• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democrats 2020

Copernicus said:
Kamala Harris really broke away from the other debaters on the second night. Apparently, she had already raised the school busing issue before with Biden, so it wasn't as if he had no warning that this was coming. Harris did a near perfect job of holding Biden's feet to the fire, as he kept trying to find some way to justify his historical opposition to busing children, one of which was Kamala Harris herself. She would likely never have received a good education and ended up as a presidential candidate without that support for school desegregation, controversial as it was for white parents at the time.

What really impresses me about Harris is that she is very good at thinking on her feet and punching away. I've seen her do this in Senate panel hearings, as well, e.g. the Kavanaugh nomination hearings. That suggests to me that she will be a strong candidate to go up against Trump in presidential debates.

I was also impressed with Elizabeth Warren in the first night of the debate, because she also tended to command attention when she spoke and to respond quickly to issues that arose. It is still very early in the campaign season to make a definitive choice about who ought to be the Democratic nominee, but Harris and Warren are my current favorites. I continue to be impressed with Pete Buttigieg, but I could only see him as a potential VP running mate, not the main nominee of the Party. And I would still prefer him to build up more experience before trying for the top elective office in the country.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with every point you made above.

I thought Julian Castro made a good showing for himself
 
RavenSky said:
Copernicus said:
Kamala Harris really broke away from the other debaters on the second night. Apparently, she had already raised the school busing issue before with Biden, so it wasn't as if he had no warning that this was coming. Harris did a near perfect job of holding Biden's feet to the fire, as he kept trying to find some way to justify his historical opposition to busing children, one of which was Kamala Harris herself. She would likely never have received a good education and ended up as a presidential candidate without that support for school desegregation, controversial as it was for white parents at the time.

What really impresses me about Harris is that she is very good at thinking on her feet and punching away. I've seen her do this in Senate panel hearings, as well, e.g. the Kavanaugh nomination hearings. That suggests to me that she will be a strong candidate to go up against Trump in presidential debates.

I was also impressed with Elizabeth Warren in the first night of the debate, because she also tended to command attention when she spoke and to respond quickly to issues that arose. It is still very early in the campaign season to make a definitive choice about who ought to be the Democratic nominee, but Harris and Warren are my current favorites. I continue to be impressed with Pete Buttigieg, but I could only see him as a potential VP running mate, not the main nominee of the Party. And I would still prefer him to build up more experience before trying for the top elective office in the country.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with every point you made above.

I thought Julian Castro made a good showing for himself
Click to expand...
I think he is likely going to be on the Cabinet.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
RavenSky said:
Copernicus said:
Kamala Harris really broke away from the other debaters on the second night. Apparently, she had already raised the school busing issue before with Biden, so it wasn't as if he had no warning that this was coming. Harris did a near perfect job of holding Biden's feet to the fire, as he kept trying to find some way to justify his historical opposition to busing children, one of which was Kamala Harris herself. She would likely never have received a good education and ended up as a presidential candidate without that support for school desegregation, controversial as it was for white parents at the time.

What really impresses me about Harris is that she is very good at thinking on her feet and punching away. I've seen her do this in Senate panel hearings, as well, e.g. the Kavanaugh nomination hearings. That suggests to me that she will be a strong candidate to go up against Trump in presidential debates.

I was also impressed with Elizabeth Warren in the first night of the debate, because she also tended to command attention when she spoke and to respond quickly to issues that arose. It is still very early in the campaign season to make a definitive choice about who ought to be the Democratic nominee, but Harris and Warren are my current favorites. I continue to be impressed with Pete Buttigieg, but I could only see him as a potential VP running mate, not the main nominee of the Party. And I would still prefer him to build up more experience before trying for the top elective office in the country.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with every point you made above.

I thought Julian Castro made a good showing for himself
Click to expand...
I think he is likely going to be on the Cabinet.
Click to expand...

Nah. Trump won’t pick him.
 
Living in the land " Down Under" and just reading about the reports and various comments from some neutral sources about the Dems debates, it's becoming more and more clear that providing the American economy doesn't go belly up, the Trumpet is assured of an even bigger win in 2020.

It's very doubtful America will vote for the extreme leftists who most probably would scare the shite out most people. Just like the leftists scared the living daylights out Australia's silent majority in our recent general elections.
 
America won’t vote for an extreme leftist, and on Election Day there won’t be an extreme leftist on the ticket. And Trump will still be the worst man ever to be President that day as well.

This doesn’t make Democrat victory a certainty by a long shot, but this idea Trump has it in the bag, is nothing but more delirium.

Trump is already fighting with the fed to lower interest rates to keep the economy chugging and influence his approval ratings. When you have to beg for the Fed to help, things aren’t as good as being portrayed.
 
angelo said:
United States/Unemployment rate
3.6% (Apr 2019)
•France
-
*
•United Kingdom
-
*
•United States unemployment figures as of April 2019. The graph shows a downward slope. It was Bill Clinton who said.........." it's the economy stupid!"
3.6%
(Apr 2019)
Explore more
Feedback
Sources include: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Eurostat
Click to expand...
Nice copy paste. So what does that have to do with Trump badgering (also historic) The Fed to lower rates?

Also, it wasn’t Clinton who said that.
 
angelo said:
Living in the land " Down Under" and just reading about the reports and various comments from some neutral sources about the Dems debates, it's becoming more and more clear that providing the American economy doesn't go belly up, the Trumpet is assured of an even bigger win in 2020.

It's very doubtful America will vote for the extreme leftists who most probably would scare the shite out most people. Just like the leftists scared the living daylights out Australia's silent majority in our recent general elections.
Click to expand...

Recent polls show Trump losing Women voters 60% to 40%. Men are now about evenly split, 51% fir Trump, 49% against. Recent attacks by the GOP on women's health issues, abortion rights, defunding Planned Parenthood and attacks on birth control will energize women voter in 2020. 2018 election saw more Generation X, Millennials and Generation Z voters voting than Baby Boomers and older generation voters. One reason the GOP lost the House. Meanwhile Mitch McConnell is at 24.3% approval rating, his obstructionism will be firing up the Democrat base also, making re-election of Trump harder. Our new majority voters are not silent.

Who wants to vote for an orange rapist? Such an attractive president!
 
Somebody on MSNBC this morning said that the name Donald Trump should be enough to energize all Democrats and swing voters to vote for whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee. I hope everyone will remember that if the candidate of their choice doesn't end up winning in the primaries. I've said it before, I don't care who the nominee is at this point as long as he or she can pick up enough electoral votes to take down the incompetent, racist, sexist man who has brought out the worse in all of us. Yup! He's brought out the worse in people on both sides. I read the WaPo comment section sometimes, which has become one big hate fest with people on both sides slinging insults at each other. It's sad.
 
angelo said:
Living in the land " Down Under" and just reading about the reports and various comments from some neutral sources about the Dems debates, *snip*.
Click to expand...


I know I'm going to regret to ask, what do you consider "a neutral source"?
 
I like Google news for one. Then there's this...........................

Americans believe the vast majority of news on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, and on social media is biased, according to new polls. Those surveyed found that PBS News and the Associated Press were the least biased outlets, while Fox News and Breitbart News tied for having the most perceived bias.Jun 21, 2018
 
angelo said:
I like Google news for one. Then there's this...........................

Americans believe the vast majority of news on TV, in newspapers, on the radio, and on social media is biased, according to new polls. Those surveyed found that PBS News and the Associated Press were the least biased outlets, while Fox News and Breitbart News tied for having the most perceived bias.Jun 21, 2018
Click to expand...

I have a goldfish. What the fuck are you talking about?
 
angelo said:
I like Google news for one.
Click to expand...

It's easy to tell that you like Google news - it panders automatically to your demonstrated biases ,using sophisticated algorithms and your past search patterns. That's why all your climate "news" comes from the <1% of scientists who express skepticism.
 
Notes from the Ironbound: If The Democratic Primary Field Was a University History Department
Joe Biden is the old professor still teaching off of notes he typed up in 1975 and who gets handsy at the holiday party after one too many scotch and sodas. His colleagues have been privately asking themselves for years why he hasn't retired yet.

Bernie Sanders is the old Marxist scholar who doesn't show up to all of the faculty meetings, but when he does he's salty and still holds grudges established in 1983. While most of his colleagues are ambivalent to him, the grad students and adjuncts like him because he's one of the few tenured people to actually bring their concerns to the faculty.

Kamala Harris is the hotshot rising associate professor known for showing up to job talks and destroying weak candidates with withering questions. She also suddenly became a transnational historian once that became a popular topic and abandoned her dissertation on diplomatic history.

Elizabeth Warren is the established full professor who is still putting out highly regarded research while having a high reputation as a teacher. She also has managed to take Professor Sanders' side in faculty meeting disputes without alienating her colleagues.
Click to expand...
 
Kamala Harris Will Be the 2020 Democratic Nominee. Why Newt Gingrich Has Been Saying That All Year | Opinion
In fact, these first debates will be remembered for the incredibly weak performance of Joe Biden, the weak performance of Bernie Sanders, the competent performance of Elizabeth Warren, and the standout performance by Kamala Harris.

For the first time, it looks like the finalists in the struggle for the Democratic nomination for president may be two senators—one from each coast. If this is the case, the choice may come down to Warren's icy intelligence versus Harris's passionate crowd pleasing. I would bet on Harris winning that showdown.

...
All the energy, drive, and passion are on the left. This may be the most aggressively left-wing cycle for Democrats since Senator George McGovern was nominated in 1972. The most electable left-winger might be nominated, but an electable centrist will be destroyed.

...
Senator Warren has the hard-left views and the toughness to be the nominee. As a radical woman, she comes close to emerging as a serious contender in this new Democratic Party. However, she has three fatal weaknesses. First, she is as dishonest as Hillary Clinton. The discovery of her registration form for the Texas State Bar, where she claimed in her own handwriting that she is of Native American descent, proves she is willing to blatantly lie.

Second, if Ocasio-Cortez has the rhythm and charm to dominate the Facebook-Twitter-Instagram-YouTube-TV talk world, Warren has the lecturing, patronizing style of your high school chemistry teacher. She doesn't project the energy to capture the essence of delusional fantasies which is the heart of the modern Left. She has the words, but she can't get the rhythm. Warren is a person from the age of print, and that world is gone.

Third, Warren seems like a Puritan but pretends to be normal. Her effort to appear relatable as she was drinking a beer on Instagram was as unbelievable as her false claims about exploiting her exaggerated heritage in hopes of advancing her career. Trump proved in 2016 that authenticity can erase a lot of problems. Warren is inherently the least authentic candidate in the Democratic Party's current list of possible candidates.
Click to expand...
Then Kamala Harris.
She is also a very passionate, articulate, and compelling public speaker who is capable of arousing crowds. ...

Harris also proved in California that she can raise the money and run a big campaign. ...

Moreover, California's delegates will give her a huge bloc going into the convention. I think Harris will win the women's primary against a much quieter, less flamboyant, and less inherently interesting group of women. She will win the African-American primary, because Booker's stories are so often false that he will be discounted by the media. She will tie anyone in the radical primary, because a California radical has huge advantages in the range of historically radical (and nutty) ideas on which they can draw.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis, though NG is clearly on the Right. He expects the 2020 election to turn out something like the 1972 one, where George McGovern lost miserably.
 
I know this is from the discredited [here at least] Fox Network. But it's take on the Dems group of clowns bidding for the nomination in 2020 is somewhat funny.

 
lpetrich said:
Kamala Harris Will Be the 2020 Democratic Nominee. Why Newt Gingrich Has Been Saying That All Year | Opinion
In fact, these first debates will be remembered for the incredibly weak performance of Joe Biden, the weak performance of Bernie Sanders, the competent performance of Elizabeth Warren, and the standout performance by Kamala Harris.

For the first time, it looks like the finalists in the struggle for the Democratic nomination for president may be two senators—one from each coast. If this is the case, the choice may come down to Warren's icy intelligence versus Harris's passionate crowd pleasing. I would bet on Harris winning that showdown.

...
All the energy, drive, and passion are on the left. This may be the most aggressively left-wing cycle for Democrats since Senator George McGovern was nominated in 1972. The most electable left-winger might be nominated, but an electable centrist will be destroyed.

...
Senator Warren has the hard-left views and the toughness to be the nominee. As a radical woman, she comes close to emerging as a serious contender in this new Democratic Party. However, she has three fatal weaknesses. First, she is as dishonest as Hillary Clinton. The discovery of her registration form for the Texas State Bar, where she claimed in her own handwriting that she is of Native American descent, proves she is willing to blatantly lie.

Second, if Ocasio-Cortez has the rhythm and charm to dominate the Facebook-Twitter-Instagram-YouTube-TV talk world, Warren has the lecturing, patronizing style of your high school chemistry teacher. She doesn't project the energy to capture the essence of delusional fantasies which is the heart of the modern Left. She has the words, but she can't get the rhythm. Warren is a person from the age of print, and that world is gone.

Third, Warren seems like a Puritan but pretends to be normal. Her effort to appear relatable as she was drinking a beer on Instagram was as unbelievable as her false claims about exploiting her exaggerated heritage in hopes of advancing her career. Trump proved in 2016 that authenticity can erase a lot of problems. Warren is inherently the least authentic candidate in the Democratic Party's current list of possible candidates.
Click to expand...
Then Kamala Harris.
She is also a very passionate, articulate, and compelling public speaker who is capable of arousing crowds. ...

Harris also proved in California that she can raise the money and run a big campaign. ...

Moreover, California's delegates will give her a huge bloc going into the convention. I think Harris will win the women's primary against a much quieter, less flamboyant, and less inherently interesting group of women. She will win the African-American primary, because Booker's stories are so often false that he will be discounted by the media. She will tie anyone in the radical primary, because a California radical has huge advantages in the range of historically radical (and nutty) ideas on which they can draw.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis, though NG is clearly on the Right. He expects the 2020 election to turn out something like the 1972 one, where George McGovern lost miserably.
Click to expand...

Every time I listen to Harris, I like her more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom