• 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

Sad read. Happy Thurday: https://medium.com/@oliviamignosa/suicide-by-capitalism-58f7d77320e2

This doesn’t even begin to touch on Phil’s anxieties about his $80,000 in medical debt because of an emergency gallbladder removal operation he had in 2018, and consistent letters from the IRS claiming that he owed almost $2000 in back taxes because he didn’t pay the right amount for his Connector Care Insurance (which for those who don’t know is Romneycare- the model for Obamacare- which is basically just a handout to insurance companies). Why do we live in a system where a 28 year old bartender, with no credit card debt, no property to his name, no secret holdings, feels that his chance at a successful life is over because of situations completely out of his control?
 
If the whole financial industry is a "house of cards" why be so deferential to Wall Street? Why not rebuilt a more stable system?

Obviously Jones has an uphill challenge, but he will have the power of the incumbency plus he's running in a great climate for Democrats. He has more of a chance than people thing.

Dude, it's Alafuckingbama. And we're impeaching Trump, who is quite popular there. Jones is Alpo unless Moore is the Pub nominee.

I'm not saying defer to Wall St or the financial industry. Just don't to war with both while we're in the middle of a recession. A prolonged recession will be fatal for the 2022 midterms and her reelection chances. Also figure this. The Pub party wasn't punished for the sins of the Nixon administration. Ford might have won reelection had he not pardoned Nixon, and they won 3 straight after Carter's 1 term. Would have been at least 4 straight but for the 92 recession and Perot.
 
Hillary did support Obama early and a lot in 2008. Gore had no serious opponent. In 2004, after Edwards and Dean imploded, Kerry had no serious competitor and they did what was asked.

It's not just my opinion. It's also Hillary's as stated in her book.

Even after he lost the possibility of the nomination, Bernie didn't concede for over thirty days:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html

"Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.

Mrs. Clinton earned enough delegates to clinch the nomination last week, but Mr. Sanders has declined to end his campaign. He has contended that he could persuade enough superdelegates, the party leaders who have overwhelmingly backed Mrs. Clinton, to switch their support to him by arguing that he would be the stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee."

There are many, many other such articles. It is historical fact Bernie didn't support Hillary as he was expected to do.

It's your "opinion" that he did.
 
What does "go to war" mean? Addressing fundamental problems with our economy? Anything Warren does will be considered an "act of war" by the financial industry.
 
I don't know why you all are rehashing this when there are indictments and people trying to flee the country in the GOP Debacle thread.
 
Yeah. I see Pete or Castro.

But of course, I just saw this:

[h=1]Warren’s Been Talking to Gillum, Sparking VP Buzz[/h]“If you’re trying to win Florida, I would be courting Andrew and that’s what’s happening,” a source familiar with the conversations said.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/eliza...to-andrew-gillum-sparking-vice-president-buzz

I think if there are talks, it's about getting an endorsement. I don't see Gillum being a strong VP choice.

Pete makes sense. But what does Castro give you? Not TX. He was HUD secretary and a mayor and has none of Pete's charisma. And here's the problem I have with Gillum and Abrams. They are state pols who ran impressive but failed gubernatorial campaigns. I'd really like to see Abrams go for senate with GA having 2 seats open - pick the easier of the 2 Pubs to beat. Six months ago, I would have said Beto as veep for Warren, but not now. I'm interested to see if Warren opts for a more balanced ticket or doubles down with someone like Brown.
 
so they should just do the same old thing in the face of Trump, huh

Idk, I still don’t know if Sanders in 2016 was exceptional given past cases.

One of y’all olds needs to let the rest of us know how hard Dem primary losers campaigned for Obama, Kerry, and Gore.
 
Hillary did support Obama early and a lot in 2008. Gore had no serious opponent. In 2004, after Edwards and Dean imploded, Kerry had no serious competitor and they did what was asked.

It's not just my opinion. It's also Hillary's as stated in her book.

Even after he lost the possibility of the nomination, Bernie didn't concede for over thirty days:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html

"Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.

Mrs. Clinton earned enough delegates to clinch the nomination last week, but Mr. Sanders has declined to end his campaign. He has contended that he could persuade enough superdelegates, the party leaders who have overwhelmingly backed Mrs. Clinton, to switch their support to him by arguing that he would be the stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee."

There are many, many other such articles. It is historical fact Bernie didn't support Hillary as he was expected to do.

It's your "opinion" that he did.

Well if Hilary Clinton said it then it must be true.

How was Clinton’s campaigning for Obama qualitatively (or quantitatively) different from Sanders’s campaigning for Clinton?

I would love to see some real sources and not a memoir from the failed candidate.

ETA: my read on the situation is that Clinton folks are pissed that Sanders didn’t do exactly what they wanted him to do on the timeline that they wanted him to do it on.

Clinton’s postmortem is literally the least self-aware piece of writing that I have seen off of these boards.
 
Last edited:
The Castro answer is easy. IF (and I mean IF) he can successfully engage liberals who aren't too keen on Bernie or Warren and/or engage Latino voters, he will be an attractive VP pick. Bonus points if he breaks into the top 4-5 and does well in the Texas primary. After the failure of the Kaine pick, there will would be pressure on nominee Warren not to pick a white guy and more importantly not to pick a VP who seems like a nod to centrists.

Since we're talking about Gillum, let's talk about Lt. Gov picks in the FL Gov race. Gillum picked Chris King, a little known Orlando businessman who basically finished last in the primary, but made a good name for himself. King is a progressive Christian who had a similar faith message as Pete. The thought was that King's business background, race, and Christian message would help Gillum pacify white voters and maybe get enough to put him over the top. Meanwhile Desantis picked a young (although older than him) attractive Miami Cubana from the House, Jeanette Nunez. Gillum underperformed in Miami and lost.

Now I don't think there's anybody out there comparable to Nunez who could possible swing a key area of a swing state. Perhaps someone like Sinema would be a good pick if she wasn't holding on to a very important Senate seat. I don't see Warren taking Pete unless he finishes 2nd to her in a contentious but collegial primary. But if Castro can do those two things above, he would be a good pick.
 
Last edited:
Pete makes sense. But what does Castro give you? Not TX. He was HUD secretary and a mayor and has none of Pete's charisma. And here's the problem I have with Gillum and Abrams. They are state pols who ran impressive but failed gubernatorial campaigns. I'd really like to see Abrams go for senate with GA having 2 seats open - pick the easier of the 2 Pubs to beat. Six months ago, I would have said Beto as veep for Warren, but not now. I'm interested to see if Warren opts for a more balanced ticket or doubles down with someone like Brown.

What does Pete have that Castro doesn’t have, exactly? They’re both mayors. No charisma? Really?? He kind of screwed up the debate, but no charisma? You should check out some footage of him on the trail. He’s great.
 
What does Pete have that Castro doesn’t have, exactly? They’re both mayors. No charisma? Really?? He kind of screwed up the debate, but no charisma? You should check out some footage of him on the trail. He’s great.

Yeah. Castro's shown more charisma than I expected.
 
Pete being the VP would be a cash cow for whoever the nominee is. He may be 4th in the polling by a wide margin, but he is a hell of a fundraiser.
 
 
 
Back
Top