Jump to content

Potential Democratic Candidates for 2020


Recommended Posts

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

Realistically I'll end up voting third party again next cycle as I have for decades now unless one of these things happen (and most of these things won't happen because the Dem Party will make sure these people don't win the primary):
1) Bernie Sanders gets the nod - most popular politician in the nation. He'd win, but probably won't get the chance. He's the most obvious pick if Dems want to win, but they'd rather lose than have Bernie win.
2) Elizabeth Warren - still super populist, so would they let her win? Yeah, probably, but I think that just shows how she's starting to realize to win, she has to play ball in the party, which means is she really the candidate I want?
3) By some small miracle people like Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard decide to run and get enough name recognition to win. Of course there's no way the Dem Party will allow them to win it even if they had a shot. Maybe Gabbard in six to 10 years. Turner doesn't even hold an office right now, so that's a complete pipe dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DTroppens said:

Realistically I'll end up voting third party again this year as I have for decades now unless one of these things happen (and most of these things won't happen because the Dem Party will make sure these people don't win the primary):
1) Bernie Sanders gets the nod - most popular politician in the nation. He'd win, but probably won't get the chance. He's the most obvious pick if Dems want to win, but they'd rather lose than have Bernie win.
2) Elizabeth Warren - still super populist, so would they let her win? Yeah, probably, but I think that just shows how she's starting to realize to win, she has to play ball in the party, which means is she really the candidate I want?
3) By some small miracle people like Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard decide to run and get enough name recognition to win. Of course there's no way the Dem Party will allow them to win it even if they had a shot. Maybe Gabbard in six to 10 years. Turner doesn't even hold an office right now, so that's a complete pipe dream.

You should post more in this forum

But I don't agree w/ Gabbard or Turner.   I'd vote 90 times for Bern or Liz tho.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pfife said:

You should post more in this forum

But I don't agree w/ Gabbard or Turner.   I'd vote 90 times for Bern or Liz tho.

 

I'd probably vote for Liz as well, but it does bother me a lot how she is catering to the party. Would she be enough in line with my values to vote for her over a third-party candidate? Probably. However, my conviction behind her isn't as strong now as it was four years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DTroppens said:

I'd probably vote for Liz as well, but it does bother me a lot how she is catering to the party. Would she be enough in line with my values to vote for her over a third-party candidate? Probably. However, my conviction behind her isn't as strong now as it was four years ago.

Gabbard vis-a-vis Syria is problematic IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this thing with Bernie Sanders. Most popular politician who would win, but he didn't. Hillary got 3 million more votes than he did. Unlike the national election, you don't win when you lose by 3 million votes. What exactly did the Democratic party due to a non Democrat that didn't allow Bernie Sanders to win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dems need to do two things to win.
1) Run on policy and not just "We're not Trump." You can't say you are resisting Trump (when for the most part you're not), a bunch of platitudes and then not include any policies that will help the majority of Americans. If the Dems don't create legitimate policies, the base won't be energized. And one thing you can bet is Trump's base will always be energized. Create an actual jobs program. End the wars. End student debt. Say you are going to push for a drive to get money out of politics. Threaten some of these monopolies. Actually tell us what you stand for. Maybe some of these things are the right policies or maybe not - BUT YOU HAVE TO STAND FOR SOMETHING.
2)
They need to run a populist candidate that isn't so easily tied to his/her big donors and has a track record that suggests they won't.

Let's go to point No. 2 - It leaves a very small number of candidates that I think can generate an independent base to vote Democrat. Dems only win when they fight for the people or have the perception (Obama) they are fighting for the people. People like Cuomo, Bloomberg, Gillibrand, Booker, Harris and even Biden are all vulnerable. People aren't stupid. They know they aren't going to fight for their interests over their donor interests. But let's face facts, that's the direction the party will push its primary, probably to the point of corruption again to make sure it comes out with a candidate beholden to the interests of the party's donors. Those candidates aren't going to do the No. 1 thing on my list.

So who's left if we go based on candidates that won't be controlled by their donors, or won't take that money? Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. We saw what happened last cycle with the Dem Party. They'll corrupt that primary however they can to make sure he can't win. But, yes, Bernie would easily beat Trump. He has the policies, along with the historical perspective to prove he's genuine. Bernie would excited a huge portion of that independent base. How about Warren? She may be able to do some of that as well, but probably not to the level of Bernie.

I think Bernie easily beats Trump. I think Warren has a very good shot. Anyone else - I think Trump wins, including Biden.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I don't understand this thing with Bernie Sanders. Most popular politician who would win, but he didn't. Hillary got 3 million more votes than he did. Unlike the national election, you don't win when you lose by 3 million votes. What exactly did the Democratic party due to a non Democrat that didn't allow Bernie Sanders to win?

One of Bernie's problems was the he didn't think he could win early in the campaign and wasn't running his campaign accordingly, and the party apparatus, of course, belonging to Hillary, made sure that view was re-enforced. Bernie had lost so much time/ground/superdelegates in the early months he was hopelessly  behind before his campaign started gaining serious traction.

also agree iwth the idea that ernie, Biden and Warren are at an age where they will likely suffer badly from the rigors of a national campaign, which will leave them looking poorly and speaking sloppily too often. This hurt Hillary a lot in point of fact. I think its crazy a successful campaign requires that much energy and I don't think it is a good criteria for holding the office, but I don't think that situation is going to change before 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I don't understand this thing with Bernie Sanders. Most popular politician who would win, but he didn't. Hillary got 3 million more votes than he did. Unlike the national election, you don't win when you lose by 3 million votes. What exactly did the Democratic party due to a non Democrat that didn't allow Bernie Sanders to win?

I haven't followed this forum for years, so I don't know your background, but I'll give this a shot.

1) Remember Clinton had huge name recognition against Bernie four years ago. When the election started huge portions of the population had no clue who he was. And even if some of us political wackos knew who he was, in most cases still didn't really know much about him until maybe a week prior to their primary. So early on, Clinton had a huge advantage due to her name.
2) Media coverage didn't help Bernie. The last thing the corporate world wanted was Bernie winning, so he received very little media, pretty much keeping him from being a household name in the primary for even longer than possible. And when he was pressed, it was usually to smear him instead of providing actual coverage of his proposals. A perfect example of this was the Washington Posts "16 negative stories on Bernie in 16 hours" episode.
3) The Dem Party fought against him every step of the way, corrupting their own primary.
4) And some of this was Bernie's fault. When he first entered the race, he didn't think he was going to win. He probably just hoped to push Clinton to the left a little bit more. And when the Bernie wave started, he probably didn't attack her policies enough. He did a bit, but he could've attacked much harder if he wanted to.

 

--------

Now here's the difference this cycle vs. last one. Four years ago, no one knew who the heck Bernie Sanders was. But now, he's the most popular politician in the United States. Even most Republicans don't hate Bernie. Bernie would enter this cycle with a huge advantage he just didn't have four years ago. And people pretty much know what he stands for regardless what the media may say today.  The question I think that may surround Bernie is maybe he shouldn't have supported Clinton and maybe that will hurt his chances of creating that great wave of young support he had four years ago. And, of course, his age. But, what he stands for today you can find videos of him talking about 20 years ago as well, so my guess that resonates and it certainly resonates with younger voters. If the party allows him to win the primary, I think he'd do very well against Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

What exactly did the party due to make sure Bernie Sanders, a non Democrat, didn't win? Also, Bernie Sanders will be 75 by the next inauguration. Surely there is someone younger. 

Really, it would take about a night's worth of reading to find the answer. Clinton's emails presented some answers. Tulsi Gabbard left the DNC because of the corruption and actually started stumping for Bernie because of it. Debbie Wasserman Schulz was tied with the Clinton campaign from the start and eventually resigned her position due to the emails and then even her predecessor Donna Brazille (who gave Clinton questions prior to a debate with Bernie) admitted in her book the primary was rigged.

Someone younger - Young people actually support Bernie. Why? Because of his policies.
It would be great to have someone younger, but those who are in the wings are not household names just yet, were just elected or aren't even serving in office right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DTroppens said:

I haven't followed this forum for years, so I don't know your background, but I'll give this a shot.

1) Remember Clinton had huge name recognition against Bernie four years ago. When the election started huge portions of the population had no clue who he was. And even if some of us political wackos knew who he was, in most cases still didn't really know much about him until maybe a week prior to their primary. So early on, Clinton had a huge advantage due to her name.
2) Media coverage didn't help Bernie. The last thing the corporate world wanted was Bernie winning, so he received very little media, pretty much keeping him from being a household name in the primary for even longer than possible. And when he was pressed, it was usually to smear him instead of providing actual coverage of his proposals. A perfect example of this was the Washington Posts "16 negative stories on Bernie in 16 hours" episode.
3) The Dem Party fought against him every step of the way, corrupting their own primary.
4) And some of this was Bernie's fault. When he first entered the race, he didn't think he was going to win. He probably just hoped to push Clinton to the left a little bit more. And when the Bernie wave started, he probably didn't attack her policies enough. He did a bit, but he could've attacked much harder if he wanted to.

 

--------

Now here's the difference this cycle vs. last one. Four years ago, no one knew who the heck Bernie Sanders was. But now, he's the most popular politician in the United States. Even most Republicans don't hate Bernie. Bernie would enter this cycle with a huge advantage he just didn't have four years ago. And people pretty much know what he stands for regardless what the media may say today.  The question I think that may surround Bernie is maybe he shouldn't have supported Clinton and maybe that will hurt his chances of creating that great wave of young support he had four years ago. And, of course, his age. But, what he stands for today you can find videos of him talking about 20 years ago as well, so my guess that resonates and it certainly resonates with younger voters. If the party allows him to win the primary, I think he'd do very well against Trump.

 

My background is a self proclaimed socialists who has gone so far as to suggest the US join the European Union. Bernie Sanders was my guy and I voted for him in the primary. However, I accepted defeat and moved on. The choice was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary did vote with Bernie in the senate some 80% of the time. Hillary was clearly the better choice vs Trump. Hillary was much more likely to pass Bernie's policies than Trump. I wasn't go to throw my vote away on a looney toon like Jill Stein just because my guy didn't win. 

Clinton has name recognition but whose fault is that? Bernie had been in politics two decades and was a relative unknown. That's his fault. Hillary was the front runner in 2008. She lost to a candidate with much less name recognition, however, Obama had laid the groundwork in the 2004 convention. It's pretty similar to what Beto O'Rourke is doing now by running for a senate seat he was never going to win. 

Bernie Sanders isn't, and never has been, a Democrat. He was only a Democrat when it was convenient for him to be one, and left the party as soon as it wasn't. Hillary has been a lifelong Democrat and raised millions for the DNC. Bernie Sanders comes along and joins the party just so he can run for president and expects their full support? It doesn't work that way. If Donna Brazile telling Hillary she was going to get a question on the Flint water crisis in Flint is enough to doom Bernie Sanders, he has no business being president.

Hillary Clinton got three million more votes. These Bernie or bust people are starting to sound like Trumpers with the rigged election. I think Bernie would have defeated Trump. Bernie did well in states that mattered like Michigan and Wisconsin while Hillary ran up the score in southern states that were never going to vote Democrat. 

Regarding his age, it isn't about appealing to young voters. I have questions if someone who would take office at 75 can survive into their 80's. Can he handle the rigors of being president? Will he still have the same mental capacity in his early 80's? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

My background is a self proclaimed socialists who has gone so far as to suggest the US join the European Union. Bernie Sanders was my guy and I voted for him in the primary. However, I accepted defeat and moved on. The choice was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary did vote with Bernie in the senate some 80% of the time. Hillary was clearly the better choice vs Trump. Hillary was much more likely to pass Bernie's policies than Trump. I wasn't go to throw my vote away on a looney toon like Jill Stein just because my guy didn't win. 

Clinton name recognition but whose fault is that? Bernie had been in politics and was a relative unknown. That's his fault. Hillary was the front runner in 2008. She lost to a candidate with much less name recognition, however, Obama had laid the groundwork in the 2004 convention. It's pretty similar to what Beto O'Rourke is doing now by running for a senate seat he was never going to win. 

Bernie Sanders isn't, and never has been, a Democrat. He was only a Democrat when it was convenient for him to be one, and left the party as soon as it wasn't. Hillary has been a lifelong Democrat and raised millions for the DNC. Bernie Sanders comes along and joins the party just so he can run for president and expects their full support? It doesn't work that way. If Donna Brazile telling Hillary she was going to get a question on the Flint water crisis in Flint is enough to doom Bernie Sanders, he has no business being president. 

Hillary Clinton got three million more votes. These Bernie or bust people are starting to sound like Trumpers with the rigged election. I think Bernie would have defeated Trump. Bernie did well in states that mattered like Michigan and Wisconsin while Hillary ran up the score in southern states that were never going to vote Democrat.  

Regarding his age, it isn't about appealing to young voters. I have questions if someone who would take office at 75 can survive into their 80's. Can he handle the rigors of being president? Will he still have the same mental capacity in his early 80's? 

You asked what the party did to Bernie, and I actually thought you didn't know and were looking for answers. I gave you some legitimate reasons what the DNC and some other organizations (like corporate news) did and why, in part, he was unable to make up the large lead Clinton had.

Some stuff we really do agree upon:
I actually think I mentioned some of it was Bernie's fault, so I listed them. I don't question your view on why Bernie's name wasn't a household name at the start of the election. You are right, Clinton earned that household name. I think what I was presenting was how when he became a potential force in the race, instead of the media doing their job and presenting him as a potential candidate, they gave him very little coverage. And what little coverage they gave him was usually reasonably misleading.

Second, it's obvious you know the background of some of what the DNC did, but would rather pick and choose the most obscure comment made in a post to attack it to prove your point. If you sincerely don't know what the DNC did, read up on it. It's out there. If a party allows you to run in their primary, shouldn't their primary objective be to be as objective as possible to all the candidates possible?

Third, I never denied Clinton getting the 3 million votes and I don't think I said Sanders would've beat Clinton without the corruption. I do think if he won the primary, he would've probably beat Trump and it's obvious we agree on that point. I think my final post was actually critical of Sanders on why he didn't win. I don't think he entered the race thinking he can win.
==========

About his age, people routinely bring up Sanders' age but we don't hear it about the other candidates close to his age. People seeking his populist message really don't have a true "other" candidate right now, and that's why he's still the voice of that message.  Like I think I mentioned, it would be great to have someone younger to carry the torch for Bernie's message, but right now anyone I could name that I know about (not saying I am the encyclopedia of every progressive not taking money from corporation or the 1%s interest but I'm reasonably knowledgeable on the subject) isn't ready - at least in my opinion. And apparently in their opinion as well as none of them (except maybe Warren who isn't a spring chicken herself) are looking to see the presidential office that I know about. I'm not claiming to be a political expert, but I think most people who follow Bernie follow him for his policies, not his age.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

My background is a self proclaimed socialists who has gone so far as to suggest the US join the European Union. Bernie Sanders was my guy and I voted for him in the primary. However, I accepted defeat and moved on. The choice was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary did vote with Bernie in the senate some 80% of the time. Hillary was clearly the better choice vs Trump. Hillary was much more likely to pass Bernie's policies than Trump. I wasn't go to throw my vote away on a looney toon like Jill Stein just because my guy didn't win. 

Clinton name recognition but whose fault is that? Bernie had been in politics and was a relative unknown. That's his fault. Hillary was the front runner in 2008. She lost to a candidate with much less name recognition, however, Obama had laid the groundwork in the 2004 convention. It's pretty similar to what Beto O'Rourke is doing now by running for a senate seat he was never going to win. 

Bernie Sanders isn't, and never has been, a Democrat. He was only a Democrat when it was convenient for him to be one, and left the party as soon as it wasn't. Hillary has been a lifelong Democrat and raised millions for the DNC. Bernie Sanders comes along and joins the party just so he can run for president and expects their full support? It doesn't work that way. If Donna Brazile telling Hillary she was going to get a question on the Flint water crisis in Flint is enough to doom Bernie Sanders, he has no business being president. 

Hillary Clinton got three million more votes. These Bernie or bust people are starting to sound like Trumpers with the rigged election. I think Bernie would have defeated Trump. Bernie did well in states that mattered like Michigan and Wisconsin while Hillary ran up the score in southern states that were never going to vote Democrat.  

Regarding his age, it isn't about appealing to young voters. I have questions if someone who would take office at 75 can survive into their 80's. Can he handle the rigors of being president? Will he still have the same mental capacity in his early 80's? 

You asked what the party did to Bernie, and I actually thought you didn't know and were looking for answers. I gave you some legitimate reasons what the DNC and some other organizations (like corporate news) did and why, in part, he was unable to make up the large lead Clinton had.

Some stuff we really do agree upon:
I actually think I mentioned some of it was Bernie's fault, so I listed them. I don't question your view on why Bernie's name wasn't a household name at the start of the election. You are right, Clinton earned that household name. I think what I was presenting was how when he became a potential force in the race, instead of the media doing their job and presenting him as a potential candidate, they gave him very little coverage. And what little coverage they gave him was usually reasonably misleading.

Second, it's obvious you know the background of some of what the DNC did, but would rather pick and choose the most obscure comment made in a post to attack it to prove your point. If you sincerely don't know what the DNC did, read up on it. It's out there. If a party allows you to run in their primary, shouldn't their primary objective be to be as objective as possible to all the candidates possible?

Third, I never denied Clinton getting the 3 million votes and I don't think I said Sanders would've beat Clinton without the corruption. I do think if he won the primary, he would've probably beat Trump and it's obvious we agree on that point. I think my final post was actually critical of Sanders on why he didn't win. I don't think he entered the race thinking he can win.
==========

About his age, people routinely bring up Sanders' age but we don't hear it about the other candidates close to his age. People seeking his populist message really don't have a true "other" candidate right now, and that's why he's still the voice of that message.  Like I think I mentioned, it would be great to have someone younger to carry the torch for Bernie's message, but right now anyone I could name that I know about (not saying I am the encyclopedia of every progressive not taking money from corporation or the 1%s interest but I'm reasonably knowledgeable on the subject) isn't ready - at least in my opinion. And apparently in their opinion as well as none of them (except maybe Warren who isn't a spring chicken herself) are looking to see the presidential office that I know about. I'm not claiming to be a political expert, but I think most people who follow Bernie follow him for his policies, not his age.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Good to see DTroppens is still alive.  You should stop by the Tigers forum sometimes too.  

Thanks.

I probably concentrate on my Tiger replays (did 1951 during the summer and am now doing 1976 and Fidrych isn't doing well) more than I do the Tigers these days.  I'm also messing around with a 1901, 1936 and a 1937 Tiger replay as well. I have a 1907 AL and a 1966 AL full season replay going on, not to mention my own soccer game I'm selling. Gosh, now I see why I haven't been on the boards the last three or four years (whatever it was). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I think Brian Schweitzer could do VERY well in a general, but he'd have to take a progressive running mate.    He's a **** of a speaker - and that's not a trivial thing - it's very important.  

If Steve Bullock (Montana's current Governor) runs for President, Schweitzer should run for Senator.

Bullock would make a good President or Senator in his own right, though he's not as charismatic at Schweitzer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      97.1k
    • Total Posts
      3.1m
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...