|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by BritInParis
(Post 12604964)
The fix being in was the problem last time around. I agree with everything else.
In a idealised world Sanders and Trump would've faced off as independents but the bipartisanship nature of US politics means you have to run on one of the two tickets and Sanders got screwed over by the DNC who then treated the election as a coronation which led to Trump. I rather suspect in a straight Sanders v Trump fight that Sanders would've won. But that was then and this is now and 2020 is still two years away. The Dems need fresh blood to take on Trump and someone who can win back the natural Democrat blue collar voters in the swing states. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Hiro11
(Post 12604966)
Mentioning that the de facto leader of the Democratic party, a famously divisive politician, may have some input into selection of the Dem candidate and that involvement may indeed prove divisive hardly seems "gratuitous".
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12604576)
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that the media or the pollsters have any earthly idea at this point.
Some to watch that the media hasn't been fawning all over (not that I'm endorsing backing anybody at this point) ... Michael Bloomberg Bill de Blasio Sherrod Brown Mitch Landrieu Julian Castro Rahm Emanuel
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12604576)
Non-Democrats who could run as Independents or Republican primary challengers :
Mark Cuban John Kasich Jeff Flake Mitt Romney ... Other than "being from California" which I can see is a natural impediment to winning over Republicans, is Harris really too liberal to pass muster? |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12605030)
I would love to see Bloomberg run, and I think he'd be a good challenger to Trump (can claim business experience, etc); but I suspect he'd have little chance in any primary process.
A friend of mine here in AZ thinks Flake could be a contender. Kasich certainly stood his ground against Trump last time. Romney ... not so sure. Cuban - I thought he was heavily in the Democratic camp.
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12605030)
Other than "being from California" which I can see is a natural impediment to winning over Republicans, is Harris really too liberal to pass muster?
|
Re: 2020 Election
Interesting perspective from Mazie Hirono:
“One of the things that we Democrats have a really hard time is connecting to people’s hearts instead of here,†Ms. Hirono responded, pointing at her head, according to a clip flagged by the Republic National Committee. “We’re really good at shoving out all the information that touch people here [points to the brain] but not here [points to the heart].†“I’ve been saying it at all our Senate Democratic retreats we need to speak to the heart, not in a manipulative way, not in a way that brings forth everybody’s fears and resentments, but truly to speak to the heart so that people know that we’re actually on their side,†she continued. “We have to kind of tell everyone how smart we are, and so we have a tendency to be very left-brain,†the senator added. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12604981)
That was my point, not sure what your disagreement is based upon.
Again, that was my point and I've said basically that exact same thing in the Trump thread. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by BritInParis
(Post 12605152)
That you were comfortable with Clinton and Sanders running again.
Then we agreed. Not everyone is looking to pick a fight ;) I don't think my opinion about Clinton or Bernie running again is particularly popular but somebody is obviously encouraging them. I feel more and more contrarian when I hear about certain people being told to stay home while other also-rans get to go right along as usual in their public lives and keep running for office. In the case of Hillary, if I were close enough to tell her the truth, I would tell her not to run again ... it's always so destructive and brutal. It is debatable why that is true. But that's just me and I'm not sure that the Clintons mentally process political blood-baths the same way as normal people --- it's what they do. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12605030)
I would love to see Bloomberg run, and I think he'd be a good challenger to Trump (can claim business experience, etc); but I suspect he'd have little chance in any primary process.
A friend of mine here in AZ thinks Flake could be a contender. Kasich certainly stood his ground against Trump last time. Romney ... not so sure. Cuban - I thought he was heavily in the Democratic camp. Other than "being from California" which I can see is a natural impediment to winning over Republicans, is Harris really too liberal to pass muster? I don't think Harris is too liberal to run --- specially when considering her more liberal counterparts. I think she's fairly median for a Democrat. The problem as I see it is that I don't see her as particularly inspiring of a movement, I could be wrong, but that's why I think she'll have problems. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12604978)
Oh I do apologize. I admit to joining the thread recently . Point me to the post in this thread where somebody claimed that Waters is running for president and I'll respond accordingly. I can't find it.
In your post #91 you whined about divisive Democrats and then went on to throw out red meat. Now, if I really wanted to be divisive, every time you bring in gratuitous nonsense, I could point out that (1) the Republican party is dead (2) only a mental defective would have voted for Trump and (3) anybody that still supports him needs to be lobotomized. Now THAT would be divisive. |
Re: 2020 Election
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/u...gtype=Homepage
NYT is back on the Beto bandwagon this morning. |
Re: 2020 Election
Read this today; not a bad analysis. Food for thought ... "
Maybe Trump can't win in 2020, but Democrats can lose"http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/maybe-trump-cant-win-in-2020-but-democrats-can-lose/ar-BBQW3sU?ocid=ientp ...Donald Trump probably can't win the 2020 presidential election, but the Democrats can lose it. What I mean is that in a contest between Trump and a generic Democrat, Trump would almost surely lose if the current political climate holds through 2020. According to a Fox News poll this week, 38 percent of respondents said they would "definitely" or "probably" vote for Trump, while 55 percent said they would "definitely" or "probably" vote for someone else. ... ... Most presidents work assiduously to build on the coalition that brought them to power. President Trump has done almost the opposite, catering to his base while doing almost everything he can to alienate suburban Republicans and independents, which is why the GOP got shellacked in the midterms. ... ... No one knows for sure, but estimates on the number of potential Democratic candidates range from 20 to 40. In that kind of field, the ability to attract a small but passionate cadre of supporters will be more important than arguments about electability. Thus, there will be an enormous incentive to replicate the Trump model of taking unorthodox positions, stated as boldly as possible, in order to win over the most passionate ideologues and activists. ... ... One need only listen to a few minutes of discussion on CNN or MSNBC, or to read the op-ed pages on almost any given day, to see that a similar attitude is widespread among Democrats. If you can't imagine chants of "Lock him up!" at the Democratic convention in 2020, you haven't been paying attention. Thus, the odds that the Democrats will elect their own Trump are very high. Of course, the one thing Trump fans and foes alike can agree on is that Trump is a unique political personality. But a Democratic candidate could substitute policy outlandishness for personal outlandishness quite easily. Many in the Democratic base could easily rally to someone promising to abolish ICE, deliver "Medicare for All," repeal the Second Amendment ... whatever. That would give Trump the ability to convince many otherwise hostile voters to cast ballots against the Democrats rather than for the incumbent. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12609167)
Read this today; not a bad analysis. Food for thought ... "
Maybe Trump can't win in 2020, but Democrats can lose"http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/maybe-trump-cant-win-in-2020-but-democrats-can-lose/ar-BBQW3sU?ocid=ientp ...The democrats do have a knack for snatching defeat out of the hands of victory! What are Democrats supposed to do - become "moderate," mini-republicans or they'll be accused of being extremist & socialist? |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by robin1234
(Post 12609261)
The article you quoted from includes "Medicare for All" as an example of extremist, populist policies that the Democrats may be tempted to espouse in 2020. And yet, "Medicare for All" would provide healthcare to all Americans, and could save massive amounts of money, as compared to the current healthcare environment. What are Democrats supposed to do - become "moderate," mini-republicans or they'll be accused of being extremist & socialist? Actually, I don't think 'Medicare For All' would fall into the 'extremist' bucket, but the candidates will need to figure a way to 'sell' it to the populace in a way that counters the obvious republican objections. |
Re: 2020 Election
Just read this - https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ocrats-1066661 .. surprisingly, Biden is the clear front-runner and Sanders second. Sounds like the top few are;
Biden 32 Sanders 19 Beto O'Rourke 11 Elizabeth Warren 8 Kamala Harris 5. (rest below 5). This part is reassuring (to me): "Most Democratic voters in Iowa, the poll shows, are prioritizing electability. A majority, 54 percent, say it’s more important for the caucus winner to have a strong chance to defeat President Donald Trump in November 2020 — more than the 40 percent who say it’s more important to have a candidate who shares their positions on key issues." "Biden, in particular, stands out from the rest of the field. In addition to the 32 percent who say the former vice president is their preferred candidate, he is the second choice of another 18 percent of likely caucusgoers. Only 8 percent of caucusgoers say they could never imagine voting for Biden." I must say I've always liked Biden, independent of his positions. I would be happy to see him run, IF the reasoning is electability. I can't stand Sanders (that is, his method of speaking, delivery, etc) but if the polls show electability I'll be happy to see him also. But boy, these guys are OLD! Once good thing to read in there: "One longtime Democratic figure isn’t welcome in the race, however: A large majority of caucusgoers, 72 percent, say 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton would “detract†from the race for president, while only 25 percent say she would add to the race. And roughly as many Democratic voters have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton (49 percent) as view her favorably (47 percent). Clinton, who narrowly defeated Sanders in the 2016 caucuses, says she won’t run for president again." |
Re: 2020 Election
I guess 'Medicare For All' is not so simple. I always assumed it would be simply an 'opt-in' program, such that existing people getting health insurance through work could keep what they have. But this article - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...alth-insurance suggests that (at least the Sanders flavor) they want to abolish employer-provided plans altogether. That does seem to be way too aggressive for the American psyche, given the US populations dislike of government programs. The bits in the article that I'm referring to here are:
... Sanders and other stalwart single-payer proponents see health care as fundamentally different from other commodities and believe the government should guarantee health coverage. Their proposals would move every American out of private insurance and into a new government plan. Other Democrats and left-leaning think tanks — cognizant of how deeply ingrained work-based insurance is in our health care ecosystem and of how allergic many Americans are to massive change — have introduced more incremental approaches, like Medicare buy-ins or a supercharged Obamacare that melds with Medicaid. Most of those plans would let private companies continue offering insurance. The scary thing here is, the differences could easily get glossed over and the republicans could say 'government takeover' even if it's only the second, more 'incremental' approach. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:48 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.