Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee


used2b

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Skyline said:

That was quick. 

I was surprised by her comment. Unless she meant you can still buy a private plan if you wish. But everyone gets the basic through the government - no insurance companies for M4A. Even Canada and the UK has private plans you can buy as an upgrade 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I was surprised by her comment. Unless she meant you can still buy a private plan if you wish. But everyone gets the basic through the government - no insurance companies for M4A. Even Canada and the UK has private plans you can buy as an upgrade 

I would prefer some sort of system like Canada's. I just figured she would soften on her stance much later on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Skyline said:

That was quick. 

lol how do you screw that up? These people have been wanting to run for president for basically their entire lives and they haven't gameplanned this shit?

This is a huge problem with Bernie basically setting the stage for these people who cynically adopted his platform. They don't actually believe it and they don't know how to talk about it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol how do you screw that up? These people have been wanting to run for president for basically their entire lives and they haven't gameplanned this shit?

This is a huge problem with Bernie basically setting the stage for these people who cynically adopted his platform. They don't actually believe it and they don't know how to talk about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

All over the place.  Got it.

If Biden, Beto, and Bernie announced tomorrow, Warren drops to a distant fifth.  

Out of those five, Trump publicly calls her out the most, and yet somehow she can’t convert that to political or campaign currency.  Spin that as a top-tier candidate however you want. 

I like Warren, even though she’s a fucking Okie, and I think she could destroy Trump in a debate, but nobody is on the edge of their seats waiting to see what the results of  her exploratory committee are.   People want to know if Biden, Beto, or Bernie are throwing their hat in the ring.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think it’s probably wise to hold off on predicting how this might play out.  Given recent history.  

I think it’s probably wise to stop predicting she’s top-tier until we actually see her generating the kind of buzz befitting top-tier candidates  

She’s got to start converting those twitter spats with Trump into actual political capital with regular voters.   Lord knows, he’s giving her plenty to work with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updated list

Some meaningless statistics but I thought it would be interesting to see how many twitter followers the contenders have at this moment in time.  

*For the senators that have two official accounts, their numbers will be combined and noted with the *.

Hillary Clinton 23.5M

Joe Biden 3M

*Bernie Sanders 16.8M

*Kamala Harris 2.5M

Kristen Gillibrand 1.2M

*Elizabeth Warren 6.7M

*Cory Booker 4.1M

Tom Steyer 0.2M

Michael Avenatti 0.9M

Oprah Winfrey 41.6M

Mike Bloomberg 2.2M

Eric Swalwell 0.4M

Beto O’Rourke 1M

Andrew Gillum 0.5M

John Hickenlooper 0.1M

Mitch Landrieu 0.1M

Amy Klobuchar, 0.5M

*Sherrod Brown 0.43M


John Delaney 11k


Jay Inslee 154k
 

Eric Holder 0.5M

Tulsi Gabbard 0.25M

Howard Schultz 0.0659M

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The trumpkins on Twitter already are.

fa49611f80f5dca20ea064f964996747.jpg

The key word there is collective.  Only in Liberalland can someone campaign on completely eliminating private health insurance and claim to be fighting for freedom for all.  Here's your campaign advice for the day, reducing people's options and choices is not fighting for freedom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If Biden, Beto, and Bernie announced tomorrow, Warren drops to a distant fifth.  

Out of those five, Trump publicly calls her out the most, and yet somehow she can’t convert that to political or campaign currency.  Spin that as a top-tier candidate however you want. 

I like Warren, even though she’s a fucking Okie, and I think she could destroy Trump in a debate, but nobody is on the edge of their seats waiting to see what the results of  her exploratory committee are.   People want to know if Biden, Beto, or Bernie are throwing their hat in the ring.  

 

You are not wrong, but it's still frustrating.  I get Sanders, but Biden and Beto are running on platitudes with much less substance than Warren.   Obviously I'd vote for either over Trump, but neither are inspiring.  

Warren is a 21st century Roosevelt who is smart as a whip and can lay out real solutions, but she's older and not as hot as Harris, or as cool and handsome as Beto, or as associated with Obama as Biden, so the Democrats will settle for the lesser candidate as they typically do.  The electorate is stupid and wants style over substance.  Again, it is frustrating.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

The key word there is collective.  Only in Liberalland can someone campaign on completely eliminating private health insurance and claim to be fighting for freedom for all.  Here's your campaign advice for the day, reducing people's options and choices is not fighting for freedom.

neither is being a fucking traitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tom said:

 

 

You are not wrong, but it's still frustrating.  I get Sanders, but Biden and Beto are running on platitudes with much less substance than Warren.   Obviously I'd vote for either over Trump, but neither are inspiring.  

Warren is a 21st century Roosevelt who is smart as a whip and can lay out real solutions, but she's older and not as hot as Harris, or as cool and handsome as Beto, or as associated with Obama as Biden, so the Democrats will settle for the lesser candidate as they typically do.  The electorate is stupid and wants style over substance.  Again, it is frustrating.  

 

However, the Bernie model kinda breaks the wheel when it comes substance vs appearance in the Democratic Party.  

I think we give too much weight to superficial candidates in the Democratic Party.  I also believe the beauty contest the Republicans run has a lot to do with it.  They’re the ones that put up the actors and celebrities while complaining about the Hollywood elite.  

The democrats seem more grounded and pragmatic in their decision making.  

I can’t prove it but Warren does have a national grassroots following she’s been building since 2012.  The Democratic Establishment hated her under the Obama administration, so much so she likely couldn’t get Senate confirmed in an appointed position at the time.

If the Bernie bros jump to Warren, that will be hard to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders, that dashing villain of zero substance, riling up his voters with his looks and charm!

Fs0QQaH7_400x400.jpg

Sure, he's introduced/sponsored over 350 pieces of legislation, but he doesn't actually think about any of this stuff, he's too busy jet-setting to photo shoots with his outrageous attractiveness!

bernie_sanders_0332.jpg

Stupid, sexy Bernie!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The planet will be fine.  It’s us that need to worry.

People really need to stop saying "save the planet".  It's not correct and it fuels the right wing retards.  Save our way of life.  Save humanity.  Save our ecosystems.  Whatever.  Quit with the "save the planet".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

People really need to stop saying "save the planet".  It's not correct and it fuels the right wing retards.  Save our way of life.  Save humanity.  Save our ecosystems.  Whatever.  Quit with the "save the planet".

Correct.

The planet will survive whatever we do to it.  It's seen some shit and it does not care about man.  But the things ON the planet will not survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

People really need to stop saying "save the planet".  It's not correct and it fuels the right wing retards.  Save our way of life.  Save humanity.  Save our ecosystems.  Whatever.  Quit with the "save the planet".

 

Agreed. But what the US does in the future won't do a damn thing if the world continues to allow India and China to treat the earth as a giant toilet bowl. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Agreed. But what the US does in the future won't do a damn thing if the world continues to allow India and China to treat the earth as a giant toilet bowl. 

While it's true they need to be forced to get their shit together too (China is well on its way in renewables and electric vehicles), we need to act like the leaders of the world and lead by example.  Green New Deal is a great idea, IMO.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Agreed. But what the US does in the future won't do a damn thing if the world continues to allow India and China to treat the earth as a giant toilet bowl. 

Perhaps the US could lead by example, invest in the research and deployment of cleaner/cheaper sources of energy that China and India could switch to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps the US could lead by example, invest in the research and deployment of cleaner/cheaper sources of energy that China and India could switch to?

 

Again I don't disagree but we have had modern plumbing for a long time and India still has over half a billion people taking a dump wherever they want. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

The key word there is collective.  Only in Liberalland can someone campaign on completely eliminating private health insurance and claim to be fighting for freedom for all.  Here's your campaign advice for the day, reducing people's options and choices is not fighting for freedom.

What are you a health insurance company spokesman? Equating private for profit health insurance like its fighting for freedom?

GTFO with that bullshit. We didn’t revolt from England so you could pay premiums to Aetna. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom said:

 

 

You are not wrong, but it's still frustrating.  I get Sanders, but Biden and Beto are running on platitudes with much less substance than Warren.   Obviously I'd vote for either over Trump, but neither are inspiring.  

Warren is a 21st century Roosevelt who is smart as a whip and can lay out real solutions, but she's older and not as hot as Harris, or as cool and handsome as Beto, or as associated with Obama as Biden, so the Democrats will settle for the lesser candidate as they typically do.  The electorate is stupid and wants style over substance.  Again, it is frustrating.  

 

I don't disagree.  But, I'm not sure the substance of anyone's proposals is that important. The most important thing is that the dem candidate have some decency and ability to actually hire the best people, and then listen to them. Assuming we still have a country, the next president's primary task is just going to be undoing a shit ton of harm that's currently being inflicted on our institutions and with our allies.  And the damage is only getting progressively worse.  We may well not be in NATO in 2020, could have committed war crimes with nuclear weapons, decimated the ranks of federal employees after repeated shutdowns, in a financial crisis after defaulting on the debt ceiling, tax cuts for corporations, trade wars, etc., lost senior military officials due to military policy by tweet, etc.

  The actual specifics of the next president's tax plan or whether he/she supports Medicare for all are not that important, than that the person can get people on board with righting the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

People really need to stop saying "save the planet".  It's not correct and it fuels the right wing retards.  Save our way of life.  Save humanity.  Save our ecosystems.  Whatever.  Quit with the "save the planet"

I think Planet is meant to encompass all the things you list. "Our planet as we know it" would beore accurate I guess.

Edited by horncyclist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

K Harris releases first Presidential commercial

 

When you planned this joke in your head, I imagine that you didn't envision us seeing Diamond and Silk's ugly mugs along with "Fund the Wall" in the video preview, did you?

Edited by Chuckie Finster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Warren intellectually - especially in debates - would eviscerate Trump but I have doubts she is dynamic enough to have the charisma and messaging to inspire people emotionally like a few other candidates might in 2020.  I personally in my mind anyway can watch Beto or Kamala for only two minutes and instantly in my gut feel they just have the type of energy and passion to drive real emotion out of people even though their actual messaging might not be as in depth or intelligent as Warren.  It's not just an age thing either because I think Bernie Sanders also has that in a way Hillary did not in 2016 although Hillary obviously still won the nomination so charisma is not everything.  Trump partially won in my mind because he can draw real emotion out of people and that drives turnout, energy, and I think it's more important than real substance in some ways which says a lot about America.  When you compared him to say the very intelligent but not charismatic Jeb Bush or the too robotic Rubio, it's not shocking to me that Trump won.  I thought that was a major flaw with Romney too.  Truth be told also is that Warren would be over 70 running for President, and I think that's a negative too.  I think Warren has a winner in trying to promote her anti-billionaire crusade but if she gets painted as a one trick pony only identified with that issue, that might be bad for her.  If she makes it to the general election, I think she could bring up more of her Oklahoma middle class childhood and that she was a Republican in the past to appeal to independents.  She badly would need a young VP candidate that could shore up her weaknesses, and for this Beto might be a strong candidate and it likely makes Republicans have to devote some energy and money to protect Texas.  I rarely care much about debates but would really enjoy seeing her on Trump one on one. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Everyone will eviscerate Trump based on facts and logical reasoning in a 1-on-1 debate.  Everyone.  And many did last time, too, especially when the field narrowed and he had to do more than just make fun of Jeb Bush for 60 seconds one time before calling it a night.

I watched the debate with Hillary and thought it was humiliating for him and Hillary would surely get 400+ electoral votes.  I think a much greater portion of the electorate either doesn’t care about debates or views them like a political version of Skip vs. Stephen A.   “Oh, Trump OWNED her with that sick burn!  Also, he’s talking louder about this thing I don’t understand, so he’s probably right.”

In a perverse way, the more you take him seriously and try to lay out facts against him, the better it is for him.  The people want entertainment and fire and brimstone, not a lecture. They care about their feelings, not accuracy or logic.  

He hopefully just already has enough people locked in to voting against him for being terrible as POTUS that he will lose, but Elizabeth Warren taking him to task like 70% of media have been doing every day for 3.5 years isn’t going to move the needle.   The only way a debate would matter is if someone just totally emasculates him and makes him look weak.  That would bother his base.  Making him look stupid, or bigoted, or dishonest, or whatever does not bother his base at all. 

Same, same.  Down to the very number.  I predicted right before the election Hillary would get 400 electoral votes.  Was I right? 

No. Hillary lost

  

I watched the "bad hombre" debate and the comment didn't even register in my head.  I was just amazed at the crazy suggestions and 8th grade level understanding he had as demonstrated by his answers there.  Flip to CNN afterward and it is some 8 member panel and all they are talking about is "bad hombre."  Who gives a shit?  What about the other hour and a half of him showing his ass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t debate Trump.  You embarrass him relentlessly with brutal facts.  

“You might not love all my ideas but this guy over here cages infants at the border while he eats Big Macs in the White House.  When he’s not betraying the country with Lil Kim, MSB, and Putin, he’s throwing twitter tantrums about how unfair he’s being treated by our fine men and women in law enforcement and journalism.  I understand everyone might not be for cracking down on out of control corruption but when this guy said he would drain the swamp all he really did was swamp the drain.  We deserve better.”

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Everyone will eviscerate Trump based on facts and logical reasoning in a 1-on-1 debate.  Everyone.  And many did last time, too, especially when the field narrowed and he had to do more than just make fun of Jeb Bush for 60 seconds one time before calling it a night.

I watched the debate with Hillary and thought it was humiliating for him and Hillary would surely get 400+ electoral votes.  I think a much greater portion of the electorate either doesn’t care about debates or views them like a political version of Skip vs. Stephen A.   “Oh, Trump OWNED her with that sick burn!  Also, he’s talking louder about this thing I don’t understand, so he’s probably right.” 

Yep. It's not an exchange of ideas anymore and weighing them on their merits. It's who can talk over the other person and shout them down.

Someone who has a forceful personality might be able to dress him down and embarrass him. Maybe explain to him what a repugnant human being he is and how he has stained the office with his antics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

What are you a health insurance company spokesman? Equating private for profit health insurance like its fighting for freedom?

GTFO with that bullshit. We didn’t revolt from England so you could pay premiums to Aetna. 

No we revolted so we (the individual) could have the freedom to make the choices that best suit our life instead of the state making those choices for us.  If you want health insurance costs to decrease you should be in favor of more choices not less.  Competition drives down prices, monopolies do not.  The government already runs a health care system.  It's called the VA.  Considering the job the government has done running it for the last two decades why would anyone think the government would be competent at running health care for everyone?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

No we revolted so we (the individual) could have the freedom to make the choices that best suit our life instead of the state making those choices for us.  If you want health insurance costs to decrease you should be in favor of more choices not less.  Competition drives down prices, monopolies do not.  The government already runs a health care system.  It's called the VA.  Considering the job the government has done running it for the last two decades why would anyone think the government would be competent at running health care for everyone?

I admire you.

Nah I’m full of shit. I don’t. 

Back when I was in middle school I would have probably espoused similar type bullshit as you. But that was a long long time ago. And I don’t have the time to discuss this with someone as truly ignorant as you proclaim yourself to be. 

So just declare yourself right and the king of health care debate. Congrats! 

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, UTDD said:

She badly would need a young VP candidate that could shore up her weaknesses, and for this Beto might be a strong candidate and it likely makes Republicans have to devote some energy and money to protect Texas.

If the Republicans don’t win back at least three of the following four: PA, MI, WI, and Arizona, and /or if they don’t hold FL, then Texas won’t mean shit either way.   And the government shutdown and trade wars/tariffs have hurt all of those states.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...