What have we learned from the 2020 election...so far.

The only "House" the results are going to is the White House.

Trump just needs to acknowledge his Loser status.

Surely you Trumpers don't live in Fantasyland ?

Those who deny reality are destined to repeat it. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

maybe you wrote what you meant

but I am asking for clarification purposes if you did mean it

if one denies reality, he or she (notice only two genders, which is also reality) will repeat reality?

the sentence does not work for those who deny the reality of two genders, because they keep right on repeating their denials of reality, so right there your statement is incorrect

so in what way does someone who denies reality, repeat reality?

now if somehow you try to claim the antecedent of it is "deny" then that's a new twist on sentence construction

maybe you wrote what you meant

but I am asking for clarification purposes if you did mean it

if one denies reality, he or she (notice only two genders, which is also reality) will repeat reality? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Maybe you ought to let that one percolate for a while before trying to wrap your mind around it.

Careful, your head may explode.

I’m good with either outcome.

Hail Hydra!

The only "House" the results are going to is the White House.

Trump just needs to acknowledge his Loser status.

Surely you Trumpers don't live in Fantasyland ? Originally Posted by sportfisherman

If you really want to confuse these boys, call them Shirley!

Isn't that the truth !!

They have some overly tedious word parsers on here too don't they ?

If you really want to confuse these boys, call them Shirley!


Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're full of it this morning yssup. Forget to take your metamucil last night? lolling

I think Donald Trump demonstrated exactly what the GOP needs, someone who will fight back and not lay down.


Yes, just not using the language and demeanor that Trump used.



Forget the tweets, Trump did those before he ran and no one cared.


Because he wasn't President. People care what Presidents say, not so much TV personalities.


What was different was the punching and counterpunching.


True and it could have been better.


Trump exposed the media for exactly who they are. A bunch of whiny little crybabies absorbed by their own importance.


And it could have been done better.


Does anyone like Mitt Romney, the anti-Trump. I didn't think so. We watched that idiot put down at the debate when he was right and in the press when he was innocent of any wrongdoing. Give me a Trump anyday. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

And yet he lost so no, don't give me another Trump, give me a better Trump, someone who is a fighter, who will counter the media by being better than the media. Trump came across a whining to. It can be done better.


Trump will fare no better than Hillary at being relevant after losing. Lots of Republicans "accepted" Trump as the head of the party when he was the head of the party. He will never have that position again and will be irrelevant to the party in the future. That is my opinion and my prediction. He was useful when he had power. He lost that power and will never achieve it again because there will be better people than Trump trying for that power.

Agreed, replying to SpeedRacer's question, it's a crapshoot as to who will be the frontrunner. Right now you'd have to say Donald Trump, although Republicans would be making a mistake to run him again in 2024.


Never gonna happen.


Governors like Scott Walker who you mention have executive experience in government, which is maybe the best preparation you can have for leading the country. Ronald Reagan, governor of California, in my opinion did the best job of any president during our lifetimes. And Clinton in his second term did the best of the Democrats. George W. Bush was perhaps an exception, although most of us who followed him as governor of Texas wouldn't say he did an exceptional job when he was in Austin.

Still, Rand Paul would probably be my top pick as far as ideology goes. Tim Scott would be interesting. He could attract black voters to the Republican Party. His background is interesting, having grown up in poverty, the son of a single mother, a nurse's assistant. Contrast with Barrack Obama and Kamala Harris, children of white, Kenyan, Jamaican and Indian parents who had comfortable upbringings.

Kasich might be my top pick because although I disagree with him on some issues, he'd be a formidable candidate in a general election, with a good background as governor and Congressman, and a little experience in business to boot. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, Tim Scott would be an interesting choice. A Black man at the head of the Republican ticket

And yet he lost so no, don't give me another Trump, give me a better Trump, someone who is a fighter, who will counter the media by being better than the media. Trump came across a whining to. It can be done better.


Trump will fare no better than Hillary at being relevant after losing. Lots of Republicans "accepted" Trump as the head of the party when he was the head of the party. He will never have that position again and will be irrelevant to the party in the future. That is my opinion and my prediction. He was useful when he had power. He lost that power and will never achieve it again because there will be better people than Trump trying for that power. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Good post. In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote by 2.1% but won the election because he got lucky. This year it looks like he'll lose by about 3.7%. The Republican Party needs to nominate someone in 2024 who can win, and Trump is far down the list of names of people most likely to do that.

How did he “get lucky”? Focusing a campaign on the states you need to hit 270 is a solid election strategy, not luck.

It's not a good solid election strategy to aspire to lose the popular vote and count on squeaking out an electoral college victory.

We need Arnold Schwarzenager "The Terminator"

He would be a good choice for the Republicans.

Just need an act of congress to make him eligible.

How did he “get lucky”? Focusing a campaign on the states you need to hit 270 is a solid election strategy, not luck. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Yeah, luck would have come into play if he'd done it again after the shit show/dumpster fire of the last four years. That would've been lucky.

It's not a good solid election strategy to aspire to lose the popular vote and count on squeaking out an electoral college victory.

We need Arnold Schwarzenager "The Terminator"

He would be a good choice for the Republicans.

Just need an act of congress to make him eligible. Originally Posted by sportfisherman

It would take more than congress to make Arnold eligible. It would take a constitutional amendment passed by 3/4 of the state houses and Arnold is a poor candidate. He's a muscular, pencil-necked pajama boy.
Another obvious thing, Trump was not ran by the GOP in 2016. He beat them to get the job.

Also strategy is very important. I remember watching Hillary on TV when she was talking about getting a good portion of the delegates in California's primary against Obama. Then a reporter of all people told her that California was a winner-take-all state. She would get nothing for a second place finish. She almost killed her campaign manager right there when he was unsure if the reporter was correct or not. Apparently the Hillary strategy was not to beat Obama but to stay within striking distance for the super delegates to put her over the top. Bad strategy if you don't know the terrain.

How did he “get lucky”? Focusing a campaign on the states you need to hit 270 is a solid election strategy, not luck. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Yes, focusing time and attention on Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, instead of, say, California or Texas, was smart. Winning those states by small margins was lucky.

Here's a list of all elections for which the popular vote was available nationwide, which were won by less than a plurality, along with the % by which the president loss the popular vote:

2016: Donald Trump, -2.10%
2000: George W. Bush, -0.51%
1888: Benjamin Harrison, -0.79%
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes, -3.02%

Bush and Harrison didn't lose by much in the popular vote. So you've really only got one election, in 1876, where a president won with a percentage popular-vote deficit comparable to Trump's.

And the 1876 election was a knock down, drag out fight, with disputes over who won in Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. Coming to the agreement by which Hayes became the president required Republicans to agree to withdraw federal troops from the south, ending reconstruction. This in turn returned control of the south back to Democrats, who promptly passed Jim Crow laws and disenfranchised black voters.

So yes, Trump was pretty damn lucky to have lost the popular vote by 2.1% and still won a majority of the electors in 2016. If he wants to replay 1876 this year he's going to have a tough time. As the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency said, "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history....There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12...uncil-election

Yes, focusing time and attention on Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, instead of, say, California or Texas, was smart. Winning those states by small margins was lucky.

I’m not seeing how luck had anything to do with him winning those states, small margins or otherwise.