Trump may have solidified his 2020 win, ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi killed in US Spec Ops Raid.
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Baghdadi survived some sort of assassination attempt a few months back as ISIS was collapsing. It's fair to say there are probably some alternative warlords jockeying for position. However, whilst they may be busy squabbling between themselves, probably much less likely they'll be bothering anyone else.warmachine said:
1) Per your Obama point, the Bin Laden raid was May 2nd, 2011, which is a lifetime away from election day, 2012.Samtemdo8 said:
2) Go back and look at the polls, especially after the debates with Romney -- in many national polls weeks before the election, Romey was neck and neck, if not ahead (hello, Gallup!).
3) Yes, Obama's approval rating increased after the raid, but that "bounce" was exactly that -- a bounce that saw his numbers later come back down to the average. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/obamas-bin-laden-polling-bounce-is-mostly-over/239214/
4) This is a long way of saying your belief that Obama's victory was "was mostly if not entirely" because of the successful raid is not based in fact.
5) It's entirely possible that Trump will see a similar "bounce" but consider that most people didn't know who Al Baghdadi was, or what specifically he was responsible for, whereas as Bin Laden was one of the most well-known and despised figures in the world. And if he does see his approval ratings increase, well...see points 1 and 3 above.
6) Lastly, what do you mean by "let him win"?
Al Baghdadi was a leader known to US operatives that they could monitor and manipulate. They had a good idea of where he was and what he was up to.
Until Trump gave up Syria. Then they either had to let him go and take him out. It's not suprising that he's dead a couple of weeks after the US 'pulled out' of Syria. (Pulled out here actually means pulling back to oil and gas resources.) Trump gave up control of the situation.
Then it becomes an analysis of whether it's better to keep the devil you know. Absolutely fine when under contol, terrible idea when not. BUT... we have no idea whose next. And the story of the last couple of decades is: whose next is worse. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were controlling the more extremist elements of their ideology. Thinking this will stop ISIS is idiotic
Until Trump gave up Syria. Then they either had to let him go and take him out. It's not suprising that he's dead a couple of weeks after the US 'pulled out' of Syria. (Pulled out here actually means pulling back to oil and gas resources.) Trump gave up control of the situation.
Then it becomes an analysis of whether it's better to keep the devil you know. Absolutely fine when under contol, terrible idea when not. BUT... we have no idea whose next. And the story of the last couple of decades is: whose next is worse. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were controlling the more extremist elements of their ideology. Thinking this will stop ISIS is idiotic
The only people who will care about this are those who are just now learning who Baghdadi is and will crow about it triumphantly in the same way that they crow about any of Trump's other supposed accomplishments.
And Nate Silver, because he's awful.
And Nate Silver, because he's awful.
And I believe it was because of this ad...Samtemdo8 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6KOGS9kN5w
EDIT: Dismantling ISIS would be a detriment for Trump's election, because then Republicans would have one thing less to tell America to be afraid of.
What will be a much bigger influence will be the economy. The US is currently enjoying unexceptional growth (~2%), but unexceptional is good enough to keep people happy, even if it's half of what Trump was promising.Samtemdo8 said:
After that, predictions vary. The general overview is that the US economy is slowing, with the question being how much. At worst, there's a prediction of recession for 2020, maybe 2021, at the milder a gradual decline to 2023. In the 2020 recession scenario Trump will almost certainly be boned because it'll remove the security of being seen as a safe guardian of the economy. (I suspect this is also a lot about Trump sounding positive and conciliatory about China - that trade war is dragging on the US economy and that means damage limitation in the lead-up to election.
Trump is in most scenarios about 5-10% down against a generic Democrat or the major contenders (Warren, Biden, Sanders), which is an extremely painful deficit. On the other hand, electoral campaigns when people are really forced to put their money where their mouth is can see those figures shift considerably. I suspect there are plenty of anti-Trump grumblers on the right who might voice their discontent now but will fall back into line come election.
I wouldn't call ISIS much of an issue for the election, with or without al-Baghdadi dead. Most Americans are past caring about what's going on in the Middle East given our domestic problems. The only thing that most of the left and a good chunk of the right (most people left of the NeoCon warhawks) have in common is a desire to quit spending blood and money on those deserts. I don't keep an ear out for news, but I live in good ol' conservative Texas, and ISIS only gets brought up very occasionally as something akin to gossip; they don't have the same fearfulness surrounding them as al Quaeda used to.CaitSeith said:
The big Middle East issue, as ever, is Israel. There are strong opinions about Israel.
What, Al-Baghdadi is dead again?
Goddamn Al-Baghdadi. Stop dying every damn year. It's getting tedious.
Goddamn Al-Baghdadi. Stop dying every damn year. It's getting tedious.
We're going to have to start doing speedrunsevilthecat said:
Al-Baghdadi, any %, no items, no glitches
1) Who?
2) Ok, cool, good I guess.
3) Poster above wants to see the body? He detonated a suicide vest in a tunnel, you must be having a laugh. There is no body. There is residue. (Although I'm sure the passport that he had in his back pocket survived, ho ho)
4) Regardless of this, Trump will be re-elected.
2) Ok, cool, good I guess.
3) Poster above wants to see the body? He detonated a suicide vest in a tunnel, you must be having a laugh. There is no body. There is residue. (Although I'm sure the passport that he had in his back pocket survived, ho ho)
4) Regardless of this, Trump will be re-elected.
He would likely win against Joe Biden for the same reason he won against Hillary, Biden's favorable head to head polls at the moment notwithstanding. He could potentially win against Warren, though he seems to be slightly behind. He would certainly lose against the Sandinista-loving Soviet, Senator Bernie Sanders.Silvanus said:
The torso, for sure. However, a peculiarity of suicide vests is that as the blast spreads from the circumference of the torso inwards into the torso as well as outwards, the pressure often blasts the head and limbs off surpringly intact. Admittedly, in a tunnel as there's no airborne escape route for bits of body, it's likely everything's going to get pretty smeared.Batou667 said:
Sure, but the Democrats have an "advantage" of not having a specific target for the attack dogs to savage, and also that lots of "shy Republicans" can express their unhappiness with Trump in polls without the big decision of having to stick an X anywhere, when they may well swallow their distaste. Dissatisfaction doesn't necessarily equate to thinking the other candidate is better.Silvanus said:
Are you assuming a free and fair election there? Fingers crossed, but I don't imagine too many people will be totally shocked if it proves otherwise.Silvanus said:
Well, good thing you were explaining to us the other day how a Biden victory in the primaries will never happen.Seanchaidh said:
Sure, but those factors exist to some degree with every election against a sitting President, yet Trump's polling is significantly weaker than most.Agema said:
I'm certainly not assuming a fair one.Thaluikhain said:
Pleased to say that polling of the early states is vindicating that conclusion. Biden will have hardly any more oil to leak by the time the primaries actually happen and his support base right now consists almost entirely of people who aren't paying any attention whatsoever and think he's "electable"-- even though Sanders polls better against Trump (like I said, they're not paying attention). Meanwhile, Sanders is out there building a movement made up most importantly of people that aren't considered 'likely voters' by pollsters and so don't show up in polls of 'likely voters'. But even still, those polls are showing his support increase especially in early states such as Nevada and New Hampshire (where he's in first place).Silvanus said:
This isn't what you'll hear as what passes for analysis on CNN, but then CNN is also the network that weirdly misreports polls that have Sanders in first place with falsified infographics and pretends he doesn't exist whenever possible. [https://thehill.com/hilltv/468209-krystal-ball-bernie-seems-to-have-a-little-extra-mojo-post-heart-attack] Sanders is going to win despite all this bullshit.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1190604295953174531"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1190343589815033856"]