• 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

I agree with bym but I’d add Pete to the list.

I don’t know what we are debating here. The responses are predictable.
 
I also like Julian Castro. He seems to be spinning his wheels in the mud though.
 
Castro is in the same boat as Buttigieg and O'Rourke for me where I'm left wondering why he doesn't just run for a lower office first, accumulate a record and name recognition, and then give POTUS another run... I never really thought of myself as overly bullish when it comes to experience, but I think some of these guys just need some more seasoning.
 
Castro has effectively been running for years. Despite being mayor in a city manager system (weak mayor) and no notable accomplishments at HUD, no one questions his credentials. He’s had plenty of time to seize a moment and he hasn’t.

Again Strick, you’re punishing them for being from red states. There are plenty of Democrats who aren’t in the coasts or large urban areas. Why should they have a tougher road to the White House?
 
Last edited:
I'm not punishing anybody. Buttigieg would have to go through Pence to win the presidency. What's the difference?

There are also Dems like Klobuchar (MN), Hickenlooper (CO), and Ryan (OH) who aren't from coasts or large urban areas. How do you explain these candidates vs. Buttigieg?

You're just in love with Mayor Pete. That's cool, but I just wish that he would win a congressional election before he runs for president.
 
Explain what about those candidates? Klob and Hickenlooper aren’t from red states. Ryan is a rep which isn’t traditionally a launching point either.

I’m excited to have this much talent in the field from a variety of backgrounds and from around the country. I just wish people would give them a chance before shutting them down particularly because most of those people are in lock step with a guy from last year’s small primary.

The other point which came up during Beto’s run is that if someone like Beto or Pete did win a red state senate seat, it’s more important they keep it than run for President. This is a question Abrams faces looking at her long term prospects.
 
Last edited:
I'm telling you that Klob, Hick, and Ryan have all done what you claim is punishment in the case of Buttigieg and O'Rourke. K, H, and R are from red and battleground states. They have found a way to win. I haven't really ever been too impressed with any of them, so if Beto and Pete are as good as their fans think that they are, then they should have no trouble in red and purple states. That's my point.
 
But again CO and MN aren’t red states like IN and TX.

And you’re asking them to be “better” than Kamala, Gillibrand, Bernie, Warren, and Booker who only won blue states.
 
Last edited:
Strickland33 said:
Castro is in the same boat as Buttigieg and O'Rourke for me where I'm left wondering why he doesn't just run for a lower office first, accumulate a record and name recognition, and then give POTUS another run... I never really thought of myself as overly bullish when it comes to experience, but I think some of these guys just need some more seasoning.
Click to expand...

Castro was the mayor of Top 10 populated city and a Cabinet Secretary. He has a lot more experience than Mayor Pete. In 2016, I thought he should have been VP nominee. As it turned, this could have been enough to turn the election. Having him on the ticket could have put Trump's racism front and center all the time. It wouldn't have taken changing many votes for Hillary to have won.

Either Castro or Mayor Pete would be an excellent pick for VP this time.
 
In what sense? Show your data, man, instead of moving the goalposts.

I have posted this before, but this is where I'm coming from: Beto couldn't beat Ted Cruz with record fundraising, voter turnout (IIRC) and national DNC support. That doesn't make me feel great about his presidential prospects. A college town in Indiana isn't very representative of the United States, so how is Pete going to jump from this level to the national stage?
 
I agree with you, RJ, on all points.

I don't think he has much to offer as a POTUS candidate, so it sounds like we agree. He just hasn't done much since his time as HUD Sec (2017). IIRC, he was planning on running for Governor at some point around when the DNC tapped him to give a prime time convention speech. I'm not sure what happened. Maybe he is taking the Ph line that doing so would be too hard.
 
Strickland33 said:
In what sense? Show your data, man, instead of moving the goalposts.

I have posted this before, but this is where I'm coming from: Beto couldn't beat Ted Cruz with record fundraising, voter turnout (IIRC) and national DNC support. That doesn't make me feel great about his presidential prospects. A college town in Indiana isn't very representative of the United States, so how is Pete going to jump from this level to the national stage?
Click to expand...

By doing what he's doing now. Going on TV, radio, podcasts, and town halls and talking to people and his ideas and explaining why he should be President. Running a campaign. That's what we do to elect Presidents.

The experience thing is a canard. The most experienced non-incumbent hasn't won in my lifetime. I don't know why it's heralded as some kind of standard. The jobs of anybody but the President is so different from being President, that it's hard to draw a straight line from experience in one to the other.
 
You're giving the Trump election too much power, man, and you're also glossing over important oversights that the Clinton made about Trump as a candidate. 2016 was a really atypical election in historical context. Obama, Obama, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Reagan, Carter set a hell of a precedent over the last 50 years. I'm all for using Trump as a negative case, but let's not forget how national elections usually work.
 
I forgot one. Bush did beat Dukakis. That's the one time a more experience non-incumbent won.

I don't know what you're talking about in terms of giving the Trump election too much power. That was part of a broader trend that we saw when Obama beat McCain and when Bush beat Gore. The long time establishment politicians lost to the outsider.

And we can learn from attempts to beat an incumbent in my lifetime. Two fresh face southern Democrat governors won. Three long term politicians lost.
 
Last edited:
No, the broader trend is that experienced national politicians (vs. outsiders and local politicians) tend to win: Barack Obama was a senator from a purple state, George W. Bush was a two-term governor from a red state, Bill Clinton was a two-term governor and AG from a red state, George H.W. Bush was a two term congressman from a red state and director of the CIA, Ronald Reagan was a two-term governor in a blue state, and Jimmy Carter was a one-term governor in a red state. That's the trend that I'm referring to because Trump winning as a nativist outsider was literally unprecedented and probably won't happen again if history is any indication.

There's also a weird gender thing happening right now where Beto and Pete are getting accolades from the media for youthful accomplishments that candidates like Gillibrand, Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar also possess, but receive next to no credit for or press attention... It actually strikes me as weird that the candidates getting the most attention as candidates are men in an election where there are many incredibly qualified women running from Gillibrand to Klobuchar. Media misogyny is real and don't think that doesn't affect polling results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top