Jump to content
SaysWho?

~*Official 2020 Candidates Thread*~

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

No, you're both right. It is 35. I was the one mistaken. I do not know why I thought the minimum age was higher. 

 

25 for House 

30 for Senate 

35 for POTUS 

 

I guess if someone under 35 managed to make it into a position in the line of succession, they'd just be skipped over a ineligible? 

Share this post


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

 

25 for House 

30 for Senate 

35 for POTUS 

 

I guess if someone under 35 managed to make it into a position in the line of succession, they'd just be skipped over a ineligible? 

I guess so. Same thing if the next in the line of succession was not born a USA citizen and lived in the country for at least 14 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't need to be under 45, but it would be nice if they could be called on for two full terms without the question of "will they live that long?" Coming up and being a somewhat serious question.

 

Also, it's time for a new generation of leadership in style and substance. Even Obama was something of the old guard, especially on substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get on board the Beto bus, you clowns.

 

Biden and Bernie are too old.

Warren is seen as shrill (she's also old).

Booker is/was in bed with Big Pharma.

 

Who else is a serious contender?

 

I think we need a fresh, young face with an inspiring message. Someone attractive (because yes, this unfortunately is important) who will be the moral opposite of Trump.

 

I see white, Rust belt baby boomers voting for Beto much more readily than they'd vote for someone like Harris.

Share this post


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

538 put together a list in October.

 

 

One metric that won't decide my vote but that I really want to see in a Democratic candidate is that they're not in their late 60s-70s. Bernie is 77, Biden is 76, Warren is 69. I like all of them to various degrees, but I'd much prefer someone in their 50s.

 

Harris will absolutely run, and I'd be fine with her.

 

 

This is kind of where I'm at. Age won't automatically disqualify you IMO but I'm hoping for somebody younger that can represent the party well moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Scott said:

Get on board the Beto bus, you clowns.

 

Biden and Bernie are too old.

Warren is seen as shrill (she's also old).

Booker is/was in bed with Big Pharma.

 

Who else is a serious contender?

 

I think we need a fresh, young face with an inspiring message. Someone attractive (because yes, this unfortunately is important) who will be the moral opposite of Trump.

 

I see white, Rust belt baby boomers voting for Beto much more readily than they'd vote for someone like Harris.

 

He’ll just be another flawed Democrat in a field full of flawed Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Scott said:

Get on board the Beto bus, you clowns.

 

Biden and Bernie are too old.

Warren is seen as shrill (she's also old).

Booker is/was in bed with Big Pharma.

 

Who else is a serious contender?

 

I think we need a fresh, young face with an inspiring message. Someone attractive (because yes, this unfortunately is important) who will be the moral opposite of Trump.

 

I see white, Rust belt baby boomers voting for Beto much more readily than they'd vote for someone like Harris.

I don't see age as being a factor, the x factor that'll bring out the base and rust belt is simply are you full of shit or are you not full of shit. Trump is full of shit but it was a different kind of shit which is why the rust belt tried it. Given another opportunity to pick between Trump's shit and a "politician"'s shit, my fear is they'll go for Trump again just to make the point. I'm not convinced Beto isn't full of shit. He self moderated away from Medicare for All toward "Texas can lead the way" which means as much as "I'm with her". He also had the opportunity to take down one of the most flawed scumbags in DC and refused to hit Cruz. 

 

If a candidate can't guarantee this map in a blow out, they shouldn't run:

 

d0Ovr.png

 

Forget pipe dreams like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Ohio, or Arizona. This is the minimum requirement. The goal in the primary isn't to find who'll be the best President, it's who can beat Trump, that's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure pipe those states are pipe dreams, unless I'm misunderstanding? I mean, I get the "minimum requirement" part. Maybe it's just the choice of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

I don't see age as being a factor, the x factor that'll bring out the base and rust belt is simply are you full of shit or are you not full of shit. Trump is full of shit but it was a different kind of shit which is why the rust belt tried it. Given another opportunity to pick between Trump's shit and a "politician"'s shit, my fear is they'll go for Trump again just to make the point. I'm not convinced Beto isn't full of shit. He self moderated away from Medicare for All toward "Texas can lead the way" which means as much as "I'm with her". He also had the opportunity to take down one of the most flawed scumbags in DC and refused to hit Cruz. 

 

If a candidate can't guarantee this map in a blow out, they shouldn't run:

 

d0Ovr.png

 

Forget pipe dreams like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Ohio, or Arizona. This is the minimum requirement, the goal in the primary isn't to find who'll be the best President, it's who can beat Trump, that's it. 

AZ and NC aren't really pipe dreams though, NC has a dem governor and more dem votes were counted for house races there than GOP votes but GOP gerrymanders prevented it from being more equally distributed, plus Obama won there twice, and AZ just elected a bisexual Democratic woman to the senate along with a Democratic SOS.  TX is still not quite there, and Ohio has been headed more in the R column these days than being a toss up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Forget pipe dreams like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Ohio, or Arizona. This is the minimum requirement. The goal in the primary isn't to find who'll be the best President, it's who can beat Trump, that's it. 

Exactly. And so much of American politics is optics. People vote for shit like confidence, charisma, "strength," attractiveness. It's very unfortunate, but true. We can quibble about Beto's stance on healthcare or a million other minute political details, but in the end we just need someone to convince those few light blue states to vote Democratic. And I think a candidate like Beto stands a better chance than the rest of the field as it is imagined right now.

 

I think a healthy, vibrant, younger Biden would be fantastic. But that's not who he is right now.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure pipe those states are pipe dreams, unless I'm misunderstanding? I mean, I get the "minimum requirement" part. Maybe it's just the choice of words.

 

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

AZ and NC aren't really pipe dreams though, NC has a dem governor and more dem votes were counted for house races there than GOP votes but GOP gerrymanders prevented it from being more equally distributed, plus Obama won there twice, and AZ just elected a bisexual Democratic woman to the senate along with a Democratic SOS.

Those States would be nice pick ups, but if your election strategy depends on one of those States, you're rolling the dice. NC has a Democratic Governor but voted down Hillary in the same election and the Republican Governor was behind the bathroom bill that cost the state millions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Those States would be nice pick ups, but if your election strategy depends on one of those States, you're rolling the dice. NC has a Democratic Governor but voted down Hillary in the same election and the Republican Governor was behind the bathroom bill that cost the state millions. 

 

I think the real mindset is to expand to all of them. You can't try to pick up the midwest and ignore Florida; they go hand-in-hand as many mid-westerners move to Florida. Doing better with Latinos helps in all of the west, which used to be solidly Republican, including California. So that helps in New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. 

 

If Beto showed anything, it's he was able to get a ton of people out for Texas and only lost by three points. On the other hand, I'd rather it be someone who's done a little more; it wouldn't hurt for a great candidate to change policy in a state like Texas or Florida, which is why if Gillum won here, I wanted him to just focus on being governor.

Share this post


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

 

I think the real mindset is to expand to all of them. You can't try to pick up the midwest and ignore Florida; they go hand-in-hand as many mid-westerners move to Florida. Doing better with Latinos helps in all of the west, which used to be solidly Republican, including California. So that helps in New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. 

 

If Beto showed anything, it's he was able to get a ton of people out for Texas and only lost by three points. On the other hand, I'd rather it be someone who's done a little more; it wouldn't hurt for a great candidate to change policy in a state like Texas or Florida, which is why if Gillum won here, I wanted him to just focus on being governor.

I get that, and we should definitely try to get those States, all I'm saying is I'm not willing to gamble 4 more years of Trump on Florida, NC, or Arizona going blue. If they do it'll be within one or two points which is effectively a dice roll. Democrats need a path to victory that does not involve those states. 

 

As for Beto, maybe he is Obama 2.0, or maybe he's Booker 2.0. I don't think any of us really know, and I'm not comfortable rolling the dice on an unknown quantity that may not show up on debate night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

I get that, and we should definitely try to get those States, all I'm saying is I'm not willing to gamble 4 more years of Trump on Florida, NC, or Arizona going blue. If they do it'll be within one or two points which is effectively a dice roll. Democrats need a path to victory that does not involve those states. 

 

As for Beto, maybe he is Obama 2.0, or maybe he's Booker 2.0. I don't think any of us really know, and I'm not comfortable rolling the dice on an unknown quantity that may not show up on debate night. 

 

Oh, I have no clue if Beto would win, but again, I'd rather he try to run for office in Texas and do stuff there first. I still have bad memories of Kansas/Arizona Democrats being put into Obama's administration and losing those seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrat just need to be someone who can get the Democratic vote out. Which means they need to be goodish looking and have charisma. Male or female. Maybe Latino or black, but a white person with a good record on civil rights will work. Can't really take corporate money tbh. I think a lot of people are underestimating how many people were not going to vote for the insiders insider Hillary, and fully overestimating Trump's support (current and past) in the rust belt especially (he won MI, WI, and PA by a combined ~90k votes) and discounting how well Democrats did a month ago. Spend more time getting Democrats elected in the house and (more importantly) the Senate otherwise this quibbling over the presidency is goddamn useless.

 

 

I'd fully put IA, NC, GA, FL, and OH as light red as well based on that image above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jwheel86 said:

As for Beto, maybe he is Obama 2.0, or maybe he's Booker 2.0.

 

Is one of these a good option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

Exactly. And so much of American politics is optics. People vote for shit like confidence, charisma, "strength," attractiveness. It's very unfortunate, but true. We can quibble about Beto's stance on healthcare or a million other minute political details, but in the end we just need someone to convince those few light blue states to vote Democratic. And I think a candidate like Beto stands a better chance than the rest of the field as it is imagined right now.

 

I think a healthy, vibrant, younger Biden would be fantastic. But that's not who he is right now.

http%3A%2F%2Fo.aolcdn.com%2Fhss%2Fstorag

Yeah, that's the ticket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Wrong, JFK was 43, the youngest ever elected. Teddy R was the youngest ever when he succeeded McKinley at 42.

That's why it was posed as a question. I wasn't sure. Thank you though.

Share this post


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

Exactly. And so much of American politics is optics. People vote for shit like confidence, charisma, "strength," attractiveness. It's very unfortunate, but true. We can quibble about Beto's stance on healthcare or a million other minute political details, but in the end we just need someone to convince those few light blue states to vote Democratic. And I think a candidate like Beto stands a better chance than the rest of the field as it is imagined right now.

 

I think a healthy, vibrant, younger Biden would be fantastic. But that's not who he is right now.

 

What about Tim Kaine?

Share this post


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

How about Steve Bullock he seems like a pretty good guy from 5 minutes on Wikipedia.

Quote

Bullock endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, but expressed disagreement with Clinton's opposition to coal mining because it is an important industry in Montana

 

BULLET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

What about Tim Kaine?

He's the human embodiment of "meh." Regardless of his talents as a leader and politician, I doubt he would motivate anyone who wasn't already voting Democratic.

 

We need to find someone who can inspire the same excitement, passion, and hope brought about during Bernie's and Obama's campaigns.

 

It can't be a boring, uninspiring person, nor can it be a DNC-annointed, "reasonable" choice career politician. Fuck finding someone who checks all the boxes on paper. We need a leader to rally around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott said:

He's the human embodiment of "meh." Regardless of his talents as a leader and politician, I doubt he would motivate anyone who wasn't already voting Democratic.

 

We need to find someone who can inspire the same excitement, passion, and hope brought about during Bernie's and Obama's campaigns.

 

It can't be a boring, uninspiring person, nor can it be a DNC-annointed, "reasonable" choice career politician. Fuck finding someone who checks all the boxes on paper. We need a leader to rally around.

 

THIS is the problem. We want sizzle without the steak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

THIS is the problem. We want sizzle without the steak.

I don't think we necessarily have to choose one or the other. There are plenty of talented, intelligent people who aren't cut out to be leaders. The ability to inspire hope is in itself a skill, and someone like Tim Kaine lacks that skill. He has a deficit as a candidate. Someone else might not.

 

But you're right, our priorities are too often misaligned when we pick candidates.

 

Ask anyone wearing a MAGA hat in Wal-Mart why they like Trump. The answer will be all sizzle.

 

And Democrats should just embrace it. Otherwise it's gonna be all moral victories for us, while we watch from the sidelines as the Republicans play the game, win, and keep running the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

THIS is the problem. We want sizzle without the steak.

 

No, we want steak, but we need steak with sizzle.

 

Beto could be that. Harris is that for me (I'd let her intimidate me like I'm Jeff Sessions in front a Senate committee).

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...