• 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

Moderates should give Cory Booker a serious look after last night. Substantive policies while maintaining pragmatic relationships with health care and financial sectors (and “education reform”-types) . I don’t agree with the guy, but at least can respect the campaign that he’s running.
 
so insulting 3/4 of the field every time you or your campaign opens its mouth = unifying to others. Got it.

And Tulsi is objectively odious of y’all why exactly? We agree on that one, by the way, though my reasoning for disliking Tulsi is the same for disliking Amy and Pete.

'insulting'?
 
Moderates should give Cory Booker a serious look after last night. Substantive policies while maintaining pragmatic relationships with health care and financial sectors (and “education reform”-types) . I don’t agree with the guy, but at least can respect the campaign that he’s running.

Booker is still an empty suit attempting to be something he is not.
 
'insulting'?

suggesting that you have plans too but can actually pay for them (when your opponent’s plans include how they’ll pay for them, but you simply disagree on the mechanism) is a bit insulting, no?
 
This kind of thing is so worrisome to me. One of these people is going to be the nominee and they’ll need the full and enthusiastic support of every left leaning person out there to overcome the spatial advantage Trump has in the electoral college. None of them are odious and every single one of them is far better than the alternative. It would be best to stop perpetuating the notion that any one of these people are bad options or let alone odious.

Here's how I stand:

Klobuchar: Odious. Her line about paying for rich kid's college is so cynical and such bad politics. Let's do away public libraries and radio and streets and hell any public good if rich people can use it! Would not make a significantly better president than Trump, apart from decorum on Twitter and potentially fewer kids in cages. Would vote for her.

Warren: Don't agree with her strategy on M4A, don't think she talks nearly enough about GND, but she's the best candidate in the race. Would vote for her, would canvass, make calls, donate, etc. The party will throw their full-voiced support behind her, and she'd make a fine, Obama-like president, probably a bit more progressive too.

Pete: Odious. Just wants another thing on his resume. Unqualified, cynical, a polished libertarian turd. Would vote for him.

Kamala: I have some questions about her past, and picking Hillary's people to run her campaign has predictably not worked well for her in the primary. It would be disastrous in the general. Would vote for her.

Booker: Kind of a mixed bag past, and definitely running as a centrist, but I like him. Was a tenant's rights lawyer. Good! Charismatic, has some good ideas, would win. Would vote for him.

Bernie: The second best candidate. Knows his ideas wouldn't pass, knows that they're the only things that will save us, has plans to build a grassroots labor movement that would make his plans work longer term (collective action, labor stoppages, voter registration, etc.). Would vote, canvass, volunteer, donate, etc. He'd rule as president.

Biden: Odious. Everyone loved him as Uncle Joe to Obama. Many still do! His voting record is a disaster. His policies are stuck in 1995 Washington. He is not coherent speaking publicly. Would be a bad president, and would fill his cabinet with similar Obama center right wonks. Would vote for him.
 
Here's how I stand:

Klobuchar: Odious. Her line about paying for rich kid's college is so cynical and such bad politics. Let's do away public libraries and radio and streets and hell any public good if rich people can use it! Would not make a significantly better president than Trump, apart from decorum on Twitter and potentially fewer kids in cages. Would vote for her.

Warren: Don't agree with her strategy on M4A, don't think she talks nearly enough about GND, but she's the best candidate in the race. Would vote for her, would canvass, make calls, donate, etc. The party will throw their full-voiced support behind her, and she'd make a fine, Obama-like president, probably a bit more progressive too.

Pete: Odious. Just wants another thing on his resume. Unqualified, cynical, a polished libertarian turd. Would vote for him.

Kamala: I have some questions about her past, and picking Hillary's people to run her campaign has predictably not worked well for her in the primary. It would be disastrous in the general. Would vote for her.

Booker: Kind of a mixed bag past, and definitely running as a centrist, but I like him. Was a tenant's rights lawyer. Good! Charismatic, has some good ideas, would win. Would vote for him.

Bernie: The second best candidate. Knows his ideas wouldn't pass, knows that they're the only things that will save us, has plans to build a grassroots labor movement that would make his plans work longer term (collective action, labor stoppages, voter registration, etc.). Would vote, canvass, volunteer, donate, etc. He'd rule as president.

Biden: Odious. Everyone loved him as Uncle Joe to Obama. Many still do! His voting record is a disaster. His policies are stuck in 1995 Washington. He is not coherent speaking publicly. Would be a bad president, and would fill his cabinet with similar Obama center right wonks. Would vote for him.

unifying
 
Klobuchar and Buttigieg are running as Republicans in a field of Democrats. Neither will be the nominee but they’re doing so to boost their own brands, as fiscally conservative Democrats, instead of in the service of

Biden, Sanders, Booker, Yang, Harris, and Warren somehow manage to run positive, ideas-based campaigns. Gabbard is running a purely negative campaign against Biden and Warren while Klobuchar and Buttigieg are one trick, “how can we pay for this” ponies. The fact that the rest of the field has largely ignored their attacks speaks to the field more than it does the candidacies of the three I listed above.

Running divisive campaigns in the run up to Trump is pretty odious, imo.

Cory Booker, a centrist in this group, clearly won the debate (imo) before y’all get your “you’re a Bernie Bro” circle jerk going.

Running as Republicans? Have you even remotely been paying attention to the current zeitgeist in the GOP? Stephen Miller is insulted by this notion.

This is the kind of language that will ultimately suppress idealistic young voters or send them to a third party. Nader did this to Gore; Bernie did it to Clinton.
 
Here's how I stand:

Klobuchar: Odious. Her line about paying for rich kid's college is so cynical and such bad politics. Let's do away public libraries and radio and streets and hell any public good if rich people can use it! Would not make a significantly better president than Trump, apart from decorum on Twitter and potentially fewer kids in cages. Would vote for her.

Warren: Don't agree with her strategy on M4A, don't think she talks nearly enough about GND, but she's the best candidate in the race. Would vote for her, would canvass, make calls, donate, etc. The party will throw their full-voiced support behind her, and she'd make a fine, Obama-like president, probably a bit more progressive too.

Pete: Odious. Just wants another thing on his resume. Unqualified, cynical, a polished libertarian turd. Would vote for him.

Kamala: I have some questions about her past, and picking Hillary's people to run her campaign has predictably not worked well for her in the primary. It would be disastrous in the general. Would vote for her.

Booker: Kind of a mixed bag past, and definitely running as a centrist, but I like him. Was a tenant's rights lawyer. Good! Charismatic, has some good ideas, would win. Would vote for him.

Bernie: The second best candidate. Knows his ideas wouldn't pass, knows that they're the only things that will save us, has plans to build a grassroots labor movement that would make his plans work longer term (collective action, labor stoppages, voter registration, etc.). Would vote, canvass, volunteer, donate, etc. He'd rule as president.

Biden: Odious. Everyone loved him as Uncle Joe to Obama. Many still do! His voting record is a disaster. His policies are stuck in 1995 Washington. He is not coherent speaking publicly. Would be a bad president, and would fill his cabinet with similar Obama center right wonks. Would vote for him.

Here is how I stand:

I would vote, donate and canvas for any one of these fuckers. Fuck Trump.
 
Running as Republicans? Have you even remotely been paying attention to the current zeitgeist in the GOP? Stephen Miller is insulted by this notion.

This is the kind of language that will ultimately suppress idealistic young voters or send them to a third party. Nader did this to Gore; Bernie did it to Clinton.

Yikes, what happened to you, man?

There are conservative ideologies (or so I’ve been told) that aren’t neo-Nazi in orientation.
 
Here is how I stand:

I would vote, donate and canvas for any one of these fuckers. Fuck Trump.

Everyone agrees with you, man. Weird posture in November 2019.

That doesn’t mean we can’t comment on the primary process. Only one candidate will be the nominee.
 
Running as Republicans? Have you even remotely been paying attention to the current zeitgeist in the GOP? Stephen Miller is insulted by this notion.

This is the kind of language that will ultimately suppress idealistic young voters or send them to a third party. Nader did this to Gore; Bernie did it to Clinton.

Clinton and Gore did this to idealistic young voters by running bad campaigns that didn't appeal to idealistic young voters.
 
Yea dude I'm tryna single handedly give Trump 2020 on these here Wake message boards.
 
which is what exactly? he strikes me as the ideal combination of social progressive, fiscal conservative for board moderates

That is sort of my point. Booker is a guy who looks like he would be a good candidate on paper, until people actually get to know him. He wants to be a transformative candidate like President Obama, but he ain't. He wants to be a captivating speaker, but he sounds like somebody imitating other captivating speakers. He wants to be everything to everybody, but he is a mile wide and an inch deep on most things.

Booker's whole adult life has been about ultimately running for President. People like that shouldn't be President. And that's before you get to the point that he is an elected official from Jersey. Nobody gets elected in that state without being dirty as hell.

Would I vote for him over the giant baby in office right now, of course. But he is way down the list of people currently running that I would support.
 
Yikes, what happened to you, man?

There are conservative ideologies (or so I’ve been told) that aren’t neo-Nazi in orientation.

You didn’t say ‘they hold some conservative ideologies’ you said they were running as republicans. We can’t lose sight of how far gone down the road to crazy town the entire Republican Party is.

What happened to me is Trump. He and the entire GOP are really dangerous and he might just get re-elected. 86 year old Ruth Bader Ginsberg is all we have saving us right now; 4 more years would be an absolute disaster for the environment and global stability.

I’m not suggesting that you can’t discuss the relative merits of Pete’s vs Warren’s health care plans, I’m suggesting we should avoid negative characterizations that are likely to later discourage the true liberals or the true moderates from voting. Especially characterizations that equate a moderate/incremental Democrat with a racist batshit crazy town political party. Remember that neither of the healthcare plans are repulsive compared to the alternative and at worst a democratic administration is going to restore the ACA, rejoin the Paris agreement, stop the fucking wall and end the trade war.
 
Yea dude I'm tryna single handedly give Trump 2020 on these here Wake message boards.

thatsnoneofmy.jpg
 
Clinton and Gore did this to idealistic young voters by running bad campaigns that didn't appeal to idealistic young voters.

Sigh... ok, fine, but it didn’t help to have Nader on the sidelines convincing young earth firsters like me the Gore and Bush were essentially the same.
 
Clinton and Gore did this to idealistic young voters by running bad campaigns that didn't appeal to idealistic young voters.

Also comparing Bernie to Nader is fun.

What was Bernie going to do for young idealistic voters to convince them that Hillary would deliver for them? Hey kids, Hillary "I own companies that frack" Clinton is the climate change Queen for you! And that's bae. She took your responses about how student loan debt made you feel in emoji form and put them in a wonk rock tumbler and came up with a means tested way for you to start a small business and pay that debt down 1.5% faster yasss.

Bernie wasn't going to close that Clinton enthusiasm gap by himself. She never even tried in key states and ran a truly terrible campaign. It's convenient to scapegoat the left for not supporting Clinton, but there's a reason I'm vocal about candidates in primaries, and that's we're not doing a good enough job getting the right people out of primaries. I don't understand how people can look at elections in this country in 2018 and 2019 and miss that people are ready for progressive change. But regardless of whether you agree with that, just acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of candidates. I'm happy to do it about the candidates I support. Bernie is too old, too white, doesn't want to eliminate the filibuster, and his elbows are kinda out on his jumper.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top