• 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

PhDeac said:
Those are the wrong questions in response to my post. Keep in mind I said potential. Also, there's something about what each is doing, but it's more about where each stands with the public.

The big thing is plenty of people have already made up their minds about Warren. Much of that has been colored by how Republicans have portrayed her. I think if she had run in 2016, she could have told her own story more instead of the Republicans telling it for her. So many people just don't like her and she has a very difficult task getting them to like her. She's starting from a deficit. She's working her way out of it with policy and that's fine because that's her brand. I think she's doing a good job telling her story and I think it will pay off with progressives. Not sure if it will work on the right.

Pete is trying to work the values angle. He understands that policy specifics are important, but voters don't like politicians for their policies. People like policies if they like the politician, especially people who aren't that political. That why Trump remains popular with some voters despite doing exactly what he said he wasn't going to do on the campaign trail.

Pete is a blank slate. People generally like him. Republicans are struggling trying to figure out how to portray him. They're sticking with the usual "he's too liberal" argument. He is selling people on himself and explaining how he (and the Democrats) share their values. That's why his policies are organized under freedom, security, and democracy. Not sure if it's going to work but it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

That’s why I was wondering. I don’t think he’s actually accomplished it and until he tries I think it’s a bit early to say that he can do what pretty much nobody since LBJ has been able to accomplish. Obama talked the talk, but never really walked the walk when it came to the kinds of broad base progressivism advocated by Warren, Gillibrand, and Sanders (I’m still skeptical of Harris - where did she go, anyway???). Whether you attribute that to Obama’s ideology or Congress is up to you. Clinton never gave a shit about progressivism, but he also didn’t run as a progressive. Carter was an abject failure at most aspects of his job. It’s a tough task and it’ll only get tougher the deeper we get into the Information Age.
 
BiffTannen said:
His other main weakness is that he’s the 37-year old mayor of the fourth largest city in an insignificant state.
Click to expand...

Every 37 year old I know Left or Right is pretty in tune with what is happening in America right now. Every 75+ year old has no idea. Mayor Pete 2020.
 
WakeandBake said:
Let’s not kid around, his main weakness isnt his age it’s that he’s a gay dude. Lots of so called moderate Americans still out there who can’t envision a couple of dudes banging it out in the Lincoln bedroom
Click to expand...

Maybe in the General, in the primary it’s that he is a white male. See the Pete can’t connect with black voter narrative the leftist are pushing.
 
PhDeac said:
Those are the wrong questions in response to my post. Keep in mind I said potential. Also, there's something about what each is doing, but it's more about where each stands with the public.

The big thing is plenty of people have already made up their minds about Warren. Much of that has been colored by how Republicans have portrayed her. I think if she had run in 2016, she could have told her own story more instead of the Republicans telling it for her. So many people just don't like her and she has a very difficult task getting them to like her. She's starting from a deficit. She's working her way out of it with policy and that's fine because that's her brand. I think she's doing a good job telling her story and I think it will pay off with progressives. Not sure if it will work on the right.

Pete is trying to work the values angle. He understands that policy specifics are important, but voters don't like politicians for their policies. People like policies if they like the politician, especially people who aren't that political. That why Trump remains popular with some voters despite doing exactly what he said he wasn't going to do on the campaign trail.

Pete is a blank slate. People generally like him. Republicans are struggling trying to figure out how to portray him. They're sticking with the usual "he's too liberal" argument. He is selling people on himself and explaining how he (and the Democrats) share their values. That's why his policies are organized under freedom, security, and democracy. Not sure if it's going to work but it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Pete pragmatism is going to be an Achilles heel to the Republicans. Hard to label him as a radical leftist when he is making so much sense to people who listen.
 
PhDeac said:
Those are the wrong questions in response to my post. Keep in mind I said potential. Also, there's something about what each is doing, but it's more about where each stands with the public.

The big thing is plenty of people have already made up their minds about Warren. Much of that has been colored by how Republicans have portrayed her. I think if she had run in 2016, she could have told her own story more instead of the Republicans telling it for her. So many people just don't like her and she has a very difficult task getting them to like her. She's starting from a deficit. She's working her way out of it with policy and that's fine because that's her brand. I think she's doing a good job telling her story and I think it will pay off with progressives. Not sure if it will work on the right.

Pete is trying to work the values angle. He understands that policy specifics are important, but voters don't like politicians for their policies. People like policies if they like the politician, especially people who aren't that political. That why Trump remains popular with some voters despite doing exactly what he said he wasn't going to do on the campaign trail.

Pete is a blank slate. People generally like him. Republicans are struggling trying to figure out how to portray him. They're sticking with the usual "he's too liberal" argument. He is selling people on himself and explaining how he (and the Democrats) share their values. That's why his policies are organized under freedom, security, and democracy. Not sure if it's going to work but it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...


Seems a fair analysis.
 
Bye bye Beto, you have smaller fish to fry.

 
never forget:

19_96531e4ce932fc0d9a13a81256ee8238.jpg
 
I hate to type it but in this racist and sexist country the only way to defeat Trump this round is for the Dems to run an all white male ticket. Its a step back for sure but another 4 years of Trump is worse. It should be Biden Buttigieg but the votes needed to win are also probably homophobic so its likely Biden Beto.
 
Last edited:
Beto for President never made sense to me. He never seemed to have any serious national support outside of people thinking his Senae campaign was pretty cool. Biden takes pretty much all the voters Beto could reasonably hope to get and a Beto pivot to true progressivism never seemed in the cards (and would have appeared pretty disingenuous).

Still think he would do well if he tried for Cornyn’s seat, but he also is still a decent VP pick for the right ticket, IMO. His biggest problem is that Buttigieg is a better VP pick for most of the same tickets (Harris, Warren, maybe Bernie) and nationally Buttigieg has been doing much better.
 
Beto could set himself up well by performing well in the debates even if he eventually goes back to take on Cornyn.

It's a strong field. All the candidates have different strengths, just some are stronger than others.

I understand why people are hesitant about Pete. But he's very good at this and he is the direct opposite of Trump. Stop thinking about him as the mayor of South Bend and think about the guy on stage impressing in these town halls. Think of nominating him as more like starting a promising rookie PG over a veteran.

Here are two pieces from the right that show how Pete is impressing all sides:

[h=1]Pete Buttigieg creates another media moment[/h]By Jennifer Rubin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/20/buttigieg-creates-another-media-moment/

Buttigieg, in appearing on Fox News Sunday night, helped his cause tremendously. Projecting the same calm, incisiveness and wit that have impressed other audiences, he won enthusiastic applause and a standing ovation. He created some viral moments that will echo around the mainstream media for days:


Opinions
[h=1]Pete Buttigieg creates another media moment[/h]

By Jennifer Rubin

Opinion writer

May 20 at 9:45 AM


Pundits arguing that South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg simply cannot be president because his only civilian public service has been at the local level, or that he is heavy on values and persona but lighter on policy, seem not to have learned anything from 2016. President Trump won the Republican primary by stringing together media moments, dominating the airwaves and intensifying his audience’s emotions (anger, resentment, etc.). Buttigieg is testing the proposition that Democrats desperate to take back the White House may admire Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s policy parade but what they long for is someone who can beat Trump and reflect their longing to reassert their values (respect for intellect, empathy, tolerance).
Buttigieg, in appearing on Fox News Sunday night, helped his cause tremendously. Projecting the same calm, incisiveness and wit that have impressed other audiences, he won enthusiastic applause and a standing ovation. He created some viral moments that will echo around the mainstream media for days:


Buttigieg accomplished several things.
First, he showed how to defend progressive positions and dismantle the right-wing frame for discussing them. On abortion, he had this answer to recent abortion bans:
I believe that the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her reproductive health and about her body is a national right. I believe it is an American freedom that should be enjoyed by women in every state. The next president needs to be ready to protect those rights. pic.twitter.com/NM5IJkO9GO
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) May 20, 2019​

The ability to defend Democrats’ values and views effectively, to avoid being cornered by right-wing talking points impresses — and delights — Democratic voters.
Second, going on Fox News, in contrast to Warren (D-Mass.) and others (who had perfectly acceptable moral reasons for shunning the propaganda machine,) reinforced the notion that his political instincts are superior to hers and other competitors. Instead of refusing to appear to denounce hate, Buttigieg used the airtime on Fox to denounce its hateful hosts:
Even though some of these hosts are not always there in good faith, I think a lot of people tune into this network in good faith.

Whether it’s going on Fox or going into places where Democrats haven’t been seen much, we have to find people where they are–not change our values. pic.twitter.com/xNHoD0uzE4
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) May 20, 2019​

That’s nervy.
Third, by going on Fox News and winning plaudits, he implicitly made the argument for his own electability. Hey, he can win those people over. Part of his argument is that a religious mayor from the heartland knows the secret sauce for breaking through to working- and middle-class voters in the Midwest. His appearance on Fox News will convince some Democrats that he can.


Fourth, Buttigieg recognized that, in a field of 23 Democratic candidates, holding the media’s attention for a sustained time is nearly impossible for those challenging front-runner Joe Biden. The former vice president as front-runner will get nearly daily coverage (in part, because Trump insists on attacking him). Other candidates may break through for a few days or weeks but the media then moves on. Buttigieg’s answer: Use earned media to create viral moments. These cement in the public’s mind the image of a feisty, witty, super-smart candidate with a Zen-like ability to turn Trump’s anger back against him, making the president look small and childish.
Finally, Buttigieg debunks the notion that Democratic viewers want an angry candidate. They are angry at and about Trump. They pine for someone who can slice and dice him in a way Hillary Clinton never could.
Click to expand...

[h=1]Pete Buttigieg 'the most impressive candidate,' maybe since Obama, Brit Hume says[/h]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/buttigieg-impressive-candidate-obama-hume

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is the "most impressive... candidate" in terms of political talent in the current 2020 Democratic presidential field, Brit Hume said, comparing the South Bend, Ind. mayor's rise in popularity to the "emergence of Barack Obama."


"I think Pete Buttigieg is the most impressive, by far, candidate in terms of just raw political talent in the Democratic field," Hume said Monday on "Special Report."


BUTTIGIEG TAKES ON TRUMP, PITCHES FOUR NEW TAX HIKES IN FOX NEWS TOWN HALL


"And, he may be the most impressive candidate I've seen since the emergence of Barack Obama," Hume, Fox News' senior political analyst, said.

Hume said Buttigieg is "as fluid as he can be, [and] he seems to have something to say about nearly every issue."
Click to expand...

Now I know Brit Hume isn't going to vote for Pete, but someone not as much of an ideologue might. It's important that the right respects or fears the Dem nominee.
 
Last edited:
[trump tweets dumb childish Pete insult]

pete: who cares? i guess it's funny for old people or something
 
PhDeac said:
Who do you want to run who isn’t running?
Click to expand...

Barack Obama. But I get Sig's point. We have 3 household names running - Biden, Bernie and Warren in that order - and 1 isn't even a Dem, and all 3 are old as the hills. Everyone else is not well known nationally. That said, the field is WAY better than the 2016 field.
 
cville deac said:
Barack Obama. But I get Sig's point. We have 3 household names running - Biden, Bernie and Warren in that order - and 1 isn't even a Dem, and all 3 are old as the hills. Everyone else is not well known nationally. That said, the field is WAY better than the 2016 field.
Click to expand...

Well that's why they're running.
 
And people were able to get his name right in a week or two unlike Buttjudge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top