• 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

Pete is the only one who is specifically calling out Republicans as a party.

I think one reason “both sides” work is one side is unapologetically corrupt and the other side lets them get away with it.
 
cville deac said:
As for the senate, good the fuck luck getting that back in 2020 or 2022. And you don't think the DNC is doing what they can to get it back?
Click to expand...

I think the DNC generally sucks at what they do. Too beholden to Third Way and bad interests. Haven't learned the lessons of the Blue Wave. Perez straightforwardly sucks, and it should have been Ellison. Nixing the climate debate is so frustrating. I doubt we share much common ground here, and I don't need you to spell out states for me either.
 
So, is this thing going to ultimately come down to one progressive/liberal candidate & one establishment/moderate candidate who will battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and the right to take on Trump next November? There doesn't seem to be any way around that to me. And if so, a few more questions:

1) Is there anyone other than Warren or Sanders who could possibly represent the progressive/liberals in this battle?
2) Is there any possible candidate (current or not yet known) to replace Biden for the establishment/moderates in the event he continues to lose support?
3) Does the Democratic ticket need to have one person from both of these camps, or could it go all-out with two from the progressive/liberal camp? (I don't see any way that the Democratic ticket could be two people from the establishment/moderate camp.)
4) Do the Democrats have to put a woman on the ticket?
5) Do the Democrats have to put a person of color on the ticket?

Lots of decisions to be made in the next six months.
 
“Warren doesn’t represent progressives.”

- MHB, probably
 
They don’t “have to” do any of those things.

I sure hope they win, however. And end our national nightmare of Trump’s reign.


Please.
 
TownieDeac said:
I think the DNC generally sucks at what they do. Too beholden to Third Way and bad interests. Haven't learned the lessons of the Blue Wave. Perez straightforwardly sucks, and it should have been Ellison. Nixing the climate debate is so frustrating. I doubt we share much common ground here, and I don't need you to spell out states for me either.
Click to expand...

A climate debate would have been a disaster. It was never more than a way for Inslee to brand himself and try to give himself an edge.

First, the debate would have been about minor differences between the candidates in policy instead of helping exposure everything Republicans are doing to harm the environment. More petty infighting isn’t what we need. I don’t need the Bernie wing treating him like Captain Planet and everyone else like they’re down in Brazil torching the Amazon. Second, it opens the door for people to get pissy about not getting a debate for their own topic.
 
PhDeac said:
Jesus, Tulsi. Way to burn bridges. Hard not to argue she’s a Russian plant.
Click to expand...

Anyone actually ever met a Tulsi supporter who has been previously active as a democrat? I know one guy who likes her but he's a republican, said she would be the easiest democrat to vote for against Donald (although he's a never trump guy and overall pretty reasonable about politics - thinks the Fox News echo chamber is major reason for Donald grabbing power on the right).

I don't even know if Tulsi as a Russian plant counts as a conspiracy theory but if so it's at the top of my "what conspiracies do you subscribe to" list.
 
PhDeac said:
A climate debate would have been a disaster. It was never more than a way for Inslee to brand himself and try to give himself an edge.

First, the debate would have been about minor differences between the candidates in policy instead of helping exposure everything Republicans are doing to harm the environment. More petty infighting isn’t what we need. I don’t need the Bernie wing treating him like Captain Planet and everyone else like they’re down in Brazil torching the Amazon. Second, it opens the door for people to get pissy about not getting a debate for their own topic.
Click to expand...

They should do a Climate/environment night at the convention regardless of who the nominee is.
 
birdman said:
They should do a Climate/environment night at the convention regardless of who the nominee is.
Click to expand...

That would make more sense. Just don’t have Al Gore deliver the keynote.
 
PhDeac said:
A climate debate would have been a disaster. It was never more than a way for Inslee to brand himself and try to give himself an edge.

First, the debate would have been about minor differences between the candidates in policy instead of helping exposure everything Republicans are doing to harm the environment. More petty infighting isn’t what we need. I don’t need the Bernie wing treating him like Captain Planet and everyone else like they’re down in Brazil torching the Amazon. Second, it opens the door for people to get pissy about not getting a debate for their own topic.
Click to expand...

Hard disagree. It's the single most important topic facing the future of the country. It'll get young people to the polls. If candidates are pissy they aren't getting their own debate topics they'll show themselves to be unserious candidates. We need to make it the central issue of 2020.
 
PINEAPPLE said:
So, is this thing going to ultimately come down to one progressive/liberal candidate & one establishment/moderate candidate who will battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and the right to take on Trump next November? There doesn't seem to be any way around that to me. And if so, a few more questions:
Click to expand...

1) Is there anyone other than Warren or Sanders who could possibly represent the progressive/liberals in this battle?

No and yes. The Sanders wing thinks he's the only progressive in the field even though everyone in the field is more progressive than the entire 2008 field including Biden. Non-Sanders progressives could probably be persuaded by Pete.

2) Is there any possible candidate (current or not yet known) to replace Biden for the establishment/moderates in the event he continues to lose support?

This is where Pete's broad appeal could come into play. He's the only candidate that seems to draw excitement from progressives, moderates, independents, and crossover Pubs, but nobody thinks he will win. Otherwise, Harris hasn't had a strong enough campaign to make her case. If she does, I don't think current Biden supporters will hold grudges, especially since many of them are voters Harris should be appealing to now anyway.

3) Does the Democratic ticket need to have one person from both of these camps, or could it go all-out with two from the progressive/liberal camp? (I don't see any way that the Democratic ticket could be two people from the establishment/moderate camp.)

Hard to say. It could come down to a compromise between the top two candidates who may not be one of each. It could be Sanders and Warren.

4) Do the Democrats have to put a woman on the ticket?
5) Do the Democrats have to put a person of color on the ticket?
The demographics are that the winning candidate will have plenty of support among women and minorities. The nominee shouldn't feel like they have to put a white guy on the ticket just to pacify white guys. That didn't work for Hillary. Some analysts say that DeSantis choosing a Miami Cuban woman to pursue Miami votes helped him beat Gillum who chose a Christian white guy to pacify white guys.

The Dems should analyze who voted in the primaries and see if they can pick a VP candidate who could motivate people who didn't vote. It will be hard for the nominee to pick someone who wasn't in the field, but it may be necessary to pick someone different.
 
PhDeac said:
1) Is there anyone other than Warren or Sanders who could possibly represent the progressive/liberals in this battle?

No and yes. The Sanders wing thinks he's the only progressive in the field even though everyone in the field is more progressive than the entire 2008 field including Biden. Non-Sanders progressives could probably be persuaded by Pete.

2) Is there any possible candidate (current or not yet known) to replace Biden for the establishment/moderates in the event he continues to lose support?

This is where Pete's broad appeal could come into play. He's the only candidate that seems to draw excitement from progressives, moderates, independents, and crossover Pubs, but nobody thinks he will win. Otherwise, Harris hasn't had a strong enough campaign to make her case. If she does, I don't think current Biden supporters will hold grudges, especially since many of them are voters Harris should be appealing to now anyway.

3) Does the Democratic ticket need to have one person from both of these camps, or could it go all-out with two from the progressive/liberal camp? (I don't see any way that the Democratic ticket could be two people from the establishment/moderate camp.)

Hard to say. It could come down to a compromise between the top two candidates who may not be one of each. It could be Sanders and Warren.

4) Do the Democrats have to put a woman on the ticket?
5) Do the Democrats have to put a person of color on the ticket?
The demographics are that the winning candidate will have plenty of support among women and minorities. The nominee shouldn't feel like they have to put a white guy on the ticket just to pacify white guys. That didn't work for Hillary. Some analysts say that DeSantis choosing a Miami Cuban woman to pursue Miami votes helped him beat Gillum who chose a Christian white guy to pacify white guys.

The Dems should analyze who voted in the primaries and see if they can pick a VP candidate who could motivate people who didn't vote. It will be hard for the nominee to pick someone who wasn't in the field, but it may be necessary to pick someone different.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis. Some good points here. Thanks.
 
TownieDeac said:
Hard disagree. It's the single most important topic facing the future of the country. It'll get young people to the polls. If candidates are pissy they aren't getting their own debate topics they'll show themselves to be unserious candidates. We need to make it the central issue of 2020.
Click to expand...

What many miss is that climate and healthcare aren't unique and self-contained issues. They intricately impact every other issue from jobs to defense from trade to education. The candidate that effectively ties these together would really put Trump in a tiny corner from which he would have serious trouble getting out of.
 
PhDeac said:
That would make more sense. Just don’t have Al Gore deliver the keynote.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some scientists actually speak, like Paul Erlich and Katherine Hayhoe. By the time current 20 year olds are eligible for SS and Medicare, most of southern Florida, Booklyn, Louisiana, coastal Texas, lots of eastern NC, etc. will be under water and the world be a much hotter and less predictable place. Politically aware 18-30 year olds are rightfully really worried about it and the DNC should make it a big part of their pitch to young people and GOTV.
 
birdman said:
I'd like to see some scientists actually speak, like Paul Erlich and Katherine Hayhoe. By the time current 20 year olds are eligible for SS and Medicare, most of southern Florida, Booklyn, Louisiana, coastal Texas, lots of eastern NC, etc. will be under water and the world be a much hotter and less predictable place. Politically aware 18-30 year olds are rightfully really worried about it and the DNC should make it a big part of their pitch to young people and GOTV.
Click to expand...

That's a great idea if you can find scientists who can carry a room like that. Include some farmers who can specifically speak to how climate change is effecting them as well.

A climate change pitch should appeal to younger voters, but older voters should be able to explain how climate change is effecting them. Closing campus for hurricanes is an annual Fall ritual at this point. It wasn't a thing 5 years ago.
 
RJKarl said:
What many miss is that climate and healthcare aren't unique and self-contained issues. They intricately impact every other issue from jobs to defense from trade to education. The candidate that effectively ties these together would really put Trump in a tiny corner from which he would have serious trouble getting out of.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Sherlock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top