The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: txradioguy on July 30, 2018, 01:19:45 PM
-
On Sunday, David Leonhardt of The New York Times wrote a fantasy piece about how Donald Trump will lose his re-election bid in 2020. The basic premise of the piece is that Trump’s 2016 victory was a political outlier, a blip; Trump will fall back to earth. Of course, this was the same theory that failed in 2016:
In hindsight, the extraordinary nature of the circumstances that propelled Trump in 2016 have become obvious: the unpopularity of his opponent, Hillary Clinton; the help from Russia; the late involvement of James Comey, the then-F.B.I. director who now hosts an ABC talk show; and Trump’s razor-thin victories in several states. … Exit polls showed disillusionment across the swing states that Trump won four years ago and lost this year, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In a sign of the country’s changing political map, he held on to Ohio and Iowa, two relatively old and white states — but became the first Republican since 1992 to lose Georgia.
Good luck with that one. Anyone who thinks Trump is losing Georgia is simply crazy.
Leonardt speculates that women will vote against Trump, and that a joint ticket of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and former attorney general Eric Holder will be more relatable than a Trump-Pence re-elect. Good luck with this one, too:
Warren’s liberalism, meanwhile, did make some voters anxious, exit polls showed. But most swing voters do not follow the minutiae of policy debates, and many simply decided that she understood their problems better than Trump. She and Holder consciously borrowed from the populist strategy of Obama’s 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney. Rather than emphasize Trump’s personal behavior, as the 2016 Clinton campaign did, they cast him as a greedy billionaire who corruptly used the presidency to enrich himself further.
Here’s the real question, though: what’s the peculiar charm of Elizabeth Warren? In 2020, she’ll be 71; she’s got only slightly more charisma than Hillary Clinton had; she has a history that hasn’t been examined publicly, from her ridiculous claims of Native American ancestry to her history of flipping properties. She doesn’t radiate political warmth; she radiates radicalism. And Trump has a history of dragging candidates down from their pedestals.
Some of this seems to be a wishful belief that Warren represents a sort of merger of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But she doesn’t have the lovable-old-nut persona of Sanders, and she’s got most of Hillary’s downsides (sans Bill). There’s little evidence of Warren’s blue collar appeal – she’s a Harvard Law professor worth some $7.5 million.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33766/democrats-are-love-elizabeth-warren-why-ben-shapiro
-
well she wears granny glasses and wrote a cook book "powwow chow". :-)
-
well she wears granny glasses and wrote a cook book "powwow chow". :-)
Come on, she fills the lib identity politics scorecard out nicely. Except she isn't a tranny or gay, as far as I know.
-
well she wears granny glasses and wrote a cook book "powwow chow". :-)
The latter will be used to hit her over the head repeatedly. The liawatha/fauxahauntas (President Trump needs to get that right) meme is her Chappaquiddick. she will never ascend to POTUS. She won't even run.
-
Because they're cucks and love to have a scolding old bitch tell them to submit.
-
Because they're cucks and love to have a scolding old bitch tell them to submit.
Elizabeth Warren Dom-in-Chief
-
Come on, she fills the lib identity politics scorecard out nicely. Except she isn't a tranny or gay, as far as I know.
But she is a make-believe native American and that gives her extra points. She is racially fluid.