• 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

DeaconSig said:
I look forward to the the ultimate fight between Strick and the M&Ms about how Gillebrand isn't a REAL progressive.
Click to expand...

Whatever gets you off, my man.

Personally, I have no idea who to support at this point. I'm generally against anybody who is old, which rules out Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Other than that, lets see some debates and speeches and try to figure out who connects.
Click to expand...

Who do you like at this point? It’s weird that y’all don’t even have opinions - beyond the bkf-lite “own the M’s!!!” - on these prospective candidates who have spent years in public service. It’s ok to have opinions!
 
PhDeac said:
Why do you have Castro so high?
Click to expand...
"High" is relative here, I think he and Harris are about equally acceptable in my mind. He was a bad HUD secretary, she was a bad State AG. I think they'll both be equally devoted to the establishment. There's just something about Harris's record as a bad cop protecting authoritarian that I find worse than the normal bad politician qualities.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Nah, strick is cool. Gillbrand is flawed, but not terrible. Of the serious announced candidates so far i'd go:

1. Elizabeth Warren
2. Kirsten Gillibrand
3. Julian Castro
4. Kamala Harris
5. Tulsi Gabbard
Click to expand...

Gabbard is going to get crushed by the LGBT crowd for her statements back in the early 2000's. Also America Samoa doesn't have a primary. Harris similarly is going to have issues for her close ties to law enforcement. But maybe they can still get the far left on their side, as the song goes you got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
 
tiltdeac said:
I don't know much about her, but this was a definite plus for her in my book.
Click to expand...

Her reaction to #metoo was probably one of the more genuine reaction of the bunch. She responded without thinking of what it would mean to her relationship with the DNC (they preferred to stand by creepy Franken and let her know as much) and her mentors (the Clintons, particularly Bill, didn’t enjoy being lumped in with the abuser crowd).
 
wsc8521s said:
Couple articles/columns:
https://theweek.com/articles/691363/kirsten-gillibrand-2020-not-wall-street-problem
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/kir...s-about-potential-2020-run-for-president.html
Click to expand...

What are the politics of suspending regulation of cross-border derivative trading? ChrisL or itc, can y’all educate me?

As for meeting with Wall Street: the article says that Gillibrand, Booker, and Harris met with wealthy Wall Street executives, who happen to be major donors to the Democratic Party. It’s obviously not ideal, but until we have publicly financed elections, it’s kind of a necessary step in order to get elected. Hopefully she’ll maintain her course on economic issues as a presidential candidate.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
"High" is relative here, I think he and Harris are about equally acceptable in my mind. He was a bad HUD secretary, she was a bad State AG. I think they'll both be equally devoted to the establishment. There's just something about Harris's record as a bad cop protecting authoritarian that I find worse than the normal bad politician qualities.
Click to expand...

The difference, in my mind, is that there are a lot of reasons to vote for Harris. Her past sucks, but she has been solid since. I can’t think of a single good thing that Castro has done, which is weird from a guy who has seemingly been in the public eye as a “name to watch” in national politics for forever.
 
Strickland33 said:
The difference, in my mind, is that there are a lot of reasons to vote for Harris. Her past sucks, but she has been solid since. I can’t think of a single good thing that Castro has done, which is weird from a guy who has seemingly been in the public eye as a “name to watch” in national politics for forever.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly not familiar with her voting record, but i've seen its very "progressive".
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I'm honestly not familiar with her voting record, but i've seen its very "progressive".
Click to expand...

Indeed, it has been. Again, her past gives me pause, but there are plenty of reasonable cases to be made to support her.
 
Strickland33 said:
The difference, in my mind, is that there are a lot of reasons to vote for Harris. Her past sucks, but she has been solid since. I can’t think of a single good thing that Castro has done, which is weird from a guy who has seemingly been in the public eye as a “name to watch” in national politics for forever.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Castro is young, but relatively unaccomplished which makes him both washed up and needing to get his name out.

He’s the Dem Rubio but without the balls to run for a major office. I still don’t know why Julian is the one with the “presidential future” and not Joaquin who is in his fourth term in the House. Julian hasn’t been in any elected office in almost 5 years.

If Julian had run and lost in 2014 and 2016 and showed some charisma and promise, he’d be on par with Beto and Gillum as rising stars.
 
All the Dems talk about poverty like this but it's funny anyway
d0a84e4c503378bc3e60cec4366de9d4.jpg
 
I don't get it.
 
kamala harris sounds like she's saying you only deserve those things if you work. wint is saying you only deserve human decency if you have followers
 
ImTheCaptain said:
kamala harris sounds like she's saying you only deserve those things if you work. wint is saying you only deserve human decency if you have followers
Click to expand...

If you’re reading her tweet that way, says more about you than her

(Not you specifically, general you)
 
OK. I got it.
 
Gotta love the intro. They got it horribly wrong in 2016 with Republicans so they're going to try it again. I think their framework is OK, but they need more evidence to justify their ratings in each category and they need to better account for the size of each category and the fact any candidate with very low ratings in any category will suffer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top