• 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

So it’s about ideology, not personality. Which is exactly my point. What people like about him is what could most easily be duplicated.

And his presence alone, in a period of four years, has already moved the mainstream left farther to the left than any previous ideology. Furthermore, this one (vs. neoliberalism or populist liberalism) is actually popular among young people. It’ll take awhile for the boomers who control the party to give the reigns to younger Dems, but your beef should be with folks like Pelosi, Feinstein, Biden, Clinton, etc. who refuse to fade away before it should be with Bernie Sanders.
 
Some people just want to vote for the popular kids. Some people grow up and learn to discern policy ideas from ambiguous rhetoric that sounds inspiring.

Some people want to deal with reality. We don't want to put forth a candidate who has large problems that could lead to Trump winning again and screwing up the next thirty years or more. It's more rational to get 60% of what you want and be able to build on it than to get someone who will get you 0% of what you want and make it impossible to keep what you have.
 
So it’s about ideology, not personality. Which is exactly my point. What people like about him is what could most easily be duplicated.

you can't possibly believe that his status as the most popular politician in the US (in 2017) is due to his ideology alone, that it is in spite of his personality
 
Some people just want to vote for the popular kids. Some people grow up and learn to discern policy ideas from ambiguous rhetoric that sounds inspiring.
A lot of Bernie/Socialist opponents say that Bernie's/DSAs platform is more rhetoric than policy. A major reason for American political apathy is that the people in charge of determining what's "possible" are heavily invested in the status quo. That's partly the reason that Beto is getting so much shit from the left about fossil fuel money donors. A major step in turning progressive rhetoric into actual policy is by removing a lot of corporate and lobbyist influence from the Democratic party.
 
Last edited:
Some people want to deal with reality. We don't want to put forth a candidate who has large problems that could lead to Trump winning again and screwing up the next thirty years or more. It's more rational to get 60% of what you want and be able to build on it than to get someone who will get you 0% of what you want and make it impossible to keep what you have.

Some people deal with the reality that Bernie is the most popular politician. Some deal with the "reality" that a candidate doesn't meet their cherry picked criteria for winning.
 
As I've said over and over again, the DEMS should NOT nonimate anyone over 60 for POTUS in 2020
 
Ph seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth

on one hand, Bernie is extremely popular -- by some metrics the most popular in the country -- because of his ideology

on the other hand, Bernie didn't win the primary because the progressive faction hasn't done enough to win over moderates

doesn't add up
 
Why? Is there a statistically verifiable connection between candidate age and voter turnout?

Since about 1900, no Dem who wasn't on a ticket previously and was over 60 has won. It could be changed, but it's been that way for about 100 years.

No POTUS has even been elected 79+ for either party. I don't even think anyone has left office as old as Bernie would be entering.
 
Since about 1900, no Dem who wasn't on a ticket previously and was over 60 has won. It could be changed, but it's been that way for about 100 years.

No POTUS has even been elected 79+ for either party. I don't even think anyone has left office as old as Bernie would be entering.

I gotta think thats a pretty small sample size of failed candidates. Also, I understand the historic precedent, I just want to know what the purpose is of a hypothetical hard and fast age limit for candidates. If the best candidate is over 60, it doesn't make sense to exclude them.
 
So it’s about ideology, not personality. Which is exactly my point. What people like about him is what could most easily be duplicated.

There are plenty of people posting on this thread with his ideology that aren’t likable
 
Yet the Democratic establishment has no interest in duplicating his ideology because its in conflict with the donor class that controls it. When so many forces, inside and outside of the party, are working to suppress the progressive ideology, it kind of makes it hard to duplicate candidates with the ease you suggest.

So Bernie, an unknown senator from Vermont, ran for President and was huge for progressive politics.

A 28 year old unknown woman from the Bronx defeated the #4 Dem in the House and she’s in the news everyday.

Seems like the trick is to just run for office.
 
I gotta think thats a pretty small sample size of failed candidates. Also, I understand the historic precedent, I just want to know what the purpose is of a hypothetical hard and fast age limit for candidates. If the best candidate is over 60, it doesn't make sense to exclude them.

Whereas I absolutely agree that 60 today is greatly different than even in 1950, for some reason this has held to be true. It's not hypothetical if if has proven to be true.

I think it could soon be broken due to longer lives. But it will be a very long time before most of the country will believe someone a few months short of 80 should start a job as POTUS.

I'd give Brown a shot with a much younger VP.
 
Ph seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth

on one hand, Bernie is extremely popular -- by some metrics the most popular in the country -- because of his ideology

on the other hand, Bernie didn't win the primary because the progressive faction hasn't done enough to win over moderates

doesn't add up
A progressive with more personality would win over more moderates. It’s simple math.
 
Once again you myopic and IMMEDIATELY combative. You are incapable of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

As "imagination", time after time the MDMH attacks anyone who doesn't agree with her 100%. It's she who lacks "imagination". If you truly believe in your positions and someone agrees with most of them, you should be able to use your "imagination" to build on the agreements to having more alliances and getting more of your goals achieved.

MY BAD, that's not "imagination" or being creative or even being logical. If MDMH stopped playing gotcha and being condescending, we'd be able to have good conversations.
 
Well they are 99% your words just used out out of context sometimes but still quotes without quote marks.
 
Back
Top