Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[keepthefaith]

42 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

What I meant was that the RNC would love a Trump/Clinton re-match.

 

The Clinton/Bernie rematch while 20 other candidates are craving attention would be most entertaining to the right. 

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

She wasn't gonna beat a racist black man, and her campaign was too lazy to beat Trump.

 

But none of that matters. The only thing that matters is what the DNC wants. And they want Hillary.

 

Hillary will have to up her game.  Harris has already grabbed the top spot for the party of free stuff with free college and free healthcare and free citizenship.  Even Bernie will have a hard time topping that. 

[Koko78]

9 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

When you have nutbag women creating batschiitt crazy music videos for you, it's not surprising your ego makes you think you can be president.

 

He should remain a furry until AOC burns out. There's only room for one chucklehead.

 

He'd be best off going in as the VP candidate in 2020, to increase his national exposure, while the Democrats exploit and expand his contacts/ability to raise massive amounts of cash. He needs to stay away from getting into the mud with the current crop of insane bottom-feeders lining up for the Democrat nod. The extreme leftist bullschiff they're aiming for isn't going to last long.

 

Being a VP candidate keeps him insulated from having to make a record of policy preferences (which can be used against him later), and a loss to Trump doesn't hurt him (as it was the nominee who lost to Trump, not Beto.) That puts him in a prime position to run in 2024, without an incumbent (and severe GOP White House fatigue), if they lose, and puts him in line in 2028 if the Democrats actually manage to win.

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, keepthefaith said:

 

Hillary will have to up her game.  Harris has already grabbed the top spot for the party of free stuff with free college and free healthcare and free citizenship.  Even Bernie will have a hard time topping that. 

 

Before Hillary ups her game, she needs to show everyone she can navigate a flight of stairs. Both up and down, as they have both provided her great challenges.

 

If she can do that, then we need to see her get in a car by herself.

 

if she can do that, she has a chance.

[row_33]

4 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Hillary will have to up her game.  Harris has already grabbed the top spot for the party of free stuff with free college and free healthcare and free citizenship.  Even Bernie will have a hard time topping that. 

 

Hillary will crack the whip and libs will fall into line and write big cheques

 

[LSHMEAB]

2 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

The Clinton/Bernie rematch while 20 other candidates are craving attention would be most entertaining to the right. 

I don't think they'll make the mistake of running a retread like the R's did in 08/12 and the D's did in 2016. If the third time isn't the charm, it's time to move on.

 

Not really debating merit in this thread as much as trying to provide some information into what the left is thinking. Bernie, Clinton, and Biden are met with groans from every single fellow primary voter I know.

 

They want to beat Trump more than they want to award someone a lifetime achievement award. Not to say they will beat Trump, but they/we don't view these relics as the path to victory.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

I don't think they'll make the mistake of running a retread like the R's did in 08/12 and the D's did in 2016. If the third time isn't the charm, it's time to move on.

 

Not really debating merit in this thread as much as trying to provide some information into what the left is thinking. Bernie, Clinton, and Biden are met with groans from every single fellow primary voter I know.

 

They want to beat Trump more than they want to award someone a lifetime achievement award. Not to say they will beat Trump, but they/we don't view these relics as the path to victory.

 

This will be fun to laugh at

[snafu]

15 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

He'd be best off going in as the VP candidate in 2020, to increase his national exposure, while the Democrats exploit and expand his contacts/ability to raise massive amounts of cash. He needs to stay away from getting into the mud with the current crop of insane bottom-feeders lining up for the Democrat nod. The extreme leftist bullschiff they're aiming for isn't going to last long.

 

Being a VP candidate keeps him insulated from having to make a record of policy preferences (which can be used against him later), and a loss to Trump doesn't hurt him (as it was the nominee who lost to Trump, not Beto.) That puts him in a prime position to run in 2024, without an incumbent (and severe GOP White House fatigue), if they lose, and puts him in line in 2028 if the Democrats actually manage to win.

 

Do you think that's what Tim Kaine thought in 2016?

You don't hear his name thrown around because he is tied to a loser.

 

Beto is better off trying and losing on his own, and coming off as "not ready yet".

 

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I don't think they'll make the mistake of running a retread like the R's did in 08/12 and the D's did in 2016. If the third time isn't the charm, it's time to move on.

 

Not really debating merit in this thread as much as trying to provide some information into what the left is thinking. Bernie, Clinton, and Biden are met with groans from every single fellow primary voter I know.

 

They want to beat Trump more than they want to award someone a lifetime achievement award. Not to say they will beat Trump, but they/we don't view these relics as the path to victory.

 

I don't think Hillary is coming into this race.  But she will throw her support behind someone.  Heck, maybe they will agree to make her Secretary of State again.

 

They don't want to make a lifetime achievement award this time.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by snafu

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

... Heck, maybe they will agree to make her Secretary of State again. ...

thereby putting the Clinton Foundation back on the map.

[RochesterRob]

19 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Before Hillary ups her game, she needs to show everyone she can navigate a flight of stairs. Both up and down, as they have both provided her great challenges.

 

If she can do that, then we need to see her get in a car by herself.

 

if she can do that, she has a chance.

  Instead of that I see her being like Stalin in that we get very little random exposure to her.  All appearances will be very controlled complete with stadium buddy which will be hard to see under her latest Chairman Mao pantsuit.  

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Do you think that's what Tim Kaine thought in 2016?

You don't hear his name thrown around because he is tied to a loser.

 

Beto is better off trying and losing on his own, and coming off as "not ready yet".

 

 

Kaine also has a history of policy preferences - something Beto can't be tied to.

 

I'm sure being a white male with a white male name and insufficient loony leftist credentials factors into him not running (yet) more than being Hillary's running mate.

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Instead of that I see her being like Stalin in that we get very little random exposure to her.  All appearances will be very controlled complete with stadium buddy which will be hard to see under her latest Chairman Mao pantsuit.  

 

I don't recall how coined it, but one of my favorite nicknames for Hillary was "Lady Maopants."  

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Do you think that's what Tim Kaine thought in 2016?

You don't hear his name thrown around because he is tied to a loser.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

I'll quibble with this point a bit; you don't hear his name mentioned because he IS a loser. I had a sinking feeling about the election when he got OWNED by Pence in the VP debate. That "safe" choice played a pivotal role in her loss when we're talking about 80k votes.

 

 

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Kaine also has a history of policy preferences - something Beto can't be tied to.

 

I'm sure being a white male with a white male name and insufficient loony leftist credentials factors into him not running (yet) more than being Hillary's running mate.

 

Beto's lack of a record helps him now. Attaching himself to a bigger name attaches him to their line of policy, for better or worse.  It also solidifies him as a Junior Varsity candidate at this point, and I really don't think he sees himself that way.

 

 

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'll quibble with this point a bit; you don't hear his name mentioned because he IS a loser. I had a sinking feeling about the election when he got OWNED by Pence in the VP debate. That "safe" choice played a pivotal role in her loss when we're talking about 80k votes.

 

 

 

Yeah, Kaine made a lot of his own problems.  But my point was more about what a VP candidate thinks about the future.

 

[Koko78]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Beto's lack of a record helps him now. Attaching himself to a bigger name attaches him to their line of policy, for better or worse.  It also solidifies him as a Junior Varsity candidate at this point, and I really don't think he sees himself that way.

 

True, to a certain extent. He can later say that he never subscribed completely to the failed ideas of [whomever], and that he will enact [whatever] policies if elected. The leftists will lap that up.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

True, to a certain extent. He can later say that he never subscribed completely to the failed ideas of [whomever], and that he will enact [whatever] policies if elected. The leftists will lap that up.

 

Agreed, but who are we kidding.  The leftists and media will lap up anything Beto does.  He will really have to ***** himself in a big way for that to turn around.

 

 

[Dante]

Gavin Newsome? This archetype worked in Canada maybe they would try it here.

[/dev/null]

10 minutes ago, Dante said:

Gavin Newsome? This archetype worked in Canada maybe they would try it here.

 

Gavin Newsome would make for an awesome campaign.

 

Kimberly Guillofile would go on every media outlet possible talking about Newsome's and Trump Jr's d*cks

 

And the Republicans could just run clips from Red Dead Redemption 2 as campaign commercials

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, Dante said:

Gavin Newsome? This archetype worked in Canada maybe they would try it here.

 

Gavin Newsome is a cross-dressing lead singer for a Village People cover band?

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Dante said:

Gavin Newsome? This archetype worked in Canada maybe they would try it here.

 

He's got to buff up his liberal credentials by ***** up California some more.

[Dante]

30 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Gavin Newsome is a cross-dressing lead singer for a Village People cover band?

There is a cover band for the Village People?? ?

[IDBillzFan]

52 minutes ago, Dante said:

There is a cover band for the Village People?? ?

 

I thought there was, but maybe he just dressed up like that for fun.

 

Cross-dressing bi-cis-gen-heshes are confusing to me, and Justin Trudeau is no exception.

[row_33]

3 hours ago, Dante said:

There is a cover band for the Village People?? ?

 

It was a trap, you were supposed to rush in and say you saw them on New Years Eve.

 

or so I’ve heard.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited January 29, 2019 by B-Man

[Doc Brown]

10 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

He'd be best off going in as the VP candidate in 2020, to increase his national exposure, while the Democrats exploit and expand his contacts/ability to raise massive amounts of cash. He needs to stay away from getting into the mud with the current crop of insane bottom-feeders lining up for the Democrat nod. The extreme leftist bullschiff they're aiming for isn't going to last long.

 

Being a VP candidate keeps him insulated from having to make a record of policy preferences (which can be used against him later), and a loss to Trump doesn't hurt him (as it was the nominee who lost to Trump, not Beto.) That puts him in a prime position to run in 2024, without an incumbent (and severe GOP White House fatigue), if they lose, and puts him in line in 2028 if the Democrats actually manage to win.

Losing VP's have a bad track record in both future primaries and general elections.  Walter Mondale (lost 2nd term) and Bob Dole off the top of my head were presidents who lost the general elections.  Meanwhile, rising stars such as Palin, Ryan, Edwards (lol), and Quayle (2nd term) were pernamently damaged after losing as the VP candidate.  Older losing VP candidates like Lieberman and Ferraro never gained traction in their presidential runs.  The last losing Vice President to later become president was FDR.

 

It's not impossible but losing against Trump even as the VP likely takes a major hit to your political reputation.  Also, if I was somebody like Harris/Warren/Gillibrand/Booker (god help us) it would be smarter to pick a VP like Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, or Tim Ryan.  Somebody that appeals more to the white working class.  

 

I think Beto should run now as he could always run again in the future.  I wouldn't take the VP slot though.

[row_33]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Losing VP's have a bad track record in both future primaries and general elections.  Walter Mondale (lost 2nd term) and Bob Dole off the top of my head were presidents who lost the general elections.  Meanwhile, rising stars such as Palin, Ryan, Edwards (lol), and Quayle (2nd term) were pernamently damaged after losing as the VP candidate.  Older losing VP candidates like Lieberman and Ferraro never gained traction in their presidential runs.  The last losing Vice President to later become president was FDR.

 

It's not impossible but losing against Trump even as the VP likely takes a major hit to your political reputation.  Also, if I was somebody like Harris/Warren/Gillibrand/Booker (god help us) it would be smarter to pick a VP like Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, or Tim Ryan.  Somebody that appeals more to the white working class.  

 

I think Beto should run now as he could always run again in the future.  I wouldn't take the VP slot though.

 

Mondale and Dole didn’t have a hope at all, readily known by everybody from the start of their campaigns. Somebody had to run against a “second term by acclamation.”

 

Leibermam never wanted to be President and Ferraro was with Mondale.

 

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

32 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Mondale and Dole didn’t have a hope at all, readily known by everybody from the start of their campaigns. Somebody had to run against a “second term by acclamation.”

 

Leibermam never wanted to be President and Ferraro was with Mondale.

 

 

 

 

Lol Mondale. Perhaps the greatest sacrificial offering in the history of American politics.

[row_33]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Lol Mondale. Perhaps the greatest sacrificial offering in the history of American politics.

 

He was the saddest of the last 50 years. He didn’t have a snowballs chance in a blast furnace in the first place, along with being a useless  public personality and speaker.

 

and then they went after his running mate for her husband’s alleged ties to organized crime.

 

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis the worst string of three in US history, amazing the Party recovered from that....

Edited January 29, 2019 by row_33

[keepthefaith]

4 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

He was the saddest of the last 50 years. He didn’t have a snowballs chance in a blast furnace in the first place, along with being a useless  public personality and speaker.

 

and then they went after his running mate for her husband’s alleged ties to organized crime.

 

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis the worst string of three in US history, amazing the Party recovered from that....

 

Recovery efforts aren't difficult because the party in power always screws up.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

LOL: Paul Krugman is ‘worried’ that the Democratic nominee in 2020 is going to get the same media treatment as Hillary

 

?

[B-Man]

Please, please,please..........................

 

Eric Holder Considering Candidacy Seriously.

 

 

 

.

 

[row_33]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Recovery efforts aren't difficult because the party in power always screws up.

 

Americans like to give 2 terms to one side and then 2 to the other, with some exceptions above/below 2

 

All for "the sake of change" after 8 years, which isn't a bad thing to have, keeps it steady.

 

At least your system forces the party leader out in the open.

 

In the UK and Canada they just nominate any goof when the party has two seats, and then suddenly they are Prime Minister without any scrutiny when their party (of only 2) wins again. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by row_33

[B-Man]

Maybe Kamala Harris would just be better served telling us which rights and private property she thinks we should be allowed to keep instead.

 

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Maybe Kamala Harris would just be better served telling us which rights and private property she thinks we should be allowed to keep instead.

 

 

 

 

.

 

You have the right to vote for her... even if you've been dead a decade. 

[Deranged Rhino]

I don't like the twitter source here... but the clip is gold. 

 

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Maybe Kamala Harris would just be better served telling us which rights and private property she thinks we should be allowed to keep instead.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Yes, that's a short list in her world.

 

I'm looking forward to the first person that I know that tells me they are going to support her.  I'll do some math in advance.  Should be fun.

[Koko78]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I don't like the twitter source here... but the clip is gold. 

 

 

 

She's cute, but stupid.

 

If you're going to make such scurrilous accusations, you damn well better be able to back it up when challenged.

[KRC]

5 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

 

She's cute, but stupid.

 

If you're going to make such scurrilous accusations, you damn well better be able to back it up when challenged.

 

She didn't even know the definition of a work she was using to describe someone. 

[Koko78]

2 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

She didn't even know the definition of a work she was using to describe someone. 

 

Yeah, but that doesn't bother me. How many words, that we use regularly, can we actually define if asked?

 

She did use the word correctly for her BS.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Koko78

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, but that doesn't bother me. How many words, that we use regularly, can we actually define if asked?

 

practically all of them

 

 

 

if you obtained some form of decent education