Jump to content
used2b

2020 Democratic Nominee

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

If a candidate did that now, would it end it for him?  I don't think so.  Different times.  

I'm constantly mystified by how people will vote. I never predict election outcomes. It's all crazy. I don't know how people would react to Dean's yeeeeaggghhhhh today. Probably depends on how it was framed immediately after people saw it.

"It's nice to see him loosen up and just let go. The people love that."

"He's obviously prone to bouts of madness and social awkwardness. The people hate that."

Edited by RomaVicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zork said:

 So how does abolishing ICE actually work?  What does it entail?  Maybe a different thread?  Open borders I presume? 

 

How about going back to the way it worked before ICE was formed in 2003? Let's start there and then work on improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

How about going back to the way it worked before ICE was formed in 2003? Let's start there and then work on improvements.

I genuinely think most people have no idea that ICE was only formed 15 years ago.  People talk about it like it was something specified in the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

To Bernie's credit, he's experienced enough to know that "abolish ICE" means nothing.  ICE does the same thing the INS used to do, and if "abolish ICE" occurs, some other acronym LEO agency will take over those activities, even if its an DOJ/FBI subsidiary rather than DHS.  The policies need to be changed and reformed.  The acronym that enforces them is irrelevant.

This is a fair point, but there needs to be something for people to rally behind. You message it as abolish ICE and work on reforming the policies and procedures once that's done. He also voted against it's formation in 2003, so I'm not sure why he's reluctant to make that call now.

Share this post


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

* Lulz, no she isn't. Not even close. That's Gillibrand

** She's apparently strongly considering. 

You would know better than me, but this is what I was referencing.  

https://pagesix.com/2017/07/15/kamala-harris-meets-with-democratic-elite-in-hamptons/

Seems she’s at least been through an initial vetting and/or assessment by the people who help select the nominee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

You would know better than me, but this is what I was referencing.  

https://pagesix.com/2017/07/15/kamala-harris-meets-with-democratic-elite-in-hamptons/

Seems she’s at least been through an initial vetting and/or assessment by the people who help select the nominee. 

The elites select the nominee? What about the power of the people in the primaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

How about going back to the way it worked before ICE was formed in 2003? Let's start there and then work on improvements.

Hate to break it to you, but it wasn't better then.  The INS was every bit "La Migra" that ICE is.  The INS would also be reporting directly to Sessions right now instead of DHS.  That's gonna be better, in your opinion?

If I'm restructuring, I would close up shop on every acronym authorized to operate on US soil except the FBI for better efficiency, but I wouldn't pretend the FBI wouldn't be doing immigration or drug enforcement . They would be, so ICE, DEA, and ATF would be "abolished" in acronym only.  And if Trump/Sessions leads, you'll have exactly what you have now no matter what the letters on the back of the jacket are.  If you have a Dem Pres, you'll have less harsh enforcement, but enforcement none the less.

We need reform of the underlying laws.  Sometimes idealist rhetoric like "abolish ICE" hits a wall because its only rhetoric without a real plan.  Its like saying lets ditch the "Attorney General" all the while knowing that a "Secretary of Justice" will assume pretty much the same exact role.  Rhetoric like "Medicare for all" is better received because the plan is built right into the statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I genuinely think most people have no idea that ICE was only formed 15 years ago.

That's like saying General Motors was formed 9 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

President Hickenlooper has a pretty weird sound. I don't know anything about the candidate, but that's a wonky name.

I guess Roosevelt is too, and we elected two of them.

Roosevelt sounds like an 1800s American gun manufacturer. Hickenlooper sounds like a SciFi movie.

 

Share this post


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

You would know better than me, but this is what I was referencing.  

https://pagesix.com/2017/07/15/kamala-harris-meets-with-democratic-elite-in-hamptons/

Seems she’s at least been through an initial vetting and/or assessment by the people who help select the nominee. 

all 20+ of them will do that circuit. Barack Obama did it in 2006. Donald Trump did the equivalent in 2014. Both got polite nods and snickers. Those people in each party matter less than they ever have, Especially in the Democratic party now that the Clinton faction has been thoroughly discredited. The bases will decide.

They could get who they want, obviously, and things can and will change but I've never seen Democrats more realistic and serious in their purpose than they are right now. I know reproductive rights activists right now who are saying things like "we need to stop villainizing people who have moral and ethical qualms about abortion if they are with us on the income healthcare and criminal justice issues."
Obviously Democrats are the world's foremost experts at losing elections, but people at the grass roots are thinking about these things the right way right now.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for Bloomberg over anyone that has run in the last 20 years except for maybe Romney.  He may just be too old.

It is going to be hard for the people mentioned to beat trump just from an oversized personality standpoint.  Bloomberg is certainly smarter and much more polished (not exactly a high bar) than Trump.  He is also not an ideologue.  I hope he runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I would vote for Bloomberg over anyone that has run in the last 20 years except for maybe Romney.  He may just be too old.

It is going to be hard for the people mentioned to beat trump just from an oversized personality standpoint.  Bloomberg is certainly smarter and much more polished (not exactly a high bar) than Trump.  He is also not an ideologue.  I hope he runs.

But what about our 128 ounce Cokes!?!?!?!

I like Bloomberg better than any possible candidate named so far, but he isnt going to endear himself to Berniests and he has already burned his bridge with anti nanny state people.  One of those is part of his needed base and the other is part of his needed middle voters.

Share this post


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

You would know better than me, but this is what I was referencing.  

https://pagesix.com/2017/07/15/kamala-harris-meets-with-democratic-elite-in-hamptons/

Seems she’s at least been through an initial vetting and/or assessment by the people who help select the nominee. 

I would be downright shocked if anyone wanting to run in 2020 wasn't trying to get onto the radar with the "elite." You need money to run.  And you need to be "in" with the party donors, especially leading up to midterms.  You aren't going to get support from other party officials if you aren't helping out.  Campaigning for a candidate in 2018 is one thing, but steering donations towards them is even more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I would vote for Bloomberg over anyone that has run in the last 20 years except for maybe Romney.  He may just be too old.

It is going to be hard for the people mentioned to beat trump just from an oversized personality standpoint.  Bloomberg is certainly smarter and much more polished (not exactly a high bar) than Trump.  He is also not an ideologue.  I hope he runs.

Fuck me.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As wide open as the primary is looking, this guy should throw his hat in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

As wide open as the primary is looking, this guy should throw his hat in.

 

 

Ugh, this is who should have been Hillary's VP candidate. Absolutely could have won her Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania.  She needed someone Midwest who can talk to the union folks.  I think not picking him because Kasich would have appointed a Republican in his place was short-sighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epic fail of a decision there since she, uh, lost Florida. And Arizona. And Texas.

Share this post


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

all 20+ of them will do that circuit. Barack Obama did it in 2006. Donald Trump did the equivalent in 2014. Both got polite nods and snickers. Those people in each party matter less than they ever have, Especially in the Democratic party now that the Clinton faction has been thoroughly discredited. The bases will decide.

They could get who they want, obviously, and things can and will change but I've never seen Democrats more realistic and serious in their purpose than they are right now. I know reproductive rights activists right now who are saying things like "we need to stop villainizing people who have moral and ethical qualms about abortion if they are with us on the income healthcare and criminal justice issues."
Obviously Democrats are the world's foremost experts at losing elections, but people at the grass roots are thinking about these things the right way right now.

It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out for sure, but she was making the rounds almost immediately.  She also kind of checks the boxes for the coastal elite who still run the party.  I saw you mentioned moderate Western governors, but that doesn't excite the people in the charge of the party or its money on either coast.  

My impression gleaned from being here and elsewhere online is that large perecentage of people on Left, especially the media, believe people were duped into voting for Trump.   The uneducated people in flyover country.  I think people in charge in California and the northeast think they're smarter and better qualified than the Governor of Colorado and will do what it takes to skew the primary away from someone like him.  Don't downplay the media's role in this either.  Who's more likely to get wall to wall coverage in primaries, Kamala Harris or John Hickenlooper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out for sure, but she was making the rounds almost immediately.  She also kind of checks the boxes for the coastal elite who still run the party.  I saw you mentioned moderate Western governors, but that doesn't excite the people in the charge of the party or its money on either coast.  

My impression gleaned from being here and elsewhere online is that large perecentage of people on Left, especially the media, believe people were duped into voting for Trump.   The uneducated people in flyover country.  I think people in charge in California and the northeast think they're smarter and better qualified than the Governor of Colorado and will do what it takes to skew the primary away from someone like him.  Don't downplay the media's role in this either.  Who's more likely to get wall to wall coverage in primaries, Kamala Harris or John Hickenlooper?

No offense, but that's not how primaries work for Democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out for sure, but she was making the rounds almost immediately.  She also kind of checks the boxes for the coastal elite who still run the party.  I saw you mentioned moderate Western governors, but that doesn't excite the people in the charge of the party or its money on either coast.  

My impression gleaned from being here and elsewhere online is that large perecentage of people on Left, especially the media, believe people were duped into voting for Trump.   The uneducated people in flyover country.  I think people in charge in California and the northeast think they're smarter and better qualified than the Governor of Colorado and will do what it takes to skew the primary away from someone like him.  Don't downplay the media's role in this either.  Who's more likely to get wall to wall coverage in primaries, Kamala Harris or John Hickenlooper?

I can't speak for "a large percentage of people on the Left", but if that's what they think, we'll lose again. They lost because they put up a terrible candidate with no political instincts who ran an awful campaign and had no message other than "I'm not Trump". All of this Russia, Trump duped stupid people, etc. is bullshit and will just lead to similar results next time around. Maybe some of those things played a small role in the results, but it stinks of not learning your lesson and repeating the same mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She lost because people are fucking stupid and voted with their pearl clutching pussies instead of their head.

Hillary was lights out on policy for anyone that wanted to inform themselves.  Unfortunately she wasn’t reality TV star enough to appeal to our mouth breather voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

I can't speak for "a large percentage of people on the Left", but if that's what they think, we'll lose again. They lost because they put up a terrible candidate with no political instincts who ran an awful campaign and had no message other than "I'm not Trump". All of this Russia, Trump duped stupid people, etc. is bullshit and will just lead to similar results next time around. Maybe some of those things played a small role in the results, but it stinks of not learning your lesson and repeating the same mistakes.

I haven't been here long, maybe I've missed you but a huge part of this forum and the President Trump thread is Russia, Russia, active measures, collusion, dumb, racists, dumb, racists, Russia, Putin. Hell that's 90% of Hugo's posts right there and he's the highest repped poster on here. There's also an obsession with removing him office via any measures possible rather than beating him.  

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense, but that's not how primaries work for Democrats. 

You talking about people with money picking the nominee?  Not literally, but they slid the scale pretty well over to Hillary over Bernie.  They were not passive observers and they used the media to pursue what they wanted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She lost because people are fucking stupid and voted with their pearl clutching pussies instead of their head.

Hillary was lights out on policy for anyone that wanted to inform themselves.  Unfortunately she wasn’t reality TV star enough to appeal to our mouth breather voters.

See?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She lost because people are fucking stupid and voted with their pearl clutching pussies instead of their head.

Hillary was lights out on policy for anyone that wanted to inform themselves.  Unfortunately she wasn’t reality TV star enough to appeal to our mouth breather voters.

Come on. Do you really believe she was a good candidate? I mean she was all but coronated in 2008 AND 2016 and found a way to fuck it up both times. She was a terrible candidate and if Democrats as a whole don't focus on and come to terms with that, we're going to lose again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

Come on. Do you really believe she was a good candidate? I mean she was all but coronated in 2008 AND 2016 and found a way to fuck it up both times. She was a terrible candidate and if Democrats as a whole don't focus on and come to terms with that, we're going to lose again. 

I don’t care what kind of candidate she was.

She would have made a decent president.  

I can see why you don’t like her because she’s a moderate but that’s what was needed and in the best interest of the country.  I didn’t like Hillary during the election nearly as much as I do now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

She was a horrible candidate and people are fucking stupid.  There.

This is most likely the correct answer, but people will continue to be stupid so you focus on what you can control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

She was a horrible candidate and people are fucking stupid.  There.

gRk1uZm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like it to be Warren, but I think she'd face the problem of people thinking she's too similar to Hillary. Though she's not at all like Hillary, people are superficial. My second choice is Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Theo Huxtable said:

I'd like it to be Warren, but I think she'd face the problem of people thinking she's too similar to Hillary. Though she's not at all like Hillary, people are superficial. My second choice is Biden.

I'd swap these around, but you are correct.  Biden-Warren ticket for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said it would be Biden-Harris in the end, and I’m sticking with that (for now).

I know there’s some dems who hate both of them though. 

Nobody will be happy with any candidate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Warren is what is needed but she would get the same bullshit “bad candidate” rap as Hillary.

 

If Hillary had half of Warren's charisma she would have won in a landslide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

I said it would be Biden-Harris in the end, and I’m sticking with that (for now).

I know there’s some dems who hate both of them though. 

Nobody will be happy with any candidate. 

That third line is the fucking truth.  There's not as much rallying around the "D" with Democrats as there is with Republicans (not a closeted Republican joke, I swear). That's why they lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Harris at the top of the ticket but her drawbacks are she lacks experience/wisdom.

Biden is wise but I always felt he was soft like Obama.

Warren is tough as nails, experienced, and wise but her foreign policy is a concern for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need someone to fix all the shit that dotus is breaking.  Biden has the experience to guide us back to reality and hopefully patch things up with our allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

If Hillary had half of Warren's charisma she would have won in a landslide. 

I don’t disagree.

But for me, charisma might make someone a good candidate but it doesn’t make them a good president 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d go for a Bernie and Elizabeth Warren ticket.   My only worry is another subprime crisis and people losing their teepees 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren, Bernie, Gabbard, etc will not win a General Election.

I like Biden against Trump in terms of odds. Could take some of Trump's older white male base. Would rather have someone else but I am thinking practical here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden is the man. But he's old.  GOP will make that a huge issue, despite Trump's age, and the Fox News crowd will tell everyone that Biden will die in office, he's too frail, etc. 

Harris-Brown would be a combo to placate both wings. The progressive Democrats and the Midwest Democrats. I'd flip it, but Brown is not the kind of candidate you run in 2020 against Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that this is just fun speculation, but you guys need to differentiate between who you want as potus and who has an actual chance of beating trump.  If the economy is still humming then he is going to be very hard to beat, especially by the same old tired people that have been around forever.  If the economy is humming, the only way a dem beats trump is if that dem is has good economic credentials and will essentially espouse many of the same economic policies as trump.  Then they can make moves away from trump's  idiocy on other things.

But if the dems run a fairly liberal candidate and their approach to the economy is tax the rich, higher min wage, bad ceos and tax companies then they are going to get bludgeoned.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Warren- mildly interesting.  The Fauxcahontas thing may haunt her.  I know everyone is lying now, but lying about your ancestry is kind of like lying about military service.  Less forgiven imo. 

Biden-  meh.  4 years older than Trump.  Has Obama taint on him, without the coolness. 

Harris- still think she’ll be early frontrunner. Younger at least.  

Hickenlooper or other moderate Dems- maybe.   Have a lot of ground to make up as far as recognition.  

I still think good chance it’s off the board pick.  You don’t go Trump in national election then fall back to “safe” pick like Biden or something.  Literally anything could happen now that Trump genie is out of bottle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 Warren- mildly interesting.  The Fauxcahontas thing may haunt her.  I know everyone is lying now, but lying about your ancestry is kind of like lying about military service.  Less forgiven imo. 

Biden-  meh.  4 years older than Trump.  Has Obama taint on him, without the coolness. 

Harris- still think she’ll be early frontrunner. Younger at least.  

Hickenlooper or other moderate Dems- maybe.   Have a lot of ground to make up as far as recognition.  

I still think good chance it’s off the board pick.  You don’t go Trump in national election then fall back to “safe” pick like Biden or something.  Literally anything could happen now that Trump genie is out of bottle. 

Obama taint? You do realize he's the most popular politician in America, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Obama taint? You do realize he's the most popular politician in America, right?

He also wrecked his party nationwide and got by on personal charisma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know much about them,  but I've recently seen both Mitch Landrieu and Eric Garcetti on talk show tours (maybe promoting books??)

anyway... they were both sort of vague about the idea, definitely gave the impression they would be open to the idea. mayor is pretty low on the political experience scale...but Sarah Palin, so yeah. i could see them in the mix. 

personally, i like Hickenlooper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I realize that this is just fun speculation, but you guys need to differentiate between who you want as potus and who has an actual chance of beating trump. 

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...