Democratic Party worried their candidates might not be good enough to beat Trump? (1 Viewer)

[supermike80]

What is it you are trying to accomplish? People are going to disagree with your premise including people in the article you posted.

Typically there is a back and forth when opinions are being expressed. 

Thank you for your thoughts.   

 

[Jackstraw]

Still

Not

Answering

the 

Question

Concern Trolling: In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally.

 

[Jackstraw]

Not really. Like I posted about four months ago, Vanity Fair did a long, in-depth article about exactly how worried donors were about the viability of the Democratic candidates. I posted in my thread, but got nary a nibble, other than from SID.

Big money donors are worried about Democrats? 

GOOD!!!!

 

[beef]

I don't see any of the Dem candidates as a knight, but that's doesn't concern me since the top ones aren't a jester like trump.  

 

[Steve Tasker]

I have voted for presidential candidates from both parties and even third party.  This time I will vote for anyone the Democrats put up against Trump.   He must be removed from office even if it means Elizabeth Warren.

I'm about there myself.  I like Pete, I like Yang.  Sanders is alright.  The rest of them seem kinda collectively "meh" to me.  But I'm almost certain to vote for whichever of em is the nominee.  Tulsi scares me, I don't like her.

For the record, I'm a registered independent who has never voted for a D for president  

 

[supermike80]

Concern Trolling: In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally.

Adorable.   But no.  I am interested in what people think on this though.  Especially here where the democratic proclivities are very strong

 

[supermike80]

I don't see any of the Dem candidates as a knight, but that's doesn't concern me since the top ones aren't a jester like trump.  

Ba dum dum dum tish!

 

[Jackstraw]

Adorable.   But no.  I am interested in what people think on this though.  Especially here where the democratic proclivities are very strong

I'd walk across broken glass for Warren. Or Booker. Or Harris. Or Biden. Or any of them really. If you think Democratric enthusiasm in 2020 is going to be an issue you need to stop getting high in the morning.  

 

[The General]

Thank you for your thoughts.   

Typical

 

[supermike80]

Typical

I am living by Joe's edict last week.  So I would rather not say anything if it isn't nice. 

Have a wonderful day!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How people are out there that you DO think should be President?  And who was the last one to take the oath that had you saying, yeah OK, this guy deserves it? 

Most recently, Obama.  Going back further, I was or would have been fine with Romney, McCain, Kerry, W, Gore, GHWB, Dukakis, and Reagan.  In other words, everybody I have an actual memory of except for Clinton.

 

[supermike80]

I'd walk across broken glass for Warren. Or Booker. Or Harris. Or Biden. Or any of them really. If you think Democratric enthusiasm in 2020 is going to be an issue you need to stop getting high in the morning.  

See? Was that necessary  Why the personal comment on my habits?   I made no such personal mention of you.  I understand, without a minute amount of hesitation, that the majority here would vote for a dog if he could beat the current President in an election.  I get it.  But, again, that just wasn't the question.

Your party, the democratic party, is expressing concerns.  I think they know more than most on this topic.

 

[Jackstraw]

See? Was that necessary  Why the personal comment on my habits?   I made no such personal mention of you.  I understand, without a minute amount of hesitation, that the majority here would vote for a dog if he could beat the current President in an election.  I get it.  But, again, that just wasn't the question.

Your party, the democratic party, is expressing concerns.  I think they know more than most on this topic.

We got this Mike. Thanks tho. 

 

[supermike80]

We got this Mike. Thanks tho. 

You don't know, Jack.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

We got this Mike. Thanks tho. 

Most recently, Obama.  Going back further, I was or would have been fine with Romney, McCain, Kerry, W, Gore, GHWB, Dukakis, and Reagan.  In other words, everybody I have an actual memory of except for Clinton.

You missed Dole?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You missed Dole?

Yeah sorry I forgot about Dole.  

 

[lazyike]

Any of them are better options than Trump. I’d prefer a moderate so that would be Biden, Pete, Klobacher. I’ll take Sanders as he’d smoke Trump as well.Warren would win I’m guessing as well but would be the best shot for donald.

Hopefully he’s impeached before the election and the topic of these articles can change to who can beat Pence.

I am with you on the moderate thought although I would go Klobuchar, Pete, Ryan, Biden. I think Biden just can't go toe to toe with Trump and his age is starting to show. But anyone of the Dems over Trump....no brainer.

 

[whoknew]

Against a normal Republican it’s a weak field. Against this guy it works. 

Why do you think its a weak field? I actually think the opposite - its a very strong field. So much so that good candidates like Booker and Klobuchar (I'd say Beto, but I know everyone here hates him) can't get any traction.

Of course they all have some baggage. Who doesn't? But for Presidential candidates, this field seems very good to me.

 

[whoknew]

Most recently, Obama.  Going back further, I was or would have been fine with Romney, McCain, Kerry, W, Gore, GHWB, Dukakis, and Reagan.  In other words, everybody I have an actual memory of except for Clinton.

So Kerry, Gore, Dukakis were fine but the current Dem candidates shouldn't be President (other than because they are running v Trump)? I don't really understand that. What's wrong with the long list of current candidates that makes them someone you don't think should be President? Is that just ideological? And if so, how do the Dems you listed above differ?

Thanks.

 

[ericttspikes]

Any Functioning Adult 2020

 

[supermike80]

Why do you think its a weak field? I actually think the opposite - its a very strong field. So much so that good candidates like Booker and Klobuchar (I'd say Beto, but I know everyone here hates him) can't get any traction.

Of course they all have some baggage. Who doesn't? But for Presidential candidates, this field seems very good to me.

Then why do you think the democratic party is questioning it--or do you feel this is just a BS article made up to divide and conquer?

 

[[scooter]]

I think that every Democratic candidate has a fatal flaw which can be exploited by Trump (or any competent Republican candidate). It's a very weak field overall, almost like the kind of field that you would expect to see against a juggernaut opponent -- as if they're all expecting to lose, but they want to build up some momentum and publicity for their next Senate run.

 

[The General]

Sure, of course the hand-wringing goes on every election, but I think these were sort of insiders who were really concerned they might lose to Trump again. Half of that worry is because of the opponent, half of it seemed like they genuinely didn't like the people they were funding. 

Agreed people are extra concerned because the alternative is so alarming bad, dangerous this election.

Warren or Bernie are also left of a traditional Dem. I could see them being problematic as a candidate, still think they would win but not my first choices personally.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So Kerry, Gore, Dukakis were fine but the current Dem candidates shouldn't be President (other than because they are running v Trump)? I don't really understand that. What's wrong with the long list of current candidates that makes them someone you don't think should be President? Is that just ideological? And if so, how do the Dems you listed above differ?

Thanks.

Biden is too old.  Warren and Sanders are too anti-capitalist. 

There are several other candidates who I would be okay with, but the nominee is extremely likely to be one of those three.  They're better than Trump, and I can live with Biden keeping a chair warm for four years, but we really ought to be able to do better than this.

 

[-fish-]

Then why do you think the democratic party is questioning it--or do you feel this is just a BS article made up to divide and conquer?

If you follow the author on twitter, he's also suggesting rumors with no basis whatsoever that Bloomberg or Sherrod Brown are going to jump into the race, even though his own article quotes Brown as saying he isn't.  It's a clickbait article coupled with baseless tweets.   Until people start voting, there's really nothing else to do but speculate.    This is just noise.    

There are several current candidates that are acceptable.   Personally, I think the Democratic message needs to be get Trump out, repair the damage and return the government to something to something functional.   Let legislators promise free college, health care, etc.   The party leader needs to be focused on beating Trump.   Booker keeps banging this drum, but everyone is focused on Warren and Sanders' handouts and Biden's diminishing capacity.   But ultimately, I'd vote for anyone that the Democrats run out there unless someone primaries Trump.    

 

[whoknew]

Then why do you think the democratic party is questioning it--or do you feel this is just a BS article made up to divide and conquer?

I don’t know. But if it’s true, those Dems are wrong. 
 

I can understand not wanting the three front runners - for the reasons Ivan writes about above. I have those same reservations. But there are a bunch of good candidates beyond that. 
 

The question - imo - is not why there aren’t any good candidates. It’s why the good ones haven’t gained any traction in polls. 

 

[AAABatteries]

Peter Savodnik wrote an article in Vanity Fair about Democratic unease with their own candidates' electability. This has been going on for at least eight months. Nothing new. I personally am not going to be able to support any of the current Democratic candidates that I've heard, seen, or witnessed.

It's bad.

I honestly don't see how you could listen to Mayor Pete and not think he would be an infinitely better POTUS than what we have.  It's mind bottling.

 

[AAABatteries]

Or in your threshold isn't Trump I'm not sure how one can't hear him and not think he's Presidential - regardless of who he would be running against.

 

[rockaction]

I honestly don't see how you could listen to Mayor Pete and not think he would be an infinitely better POTUS than what we have.  It's mind bottling.

There are several reasons I wouldn't vote for Mayor Pete. First is because he's a mayor of South Bend, IN, a large college city which is like two economies of scale less than POTUS.

I'd want him to serve in the Senate, serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all that jazz. Then he might have my vote.

But even then, don't forget, I'm really concerned with things like single-payer health care (don't want it), compulsory service (I'm against that), and other entitlement programs he seems to support.

Swell, well-spoken dude. Not experienced enough and not my policy type. 

 

[The General]

I am living by Joe's edict last week.  So I would rather not say anything if it isn't nice. 

Have a wonderful day!

Why would your reaction to this be something not nice? I don't understand.

 

[Thunderlips]

Sure, of course the hand-wringing goes on every election, but I think these were sort of insiders who were really concerned they might lose to Trump again. Half of that worry is because of the opponent, half of it seemed like they genuinely didn't like the people they were funding. 

Good.  Little more worrying about winning and a little less worrying about fireworks and the post election celebration menu. 

 

[AAABatteries]

I think it's highly likely that Trump loses in 2020.

I think it's a near certainty that whoever takes the oath of office in 2021 is somebody who I really don't think should be president.

Don't think they should be President because you don't agree with their policies/position or don't think they should be President because they are unqualified?  Unfortunately we've entered that territory where we've gotten a totally unqualified person as POTUS so it stands to reason it may happen more frequently in the future on both sides.

 

[supermike80]

If you follow the author on twitter, he's also suggesting rumors with no basis whatsoever that Bloomberg or Sherrod Brown are going to jump into the race, even though his own article quotes Brown as saying he isn't.  It's a clickbait article coupled with baseless tweets.   Until people start voting, there's really nothing else to do but speculate.    This is just noise.    

There are several current candidates that are acceptable.   Personally, I think the Democratic message needs to be get Trump out, repair the damage and return the government to something to something functional.   Let legislators promise free college, health care, etc.   The party leader needs to be focused on beating Trump.   Booker keeps banging this drum, but everyone is focused on Warren and Sanders' handouts and Biden's diminishing capacity.   But ultimately, I'd vote for anyone that the Democrats run out there unless someone primaries Trump.    

Well I agree with you so much.  I've said this over and over. The #1 objective of the democratic party should be the removal of President Trump.  Period. Nothing more.  

 

[rockaction]

Oh, I should say to @AAABatteries. I'm not voting for President Trump. This isn't an either/or thing or that I think that our current president is in any way satisfactory to me. I'm just not voting Democratic, either. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Your party, the democratic party, is expressing concerns.  I think they know more than most on this topic.

What are you basing this on?  Seems to me the Democratic Party establishment has a truly awful track record in determining electability.

 

[supermike80]

What are you basing this on?  Seems to me the Democratic Party establishment has a truly awful track record in determining electability.

Fair point.  But I am still willing to be they know more than just about anyone on this bored.   That was kind of my point. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You guys aren't really answering the question though.   It is clear that the majority of this board will vote for whomever they can to unseat President Trump.  That part is established.  What I am asking is does it concern you that the democrat party could potentially not feel very confident in the current candidates ability to defeat the President?

Yes it concerns me that there are people who will vote Donald Trump.  The fact that this will be more than single digits is a concern.  The fact that it will be tens of millions is terribly sad.  The fact that Trump is at least a coin flip chance of winning at this time is beyond a concern.

But the premise that this is a reflection of the Democrats running for president and the eventual nominee being "not good enough" is incorrect.  This is a reflection in the various qualities that are lacking in those that would cast a vote for Trump.  So yes we should be concerned.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Fair point.  But I am still willing to be they know more than just about anyone on this bored.   That was kind of my point. 

Yeah I think I disagree with your premise.

 

[supermike80]

Yes it concerns me that there are people who will vote Donald Trump.  The fact that this will be more than single digits is a concern.  The fact that it will be tens of millions is terribly sad.  The fact that Trump is at least a coin flip chance of winning at this time is beyond a concern.

But the premise that this is a reflection of the Democrats running for president and the eventual nominee being "not good enough" is incorrect.  This is a reflection in the various qualities that are lacking in those that would cast a vote for Trump.  So yes we should be concerned.

Well, I will refrain from disparaging those that vote for Trump.  But I do appreciate your opinion on that matter

 

[supermike80]

Yeah I think I disagree with your premise.

Pretty sure this bored was confident Hillary would win the election in 2016.  ( In my best Larry David voice) Pretty pretty pretty sure....

 

[rockaction]

Pretty sure this bored was confident Hillary would win the election in 2016.  ( In my best Larry David voice) Pretty pretty pretty sure....

I'm not that sure about that. I think people were genuinely worried, yet in disbelief, that Trump might win. The attitude was one of trepidation around here, IIRC.

 

[-fish-]

There are several reasons I wouldn't vote for Mayor Pete. First is because he's a mayor of South Bend, IN, a large college city which is like two economies of scale less than POTUS.

I'd want him to serve in the Senate, serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all that jazz. Then he might have my vote.

But even then, don't forget, I'm really concerned with things like single-payer health care (don't want it), compulsory service (I'm against that), and other entitlement programs he seems to support.

Swell, well-spoken dude. Not experienced enough and not my policy type. 

Mayor Pete isn't for straight single payer, and he hasn't come out for compulsory service.  He does want a 1 year national service program, but he's always said it would not be mandatory or a draft.   As the idea evolves, it has been more tied more to incentives for serving, primarily in domestic service corps focused on climate, intergenerational service and community health.  The incentives haven't been fully fleshed out, but are mostly tied to student debt relief.

 

[-fish-]

Pretty sure this bored was confident Hillary would win the election in 2016.  ( In my best Larry David voice) Pretty pretty pretty sure....

I'm not that sure about that. I think people were genuinely worried, yet in disbelief, that Trump might win. The attitude was one of trepidation around here, IIRC.

Yeah there were a lot of people trying to convince Tim that Hillary hadn't been anointed as the next president and that she had a ton of drawbacks as a candidate.   There was a disproportionate amount of support on this board for Bernie, as well.   A lot of them turned into "Gary Johnson" voters.

 

[rockaction]

Mayor Pete isn't for straight single payer, and he hasn't come out for compulsory service.  He does want a 1 year national service program, but he's always said it would not be mandatory or a draft.   As the idea evolves, it has been more tied more to incentives for serving, primarily in domestic service corps focused on climate, intergenerational service and community health.  The incentives haven't been fully fleshed out, but are mostly tied to student debt relief.

Thanks for the clarification. I should state honestly that I don't perfectly know the nuances of his platform. I had heard noises about some sort of health insurance program that veers way too close to a fully government-funded program like a Medicare-For-All and even the bubbles of national service for the year gets me a little wary about the statist nature of that type of proposal. I think it might be worse that the details aren't fleshed out. That could be sloppy, even.

I'm just not yet on board with anyone running near the Democratic Platform. At the same time, restoring sanity to the executive is a huge thing for me. I'm likely to vote Libertarian. 

 

[supermike80]

Yeah there were a lot of people trying to convince Tim that Hillary hadn't been anointed as the next president and that she had a ton of drawbacks as a candidate.   There was a disproportionate amount of support on this board for Bernie, as well.   A lot of them turned into "Gary Johnson" voters.

Everyone knew she had a lot of drawbacks as a president.  Even the not so smart democratic party knew that.  That's not a revelation.  Ya'all still thought shed be in that chair right now though. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Everyone knew she had a lot of drawbacks as a president.  Even the not so smart democratic party knew that.  That's not a revelation.  Ya'all still thought shed be in that chair right now though. 

Many of us were concerned about Hillary's electability.  I will concede that my concerns diminished a lot after Trump won the Republican nomination because I thought he would be easy to beat.  Even at the time, though, many of us on this board were arguing that Bernie would be a better general election candidate, but the same sort of Democratic insiders that are now complaining about candidates insisted Hillary was the pick.

In 2008 the establishment wanted Hillary because they thought a black guy couldn't win.

In 2004 the establishment wanted Kerry because Howard Dean couldn't win.

In 1992 the most prominent Dems didn't even run because there was no way anyone was going to beat George H.W. Bush.

The people you're relying on don't have any idea what they're talking about.

 

[supermike80]

Many of us were concerned about Hillary's electability.  I will concede that my concerns diminished a lot after Trump won the Republican nomination because I thought he would be easy to beat.  Even at the time, though, many of us on this board were arguing that Bernie would be a better general election candidate, but the same sort of Democratic insiders that are now complaining about candidates insisted Hillary was the pick.

In 2008 the establishment wanted Hillary because they thought a black guy couldn't win.

In 2004 the establishment wanted Kerry because Howard Dean couldn't win.

In 1992 the most prominent Dems didn't even run because there was no way anyone was going to beat George H.W. Bush.

The people you're relying on don't have any idea what they're talking about.

Woah..easy big fella.  Take a breath.  I am not relying on anyone.

But based on your logic, is it safe to assume the next democratic nominee will also be a failure?   Your argument seems to say the party doesn't know what they are doing.   This doesn't help the confidence in beating the President in 2020.

 

[Jackstraw]

I think that every Democratic candidate has a fatal flaw which can be exploited by Trump (or any competent Republican candidate). It's a very weak field overall, almost like the kind of field that you would expect to see against a juggernaut opponent -- as if they're all expecting to lose, but they want to build up some momentum and publicity for their next Senate run.

Like being impeached? A history of rape and sexual assault allegations? A settlement for fraud? A history of bankruptcy? Too many racist statements to count? Accepting funds from sovereign nations? Stuff like that? 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But based on your logic, is it safe to assume the next democratic nominee will also be a failure?   Your argument seems to say the party doesn't know what they are doing.   This doesn't help the confidence in beating the President in 2020.

No, because the party doesn't decide who the nominee is, the voters do.  Democratic voters are going to pick Elizabeth Warren.  Democratic big money donors and establishment types are going to wring their hands worried that she will lose.  But then she will win big.

 

[supermike80]

Like being impeached? A history of rape and sexual assault allegations? A settlement for fraud? A history of bankruptcy? Too many racist statements to count? Accepting funds from sovereign nations? Stuff like that? 

I dont think any of the democratic candidates have those on their resume actually.