Posted on 10/24/2017 2:07:31 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Edited on 10/24/2017 2:42:56 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
See link
You saw what happened to Bernie Sanders (probably more honest than Hillary, but I am glad he is not POTUS). The big money Dems and CNN cheated him shamelessly in the primary, threatened and/or bribed him to support H, and then blamed him for even being a candidate in the primaries, since it was supposed to be H's coronation.
This highlights the difficulty of uniting what is left of the D party. Even if Tulsi Gabbard ran in the primaries and didn't get cheated, the warmongers in her party would want to buy her off or ruin her.
I don't know who they can find who would beat Trump.
How did you post from Bloomberg? When I try to do that it’s blocked.
I don’t know. Maybe because I put it in the editorial section? Or maybe the FR policy just changed?
Trump has always been the only person who could beat Trump, it was true in 2016, it’s true today and it will be True in 2020.
All incumbents have an edge unless the economy is dog doo (1932, 1980) or perceived to be dog doo even if it’s ok (1992, recession was over well ahead of the vote) unless your name is Harry Truman (1948) in which case a farm recession helped you somehow because voters were retarded gibemdats sucking on the New Deal teat.
I think Obama may have lost the 2nd time around if not for his incumbency, even to Myth.
If the economy is in ok shape in 2020 Trump is more likely than not to win. If’s it’s crappy he’ll probably lose.
As to the other questions the farticle asks
2)A war (in it’s early stages not quagmire stages) would only help an incumbent President
3)”Will Democrats win control of the House next year, and reject a left-wing agenda for the 2020 presidential contest?”
LOL, putting their chances at winning the House aside (not great IMO) I have news for Bloomberg, the progtard base wants free college and single payer, the rat nominee is gonna have to be for that or pretend to be for that, the democrats will be running on a far-left agenda whether the corporate bloomberg wing of the party likes it or not, and that’s good news for Republicans. If they somehow nominated someone unacceptable to their base we’re gonna see the Green party taking 5%+ from them.
4)Wishful thinking? Trump has shown no sign of health problems. Also while he’s a smidge on the portly side calling him “borderline obese” renders the term meaningless, they called the athletic GW Bush fat as well. Most Americans could stand to lose a few or more than a few pounds.
5)No crimes were committed by Trump vis a vis Russia, yawn so boring.
Even if the economy slumps, who would the Dems nominate, and how would they unite the fat cat neoliberals with the socialists?
They simply have to project to make themselves feel better...the more fantastical, the more they pat themselves on the back...or butt, if you are like Don Lemon.
Could be...
No, Trump’s re-election edge is not greatly exaggerated. It is right on the money. The proof is that these clowns are starting already to try and counter it.
Also, I think the anti-Trump campaign must be desperate when represented by the Florida Dem in the cowboy hat, Maxine Waters, and GWB.
#4- Trump might have health problems . . . I don’t see any signs of that either. Still, President Trump is over age 70, and the job ages people. I consider this the biggest risk America faces.
If I cared to offer than advice I’d tell them to nominate Kamala Harris and I think they might.
She’s a Clinton democrat not beloved of the lunatic left but she’s recently signed on to berniecare and her skin color/gender shield her from too much criticism in the rat party. As a light-skinned, relatively attractive former prosecutor she’s palatable to White suburbanites.
The corporate dems could force Harris through. The socialists hate her because she didn’t prosecute Mnuchin, and generally because she is one of the corporate dem elite herself.
Most likely on the Op-Ed page or the front page.
Hunt was WSJ’s chief Washington news correspondent for many years. Hunt has always been a Leftist.
Many people, but probably not you, are shocked to learn that the WSJ news division has been Left or center-left on every major political issue for at least the last 40 years.
The WSJ editorial page and National Review magazine were my Conservative instruction manuals from the 1960s until the 1990s.
Tragically, WSJ’s legendary editorial page editor, Robert L. Bartley, started moving to the center around 1994. He became more and more strident about open borders immigration, and he gave more and more authority to RINOs like Paul Gigot, who eventually replaced Bartley in 2001.
He'll be elected to a 2nd term in a LANDSLIDE just like Reagan, who accomplished the same after his tax cuts went into effect.
REJECTED!
Soros/Hillary/David Brock Fake News
Moving right along...
Did they forget their “no path to 270” prediction already?
Agreed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.