• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Strickland33 said:
The former is what it is; the latter is a problem. I find most people who stan for mainstream national politicians to be insufferable. I'm not sure what's so bad about Bernie supporters that isn't equally annoying among other popular candidates' rabid, vocal supporters.

I don't know what y'all see on the ground, but Our Revolution did a lot of great work and a lot of Bernie supporters participated in some key grassroots victories that we cite on here often. Every base has its annoying constituency, but extrapolating from that is where it gets reductive (at best).
Click to expand...

I agree it is what it is and what I think it is is disqualifying of being President. POTUS is not an emeritus position, you have to be ready for the hardest 4-8 years of your life. Just look at the Barack Obama going into the White House in 2009 vs the Barack Obama that left it in 2017. 8 years is a long time but he aged 2 decades easily. I think that you need to be old enough to have had enough relevant experience in the field (bye bye Buttgieg, but I'll see you in the future, I'm sure), but young enough that you are not clearly on the decline.

Also I just want to make it abundantly clear that I am not a Beto supporter and will not be voting for him in the primary. Seems like a really cool dude, would love to have a beer with him, but no thanks on the Presidency my dude.
 
ChrisL68 said:
You really need to get over your Clinton derangement syndrome. Did the Clinton Machine Stop John Edwards and Joe Biden from entering the race in 2008?
Click to expand...

You really are incapable of dialogue aren't you? Too much phish...

Anyway, you can answer your own question. What happened to Edwards and Biden in 2008? Why did the enter? Why did they withdraw? The truth must be out there!
 
Strickland33 said:
You really are incapable of dialogue aren't you? Too much phish...

Anyway, you can answer your own question. What happened to Edwards and Biden in 2008? Why did the enter? Why did they withdraw? The truth must be out there!
Click to expand...

That's how presidential candidacies work. People enter the race, if they don't generate a certain amount of support and momentum by a certain amount of time, then they run out of money and drop out of the race.

This idea that the "Clinton machine" stomped out all competition in 2008, except for the fact that a really strong other candidate entered the race and won, is just hilarious. I think you should really listen to yourself. Sounds to me like the Obama machine stomped out all competition.

Yes, HRC plays to win. Same as Obama, and same as everybody who will enter in 2020.

Think about what you are saying and quit being so insufferable.
 
Last edited:
The correlation between absolute good faith in the DNC and moderate economics is...very very strong for some reason.
 
As is a the correlation between socialism and embracing outlandish conspiracy theories. I wonder why the all powerful DNC didn't nip the Obama candidacy in the bud in the early stages of 2008?

Who were these other hypothetical powerful Dems would were precluded from running in 2016?
 
ChrisL68 said:
IThink about what you are saying and quit being so insufferable.
Click to expand...

says the pot to the kettle

Your selective reading comprehension is frustrating Chris. Your critique of Sanders sounds a lot like Sanders's supporters critiques of Clinton. It's precisely because you just recycle talking points. You're not interested in looking at the cases. You're interested in your team holding political power, however defined. That's not politics, though it fits in with us having this conversation on a sports-oriented message board.

The narrative that I thought was fairly commonplace now was that the Obama machine came out of nowhere, maximized the organizational potential of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, and beat Clinton. Edwards suspended his campaign in early, early 2008. He saw the writing on the wall after a handful of primary/caucus defeats. I don't even remember Joe Biden's 2008 run, but a cursory look at Wikipedia suggests a similar narrative. In political theory/social movement studies, Obama was an insurgent and an insurgent who nobody really anticipated would beat a field of seasoned Democrats. The Obama machine didn't stomp out all competition. It beat its competition through base building, savvy campaign strategies, and good old fashioned politics.

There is a difference between playing to win and colluding with a gatekeeper to minimize competition. We see it right now with how the RNC is handling Trump and we saw it in 2016 with how the DNC handled Clinton. Sanders didn't give a shit; as many of you point out ad nauseum, he wasn't even a Democrat until very recently. So, he bucked the DNC's advice and just ran with it. It turns out that more people care about economic inequality than the DNC realized.

The Democrat's 2020 field is what a primary/caucus field should look like in a two-party representative democracy. Focusing on whatabouting Sanders supporters like it's 2016 is stupid. Learning from the mistakes of 2016 towards defeating Donald Trump seems a bit more important.
 
You know Donna Brazille wrote a whole-ass book about it, right? This isnt some Q-Anon bullshit you can just dismiss, it's just a broke party needing money from the Hillary campaign. Not outlandish or a conspiracy, the Democratic Party literally had a vested interest in Hillary Clinton.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
You know Donna Brazille wrote a whole-ass book about it, right? This isnt some Q-Anon bullshit you can just dismiss, it's just a broke party needing money from the Hillary campaign. Not outlandish or a conspiracy, the Democratic Party literally had a vested interest in Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Yes, Donna Brazile, the one person who actually did something unethical, albeit immaterial, to help HRC in the 2016 campaign tried to reinvent herself as some above the board reformist, and then slinked back in the corner when she was called on her bullshit.
 
Cool cool cool
024eedd8d6d0436f9b268e961becadf5.jpg
 
Have you been following politics very long Strickland? The 2020 field on the Democratic side is WIDE OPEN. The frontrunners are about as soft as I can ever remember. Plus they are going against an incumbent.

You do understand that different campaigns have different dynamics don't you?

Some primaries have loads of strong candidates, others don't.

Often primaries that happen right after the incumbent party has a two term president won't have many entries. The 2000 Dem primary had two legitimate candidates.

It would have helped HRC to have more challengers in 2016, but nobody wanted to throw their hat in the ring. But that idea that a legitimate threat to win let HRC strongarm him or her out of running is just hilarious. There is no "gate" as Obama clearly showed.

I am glad that the Dems have a deeper bench now, but the 08 and 16 primaries were mostly due to dynamics, and not some Cllinton conspiracy like you imagine.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
Have you been following politics very long Strickland? The 2020 field on the Democratic side is WIDE OPEN. The frontrunners are about as soft as I can ever remember. Plus they are going against an incumbent.

You do understand that different campaigns have different dynamics don't you?

Some primaries have loads of strong candidates, others don't.

Often primaries that happen right after the incumbent party has a two term president won't have many entries. The 2000 Dem primary had two legitimate candidates.

It would have helped HRC to have more challengers in 2016, but nobody wanted to throw their hat in the ring.

I am glad that the Dems have a deeper bench now, but the 08 and 16 primaries were mostly due to dynamics, and not some Cllinton conspiracy like you imagine.
Click to expand...

Why didn't anybody want to throw their hat in the ring? It's not like there weren't candidates. As we see in almost every other election, there are plenty of legit and insane people who run almost every year. What was different about 2008? Where was the bench?

Can you elaborate what you mean by "dynamics?" I'm open to your explanation, but without specification or data, it's hard to make sense of your point one way or the other.

Bickering aside, I think the candidate who has made up the most ground as far as I am concerned is Elizabeth Warren. I'm still skeptical about her because of the many reasons that I have listed on here, but her policy vision is just unparalleled in this field.
 
Strickland33 said:
Why didn't anybody want to throw their hat in the ring? It's not like there weren't candidates. As we see in almost every other election, there are plenty of legit and insane people who run almost every year. What was different about 2008? Where was the bench?

Can you elaborate what you mean by "dynamics?" I'm open to your explanation, but without specification or data, it's hard to make sense of your point one way or the other.

Bickering aside, I think the candidate who has made up the most ground as far as I am concerned is Elizabeth Warren. I'm still skeptical about her because of the many reasons that I have listed on here, but her policy vision is just unparalleled in this field.
Click to expand...

In 2008

6 US Senators, a Governor, and a house member ran. Many who had won multiple elections. I don't really know what you expect. Looked like a run of the mill campaign to me.

What hypothetical candidates do you think should have run that didn.
 
ChrisL68 said:
In 2008

6 US Senators, a Governor, and a house member ran. Many who had won multiple elections. I don't really know what you expect. Looked like a run of the mill campaign to me.

What hypothetical candidates do you think should have run that didn.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring my question. What do you mean by "dynamics?"
 
Regarding dynamics.

Is the party defending the presidency or not? Usually a party running for a 3rd term will have a smaller pool of establishment candidates.

How deep is the bench? Are there dynamic lesser candidates like an Obama or Bill Clinton who can come out of nowhere? Do they have the audacity to run?

Anybody who let some subtle pressure by the Clintons discourage them from running really wasn't much of a threat anyway.

in 2016, the natural front runner should have been Joe Biden. He was the sitting VP.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Regarding dynamics.

Is the party defending the presidency or not? Usually a party running for a 3rd term will have a smaller pool of establishment candidates.

How deep is the bench? Are there dynamic lesser candidates like an Obama or Bill Clinton who can come out of nowhere? Do they have the audacity to run?

Anybody who let some subtle pressure by the Clintons discourage them from running really wasn't much of a threat anyway.

in 2016, the natural front runner should have been Joe Biden. He was the sitting VP.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for these.

The bold is a statement that I'm not comfortable with having read campaign post-mortems from the Obama and Sanders campaigns (which is too much smoke, for me at least, to write off such dynamics as conspiracy), but I think we can agree on the rest.
 
Well, it obviously didn't stop either from competing so it much not have been that bad.

Can I believe that the party machine has some legitimacy hurdles? Sure.

Obama actually received less votes than Clinton in the 2008 primary and won. The entire primary process is set up to favor a grassroots populist if they can build a coalition.
 
Let's talk policy.

My thoughts on some of Beto's positions that are highlighted in the 538 article I posted.

abolition of for profit/private prisons - I strongly support

ban on assault weapons- This is my most left position. I wouldn't be sad about a ban on all guns.

elimination of bail sentences - I need to be more educated. Certainly a more fair way to get people to show up for their court date is needed.

border wall- I'm very pro immigration

impeachment of Trump - waste of time. Like has been stated here. It could do more harm than good.

allow people to enroll in single payer- I support single payer. I'm not sure what he means by "allowing" people to enroll. I need to educate myself on that.

$15 minimum wage- support

Marijuana - absolutely

opposing death penalty - I support. I'm not so much against it morally, but I don't trust the process to decide who actually deserves it.
 
Allowing people to enroll in single payer would be allowing people to buy into Medicare I would imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top