really has to be wearing some very large horse-blinders, to try to get away with saying how others would be a horrible president compared to the A$$-Clown occupying The Office today.

I think you said it best ...

No, most of the Gov race and Senate races coincide with each other in 2022 and most of the 2016 Dem class are in Dem Gov states, that arent term limited except for Wolf in PA and Sestak can run for Senate at the same time Fetterman runs for Gov. Wi open seat is in WI, where Evers isnt term limited. Although,  2024 is less favorable,  OH with Sherrod Brown and Ojeda running for Manchin can vote Dem in a Dem reelection

I don't give a crap what distribution of ideology this forum is, my point stands, most Republicans on this forum do not support Trump and the number of regular posters that do is in the single digits. So this thread doesn't have very much use, and it's more of an echo-chamber than anything. That's what I was getting across.

And I don't complain about it a lot. You're completely pulling that out of your ass.

I'll let you know that we already have an official Atlas definition of Socialism as done by esteemed political scientist Wulfric, and the public option is not socialism (but Medicare for all is). Here is the official Atlas definition of Socialism, in its 2 variants (by association and by admission):

The thing is many Atlas republicans are generally very ''soft republicans'' ; look at the huge number of blue avatars who endorsed Edwards or Hood

I earnestly wonder if tactical presidential election punting is going to become a thing. The fact that no one can get anything real done without large majorities necessitates lining up congressional and presidential electoral successes such that it is honestly probably better to punt certain elections at the top of the ballot from one party’s perspective or the other.

Either way 2 is a way better argument than 1. 1. is honestly nonsense - if I hire someone to do a job I care way more about how they do that job than about how they conduct themselves doing it. Results >>>>>> comportment, in other words. This is the way of the world and the fact is that Trump’s childishness should not be what anyone votes on either way in 2020. People should vote on his policies and how likely he is to enact them. The fact that those on the left oppose his policies is why Democrats should oppose him, and the fact that he is likely standing in the way of further conservative policies being passed in the future is why Republicans should oppose him. Honestly there’s an argument to Democrats being ok with him from that perspective, but only if you’re sufficiently left wing that a Biden presidency with a split congress (or weak majorities) will not earn you any serious policy wins.

This is one of the best posts of 2019, thank you! Yes, this forum is largely an echochamber that lacks more self-awareness than your nearest narcissistic diva.

Keep in mind that OSR is someone who treats Atlas in the same way he treats forums to post his Star Wars Lore opinions in. NeverTrump Republicans are the 'good guys' to cheerlead and hype up, and getting along with Democrats is a virtue to feel good about adhering to, even if they walk all over you.

More and more and more right-leaning individuals are being drawn towards Trump. People like Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck and so much more have realized that voting to re-elect Trump in 2020 is one of the most important things to accomplish if we don't want to doom ourselves. There are a few holdouts, like posters on Atlas who are too blinded with their own egos, too easily affected by the desire to go along with consensus and get "good boy points" or "good girl points" from the left (who'd stab them in the back once they become inconvenient), but by and large they are in the minority.

I intend to work very very hard to get as many right-wingers as possible on board the Trump Train, and thankfully many have already jumped on board since November 2016 due to various events like the Kavanaugh fiasco demonstrating how power hungry, dangerous, and malignant the American left is. Despite whatever grievances they've had with Trump, they are aware enough to see past their bruised egos, to see past shallow trivialities like "he speaks more like a working class guy than like Pete Buttigieg," to realize that backing him is crucial if we are to take a stand against the threats we face.  

The people who should be congratulated aren't people like the OP, it's people like Jimmy Dore, Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein, Tim Pool, et cetera who stick to their principles no matter how misguided they are, yet realize that the Democratic Party is rotten to its core, that its politicians simply aren't good people, that its voters are easily manipulable as evidenced by how they threw out admirable anti-war, anti-interventionist, pro-treat other human beings with respect stances, in favor of delusional Russophobia, mindless hawkishness, faux patriotism, terms of dehumanization (e.g. 'everyone who disputes my BS is a Russian bot,' 'Trump supporters are lower than dirt').

I could go on and on and on about this. Anyway ElectionsGuy, Atlas needs more people like you calling out threads like this. In the same way that I hope this country gets better from the many problems we face, USElectionAtlas's forum needs to get much, much better. I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't even leave because I believe I'm needed, and I believe that people like Yellowhammer, redeaglepolitics, 538Electoral, SN2903, Lechasseur, Frenchrepublican, and a few other 'rare gems' need to stick around rather than let this place deteriorate even further.

edit: should have mentioned Nuke as well. I'm probably forgetting a few others too. Sorry if I missed you!

I stopped reading at "Never Trumper from day 1" and then realized I had to continue my post, so:

"if I was voting on policy"
This is how everyone is voting.

"1. His behavior has utterly disgraced the office [...] he has openly made it clear he believes he is above the law."
The legal precedents involved are clear to me and the practical rationales for them have progressively become more cemented throughout the illegitimate, politically motivated investigations which have plagued this Presidency. Legal precedents since the 70s have made it clear that the impeachment process is the sole process for pressing criminal charges against the President, despite pretensions to the contrary by Democrats which have often contradicted themselves by contending that the President has used improper processes for otherwise licit actions. The State of New York has exploited the Constitution in a way the Founders probably never expected: Abuse of state investigative power for the sole purpose of interfering with a President from that state. They would have expected the President to exhibit such favoritism that the home state would attempt to support its President, but this has been reversed due to the fact that NY is a solid blue state. This is a clear attempt to influence federal politics by that State, and based on the fact that impeachment is the sole legitimate process for criminally charging a President, no State can possess the authority to press such charges. Furthermore, setting aside the issue of politically motivated prosecutions of the President's associates, the articles of impeachment describe neither any federal (or state) statute violated by the President nor any crime, and additionally rely on unsubstantiated claims, often made based on investigations which were never properly authorized, and are fundamentally illegitimate. The abuse of the impeachment process by Democrats must not go unpunished and the Democrats must face a severe punishment in 2020.

"2. Imagine 2022 and 2024 in a Trump reelection"
Tbh I actually think 2022 will go better than 2018 other than the really bad map in the Senate. Maybe not 2024, depends on whether or not the President successfully reforms immigration etc. You might be right or you could be wrong. Either way, I will vote for Trump's reelection because I need Obamacare repealed.

Sad to see you slowly melting into the Borg.

Vote for guy who openly wants to crush the poor with taxes to force them to live like he wants them to instead! How can you take yourself seriously?

I value my tax dollars and my freedoms more than the fact that the Orange Man said a bad word

You yourself acknowledge the GOP winning a third term is gonna be almost impossible in 2024, and that 2022 map is an absolute disaster for the GOP and that doenst include factors like the 6 year itch and a very proabable recession. So what will happen is The GOP by 2024 may be wiped out to near 2009 levels and unlike in 2009-10 there will be almost no blue dogs left to stop a far left agenda.


On the other hand if Trump loses in 2020, the Dems wont have that many seats to enact that much of their agenda other than at best temporaily taking us back to how things were before Trump . Then GOP can bide their time and come back with DeSantis , or Haley.



Trump winning 2020 will be the Republicans winning the battle but losing the war, and I would rather much have them lose the battle but not lose the war.

It's unlikely that the GOP will lose control of the senate in 2020. So three words: Supreme. Court. Vacancy.
Filling the likely vacancy will help us more in the long run than the hurt that will result from communists controlling the House and squandering this power for a few more cycles.

Not to mention all the other judicial vacancies there are still left to be filled.

Republicans already have the court now. If Dems though get the trifecta in 2024 with 57+ senators(I would say likely if Trump wins) then single-payer likely passes, green new deal, massive just massive tax hikes will all become law which is a far bigger disaster

What the hell are you smoking? If Trump wins re-election, we are probably looking at having 52 - 54 R senators + Manchin & Sinema. No way in hell 9-11 senate seats flip in 2022 -- zero of those seats are in blue states. Specifically, just 6 of the R-held seats are in purple states (NC, GA, AZ, PA, WI, FL). Iowa and Ohio hardly count as swing states any more. A few would flip, but your prediction is beyond insane.

There likely will be a recession in 2022 so if Trump wins and say Republicans have 52-53 seats they will lose : PA, WI, IA, GA, AZ(if McSally wins) for sure and OH probably too since recessions hit states like OH very badly compared to the rest of the nation  . So that means they lose 6 and that drops Republicans down to 47 seats. Then in 2024 they probably lose TX, FL and some other surprise race and that drops them to 44. Ok so thats 56-44 and Dems probably then may well wipe the filibuster out and other than Manchin, Sinema , Tester well that passes and with a far left president well then so many things will get passed.

"Nazi Bolsonaro" is a hilarious idea.

Bolsonaro is epic though, and Haddad is no blairite

OH have a bigger AA population in Akron, Cincinnati and Cleveland,  I can very well see OH voting to the left of IA this time. If Tim Ryan is redistricted out by DeWine and GOP leaders,  he can run against Portman, who only won, due to Strickland saying Scalia's death was a good thing, before that, Portman trailed Strickland the entire campaign

Yeah, it immediately struck me as BS, but such is the intellectual level of the modern right. And this thread is a perfect encapsulation of why we can't possibly get along and just need to separate. Conservatives are divorced from empirical reality, and imagine that the rest of us will just continue to tolerate their undemocratic, authoritarian, minority rule from the Presidency, the Senate, and the Judiciary. I'm afraid not. But I hope they keep pushing, because there are parts of this country that I would absolutely love to jettison.

Yeah, he is probably the most '' Israel friendly '' Brazilian leader in decades

Wait so someone who blindly supports one party over another is principled but someone like me who is saying no I wont blindly support a politician just because of party affiliation then that person is treating politics like some game. What type of upside down world is that

Also if Biden wins but the Republicans still control the senate the leftist agenda will be blocked and heck even if they have 51 senators it will be blocked cause Manchin and Sinema wont go along with the leftist agenda .

LMAO, Manchin and Sinema would never cast a decisive vote against their own party on any major legislation. You’re so naïve it’s almost cute.

Manchin won’t vote for bs like single payer , massive tax hikes , abolishing filibuster etc

Dude, you're far too pessmistic

Look

2020 if Trump wins again : republicans lose CO but take AL and maybe MI, by January 2021 the Senate is 53 to 54 R versus 46 to 47 D

2022 under Trump : republicans lose WI + PA + AZ and maybe NC / GA but there is no way democrats defeat Portman, he is a very strong incumbent and Ohio has moved so sharply to the right than democrats won't take the seat with him (we are no longer in 2006) ; same thing with Florida, Rubio is a very strong candidate and FL is generally imune to national waves (see 2018) ; IA is a bit more complicated but if Grassley retires I think that Reynolds would probably be able to keep the seat for us
So in the worst case scenario by January 2023 the Senate is 52 D versus 48 R, but it could also be 51 R versus 49 D

2024 : I disagree, republicans are unlikely to lose FL, I mean Rick Scott defeated a popular incumbent democratic senator in D wave ! Hard to see how FL democrats who have basically no bench anymore flip back the seat, then you have WV and MT which are clearly flippable provided republicans target these seats serioulsy this time and of course Ohio will also be winnable for republicans. The only truely vulnerable seat for us will be TX, especially if current trends in the DFW area continue.
So by January 2025 the Senate would be in the worst (realistic) case scenario 48 R vs 52 D (democrats lose WV but take TX) but it could also very well be 54 R versus 46 D (Republicans keep the senate in 2022 and flip WV/MT and Ohio in 2024) with the most likely scenario being a 52 R vs 48 D Senate

But I don't see how you end up with a 57/43 D Senate majority, even if (unfortunately) red state democrats are still a thing, their numbers is diminishing

Manchin is a populist, not a conservative.
It would not be very hard to convince him to vote for a wealthy tax or a 35% corporate tax rate, you have just to buy his vote by funding a big highway to nowhere in southern WV and the deal is done

If there is a recession in 2022, Trump will get blamed regardless.
If there is a recession in 2022, it only hurts his 2024 chances if there is a horrible long recovery like 2008. Reagan had a long recession in 1982 and it was his recovery that everyone remembered into 1984, not the recession. Reagan avoided a potential recession in 1987, which helped Bush 41 the next year get elected, though he screwed up his own reelection a few years later.
If there is a recession in 2022, it will be over by 2024 in any scenario and Trump will take credit. In that scenario some seats may be lost in 2022, but it won't hurt 2024.

In any event, you have no idea whether the next recession will be 2022, 2020, or 2030, so basing your vote on the timing of a variably cyclical event of the future is beyond foolish.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Fascism is a left-wing ideology. (And I don't care about the bull-#### definition from Wikipedia.) Mussolini was a communist and accepted fascism for practical purposes, but was still ideologically far left. Just because Hitler attacked communist Stalin does not make him right wing. The Democrats have always been more aligned with these ideologies than Republicans.

Three main ideologies that make up the Democrat party. (All the conservatives have been purged from the party years ago.)

Fascism is an authoritarian government controlling business. Therefore every time a new regulation is created or a new oversight division is added, that makes the government more fascist. Donald Trump's elimination of regulations and weakening of cabinet administrative powers is the opposite of fascism. Democrats have always pushed for more regulations which makes them more fascist. (along with some of George W. Bush's policies sadly) This includes people like Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Communism is an authoritarian government controlling peoples well-being and livelihood. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez policies, for instance. Nobody on the right aligns with these policies.

Socialism and progressivism is the same as communism with one key difference. The communists are honest about what they are trying to achieve. The socialists try to mask it with doublespeak so as not to offend people's natural tendencies towards freedom. This would be someone like Elizabeth Warren.

Nationalism is separate from any of these ideologies, but could be combined with any of them as they were in WW2 with practically every country that was involved in the war regardless of their other policies. You can associate this currently with Republicans to a greater extent than Democrats.

Imperialism is controlling and imposing your ideals and will on other nations. This is also a separate ideological class that could be combined with any of the first three, and to certain extent has existed in both major parties. Libertarians would be an example of a party that is opposed to any kind of Imperialism, except maybe in self-defense.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

These are the 14 characteristics of fascism. Tell me which of these describe Democrats.

While I reject his premise that most of these are fascist, but rather totalitarianism (which is both left-wing and right-wing), I will take a bite from your list based on the current state of the parties:

Democrats - #2, #3, #6, #13, #14 for sure.
Republicans - #1, #4,
Both - #7, #8, #9
Neither - #5, #10, #11, #12

I think that the democratic party would be better described as ''statist'' than as ''fascist''

How do the Democrats disdain human rights?

What scapegoats do the Democrats have?

How do the Democrats control the media

What rampant cronyism and corruption occur under Democrats?

What fraudulent elections have occurred under the Democrats?

Nope. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers control the means of production. That's also true of communism, but communism also requires a stateless, classless society. Progressivism is another thing entirely.

Nazis and anti-Semites can definitely support Israel.

???

Also, Bolsonaro is 100% not an anti-semite lol. He's a good President.

He's a fantastic president if you hate the gays, the Amazon and indigenous people, but I'm sure you do.

I don't know if he's an anti-semite, but Frenchrepublican (lol) implied that anti-semites can't support Israel. They can, particularly if they see it as a place to put all da Jooz so they don't have to deal with them. And of course, white nationalists in particular can see Israel as an inspiration for their desired ethnostate.

By going after and attacking people for their religious beliefs; trying to force them to be punished if they do not go against their religious beliefs. Fortunately the Supreme Court at least recognizes this for now.

ie. Sisters of Mercy, Jack Phillips (baker)

Organizing boycotts of Christian businesses and organizations or businesses who donated to a conservative politician.

ie. Chick-Fil-A

Organizing campaigns to get people fired for having an opposing viewpoint.


Russia, any GOP politician, anyone wearing a MAGA hat, any black conservative spokesperson.


Pretty much every media outlet except for Fox News, talk radio and a few internet sites.


Frenchrepublican already answered this.


Voter fraud - Opposing Real ID act, opposing removing dead people from voter roles, voting twice across precinct or state lines. Voter intimidation (Black Panthers, and going back in history, southern Democrats, KKK)

If all those things make Democrats fascist, then surely, you agree that, through the anti-Semetic and Islamophobic rhetoric, advocation of torture, proposed stripping US citizens of their rights, using Hispanics and Muslims as scapegoats, criticism of the free press, cronyism and corruption of the Trump administration, voter suppression, and voter fraud, that the GOP is fascist.

Manchin is not a populist lol

Care to explain ? I mean it’s not like if he was some kind of ’’conservative, bow weevils southern democrat’’ . The dude voted against the ACA repeal and against the 2017 Tax reform, he is fairly friendly to labor groups.

First off, I didn't agree that those things made you fascist. That was your list. In fact I think that the only items on that list at all related to fascism are #2, #6, #8, #9, & #13. The other 9 are symptoms of society that are the eventual result of the implementation of fascism.

1.) I have seen no evidence that the GOP or Trump is anti-Semetic. If anything he is the opposite.
2.) It is not Islamophobic or anti-Hispanic to want to enforce the border.
3.) What rights have been stripped from US citizens? It is the Democrats that want to strip the right of free speech (unless it fits with their dogma), the right to bear arms (unless it's to protect a congressman), the right to free practice of religion (unless it doesn't offend a liberal).
4.) Criticism of a free press is free speech, just like the press is free to criticize the president and people who support him at every turn.
5.) What corruption? Do you mean investigating the corruption that Biden admitted to on camera, which is what they are criticizing Trump for, which is the definition of a scapegoat?
6.) What voter suppression? Do you mean restricting the rights of non-citizens to vote based on the constitution, or creating laws so people don't vote twice or in other people's name?
7.) I'll give you cronyism item. That's a figment of every party and every person who's ever been elected to office.
8.) Everyone I've ever seen be arrested for voter fraud in my lifetime has been a Democrat.
9.) The GOP is not fascist. They attempt to remove barriers to freedom. The Democrats seek to add them.

McCain and Collins votes against the ACA repeal too , as that bill was horrible .

Also there is a huge difference between supporting ACA and Single Payer which Manchin has already ruled out of supporting and their is a huge difference between supporting pre 2016 tax code vs supporting type of tax code Warren or Bernie want

Don't hate any of them, but I do support much needed pension reform and opening up Brazil for economic growth (instead of more dumb red tape).

There’s a reason that Congress is Article I of the Constitution and the President is Article II.

Old School, I have to respectively disagree with you here. Yes, if Trump wins we could lose the Senate in 2022, but we would still have 2 more years before that would happen. Also, even if Trump loses, it does not mean Republicans keep the Senate as the Democrats could very well win 50+ seats in 2020 along with the Presidency. The executive branch is much more valuable than the legislative one and we can't let afford it to be lost. You also have to keep in mind that the Democrat isn't guaranteed to lose in 2024, and they could waltz to re-election if the wrong Republican is nominated.

Long story short, politics bounces way too much to plan for the future so it is smarter to just win when you can and not try to stress about what the result of the win is.

I would agree with anyone but Trump. The 2018 electon should have results in elections similar to 1978 which was minor gains for the opposition party but instead it was another 2010. This shows how weak Trump is , despite the economy(which i think an exit poll had nearly 70% thinking economy was good).

If you had Kasich or Rubio in the WH the Republicans would still have both houses today and their future in states like GA would be still pretty solid. Remember this if TX flips , its a disaster of epic proportions for Conservatism and the next decade following that election would be to conservatism what the 1980s were to liberalism , an utter disaster and Trump is causing TX to trend Dem at an alarming rate.


When you see trends like that its best you cut ties with the leader causing those trends before its too late

What if we're in a position where we aren't huge on him, but dislike the left more, and think staying home is a better option but everybody I know says a vote for a candidate they hate is better than no vote at all so you might do it out of the idea of picking the one you dislike less

Congress delegated enough of its power by now that the president is more powerful but not by much.

Exactly. Presidential elections are no longer popularity contests, but rather unpopularity contests. The voters pick their poison and have to choose the least-worse candidate, than the best candidate. It techincally means the same thing, but it is the mindset that is different nowdays.

Well, yeah, but you don’t disprove my point, sure he is not a communist like Sanders or Warren, I don’t pretend otherwise, but not being a communist doesn’t mean you’re a centrist either.

Manchin is a populist and there are few doubt that he would happily vote to increase the corporate tax back to where it was in 2016, maybe you don’t care, but increasing the corporate tax by 50% is still a very left wing position, and let’s be clear, if you’re a conservative you should not count on this fraud to save your ass

I have a question would you take this result a Dem winning in 2020 but Republicans keeping the Senate. Thats the ideal scenario in my opinion because if that happens , none of the 2017 tax reform bill will be repealed

Well, yeah a such scenario would be okay, not great but still better than a D trifecta. I think we would be better off with Trump being reelected and republicans keeping the senate, but yeah your scenario would not be too bad either.