Post Mid Terms - who should challenge Trump in 2020?

Biden is honestly coming across like a self-aware version of Trump that can usually hide his most egregious character flaws but slips up now and then...
 
So Warren/Harris it is.

I’m really liking how Warren is running her campaign so far. She’s killing it on the policy end. And she seems the most focused on her message of why she believes she needed to run and what she wants to do if she wins.
 
Which I hate to even say, won't win. Two women on the same ticket.....let's not pretend everybody is that progressive.
 
I think the freshmen class of Representatives disagree.
 
Which I hate to even say, won't win. Two women on the same ticket.....let's not pretend everybody is that progressive.

People said the same thing about Obama. It’s too tough to tell really. Sexism is certainly still an issue, but Warren won’t be able to be labeled as part of the “establishment” as easy as Hillary. We’ll just have to see how she keeps drumming up interest on the campaign.
 
Yeah, lets not ignore the 30 years of sexist attacks on Hillary.
 
Hillary won the popular vote while being one of the least engaging candidates ever to run for public office.

Warren has a superior platform she’s pitching and she comes across as someone’s well-meaning aunt rather than an out of touch cyborg, people really need to stop assuming sexism is the biggest issue facing the western world and that it’ll jump out from behind every bush.

If Warren chose a slightly younger, male VP that would sew up any weird “electability”/identity representation issues people may have.
 
Hillary won the popular vote while being one of the least engaging candidates ever to run for public office.

Warren has a superior platform she’s pitching and she comes across as someone’s well-meaning aunt rather than an out of touch cyborg, people really need to stop assuming sexism is the biggest issue facing the western world and that it’ll jump out from behind every bush.

If Warren chose a slightly younger, male VP that would sew up any weird “electability”/identity representation issues people may have.

Buttigieg? Or would a woman and a gay man be pushing it?
 
Buttigieg? Or would a woman and a gay man be pushing it?

I actually think that’s a pretty solid pairing.

Warren has economics at the forefront while Buttigieg is a young guy that also served - so a few military types and non-zealous conservatives could be swayed. That pair has the biggest potential to siphon votes from the Republicans IMO, you’ve got a military man and a woman punting policy that’ll put cash in the pockets of the 98%, it’s a pretty solid strategy.

The US might not be ready for its first gay president (IMO I’m not sold on that in all honesty) but it’s not a big deal as a VP.

Harris would also be good, Booker is a slick talker but he strikes me as dense so I’d avoid him if I were Warren.
 
Warren has a superior platform she’s pitching and she comes across as someone’s well-meaning aunt rather than an out of touch cyborg, people really need to stop assuming sexism is the biggest issue facing the western world and that it’ll jump out from behind every bush.
They should also stop giving sexism so much weight as the thing that held back Clinton. There's quite a few reasons she didn't win, and not all of them were illegitimate or bad-faith smears.
 
They should also stop giving sexism so much weight as the thing that held back Clinton. There's quite a few reasons she didn't win, and not all of them were illegitimate or bad-faith smears.

It’s a complicated thing. She has had decades of sexist criticism thrown at her. Some of the mannerisms she adopted were in direct response to being told she came across too feminine, and then later she’s told she sounds too stiff and not genuine enough etc.

Yes, she did make decisions that can certainly be questioned, but I think she faced far more scrutiny than she would have if she were a man. But it also isn’t fair to attribute all of it to that. However, it absolutely played a part.
 
It definitely did play some role, but since she won the popular vote it clearly didn’t play enough of a part to actually prevent her from winning.

If there’s anything that had the lion’s share of her difficulty in appealing to voters it’s the memetic hate for the Clintons that’s been accruing across a few decades, more so than her gender.

Since Warren is Biden’s incumbent opponent it’s clear sexism as far as leading candidates goes has limited scope, and bizarrely Andrew Yang, a male, is running on a very similar platform and hasn’t enjoyed the same success as she has.

Let’s stop looking for identitarian boogeymen everywhere and admit America is probably far more ready for a female or homosexual president than the the-sky-is-falling-on-Amerikkka folks would have you believe.
 
Look, my generation is the perfect age to be affected by the Hillary messaging. I mean, there is a reason there was substantial enthusiasm for Bernie over Hillary. And why that support didn't carry over. We had been bombarded by decades of a message that Hillary is the devil. For being a smart and ambitious woman.

Is it the only reason she lost, no. But again, I cannot stress how demonized she has been in the media ever since she was the first lady of Arkansas.
 
There was substantial support for Bernie because he appeals to the same things Trump does only he’s a benevolent populist instead of an unhinged narcissist.

Despite all Clinton’s issues she still won the popular vote, which clearly means all the baggage she came with wasn’t sufficient to drive people away in their droves.

Clinton being demonized hit fever pitch during the election, she was probably just disliked before.

This is a dead horse in any case; tldr; America has been ready for a female president for a while and Warren is twice the candidate that corporately captured Clinton was.

Finis.
 
Warren/Buttigeig sounds good.
I don't know. Buttigeig is kind of fuzzy on a lot of things, and he does have that annoying element of trying to sound a bit like Biden, but is far better at sounding 21st century about it. I wouldn't hate him or anything, but I feel like we could do better.
 
I don't know. Buttigeig is kind of fuzzy on a lot of things, and he does have that annoying element of trying to sound a bit like Biden, but is far better at sounding 21st century about it. I wouldn't hate him or anything, but I feel like we could do better.
I consider it my ideal Plan B. I wanna put Booker in there, but I'm just not feeling it.
 
I consider it my ideal Plan B. I wanna put Booker in there, but I'm just not feeling it.
Warren and Bernie probably wouldn't work out for a few reasons. So for me I guess it would be Warren and Gillibrand. She definitely has her issues from the past, but unlike Biden, I can buy her actually being progressive going forward. Same thing with Harris, though Harris issues hit closer to home for me, considering where she is from.
 
Look, my generation is the perfect age to be affected by the Hillary messaging. I mean, there is a reason there was substantial enthusiasm for Bernie over Hillary. And why that support didn't carry over.
It did carry over though. Most people who voted Bernie in the primaries ended up voting for Hillary, and way more Hillary voters jumped ship back in 2008.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It&#39;s ridiculous to suggest that Bernie supporters sunk Clinton. 25% of Clinton voters in 2008 voted for McCain and Obama won in a landslide. <a href="Josh Miller-Lewis on Twitter">pic.twitter.com/SasGVNNlob</a></p>&mdash; Josh Miller-Lewis (@jmillerlewis) <a href="">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
You know someone mentioned Harris being in a debate with Trump, and frankly, I kind of want to see it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"