2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates are Legion

We are only four months into the Trump presidency, and already, there is speculation as to who will run against him in 2020.  While the use of the word "legion" in the title of this post is pure exaggeration, the Hill.com has identified 43 potential Democratic candidates who could possible challenge Trump's reelection.  Most of the list is primarily made up of a hodge-podge of political types like mayors, governors, senators, and congressmen.  But, the fact that Trump, a political outsider, has won, has resulted in a number of non-politicians who have expressed a desire to enter the race.

These are the non-politicians that the Hill.com thinks may run:

• Mark Zuckerberg - Billionaire Co-Founder and CEO of Facebook
• Mark Cuban - Billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks
• Tom Steyer -  Billionaire Climate Change Activist
• Sheryl Sandberg - Billionaire and Chief Operating Officer of Facebook
• Howard Schultz - Billionaire and CEO of Starbucks
• Michele Obama - Former First Lady
• Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson - Wrestler and Actor
• Oprah Winfrey - Billionaire Media Mogul

Except for Michele Obama and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, the basic theme here is "billionaire".   And, there's more where they came from.  You have a number of billionaires who backed Hillary and  who may also be so-inclined to throw their hats in the ring.  Then too, there's a bunch of Hollywood types who might want to take on the "Trumpster".   All who perhaps aren't necessarily billionaires but are wealthy enough to support their own campaigns and who have high name recognition.  Maybe even billionaire movie mogul Steven Spielberg?

What is interesting about this "billionaire" movement is that it appears to be an attempt at fighting fire with fire.  But, it is also interesting that the Democrats would even consider a billionaire as their presidential nominee.  After all, for decades, they have hated the rich (except when it comes to donations), primarily because they claim that the rich represent income inequality and only exist off the backs of the poor.

In any event, 2020 may be shaping up to be one of the most contested campaigns against a sitting President in the history of the United States. In fact, we might even see a bevy of anti-Trump Republicans attempting to overthrow him.

References:

The 43 people who might run against Trump in 2020: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/332156-the-43-people-who-might-run-against-trump-in-2020

Here Are the Billionaires Backing Hillary Clinton: http://fortune.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-billionaire-backers/

We Are A Republic & Not A Pure Democracy

Most people don't really understand what form of government we actually have in the United States of America. Generally, people falsely declare this country as being a democracy. But, in a true democracy, the people govern themselves. Each and every decision in a democracy is voted on and decided by a popular vote. Could you imagine having an general election for every law and policy that is made in this country? For that reason, we are a "form" of democracy called a republic. In a republic, we elect representatives to speak and vote for us.

Further, we are a collection of States with each State having primary control over its own citizenry. Collectively, those States have "agreed" to be part of a "union" or what can also be known as a federation of States. We clearly represent this fact in the "star field" of our American Flag. This federation or federal system of government provides for any laws and policies that are of common interest to all of the States in the union. As part of joining the "union," each state agrees to abide by the greater laws of the federation. A typical example of what a federation hopes to achieve is a single, standing military which would be stronger and more protective than any haphazard collection of militias by each of the individual States in that union.

Now, the purpose of all the above verbiage is to try and give you the rationale as to why we have an electoral college. It all comes down to the concept of individual State's rights. The electoral college is a mechanism by which each state, state by state, can decide on who will be elected as our next president. After all, the office of president is the only elected office in the entire United States government that "isn't" voted on by the electorate within each individual state and, then, sent on to Washington, D.C. Both U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives are exclusively sent to Washington by state elections. But, not the President.

One by one, each individual State decides on its choice for President by awarding all of its allotted electoral votes to the candidate that gets the majority. That's how we wind up with today's concept of red and blue states for Republican versus Democrat. This is also an extension of the concept of a "republic" by using electoral votes to be representative of the population in each state. Could we elect a President by popular vote and not by an electoral college? Sure, we could. However, the States would lose a little more power in doing so. To be true to both our federal form of government and our republic, the electoral vote system should be retained. That's just my opinion.


Image by Thomas Hawk's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing remix/adapt/modify permission (Click to View Other Works). Specifically modified by Cranky George for this blog entry.

Are The Polls Wrong?

Just before the Pennsylvania Primary, the race was seen, by most pollsters, as "tightened". Generally, they showed around a 52% to 48% advantage; Clinton over Obama. On the day of the primary, the exit polls showed a near similar tightened spread. Then, when the votes were counted, the polls were clearly shown to be wrong. Instead, it is as if the margin of error was added to Hillary's advantage and equally subtracted from Obama poll numbers in order to get the right answer. That's how far off things were.

The pollsters have definitely got a problem. At best, they just think that Obama supporters are more enthusiastic and, therefore, want to express themselves more freely to the pollsters. Others say that there is a dark side, a more sinister problem, that involves whites not wanting to admit that they didn't or won't vote for Obama. The fact is, some whites might feel "subliminally" racist if they "say" they didn't vote for the black man. For that reason, they either avoid the pollsters or simply lie to them.

Whatever is happening, it is obvious that the polls aren't accurate. Right now, Obama is seen to be leading McCain in most of the head-to-head national polls. Can we really trust that? If it is anything like what was happening in Pennsylvania, Obama is probably "overstated" by the margin of error and McCain equally "understated". If so, those polls are probably really saying that McCain is ahead by a two to three percentage points.