Beto O’Rourke Enters the 2020 Presidential Campaign

Bus-TEE · Mar 14, 2019

Seeya said:
It was. Historically so. Statistics say so.

I poorly worded my post. Undoubtedly there was a 'blue wave' which saw the Democrats make huge gains.

MONSTER said:
I mean... as if we saw Trump winning at first back in 2016 lol. Its too early to claim it's doomsday for the dems

True, but it was the total dismissal of Trump (which I was guilty of too) that has me worried for 2020. It's as if people are saying that Trump being voted out by whatever Democratic nominee gets the nod is a certainty when getting the other '60%' out to vote and make it happen is anything but.

HamSandwich said:
Yet his nomination was able to land seats in their judiciary and some house seats too due to turnout. Turnout is exactly what the Dems need, especially in battleground states.

If what is needed is a well known, broadly liked candidate who is good on their feet in a debate and can hold their own against Trump in debates and the larger political back and forth then Biden should be who everyone puts their shoulder into.

acheron_xl · Mar 14, 2019

jml said:
Kerry/Edwards, Obama/Biden. It's not a guarantee but there's a decent-ish chance of it happening.

Reagan/Bush

louisacommie · Mar 14, 2019

Psychoward said:
They really dont lol. Not even liberals. Sorry to burst the era bubble but its true. Say some vague platitudes and wide encompassing proposals and youre fine.

Cheebo said:
House member from NY just endorsed Beto. Pretty quick
https://twitter.com/KathleenRice/status/1106178817335455744

The abs guy from 2016 also already endorsed beto

JohnOfMars · Mar 14, 2019

Xe4 said:
Cornyn is way more popular than Cruz, and it's not a midterm. Ain't nobody winning against him. A better argument would be that he would continue to help down ballot, but he'd probably do that running for president too.

That's a fair point. I would like to see more of these Dem candidates run for Governor. The Dems lost a shit ton under Obama.

Xe4 said:
And lol "bound to loose". You're always bound to loose until you ain't. Unless you're running for a safe seat without a primary, that's true of any race.

That's very true. Look at Trump. Nobody knows what "electable" or winnable is. Which is why I'm supporting candidates based on policy right now.

SweetNicole · Mar 14, 2019

I'm looking forward to hearing him talk about his policies. I don't know if he will get my vote, but I think the race is better with him running.

Has Bean · Mar 14, 2019

alr1ght said:
Good. The Dems need turnout, and he would provide that.

No matter how much you may like one of Bernie/Warren/etc, they would have issues with the Electoral College. Winning is priority one, and someone like Beto/Biden/Harris would more easily carry Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida. That's what's important.

hurlex said:
Winning the general election is not about policy. It's about personality. The last four elections have gone to the most charismatic candidate.

Exactly my thoughts re: Beto. If I could choose anyone to put into the presidency, it would be Warren, but Beto has the charisma to suck the media attention away from Trump and would definitely out-campaign him imo. The Vanity Fair article eased my fears a bit about his policies too, but the primary will push him to adopt more progressive policies anyways. Not sold yet but will be keeping an eye on his campaign for sure.

Suzushiiro · Mar 14, 2019

JVIDICAN said:
Its Texas. Its individual contributions.
My donation counts as being from the energy sector because of my career. Oops. Guess I cant donate to anyone.🤷‍♂️

Yeah, there's a big difference between taking money from employers and employees- the compensation of the overwhelming majority of employees isn't really tied to their employer's revenue/profits, so they don't have much to lose (or at least have more to gain than to lose) by supporting candidates whose policies may hurt their company/industry.

Deleted member 5666 · Mar 14, 2019

louisacommie said:
The abs guy from 2016 also already endorsed beto

Who is the abs guy?

Phrozenflame500 · Mar 14, 2019

he's ok

i mean in a race full of bad candidates a mediocre one is better then average. and at least he's good on immigration/trade.

Hirok2099 · Mar 14, 2019

base_two said:
Let's be honest, "let's be honest, the only reason we had for voting for him then is that he is not Ted Cruz " is not consistent with what actually happened and said in bad faith to dismiss Beto as a legitimate candidate. I actually didn't care if he won or lost his race against Ted Cruz. In fact, a lot of people on the ground had doubts that he was going to pull off the win anyway. But they showed up to the polls because they liked Beto, his personality, his positions, and what he had to say. Beto was (and is) just a breath of fresh air.

Man, that is just my opinion If he gets chosen I was wrong and will support him. He is not a terrible candidate I just don't feel he is the best one we got.
How is he a breath of fresh air tho? All I see is Obama light TBH.
I liked Obama, still my favorite prez but is not what I would call a "breath of fresh Air"

louisacommie · Mar 14, 2019

Cheebo said:
Who is the abs guy?

Abs

Emerson · Mar 14, 2019

With the obvious caveat that I will vote for nearly any human being rather than Donald Trump, I'm 100% all in on Beto as my preferred candidate.

Sobriquet · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
No, it's really not, which is why barely any president comes from the House.

More presidents have come from the house than the senate

A Syrian Communist · Mar 14, 2019

Teiresias said:
You know, if you want to just spam the thread with anti-Beto propoganda I'm going to have to ask you to disclose who your Russian handler is and what your Bot username is on Twitter.

Are you serious

Hirok2099 · Mar 14, 2019

hurlex said:
The last four elections have gone to the most charismatic candidate.

What?

yeah I'm gonna have to disagree on that

Vincent Alexander · Mar 14, 2019

Emerson said:
With the obvious caveat that I will vote for nearly any human being rather than Donald Trump, I'm 100% all in on Beto as my preferred candidate.

Human? Let's not limit ourselves too much. I'll take most things over Trump.

Hirok2099 said:
What?
yeah I'm gonna have to disagree on that

He is charismatic to his base for sure. He is a moron, but he lit a cross-shaped fire in his base that carried them to a win.

Dr. Benton Quest · Mar 14, 2019

Hirok2099 said:
What?

yeah I'm gonna have to disagree on that

Are you trying to argue that Trump isn't more charismatic than Clinton?

He's spouts populist lies and has enthralled the media.

He's a goddamn monster and a dangerous idiot, but he knows how to work a room.

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Sobriquet said:
More presidents have come from the house than the senate

No.

Barely anyone came from the House to the presidency. This sounds like you're the victim of a quick Google search because the people who came from the House used it as a stepping stone for Senator/Governor. No party puts their strongest guy in a House race; it's the Senate/Governor's Mansion. Why do you think Hillary didn't run for a House seat in New York in 2000? Or that Obama went straight to the Senate? It means more. And your position is more important as there are fewer of you, not to mention the different rules for the Senate.

Garfield was the only one who did House->Presidency IIRC.

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Dr. Benton Quest said:
Are you trying to argue that Trump isn't more charismatic than Clinton?

He's spouts populist lies and has enthralled the media.

He's a goddamn monster and a dangerous idiot, but he knows how to work a room.

His poll numbers did better when he wasn't "Mr. Charisma." Look at him after the Democratic convention (dying), and look at him when he finally stuck to a script in late August and into September with Kellyanne Conway. Then look what happened when he lost his mind in the first debate and then how controlled he was after the second Comey letter.

It goes further than that, as well. Hillary ran a terrible campaign and let Trump monopolize coverage in August since he campaigned everywhere and she didn't; that likely helped him inch up week by week once he stuck to the script.

StarCreator · Mar 14, 2019

Beto's Senate run was the one I watched the most closely. That he got as close as he did to winning, taking no PAC money, in freaking Texas, was huge.

I'm probably not going to decide on a candidate until after the debates but as of right now he's definitely a frontrunner in my mind.

JohnOfMars · Mar 14, 2019

hurlex said:
The last four elections have gone to the most charismatic candidate.

ack, youre right, we're so doomed

(not sarcasm)

hurlex said:
Winning the general election is not about policy. It's about personality. The last four elections have gone to the most charismatic candidate.

In 2016, Democrats ran on saying America is Already Great. And they didn't offer anyone anything tangible to people. Trump did. Build the wall. Put Hillary in Jail, etc.

But Trump also understand that politics has stopped being about making people's lives better (his actual policies were about hurting his enemies) and instead about entertainment. So you are right with your statements. And he excelled there (and continues to excel) with his signature move of "pissing off the libs".

So we either try to play the Politics is just Entertainment game and run Oprah or The Rock, or try to make a difference in people's lives. Free healthcare. Free College. Student loan debt repayment. Saving ourselves from total climate apocalypse. These are real things that will help other than incrementalist tweaks to tax-deferred savings accounts that nobody understand.

Because if we're just going to elect another shit candidate who won't do anything for 4-8 years, then what's the point? There's a reason half this country doesn't vote.

Sordid Plebeian · Mar 14, 2019

Curious to see how his platform will shape up on the national stage

Deleted member 5666 · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
Garfield was the only one who did House->Presidency IIRC.

Abraham Lincoln went straight from the House to the Presidency.

He ran for senate in between but lost that race.

Tobor · Mar 14, 2019

Bus-TEE said:
If what is needed is a well known, broadly liked candidate who is good on their feet in a debate and can hold their own against Trump in debates and the larger political back and forth then Biden should be who everyone puts their shoulder into.

What is needed is all of that plus not being nearly 80 years old.

JVID · Mar 14, 2019

JohnOfMars said:
Because if we're just going to elect another shit candidate who won't do anything for 4-8 years, then what's the point?

Uh.. To spare us 4 more years of trump?

Sobriquet · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
No.

Barely anyone came from the House to the presidency. This sounds like you're the victim of a quick Google search because the people who came from the House used it as a stepping stone for Senator/Governor. No party puts their strongest guy in a House race; it's the Senate/Governor's Mansion. Why do you think Hillary didn't run for a House seat in New York in 2000? Or that Obama went straight to the Senate? It means more. And your position is more important as there are fewer of you, not to mention the different rules for the Senate.

Garfield was the only one who did House->Presidency IIRC.

16 from the Senate, 19 from the House. 9 served in both.

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Cheebo said:
Abraham Lincoln went straight from the House to the Presidency.

He ran for senate in between but lost that race.

Why do you think he ran for Senate first?

That's a stronger stepping stone. People from the Senate have a more prestigious and important position, especially in committees and in voting for SCOTUS candidates, than someone who's 1/435th of the House.

alr1ght · Mar 14, 2019

Judging by how prolific the GOP and Bernie supporters are being in the replies on twitter news stories, he's a good candidate and has them worried.

jml · Mar 14, 2019

alr1ght said:
Judging by how prolific the GOP and Bernie supporters are being in the replies on twitter news stories, he's a good candidate and has them worried.

By this logic Howard Schultz is also a good candidate.

Dr. Benton Quest · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
No.

Barely anyone came from the House to the presidency. This sounds like you're the victim of a quick Google search because the people who came from the House used it as a stepping stone for Senator/Governor. No party puts their strongest guy in a House race; it's the Senate/Governor's Mansion. Why do you think Hillary didn't run for a House seat in New York in 2000? Or that Obama went straight to the Senate? It means more. And your position is more important as there are fewer of you, not to mention the different rules for the Senate.

Garfield was the only one who did House->Presidency IIRC.

Maybe you should be the victim of a quick Google search friendo...

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Sobriquet said:
16 from the Senate, 19 from the House. 9 served in both.

You're once again a victim to Googling too quickly to make a point.

19 did not go into the House and then run for presidency. They went into the House to go to the Senate or run for governor.

JohnOfMars · Mar 14, 2019

JVIDICAN said:
Uh.. To spare us 4 more years of trump?

Are our ideals so easy to compromise? Our ambitions so low?

If your only criteria is "not Trump", then Mike Pence is the same as Bernie Sanders.

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Dr. Benton Quest said:
Maybe you should be the victim of a quick Google search friendo...

I already know this, which is why it's easy to see where people are quickly Googling to try to make a pro-Beto point. Making the point that "Beto has more experience than Obama did!" is one of the most Dan Quayle-ish reductive points you can make when comparing the House to the Senate.

Almost the entire 20th century consists of nothing but military men, Senators and governors and VPs.

Tobor · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
Why do you think he ran for Senate first?

That's a stronger stepping stone. People from the Senate have a more prestigious and important position, especially in committees and in voting for SCOTUS candidates, than someone who's 1/435th of the House.

And yet he still became President. Which is the point.

Besides, the last two Presidents have proven that the traditional path to the Presidency doesn't mean shit anymore.

Masterz1337 · Mar 14, 2019

LinktothePastGOAT said:
Two white men? How original and what totally should represent the Democratic party smh

What would you rather have? Harris or Booker as VP? Neither brings the clout that Bernie does, and Beto has many things going for him that make him preferable over Harris and Booker.

Warren would be a great VP pick, better than Bernie but her public image isn't one that has successfully excited large masses.

Sobriquet · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
You're once again a victim to Googling too quickly to make a point.

19 did not go into the House and then run for presidency. They went into the House to go to the Senate or run for governor.

But my point is a fact...

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Tobor said:
And yet he still became President. Which is the point.

Besides, the last two Presidents have proven that the traditional path to the Presidency doesn't mean shit anymore.

Obama went into the Senate. That's pretty traditional.

Sobriquet said:
But my point is a fact...

I'm not sure you're following what my point is.

J-Skee · Mar 14, 2019

I'm from Jersey, so Booker is my guy, but I'm pretty sure Beto is going to end up being the front-runner for the Dems.

Sobriquet · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
I'm not sure you're following what my point is.

You made a false statement. I corrected you. That's it.

TraderPoe · Mar 14, 2019

Not running for the Senate seat? He would have done so much better for us there.

Bus-TEE · Mar 14, 2019

Tobor said:
What is needed is all of that plus not being nearly 80 years old.

That's a fair point.

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Sobriquet said:
You made a false statement. I corrected you. That's it.

No, you didn't, because you're not following what my point is. More people came from Senate->President than House->President. People who go into the House use it as a stepping stone.

There's no point in saying, "Nobody came from the House," because that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how the House and Senate/Governor are different experiences, and two years in the House isn't the same as two in the Senate.

That's why this:

Trump: Businessman
Obama: Senator
Bush II: Governor
Bill Clinton: Governor
Bush I: VP
Reagan: Governor
Carter: Governor
Nixon: VP (Senator before VP)
Johnson: VP (Senator before VP)
Kennedy: Senator
Eisenhower: Military
Truman: VP
FDR: Governor

Is how people wanted to progress into the presidency. People who became VP were Senators before. Candidates who didn't win typically were Senators (Clinton/McCain/Dole), governors (Dukakis/Romney), and positions higher than the House.

Sokrates · Mar 14, 2019

I'll just leave this here... Captures my opinion in Beto so far.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/beto-orourke-2020-campaign-president-why.html

O'Rourke would enter the race as a man without a clear political ideology, a signature legislative achievement, a major policy issue, or a concrete agenda for the country. Those in the know tell the Atlantic that Beto is planning to run as a candidate "offering hope that America can be better than its current partisan and hate-filled politics, and that the country can come together," but that—brace yourself—he hasn't yet "landed on how he'll propose to actually make that happen." That's more of the same empty words Beto's been offering in public since his loss to Cruz. "I don't know where I am on a [political] spectrum, and I almost could care less," he said at a recent stop in Wisconsin. "I just want to get to better things for this country."

There's nothing special about O'Rourke's dream to heal the partisan divide in this country when he can't explain how he'll do it. Because as exciting as his bid to take down Cruz was, it also showed the limits of bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake. Case in point: Last summer, Beto declared he was putting "country over party" when he declined to support the Democratic challenger to GOP Rep. Will Hurd, whom he had joined on a 2017 road trip from Texas to D.C. that doubled as a 1,600-mile ode to reaching across the aisle. Hurd went on to win re-election by less than 1,000 votes. Asked last weekend whether he'd back O'Rourke over Trump in a hypothetical 2020 general election, Hurd was clear: "My plan is to vote for the Republican nominee."

JVID · Mar 14, 2019

JohnOfMars said:
Are our ideals so easy to compromise? Our ambitions so low?

If your only criteria is "not Trump", then Mike Pence is the same as Bernie Sanders.

I'll dream bigger when this isn't realistic map.😀
Dont Trust Wisconsin.

TerminusFox · Mar 14, 2019

Cheebo said:
I think Harris would be without a doubt Biden's VP if he won. We won't see a two white man ticket.

Honestly, unless Harris has some legit scandal, I don't see a world where she's not on the ticket. Her Senate career pretty much ends in 2020 regardless of outcome

Hirok2099 · Mar 14, 2019

Dr. Benton Quest said:
Are you trying to argue that Trump isn't more charismatic than Clinton?
He's spouts populist lies and has enthralled the media.
He's a goddamn monster and a dangerous idiot, but he knows how to work a room.

I am saying that yes and you are right he lied he spouts populist lies, his promises are populist lies but that's just it, he promised things, tangible and specific things that people saw how they would personally get benefited from.
While other candidates were spouting nonsense like unity, simplifying the tax code and being "with her" he promised coal so the coal worker voted for him, he promised a wall so the racist voted for him, he promised to stop immigration from the middle east so the cowards voted for him and he also promised healthcare and to bring the soldiers back. Empty promises to be sure but people would at least think they would personally benefit from them.
At the end of the day is not so much that people disliked Hilary as much as the fact that no one saw how voting for Hilary would benefit them personally.

OtherWorldly · Mar 14, 2019

This guy is genuine

2013 tweet

samoyed · Mar 14, 2019

I'm pretty sure the VP is supposed to be a spare president, so Bernie/Beto would make sense (not a great ticket imo) but Beto/Bernie would not, at least to me.

Tobor · Mar 14, 2019

ThisThingIsUseful said:
Obama went into the Senate. That's pretty traditional.

I'm not sure you're following what my point is.

I don't think I need to explain why Obama was an untraditional choice for President, right? Or the precedent he destroyed?

We just elected a man who had never served a day in any office and yet we are arguing over Beto's experience? HarrisonFordwhogivesashit.gif

ThisThingIsUseful · Mar 14, 2019

Tobor said:
I don't think I need to explain why Obama was an untraditional choice for President, right? Or the precedent he destroyed?

We just elected a man who had never served a day in any office and yet we are arguing over Beto's experience? HarrisonFordwhogivesashit.gif

And he decided to go from the legislature to the Senate, not the House, because the Senate is viewed as a superior stepping stone to the presidency with more important responsibilities, and one Senator is more important than one congressperson. Trump was a businessman, and those people typically make waves even if they don't win (Steve Forbes, Ross Perot).

We're arguing what experience actually is, not if he's a better choice than Trump. The House and Senate aren't the same, which is why we barely elect people from there and haven't gone higher.

Beto O’Rourke Enters the 2020 Presidential Campaign

Fighting Lion

The Old Guard

▲ Legend ▲

user requested account closure

Resettlement Advisor

Fighting Lion

user requested account closure

Resettlement Advisor

Fighting Lion

The Wise Ones