Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Thanks. I'm not familiar with him.
Hope and change...and libertarian/independant voters like me. Although I disagreed with many of his stances, I thought he was the most honest candidate and not bought and paid for by anyone else. That's also why I could never have voted for Trump or Hillary this last cycle.I think its the reason Obama was elected.
He wasn't popular like Oprah. he wasn't well financed like Hillary. He hadn't much political experience. What did he bring to the table?
I can see that, but to me it would be sorta depressing to see two New York billionaires be the major party candidates. I do like Bloomberg though and would obviously vote for him (enthusiastically) if that were the general election matchup.Re: Bloomberg, would love to see the boastful Trump run against an opponent worth 10 times more than he is.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. As a side note, Bloomberg scored a 5 (best score) on the philanthropy scale for the Forbes 400 list, while Trump scored a 1 (worst score).I can see that, but to me it would be sorta depressing to see two New York billionaires be the major party candidates. I do like Bloomberg though and would obviously vote for him (enthusiastically) if that were the general election matchup.
Not really. I think this has the potential to be a really strong (but big and messy) field.Bumping this thread. Is there a clear frontrunner yet?
I may be way off on this, but Warren seems to me to be the most likely candidate to be vulnerable to the anti-Hillary sentiment.Warren is definitely going to run; she's just waiting until after she's safely re-elected to make the announcement.
I think she has to be considered the front-runner at this point. I'm not saying she's going to win, or that I support her (I'm genuinely undecided, mostly because I think it's way too early). I'm saying she's a well-known name who is being very aggressive about rolling out policy proposals and is clearly making an effort to until the party rather than win a factional war (coughBernie).
I think Biden is riding on name recognition and Bernie will be seen as having had his shot, especially considering that he and Warren draw from the same base of support.
Harris is intriguing and, if she runs a strong campaign, could do to Warren what Obama did to Hillary in '08. But that's the point -- she could knock off Warren as the front-runner.
Harris is getting the national stature. I think Bernie would be the front runner, Warren would be a strong contender, but I think Harris would go Obama on everyone if she ran. Obviously we're a year out from the real campaign, but she's on his trajectory.I don't see how Bernie, if he decides to run, isn't the instant front runner. He will have the money, he certainly now has the name recognition and more than one Trump voter has said they would have rather voted for Bernie. I think Warren hiring Hillary people will hurt her with Progressives. I think Biden is damaged by what happened to Anita Hill. Booker is a phony. Harris doesn't really have the national stature. And I don't think Bloomberg makes the rust belt or coal country excited. I want no part of him personally way too nanny state.
Bernie won independents at higher levels than he did Democrats last time so not sure where you get that. Further his policy prescriptions are now largely supported by majorities some of them even on the Republican side. Including Medicare fo All. That puts him squarely in the mainstream. You need to check your conclusion GB.Bernie has the same problem he had in 2016, magnified because he’s much better known: he energizes the base and young people, but he scares away independents and moderates. I don’t want to argue whether or not the latter is fair or unfair; for the sake of this discussion, let’s agree it’s unfair, and that Bernie’s ideas, if explained properly, would be popular among independents, moderates, and perhaps even some conservatives. It doesn’t matter because they won’t be explained properly and the reality is I think he will have a difficult time winning.
That doesn’t mean a progressive can’t be our next President. But it’s going to probably have to be somebody younger who presents himself or herself as less of an ideologue. If a progressive is what you want, I think Harris is your best bet.
I’m always happy to do that.Bernie won independents at higher levels than he did Democrats last time so not sure where you get that. Further his policy prescriptions are now largely supported by majorities some of them even on the Republican side. Including Medicare fo All. That puts him squarely in the mainstream. You need to check your conclusion GB.
Orange County Republicans are bat [redacted] crazy. I think we can agree on that. Actually, just replace "Republicans" with "residents."I’m always happy to do that.
I may be influenced because I live in Orange County. I have run into a lot of conservatives lately who tell me that they are disgusted by Donald Trump and will happily vote for a Democrat next time around, so long as it’s a “regular” Democrat and “not someone off of the deep end like Bernie”. Their words, not mine.
I'd suggest the people you are talking g to are on the right. Polling tells us Bernie isn't off the deep end or even close to it.I’m always happy to do that.
I may be influenced because I live in Orange County. I have run into a lot of conservatives lately who tell me that they are disgusted by Donald Trump and will happily vote for a Democrat next time around, so long as it’s a “regular” Democrat and “not someone off of the deep end like Bernie”. Their words, not mine.
Polling also told us, right after Obamacare was passed, that a majority of Americans agreed with each of its ideas separately- but when you called it “Obamacare” a lot of them hated it.Polling tells us Bernie isn't off the deep end or even close to it.
You (and others) keep saying this, and it's simply wrong. People unite and energize over ideas, not age.That doesn’t mean a progressive can’t be our next President. But it’s going to probably have to be somebody younger who presents himself or herself as less of an ideologue. If a progressive is what you want, I think Harris is your best bet.
Obamacare was recognized for the giveaway to the insurance companies that it was. Medicare for all get something near 80% of Democratic support and 52% of Republicans support it. Just to name one policy idea this idea that Americans hate socialism is silly they love Medicare they love social security the two biggest socialistic programs we have in America all about messaging.Polling also told us, right after Obamacare was passed, that a majority of Americans agreed with each of its ideas separately- but when you called it “Obamacare” a lot of them hated it.
I fear that this is the problem with Bernie and democratic socialism. Republicans have successfully demonized the brand.
I want a passionate fighter and I think the American public does too we've had enough of the technocrats there why we are where we are now they're the reason Trump a rose because they're all about neoliberalism and while the average American may not label it that they darn sure no it hasn't made their lives better it's presented a situation where their children's lives maybe worse than theirs it's time for some passion and Big Ideas.I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary, but I doubt if I'd vote for him this time around. I really want some sort of technocrat type, not sure who is running that fits that description.
Republicans will agree to vote for any Democrat until they're actually faced with the decision. Then they'll find some bull#### excuse to back Trump, saying something like "Well I WOULD have voted for the DNC if only they had nominated someone normal. Instead they voted for the (socialist/lunatic/inexperienced/whatever) so I have no choice but to reluctantly back Trump."I’m always happy to do that.
I may be influenced because I live in Orange County. I have run into a lot of conservatives lately who tell me that they are disgusted by Donald Trump and will happily vote for a Democrat next time around, so long as it’s a “regular” Democrat and “not someone off of the deep end like Bernie”. Their words, not mine.
Because they're Republican lighttimschochet said:I’m always happy to do that.
I may be influenced because I live in Orange County. I have run into a lot of conservatives lately who tell me that they are disgusted by Donald Trump and will happily vote for a Democrat next time around, so long as it’s a “regular” Democrat and “not someone off of the deep end like Bernie”. Their words, not mine.
Well, he's already a member of the House of Representatives. Assuming the Dems take control of the House, he may be able to get some more prominent committee appointments to help boost his profile.The person I'm most impressed with over the last year is Beto. If he upsets Cruz then I could definitely see him running and if he runs he goes way up the list for me. If he loses (which I expect) then I feel like he needs to find a place to land and season himself. He has the temperament and levelheadedness that I would look for in any election cycle but definitely this one.
I'm lazy. Can you provide a reputable link to back this up?After looking at Beto's voting record and his industry ties I wouldn't support him for a presidential run. He is really not particularly progressive and when you analyze his voting record it is problematic at best.
The vast overwhelming percentage of his donations are large donations and the majority of those come from people within the telecom industry. He has raised a lot of money in large donations. He owes people who are unlikely to have my best interests at heart.
So problematic votes and problematic money. Yeah beating Cruz would be fun. And of course he is better than Cruz as a human being. But that is a really low bar and doesn't get him anywhere near presidential material for me.
Actually there are many things I am fond of including my nose. And if I were in Texas I'd vote Beto over Ted of course. Personally I don't think Beto is going to win. He has never led in a single poll. Not one. He is currently down by 7-9 points depending on which poll you go by. But still I'd vote for him over Ted. As for a link to fundraising I'd like to wait until we have the specifics on the record 38 million he raised on the last 3 months so that we can have a clearer picture of this entire cycle. My comments were drawn from his fundraising as a Congressman.I'm lazy. Can you provide a reputable link to back this up?
You seem like a guy who is not fond of his own nose.
He's right... at least about the large contributions part, not sure about who they are specifically. Here's a link. Scroll down to the "Source of Funds (Campaign Committee), 2017 - 2018" portion.I'm lazy. Can you provide a reputable link to back this up?
You seem like a guy who is not fond of his own nose.
Not sure the base matters. With the base alone he loses. Focus on all those areas that turned out huge this cycle to flip the house. Without women and the suburbs this ends really badly for himFrom me in redundant thread:
There are important policy agenda and leadership issues at hand for Democrats looking to take a bite out of grime. Who is best suited to lead Team Blue to maximize their midterm momentum? How much investigating is too much? Pre-existing conditions and taxes were popular messages for the midterms; are those the cornerstones of a successful 2020 platform? Just how do you take down an energized Trump base? Will the DNC give a candidate mandate, or will they take their thumb off the scale in a concession to their 2016's failure of a bid?
And for Republicans it looks like a time of commitment. Do you give your full support to the Donald and ride or die with him? Or do you start distancing yourself as a hedge to future elections? Are the flipped seats in 2018 a sign of the times or an anomaly? Is there really a problem in the suburban demographic, and how do you rekindle the red? Are there demographics being disenfranchised by Democrats that are prime for a flipping in 2020?
I'm going full PSF for the next two years. This is probably a mistake.
I stood next to that dude at an event once. I swear, he's 5'5" if he's an inch. And he looks like he's twelve (even Obama famously trolled him over that). I know we overemphasize the trivial when it comes to presidential politics, but I looked him up and down and said, "There is no freakin' way the American people are ever making that guy Commander in Chief."Julian Castro likely to run
“I want to be straightforward with folks,” said on Yahoo Finance’s “Market Movers” Wednesday. “I’m seriously considering it.”
Castro said that he will make a “final decision” after the Nov. 6 elections.
This is a good point that I hadn't really considered.Biden has to be licking his chops at the size of the Democratic field. As the most moderate and arguably the most well-known candidate he could easily do what Trump did in 2016 -- winning 25-30% of the early races in a 15-way field and then pile up enough of a lead before the field winnows that he's tough to catch.
At this early stage, I think it could bemostly a reflection of name recognition. Also, probably has a more progressive bias vs overall party.Interesting poll from Move On. Plenty of fuel for the idea that Sanders was a product of a two-person race vs an unpopular candidate in 2016. ETA -- feels like there's actually a cleanish break around 1% in terms of legitimate candidates:
Someone Else / Don’t Know 17.89%
Beto O’Rourke 15.60%
Joe Biden 14.95%
Bernie Sanders 13.15%
Kamala Harris 10.02%
Elizabeth Warren 6.42%T
This is true but it’s going to be tough for lesser known candidates to get attention in a crowded field.At this early stage, I think it could bemostly a reflection of name recognition.