2020 Democratic Field

[jessecrall]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

A moderate/pseudo-Republican in HRC who the right wing machine effectively portrayed as a socialist to their base. While a candidate more left of center will certainly energize the Democratic base and perhaps do the best, let's not discount what the RWM could against someone who actually IS sympathetic to socialism.

Worrying over what the right will do to attack Democratic candidates is pointless. Right wingers will portray every single Democratic candidate as a god-awful nightmare. It's the left's job to ignore it. Hillary ran a campaign almost entirely devoid of substance. Literally. No one in the television era has ever spoken less about policy in campaign ads than she did. The whole campaign was "Children are watching!" It didn't work. Run on progressive policy that appeals to poor voters and young voters, trust that the base will be motivated by their (legit) Trump hatred and work on expanding your own vote totals as opposed to converting Trump voters. If he gets 63 million votes again, he will lose as long as Dems make SLIGHT gains in purple states. It's not hard. We're down by one with no outs in the 9th, the bases are loaded and Trout is up. There's no need to sac bunt.

[Make Angels Great Again]

4 minutes ago, jessecrall said:

Bernie would have won.

Maybe. If he did it would be because people don't hate him like Hillary.

[Adam]

It doesn't really matter who wins. Congress ends up going the other way and blocking everything. Bernie wouldn't be the worst. He'd get shitall done and at least he'd likely be anti-war

[jessecrall]

2 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Maybe. If he did it would be because people don't hate him like Hillary.

Then again, people hated Trump. People hated Obama...I'm just trying to get people to turn away from "on-paper" qualifications based on Beltway Wisdom from 1972 or something. Trump and Obama were, on-paper, incredibly dubious candidates. They beat candidates who were, on-paper, far more appealing. Reality proved different. To say someone can't win because they're black, a socialist, a woman, too progressive, underqualified, racist, unmarried, from a coastal state, stupid, Jewish etc etc doesn't apply. Supposedly racist Trump supporters would absolutely vote for Nikki Haley over, say, Joe Biden. Midwestern voters in supposedly non-coastal, not lefty states keep electing Tammy Baldwin and Sherrod Brown. The world is complicated. Simplifying it into words of conventional wisdom doesn't lead to understanding.

[Thomas]

5 minutes ago, jessecrall said:

Worrying over what the right will do to attack Democratic candidates is pointless. Right wingers will portray every single Democratic candidate as a god-awful nightmare. It's the left's job to ignore it. 

Your position is that all candidates are equally vulnerable to this attack? I think a candidate that isn't tied at the hip to corporate interests like HRC may well be the best strategy against Trump. However to simply say that all aspects don't matter seems haphazard at best.

[jessecrall]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

Your position is that all candidates are equally vulnerable to this attack? I think a candidate that isn't tied at the hip to corporate interests like HRC may well be the best strategy against Trump. However to simply say that all aspects don't matter seems haphazard at best.

Oh, well I certainly agree with you there. My argument is more "The right will attack any Democrat. Worry about what VOTERS would find unappealing." Corporate ties? Absolutely. Progressive politics? No, at least not to the constituency the left needs to win the general.

[Make Angels Great Again]

The thing that Dems don't seem to realize is that Trump wouldn't have much ammo against Gabbard.

[Angelsjunky]

Tulsi was anti-gay as a kid - when she was a teen and maybe into her early 20s. Give her a break - she was raised in a conservative family, and people generally don't start thinking for themselves until their late 20s (after their brain's are fully developed), if then at all. Her apology seemed heart-felt and displayed a ton of integrity. 

And of course the fact that the Dem establishment is so after her speaks well in her favor. She is anti-war, and quit the DNC because they were cheating Bernie Sanders. She's got integrity and isn't afraid to stand up. 

My personal picks would be either Tulsi or Bernie or, better yet, both. E Warren would be a distant consolation prize. 

 

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

The thing that Dems don't seem to realize is that Trump wouldn't have much ammo against Gabbard.

Wrong.

But seriously, let's try to imagine...

Moana?

Fake Hindu?

Hindu Nationalist?

The Assad thing would be huge fodder for him.

"I love gays, I'm Mr Gay - Tulsi hates the gays."

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Wrong.

But seriously, let's try to imagine...

Moana?

Fake Hindu?

Hindu Nationalist?

The Assad thing would be huge fodder for him.

"I love gays, I'm Mr Gay - Tulsi hates the gays."

That's not ammo (maybe the Assad thing). What Clinton gave him was ammo

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Tulsi was anti-gay as a kid - when she was a teen and maybe into her early 20s. Give her a break - she was raised in a conservative family, and people generally don't start thinking for themselves until their late 20s (after their brain's are fully developed), if then at all. Her apology seemed heart-felt and displayed a ton of integrity. 

And of course the fact that the Dem establishment is so after her speaks well in her favor. She is anti-war, and quit the DNC because they were cheating Bernie Sanders. She's got integrity and isn't afraid to stand up. 

My personal picks would be either Tulsi or Bernie or, better yet, both. E Warren would be a distant consolation prize. 

 

Choosing Warren would be equivalent to giving Pujols an extension

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

Choosing Warren would be equivalent to giving Pujols an extension

for the love of God, don't jinx it!

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 hours ago, jessecrall said:

Worrying over what the right will do to attack Democratic candidates is pointless. Right wingers will portray every single Democratic candidate as a god-awful nightmare. It's the left's job to ignore it. Hillary ran a campaign almost entirely devoid of substance. Literally. No one in the television era has ever spoken less about policy in campaign ads than she did. The whole campaign was "Children are watching!" It didn't work. Run on progressive policy that appeals to poor voters and young voters, trust that the base will be motivated by their (legit) Trump hatred and work on expanding your own vote totals as opposed to converting Trump voters. If he gets 63 million votes again, he will lose as long as Dems make SLIGHT gains in purple states. It's not hard. We're down by one with no outs in the 9th, the bases are loaded and Trout is up. There's no need to sac bunt.

Moderate Republicans and Independents are just begging for an excuse to vote for a Democrat right now. It's nuts to put out a candidate, yet again, that these people won't stomach. 

[jessecrall]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Moderate Republicans and Independents are just begging for an excuse to vote for a Democrat right now. It's nuts to put out a candidate, yet again, that these people won't stomach. 

That's what the Very Smart Media People said in 2016. People voted for a guy who said "Grab them by the pussy," had 19 sexual misconduct allegations and ran a racist campaign devoid of any legitimate platform beyond getting Mexico to pay for a wall and increasing tariffs. Those people will vote for him again. Let Trump have 63 million votes. A lefty with integrity and a mediocre-but-not-bad campaign will get 68 and win. 

[Lhalo]

8 minutes ago, jessecrall said:

That's what the Very Smart Media People said in 2016. People voted for a guy who said "Grab them by the pussy," had 19 sexual misconduct allegations and ran a racist campaign devoid of any legitimate platform beyond getting Mexico to pay for a wall and increasing tariffs. Those people will vote for him again. Let Trump have 63 million votes. A lefty with integrity and a mediocre-but-not-bad campaign will get 68 and win. 

LOL at racist campaign.

[jessecrall]

16 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

LOL at racist campaign.

If you don't believe Donald Trump is a racist who ran a racist campaign, you may want to take a deep look at yourself. I know, I know "I'm not racist, calling someone a racist is the worst thing you can say about someone, the PC left thinks everyone's a racist, it's ILLEGAL immigration we don't like etc etc,"

[UndertheHalo]

Trump is racist AF.  His entire life is evidence of that. 

And how someone can still try and claim his campaign wasn’t racist.  Good lord.  Literally the first thing he did was call Mexicans rapists.  This guy unleashed every dog whistle in the book.  And he created some new ones as well.  

Edited January 23, 2019 by UndertheHalo

[arch stanton]

I'm sure Thomas is warming up his keyboard somewhere but I'm going to borrow his soapbox for a minute. It's pretty obvious that the group that Trump holds the lowest opinion of is middle class whites. He's been using us for 40 years and has everyone dancing on his strings. Both sides of the spectrum just can't resist dancing to whatever tune the man chooses to play. Race card. Class card. Nationalist card. He plays it and we all recite our lines like we're the robot band on the stage at Chuck-E-Cheese

[Lou]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Literally the first thing he did was call Mexicans rapists.

incorrect 

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

incorrect 

Go down the escalator?

[Adam]

It’s 2019 if you’re white you’re racist 

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, Adam said:

It’s 2019 if you’re white you’re racist 

That’s true. 

[Lou]

whites are racist 

[Adam]

Trump is against everyone but himself. He didn’t run a racist campaign per se but he certainly leveraged that element of the population. He’s a slick mother fucker.

One thing he has done is made people focus on the media. Certainly his outlandish outbursts are silly but when the press must absolutely do everything they can to ensure accuracy they go the other way with it. You literally cannot trust any story at first glance. It’s like they want him to win again.

[arch stanton]

It's like going into a lecture hall where the speaker is a clown juggling chainsaws and you can't get past the mismatched shoes and belt while his accomplice steals your wallet and you never hear a word he actually said so you're gonna fail the course