If the Presidential election was reheld today, would you still vote for Trump?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by will101

We have no idea who the opponent will be, as the next election will be on November 3, 2020.

From the opening post

Originally Posted by jpilson21

Fellow Americans, just curious.
For those of you who voted for Trump in 2016, would you vote for him again if election was reheld?

The word reheld
I'm sure it's meant to be taken as if an election were to be held this week, would you vote for Trump again given his performance so far.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

Would you have voted if for example Bernie Sanders had won the first round for the Democrats?

It's a nice thought, but it was never gonna happen. If there were any shenanigans in the last election, it was the Democrat National Committee conspiring with the Clinton campaign to make sure Sanders had no chance.

Even in the states he won, Hillary somehow managed not to lose. The superdelagates made sure of that.

I wouldn't change my vote at all... as was the case in the last three presidential elections, I voted for the libertarian (Gary Johnson) and would do so again.

Scounds is right-- there really wasn't a choice, just a lack of options.

[PatentHappy]

I was struck by the insight of a couple friends prior to the election:

1) The election was actually about which vice presidential nominee you preferred to succeed an impeached president.

2) Do you prefer smart/evil or dumb/evil? Smart/evil people (Hillary) resist hiring anyone who could be viewed as smarter than them. Dumb/evil people (Trump) try to resist being exposed as dumb by hiring smarter people around them.

Translation: A terrible choice is only capable of producing regret.

There are people now saying that Hillary would be president if she had told Trump to 'back off' when he stood too close to her at the debate. I prefer to believe that Hillary would be president if she or her campaign had publicly rejected the debate questions given to them by Donna Brazile before the Bernie Sanders debates. And if the DNC had fired its chair, Donna Brazile, the Democrats and Hillary could have ridden to the White House on the integrity vote. Instead, Donna Brazile remained the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee until the next chair election in Feb. 2017 (after being forced to resign from CNN on Oct. 14, 2016, for leaking debate questions, something she first denied but now admits). Heck, if Donna Brazile had had the class to resign as interim chair of the DNC due to her scandal, Hillary could still have possibly won. (It's ironic that Hillary doesn't mention the damage that Donna Brazile did to her and the Democratic Party as a factor in the election.)

Yes, a high number of Trump voters regret giving him a pass he didn't deserve. But not a high enough number of Hillary voters regret giving her and the DNC the pass they didn't deserve.

What many had hoped was that Trump could temper his immaturity after being elected. Didn't happen. Now, I prefer to believe that Hillary might have tempered her dark side if she had become president. Probably equally unrealistic (power being so intoxicating and self-deluding).

Neither candidate believed they had to play by the rules which apply to you and me. When a business man does it, we don't like them. But when a public servant does it, we despise them (that was one of the contrasts between Trump and Clinton). Who knew Trump would do it as both? (I guess most everybody, except optimistic Trump voters who believed they were sending a 'no' vote to both parties.)

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by will101

In 2000 they put up a former consumer advocate to help the Republican (US version of Conservatives) candidate George W. Bush, and defeat the most pro-environmental candidate in the US ever, Albert Gore. Ever since then, anyone I know of a liberal bent refuses to have anything to do with them. In this country, the word "green" is tarnished forever.

The narrative about Nader costing Gore the election is, like the "Bernie Bros" narrative a cover for the Democratic Party's stratagem of sacrificing the base in order to make a play for the center. They have been employing this stratagem since Clinton's first term. Nader's candidacy was done in response to this fact and the Clinton wing of the party has pushed Nader costing Gore the election to make an example to anyone thinking of trying anything similar. They would do this to Sanders if they could but the media does not have the credibility to pull it off

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

From the opening post



The word reheld
I'm sure it's meant to be taken as if an election were to be held this week,

It would probably have to be held pretty soon, certainly before the Third World War and or dictatorship options are taken up

[Jack Tripper]

My views haven't changed at all since last year. I'm still glad that Trump won over Clinton, although I did not vote for him. They were both deeply corrupt, greedy, power hungry, despicable people, the only difference was that she was competent and he is dumb as shit. And, as I had suspected, that turned out to be a very important distinction. Trump has managed to do next to nothing as President, the wall is not going to happen, the Muslim ban failed, the healthcare reform failed. The great part is that not only has he accomplished nothing but he has also derailed the Republicans and prevented them from doing a lot of what they wanted to do. In comparison, Clinton would have run her well oiled corruption machine that she was perfected over the years and swiftly and silently forwarded her neo-liberal agenda.

This is by no means a compliment to Trump or his presidency, there are also great dangers in having a dumb person in office as we are currently seeing.

[brk549]

It's not fair for the left to decide Trump is so terrible with only a little more than 6 months in office when they gave the previous clown 8 years to do something and what little he did do made things worse.Everyone I know has a lot brighter out look than they did 6 or 8 months ago.Hillary didn't lose just because she was such a bad candidate and so untruthful,the country standing still or going backwards for 8 years had a lot to do with it.

[bigtrain45]

Originally Posted by will101

We have no idea who the opponent will be, as the next election will be on November 3, 2020.

Trump won't be in the next election. He will either be assassinated, poisoned by the Secret Service, or impeached.

[will101]

Originally Posted by bigtrain45

Trump won't be in the next election. He will either be assassinated, poisoned by the Secret Service, or impeached.

Actually, the speculation that I have heard from people leaning either way is that after succeeding in cutting taxes for the rich even more, he will simply decide that being President is no longer profitable, and resign, secure in the knowledge that Pence will simply pardon him for anything he has done.

[will101]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

From the opening post

He spoke in the present tense, assuming that there was a major opposition candidate in existence. A major opposition candidate will not be determined for three years. Therefore the opening post is completely irrelevant.