Democrats 2020

[southernhybrid]

You can put boomers down as much as you like, but we also once believed that a very liberal candidate could win. I've said this before. Me and all of my young friends voted for McGovern back in the day. He, imo, was one of America's greatest liberal politicians. He lost in a landslide. I don't care what any poll says. All the polls said that Clinton was going to win. I talk to a lot of Democrats. My young white friends are no longer fired up over Bernie. They aren't very excited about any of the candidate at this point. Boomers and the generation before us are the most reliable voters, so don't discount them. I want everybody to vote. My generation helped get the voting age lowered to 18 from 21. There are lots of people who are much older than boomers. I know people in their late 80s who still vote. The oldest boomers are in their early 70s, and the youngest are still in their 50s. But, it's really too early to know which candidate will inspire. How many people do you guys actually discuss politics with on a daily basis? Forget about polls. Who said which candidate boomers want? All of the boomers I've spoken to haven't found any candidate all that attractive. We don't even know who is going to run yet.

The hero worship over AOC is becoming a bit disturbing. She's adorable and energetic, but I don't understand why anyone would take someone who is so inexperienced so seriously. When you're looking for a doctor or a contractor, do you look for the one with barely any experience or do you look for someone who has proven expertise?

I want someone with knowledge and proven expertise, and I won't be influenced by someone who has not yet demonstrated they are capable of doing their job. That doesn't mean that I want some boring man who has a lot of baggage and doesn't know how to excite people. For better or worse, Americans vote for the person who excites them. That's how that idiot Trump got elected. I suppose Bernie excited a lot of people in 2016, but take a look at his record. He accomplished very little when he was in Congress and he voted almost exactly like Clinton did when she was in Congress. People just didn't like her. I know many liberals who voted third party simply because they didn't like Clinton. How did that work out for them? That's what happens when you aren't pragmatic and think you can get everything you want.

I would be glad to vote for someone who is quite progressive if that progressive was also pragmatic and can actually explain in great detail how they can accomplish their goals. I haven't seen that from a single hard progressive yet. Anyway, we have plenty of time for these mindless arguments before we actually vote.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Clearly, people want a Third Way Democrat. Yup.

Is this why the Sanders backed Florida Governor candidate won like 5 of the other 8 Governor candidates he endorsed?

And to stress the point, I say this as a person that voted for Sanders in the primary. The message I was sending was I want a more liberal Democrat party. But that can't happen with a Sanders in charge. Because Sanders can't win the General Election.

The irony of the Democrat Party move to the left a bit via a Hillary Clinton nomination because she needed the liberal support from Sanders to move forward. We weren't going to get taxpayer funded public college, but the path to it was going to start. We weren't getting UHC, but ACA would have been protected and the move to UHC would continue. But because of some spoiled, dogmatic, naive people who want it all and want it now, instead of the shift to the left of the Democrat party beginning with a Clinton Presidency within a Democrat party that was finally getting a voice back to the liberals, we got the worst President this nation has ever remotely had... and quite possibly, the most treasonous as well.

 

[Derec]

HRC crushed Bernie among Black voters.

But that's because she is married to the first black president.

The Presidential election is going to be decided in a few states, most of the other states are predictable. You're going to have to have broader appeal than the far left to get enough of them to win.

That is true. But many of the states that Hillary lost the election in, such as Michigan (14%) and Wisconsin (6%) or Pennsylvania (11%) do not have a very high black population. Nevertheless, Obama carried those states.

@PyramidHead. You link says non-white, it doesn't say black nor does it separate non-white ethnicities. Blacks aren't the largest group of people who aren't White. Latinos are the biggest minority group in the U.S. but Blacks are a close second.

I am confused as to when Latinos count as white. I guess when they try to apply for college, they are non-white, but when they shoot black teenagers, they are as white as a German national football team captain.

 

[Terrell]

But that's because she is married to the first black president.

That is true. But many of the states that Hillary lost the election in, such as Michigan (14%) and Wisconsin (6%) or Pennsylvania (11%) do not have a very high black population. Nevertheless, Obama carried those states.

@PyramidHead. You link says non-white, it doesn't say black nor does it separate non-white ethnicities. Blacks aren't the largest group of people who aren't White. Latinos are the biggest minority group in the U.S. but Blacks are a close second.

I am confused as to when Latinos count as white. I guess when they try to apply for college, they are non-white, but when they shoot black teenagers, they are as white as a German national football team captain.

I never bought into the WJC first black president thing. Blacks have been voting mostly Democratic longer than I've been alive and I'm almost old enough for AARP.

True, HRC was a bad candidate. Problem is that there really wasn't a better realistic alternative for those who aren't on the political right. I also don't like how DWS tried to hide the debates before the primaries. I do wish that the Dems had a better field.

I don't really care about Z's race, I disagree with his actions, but that horse has been beaten to death. I don't think we need to cast a reanimate spell on it.

 

[southernhybrid]

Back to 2020. Kamala Harris made her official announcement this weekend. And, the governor of Washington said he is seriously considering running. He said his platform will be primarily based on global climate change and creating jobs in the industries that make renewable sources of energy. Does anyone who lives in Washington have an opinion about him? ( I think his name is Inslee )

I also read a few days ago that the former CEO of Starbucks is also seriously considering running as a Democrat. ( Shultz, I think. I can't remember all these names. ) This is crazy. He's another billionaire who seems ego driven. Haven't we learned our lesson with Trump?

 

[Keith&Co.]

He's another billionaire who seems ego driven. Haven't we learned our lesson with Trump?

But, is he an actual billionaire?
Do other billionaires think he's one of them, or a fraud?
This may not be a lesson previously covered in the syllabus.

 

[Derec]

Back to 2020. Kamala Harris made her official announcement this weekend.

Not a real surprise. A bit gimmicky to make the announcement on MLK Day though.
I am still #neverkamala. She was a crusader against sex work (i.e. persecuting consenting adults because their choices do not fit her narrow sense of morality) ever since she was a DA in SF.
She is already being attacked from the left too though.

And, the governor of Washington said he is seriously considering running. He said his platform will be primarily based on global climate change and creating jobs in the industries that make renewable sources of energy. Does anyone who lives in Washington have an opinion about him? ( I think his name is Inslee )

Jay Inslee, yes. You know, it could be him, like in 1992 when a relatively unknown governor emerged from a crowded field.
Don't know much about him. I am all for environment as long as you do not use it as an excuse to block domestic oil and gas production and transport, as we will continue to be very much dependent on these technologies for a few decades even under most optimistic scenarios. I would also like to know his position on nuclear.

I also read a few days ago that the former CEO of Starbucks is also seriously considering running as a Democrat. ( Shultz, I think. I can't remember all these names. )

No, as an independent.
Former Starbucks chief exploring independent 2020 bid
Makes it a much longer shot, and opens a question whether he would take more votes from Trump or the eventual Dem candidate.

This is crazy. He's another billionaire who seems ego driven. Haven't we learned our lesson with Trump?

Don't worry. In the US, elections are always between Kang and Kodos.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html

I'm pretty sure the Times sill allows anyone to read unlimited articles that are linked. The above lists the candidates who have declared, the ones who will likely run, are thinking about running, might run, and aren't going to run. Any opinions?

I'm not really enthusiastic about any of them at this point, but it looks likely that, considering that women are all fired up and will likely be the more reliable biggest voting block, I tend to think the winner will likely be a woman. Don't worry. Hillary's on the probably won't run list. While she hasn't ruled it out, her friends say that she's not running.

But, I will certainly vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, even if it's not one that I'm thrilled about.

 

[Terrell]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html

I'm pretty sure the Times sill allows anyone to read unlimited articles that are linked. The above lists the candidates who have declared, the ones who will likely run, are thinking about running, might run, and aren't going to run. Any opinions?

I'm not really enthusiastic about any of them at this point, but it looks likely that, considering that women are all fired up and will likely be the more reliable biggest voting block, I tend to think the winner will likely be a woman. Don't worry. Hillary's on the probably won't run list. While she hasn't ruled it out, her friends say that she's not running.

But, I will certainly vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, even if it's not one that I'm thrilled about.

No, they don't let you look at as many as you want, at least not in edge. You can get there using an in private window. Oh and blue no matter who, since that's the only realistic way to get DT out of office even if I don't really like the candidate.

 

[lpetrich]

Kamala Harris: For The People is her campaign's home page.

PZ Myers on her: Kamala Harris is a cop. He linked to Kamala Harris: can a 'top cop' win over progressives in 2020? | US news | The Guardian and said about her:

Basically, she’s smart, aggressive, and hard working — quite a contrast to the slow-witted sloth in office now — but she’s been consistently pro-police, pro-prisons, and anti-sex workers. Those are things that will definitely appeal to some voters, but not to me.

That Guardian article stated: "In her career as a prosecutor, the Democrat supported increased criminalization of sex work, took no action in key police abuse cases and defended a troubled prison system"

Seems like she'd be in a good position to do some hippie-punching, something like what Bill Clinton did with Sister Souljah.

 

[Toni]

Julian Castro, Obama cabinet member, announces bid for 2020 president

His highest elected office was Mayor of San Antonio, Texas.

I initially wrote him off out of hand but on closer examination, I don't see him as a viable presidential candidate but potentially as VP and more likely in some cabinet position.

 

[Toni]

You can put boomers down as much as you like, but we also once believed that a very liberal candidate could win. I've said this before. Me and all of my young friends voted for McGovern back in the day. He, imo, was one of America's greatest liberal politicians. He lost in a landslide. I don't care what any poll says. All the polls said that Clinton was going to win. I talk to a lot of Democrats. My young white friends are no longer fired up over Bernie. They aren't very excited about any of the candidate at this point. Boomers and the generation before us are the most reliable voters, so don't discount them. I want everybody to vote. My generation helped get the voting age lowered to 18 from 21. There are lots of people who are much older than boomers. I know people in their late 80s who still vote. The oldest boomers are in their early 70s, and the youngest are still in their 50s. But, it's really too early to know which candidate will inspire. How many people do you guys actually discuss politics with on a daily basis? Forget about polls. Who said which candidate boomers want? All of the boomers I've spoken to haven't found any candidate all that attractive. We don't even know who is going to run yet.

The hero worship over AOC is becoming a bit disturbing. She's adorable and energetic, but I don't understand why anyone would take someone who is so inexperienced so seriously. When you're looking for a doctor or a contractor, do you look for the one with barely any experience or do you look for someone who has proven expertise?

I want someone with knowledge and proven expertise, and I won't be influenced by someone who has not yet demonstrated they are capable of doing their job. That doesn't mean that I want some boring man who has a lot of baggage and doesn't know how to excite people. For better or worse, Americans vote for the person who excites them. That's how that idiot Trump got elected. I suppose Bernie excited a lot of people in 2016, but take a look at his record. He accomplished very little when he was in Congress and he voted almost exactly like Clinton did when she was in Congress. People just didn't like her. I know many liberals who voted third party simply because they didn't like Clinton. How did that work out for them? That's what happens when you aren't pragmatic and think you can get everything you want.

I would be glad to vote for someone who is quite progressive if that progressive was also pragmatic and can actually explain in great detail how they can accomplish their goals. I haven't seen that from a single hard progressive yet. Anyway, we have plenty of time for these mindless arguments before we actually vote.

She's very pretty and smart and very witty and articulate. She's extremely likeable. I'm not sure that's the same thing as taking her seriously. I think that she's very consciously allowing herself to be used as a distraction. More power to her. I think she's giving young people something and someone to hope for and identify with and I think she'll pull the party left. As it is now, the most left leaning Democrat/Bernie Sanders is still right of where Nixon was on most issues.....That's how far we've fallen.

AOC as POTUS? I dunno. I wonder what she'll be like in 20 years. She's got what? 9 years before she could possibly run. Who knows what that time will bring.

 

[lpetrich]

Kamala Harris Has Entered the 2020 Democratic Race. Here’s Who Else Is Running. - The New York Times

• Running - 8 - Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Ojeda, Warren, Yang
• All But Certain - 2 - Booker, Hickenlooper
• Likely to Run - 4 - Biden, Bullock, Garcetti, Sanders
• Might Run - 8 - Bloomberg, Brown, Inslee, Klobuchar, Landrieu, McAuliffe, Merkley, O’Rourke
• Unlikely to Run - 6 - Bennet, Clinton, de Blasio, Holder, Kerry, Schultz
• Not Running - 5 - Casey, Murphy, Patrick, Steyer, Winfrey

 

[Toni]

Is there electoral advantage to have Harris-Beto ticket?

I'd be all about a Beto-Harris ticket. Although to assure victory, I'm not sure that his experience as a Texas congresscritter is enough.
But if they were running against Shitgibbon, it wouldn't matter - Al Bundy could probably beat him if things keep going the way they are. Hell, Ted fucking Bundy could beat him.

One thing that bothers me is the equivalence people are equating to running a campaign verses running a nation. One has to think Sherrod Brown is a leading nominee for the Presidency based on geography and the Electoral College. Who is Cortez, who is O'Rourke? O'Rourke lost the election and people want him to run for President. AOC has served for less than a month and her Twitter feed is all the evidence some people need to think her endorsement is that of a kingmaker.

O'Rourke and AOC are young and have engaging personalities. The Dems would be fools not to look at them and see that this is where the party is headed. I swear that most of Bernie's appeal to the younger folks is that of grumpy old curmudgeony grandpa schooling their boomer parents on ideals long abandoned.

AOC will make noise--and fall in line behind party leadership.

 

[PyramidHead]

One thing that bothers me is the equivalence people are equating to running a campaign verses running a nation. One has to think Sherrod Brown is a leading nominee for the Presidency based on geography and the Electoral College. Who is Cortez, who is O'Rourke? O'Rourke lost the election and people want him to run for President. AOC has served for less than a month and her Twitter feed is all the evidence some people need to think her endorsement is that of a kingmaker.

O'Rourke and AOC are young and have engaging personalities. The Dems would be fools not to look at them and see that this is where the party is headed. I swear that most of Bernie's appeal to the younger folks is that of grumpy old curmudgeony grandpa schooling their boomer parents on ideals long abandoned.

AOC will make noise--and fall in line behind party leadership.

You're demonstrating something that I heard mentioned in a podcast this morning: Democrats have basically abandoned any pretense of caring about actual principles and policies and are entirely obsessed with image. O'Rourke and AOC are night and day in terms of their principles. Bernie is the only candidate whose platform is actually viable on its own merits, but he is dismissed because of his demeanor, while the "young and engaging personalities" are held up as the banner-holders of the party going forward. It's as if there were no substantive difference to be found among the potential Dem nominees, so we might as well pick the most attractive one, or the one who checks the most boxes in terms of group identity.

 

[Toni]

One thing that bothers me is the equivalence people are equating to running a campaign verses running a nation. One has to think Sherrod Brown is a leading nominee for the Presidency based on geography and the Electoral College. Who is Cortez, who is O'Rourke? O'Rourke lost the election and people want him to run for President. AOC has served for less than a month and her Twitter feed is all the evidence some people need to think her endorsement is that of a kingmaker.

O'Rourke and AOC are young and have engaging personalities. The Dems would be fools not to look at them and see that this is where the party is headed. I swear that most of Bernie's appeal to the younger folks is that of grumpy old curmudgeony grandpa schooling their boomer parents on ideals long abandoned.

AOC will make noise--and fall in line behind party leadership.

You're demonstrating something that I heard mentioned in a podcast this morning: Democrats have basically abandoned any pretense of caring about actual principles and policies and are entirely obsessed with image. O'Rourke and AOC are night and day in terms of their principles. Bernie is the only candidate whose platform is actually viable on its own merits, but he is dismissed because of his demeanor, while the "young and engaging personalities" are held up as the banner-holders of the party going forward. It's as if there were no substantive difference to be found among the potential Dem nominees, so we might as well pick the most attractive one, or the one who checks the most boxes in terms of group identity.

Bullshit. The fact that I recognize characteristics that appeal to younger voters and frankly, a broad range of characteristics that appeal to a broad range of voters is vastly different than not caring about actual issues. Or that I don’t have fairly strong stances on political issues. Or that I do not realize where the party needs to be, where the nation needs to be and how to get there.

Your response does make me worry about your reading comprehension and reasoning abilities.

 

[laughing dog]

Of all the candidates in the OP list, I'd prefer Governor Hickenlooper. Not only is that a great name, but as a governor he has shown the ability to get things done.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One thing that bothers me is the equivalence people are equating to running a campaign verses running a nation. One has to think Sherrod Brown is a leading nominee for the Presidency based on geography and the Electoral College. Who is Cortez, who is O'Rourke? O'Rourke lost the election and people want him to run for President. AOC has served for less than a month and her Twitter feed is all the evidence some people need to think her endorsement is that of a kingmaker.

O'Rourke and AOC are young and have engaging personalities. The Dems would be fools not to look at them and see that this is where the party is headed. I swear that most of Bernie's appeal to the younger folks is that of grumpy old curmudgeony grandpa schooling their boomer parents on ideals long abandoned.

AOC will make noise--and fall in line behind party leadership.

You're demonstrating something that I heard mentioned in a podcast this morning: Democrats have basically abandoned any pretense of caring about actual principles and policies and are entirely obsessed with image.

The Democrats haven't nominated Winfrey (or Donald Trump), so I think that is cart before the horse!

Bernie is the only candidate whose platform is actually viable on its own merits, but he is dismissed because of his demeanor, while the "young and engaging personalities" are held up as the banner-holders of the party going forward.

Bernie is too old to run for President. Also, the "Socialist" label would destroy him in a General Election for President.

It's as if there were no substantive difference to be found among the potential Dem nominees...

It is 01/22/2019 for fuck sakes.

- - - Updated - - -

Of all the candidates in the OP list, I'd prefer Governor Hickenlooper. Not only is that a great name, but as a governor he has shown the ability to get things done.

What a quaint thing to say "get things done".... as if the problems we have are simply because DC forgot how to "get things done". The problem is people are willfully keeping things from getting done. We are still hearing about how the shutdown is between the Dems and Trump... when it is the GOP that hasn't passed a budget in the Senate.

 

[Toni]

One thing that bothers me is the equivalence people are equating to running a campaign verses running a nation. One has to think Sherrod Brown is a leading nominee for the Presidency based on geography and the Electoral College. Who is Cortez, who is O'Rourke? O'Rourke lost the election and people want him to run for President. AOC has served for less than a month and her Twitter feed is all the evidence some people need to think her endorsement is that of a kingmaker.

O'Rourke and AOC are young and have engaging personalities. The Dems would be fools not to look at them and see that this is where the party is headed. I swear that most of Bernie's appeal to the younger folks is that of grumpy old curmudgeony grandpa schooling their boomer parents on ideals long abandoned.

AOC will make noise--and fall in line behind party leadership.

You're demonstrating something that I heard mentioned in a podcast this morning: Democrats have basically abandoned any pretense of caring about actual principles and policies and are entirely obsessed with image. O'Rourke and AOC are night and day in terms of their principles. Bernie is the only candidate whose platform is actually viable on its own merits, but he is dismissed because of his demeanor, while the "young and engaging personalities" are held up as the banner-holders of the party going forward. It's as if there were no substantive difference to be found among the potential Dem nominees, so we might as well pick the most attractive one, or the one who checks the most boxes in terms of group identity.

If Bernie is so damn viable, why doesn't he join a party? Why on earth should the Democrats have nominated someone who cannot even be bothered to join the party? And why the fuck won't Bernie supporters grow the fuck up and recognize that it is not his demeanor but his age and the fact that he doesn't actually belong to a party that has a chance in hell of winning a national election that kept him from the nomination? Oh, I know: it is because that would mean growing the fuck up and actually thinking about anything other than their own skinned knees.

Adulthood: it's not for selfish crybabies.

 

[southernhybrid]

I used to like Bernie many years ago, because I always think it's good to have a few outliers in Congress. I can't stand him now. Look at his record. What record! He's accomplished very little, and he seems too enamored with himself. He's only a Democrat when it's convenient. He has no administrative experience. If I vote for someone who is too old, it will be Biden, should he run. Biden is old, but he has more experience than anyone else.

I realize that very few younger people will vote for Biden so it's best that he not run, but at this point Bernie makes me want to vomit. And no, it's not because he's liberal, but because he doesn't seem to know how to do much more than stir up crowds and make promises that anyone who's been around for awhile knows he can't keep. I hope he and Biden both swallow their egos, and do their best to support and campaign for the person that wins the nomination regardless of who that ends up being. We just need to get the Dotard out of office.

I also find it very strange that so many young people who bitch about the older generations and declare they want fresh blood, are even considering supporting someone who will be close to 80 by the time he runs. There are many younger liberal candidates to choose from who have enough experience and intelligence to do the job.

Sorry for the rant. I just needed to get that out of my system.