Democrat candidates for 2020

[Ghost of LL 15,327]

I would love to see John Hickenlooper get the Dem nomination.  He's definitely running, and I always like Western governors.  They bring an aspect of libertarianism that you don't see with the coastal Dems, and which I think is needed to build a winning coalition.

I'd really like to see him paired with Doug Jones on a ticket.  Southern senators in the VP spot seem to be de rigueur for winning Democratic tickets over the past thirty years (Gore, Biden).

[RDCanecutter 26,198]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

I met a woman who is from one of the original Canary island families at an event. While we were talking someone introduced a surgeon to us who was also from a prominent historical Mexican family but not part of the founders. When the Doctor walked away she said with disgust, "He is nothing but a lowly indian." The doctor didn't appear to have any Mesoamerican in him but apparently his blood wasn't pure enough for her liking.

Crazy world.

Somebody oughta sell tickets.

[TahoeHorn 107]

So, are the Dems going to nominate a Canary Island Comanche?  I'm still pushing for Chelsea.

[TahoeHorn 107]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

...  Southern senators in the VP spot seem to be de rigueur for winning Democratic tickets over the past thirty years (Gore, Biden).

Alabama Joe 

Edited March 29, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[F250 28,623]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

So, are the Dems going to nominate a Canary Island Comanche?  I'm still pushing for Chelsea.

If they are from the Canary Islands they would be a Guanche not a Commanche.

[Chooky 13,292]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I would love to see John Hickenlooper get the Dem nomination.  He's definitely running, and I always like Western governors.  They bring an aspect of libertarianism that you don't see with the coastal Dems, and which I think is needed to build a winning coalition.

I'd really like to see him paired with Doug Jones on a ticket.  Southern senators in the VP spot seem to be de rigueur for winning Democratic tickets over the past thirty years (Gore, Biden).

They'll fuck this up.  They'll show up with a guy who is literally torquing a screwdriver into a dog named Pooch.  Or it will be a Schumer/Pelosi ticket and after they lose they'll take great joy in telling everyone how they dominated the campaign with East Coast elites and California.  

[RDCanecutter 26,198]

I think I met two actual Canary Islanders. Brother and sister in Spain. The dude had a standard Thpain Thpanish Acshent but the girl, a tall blonde, was full on turbo Canary Islands [rules: it was 1981. Go back to staring at your phone], like, Puerto Rican with less use for consonants.

Some of us went to the Prado museum. When we got back she was all "Fui'tei' al Pra'o"? Brother busted up at her accent, but I thought was fine, coming from her. I remember two things about the Prado-- some big-ass painting, and her calling it "el Pra'o."

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Run it back. It was HER TURN!

[RDCanecutter 26,198]

Trump must be paying Hillary to run.

[F250 28,623]

2 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

I think I met two actual Canary Islanders. Brother and sister in Spain. The dude had a standard Thpain Thpanish Acshent but the girl, a tall blonde, was full on turbo Canary Islands [rules: it was 1981. Go back to staring at your phone], like, Puerto Rican with less use for consonants.

Some of us went to the Prado museum. When we got back she was all "Fui'tei' al Pra'o"? Brother busted up at her accent, but I thought was fine, coming from her. I remember two things about the Prado-- some big-ass painting, and her calling it "el Pra'o."

I have family in Las Palmas (Gran Canaria) on my mother's side and have spent several Summers in the Canary Islands. The one thing that is noticeable to me is the Spanish is very similar to what you would hear in Mexico versus Castilian Spanish.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

50 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Trump must be paying Hillary to run.

 Easy when you have unlimited Rubles at your fingertips. 

[RDCanecutter 26,198]

35 minutes ago, F250 said:

I have family in Las Palmas (Gran Canaria) on my mother's side and have spent several Summers in the Canary Islands. The one thing that is noticeable to me is the Spanish is very similar to what you would hear in Mexico versus Castilian Spanish.

I don't think these two were originally from the Canaries. Could be an Andalusian accent I heard from the girl.

I heard my first Jarocho accent (Port of Veracruz) a couple months ago. Semi-Cuban. Things like "nojotro" for nosotros. Never heard anybody turn an s into an h in the middle of a word. Maybe they were thinking of the component parts, no[h] + otro[0].

[Ghost of LL 15,327]

2 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Run it back. It was HER TURN!

I think Al Gore would disagree with that.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

I read on teh Wiki that Guanches are genetically Berbers so we should keep an eye on San Antonio as a potential ISIS in Maghreb sleeper cell. 

[Austin Orange 98]

Howard Dean? Not sure of his politics but was an absolute statesman of a public speaker.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,355]

I like Bernie and some of his ideas but as long as he doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll be satisfied.  Actually, I’d prefer he didn’t run for several reason.  

1.  He’s not a real democrat and a stones throw away from a Trump on the left. (Populist that makes unrealistic policy proposals).

2. He has the 2016 election stink on him.  

3.  He’s not vocal enough about the Russian interference which he benefited from.  He still hasn’t come out and said, “I reject any support from the Russians government I might have inadvertently received in the past and I don’t want any help from the Kremlin in the future.” Saying something like that would go a long way, even today.

4.  He’s over the hill. If You think Joe Biden is too old, Bernie is older by a year.  Don’t get me wrong, America needs someone with experience and wisdom but not a guy in his late 70s.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dropout 355]

1 - A real democrat? Who cares? I don’t think the majority of people do anymore. Is Trump a real republican? Bernie is nothing like Trump. There is no comparison between the two. Their character and substance on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. Unrealistic proposals? Why? I bet a big wall between America and Mexico was unrealistic when you first heard it. What is unrealistic anymore? If Trump has proven anything its that anything is possible. Let’s do our best to make good ideas work instead of giving up from the start. Or is that a real democrat thing?

2 - The stink where hundreds of thousands of people were in the streets across the country? The stink of going against the entire DNC? Let’s be honest... Bernie, not a real democrat, came out of nowhere in 2016 and almost beat the anointed one. Only the people were supporting him. This counts for something. Ask Trump. Don’t be idoits and ignore/fight the momentum again. Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump in the 2016 general. Bernie wins the close states Clinton lost in 2016.

3 -

“We saw this anti-democratic effort take place in the 2016 election right here in the United States, where we now know that the Russian government was engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths: The integrity of our elections, and our faith in our own democracy.

I found it incredible, by the way, that when the President of the United States spoke before the United Nations on Monday, he did not even mention that outrage.

Well, I will. Today I say to Mr. Putin: we will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world. In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win.”

 

“Inequality, corruption, oligarchy and authoritarianism are inseparable,” Mr. Sanders said in a recent address. “Around the world we have witnessed the rise of demagogues who once in power use their positions to loot the state of its resources. These kleptocrats, like Putin in Russia, use divisiveness and abuse as a tool for enriching themselves and those loyal to them.”

That’s just a couple of examples. There are more. Words Trump would never even whisper in Ivanka’s ear. I believe Bernie is of the opinion that Russia was anti Clinton in 2016. As long as that didn’t happen it was a success for the Kremlin. Colluding w Trump to steal the election is the icing on the cake.

4 - Bernie has more energy and drive than most. I know I’ve seen you post something something about what society’s should not allow. On this list was ageism. 100% agree. Don’t be a hypocrite. 

Elect character and substance. One time. There are examples of when Bernie’s ideas and vision was right before everyone else agreed years later. Maybe he has a few more of those ideas in him.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8,795]

Kanye/Oprah

[F250 28,623]

12 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Kanye/Oprah

Oprah/The Rock

[Tom 2,959]

9 hours ago, Austin Orange said:

Howard Dean? Not sure of his politics but was an absolute statesman of a public speaker.

It's amazing to me that one goofy enthusiastic yell ruined this guy's political career after everything Trump gets away with.

[Tom 2,959]

9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I like Bernie and some of his ideas but as long as he doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll be satisfied.  Actually, I’d prefer he didn’t run for several reason.  

1.  He’s not a real democrat

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[F250 28,623]

36 minutes ago, Tom said:

It's amazing to me that one goofy enthusiastic yell ruined this guy's political career after everything Trump gets away with.

It wasn't the yell, it was how he was consistently portrayed as an unhinged lunatic in the media. The yell itself wasn't a big deal.

 

[Marcus Aurelius 5]

14 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I like Bernie and some of his ideas but as long as he doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll be satisfied.  Actually, I’d prefer he didn’t run for several reason.  

1.  He’s not a real democrat and a stones throw away from a Trump on the left. (Populist that makes unrealistic policy proposals).

2. He has the 2016 election stink on him.  

3.  He’s not vocal enough about the Russian interference which he benefited from.  He still hasn’t come out and said, “I reject any support from the Russians government I might have inadvertently received in the past and I don’t want any help from the Kremlin in the future.” Saying something like that would go a long way, even today.

4.  He’s over the hill. If You think Joe Biden is too old, Bernie is older by a year.  Don’t get me wrong, America needs someone with experience and wisdom but not a guy in his late 70s.

1. Not being a real Democrat counts as a plus in my book. And does being a Trump on the left mean actually winning in the general?

2. Eh, I'm not sure how big of a deal this is

3. The average voter doesn't give a fuck about Russia. If the Democracts run in 2020 on this Russia shit then they are even dumber than I thought.

4. Agreed.

[Foosters 17,688]

Lol at people who support Trump picking apart the character of other politicians.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[David Dennison 18,487]

It's not going to be close no matter who it is.

[RCRanger03 1,049]

Wasn't there some craziness about a Hickenlooper Kaisch ticket?

In no order

Biden and Kamela Harris Ticket 

Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard

Klobuchar/Gillibrand and Chris Murphy Ticket 

Dark Horse: Jason Kander, he'd need to pick up some experience on the way since he didn't win his 2016 race.

Darker Horse: Mayor Pete Buttigeig has some buzz,  young and seems to have some measure of authenticity when he speaks, and first openly gay president has the same type of social momentum these days as first female president. Very not likely, maybe more of a VP pick for a centerist to placate the far lefties

[Caracara 41]

If I was still a democrat I'd vote for any smart pro-freedom, anti-tpp, anti-war candidate truly pushing single-payer.   Trump and Trumpism could be defeated by somebody with a good nature, but he ju-jitsus the fuck out of finger-waggers.  Dems need their own candidate who can get through the primaries without donations from the medical lobbies and maybe aipac.

[TheFlyingBoat 906]

On 3/28/2018 at 12:24 PM, Chrispy said:

I’m sorry, but this is patently untrue. With even a modicum of research you would find that out of the ten cities with the highest homelessness, four of them are located in California. If that’s not indicative of poor leadership, I don’t know what is.

So shrugging your shoulders and saying that everyone struggles to the extent that California does is disingenuous on your part. Back to my original point; anyone that things that fraud Newsome should be anywhere near the presidency needs a lobotomy immediately.

Part of that is because it's one of the few states where you can survive living outside basically year round (doubt too many homeless people survive a Minnesota winter for too long), another part is that other states give their homeless people bus tickets to California as their solution to homelessness, and another part of it is that homeless people generally move to cities and California is the biggest state with the biggest cities. Some of it does have to do with too onerous of restrictions on building developments, but even building a shit ton of skyscrapers for SROs wouldn't bring housing prices down to an affordable level in San Francisco. There are just too many high paying jobs there which will guarantee people get priced out and you can only get developers to agree to so much rent control in exchange for rights to build. Having the problems with too many homeless people isn't necessarily and indictment of poor policy and in the case of Newsom it probably isn't as I think he is in favor of loosening SF's zoning restrictions and encouraging more building.

 

FWIW, while you go after California, they're clearly doing something right as they have 5 public universities (4 if you choose not to count UCSF as they're purely a graduate medical institution) that outperform us in research according to the ARWU (decent enough ranking) and 6 that outperform in undergraduate education (US News, it's shit, but it's the one everyone uses so eh). It has a per capita GDP 10% higher than ours. The top graduates from their high schools generally beat and outnumber ours if you look at performance in national competitions and representation in science contests like ISEF and STS and in crude metrics like PSAT cutoff for National Merit (an OK-ish estimator of seeing how well educated the top of the state is). Let's not start throwing stones from glass houses. If you think no Democrat from CA should be president, no Republican from TX ever should either because they failed to invest in the future of Texas and as a result we've been falling behind. We should be #1 in everything. This is Texas goddamnit.

[TheFlyingBoat 906]

If I had to guess who will be the nominee, I'd have to guess Kamala Harris. She's immensely popular and doesn't have much national political experience. She may suffer a bit in the primaries due to her very tough on crime views while serving as DA of SF and then AG of CA, but she'll likely survive that. Her limited time in the Senate allows her to keep her hands mostly clean and the last primary and general election on both sides showed having a history can make life awfully difficult.

Second guess would be Hickenlooper trying to run with the whole moderate schtick. I don't think it'll work with everyone so polarized and fired up, but we'll see.

Dark horse: Pete Buttgieg. I think he'll run and lose. He'll parlay that either into a successful Governor or Congressional run in 2022 or potentially be a VP pick.

Darker horse: No idea if he has any desire to do so, but Schiff has made quite a big name for himself and could be the golden boy based on how these investigations go.

As for who I want it to be, I want a Democrat who's damn good on foreign policy, especially wrt to China and Russia (or at the very least someone who recognizes how important FP is and gets an elite staff). Trump has made countering China in Asia and the rest of the world so much harder than it had to be. We need to put some serious work into rebuilding alliances across the entire world if we are to limit China's growth and ensure our continued place at the top defining the rules and standards of international politics, trade, and technology. Being able to do so has brought us an incredible ROI and we need to keep that power. As for Russia, their economy is in deep trouble and Putin's wars and military parades can only distract from the fact for so long. Obama's sanctions during a time of increasing oil prices starting a run on the ruble was very advantageous for us as it resulted in Russia burning through its forex reserves to stabilize the currency and an overall weakening of their economic situation(read more here as they have a surprising good summary of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014–2017)). GDP growth has been terrible with an absolute collapse from 2014 (start of the annexation of Crimea) to 2017. Having a massive loss in GDP during a global recover/boom is terrible and now still having a 1.5% growth rate as a developing nation is terrible. Economic and geopolitical forecasters warn about the political situation as a result of this come 2023-2026 and it'd be great if we had a foreign policy team that could take advantage of that.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,180]

If I was still a democrat I'd vote for any smart pro-freedom, anti-tpp, anti-war candidate truly pushing single-payer.   Trump and Trumpism could be defeated by somebody with a good nature, but he ju-jitsus the fuck out of finger-waggers.  Dems need their own candidate who can get through the primaries without donations from the medical lobbies and maybe aipac.

You lost me at anti-TPP, unless your goal is Chinese pacific trade hegemony.

[Chrispy 132]

7 hours ago, TheFlyingBoat said:

Part of that is because it's one of the few states where you can survive living outside basically year round (doubt too many homeless people survive a Minnesota winter for too long), another part is that other states give their homeless people bus tickets to California as their solution to homelessness, and another part of it is that homeless people generally move to cities and California is the biggest state with the biggest cities. Some of it does have to do with too onerous of restrictions on building developments, but even building a shit ton of skyscrapers for SROs wouldn't bring housing prices down to an affordable level in San Francisco. There are just too many high paying jobs there which will guarantee people get priced out and you can only get developers to agree to so much rent control in exchange for rights to build. Having the problems with too many homeless people isn't necessarily and indictment of poor policy and in the case of Newsom it probably isn't as I think he is in favor of loosening SF's zoning restrictions and encouraging more building.

 

FWIW, while you go after California, they're clearly doing something right as they have 5 public universities (4 if you choose not to count UCSF as they're purely a graduate medical institution) that outperform us in research according to the ARWU (decent enough ranking) and 6 that outperform in undergraduate education (US News, it's shit, but it's the one everyone uses so eh). It has a per capita GDP 10% higher than ours. The top graduates from their high schools generally beat and outnumber ours if you look at performance in national competitions and representation in science contests like ISEF and STS and in crude metrics like PSAT cutoff for National Merit (an OK-ish estimator of seeing how well educated the top of the state is). Let's not start throwing stones from glass houses. If you think no Democrat from CA should be president, no Republican from TX ever should either because they failed to invest in the future of Texas and as a result we've been falling behind. We should be #1 in everything. This is Texas goddamnit.

I’m not going to belabor the point about there being no correlation between population size and homelessness. Also, busing homeless has been going on since the seventies, not only to California mind you. Some of the issue is from too onerous of restrictions? You mean the part where California pays, on average, 40% more for energy than the rest of the country or that it’s the highest tax burdened state? I’m sure correcting that wouldn’t help the pricing of affordable housing, no it’s just that California is too damn successful for its own good. It’s increasingly becoming a state where only the elite will prosper and the poor to middle class will pay through the nose for housing, energy, and services. They concede that nearly 20% of families live below the poverty line and another 20% barely live above it. The policies in that state has been disastrous for the average Californian. Don’t get me started on the state of infrastructure and the medieval diseases making a comeback. But hey, they want to sink billions into a new, cool light rail! 

Half of my family lives in California and I spent many summers there, so it saddens me that it’s become what it has. I only mention that because I want to stress that I have a vested interest in the state. I love Texas because it’s my home, but of course we have issues. Let’s be honest though, they are nowhere near the level of California. Walk down the streets of greater Los Angeles and you’ll encounter destitution you can’t even imagine. That’s absolutely an indictment of policy. I believe eduction is very important, so I’ll give them a slap on the back for their graduation success and high gdp. But in the meantime, I’d like to take my children to Disneyland without having to go explain why a man is asleep on a park bench with a needle hanging out of his arm. 

My original point was that Newsom has been saying the issue of homelessness is absolutely solvable since, I believe, 2014. So where are the results? Hint: it’s become exponentially worse. If you want to run this charlatan, the Democrats will get slaughtered. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

I’m not going to belabor the point about there being no correlation between population size and homelessness. Also, busing homeless has been going on since the seventies, not only to California mind you. Some of the issue is from too onerous of restrictions? You mean the part where California pays, on average, 40% more for energy than the rest of the country or that it’s the highest tax burdened state? I’m sure correcting that wouldn’t help the pricing of affordable housing, no it’s just that California is too damn successful for its own good. It’s increasingly becoming a state where only the elite will prosper and the poor to middle class will pay through the nose for housing, energy, and services. They concede that nearly 20% of families live below the poverty line and another 20% barely live above it. The policies in that state has been disastrous for the average Californian. Don’t get me started on the state of infrastructure and the medieval diseases making a comeback. But hey, they want to sink billions into a new, cool light rail! 

Half of my family lives in California and I spent many summers there, so it saddens me that it’s become what it has. I only mention that because I want to stress that I have a vested interest in the state. I love Texas because it’s my home, but of course we have issues. Let’s be honest though, they are nowhere near the level of California. Walk down the streets of greater Los Angeles and you’ll encounter destitution you can’t even imagine. That’s absolutely an indictment of policy. I believe eduction is very important, so I’ll give them a slap on the back for their graduation success and high gdp. But in the meantime, I’d like to take my children to Disneyland without having to go explain why a man is asleep on a park bench with a needle hanging out of his arm. 

My original point was that Newsom has been saying the issue of homelessness is absolutely solvable since, I believe, 2014. So where are the results? Hint: it’s become exponentially worse. If you want to run this charlatan, the Democrats will get slaughtered. 

Actually, demand is pretty much the sole reason housing prices are so high in CA.  A house is only worth what someone will pay for it. And people in CA are paying those prices so a seller isn't going to reject a wealthier buyer and take your lower middle class offer. The big difference between CA cities and Houston or Dallas is that CA cities are hemmed in by natural obstructions and all land inside those natural boundaries is already developed. SF, in particular, is tiny. A few million people want to live in it specifically. Less than a million can.  Fewer people want to live in a rural east Texas mansion, so you can buy one for less than a SF 1 bdrm walkup. 

[Chrispy 132]

14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Actually, demand is pretty much the sole reason housing prices are so high in CA.  A house is only worth what someone will pay for it. And people in CA are paying those prices so a seller isn't going to reject a wealthier buyer and take your lower middle class offer. The big difference between CA cities and Houston or Dallas is that CA cities are hemmed in by natural obstructions and all land inside those natural boundaries is already developed. SF, in particular, is tiny. A few million people want to live in it specifically. Less than a million can.  Fewer people want to live in a rural east Texas mansion, so you can buy one for less than a SF 1 bdrm walkup. 

It’s not the sole reason, but I’ve already stated as such. You can blame land barriers, weather, busing, it’s all the same excuse to me. Until they realize that extreme taxation and unreasonable regulations will ensure that much of the population never rises the social ladder, their problems with poverty will continue to grow. 

[berlinerbaer 670]

On 3/28/2018 at 1:20 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

Hillary needs to do the whole country a favor and announce she will not run for President in 2020.  She was the only person that could lose to Trump, and her reputation is scarred forever as far as I'm concerned. 

As long as she's considered a potential candidate,  the Democratic Party is completely fucked. 

 

 

Hillary probably won't run. If she did, it wouldn't matter anyway. Democratic voters are done with her. She won't last in a 6-way primary.

I want her to run just to see the Right lose their shit while Dem primary voters calmly kick her off the bus by Super Tuesday.

On 3/29/2018 at 5:10 PM, Ghost of LL said:

I would love to see John Hickenlooper get the Dem nomination.  He's definitely running, and I always like Western governors.  They bring an aspect of libertarianism that you don't see with the coastal Dems, and which I think is needed to build a winning coalition.

I'd really like to see him paired with Doug Jones on a ticket.  Southern senators in the VP spot seem to be de rigueur for winning Democratic tickets over the past thirty years (Gore, Biden).

A Hickenlooper/Jones ticket is too centrist. That doesn't fire up the base.

There needs to be some policy spread between the nominee and the running mate. There needs to be appeal to multiple wings of the party as well as the center. Sanders/Gabbard mentioned elsewhere is a no-go for the opposite reason, alienating moderates in that case.

Hickenlooper or Jones would be fantastic VP picks for any of the liberal/progressive candidates.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,594]

1 hour ago, berlinerbaer said:

Hillary probably won't run. If she did, it wouldn't matter anyway. Democratic voters are done with her. She won't last in a 6-way primary.

I want her to run just to see the Right lose their shit while Dem primary voters calmly kick her off the bus by Super Tuesday. 

You have too much faith in the Democratic party.  Hillary needs to officially take her name off the list. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,355]

Does the Impeachment Issue complicate things for the democrats in 2020?

Would the democrats prefer to run against Trump or Pence in 2020?  

I tend to think the fallout for the GOP after impeaching Trump would ensure a democrat victory in 2020 but these are strange times, I just don’t know.

 

 

[RayDog 682]

I think the Democrats do much better down ballot if Trump runs, particularly if he has committed impeachable offenses.

If it were up to me I would not impeach, at least not until he secures his spot on the ballot. Impeachment, or at least calls for his resignation, after the convention would yield the best results.

[F250 28,623]

6 minutes ago, RayDog said:

I think the Democrats do much better down ballot if Trump runs, particularly if he has committed impeachable offenses.

If it were up to me I would not impeach, at least not until he secures his spot on the ballot. Impeachment, or at least calls for his resignation, after the convention would yield the best

That sounds like what people refer to as party over country.

[RayDog 682]

6 minutes ago, F250 said:

That sounds like what people refer to as party over country.

No. It is only that the Democrats may have to use their own extreme tactics to overcome republican gerrymandering and equalize things. In other words to achieve equal and unprejudiced representation.

[F250 28,623]

15 minutes ago, RayDog said:

No. It is only that the Democrats may have to use their own extreme tactics to overcome republican gerrymandering and equalize things. In other words to achieve equal and unprejudiced representation.

 

People are calling for impeachment because they believe Trump is a threat to the welfare of the United States. If this is the case and Mueller's investigation proves Trump is an active threat against the United States then he should be impeached and removed from office immediately. Delaying it for political reasons would be putting the party over country.

This is the kind of political horse shit that causes people to say "both sides."

 

[berlinerbaer 670]

5 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You have too much faith in the Democratic party.  Hillary needs to officially take her name off the list. 

 

You're thinking too much about the party head-honchos. Their power, small to begin with, is fading fast, as all evidence since 2016 indicates.

Voters, the people who matter, won't pull the lever for Hillary no matter what the DNC tries to say. She is roadkill in a hypothetical 6-way primary with Warren, Gilibrand, Hickenlooper, Booker, and Biden.

I've been involved in liberal/progressive activist groups since the election, basically the base of the Democratic Party. Out of a group where about 40% went for Hillary over Bernie in the 2016 primary, I can say with confidence that nobody in that 40% is still excited for her. People throw around a dozen names for 2020. Her name is mentioned as a running joke and nothing more.

[burntorangebongos 10,681]

somebody under 65, please. I'm more comfortable with under 60 but I'll take an old as long as they aren't past 65.

[F250 28,623]

40 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

You're thinking too much about the party head-honchos. Their power, small to begin with, is fading fast, as all evidence since 2016 indicates.

Voters, the people who matter, won't pull the lever for Hillary no matter what the DNC tries to say. She is roadkill in a hypothetical 6-way primary with Warren, Gilibrand, Hickenlooper, Booker, and Biden.

I've been involved in liberal/progressive activist groups since the election, basically the base of the Democratic Party. Out of a group where about 40% went for Hillary over Bernie in the 2016 primary, I can say with confidence that nobody in that 40% is still excited for her. People throw around a dozen names for 2020. Her name is mentioned as a running joke and nothing more.

What makes you think this is the case? It seems that HRC happened because the base is centrist. Do you think the base has shifted left recently?

[berlinerbaer 670]

24 minutes ago, F250 said:

What makes you think this is the case? It seems that HRC happened because the base is centrist. Do you think the base has shifted left recently?

Yes, I think the base has swung to the left since 2016, but that isn't why I think she has no chance in 2020. Hillary happened not because she was more centrist (otherwise Webb would have polled above background noise levels), but because there were really only 3 or 4 legit candidates in 2016 and she clobbered them all in name recognition. Even Bernie was virtually unknown outside of Vermont until 2015.

There was no shame in losing to the first black president in 2008, but losing to Trump? I can't foresee how she'll recover from that.

She no longer dominates the news like she did in the 90's, or when she was a senator, or a member of Obama's cabinet. The Republicans seem to care an awful lot about her for some bizarre reason, but the Democratic base has moved on to other candidates who check most of the same boxes.

tl;dr version: she's dead, Jim.

[F250 28,623]

6 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Yes, I think the base has swung to the left since 2016, but that isn't why I think she has no chance in 2020. Hillary happened not because she was more centrist (otherwise Webb would have polled above background noise levels), but because there were really only 3 or 4 legit candidates in 2016 and she clobbered them all in name recognition. Even Bernie was virtually unknown outside of Vermont until 2015.

There was no shame in losing to the first black president in 2008, but losing to Trump? I can't foresee how she'll recover from that.

She no longer dominates the news like she did in the 90's, or when she was a senator, or a member of Obama's cabinet. The Republicans seem to care an awful lot about her for some bizarre reason, but the Democratic base has moved on to other candidates who check most of the same boxes.

tl;dr version: she's dead, Jim.

I think most reasonable people know Hillary's political career expired in 2016. I was thinking more about other centrist candidates like Hickenlooper.

[berlinerbaer 670]

11 minutes ago, F250 said:

I think most reasonable people know Hillary's political career expired in 2016. I was thinking more about other centrist candidates like Hickenlooper.

The base's shift to the left will come into play in the  2020 primary. I don't know about Hickenlooper, but true centrists like Jim Webb will have trouble gaining traction barring a real surge in primary voter turnout, as the case may be if a celebrity throws his/her hat into the ring.

A centrist won't beat a leftist straight up, but it all depends on who decides to run. We'll have to see if the leftist vote gets split between multiple candidates, like if Sanders and Warren both run. Then I think a centrist could go deep into the primary. This is maybe the one area where I think the party apparatus exerts some control.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

11 hours ago, Chrispy said:

It’s not the sole reason, but I’ve already stated as such. You can blame land barriers, weather, busing, it’s all the same excuse to me. Until they realize that extreme taxation and unreasonable regulations will ensure that much of the population never rises the social ladder, their problems with poverty will continue to grow. 

Well, there are natural boundaries to CA cities, they do have perfect weather, and y'all do bus your homeless there. All of those things are true. Also true is that far more people want to live there than they have space for. Hell, nearly half of Austin is in Austin because they want to live in CA but can't afford it. They still "want" to live in CA, and that latent demand also keeps the housing prices up because everyone has an "I'd live in LA for that price" price.

And you believe those same homeless folks in CA would be housed, fed, and working in Texas?  Right.  Poverty is everywhere. Go check out the meth addled state just across your border.  The reason that poor people take the chance at going to a magnetic city like SF is that there is a "chance" to do something with themselves there.  

Take a look at the social ladder in your town. It ain't nearly as climbable. You focus on homeless people, the majority of which have a mental or substance problem. Instead, look at how immigrant latinos make it work in CA.  And they do make it work. The real problem for CA when it comes to the homeless is that they pretend to care. When you say youre going to take care of the homeless, more will come, and that draws in those who y'all don't already bus.   NYC has the same problem since they guarantee shelter beds. Meanwhile, your town pretty much tells them they can leave or die.  So they leave or die. Your solution to export poverty elsewhere isn't a better one. The actual solution for homelessness is to make it the responsibility of the state or municipality where the person had his last official residence or employment.  

Edited April 2, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[F250 28,623]

22 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

The base's shift to the left will come into play in the  2020 primary. I don't know about Hickenlooper, but true centrists like Jim Webb will have trouble gaining traction barring a real surge in primary voter turnout, as the case may be if a celebrity throws his/her hat into the ring.

A centrist won't beat a leftist straight up, but it all depends on who decides to run. We'll have to see if the leftist vote gets split between multiple candidates, like if Sanders and Warren both run. Then I think a centrist could go deep into the primary. This is maybe the one area where I think the party apparatus exerts some control.

Thanks for the input. I was curious about the attitude of the party's base.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

Names I would love to see:

 

Sally Yates

Preet Bharara 

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, F250 said:

 

People are calling for impeachment because they believe Trump is a threat to the welfare of the United States. If this is the case and Mueller's investigation proves Trump is an active threat against the United States then he should be impeached and removed from office immediately. Delaying it for political reasons would be putting the party over country.

This is the kind of political horse shit that causes people to say "both sides."

 

He should be impeached now but republicans are doing nothing. So yes, both sides.