Can Any Democrat Beat Trump? Personality and History Say Maybe

American Thinker.com ^ | February 20, 2019 | Merrick Rosenberg and Richard Ellis

[HamiltonJay]

Uh were you not alive in 1992? Economy was in recession in that election it absolutely applies to the 92 election.

[The Great RJ]

Bernie currently has the momentum to get the nomination. Bloomberg despite spending millions on slick ads gave a poor performance in the debate and the resentment of the other candidates that he bought his way in will work against him. Biden is going through the motions of running, but is all but out of the race. Warren is too much like Hillary and comes off shrill and phony. Mayor Pete not really ready for prime time. Klobuchar looks and sounds like the Amway lady...another Mondale.

Bernie will come into the convention with a big block of delegates, but maybe not enough to win on the first ballot. Party officials and the old guard Democrats know Bernie cannot win against Trump. However unlike 2016 when Hillary was the obvious alternative and Bernie was denied the nomination by back room deals, in 2020 there is no clear alternative. The Bernie supporters also will not tolerate another back room deal to deny their candidate and may well take to the streets of Milwaukee.

Democrats have the unfortunate choice of letting Bernie run and suffer another McGovern blow out in November or risk fracturing the party by picking someone else including some dark horse. Neither scenario is likely to put a Democrat in the White House.

Does Trump have the win sewn up? ...there are always unexpected things that could happen to prevent Trump from getting a second term, but at this point I don’t see any possible Democrat candidate winning. Even Trumps impeachment and Russia investigation did not drop him in the polls and seem to have only emboldened his supporters. Look at Trump’s rallies even in blue states where he attracts enthusiastic standing room only crowds and compare them to the lack luster gatherings in support of the other candidates who garner sometimes only a few hundred faithful. My bet is Trump will win handily in November.

[al baby]

‘To think Obammie had any eagle qualities is laughable.”

Not really he was ileagal

[9YearLurker]

Good luck to the Dems finding a bigger personality than Trump.

[9YearLurker]

Which is why they will try a) to tank the economy, as they did to get Obama in in ‘08, and b) to cheat via voting fraud, as they had thought they’d done sufficiently in 2016.

[billyboy15]

There have been multiple studies done which indicate tall men in general are thought of more favorably and also earn more money than short people in the same position.

Similarly attractive people advance further and faster in their careers than do physically unattractive people in the same position. Being seen as attractive and strong can and does translate into votes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/the-financial-perks-of-being-tall/393518/

https://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-make-more-money-2014-11

[Verginius Rufus]

Since Trump announced in 2015 the personal attacks have been relentless, and that is the only message the Democrats can offer in 2020: vote Trump out because he is a bad man.

Barring an extreme collapse of the economy or a real scandal surfacing, I don't think he can lose. I don't think there are any real scandals to surface because they would have surfaced a long time ago.

[cuban leaf]

Yes, but I’m not saying I voted against trump. My vote was cast for him. But it was really a vote “against” hillary.

This is what I try to explain to leftists. Elections are like that old joke about the two campers who see a bear and one starts putting on his shoes and the other said that won’t help him outrun the bear. To which the other says, “I only need to outrun YOU.”

When people would say things like “trump can’t win because he only has a 30% approval rating, they forget that that is all he needs to win if his opponent only has a 20% approval rating.

IOW, I’m saying my vote “for” trump was only a vote AGAINST Hillary. But in 2020 it will be a vote FOR trump.

It’s the difference between holding your nose and voting, vs being happy to do it.

[jmaroneps37]

“Can Any Democrat Beat Trump? Personality and History Say Maybe” Ha ha ha ha ha! Stop it you’re killing me. Go away and think up something new to say assholes.

[plain talk]

“personality has determined the winner of the last twenty-two U.S. presidential elections”

No disagreement here. But it is also who they think looks stronger and more presidential.

[TBP]

No.

[minnesota_bound]

Donald Trump will stomp all over the socialists.
To be sure he needs to keep pointing out what failures they are personally and their policies.

[minnesota_bound]

#2 Not JFK in todays world. We know all the stuff he was involved in.

[Elsie]

He’s made me a believer.

It appears he's done that to a LOT of folks!!

[generally]

In my opinion, Trump is:

confident, assertive, blunt, results-oriented,
positive, charismatic, playful, inspiring,
empathetic, collaborative, caring, diplomatic,
analytical, detail-oriented, inquisitive, and tactical.

He defies categorization.

... and I think the premise that we can be sorted into 4 bird types is stupid.

[smvoice]

I don't know about the 4 birds mentioned, all I saw last night were cannibal VULTURES, feasting on each other. I have never been more proud to be a Republican, watching that stage of wretched misery, then turning the channel to President Trump's soaring rally. 🍿

[BDParrish]

Thank you.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Democrats may have had a plurality in 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections, but they got over 50% of the popular vote only in 2 of them (2008 and 2012). In the 49 states outside of California, Trump outpolled Hillary by more than a million votes in 2016.

[x]

Eagles are confident, assertive, blunt, and results-oriented.
Parrots are positive, charismatic, playful, and inspiring.
Doves are empathetic, collaborative, caring, and diplomatic.
Owls are analytical, detail-oriented, inquisitive, and tactical.

That is not the worst idea anybody ever had. The biggest problem is with the owls.

Analytic, detail-oriented mathematical minds like Carter's or Hoover's have trouble with politics. Throw in Romney, Gore, Dukakis, and Tom Dewey and you get the same result.

But are the owls really inquisitive? Some seem very dogmatic, close-minded or just plain uninquisitive? Is Hillary really an owl? Is Bob Dole?

Pete Buttigieg is clearly an owl, but does anybody seriously see a dove or an eagle in him? Is there an Eagle in any part of Klobuchar or Steyer? And why is Biden the only Parrot?

The labels may have some use, though. So may the active-positive, active-negative, passive-positive, passive-negative labels.

[kabar]

Sorry but that argument shows a complete lack of understanding of how presidents are elected. Getting 80% of the vote in California May racknup your national vote total but does not win you the White House.

You don't seem to get it. States are turning purple and then blue. VA, the state I lived in for 36 years until 2015, was solid red until it started turning purple in the 2004 election, and is now solid blue. CO, AZ, NC, GA, and a number of other purple states are heading blue. To ignore it is to deny reality.

Immigration's Impact on Republican Political Prospects, 1980 to 2012

Dems are looking at a best case scenario not 10 states plus dc this fall regardless of who they nominate.

Here are the states that are locks for the Dems along with the electoral votes:

CA--55

OR--7

WA--12

CO--9

NM--5

IL--20

VA--13

DC--3

MD--10

DE--3

NJ--14

NY--29

CT--7

RI--4

MA--11

VT--3

ME--2

Total 16 states plus DC with 207 electoral votes

I didn't include MN (10 electoral votes), which hasn't gone Rep since 1972 and that was the first time since 1956.