Candidates for 2020 elections.

[hollodero]

(06-04-2019, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks (I truly mean it). The absolutely hilarious thing is: In the exact same post I called the candidates that went to Cali "Children" and nobody said a word.

...I thought about saying a word about it, but decided against it.

- since I feel partly responsible for derailing that thread, something @topic: I kind of start warming up to Pete Buttigieg. He's impressive.
Also, forget Jay Inslee, my now former guy. He has no charisma and for an one issue candidate, he has amazingly little exciting to say about said issue.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 05:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...I thought about saying a word about it, but decided against it.

- since I feel partly responsible for derailing that thread, something @topic: I kind of start warming up to Pete Buttigieg. He's impressive.
Also, forget Jay Inslee, my now former guy. He has no charisma and for an one issue candidate, he has amazingly little exciting to say about said issue.

Nah, you just asked for an explanation which is what we should do....

Mayor Pete got a lot of love when he first announced but it seems to have cooled.

My man is Seth Moulton and the crazy thing is: He's considered Liberal Left

[hollodero]

(06-04-2019, 05:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Mayor Pete got a lot of love when he first announced but it seems to have cooled.

I guess he won't make it, but he is refreshing. I also feel he's the most intelligent one running, which goes a long way for me. And he's measured and, dare I say, nice. Which, I guess, would do the country good. I guuess with him I could go back to admiring the US.

(06-04-2019, 05:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My man is Seth Moulton and the crazy thing is: He's considered Liberal Left

Why him?
I guess his military service is a plus, but aside from that he really seems to hold positions I would not associate with yours. Hence my wondering. He's pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro gun control, supports the green new deal and compared Trump's rise to Hitler's )or so wikipedia tells me). So why him?

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 05:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Mayor Pete got a lot of love when he first announced but it seems to have cooled.

He's still raising a ton of money from what I can see, though.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 06:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess he won't make it, but he is refreshing. I also feel he's the most intelligent one running, which goes a long way for me. And he's measured and, dare I say, nice. Which, I guess, would do the country good. I guuess with him I could go back to admiring the US.



Why him?
I guess his military service is a plus, but aside from that he really seems to hold positions I would not associate with yours. Hence my wondering. He's pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro gun control, supports the green new deal and compared Trump's rise to Hitler's )or so wikipedia tells me). So why him?

Well Matt says he's still raising money, so perhaps there is a chance. 

Not only his Military Background but the path he took to get there. The dude already had a degree from Harvard in Physics and joined the Marines after the 911 attacks. Dude is Pat Tillman with a happy ending. Only one I respect as much/more is Tom Cotton, but sadly no one of merit is going to run against Trump. 

Also I'm not actually anti-abortion if you read any of my posts; I'm just against it as a matter of convenience; especially if the other parent wants it. I also side with my man Evan McMullin on SSM. SCOTUS has ruled let's move on; but I do feel business owners should be allowed to exercise Religious Freedoms in the manner they conduct business.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In my example we're just expanding the death penalty.  But as I said: I understand I your motivation to defend your earlier post.  You were dismissive of the point and passively aggressive (pointed out by more than 1 board member) and you must sooth your cognitive dissonance. It's human nature. 

I guess attacking me rather than trying to respond to the merits of the post is a good way to signify that your point wasn't very good.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 09:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess attacking me rather than trying to respond to the merits of the post is a good way to signify that your point wasn't very good.

Didn't see an attack but guess all you want. The rest of us have moved on to discussing the candidates. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't see an attack but guess all you want. The rest of us have moved on to discussing the candidates. 

LOL, "something something, doubling down"

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 07:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He's still raising a ton of money from what I can see, though.

He just had an MSNBC town hall last night

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/us/politics/buttigieg-msnbc-town-hall.html

[Benton]

I'll be shocked if it isn't biden.

He's the 'old white guy' that 80 percent of the country is comfortable voting for. He's one of the most moderate candidates. He's a white guy. He's straight. He was part of a generally liked (by Dems and moderates anyway) administration. And with the groping thing, he should pull in a few extra voters, while still locking down the female vote because of his likely opponent.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 11:23 PM)Benton Wrote: I'll be shocked if it isn't biden.

He's the 'old white guy' that 80 percent of the country is comfortable voting for. He's one of the most moderate candidates. He's a white guy. He's straight. He was part of a generally liked (by Dems and moderates anyway) administration. And with the groping thing, he should pull in a few extra voters, while still locking down the female vote because of his likely opponent.

The biggest mistake the DNC was to forbid him from running in 2016. They were so concerned about getting Hills in the House that they abandoned all reason. They most likely will do the same for Biden in 2020. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 11:23 PM)Benton Wrote: I'll be shocked if it isn't biden.

He's the 'old white guy' that 80 percent of the country is comfortable voting for. He's one of the most moderate candidates. He's a white guy. He's straight. He was part of a generally liked (by Dems and moderates anyway) administration. And with the groping thing, he should pull in a few extra voters, while still locking down the female vote because of his likely opponent.

All of what you say here is true, but here is where I think it won't be Biden. The country doesn't want what we have had for decades. They want something different. This is why there were so many Obama-Trump voters. This is why Trump was appealing to the non-racists that supported him. Clinton didn't turn out Democratic voters in the general because she didn't excite them. Biden is another Clinton. He is more of the same establishment that many Democrats are not at all happy with right now.

Out of everyone on the board, I'm willing to bet that I am involved more in the Democratic party than anyone else, talking regularly with my local chairs, state chair, other officers and members as I handle some communications duties for our local committee. I cannot name anyone active in the party that is pulling for Biden right now. Granted, this is all anecdotal, but that is what I am hearing. The biggest reason he is polling at the top is name recognition. He and Sanders benefit from 100% name recognition, which is really the reason why they lead the pack. That is the game right now. The reason Mayor Pete is up there behind Harris and Warren? He ran for DNC chair after 2016 and was name dropped by Obama as a rising star in the party in 2017. So to insiders, he is well known.

Once the field starts to narrow and people start to get a feel for what these candidates stand for, I would expect to see the lead Biden holds, and Sanders for that matter, narrow or disappear. We are over a year from the convention, eight months from the Iowa caucuses that kick things off. As other candidates start to become more known and people learn what they are about, this field will shift drastically. This time in 2007, Clinton was polling better than Biden is right now. A lot can change between now and the convention.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 11:23 PM)Benton Wrote: I'll be shocked if it isn't biden.

He's the 'old white guy' that 80 percent of the country is comfortable voting for. He's one of the most moderate candidates. He's a white guy. He's straight. He was part of a generally liked (by Dems and moderates anyway) administration. And with the groping thing, he should pull in a few extra voters, while still locking down the female vote because of his likely opponent.

4 years ago I'd be shocked if it wasn't Jeb or Rubio. In early June of 2015, they were polling 22% and 15% compared to Trump's 1%. The polls weren't wrong at the time, Trump just wasn't officially in it. Then Trump said he was running and it flipped the race on its head, with Trump getting an instant 15% share. After a month or so, he was in the 20's and from that point onward, Trump led 99% of the polls and never looked back. 

Biden could very well be on that same trajectory. He enters "late" and takes the lead and never looks back. While Trump was not considered beyond 1-4% when he wasn't officially a candidate, Biden was winning polls or tied for first prior to his announcement.

Biden seems to have it.

[Benton]

(06-05-2019, 12:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The biggest mistake the DNC was to forbid him from running in 2016. They were so concerned about getting Hills in the House that they abandoned all reason. They most likely will do the same for Biden in 2020. 

Agreed on the hrc part, not sure on who they're going to push this time. It generally falls to a handful in the party, and it's the big cash raisers like pelosi. Ive been busy, but I haven't seen them really speaking out in favor of anyone yet.

(06-05-2019, 08:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: All of what you say here is true, but here is where I think it won't be Biden. The country doesn't want what we have had for decades. They want something different. This is why there were so many Obama-Trump voters. This is why Trump was appealing to the non-racists that supported him. Clinton didn't turn out Democratic voters in the general because she didn't excite them. Biden is another Clinton. He is more of the same establishment that many Democrats are not at all happy with right now.

Out of everyone on the board, I'm willing to bet that I am involved more in the Democratic party than anyone else, talking regularly with my local chairs, state chair, other officers and members as I handle some communications duties for our local committee. I cannot name anyone active in the party that is pulling for Biden right now. Granted, this is all anecdotal, but that is what I am hearing. The biggest reason he is polling at the top is name recognition. He and Sanders benefit from 100% name recognition, which is really the reason why they lead the pack. That is the game right now. The reason Mayor Pete is up there behind Harris and Warren? He ran for DNC chair after 2016 and was name dropped by Obama as a rising star in the party in 2017. So to insiders, he is well known.

Once the field starts to narrow and people start to get a feel for what these candidates stand for, I would expect to see the lead Biden holds, and Sanders for that matter, narrow or disappear. We are over a year from the convention, eight months from the Iowa caucuses that kick things off. As other candidates start to become more known and people learn what they are about, this field will shift drastically. This time in 2007, Clinton was polling better than Biden is right now. A lot can change between now and the convention.

Eh, I'll politely disagree.

Trump did well because 1- he's caustic, sexist, a republican and a man, and he's (I think incorrectly) perceived as racist. But chiefly among those, he wasn't a woman.

Just a small town newspaper poll, but back during the election we asked readers what the biggest "complaint" about each candidate did readers have. I'm trying to remember off the top of my head, but it's was about 30 percent that hrc was a Democrat and 28 percent "gender." Given the nature of the answer, I'd guess the truth was higher. 

People claim they want something different, but they never jump on it. The majority of people eat the same think nearly every time at their favorite restaurant. You're more likely (don't remember the percentage) to shop at a store where you've had a negative experience than somewhere new.

People say they want something different, then they elect a corrupt old white rich guy.

[Benton]

(06-05-2019, 01:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 4 years ago I'd be shocked if it wasn't Jeb or Rubio. In early June of 2015, they were polling 22% and 15% compared to Trump's 1%. The polls weren't wrong at the time, Trump just wasn't officially in it. Then Trump said he was running and it flipped the race on its head, with Trump getting an instant 15% share. After a month or so, he was in the 20's and from that point onward, Trump led 99% of the polls and never looked back. 

Biden could very well be on that same trajectory. He enters "late" and takes the lead and never looks back. While Trump was not considered beyond 1-4% when he wasn't officially a candidate, Biden was winning polls or tied for first prior to his announcement.

Biden seems to have it.

I was reading something from fox fhe other day that biden was skipping the traditional glad handing to focus on other opportunities. They were commending him on the strategy. And it may be just that, but personally I think it's just one more signal he knows hes got those party pillars locked up, so he's working on collecting votes.

[BmorePat87]

(06-05-2019, 05:19 PM)Benton Wrote: I was reading something from fox fhe other day that biden was skipping the traditional glad handing to focus on other opportunities. They were commending him on the strategy. And it may be just that, but personally I think it's just one more signal he knows hes got those party pillars locked up, so he's working on collecting votes.

You have to commend him on his strategy. He teased for months and then jumped in to instantly become the unequivocal front runner. He won't win Iowa and may not win New Hampshire, but he knows he is going to clean house in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. 

There were rumors he'd announce a running mate (a woman of color most likely) early on, and that's still possible, but he should wait until Harris drops out. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-05-2019, 06:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You have to commend him on his strategy. He teased for months and then jumped in to instantly become the unequivocal front runner. He won't win Iowa and may not win New Hampshire, but he knows he is going to clean house in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. 

There were rumors he'd announce a running mate (a woman of color most likely) early on, and that's still possible, but he should wait until Harris drops out. 

Or just take Stacey Abrams and lock up the Obama endorsement. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-05-2019, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or just take Stacey Abrams and lock up the Obama endorsement. 

That was the initial rumor. She countered it with "I might run myself".

Maybe she's in on it or maybe she really is weighing her options. 

[Benton]

(06-05-2019, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or just take Stacey Abrams and lock up the Obama endorsement. 

I think he'll have the Obama endorsement either way. And he'd do good to steer clear of Abrams.

Did she get screwed? Probably. Whatever the truth, it doesn't look good for her: either she was too feeble to beat the house, or she was a loser who had to hope the courts would fix things for her.

[Belsnickel]

Matt Yglesias made a good point about Biden, yesterday. After a little pro-Biden tweet, to keep things objective he pointed out that there is a dearth of Obama administration staffers and officials speaking out for him. It is interesting because I listen to some of the Crooked Media stuff, which is filled with former Obama staffers, and they all love Biden. They all respect him, think highly of him, and like him as a person. One of them grew up with him as his Senator. None of them are putting their weight behind Biden.