Jump to content

Motor City Sonics

Potential Democratic Candidates for 2020

Recommended Posts

She's Jill Stein niche of Russian friendly pol on the Left.  

She's much better looking than most politicians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I’m not sure Tulsi will go away as quickly as some believe. She made a brilliant political move in leaving the DNC to endorse Sanders, and gave herself a national name. That on top of her young age will appeal to a lot of the same things that attracted 2016 Bernie supporters.

I’m certainly not 100% sold on her, for reasons articulated here. But I’m interested in seeing how she responds to the meeting with al-Assad and the “radical Islam” stance on a debate stage. FTR I dont believe that stance makes her a borderline Islamaphobe.

I don’t think she will win, but I could see her sticking around long enough and maintaining a presence strong enough to be the potential VP tap of Biden or Sanders.

The more I think about it, the longer I think the odds against Biden and Sanders are. With the benefit of hindsight, and especially the inherent Democratic strength shown in 2018, it's clearer that Hillary really was a pretty seriously flawed to have lost to Trump, yet she was able to defeat Sanders. That tells me Sanders will do even worse against a stronger field not scarred off another pre-campaign Clinton coronation. Likewise Biden has just never been successful as a national campaigner. I expect the leading candidates to emerge from the list who haven't run before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

The more I think about it, the longer I think the odds against Biden and Sanders are. With the benefit of hindsight, and especially the inherent Democratic strength shown in 2018, it's clearer that Hillary really was a pretty seriously flawed to have lost to Trump, yet she was able to defeat Sanders. That tells me Sanders will do even worse against a stronger field not scarred off another pre-campaign Clinton coronation. Likewise Biden has just never been successful as a national campaigner. I expect the leading candidates to emerge from the list who haven't run before.

Biden's skeletons have skeletons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

The more I think about it, the longer I think the odds against Biden and Sanders are. With the benefit of hindsight, and especially the inherent Democratic strength shown in 2018, it's clearer that Hillary really was a pretty seriously flawed to have lost to Trump, yet she was able to defeat Sanders. That tells me Sanders will do even worse against a stronger field not scarred off another pre-campaign Clinton coronation. Likewise Biden has just never been successful as a national campaigner. I expect the leading candidates to emerge from the list who haven't run before.

She beat Sanders early based on name recognition.   Sanders was blowing her away at the end of the primary period after people started taking him more seriously.  I really think he would have been better against Trump than Clinton was.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that the Democrats' primary ballot will be lengthy, if for no other reason but that this is almost a sure shot for whoever survives the primaries.

That is, unless the GOP somehow rejects Trump in the primaries and puts up a decent candidate.   I sure wouldn't mind voting for a President Haley.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

She beat Sanders early based on name recognition.   Sanders was blowing her away at the end of the primary period after people started taking him more seriously.  I really think he would have been better against Trump than Clinton was.  

I wouldn't read it that way. In the final 2+ months Hillary won all the big states left up for grabs except IN (which is Trump country anyway): PA, CT, NY, CA, MD, NJ all went for Clinton in the latter part of the campaign. Bernie couldn't close.

That said, Bernie probably would have beaten Trump because the Hillary voters being the more committed Democrats would not have defected the way many Bernie voters did, and Bernie was much stronger in the Great Lakes, which is where Hillary pretty much lost the election. And he didn't have all of Hillary's baggage. But anyone *should* have beaten Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

The more I think about it, the longer I think the odds against Biden and Sanders are. With the benefit of hindsight, and especially the inherent Democratic strength shown in 2018, it's clearer that Hillary really was a pretty seriously flawed to have lost to Trump, yet she was able to defeat Sanders. That tells me Sanders will do even worse against a stronger field not scarred off another pre-campaign Clinton coronation. Likewise Biden has just never been successful as a national campaigner. I expect the leading candidates to emerge from the list who haven't run before.

Couldn’t this reasoning extend to all candidates who were eligible in 2016 though? If they could have beat Clinton, they would have run; they didn’t beat Clinton, therefore they shouldn’t be the 2020 nominee? Clinton was, for better or worse, the candidate from the get-go in ‘16, which was why a lot of candidates didn’t even run (including Warren, who was a better candidate then than now). I can’t imagine a single candidate, even hypothetically, that could have taken the nomination from Clinton post-2014.

The Democratic Party is in a fundamentally different place than it was in 2016. There isn’t a clear one person ahead of all others, which should inherently give a larger number of candidates a more fair chance, Sanders included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Couldn’t this reasoning extend to all candidates who were eligible in 2016 though?

Eligible no - make a serious run, yes.  If you run a serious effort and lose or can't get traction in general you are not likely going to be any better at it the second time around. Elections are a performance business - kinda like sports - you are what your record says you are. For starters, potential backers are sceptical of losers. That is one of the big risks of making a serious bid, once you do it and fail, you are damaged goods politically. I think this is more true now than in the past. Nixon lost and managed to win later, though the Dems were extremely weak coming out the mess with LBJ and the 'Nam War. GHWB had lost some elections, didn't do well in the 80 primaries, but then had the huge advantage of running as Reagan's sitting VP but then could not win re-election 'on his own'. Almost ironically, Hillary is an example both ways. She couldn't beat Obama in '08 and one could argue if Dems hadn't frozen their own field against themselves in her favor a candidate other than Bernie might have emerged that also would have denied her the nomination and that candidate would probably have been much stronger against Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I’m not sure Tulsi will go away as quickly as some believe. She made a brilliant political move in leaving the DNC to endorse Sanders, and gave herself a national name. That on top of her young age will appeal to a lot of the same things that attracted 2016 Bernie supporters.

I’m certainly not 100% sold on her, for reasons articulated here. But I’m interested in seeing how she responds to the meeting with al-Assad and the “radical Islam” stance on a debate stage. FTR I dont believe that stance makes her a borderline Islamaphobe.

I don’t think she will win, but I could see her sticking around long enough and maintaining a presence strong enough to be the potential VP tap of Biden or Sanders.

Gabbard comes with a ton of skeletons in her closet. Her stances on Assad and Russia are the most well known, but also the fact that she has attracted the attention of a lot of really bad actors.

And, within the context of a Democratic Primary, while she's marketed herself as a progressive candidate, she holds a number of views that put her out of step with liberal progressive policies. Restricting Syrian and Iraqi refugees, her pro-torture stance, and her views on Islam, amongst others. And she'll be forced to answer to them in the primaries 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elect THIS guy.

Presidential hopeful Andrew Yang is giving this New Hampshire mom $1,000 a month to show cash handouts work

Quote

That's because presidential hopeful Andrew Yang, 43, is running for election on a campaign that centers around the idea of universal basic income, or free cash payments. Specifically, Yang promises that if elected, every American citizen between the ages of 18 and 64 will receive $1,000 a month.

As Jim Cramer would say BOOYAH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Gabbard comes with a ton of skeletons in her closet. Her stances on Assad and Russia are the most well known, but also the fact that she has attracted the attention of a lot of really bad actors.

And, within the context of a Democratic Primary, while she's marketed herself as a progressive candidate, she holds a number of views that put her out of step with liberal progressive policies. Restricting Syrian and Iraqi refugees, her pro-torture stance, and her views on Islam, amongst others. And she'll be forced to answer to them in the primaries 

I'm glad we're getting diversity of progressive opinion in the primaries, but I think she has no chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, tigerbomb13 said:

 

Tulsi’s presidential campaign is likely over before it started. 

I don't know the context of this statement, but from a purely legal and semantic perspective, to the state, which is constitutionally barred from taking any religious view as to marriage, any and all marriages should be 'civil unions'. "Civil' is the only basis on which the State can ever confer sanction to any union. It may be true that from the time the civil authority first assumed legal administration of marriage up until recently, the State and populace had never come to a proper understanding of this, but it is necessarily true under any fair reading of the Constitution none-the-less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

With friends like Johnstone, Gabbard won't need any enemies. 😱

Gabbard draws quite a crowd of folks that arent well-liked by the Democratic base...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there were a lot of candidates who could have beaten Mrs. Clinton in 2016 had they run, not been railroaded by the Clinton machine and the DNC, and bothered to build coalitions beyond white liberals and factory workers ala Sanders campaign. Biden and Warren stand out as the two most obvious examples. Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate because in my view, she is a horrible person. She is someone who acts with malice and vengeance, and is driven by greed and a lust for power.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I think there were a lot of candidates who could have beaten Mrs. Clinton in 2016 had they run, not been railroaded by the Clinton machine and the DNC, and bothered to build coalitions beyond white liberals and factory workers ala Sanders campaign. Biden and Warren stand out as the two most obvious examples. Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate because in my view, she is a horrible person. She is someone who acts with malice and vengeance, and is driven by greed and a lust for power.

Ancient History.

Next.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I think there were a lot of candidates who could have beaten Mrs. Clinton in 2016 had they run, not been railroaded by the Clinton machine and the DNC, and bothered to build coalitions beyond white liberals and factory workers ala Sanders campaign. Biden and Warren stand out as the two most obvious examples. Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate because in my view, she is a horrible person. She is someone who acts with malice and vengeance, and is driven by greed and a lust for power.

Concur.  These would have been the reasons why a worse person won in 2016. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ROMAD1 said:

Concur.  These would have been the reasons why a worse person won in 2016. 

 

I voted for Hillary in the end because I wanted to stop a dictator-lite, self indulgent criminal. But she just isn't a good person in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×