2020 Presidential Election

[Túrin Turambar]

Cory Booker.

At this point it would be bigger news for someone to announce that they are NOT running for president.

A potentially-vulnerable president and no clear frontrunner - it's now or never for a lot of high-profile Dems. Plus even an unsuccessful campaign for the nomination now can increase the chances of a successful one later (Clinton, Romney, Reagan, etc).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure I see a functioning future United States if Trump is elected again.

I hate Trump a lot and think he is doing a great deal of harm, but I find this absurdly hyperbolic.

Freedom House, a non-profit, non-partisan human rights group that compiles an annual report on the state of democracy and human rights around the world. It receives 85% of its funding from grants from the U.S. government. Nonetheless, in its latest report, it basically said the same thing that Prim did.

“Trump has assailed essential institutions and traditions including the separation of powers, a free press, an independent judiciary, the impartial delivery of justice, safeguards against corruption, and most disturbingly, the legitimacy of elections,” Freedom House president Mike Abramowitz writes in a special section of this year’s report, released on Tuesday morning. “We cannot take for granted that institutional bulwarks against abuse of power will retain their strength, or that our democracy will endure perpetually. Rarely has the need to defend its rules and norms been more urgent.”

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy ... port-trump

Here is a link to the actual report: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom ... in-retreat

As the article notes, the fact that Freedom House is willing to make such strong statements despite receiving the vast majority of the its funding from the U.S. government shows how dire they believe the situation is. You might still think it is absurdly hyperbolic, but it not just an opinion that Prim -- or I -- hold.


ETA: To give an idea of Freedom House's non-partisan history, it was founded in October 1941, and Wendell Willkie (who was the GOP nominee for president against FDR) and Eleanor Roosevelt served as its first honorary chairpersons.

[yovargas]

I mean, I said I think he's doing a great deal of harm so it's not like I disagree with anything they said. But what they said doesn't necessarily lead to what Prim said. You will note that it says he assailed those institutions. It does not say his attacks have been, or can be expected to be, successful in destroying them. Weakening, very probably, but not anywhere near destroying.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He says that they can no longer guarantee that democracy in the U.S. will endure. That's pretty much the same thing that Prim said, in different words.

[yovargas]

Of course nobody can guarantee that ever. He's saying people need to be vigilant to protect democracy. That has always been the case no matter who's in power. Fortunately, a great many people are very vigilant indeed so I would put the odds of, say, a non-functional electoral system at near zero whether Trump wins or loses.

[Primula Baggins]

Some states have pretty close to a non-functional electoral system right now. But what I think Voronwë was talking about, and what I too am really concerned about, is a general loss of faith that elections actually represent the will of voters ("the legitimacy of elections"). The 2016 presidential race was an opening salvo in that. It was wonderful for Trump's controllers that he won, but the general confusion and the clear evidence that elections could be and were being influenced by foreign governments would have been good enough. If you don't trust the process, why vote? Why care about voting? It's all run for the rich people anyway, there's no hope, ordinary people can never accomplish anything. . . . A carefully crafted self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If read the full report (or the special section on democracy in American), you'll see that he is saying a lot more than just people need to be vigilant just as always. He is saying that Trump is major threat to Democracy continuing to be viable in the U.S. like we have not seen in recent memory.

[Frelga]

On the one hand, the midterms.

On the other, the good people of America are terrifyingly complacent.

[Cerin]

Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders are the two candidates most maligned by the corporate media and the Democratic establishment, so I will be rooting for them (but not in any realistic sense).

The media wanted Beto O'Rourke to be the new Obama, but I think he dashed their hopes by losing his Senate race.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Note: I moved this post and the following post from the thread about AOC and the GND - VtF]

This comment is probably more relevant to the 2020 election thread, but I could easily see the plethora of progressive candidates splitting those votes and a more moderate candidate like Biden swooping in and taking the nomination. Or even there being the kind of chaotic convention backroom politicking that many expected on the GOP side in 2016 before Mr. Trump cleared that large field.

[Cerin]

This comment is probably more relevant to the 2020 election thread, but I could easily see the plethora of progressive candidates splitting those votes and a more moderate candidate like Biden swooping in and taking the nomination. Or even there being the kind of chaotic convention backroom politicking that many expected on the GOP side in 2016 before Mr. Trump cleared that large field.

I get the impression there is more concern about Bernie's age than about Biden's, but they are only a year apart, and only 5 years older than Trump. Trump will be older than Reagan was at the beginning of his second term if he has a second term. I don't know whether to worry about their ages or not, both as a personal concern over their well-being and as a potential problem for voters.

(Voronwë, I thought about taking your quote over to the other thread, but wasn't sure if I should.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My gut reaction is that both Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are too old to be running, but then I immediately accuse myself of ageism. Certainly things are different than they were 40 years ago when Reagan brilliantly responded to Mondale's attempts portray Reagan as too old (even though apparently Reagan already experiencing the earliest symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease).

[yovargas]

I can't call it ageism when it's a biological fact that most men don't live past 80. The idea of nominating a 79 year old man seems reckless to me.

[Primula Baggins]

But a man who’s already 79 usually has a life expectancy of years more. “Most men don’t live past 80” includes a large cohort of males who died in infancy or childhood.

[Dave_LF]

But lots of men remain vigorous well into their 80s too (occasionally longer). And if you're healthy enough at 79 to even consider running for President, there's a good chance you're one of them.

[Frelga]

But lots of men remain vigorous well into their 80s too (occasionally longer). And if you're healthy enough at 79 to even consider running for President, there's a good chance you're one of them.

But how can you tell if you are considering it because you are healthy enough or because dementia is already setting in?

[Primula Baggins]

I would like to argue that those around you would know and would never permit you to be run for office, but we have too much evidence that this isn't the case.

[Frelga]

I would like to argue that those around you would know and would never permit you to be run for office, but we have too much evidence that this isn't the case.

Exactly. In retrospect, we already know this happened with Reagan, as mentioned above.

I've seen how suddenly my FIL's cognition has declined. It is also clear that at least one major party, and possibly both, would fight tooth and nail to keep "their" president in the office. Those things lead me to feel very strongly that anyone nominated to be president should be under 76 AT MOST.

[Primula Baggins]

Even that wouldn't be protection against dementia, as it can set in earlier than that. I think a cognitive assessment administered by a respected medical facility should be required, or at least that candidates should be expected to volunteer to undergo one. (At that age they should be seeing their doctor yearly at least and getting the assessment anyway.)

[Dave_LF]

I'm not sure I'd disagree. If you're not allowed to fly a plane after 65, you probably shouldn't be allowed to president a country after some point either.