Post Mid Terms - who should challenge Trump in 2020?

Eh... I think the issue would be having that pose of authenticity factor in as part of deciding whom to cast a vote for in the first place. Of course personality is going to have it's place and questions of character yadda-yadda. That's not even bringing in how subjective that statement of yours is. "False airs" is for sure in the eyes of the beholder. People, especially politicians, can be damn good at putting up a false front. If the voters are willing to accept the false front above all else well... Again, W. Bush, Trump... This is what we endured and are enduring because so many are willing to put so much stock into a pose of authenticity.

You don't have to be a Hillary fan to understand that while she may have been a ****ty retail politician that she in terms of policy and experience was the better choice. Did she come off unauthentic often? Yup. Still was the better choice all around, especially if you are a Left of center type.

Given the margin of error of our recent presidential elections, I'm sorry, but I have little patience for the strident Left's tilting at windmills for some candidate that will be more authentic and pure on multiple levels to their liking and holding out support to the point that they make the victory of reactionary forces more likely.

And you're open to that. But, as said, I personally want a President who is of, for, and by the people.

You named W. Bush and Trump, but I can name another thing the two have in common - they weren't of the people. They came from upper class lifestyles which severely held them at a distance of being able to understand people on a grounded level. It's not personality - it's their lack of life experience.

To reiterate and to be clear, I'm not nor have I ever talked about personality, until you brought it up - I'm talking being of the people (as in the kind of life experience one has).

As a bisexual, I'd have to severely disagree with Hillary (as in Hillary vs Bernie). I remember what it was liking growing up under statutes such as DOMA and DADT, I also remember having to go up against Hillary when it came down to fighting for civil rights such as equal marriage; so I know it wasn't just Bill - but she played a role as well. She only takes moves when they're politically convenient rather than bold decisive action, or at least that has been my experience of her as a bisexual man. I know fans of her will vehemently disagree, but as an lgbtq individual and as a civil rights activist - I'm not a fan. With that said, I voted for her against Trump.

Policies and life experience is what I place the most value in and people are open to disagree with that, even loudly, because to me that is part of what makes democracy great.

I whole-heartedly believe it's time for someone who is of, for, and by the people.
 
Last edited:
"Of the people".

I'd argue after 8 years of belittling the midwest & the south as ignorant dinosaur rubes, people wouldn't exactly consider Obama "of the people" either, hence they're willing to risk a dip**** like Trump.

Also, how many presidents historically, who are beloved today, are "of the people" anyway? FDR sure as hell wasn't, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush Sr, it doesn't matter the party. Hillary sure wouldn't have been. Richie Richers are sort of the order of the day, they're running for President, comes with the territory. Obama didn't grow up rich, no, but he sure as hell didn't echo the outlook of the midwest over the coasts.
 
Call me pessimistic, but I'm of the mind that Joe Biden is the only one who can beat Trump.
 
"Of the people".

I'd argue after 8 years of belittling the midwest & the south as ignorant dinosaur rubes, people wouldn't exactly consider Obama "of the people" either, hence they're willing to risk a dip**** like Trump.

Also, how many presidents historically, who are beloved today, are "of the people" anyway? FDR sure as hell wasn't, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush Sr, it doesn't matter the party. Hillary sure wouldn't have been. Richie Richers are sort of the order of the day, they're running for President, comes with the territory. Obama didn't grow up rich, no, but he sure as hell didn't echo the outlook of the midwest over the coasts.

Nor would I. I wouldn't exactly call having a home caregiver in the 1960s as being working/middle; he wasn't rich, but he was well-off. This is likely what helped to lead to tragedies like Flint - small town, the people hoped Obama would be their white knight when he came - instead, he "drank" from the water and allowed the area to be used for military practice. Don't get me wrong, there were some things Obama did great and - there were other things he didn't do great at as well.

We need someone who can call out the Democratic party for their failings to earn back the voters who either went to Trump (after voting for Obama) or sat it out entirely.

People already have a very negative view of the Democratic party as being the "elite" or "establishment." This view is held by most millennials, people in red states, among others. The party, as controversial as it will be to say, did fail these people - if that wasn't the case, the Democratic party approval rating would be much higher than it currently is (52% unfavorable - Gallop 9/2018) and people wouldn't have switched from Obama to Trump. The party needs reform.

One way to combat that is a candidate who hails from the rustbelt, knows Trump's voters on a personal level, and has seen them rally behind causes that not many would assume they would - such as standing up for an immigrant who was deported because they considered him to be a pillar of their community. The same people who voted for Mayor Pete in Indiana similarly voted for Pence, Obama, and Trump - when Pete came out as gay, he was re-elected mayor with 88% of the vote in a rustbelt state. It isn't liberal or conservative policies that helped Mayor Pete to get through, it was conviction and being able to describe how liberal policies would benefit their everyday lives.

So many representatives are focused on the bigger picture that they forget the things people care about most is what effects them in their everyday lives and that's what Mayor Pete speaks to.

I'd argue that if the Democratic party returns to an "establishment" President as the front runner it would only further cement this negative view people have - which if he or she wins would likely result in more of a pushback in the next go around than what happened with Trump. This makes it absolutely crucial that all/majority of the people finally feel like they have a President who has their back. People could say that's impossible, but it's just showing how policies effect everyday lives.

This is why the party needs to get away from the "establishment" and seek out newer and fresher options - someone who's of the people. We've seen what Presidents who are economically well-off have done, the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow on a yearly basis and it is only getting worse with each passing year. I say it's time to see what the underdog, someone who is from the middle class can do. It's time for someone who is of, for, and by the people.

Here's a CNN article which further dives into the importance of a working/middle class President:
2016: We need a middle-class president (Opinion) - CNN
 
Last edited:

It seems petty to run again when Warren is running, their positions and goals aren't identical but they are similar enough that they shouldn't directly compete.

A mayor of a small city to president is not a good choice. He needs more experience. Because, as we have seen, there are dangers in inexperience.

And yet a lot of experience that a lot of politicians actually have is bad experience.
 
It seems petty to run again when Warren is running, their positions and goals aren't identical but they are similar enough that they shouldn't directly compete.
That's not a good reason to not run. Most politicians shouldn't be running against one another in primaries if that's the standard we're going to use.

Bernie's moment was in 2016, and it didn't happen. Time to move on. And he's too damn old.
 
Castro and Harris are my two favorites.
 


**** all these left leaning moderates with ridiculous egos like Schultz and Bloomberg for even flirting with the idea of running third party in this election. If people want to see what the easiest pathway is for Trump being re-elected this is it. If their coffee wasn’t already crap and I didn’t avoid it like the plague normally I would be boycotting Starbucks over this.
 
Last edited:
Kamela's official election bid in Oakland has a helluva turnout -- over 50,000 people. If she can generate that same kind of enthusiasm nationwide.... watch out Trump.
 
Harris's home state of California is the most populated state there is and the 3rd most (counting D.C.) Democratic in the last presidential election so there's just the most people there to join a rally. I like Harris and consider her for president among others but I don't expect her to translate quite as well elsewhere as in California. The areas especially that have to be gotten after are Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas while holding the Clinton won areas.

X8vaUi2.png


H. Clinton Pop. Vote: 48.02% (+2.09)
D. Trump Pop. Vote: 45.93%
all others Pop. Vote: 6.05%
 
Last edited:
Honestly, we kind of have to ignore FL's last elections. We have no idea what the influx of so many voters will do. Though, I expect shenanigans.
 
Kamela's official election bid in Oakland has a helluva turnout -- over 50,000 people. If she can generate that same kind of enthusiasm nationwide.... watch out Trump.

Eh... everyone’s been waiting 2 years + for these primaries, so I think the crowd size will be huge for all of the main contenders that people are aware of; if they’re not, that’d be a problem and show that anticipation for voting is lower than events such as Women’s March etc.

So, it’s hard for me to judge - is it Kamala or is it hype over the primaries finally beginning to get rid of Trump? This primary itself is an anticipated event which makes it harder to tell than usual.

There’s going to be a lot of things unusual since, well, it’s been an unusual 2+Years. I wouldn’t expect these primaries to be like past years in being able to predict how things will play out. It’s going to be a lot bigger because - as said - anticipation has been years in the making.

I think in a couple of months when primaries become the norm will be a bigger determining factor in who has the biggest turn out. Right now, as said it’s hard to tell which is the bigger draw - Kamala or primaries - and it’d be the same for each of the notables.
 
Last edited:
I misquoted the numbers at Harris' event, it was 20,000 but the venue was packed and there were a lot of people waiting outside the square.
 
Yeah, you don't get that kind of crowd for "generic Democrat".

Yeah, Schultz has to run as an independent, because there is no way he can get a Dem nomination after that interview.
 
Yeah, you don't get that kind of crowd for "generic Democrat".

Yeah, Schultz has to run as an independent, because there is no way he can get a Dem nomination after that interview.

Biden. Bernie. Warren. Etc.

I stand by my point of it being too early to judge if it is more due to who or what.

I’m prepared to canvass for any Democrat who gets to the general. So it’s not coming from an anti position - rather knowing 2+ year primary anticipation will make it difficult to tell in the beginning if it is more due to who or what and I’d say that for any of the main (top) candidates no matter who they are.

You will, more than likely, find political commentators across MSNBC and CNN saying the same thing I am - due to the level of anticipation leading up to this election (a lot more than the past), it’s going to be hard to judge this early on if it’s more due to who or what.
 
Last edited:
Why a wall or welfare when you can have coffee to write your screenplay. :o
 
Candidate Mayor Pete on the rise of the machines:



(since I'll definitely come off bias in my posts above now - I'll actually be happy if we get 1/10th of Kamala's crowd, I don't expect that or anything close to that this soon; it's definitely the long-game here).

Also Lis Smith was chosen as communications advisor: Lis Smith (@Lis_Smith) | Twitter
 
Last edited:
What does everyone think about starting threads on individual candidates?

I'm prepared to start one for Pete Buttigieg.

I think over the months to come there's going to be so much info per candidate that just one thread for all will quickly lead to clutter.

Hesitant to start one for the candidate I'm backing though without seeing if more members would be behind this idea since that could open a floodgate after I do it for something people may not want - I think it'd help with the upcoming candidate specific clutter.

Keeping maybe this page more focused around healthy debate about candidates as well as talking about the televised debates and events.

Basically individual candidate threads for candidate specific news and information and orienting this thread more around candidates overall - articles where all/many/couple are discussed or events where all participate and etc.

One fun example that includes many (although it's not news, I think many would get a kick out of it though) :

If The 2020 Democratic Candidates Were Game Of Thrones Characters
 
Last edited:
I’m not opposed to them, but I think it’d be easier to keep everything contained to this thread. Comparing the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses would be easier if the information is all in one place, as opposed to jumping back and forth between 5+ threads.

That said, you might also want to consider starting a “No Discussion” thread that only lists facts (supported by sources) about each individual candidate and their positions (as well as videos, statements, voting histories, etc.).
 
That said, you might also want to consider starting a “No Discussion” thread that only lists facts (supported by sources) about each individual candidate and their positions (as well as videos, statements, voting histories, etc.).

I could definitely get behind that idea.

-----

Does the "no discussion" idea sound like a good idea to others? (as said, just seeking a general consensus since if I do it - others would probably follow, so just checking for general consensus before potentially opening the floodgates for more to follow).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"