2020 Democratic Nominee

[Js1 85095]

4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

You're not nearly the first person to bring this up, but I think "Obama baggage" is a weird conservative/far left narrative that really doesn't exist.

Obama left office with a 60% approval rating, nearly 90% with Democrats.  The dude had his faults, and a number of people REALLY hated him, but the idea that a candidate needs to distance themselves from him to win a general election isn't really supported by any data.

This.  What a dumb thing to declare as "baggage."

In fact, whomever Obama comes out for (Biden, Harris, Beto?) probably is the immediate frontrunner.  Democrats love Obama. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

30 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

You're not nearly the first person to bring this up, but I think "Obama baggage" is a weird conservative/far left narrative that really doesn't exist.

Obama left office with a 60% approval rating, nearly 90% with Democrats.  The dude had his faults, and a number of people REALLY hated him, but the idea that a candidate needs to distance themselves from him to win a general election isn't really supported by any data.

 

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This.  What a dumb thing to declare as "baggage."

In fact, whomever Obama comes out for (Biden, Harris, Beto?) probably is the immediate frontrunner.  Democrats love Obama. 

That's why I said "perceived" Obama baggage.  

How this works:  GOP candidate will assign all the perceived Obama criticisms to Biden.  Biden/Obama gave Iran 400 Billion dollars and responsible for that awful Iran deal.  Obama/Biden was bringing in dangerous Syrian refugees.  Biden was responsible for failed Obamacare.  All the people that felt left behind by "globalist" Obama/Biden will be easy pickings again for the GOP.

It isn't a huge deal but it is something that distinguishes Biden from a Beto or Warren.  

Biden is about as old school big money establishment Democrat as they come and it's one reason people were so turned off by Hillary. 

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That's why I said "perceived" Obama baggage.  

How this works:  GOP candidate will assign all the perceived Obama criticisms to Biden.  Biden/Obama gave Iran 400 Billion dollars and responsible for that awful Iran deal.  Obama/Biden was bringing in dangerous Syrian refugees.  Biden was responsible for failed Obamacare.  All the people that felt left behind by "globalist" Obama/Biden will be easy pickings again for the GOP.

It isn't a huge deal but it is something that distinguishes Biden from a Beto or Warren.  

Biden is about as old school big money establishment Democrat as they come and it's one reason people were so turned off by Hillary. 

Anyone who uses the term "globalist" was never going to vote Democrat anyway.  

Sometimes those of us who follow politics get too into the details and forget how fucking clueless the average American is.  I'd be shocked if more than 5% of voters even know what the Iran deal was.  The idea that Trump is going to pick up a percentage of voters because of the Iran deal (etc.) is lunacy.  And being associated with Obamacare isn't the negative that it used to be, despite Trump's best efforts.

Bottom line: Democrats need to remember the "who would I rather have a beer with" test.  It's basically dictated the winner of every Presidential election in modern history, even if 2016 presented us with two "I'd rather not drink with either" options.  This might not give them the absolute best candidate, but it will give them the most electable.

[BradInATX 9208]

28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That's why I said "perceived" Obama baggage.  

How this works:  GOP candidate will assign all the perceived Obama criticisms to Biden.  Biden/Obama gave Iran 400 Billion dollars and responsible for that awful Iran deal.  Obama/Biden was bringing in dangerous Syrian refugees.  Biden was responsible for failed Obamacare.  All the people that felt left behind by "globalist" Obama/Biden will be easy pickings again for the GOP.

It isn't a huge deal but it is something that distinguishes Biden from a Beto or Warren.  

Biden is about as old school big money establishment Democrat as they come and it's one reason people were so turned off by Hillary. 

I'm sure there were a few people turned off by Hillary being "establishment" and her perceived corruption (fair or not). I was one of those, but still voted for her.

 

But you're either massively overcomplicating and overestimating the depth of analysis of the American voter it, or being disingenuous. People were turned off by Hillary because she's unlikable and a charisma vacuum. Biden is neither of those. He will rout Trump. He's a slam dunk.

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Dems need to get what exactly together?

 

The election is in 23 months and primaries start about 13 months from now.

 

Multiple candidate are in the process of deciding whether or not to run or forming exploratory committees.

 

Is the party to be expected to already have an anointed candidate?

 

Isn’t that what fucked them the last time with Hillary?

 

I want a good selection of diverse candidates and a primary process that enables the selection of the best candidate to beat Trump.

 

The only fly in the ointment is Bernie and his bros and outside interference aimed at fracturing the voters; resulting in a damaged candidate before they general election even begins.

 

The unrealistic expectation of the Democrats having some mythical perfect savior rise from nowhere and ride to our rescue on a unicorn is driving the narrative as Democrats are the gang who can’t shoot straight.

 

Take a breath and let more than one candidate declare and get to the primaries before everyone defaults to catastrophe syndrome.

 

My concern, and I'm sure some share this, is that the candidates that are viable and are the surest bets to beat Trump (Biden, Beto, Klobuchar) are going to split votes and a risky candidate like Bernie or Warren will slip by, much like what happened in the GOP primaries in 2016. I think Biden and Beto have a lot of overlap with moderate Dems, independents, etc. Basically the Obama coalition. They're also the two surest bets to beat Trump. I'm hoping that the deck clears a bit after the first couple of rounds of primaries, and the more moderate side of the Dem party coalesces around someone. Otherwise you're risking putting Bernie or someone silly through, and giving Trump four more years. 

It should be an easy win but we're talking about Democrats here.

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, BradInATX said:

I'm sure there were a few people turned off by Hillary being "establishment" and her perceived corruption (fair or not). I was one of those, but still voted for her.

But you're either massively overly complicating it, or being disingenuous. People were turned off by Hillary because she's unlikable and a charisma vacuum. Biden is neither of those. 

I don’t disagree but we need to be honest about all the candidates vulnerabilities and not look at anyone as a magic bullet.

I think Biden is a strong candidate against any GOP candidate in 2020.  Is he the strongest? I don’t know. 

I think many people want to move in a new direction away from the past, regardless of party. It was a big selling point for Trump.  

Biden doesn’t strike me as a trailblazer leading the way with new and inspiring ideas.  That could change but after Trump, people really want to be inspired.  

[BradInATX 9208]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t disagree but we need to be honest about all the candidates vulnerabilities and not look at anyone as a magic bullet.

I think Biden is a strong candidate against any GOP candidate in 2020.  Is he the strongest? I don’t know. 

I think many people want to move in a new direction away from the past, regardless of party. It was a big selling point for Trump.  

Biden doesn’t strike me as a trailblazer leading the way with new and inspiring ideas.  That could change but after Trump, people really want to be inspired.  

I'm sort of on the opposite side, in terms of "inspiring people". Trump alone is going to energize the Democrats to get out and vote against him. Dems will not lose a state they won in 2016, obviously. So the Rust Belt is all that matters. I spend a lot of time up there for work - my three biggest clients are in Cincy, Minneapolis, and Philly. I have a pretty good grasp on their mindset and outlook. To win the Rust Belt, you need to put someone inoffensive and non-threatening up. Biden, Beto, Klobuchar for me. Maybe Booker, but I don't have a read on how his coziness with pharma will play in key states, which puts him in the "risky" bucket for me for now.

Just put someone up there that can't easily be labeled (IE Pocahontas, Socialist Bernie), and get home with the W. Some charisma is good, but it needs to be the right type. "Down-home" charisma like the three candidates I mentioned have, not aggressive charisma (Kamala Harris, who I like a lot). 

The obvious answer is Beto, though. He fits both the inoffensive/safe bet criteria for me, and the inspiring criteria for you. He'd run away with the Election.

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13132]

Temporarily-Not-Republicans for Biden is my favorite fanboy group of the 2020 campaign so far. Calf-Cramped Housewives for Beto is second right now. I wonder what else will come up.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

13 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The obvious answer is Beto, though. He fits both the inoffensive/safe bet criteria for me, and the inspiring criteria for you. He'd run away with the Election.

I agree on Beto currently having the best chance to win against any GOP candidate in 2020. (But that could change).

However, I think you’re underestimating how well a Bernie or Warren would perform in the rust belt.   Trump has fucked these people over while using much of the same populist rhetoric Bernie and Warren have been messaging their entire political careers.

[NBMisha 224]

Right behind racist nazi is mysoginist nazi, and Warren will have that completely overlapping trible insane with vengeance, just for being her being there.  Is right "reaction" any logic to use?

I'm thinking perhaps not.  The right went nuts when WJC was elected.  They went nuts over what Hillary said and did.  They went apeshit when Obama was elected.  They lost their shit when Hillary was nominated.  The right will bust their ulcer over any D nominee.  

The issue is how the Dems will learn to counter the hysterical reactive rage of the right.

Edited January 7, 2019 by NBMisha
typo

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t disagree but we need to be honest about all the candidates vulnerabilities and not look at anyone as a magic bullet.

I think Biden is a strong candidate against any GOP candidate in 2020.  Is he the strongest? I don’t know. 

I think many people want to move in a new direction away from the past, regardless of party. It was a big selling point for Trump.  

Biden doesn’t strike me as a trailblazer leading the way with new and inspiring ideas.  That could change but after Trump, people really want to be inspired.  

Of course he's not. Were it true, he'd have established that reputation decades ago, not at the end of his career.  He's a vanilla democrat that would appeal to independents because he's not too far left or right. He has no new ideas that will illuminate his fading career.

[Js1 85095]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That's why I said "perceived" Obama baggage.  

How this works:  GOP candidate will assign all the perceived Obama criticisms to Biden.  Biden/Obama gave Iran 400 Billion dollars and responsible for that awful Iran deal.  Obama/Biden was bringing in dangerous Syrian refugees.  Biden was responsible for failed Obamacare.  All the people that felt left behind by "globalist" Obama/Biden will be easy pickings again for the GOP.

It isn't a huge deal but it is something that distinguishes Biden from a Beto or Warren.  

Biden is about as old school big money establishment Democrat as they come and it's one reason people were so turned off by Hillary. 

I AM TIRED OF NOMINATING "SAFE" CANDIDATES BECAUSE THE GOP WILL ASSIGN X, Y, Z CRITICISM TO THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.

Any single Democrat is going to be labeled socialist globalist open borders abortion loving atheist Satanist who hates Christmas and wants to execute white male heterosexual Christians while making their wives wear pants, their sons wear dresses and force everyone to speak Spanish.

SO I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT THE GOP WILL SAY ABOUT BETO/BIDEN/WARREN/HARRIS/JESUS CHRIST.  The Democrats need to nominate THEIR candidate.

News flash, my dude:  Every Democrat is going to get all of those "bad things" put on them, true or not.  Stop trying to play ball with the rules the GOP made up. 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Js1

[happyfunball 481]

^This

Clinton, Obama, and Clinton x2 all fell for this by Republicans. Republicans are anchoring so far right that anyone who is moderate or even labelled D will be called socialist. Democrats need to elect their best candidate and stop trying to court these phantom Republicans who will vote D if moderate enough. 

[Js1 85095]

Gonna pull out of a Hugo quote from the AOC thread, as it applies here and he needs to be consistent:

Quote

Yep, they need to go on offense more attacking the GOP shitty ideas instead of being on constant defense because the GOP does nothing but attack.  It's way past time the Republicans got painted into a corner. 

We know the game plan for Republicans.  So stop being a Greg Davis and "taking what the defense is going to give us."

Go the fuck out there, on the attack, and fuck the GOP. 

If you say "oh can't nominate Biden, because he'll be painted with the Obama criticism," you're saying the Democrats need to adjust their game plan based on what the GOP is doing to do.

The GOP doesn't care what the Dems do:  The GOP will tell you to your face they're going to punch you in the face and then fuck your wife if you do XYZ.  So the Dems cry that "we have to do something different or they'll hit me and fuck my wife" and do ABC .....  and then the GOP will still hit you and fuck your wife regardless of what you do.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Js1

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

I do think “deflectability” is a skill that will play a role in the eventual nomination. Republicans will scream bloody murder at any candidate, that is true, but criticisms “stick” to different candidates differently.

While neither are even close to disqualifying, Beto’s arrests somehow “stick” to him far less than Warren’s Native American claims, despite probably being far more relevant to the issue of character. That was one of Hillary’s main problems... for whatever reason, a lot of the Right’s criticisms “stuck.”

So far, Biden and Beto do appear to be the most immune to Republican attacks, and I think it’s wise to pay attention to that.

[Js1 85095]

There's probably a reason:

A) Beto has only been getting hit for about a year.  Hillary was attacked for 20+ years - it was ingrained.  Warren has also been in the Senate for 6 years.

B) Biden is LIKEABLE AF. 

[BradInATX 9208]

I do think “deflectability” is a skill that will play a role in the eventual nomination. Republicans will scream bloody murder at any candidate, that is true, but criticisms “stick” to different candidates differently.

 

While neither are even close to disqualifying, Beto’s arrests somehow “stick” to him far less than Warren’s Native American claims, despite probably being far more relevant to the issue of character. That was one of Hillary’s main problems... for whatever reason, a lot of the Right’s criticisms “stuck.”

 

So far, Biden and Beto do appear to be the most immune to Republican attacks, and I think it’s wise to pay attention to that.

This.

A DWI is going to be a lot less sticky, especially in the places that matter (PA, MI, WI, OH), than Liz Warren "renouncing her white heritage to claim to be a minority". Which of course, is ridiculous caricature of what she did, but it's the angle the Republicans are going with. If you read between the lines of their attacks, they're saying "she's ashamed to be white!" which, combined with the fact that she's a coastal, Harvard liberal, is going to absolutely destroy her in the Rust Belt. Because let's be real, a lot of those votes that we need in the Rust Belt in order to get Trump out, are of the "I'm not a racist, I voted for Obama and have black friends!" crowd.

 

Sure, the GOP is going to call everyone a socialist SJW, but it's not going to stick to everyone the same. Otherwise, you'd expect Hillary to have won easily, because Obama did, and they threw the same attacks at him.

 

The candidate does matter.

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

32 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I AM TIRED OF NOMINATING "SAFE" CANDIDATES BECAUSE THE GOP WILL ASSIGN X, Y, Z CRITICISM TO THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.

Any single Democrat is going to be labeled socialist globalist open borders abortion loving atheist Satanist who hates Christmas and wants to execute white male heterosexual Christians while making their wives wear pants, their sons wear dresses and force everyone to speak Spanish.

SO I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT THE GOP WILL SAY ABOUT BETO/BIDEN/WARREN/HARRIS/JESUS CHRIST.  The Democrats need to nominate THEIR candidate.

News flash, my dude:  Every Democrat is going to get all of those "bad things" put on them, true or not.  Stop trying to play ball with the rules the GOP made up. 

I know and agree.  It doesn’t change the reality that some candidates are more open to criticisms than others.  That SHOULD in no way influence who the democrats determine to be their nominee.  

They SHOULD nominate the candidate they feel will make the best president. 

However, you can’t deny there is a strong mentality that they should nominate the candidate most likely to beat the GOP candidate.

In this paradigm, the dynamics of the general election and the strategy of the opposition have to be taken into account.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

19 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

While neither are even close to disqualifying, Beto’s arrests somehow “stick” to him far less than Warren’s Native American claims, despite probably being far more relevant to the issue of character. That was one of Hillary’s main problems... for whatever reason, a lot of the Right’s criticisms “stuck.”

The right can make anything stick with their propaganda machines.

See also tan suit, 57 states, birth certificate, if you like your doctor. 

It’s not so much about the punches the GOP throws but more how the democrats counterpunch/respond.  They need to get better at humiliating the GOP in public and making shit stick to them. 

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

The right can make anything stick with their propaganda machines.

See also tan suit, 57 states, birth certificate, if you like your doctor. 

It’s not so much about the punches the GOP throws but more how the democrats counterpunch/respond.  They need to get better at humiliating the GOP in public and making shit stick to them. 

I actually think that proves my point a bit. The GOP threw all sorts of bullshit at Obama, stuff that dominated Fox News for months, and he still left office with an incredibly high approval rate, at least for modern times. Hillary’s campaign was derailed by fucking emails and Warren is fighting for her life because of a DNA test.

 

It’s not fair and it doesn’t reflect on their ability to govern, but some people can just withstand the bullshit in the court of public opinion better than others. These are the people the Dems need to focus on if they want to win.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

I like Beto. I would happily vote for Beto. 

But, 

1. He needs to embrace the progressive agendas

2. If he tries to pull a "I don't care if you're R or D", "I'm trying to bring everyone together" shtick like he did for the Texas Senate race, then he should sit out. It won't work.  Go after Trump, and don't spend a second of energy trying to flip his supporters.  Focus on the issues and create excitement on the left. 

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 104560]

I’m just over and down with Boomer Candidates. F the Boomers, time for the next generations.

[bad_teammate 13132]

27 minutes ago, Js1 said:

B) Biden is LIKEABLE AF. 

Not really. He was fun as Obama's uncle sidekick, but remember that he finished 5th at the Iowa caucus in 2008, getting a whopping 1% of the vote after saying dumb, racist things all the time and thinking that being in the Senate forever is a good qualification instead of a sign of failure.

Biden sucks.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I’m just over and down with Boomer Candidates. F the Boomers, time for the next generations.

It's this simple for me. I am goddamn tired of the olds running shit. New blood, please. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Warren is fighting for her life because of a DNA test.

What is the evidence of this other than talking head conjecture.  

The Pocahontas thing was never going away so she took the fight to them. 

It might look like a miscalculation at the moment but is it really going to hurt her in the long run?  

It seems like she laid all her cards out on the table early so there can’t be any legitimate criticism that she is hiding something. 

It neutralizes a cornerstone GOP strategy of painting Democrat as someone that can’t be trusted.

This was how they went after Hillary:  

Why won’t she release her Wall Street speech transcripts?

What was she hiding in those missing 33k emails?

Was there evidence of murders on her private server? 

Warren wasn’t trying to pander to democrats with the DNA test.  She was preemptively neutralizing her opposition.  

I know the Republicans will still push the Pocahontas shit but now it’s just a big superficial joke instead of a legitimate unanswered criticism.

The democrats in the media jumped all over her for stealing the narrative for a day with the test but they will get over it.  There’s plenty of time.

[yaqdum 182]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I’m just over and down with Boomer Candidates. F the Boomers, time for the next generations.

i'm a boomer and i totally agree.  we had our chance and pissed all over our feet.

next.

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

It might look like a miscalculation at the moment but is it really going to hurt her in the long run?  

 

I saw her as a viable candidate for the Dem nomination until she did that. It was a disqualifying misstep for me. It was such a ridiculous lapse in judgement that it calls into doubt her ability to both govern, and survive a war with Trump. She didn't just take the hook, she swallowed it whole. Really poor decision on her part. A campaign with Trump will be rife with traps like that, since he's a grenade thrower, and she's shown no ability to deftly maneuver them. 

I'm sure there are others like me. So yeah, I'd think it will hurt her to some degree.

FWIW I'd obviously vote for her over Trump, still.

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

There will be a series of primaries and the strongest candidate/organization will come out on top. Everybody chill the fuck out.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, BradInATX said:

I saw her as a viable candidate until she did that. It was a disqualifying misstep for me. It was such a ridiculous lapse in judgement that it calls into doubt her ability to both govern, and survive a war with Trump. She didn't just take the hook, she swallowed it whole. Really poor decision on her part.

I'm sure there are others like me.

LMAO 

If you were to poll Republicans six months ago:

”Should Elizabeth Warren release her DNA test results concerning her Native American heritage?”

it would have been 90%+ YES.

It would be that way today if she didn’t. 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There will be a series of primaries and the strongest candidate/organization will come out on top. Everybody chill the fuck out.

This is true, but it will be a bloodbath. Strongest candidate needs to be someone that can bring the vast majority of the left together.  

 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

LMAO 

If you were to poll Republicans six months ago:

”Should Elizabeth Warren release her DNA test results concerning her Native American heritage?”

it would have been 90%+ YES.

It would be that way today if she didn’t. 

Not sure what your point is. You're saying she made the correct move in releasing her absurd test results because 90% of Republicans wanted her to? Just trying to be clear.

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Not sure what your point is. You're saying she made the correct move in releasing her absurd test results because 90% of Republicans wanted her to? Just trying to be clear.

On a subconscious level, she was saying to the Trumpublicans that she isn’t going to ignore them.  She will listen to their concerns and criticisms and tell them the truth.  That has value because it’s a sign of respect.  Perhaps she can have some influence on those now having buyers remorse with Trump, if they listen.  She’s doesn’t consider them deplorables but victims of an ongoing malicious deception that has plagued the GOP since she left the Republican Party in the 90s.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

On a subconscious level, she was saying to the Trumpublicans that she isn’t going to ignore them.  She will listen to their concerns and criticisms and tell them the truth.  That has value because it’s a sign of respect.  Perhaps she can have some influence on those now having buyers remorse with Trump, if they listen.  She’s doesn’t consider them deplorables but victims of an ongoing malicious deception that has plagued the GOP since she left the Republican Party in the 90s.

 

Oh come on man. This is some Trump-supporter level mental gymnastics. There wasn't anything that complex about it. She thought by showing some non-zero, percentage of a percentage Native American "heritage" that she'd own Donald Trump and defeat the Pocahontas thing once and for all. She thought she was getting ahead of it. She took the test, got the results showing she was like 4/10 of one percent Native American and said, "Yeah, this will definitely shut everyone up once and for all. Let's put this issue to bed!"

Awful, awful judgement. You can't make unforced errors against Trump, and that was one of the worst unforced political errors in some time.

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[yaqdum 182]

brad in head?

[Pancho 44455]

This would help...

 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

brad in head?

Nah but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[F250 28680]

34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There will be a series of primaries and the strongest candidate/organization will come out on top. Everybody chill the fuck out.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Warren has the right-wing racism Pocahontas garbage whether she takes a DNA test or not. I very seriously doubt that part would influence anyone differently. Given that she's announced she's running, I've seen actual very little coverage about that test, just the fucking label.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

11 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Oh come on man. This is some Trump-supporter level mental gymnastics. There wasn't anything that complex about it. She thought by showing some non-zero, percentage of a percentage Native American "heritage" that she'd own Donald Trump and defeat the Pocahontas thing once and for all. She thought she was getting ahead of it. She took the test, got the results showing she was like 4/10 of one percent Native American and said, "Yeah, this will definitely shut everyone up once and for all. Let's put this issue to bed!"

Awful, awful judgement. You can't make unforced errors against Trump, and that was one of the worst unforced political errors in some time.

You were never going to vote for Warren anyway. The fact that a DNA test is a deal breaker just shows how shallow you evaluate candidates.

The big picture is Trump and Warren’s campaign messaging has a lot more in common than you think.  They both resonate with voters that know the system is rigged against them, all politicians are bought, and the billionaires own the government.  The difference is Trump is their partner in crime while Warren is the cop.

While most democrats try to appeal towards voters inside the Democratic Party, Warren is going to go after a segment of Trump voters that feel even more left behind than four years ago. 

I don’t know if it will work but it’s a different approach. 

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You were never going to vote for Warren anyway. The fact that a DNA test is a deal breaker

Stopped here. If you're not even going to try to read and answer my posts with some intellectual honesty, then I'm not going to do the same for you. 

You keep on doing you though. Peace.

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

This is true, but it will be a bloodbath. Strongest candidate needs to be someone that can bring the vast majority of the left together.  
 

Vigorous primary contests are healthy and provide valuable momentum and energy. I think there are probably too many Democrats, but as long as they get to 7-9 by next February things will be fine.

Also- ideology is irrelevant except to a small group of what Jonathan Chait called “progressive maximalists” and they will be motivated in the general regardless. Likeability, wit, attitude and the appearance of competence all trump ideology.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Vigorous primary contests are healthy and provide valuable momentum and energy.

Normally this is true. We are not living in normal times. I hope you're right. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89409]

I’m interested in Biden just to see what kind of blacklight posters he puts up this time.  That photo of him having to take down his posters was a little sad    

It would also be nice to have a President who can multitask. 

[atomheartbevo 89409]

Only problem is that instead of paintings of Trump around the White House, we would see this stuff posted everywhere   

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

Normally this is true. We are not living in normal times. I hope you're right. 
 

There is literally no example in American politics where it isn’t true. Competition always improves corporate marketing organizations, and that’s what a campaign is.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There is literally no example in American politics where it isn’t true. Competition always improves corporate marketing organizations, and that’s what a campaign is.

Did you sleep through the 2016 GOP primaries?

[F250 28680]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Did you sleep through the 2016 GOP primaries?

Yeah, this would be a good time to use a "But Trump."

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

41 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

This would help...

 

What would help, more centrist garbage sabotaging the only genuine and real enthusiasm that exists? It is absolutely amazing to watch the centrists go out of their way to attack Sanders over and over and over and over again with this non-specific BS.

Sanders and Warren are essentially the only two potential candidates of actual substance, and this is genuinely what bothers the center/center-right faction of the Democratic establishment.

They would rather let the nation burn to the ground than to lose their power within the supposed "left" leaning party.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What would help, more centrist garbage sabotaging the only genuine and real enthusiasm that exists? It is absolutely amazing to watch the centrists go out of their way to attack Sanders over and over and over and over again with this non-specific BS.

Sanders and Warren are essentially the only two potential candidates of actual substance, and this is genuinely what bothers the center/center-right faction of the Democratic establishment.

They would rather let the nation burn to the ground than to lose their power within the supposed "left" leaning party.

Legitimate question, why should someone support Bernie over Warren? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

Did you sleep through the 2016 GOP primaries?

Nope. Trump was the best campaign/candidate combination and overcame a strong field. Not sure what about the Trump phenomenon you think is at odds with my thesis.