I wouldn't have thought America would elect an atheist fascist either.
Of course, it doesn't matter if the Republican candidate is an atheist or born outside of the country. It's only a problem when the Democrats are.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Daily beast: 2020 Democratic prospects already making moves behind the scenes
- Thread starter Thisman
- Start date
- Status
Of course, it doesn't matter if the Republican candidate is an atheist or born outside of the country. It's only a problem when the Democrats are.
I'd prefer we not have any septuagenarians vying for the nomination this time, so that's a strike against Bernie, Biden and Warren from me. They'd be huge forces campaigning for the eventual nominee, I'd just prefer for them not to try to be said nominee.
Also, I'm so glad that people are wise against Tulsi Gabbard. I was truly worried she'd try to position herself as Bernie's successor (I can just imagine her saying on in the primary debates saying "I am the only candidate up here who endorsed Bernie Sanders during the last primary" to raucous applause), but I'm glad her reputation and positions proceed her.
I can see Yates making a great choice for AG in the next Dem administration.
Also, I'm so glad that people are wise against Tulsi Gabbard. I was truly worried she'd try to position herself as Bernie's successor (I can just imagine her saying on in the primary debates saying "I am the only candidate up here who endorsed Bernie Sanders during the last primary" to raucous applause), but I'm glad her reputation and positions proceed her.
I can see Yates making a great choice for AG in the next Dem administration.
Sanders and Warren are more progressive than Garcetti and Harris are.
Yes. We need another Obama first and foremost. Youthful vitality vs. old and crotchety. It could be a classic JFK vs. Nixon moment.
Why? to Neuter his reach and stifle his Voice?
I doubt Bernie based on his views would opt to play second fiddle to someone who didn't share his beliefs (Mainly Medicare for all)
Waren would go for it for sure.
Not really because his VP can take over so all he has to do is pick a good one for his second term.
I think a lot of people just see him as the guy that says/does funny things every now and then but don't actually know anything about him or his policies. Dude is damn near as center as you can get.
Looking more into him, my ideal scenario for Bullock would not to run for President, but instead running for the Montana Senate seat in 2020. He's very popular in his state, so it could be a golden opportunity for the Democrats to pick up an otherwise difficult seat. His being in the senate means he can still aggressively pursue his would-be-presidential-platform of campaign finance reform.
OP
OP
That playbook relied on Sanders losing. If Sanders had beat Hillary, they would've been hard-pressed to roll back that momentum so Trump could win.
Right. A two party system where one party is basically always dogshit is, in fact, horrible.
None of these categories of people you listed exist. Bitter Hillary voters are just always online people like me and you and there aren't very much of us.
It's funny this only suddenly came up when Bernie became a 2020 frontrunner and not whhen Hillary was running and only 3 years younger than him and no one had an issue with that.
Bernie's not the only candidate with that platform.
Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, and Warren (along with a dozen others) all co-sponsored the Medicare-for-All bill in the Senate last year.
Garcetti is 47 and Harris is 53.
Sanders is 76 and Warren is 69.
I would be far more worried about Sanders and Warren being a half term away from dementia or Alzheimer's and inadvertently harming our country versus them being a shade more progressive than Garcetti/Harris.
Hell, with Sanders I had legitimate fears in 2016 that he wouldn't even be alive to finish out his first term, let alone running in 2020 and doing it.
No one had an issue because there was no choice. Your choices was whichever piece of shit Republican got through, too damn old Hillary, or too damn old Bernie.
This time? We've got choices. We don't need to pick an old guy just because they've got name recognition.
Biden, Bernie, and Warren are all too old and would suck the oxygen out of the room. None of them should even try.
Bernie i'm less scared of, though. He's going to find he has very little following when every viable choice is not-Clinton instead of just him.
Bernie i'm less scared of, though. He's going to find he has very little following when every viable choice is not-Clinton instead of just him.
Ding. Hillary shouldn't have run in 2020. But she did and Obama backed her and everyone knew Obama had backed her. And so w/ Biden's family talking him out of a challenge in the wake of his son's death, the only people who bothered to run were O'Malley and Sanders, neither actually expecting or attempting to win.
I'm at work. Is this the National Walkout Day video of the croud of protesters surrounding Bernie and teaching for him like he's a Beatle in the 60s?
Because if not someone should post that. Democratic candidates should be inspiring that level of enthusiasm.
Wasn't what you guys were saying back on the other place. Anything other than unanimous praise of Hillary during the primary got you dogpiled on and attacked.
Last edited:
Honestly, I hope it is a big field. Let em duke it out. I think the eventual winner will come out better because of it. And I will vote for however does win. Really just need the Congress to stay blue.
Might as well said the guy who talked about killing people overseas, unless that was actually him. By law, every early Primary has to let in some guys that have no chance in hell. The Republicans actually just picked theirs.
Democratic Candidates should be inspiring that enthusiasm from people that will actually vote. Sanders got the same support that Ron Paul did, for the same reasons. Once he got out of Caucuses, he didn't have too much success.
Clinton was the candidate from very early on. She had the record, the experience, and the support. Sanders was a Democrat because of convenience, acted like he deserved something because of it, and the only reason he had a chance was because Hillary didn't attack him at all, something the Republicans were salivating for.
If you really think a outspoken socialist that praised Castro and breadlines that wrote off the South, has no idea what math is, and had no actual plans for any of his ideas beyond having people rally around congress protesting had any shot at the Presidency in a country where Donald Trump just won, I've got many bridges to sell you. I'd put money on him losing against Trump in 2020. It had nothing to do with conspiracy why the DNC didn't support him, it was that he was a far worse candidate that had nothing to do with the party. Hopefully history repeats itself when it comes to him, except for him staying in the primary months after he was mathmatically eliminated.
Fuck Sanders. Let him fade away in Vermont where he can collect dust and fail to get more of his supported candidates in office.
Yeah but the least likely to vote demographic treats him like a rockstar so that means everyone else is a terrible choice
Yeah we gotta vote in the guy who blamed "identity politics" for the dems loss, it's the only way to move the party further lefffffhnggggggggggggsdfgffgfgdgd
I'm always amazed at the surprise some on the left have that Trump voters seem to exist in their own little bubble, where no amount of news or information will sway them. It's not a bubble, it's a cult. And the Left has their own.
I can't see Tulsi ever getting nominated but I would like her chances at beating Trump more than the others. Of course, Michelle Obama could enter the fray and be a slam dunk, which I predict will happen after it's obvious the party desperately needs her considering this awful, early list of candidates.
Michelle has no interest in being a politician. How many times does she have to repeat it.
I'd point out that no one is ever "anointed" so much as they happen to dominate in early polls for whatever reason and become "presumptive" because of their polling lead.
I'm not sure why it was the case, but HRC was polling over 60% at this point in the last election cycle. Gore wasn't that high IIRC, but still led the field.
4 years older than trump and 1 year older than biden
Nobody deserves to lose more than the democrats. It's just a shame who they have to lose to.
I voted for Bernie in my state's primary and Clinton in the general election. I've voted Democrat in every election, local, state, or national for the last twenty years.
I legitimately would vote for Trump over the hatemonger and genocide apologist that is Tulsi Gabbard.
Maybe she'd beat Trump anyway by grabbing the bigot vote.
Last edited:
When you have a popular two-term president leaving office no one is in a position internally to say "no" to them pushing for a chosen successor.
Direct command of the DNC and party operations falling under the President may need to be something that needs to be looked at.
I mean if he's motivating the least likely demographic to vote to vote then that's a great thing.
He motivated me to vote in the primary.
Can't overlook what he did in not dropping out after New York in '16. If he wins I'll support him, but not until then.
This is a grudge I will probably carry until the dude croaks.
People still blame him for Hillary losing. Doesn't really matter tbh they'll still vote for him if he wins the nomination.
- Status