Displaying 1 - 10 of 257 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Jul 01, 2019 12:47 PM
    Last: 6d
    116

    If the 2016 Presidential election taught Americans anything, it's that the states play a pivotal roll in choosing the President and recent polarization and realignment among the political parties has turned the vast majority of states into the "solidly Republican" or "solidly Democratic" camps. Or so we thought.

    Recent demographic changes sweeping throughout the south and southwest parts of the country are giving demographers and political scientists plenty of things to talk about. In Texas, the Latino population is predicted to exceed the non-Hispanic white population by 2022 and Arizona isn't very far behind.

    While it's true that a persons race isn't the only predicting factor for how they will vote, it is certainly a big one. States with large minority populations consistently vote for the Democratic Party while states with large non-Hispanic white populations consistently vote for the Republican Party. Therefore, it's not a big leap to conclude that major demographic changes like the ones were witnessing in the south will play a major role in realigning American politics for the next generation.

    A lot (and I mean a LOT) will happen between now and the 2020 election that will determine the eventual winner of the 2020 election, but don't be surprised on election night if a state that has been reliably Republican for many years suddenly swings to the Democrats. The chances of it being Texas or Arizona are slim, but not impossible.

  • Jun 19, 2019 05:13 PM
    Last: 14d
    193

    I'm a fan of "Mayor Pete," but I just don't see the Democratic Party going for a relatively unknown figure to go head to head against President Trump in 2020. Trump's election showed us that an outsider can win the White House, but Trump was anything but unknown to the electorate.

    I just have a really hard time believing that a mayor of a small town in a deep red state will be Democrats saving grace in 2020. I've certainly been proven wrong many times before, so take my opinion with a grain of salt!

  • Jun 20, 2019 05:12 PM
    Last: 14d
    256

    The cynic is me always questions why so much weight is put on California in the Democratic primary. Sure, they have the greatest numbers...by far...but 2016 reminded all of us that more votes doesn't necessarily mean you win.

    That's why I think the Democrats running for President need to be focusing much more on what voters in swing states are saying. California will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but that isn't necessarily true for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

  • Jun 25, 2019 04:38 PM
    Last: 14d
    182

    I'm always hesitant to put too much weight on any one candidates tax "promises" considering those promises are almost certainly never going to become law.

    With that said, as a pragmatist, I think that Senator Harris's plan is a solid starting point. The current system is way too skewed towards benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the working poor, but Harris's proposal is at least a step in the right direction.

  • Jun 24, 2019 05:56 AM
    Last: 18d
    1.3k

    I agree that the polls probably aren't going to change too much after the first debate unless one of the major candidates has a great (or terrible) night.

    The first debate does give the lesser known candidates a chance to be heard on the national stage, but I wonder if the sheer number of them will make it difficult for any of them to really have a breakout night and crack the top 5.

  • May 30, 2019 06:26 PM
    Last: 1mo
    361
    Honestly, I'm surprised it's not already a "thing" for the more well off. The idea of permanently traveling sounds like a dream to me!
  • May 21, 2019 12:11 PM
    Last: 2mo
    326

    There's no greater hot button issue in American politics today than that of abortion and a new wave of legislation in many Republican dominated states will all but guarantee the issue is going to play a pivotal role in the upcoming 2020 election season. It's an issue that has been rallying cry for many right-of-center politicians for decades, but many Republicans now believe the demise of nationwide legalized abortion is imminent and are passing laws in their state in the hopes that a newly solidified conservative majority on the Supreme Court will strike down Roe (technically Planned Parenthood v. Casey) once and for all.

    I am well aware there are passionate and well-meaning advocates on both sides of this issue, but I'm hoping that we can save the religious/moral debate for another site and instead focus on the political side of the issue, specifically how these new laws in Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Mississippi, with others soon to follow, will affect voter turnout in 2020.

    It's generally accepted as fact that abortion is one of the most important, if not the most important, issue for many conservative voters. These "one issue voters" tend to vote in every local, state, and federal election and have been doing so for years. Their decades long quest to overturn Roe is, at least in many observers eyes, on the verge of coming to fruition. That is undoubtedly welcome news for many anti-abortion advocates, but I can't help but think that a ruling against Roe will galvanize pro-choice advocates in the lead up to the 2020 election, especially in the swing states that will decide the President.

    We all learned Newton's Third Law in school: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. While his law covers motion, the same can be said about many other things in life. If anti-abortion advocates were to eventually succeed in striking down Roe then it only makes sense that pro-choice advocates will have a strong negative reaction. Whether that reaction will be strong enough to affect election results in 2020 is anyone's guess, but I have a feeling it will be.

  • May 15, 2019 01:55 PM
    Last: 27d
    771

    I'm someone who questions Buttigieg's staying power and the skeptic in me tends to think the media is hyping him up just a little bit because he has a unique life story. I'd say the same thing for Beto O'Rourke. I understand that both men have a very loyal online following, but I can't help but question their viability on the national stage once the rubber hits the road.

    The two people I'll be paying a lot of attention to for awhile are Senators Warren and Harris. I think they are both eating into Senator Sanders current support and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they start chipping away even more of his support as time goes on. I also can't help but feel bad for Senator Booker who has been laying the groundwork for his run for years only to be largely ignored for now.

    Biden is the obvious front runner and for now it's his race to lose, but we have a long, long way to go before the 2020 Democratic convention.

  • May 14, 2019 11:48 AM
    Last: 6d
    741

    Even after the norm-busting election of 2016, I have a hard time believing that a largely unknown candidate will be able to break through and win the nomination. President Trump may have been a political outsider, but no one can say they'd never heard of him before.

    I'm predicting that a solid chunk of the candidates will drop out either shortly before or very quickly after Iowa holds its caucus and four to six or so "major" candidates will remain. I also think Senators Warren and Harris have the potential to pick off a lot of tepid Bernie voters from 2016 who may have voted for him in that years primary largely out of protest against Senator Clinton and not necessarily because they supported him.

    Biden is the clear and unquestioned front-runner, but we won't really know how strong his support actually is until a handful of caucuses and primaries are held. He obviously has the name recognition and money to go deep into the primary, but only time will tell if Democratic voters think he's the best candidate to take on President Trump in the general.

  • May 07, 2019 04:23 PM
    Last: 2mo
    573
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Will they happen on the same day? Also will they try and balance out the big names, like will Bernie and Biden be on the same stage or will they split them up to even out the draw?

    The DNC has only laid out the rules for the first two debates and they seem to be as fair as they possibly can be. Each candidate that qualified will be randomly selected for a debate. Half will participate one night and the other half will participate the next evening.

    I'm not really sure about the amount of time/number of questions each candidate will get. That's a really tricky one because the big names will expect to be called on more and the lesser known ones see it as their possibly only chance to get in front of a national audience.

    I certainly don't envy the referees over at the DNC.