Jump to content
SaysWho?

~*Official 2020 Candidates Thread*~

Recommended Posts

In the event of a tie, Democrats need to pick up 4 House Delegations (PA and MI) in the new House and take the Senate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, if we could get rid of Biden and Mayor Pete and have it be between Warren, Sanders, and Harris (who I like some, iffy on her some), that'd be awesome (of the current candidates). With one becoming president of the three and one becoming vice president of the three. I'd be very happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean i get why they're doing it, but i'd be surprised if the map looks like that, theres a pretty good chance AZ, FL, GA, or NC flip as well, all were within like 5%, with 2018 elections being even closer, the map is changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Forget that these idiots went to an event of a person who supports them to shout over her, but she went right into the issue instead of ignoring them or having them removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 11:23 AM, Greatoneshere said:

Man, if we could get rid of Biden and Mayor Pete and have it be between Warren, Sanders, and Harris (who I like some, iffy on her some), that'd be awesome (of the current candidates). With one becoming president of the three and one becoming vice president of the three. I'd be very happy with that.

Harris, the woman who bragged about prosecuting parents for their childrens truancy, walked back her Medicare for All stance to satisfy rich donors, and made one good point against Biden in a debate? No thanks. 

 

I obviously know the nominee isn't going to be Gabbard, but she's the only Dem running I'd vote for (aside from possibly Biden). Otherwise, i'd absolutely vote 3rd party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly not seeing what puts Gabbard above the rest? Gabbard/Biden seem like a strange Top 2, but maybe it'll make sense if I hear the reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Harris, the woman who bragged about prosecuting parents for their childrens truancy, walked back her Medicare for All stance to satisfy rich donors, and made one good point against Biden in a debate? No thanks. 

 

You listed all the reasons I don't like Harris, so I'm with you, but she seems to have reversed herself on a number of those issues/positions, though I don't trust it if she means it I can live with her. Biden sucks regardless.

 

Vote 3rd party? Trying to help Trump? :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I'm honestly not seeing what puts Gabbard above the rest? Gabbard/Biden seem like a strange Top 2, but maybe it'll make sense if I hear the reasoning.

I like Gabbards strong stance on non-interventionism, I also agree with most of her world view. I much prefer her to Biden, but I do think Biden would be a good president. 

 

15 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You listed all the reasons I don't like Harris, so I'm with you, but she seems to have reversed herself on a number of those issues/positions, though I don't trust it if she means it I can live with her. Biden sucks regardless.

 

Vote 3rd party? Trying to help Trump? :p 

I can't vote for Trump, but I also can't vote for Warren or Harris, because I don't think either are genuine, and don't think they could beat Trump anyway. Especially Warren, I think it would be another 2016. I will admit that if Bernie could show real policy to go with his ideas, I may support him. But thats always been my problem with him, lots of things he is going to do, but not one idea on how to get it done (Aside from tax increases on the wealthy that are NEVER getting passed without democrats having all three branches of government, which is a slim chance, and even with all 3 branches I don't think most centrist dems would vote to pass it). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I can't vote for Trump, but I also can't vote for Warren or Harris, because I don't think either are genuine, and don't think they could beat Trump anyway. 

Well not with that attitude young man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

She's another establishment candidate who will say whatever the audiance she's speaking to wants to hear. 

 

An establishment candidate who goes with the wind is the opposite of Warren. You, like, partially described Biden, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

An establishment candidate who goes with the wind is the opposite of Warren. You, like, partially described Biden, honestly.

The difference being Biden can beat Trump (possibly). 

 

Warren, like all the old guard, spent her career lying to the public to get what she wanted. Nothing she is saying she will do will get done, because the establishment doesn't want it done. Hence Kamala walking back MFA, and Pelosi promising insurers she'll kill MFA. Then theres the whole Native American debacle. Warren is a political opportunist, just like the rest.  But again, my biggest problem with her is that she can't beat Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren is at fault for Kamala walking back MFA? I am so confused. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

The difference being Biden can beat Trump (possibly). 

 

Warren, like all the old guard, spent her career lying to the public to get what she wanted. Nothing she is saying she will do will get done, because the establishment doesn't want it done. Hence Kamala walking back MFA, and Pelosi promising insurers she'll kill MFA. Then theres the whole Native American debacle. Warren is a political opportunist, just like the rest.  But again, my biggest problem with her is that she can't beat Trump. 

 

But Warren's not the old guard, nor is she an establishment candidate. The only things Hillary and Warren have in economy are not having a Y chromosome and being smart.

 

I feel like you've never listened to her. I have for a long time, and her view of the country is one that put together safeguards to prevent boom-and-bust economies via the New Deal and then slowly removed one little strand from the ball until it blew up in 2008, in large part because wealth was concentrated in so few hands that it only took greed from a few to bring down the economy for the many. Like, this is just who she is and what she believed as a professor. 

 

She actually seems like someone who was passionate about these issues in the 90s and 00s and did what she could as a private citizen to protect consumers and then wanted to get into public service to make a bigger difference. This is the first time I ever heard anyone say she's establishment, and she's not. She's just not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Lol, Warren entered the senate in 2012, old guard indeed. I honestly wonder if he's one of those paid Russian trolls, I mean who the fuck thinks Gabbard is the one. Polling seems to indicate that the top dem candidates can beat Trump, with the closer ones being lower on name ID, the big trend is Trump basically stuck in the low 40s against all of them.

 

On top of this Warren's numbers have been getting better as we go, NBC/WSJ poll out today has her up 5, Sanders 7, Biden 9, and Harris 1.  Trump's range in this poll?  42-44%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen everyone. If we do the half your Senate time plus 9 rule, Warren is clearly the old guard. Let's vote for the guy who was in the Senate for 40 years. And speaking of 40 years, we can't trust people who have been saying and doing the same thing for that amount of time to continue to do so. Let's give the lady who can't decide what she thinks about gay people a chance.

 

Additionally, Harris sucks because she prosecuted the parents of black children. We need to vote for the guy whose relationship with the black community is the most questionable of all.

 

And, if we don't think a candidate can beat Trump, we need to vote third party and do our part to ensure a Trump victory because the mythological perfect candidate wasn't chosen. Because if we don't like poor treatment of black people and minorities, people that are too old to function, nor people that can't make up their mind about a subject, then we need Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I can't vote for Trump, but I also can't vote for Warren or Harris, because I don't think either are genuine, and don't think they could beat Trump anyway. Especially Warren, I think it would be another 2016. I will admit that if Bernie could show real policy to go with his ideas, I may support him. But thats always been my problem with him, lots of things he is going to do, but not one idea on how to get it done (Aside from tax increases on the wealthy that are NEVER getting passed without democrats having all three branches of government, which is a slim chance, and even with all 3 branches I don't think most centrist dems would vote to pass it). 

 

Warren not being genuine is the craziest hot take I've ever heard given her decades long consistency on issues, and both her and Sanders' policies are outlined in great detail on their websites so I'm not sure how you can say he hasn't shown real policies, since they are right there on his website. Bipartisanship has long been dead, so who cares whether they can actually pass something or not - they'll try and they may succeed depending on a number of factors but bothering with bipartisanship before we've even won the election is a waste of time with racist and stupid Republicans. That's partly what makes Biden so terrible.

 

And this false belief that people are perpetuating that Biden can beat Trump doesn't make sense to me - I don't think that's a given at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jose said:

Head to heads are sooooo useless.

Everything is useless at this stage of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Everything is useless at this stage of the game.

 

Polls now are as useless as Rubio is always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

Polls now are as useless as Rubio is always.

Whoa, whoa - let's not go THAT far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Everything is useless at this stage of the game.

 

For sure, but head to heads are especially so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I can't vote for Trump, but I also can't vote for Warren or Harris, because I don't think either are genuine, and don't think they could beat Trump anyway. Especially Warren, I think it would be another 2016

 

Voting theory is a well studied sub-area of game theory. This is known to be a bad voting strategy unless you honestly don't care whether Trump wins compared to those two. We need to learn to get over our "principles" and instead do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is where the candidates stand now as far as making the third debates (they need 2% support from FOUR qualifying polls and at least 130,000 unique donors):

 

D_YEwWsWwAAlUTz.jpg:large

 

They have until late August to meet the poll and donor threshold. I have to think that some of these guys will try to make waves in the July debates to improve their August poll numbers.

 

Booker and Klobuchar are doing well in the polls but need to up their donor count.

 

Beto, Castro and Yang all have the donor count but need to improve their poll numbers.

 

I hope Inslee improves; I like his presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, we're in the longest period of competitive elections since post-Civil War.

 

Skelley-COMPETITIVE-ELECTIONS-0522-1.png

 

We've also been competitive since Captain America: Civil War released in 2016, but we only have one data point for that. :( 

 

This graph puts things in even better perspective because if you look at 1996 and 2008, both Clinton and Obama coasted election wins, easily winning the popular vote and electoral vote. But it's so damn puny to so much of the 20th century. The 1960 election must have been interesting to witness/report considering how close it was.

 

And because nobody knew the loser would become president and resign in disgrace years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

He really isn't going to make it.

Biden's mental capacity should be questioned at this stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...