What will the most dominant issue in the 2020 election?

[History505]

What issue do you think will be raised a lot in the 2020 election?

[MarkD]

I can only hope that the Supreme Court will be raised a lot, and that presidential candidates will emphasize the need to have nothing but the most highly objective people appointed to it.
Last year, I listened to Hillary Clinton emphasize the need to appoint people who will: 1) overturn Citizens United v. FEC, 2) sustain Roe v. Wade, and 3) sustain Obergefell v. Hodges. That was three wrong conclusions she wants the Court to come to in the future. She just plain wants the Court to always be liberal. Oh, .... and she wants the Court to stop always supporting the interests of corporations (as if that's what has been happening in the recent past).
I listed to Trump say that he wants to appoint people with a "conservative bent," and he wants to replace Justice Scalia with someone similar to Scalia. So Clinton wanted to appoint liberals; Trump wants to appoint conservatives like Scalia. Both of those expectations were unacceptable to me, because I've realized, after years of studying how the Court does its work, and seeing dozens upon dozens of mistakes, that the Court will not interpret the Constitution correctly unless its members are appointed based on being dedicated to objectivity. We need great Supreme Court Justices like Holmes, Cardozo, and Black, not more Ginsburgs or more Scalias.

This is what I hope becomes the dominant issue. It probably won't be, but at least I can try to urge more to see this issue the way I do.

[Tekken_Guy]

A referendum on Trump.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I can only hope that the Supreme Court will be raised a lot, and that presidential candidates will emphasize the need to have nothing but the most highly objective people appointed to it.
Last year, I listened to Hillary Clinton emphasize the need to appoint people who will: 1) overturn Citizens United v. FEC, 2) sustain Roe v. Wade, and 3) sustain Obergefell v. Hodges. That was three wrong conclusions she wants the Court to come to in the future. She just plain wants the Court to always be liberal. Oh, .... and she wants the Court to stop always supporting the interests of corporations (as if that's what has been happening in the recent past).
I listed to Trump say that he wants to appoint people with a "conservative bent," and he wants to replace Justice Scalia with someone similar to Scalia. So Clinton wanted to appoint liberals; Trump wants to appoint conservatives like Scalia. Both of those expectations were unacceptable to me, because I've realized, after years of studying how the Court does its work, and seeing dozens upon dozens of mistakes, that the Court will not interpret the Constitution correctly unless its members are appointed based on being dedicated to objectivity. We need great Supreme Court Justices like Holmes, Cardozo, and Black, not more Ginsburgs or more Scalias.

This is what I hope becomes the dominant issue. It probably won't be, but at least I can try to urge more to see this issue the way I do.

Posner should have been a Justice.

Snark fully aside, if only your statement were true. To the extent that anyone votes with the Court in mind, it's always with an eye to appoint justices of a similar ideological bent and not those who objectively study case law and statutory history and come to a neutral decision. The Court was never intended as a "super legislature," granting rights to persons where before there had been no such right. And for the record, this includes Obergfell, CU (although this rot extends back to Buckley, of course) and Heller. And those are just in the last decade or so.

[PRESIDENT STANTON]

The Russia investigation fall-out; two possibilities, that there will be no evidence of Russia-Trump collusion, and the Democrats will be embarrassed, because they were on the record for making such a big-deal over much ado about nothing and know Trump as we all do, he will constantly rub there nose in it, creating animosity & a toxic atmosphere in which Democrats will advocate impeachment motions against Trump for his role in wasting the time & resources  of Mueller & FBI, Democrats who have a M.O. of zero accountability & zero reason, will try to obfuscate and cloud the issue of who is to blame, a classic deflection gambit. There efforts will likely have less than a even chance of success however, and it will be case of the "boy who cried wolf" paradigm when try to use a similar tactic on some other issue, during and in the aftermath of the 2020 Election.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

A referendum on Trump.

I hope that it will be a referendum on President Moron. I fear that it will be a mix of  how to recover from economic collapse, war, and/or low-intensity guerrilla war in the US.

[TheSaint250]

If Trump isn't impeached and removed: Trump
If Trump is impeached and removed: Trump

[Don Vito Corleone]

The Russia investigation fall-out; two possibilities, that there will be no evidence of Russia-Trump collusion, and the Democrats will be embarrassed, because they were on the record for making such a big-deal over much ado about nothing and know Trump as we all do, he will constantly rub there nose in it, creating animosity & a toxic atmosphere in which Democrats will advocate impeachment motions against Trump for his role in wasting the time & resources  of Mueller & FBI, Democrats who have a M.O. of zero accountability & zero reason, will try to obfuscate and cloud the issue of who is to blame, a classic deflection gambit. There efforts will likely have less than a even chance of success however, and it will be case of the "boy who cried wolf" paradigm when try to use a similar tactic on some other issue, during and in the aftermath of the 2020 Election.

Even Fox News admits there was collusion. Their new defense is "well what's the big deal with collusion?".

[AtorBoltox]

Who would even organise an election in a nuclear wasteland?

[tosk]

it's the economy, stupid

[Inmate Trump]

Russian interference to help re-elect Trump.

[pbrower2a]

A referendum on Trump.

Assuming, of course, that President Trump remains in office and chooses to run for re-election.

Precisely. That's what every Presidential election involving an incumbent boils down to: the record of the incumbent.

[American2020]

A referendum on Trump.

Agree.

The main issues for this election will be anger and embarassment.

[PRESIDENT STANTON]

The Russia investigation fall-out; has two possible outcomes, that there will be no evidence of Russia-Trump collusion, and the Democrats will be embarrassed, because they were on the record for making such a big-deal over much ado about nothing and know Trump as we all do, he will constantly rub there nose in it, creating animosity & a toxic atmosphere in which Democrats will advocate impeachment motions against Trump for his role in wasting the time & resources  of Mueller & FBI, Democrats who have a M.O. of zero accountability & zero reason, will try to obfuscate and cloud the issue of who is to blame, a classic deflection gambit. There efforts will likely have less than an even chance of success however, and it will be case of the "boy who cried wolf" paradigm when try to use a similar tactic on some other issue, during and in the aftermath of the 2020 Election. Can anyone say People’s Republic of China? Democrats we know don’t have any credibility on Obamacare, the Wall, the economy & are the poster child of congressional gridlock, Trump will use these factors to advance his re-election hopes, whoever the Democrats select to be there standard bearer will also have a determining effect on how the election of 2020 plays out. Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, John Delaney & Martin O’Malley cannot be ruled out, but it is likely someone who is not currently on the political radar could emerge as a contender. If Democrats believe they win in 2020, by defining Trump in the same negative terms as they have, they are in danger of failing as Hillary Clinton did. They should offer positive and not negative alternatives, otherwise Trump wins!
My advice to Trump, double down on the present strategy you are pursuing, Democrats are being left flat-footed by your conduct, in other words, it’s working, in other words, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” methodology is an effective way to go. However, Trump needs to have a less dysfunctional methodology of governance, less-staff shake-ups, its less about him & more about the job he was elected to do. Nothing will get done if he keeps getting in the way, highly entertaining, but not too productive.
Things will pan out, because of how things are.

[MarkD]

I can only hope that the Supreme Court will be raised a lot, and that presidential candidates will emphasize the need to have nothing but the most highly objective people appointed to it.
Last year, I listened to Hillary Clinton emphasize the need to appoint people who will: 1) overturn Citizens United v. FEC, 2) sustain Roe v. Wade, and 3) sustain Obergefell v. Hodges. That was three wrong conclusions she wants the Court to come to in the future. She just plain wants the Court to always be liberal. Oh, .... and she wants the Court to stop always supporting the interests of corporations (as if that's what has been happening in the recent past).
I listed to Trump say that he wants to appoint people with a "conservative bent," and he wants to replace Justice Scalia with someone similar to Scalia. So Clinton wanted to appoint liberals; Trump wants to appoint conservatives like Scalia. Both of those expectations were unacceptable to me, because I've realized, after years of studying how the Court does its work, and seeing dozens upon dozens of mistakes, that the Court will not interpret the Constitution correctly unless its members are appointed based on being dedicated to objectivity. We need great Supreme Court Justices like Holmes, Cardozo, and Black, not more Ginsburgs or more Scalias.

This is what I hope becomes the dominant issue. It probably won't be, but at least I can try to urge more to see this issue the way I do.

why are you like this

If you mean why do I care the most about whether the Constitution should be interpreted objectively and accurately, I think the answer should be obvious. If you mean something else by your "why" then please elaborate.

[adrac]

The country is too polarized right now for it to be anything other than a referendum on Trump, regardless of whether or not he makes it 2020.

[Medal506]

I can only hope that the Supreme Court will be raised a lot, and that presidential candidates will emphasize the need to have nothing but the most highly objective people appointed to it.
Last year, I listened to Hillary Clinton emphasize the need to appoint people who will: 1) overturn Citizens United v. FEC, 2) sustain Roe v. Wade, and 3) sustain Obergefell v. Hodges. That was three wrong conclusions she wants the Court to come to in the future. She just plain wants the Court to always be liberal. Oh, .... and she wants the Court to stop always supporting the interests of corporations (as if that's what has been happening in the recent past).
I listed to Trump say that he wants to appoint people with a "conservative bent," and he wants to replace Justice Scalia with someone similar to Scalia. So Clinton wanted to appoint liberals; Trump wants to appoint conservatives like Scalia. Both of those expectations were unacceptable to me, because I've realized, after years of studying how the Court does its work, and seeing dozens upon dozens of mistakes, that the Court will not interpret the Constitution correctly unless its members are appointed based on being dedicated to objectivity. We need great Supreme Court Justices like Holmes, Cardozo, and Black, not more Ginsburgs or more Scalias.

This is what I hope becomes the dominant issue. It probably won't be, but at least I can try to urge more to see this issue the way I do.

Obergefell v Hodges and Roe v Wade will both be overturn if Kennedy resigns next year.

[The Other Castro]

The iodine tablet shortage for the nuclear fallout.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The country is too polarized right now for it to be anything other than a referendum on Trump, regardless of whether or not he makes it 2020.

[MarkD]

I can only hope that the Supreme Court will be raised a lot, and that presidential candidates will emphasize the need to have nothing but the most highly objective people appointed to it.
Last year, I listened to Hillary Clinton emphasize the need to appoint people who will: 1) overturn Citizens United v. FEC, 2) sustain Roe v. Wade, and 3) sustain Obergefell v. Hodges. That was three wrong conclusions she wants the Court to come to in the future. She just plain wants the Court to always be liberal. Oh, .... and she wants the Court to stop always supporting the interests of corporations (as if that's what has been happening in the recent past).
I listed to Trump say that he wants to appoint people with a "conservative bent," and he wants to replace Justice Scalia with someone similar to Scalia. So Clinton wanted to appoint liberals; Trump wants to appoint conservatives like Scalia. Both of those expectations were unacceptable to me, because I've realized, after years of studying how the Court does its work, and seeing dozens upon dozens of mistakes, that the Court will not interpret the Constitution correctly unless its members are appointed based on being dedicated to objectivity. We need great Supreme Court Justices like Holmes, Cardozo, and Black, not more Ginsburgs or more Scalias.

This is what I hope becomes the dominant issue. It probably won't be, but at least I can try to urge more to see this issue the way I do.

Obergefell v Hodges and Roe v Wade will both be overturn if Kennedy resigns next year.

Will they be overturned just because the replacement for Kennedy will be conservative, or will they be overturned because the replacement will be one of the most highly objective interpreter of law (which means they do not pull more BS like Bush v. Gore, 2000)?

[HillGoose]

I hope the whole thing is a referendum on the alt-right in general.

[Sir Mohamed]

A weired thought: I guess a recession will emerge by mid/late 2019.

[American2020]

There should be questions a Democratic opponent should ask to the public during the first or the last debate:

Is America great again ?
Are you better off now than you were four years ago ?
Is America as respected throughout the world as it was ?
Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago ?
Do you think the President is honest and trusworthly ?

[Agonized-Statism]

A global pandemic that triggers severe social and economic disruption around the world