• 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

Castro is positioning himself well as a VP candidate or for a Senate run.
 
Yeah if you hadn't ever heard of any of the candidates and were just watching the debates, Castro would be one of the favorites He has been excellent in both debates.
 
Yeah if you hadn't ever heard of any of the candidates and were just watching the debates, Castro would be one of the favorites He has been excellent in both debates.

If CNN was on top of their game, they’d have some panels of Dems who aren’t following the race in Milwaukee, Philly, Pittsburgh, and in Detroit right outside the debate.
 
I can’t keep track of all 20 candidates but roughly I put them in these camps:

Legit presidential candidates
Pretenders, but could be senators
Pretenders, but could be mayor/gov/local govt
People in it for a paycheck
Need to retire
 
are you watching? in a sea of men running to run, you picked two candidates that consistently actually have had something to say

i'm not a klobuchar fan (admitted gillistan), but your statement doesn't match what i have been watching for the last few months

In both debates and in everything I’ve read from Klobuchar, I haven’t seen much beyond “hey I’m Midwestern and won elections and people seem to like me.” She’s too centrist for my tastes and seems like she’s trying to just get by until later (which isn’t a terrible strategy, admittedly) without making any mistakes that ruin her candidacy. Nothing about Klobuchar’s candidacy has got me excited about her. I disagree with you that Klobuchar has had much to say other than typical centrist platitudes about “realism” and “practicality”. She’s a store brand candidate in a race that needs more than that.

As for Gillibrand, on paper she’s great and I do like her, but she should be doing way better for someone with her resume. I like her policies much more than Klobuchar and hopefully after tonight she gets a bump that gets her to September. But she entered the race in March and has made little to no progress since then, if maybe even going backwards. She does have something to say, but clearly the message isn’t being conveyed yet in a manner that drives support.
 
Castro and Pete really need to run. I like your Yang for Mayor pitch.

Castro in TX makes a lot of sense, I think he could put up a great fight against Cornyn. Also I would hope that Beto would try to run in the Senate primary so that I could watch Castro wipe the floor with him.

Not sure about Pete in Indiana, I think Pete has much more national appeal. making him immediately a VP seems like a better option for greatest Democrat impact that Pete could have.
 
That’s a good take on Amy and KG. KG was strong on white privilege but tripped on a lot of points. Amy doesn’t have much range outside of practical Midwest.
 
Who do you, as a conservative, believe the democrats “should” nominate?

I'm purple, so I can't speak as a red rhino.

What beats Trump? Pete with a V/P of Yang or Tulsi (in that order).

The Pete and Yang combo hit Trump hard where it hurts; it divides the religious vote and pulls Asians away from the red votes. People keep saying that a dem victory has to have "turnout." That's bullshit; dems always say that and it's fucking stupid.

Frankly, Democrats are terrible at winning elections. The party just isn't designed to do it like the reds are. Obama won because he won, essentially by default, huge swaths of the electorate; 90+% of blacks, 70+% of Latinos, 70+% of Asians. That lightning is out of the bottle, and Hispanics are now supposedly the holy grail for democrats. However, I disagree that some kind of policy shift can capture numbers like Obama did. He is/was our first black president. At the right time, you can get those numbers again with a new minority (women, Latinos, etc.). A Trump re-election is NOT the right time to run a Hispanic candidate. Reds will see near 100% rural turnout, and blues will see a giant drop off in the black vote turnout.

If it's Biden/Warren/Bernie/Kamala, Trump wins in a electoral college victory. Probably without breaking a sweat. I don't think Kamala turns out the black vote like Obama did.

Four months from now, if the field is broader than Biden/Warren/Bernie/Pete/Tulsi/Yang, then I'll be surprised. Maaaaybe Insley in there.

Out of those, I still maintain that Pete and Yang get the job done. However, I think Gabbard as VP could potentially do even better if that campaign pushes her Samoan heritage. I think minority voters turn out big for her if that goes the right way.

Moreover, the red female vote gets split, because now there's a female VP on the ticket.

The veteran vote gets split bigtime - two vets on one ticket makes that demographic swing blue hard.

Finally, there doesn't need to be a hispanic on the blue ticket, because Trump pushes hispanics away from him like the plague. The one issue catholic hispanics won't budge no matter what; but every single one of them will go blue if a Pete/Tulsi ticket spends the time trumping up Trump's hispanic hate.

In retrospect, I put a Pete/Tulsi ticket at something like 10% points ahead of Trump and absolutely demolishing him in the E college.
 
Yeah if you hadn't ever heard of any of the candidates and were just watching the debates, Castro would be one of the favorites He has been excellent in both debates.

Castro helps lose the election more than he helps win it. Trump masturbates to the thought of running against a Hispanic.
 
I'm purple, so I can't speak as a red rhino.

What beats Trump? Pete with a V/P of Yang or Tulsi (in that order).

The Pete and Yang combo hit Trump hard where it hurts; it divides the religious vote and pulls Asians away from the red votes. People keep saying that a dem victory has to have "turnout." That's bullshit; dems always say that and it's fucking stupid.

Frankly, Democrats are terrible at winning elections. The party just isn't designed to do it like the reds are. Obama won because he won, essentially by default, huge swaths of the electorate; 90+% of blacks, 70+% of Latinos, 70+% of Asians. That lightning is out of the bottle, and Hispanics are now supposedly the holy grail for democrats. However, I disagree that some kind of policy shift can capture numbers like Obama did. He is/was our first black president. At the right time, you can get those numbers again with a new minority (women, Latinos, etc.). A Trump re-election is NOT the right time to run a Hispanic candidate. Reds will see near 100% rural turnout, and blues will see a giant drop off in the black vote turnout.

If it's Biden/Warren/Bernie/Kamala, Trump wins in a electoral college victory. Probably without breaking a sweat. I don't think Kamala turns out the black vote like Obama did.

Four months from now, if the field is broader than Biden/Warren/Bernie/Pete/Tulsi/Yang, then I'll be surprised. Maaaaybe Insley in there.

Out of those, I still maintain that Pete and Yang get the job done. However, I think Gabbard as VP could potentially do even better if that campaign pushes her Samoan heritage. I think minority voters turn out big for her if that goes the right way.

Moreover, the red female vote gets split, because now there's a female VP on the ticket.

The veteran vote gets split bigtime - two vets on one ticket makes that demographic swing blue hard.

Finally, there doesn't need to be a hispanic on the blue ticket, because Trump pushes hispanics away from him like the plague. The one issue catholic hispanics won't budge no matter what; but every single one of them will go blue if a Pete/Tulsi ticket spends the time trumping up Trump's hispanic hate.

In retrospect, I put a Pete/Tulsi ticket at something like 10% points ahead of Trump and absolutely demolishing him in the E college.

Fuck me, this is some of the best political analysis I've ever written.

I'm in awe of a Pete/Tulsi ticket. I don't see a path to Trump victory over them, absent some giant fucking scandal.

This ticket should totally appease the Berniebros as well, because Tulsi stepped down in 2016 to endorse him.
 
The main thing a Pete/Tulsi ticket has going for it is that it hasn't been advertised against on Fox for the last several months, years or even decades. If they ever started to gain steam, Fox would order their zealots to hate, as they always do. It's just a-whole-different microscope.
 
Fuck me, this is some of the best political analysis I've ever written.

I'm in awe of a Pete/Tulsi ticket. I don't see a path to Trump victory over them, absent some giant fucking scandal.

This ticket should totally appease the Berniebros as well, because Tulsi stepped down in 2016 to endorse him.

Jesus tittyfucking Christ I haven’t seen a worse analysis with more self assurance since...myself every time I’ve ever posted. I don’t find myself agreeing with a single word of this. There’s literally too much factually incorrect for me to even make it through the first three paragraphs. I’d rather grab turds bare than make an attempt at rationalizing this horseshit.
 
I think Grabs just heard of Tulsi tonight.
 
Knight declares that "turnout" is BS in the first three paragraphs then spends the rest of his analysis talking about how Dems need turnout to win.
 
Back
Top