Candidates for 2020 elections.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2018, 02:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How about a non-Ivy League candidate.  I think the last non-Ivy League President was Reagan.

(06-28-2018, 02:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Duckworth's your gal, then.


Did you mean a good candidate?

(06-28-2018, 02:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah not having a President Duckworth.  

Maybe it should be for another thread (sorry Richmond) but it makes me wonder how Trump would attack and insult her on the campaign trail.

Other than being a Democrat would his usual sophomoric attacks work?  Or even stick to her?

And we could do that for any potential candidate.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 02:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah not having a President Duckworth.  

Well, one of my favorite civil servants is also not an Ivy Leaguer. But if you have objections to Duckworth, I don't know if Hickenlooper is going to be much better.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 02:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe it should be for another thread (sorry Richmond) but it makes me wonder how Trump would attack and insult her on the campaign trail.

Other than being a Democrat would his usual sophomoric attacks work?  Or even stick to her?

And we could do that for any potential candidate.

That's actually why I say she would be a good candidate. If I play the political hack game, my thought process is that you have a well educated woman that has had a life devoted to service, including being wounded in the military being shot down in a war zone. She doesn't have the baggage that some of the other potential options do, including her not being as polarizing in her positions. At the same time, though, she is very principled in her convictions.

That's a hard target for Trump's style of campaigning. No doubt he would try, but he would risk losing a lot of support from more moderate leaning folks.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 02:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, one of my favorite civil servants is also not an Ivy Leaguer. But if you have objections to Duckworth, I don't know if Hickenlooper is going to be much better.

How I would kill for a Big 10 graduate named Jones.  

[*PhilHos*]

Curious as to what people's thoughts are on the chances of either Hillary or Bernie securing the nomination in 2020? I mean, I'd feel like they're very little, but you never know.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2018, 04:07 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Curious as to what people's thoughts are on the chances of either Hillary or Bernie securing the nomination in 2020? I mean, I'd feel like they're very little, but you never know.

I don't know if she would even run again.  I literally have heard nothing that would point to it.

Bernie will run.  He won't get the Democratic nomination.  Maybe he could run third party?

[Yojimbo]

(06-28-2018, 04:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know if she would even run again.  I literally have heard nothing that would point to it.

Bernie will run.  He won't get the Democratic nomination.  Maybe he could run third party?

Why wouldn’t he get the nomination? He almost got it last time with superdelegates involved. As of yesterday they were moved to the back row and can’t vote during the first ballot. Not to mention his name recognition is now over 90%, when it was under 10% when he announced his 2016 run.

Personally, I’d like to see Tulsi Gabbard as the nominee. She has progressive policies, served in the military and checks the boxes of female and POC.

[*Nately120*]

(06-28-2018, 03:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's actually why I say she would be a good candidate. If I play the political hack game, my thought process is that you have a well educated woman that has had a life devoted to service, including being wounded in the military being shot down in a war zone. She doesn't have the baggage that some of the other potential options do, including her not being as polarizing in her positions. At the same time, though, she is very principled in her convictions.

That's a hard target for Trump's style of campaigning. No doubt he would try, but he would risk losing a lot of support from more moderate leaning folks.

I'd imagine the mudslinging would go back to more general statements we've heard about democrats for years.  She's going to take your guns, she's going to outlaw prayer in school, she's anti-Christian, she's soft on terror, she's going to let illegals and Muslims overrun the USA, she's going to surrender when we are close to winning the war on terror, she supports killing babies, she's a filthy politician and we need a businessman to run this country, don't change horses midstream, victory with Trump is just over the next hill, etc. 

Also, we've seen republicans with little to no military affiliation beat opponents with actual military service before, too.  A draft-dodger insulted an actual republican war hero and he was punished with victory for doing so.  I can understand why republicans would convince themselves John Kerry was a treasonous coward, but McCain?  Geez, people.

Additionally, all those "Trump that *****!" signs we saw in the 2016 election would get a second use.  

I'm not saying any of this is legit, but lord knows it doesn't have to be in order to be effective.

Also, she's going to raise your taxes to give more money to free loaders who won't work .

[*bfine32*]

Bets on who will be the first Candidate to coin the phrase:

Foresight is 2020

[fredtoast]

Look for Bill Haslam to be a Republican candidate.


Joaquin Castro will be a probable Democrat candidate.  

I'd like to see the Dems nominate Gary Locke.  Raised in the projects.  Eagle scout.  Army vet.  Very fiscally conservative as governor of Washington (so much that many Dems turned against him).  Secretary of Commerce under Obama and later Ambassador to China.  China is going to be a bigger and bigger issue every year and Locke's parents were Chinese.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

If Democrats were smart and wanted to ensure Trump didn't get another 4 years, they'd throw their support behind Kasich, maybe with Bill Weld as his running mate.

I'm not sure I see any surefire winners to beat Trump on the Democrat side. (It's harder to dethrone an incumbent.) Kasich could get the votes of Republicans who don't want to vote for Trump but don't want to vote for a Democrat, and a lot of moderates on both sides.



That probably sounds way too much like conceding to ever be realistic in this two party system, though.

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2018, 12:55 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If Democrats were smart and wanted to ensure Trump didn't get another 4 years, they'd throw their support behind Kasich, maybe with Bill Weld as his running mate.

I'm not sure I see any surefire winners to beat Trump on the Democrat side. (It's harder to dethrone an incumbent.) Kasich could get the votes of Republicans who don't want to vote for Trump but don't want to vote for a Democrat, and a lot of moderates on both sides.



That probably sounds way too much like conceding to ever be realistic in this two party system, though.

So what you propose reminds me of the current argument that is going on right now in the Democratic party. I don't know if anyone else here actually gets involved in the party stuff on the left, but I am starting to because I have being wooed for local things. Anyway, the argument going on has continued since the 2016 election. We had it in full force, last year, because of our state elections. Party members are debating whether trying to sway the anti-Trumpers and more centrist voters with more moderate policies is the way to win, or whether going with positions more reminiscent of the New Deal is the way to win.

The problem is that right now it depends on where you are. In more traditionally left areas, sticking with the establishment and going with more moderate positions wins most of the time. But in areas where conservatives have had a stronghold we are seeing the more liberal leaning folks wanting more liberal candidates. We've seen DSA members winning in this state, and in our area we have even seen leftist and libertarians teaming up because of some issues where the government has pissed people off. The leftist candidates have had a great, grassroots ground game that has been turning out voters like crazy.

So this complicates things. If what voters want differs based on where they are, what do we do for 2020? Everyone knows that the typical formula is to run to the outside in primaries and run to the center in the general, but will that work in 2020? 2018 is going to be a test for this. We will get an idea of what the landscape is going to look like. I think a ticket with one more moderate and one more to the left will be the way to go, but should the more left candidate be on the top or the bottom? That is something we have to find out.

[BmorePat87]

Let's see what happens in November first.

In June of 2014 our leading candidates were Rand, Christie, and Jeb...

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2018, 12:55 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If Democrats were smart and wanted to ensure Trump didn't get another 4 years, they'd throw their support behind Kasich, maybe with Bill Weld as his running mate.

I'm not sure I see any surefire winners to beat Trump on the Democrat side. (It's harder to dethrone an incumbent.) Kasich could get the votes of Republicans who don't want to vote for Trump but don't want to vote for a Democrat, and a lot of moderates on both sides.



That probably sounds way too much like conceding to ever be realistic in this two party system, though.

Long before the '16 campaign got under way I predicted Kasich would have a good chance to win the Republican nomination because his more centrist views would play well in the General election.  

And I considered Trumps talk of running as a complete joke.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-29-2018, 11:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Let's see what happens in November first.

In June of 2014 our leading candidates were Rand, Christie, and Jeb...

Did they win?

[*bfine32*]

I wanted to bump this instead of derailing another thread. In that thread Pat and Benton were actually having a good discussion on the way ahead for the DNC. It was nice to see; although I am a card carrying conservative. One was thinking the party might want to go more to the left while another thought they should go more to the center. At least that's what I gleaned from it.

Who would you consider a leftist and who as a centralist? I think it will be interesting how the DNC receives Bernie Sanders if he throws his hat back into the ring.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Dick Cheney for President.

Don't think it's a good idea? Give him a chance to change your mind, he'll take you out on a nice hunting trip. Before you know it, you'll be apologizing for ever doubting.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2018, 08:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wanted to bump this instead of derailing another thread. In that thread Pat and Benton were actually having a good discussion on the way ahead for the DNC. It was nice to see; although I am a card carrying conservative. One was thinking the party might want to go more to the left while another thought they should go more to the center. At least that's what I gleaned from it.

Who would you consider a leftist and who as a centralist? I think it will be interesting how the DNC receives Bernie Sanders if he throws his hat back into the ring.

Elizabeth Warren has less personality than Hillary. Her, Bernie, and Harris represent your top progressive candidates. Of those three, Bernie has the broadest appeal, but my money would be on someone moderate like Cory Booker. 

[Benton]

The list is pretty long at this point. I wouldn't be surprised to see Biden, Booker or Duckworth consider it. Gillbrand might throw her hat in the ring. These things can change pretty quickly. There's probably 20ish people with the financial ability and influence to consider launching a committee tomorrow... and about half of those will be talked out of running before they do, by the party they'd be running for. Out of the other half, half of those will have something happen to discourage a run. And then you've got 2-3 who will have some push closer to time and throw their name out there.

And, honestly, Trump has a lot to do with it. He makes decisions haphazardly. If his next one ostracizes a larger group than his normal action, you could see a strong minority group candidate emerge. I don't think he would, but if, for example, he came out and said women shouldn't be in the military, that could be a huge push for someone like Duckworth who, otherwise, wouldn't have much of a chance, but the fallout would draw in not just enlisted women, but likely other women and veterans.

Hell, the day before the primary he could go off and push a dark horse candidate into the spotlight.

[Benton]

(07-16-2018, 09:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Elizabeth Warren has less personality than Hillary. Her, Bernie, and Harris represent your top progressive candidates. Of those three, Bernie has the broadest appeal, but my money would be on someone moderate like Cory Booker. 

I'd be shocked if it was Booker. True or not, he's seen as a moderate in favor of big business. He's like Obama and Hillary's love child.

Even after dry humping Putin's leg, Trump would crush Booker. Trump makes his votes in the 45%. Booker largely wouldn't claim many of those.