2020 presidential poll

[The Mark]

Saw someone suggesting Stacy Abrams as a presidential candidate today.

 

[99percenter]

A majority on this forum want a democrat without know who he will be. People are already sick of trump.

 

[The Mark]

A majority on this forum want a democrat without know who he will be. People are already sick of trump.

A majority of the country was sick of Trump before, during, and after his election.

Just not enough of them voted.

 

[Perotista]

Who you got?

I voted third party in 2016, against both Hillary and Trump. In 2020, I can guarantee I won't be voting for Trump. As for voting Democratic, that depends on whom is the Democratic candidate. Another Hillary Clinton type candidate, then it will be third party again. I have no problem voting third party when I determine both major party candidates would leave this nation in worst shape than when either first entered the office of the presidency.

As it stands today, for the Democrats, my vote is up for grabs. For Trump, it a done deal, no way. For third party, it all depends on whom the Democrats nominate. Political party means nothing to me, who is the candidate does.

 

[pilot16]

A majority on this forum want a democrat without know who he will be. People are already sick of trump.

In some ways I find that terrifying. That means in theory, anybody could run and win. A celebrity, a good person or just somebody who maybe is really bad who takes advantage of that thinking. Think about the fact that in early 2015 Jeb was supposedly going to be the nominee. Enough people said "screw that anybody but another Bush." Trump said the right things and was "different" so he got the nod. I shudder to think a Kardashian could win if enough people thought they were different enough and "anybody but Trump" mentality wins.

 

[pilot16]

I voted third party in 2016, against both Hillary and Trump. In 2020, I can guarantee I won't be voting for Trump. As for voting Democratic, that depends on whom is the Democratic candidate. Another Hillary Clinton type candidate, then it will be third party again. I have no problem voting third party when I determine both major party candidates would leave this nation in worst shape than when either first entered the office of the presidency.

As it stands today, for the Democrats, my vote is up for grabs. For Trump, it a done deal, no way. For third party, it all depends on whom the Democrats nominate. Political party means nothing to me, who is the candidate does.

Feel exactly the same way. I also have seen that both the libertarian and Green parties are attempting to recruit some truly serious well known people to run. I dont know if they will but it could be one of those break away moments for somebody that couldnt win in either of the two main parties.

 

[Perotista]

Feel exactly the same way. I also have seen that both the libertarian and Green parties are attempting to recruit some truly serious well known people to run. I dont know if they will but it could be one of those break away moments for somebody that couldnt win in either of the two main parties.

The key will be financial backing for whomever is the libertarian or green party nominees. In 2016 Clinton raised and spent 1.4 billion, Trump 968.6 million, Johnson 3 million and Stein probably less than a million. Regardless of whom is the nominees, you won't be successful being out spent by approximately 2.4 billion to 3 or 4 million.

Still third parties received 6% of the total vote, not too bad for candidates who received no media exposure, no money for running political ads or get out the vote, who were unknown to most voters, who had no way to get their message out. where basically their only national exposure was on C-Span.

 

[pilot16]

The key will be financial backing for whomever is the libertarian or green party nominees. In 2016 Clinton raised and spent 1.4 billion, Trump 968.6 million, Johnson 3 million and Stein probably less than a million. Regardless of whom is the nominees, you won't be successful being out spent by approximately 2.4 billion to 3 or 4 million.

Still third parties received 6% of the total vote, not too bad for candidates who received no media exposure, no money for running political ads or get out the vote, who were unknown to most voters, who had no way to get their message out. where basically their only national exposure was on C-Span.

I also think with the younger kids and the sheer number of independents, they are more willing to vote third party than previously. Sure the partisans will still vote within the party but if the right person stepped up or the wrong dem get nominated? It could benefit third party. I mean imagine a Jeff Flake running as an indie? Or a Bernie Sanders? Sure they likely wouldnt win but surely would do very well. I do think as time goes by Americans are warming up to having 4 or more parties able to compete.

 

[Perotista]

I also think with the younger kids and the sheer number of independents, they are more willing to vote third party than previously. Sure the partisans will still vote within the party but if the right person stepped up or the wrong dem get nominated? It could benefit third party. I mean imagine a Jeff Flake running as an indie? Or a Bernie Sanders? Sure they likely wouldnt win but surely would do very well. I do think as time goes by Americans are warming up to having 4 or more parties able to compete.

I do think it boils down to money and media exposure. When Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992, he was able to spend 40 million dollars. In contrast Bill Clinton spent 120 million, Bush 110 million. Now 40 million was quite a lot of money back in those days. Still Perot spent 15% of the total money spent in 1992. So perhaps, to have a good showing any third party candidate would have to raise and spend approximately 15% or more of the total money spent in 2020. Assuming the two major parties will have access to approximately 2 billion for 2020, that means to be semi competitive a third party candidate would have to have 300 million.

I agree that more Americans are open to a third party candidate today. But any third party candidate must be able to get his message out, to become well known and that takes money. According to Gallup, 57% of all Americans say a viable third party is needed. 72% of independents think so.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Now there is a problem with that. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. One thing both major parties can agree on, is that no viable third party will ever arise. Both major parties have automatic ballot access, any third party candidate has to jump through hoops to get on the ballot. Getting signatures, having them verified, there's different amounts and time periods for each state to do this. Some states exceedingly difficult, other states fairly easy. Republicans and Democrats have a monopoly on our two party system and they will do anything to keep their monopoly. They also have a monopoly on the givings of corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. All of which donate, I would call it invest, their tens of millions of dollars in the two major parties.

Those investors so to speak, get a great investment for their money. Being good businessmen, if they didn't get a good return on their expenditures in donations, they wouldn't do it.

 

[pilot16]

I do think it boils down to money and media exposure. When Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992, he was able to spend 40 million dollars. In contrast Bill Clinton spent 120 million, Bush 110 million. Now 40 million was quite a lot of money back in those days. Still Perot spent 15% of the total money spent in 1992. So perhaps, to have a good showing any third party candidate would have to raise and spend approximately 15% or more of the total money spent in 2020. Assuming the two major parties will have access to approximately 2 billion for 2020, that means to be semi competitive a third party candidate would have to have 300 million.

I agree that more Americans are open to a third party candidate today. But any third party candidate must be able to get his message out, to become well known and that takes money. According to Gallup, 57% of all Americans say a viable third party is needed. 72% of independents think so.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Now there is a problem with that. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. One thing both major parties can agree on, is that no viable third party will ever arise. Both major parties have automatic ballot access, any third party candidate has to jump through hoops to get on the ballot. Getting signatures, having them verified, there's different amounts and time periods for each state to do this. Some states exceedingly difficult, other states fairly easy. Republicans and Democrats have a monopoly on our two party system and they will do anything to keep their monopoly. They also have a monopoly on the givings of corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. All of which donate, I would call it invest, their tens of millions of dollars in the two major parties.

Those investors so to speak, get a great investment for their money. Being good businessmen, if they didn't get a good return on their expenditures in donations, they wouldn't do it.

I agree it would be a huge mountain to climb. But then again they said that about Trump. If a third party is going to be popular at this point they need to be already either wealthy or popular. I saw the Greens were trying to lure actor Leonardo DiCaprio into running in 2020. Dont know if he is interested, but it would take somebody like that to break through. Or maybe a Jeff Flake if he were to lose a GOP primary and want to split the vote against Trump so he cant win. Have also heard of a Unity Ticket with a bipartisan feel like a Hickenlooper/Kasich type ticket. It would be interesting but I still feel they would just play spoiler. Enough people are still very tribal.

 

[Perotista]

I agree it would be a huge mountain to climb. But then again they said that about Trump. If a third party is going to be popular at this point they need to be already either wealthy or popular. I saw the Greens were trying to lure actor Leonardo DiCaprio into running in 2020. Dont know if he is interested, but it would take somebody like that to break through. Or maybe a Jeff Flake if he were to lose a GOP primary and want to split the vote against Trump so he cant win. Have also heard of a Unity Ticket with a bipartisan feel like a Hickenlooper/Kasich type ticket. It would be interesting but I still feel they would just play spoiler. Enough people are still very tribal.

That's the problem, most people feeling a third party candidate is just playing spoiler. Also, both major parties have drummed it into people's heads that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, they can't win. It becomes a self fulling prophecy. Most folks may very well hate both major party candidates ala 2016. But instead of voting against both, voting third party for a candidate you like a whole lot more, they choose to vote for the lesser of two evils. The major party candidate they least want to lose.

54% of independents stated they disliked both Trump and Clinton in 2016, they didn't want either one becoming the next president. Yet only 12% of all independents voted third party against both Trump and Clinton. A whole lot of the lesser of two evils or voting for the major party candidate you least wanted to lose. Think about that, 88% of all independents voted for either Trump or Clinton although 54% wanted neither. A whole lot of buying into the wasted vote syndrome where you vote for someone you really dislike and don't want, just so you think you had a say. A whole lot there to overcome.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's the problem, most people feeling a third party candidate is just playing spoiler. Also, both major parties have drummed it into people's heads that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, they can't win. It becomes a self fulling prophecy. Most folks may very well hate both major party candidates ala 2016. But instead of voting against both, voting third party for a candidate you like a whole lot more, they choose to vote for the lesser of two evils. The major party candidate they least want to lose.

54% of independents stated they disliked both Trump and Clinton in 2016, they didn't want either one becoming the next president. Yet only 12% of all independents voted third party against both Trump and Clinton. A whole lot of the lesser of two evils or voting for the major party candidate you least wanted to lose. Think about that, 88% of all independents voted for either Trump or Clinton although 54% wanted neither. A whole lot of buying into the wasted vote syndrome where you vote for someone you really dislike and don't want, just so you think you had a say. A whole lot there to overcome.

That is where a ranked choice ballot system would help. The voter then has control over where that 'wasted' third party candidate vote eventually ends up. If 54% want neither (major party POTUS candidate) then no major party candidate is likely to get an instant majority win. Another helpful change would be to split (divide?) the states EC votes based on the popular vote rather than to award all of it to the winner (by a nose?).

 

[Perotista]

That is where a ranked choice ballot system would help. The voter then has control over where that 'wasted' third party candidate vote eventually ends up. If 54% want neither (major party POTUS candidate) then no major party candidate is likely to get an instant majority win. Another helpful change would be to split (divide?) the states EC votes based on the popular vote rather than to award all of it to the winner (by a nose?).

Nebraska and Maine award their electoral votes via congressional districts. Maine which has 4 electoral votes, Trump won one CD, Clinton the other, but Clinton won the state with more votes. Hence she received the 2 electoral votes authorized by Maine having two senators. Maine went to Clinton 3-1 in electoral votes. Pennsylvania a few years back debated about going to the congressional district method. But declined to bring it up for a vote in their state legislature. The reason behind that was Pennsylvania thought they had more clout with the winner take all, 20 electoral votes than in awarding them via congressional district. That going to the CD method would dilute their power in the electoral college.

Since Trump and Clinton each carried 9 of Pennsylvania's CD's each. With the CD method Pennsylvania's electoral votes would have been cast 11 Trump, 9 Clinton. More reflective of the actual vote. I think I would whether go to a system that if a candidate wins 50% plus one vote, they get all the states electoral votes. If no candidate receives the required 50% plus one vote, that state reverts to the CD method of awarding their electoral votes by how many CD's one wins plus the two electoral votes for the plurality winner of the state.

 

[The Mark]

In some ways I find that terrifying. That means in theory, anybody could run and win. A celebrity, a good person or just somebody who maybe is really bad who takes advantage of that thinking. Think about the fact that in early 2015 Jeb was supposedly going to be the nominee. Enough people said "screw that anybody but another Bush." Trump said the right things and was "different" so he got the nod. I shudder to think a Kardashian could win if enough people thought they were different enough and "anybody but Trump" mentality wins.

I frankly do not think just anyone could win.

There are plenty of potential candidates who I think can and will lose to Trump in 2020, barring some significant reveals from Mueller or some such.


Beyond that, this shouldn't be a political battle to just beat Trump, we have to turn damn near everything he has done back and then go even further.

 

[Surrealistik]

I frankly do not think just anyone could win.

There are plenty of potential candidates who I think can and will lose to Trump in 2020, barring some significant reveals from Mueller or some such.


Beyond that, this shouldn't be a political battle to just beat Trump, we have to turn damn near everything he has done back and then go even further.

As Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated, complacency is the road to defeat.

We should never take any political contest for granted ever again.

 

[rickc]

well dick and jr screwed things up so bad the democrats could have run mickey mouse and won.

2 more years of Trump and we will be right back there again.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Trump needs to go....period!

But I cannot stomach any of the alt-left and alt-right candidates who are flirting with running.

Romney was the last sane candidate the republicans offered up.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

2020 polls are worthless. We could be at war with Iran by then.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

The worst modern president thus far; bad as Trump is, he has yet to surpass Bush in terms of adverse impact.

Key word:

"Yet"