Topic: 2020 Democrats - page 51. (Read 12658 times)

Well maybe not. It's too early to tell but a star may rise like Donald Trump, opposite in every way.
But for sure if they nominatee Biden, Trump will win. But hope I'm wrong. Old style politics is not going to work.

The only thing that will defeat Trump is if somebody comes along who fires everybody up, and gets a psychological foothold on people. That's why I say Gabbard, 1st Harris, 2nd, and (maybe Williamson...I can dream)

Edit.. No incompetence in Trump? Now you are trying to make me laugh..

And with Hilary, there was such huge big money smear campaign against her on Facebook which was created by the Russian company.This was proven. But still she won the popular vote!

No, there was a lot of evil in Hillary, and her bunch. Did people see it? Yes, helped by email dumps by Julian Assauge, which he said then and to this day that his source wasn't Russian.

I think more importantly there was a lot of manifest, right out in the open incompetence in Hillary, that was inexcusable and which couldn't be shrugged or laughed off.

And there certainly wasn't any incompetence shown by Trump.

But keep in mind your "progressive radical left mind set," when you make comments like Biden would be an inside suicide job. One of your wacko nut-jobs from the left coast isn't going to bring the coal miners into your group, or the farmers, or the union workers. Those old style traditional democrats.

I agree. I'm from Michigan, born an raised, haven't lived there in many years but I go back and visit a lot. I was there the summer of 2016, and I called it. Trump would win, by what I saw. A lot of hate and/or indifference for Hilary even among Democrats.  And even some dems didn't see the point in voting since they were sure she was going to win.

It was sad... There were a lot of discussions about which was the worst of the 2 evils. I personally don't think there was anything evil about Hilary, but a lot of folks did....for some reason. Hmm.... could it be all the Russian propaganda?

Also don't forget she won the popular vote by a wide margin.
In any case, I agree that workers/labor should have been targeted and were ignored by and large. Michael Moores movie covered that subject pretty well. Obama making light of the Flint Lead water poisoning. A lot of people were depending on him.
So if the DNC puts Biden in its like an inside suicide job.

Biden actually would likely be the choice of the traditional Democrats, those that have been left behind in the crazy race to see who is the most progressive.

So the party is split into at least two pieces, and it's fun to watch the new socialist communist wannabes trying to shoehorn their latest walking talking woke creature of the moment into the key spot.

You likely need to start by figuring out what exactly you did so wrong with Hitlery, and then not make those mistakes again.

End of the world?  I haven't heard that since liberals were worried about the chance of Trump somehow becoming president.  Way to be a super dramatic team player. 

I do so hope the back room slugs that orchestrate the Democratic mess force something like THE JOE on you diehard liberals.

Basically though, you need to push a complete lie, a total fabricated persona...

Who would that be?

I agree. No Biden. No lose. That would just be asking for it.
The strongest so far is Gabbard and Harrison but it would be hard to believe the DNC would go for that. So the next batch of debates will give a better idea of how things might go. There seems to be a lot of easy elimination of the other candidates.

In this thread, the alt right echo chamber that is P&S tries to figure out the democrats base voters.

Clinton 2.0 (Biden) would be the worst thing the dems can do for 2020!

Bidens best day was the day he announced.

Are you following mostly right-leaning news sources? I noticed that e.g. in Google News AOC is the dominant topic in the occasional Fox articles that Google selects for me - not sure if she's that popular there or that's just a Google bug. I follow mostly non-partisan news so overall she's barely mentioned. Certainly much less than top presidential contenders.

Yes, that AOC. I didn't even know she's not in the running - she's everywhere in the news online! Like literally every 4th vid on my feed is about her.

Are you talking about AOC? She isn’t old enough yet.

If she is still in Congress in 2023, I would expect her to run. It would be a circus. If by some miracle, she becomes president, it would be the end of the United States and possibly the world. 

Haha, Cortez isn't even in that list, did she got booted out? I'm non-American so only some are familiar from the news. Gabbard seem to be a rounded politician.

I think it's safe to remove Buttigieg from that list. They kinda tried to push him as a possible first gay president but after that police violence incident and the way he handled it (and himself), I don't think he'd have any chance.

I agree with this assessment. Biden seems to be filling the role of sand bagger as Bernie Sandbag played last time around in 2016, then endorsing Killery after being cheated out of the primary nomination. I predict Biden will play this role as wider establishment net and then funnel his supporters toward Harris once he is caught again groping small children.



Except I am not talking about most Democrats, I am talking about the people who make the selection, not the people who make the election. They are neither Republican nor Democrat. They are whatever serves them best at the moment. Think Hegelian Dialectic. They are hand crafting her image as a populist rebel outsider, and her vet status gives her a distinct in to a certain conservative demographic as well. She is 100% the sleeper, much like Trump was.

It is possible, if that theory is true, that it was part of a broader strategy to lose the number one spot, and win the nomination via a late come from behind push late in the primary. I noticed that Warren and Sanders (and Harris) were attacked very little either night. This might allow him to avoid presenting himself as a crazy extremist that would have no chance of winning the general election.

As noted above, she was not attacked either night, despite the ability to grab headlines by attacking her fake American Indian heritage -- what the majority of the Dems need is name recognization.

As a conservative, warren getting the nomination would be very good because it was allow Trump and those on the right to highlight problems with identity politics, and the downside of giving minorities arbitrary advantages to school admissions, and job selection that Democrats like to push.
His handling of the police shooting in his city has been very poor. This has the potential to put him in a negative light for much longer than the debate, and depending on what happens, could sink his candidacy. I also don't think he is very well qualified -- his only experience is leading a city of about 100k for about 7 years.  

In many (most?) states, you need to be a registered democrat to vote in the primary. Primary voters tend to be made up of the base of a party. She is very anti-establishment, and I expect the media to treat her similar to how they treat Trump until she either wins the nomination or drops out. The daily beast published a hit piece claiming she was being supported by Russians not long after she announced she is running for President, and the media has otherwise not been friendly to her.

since 1945, the US has had 10 recessions with the average expansion lasting 57 months, counting up until the expansion that ended in 2001. If you assume any given month has a 1-in-57 chance of being the end of an expansion, you could say there is between a 21 and 26% chance of a recession starting early enough to affect the election between now and the election. However, in general, recessions are started by an economic shock that causes demand for a group of goods to quickly fall, creating excess inventories of that good, causing an even steeper drop in demand for materials required to make said good, which in turn causes demand to fall for other goods throughout the economy (and repeating said effects). I really don't see anything that could potentially shock the economy between now and next summer/fall.  

I would find this very unlikely. Democrats appear to believe whoever they nominate will nearly automatically beat Trump. Look back to the 2015/2016 Republican debates, a common theme was x candidate would be "best" to oppose Clinton, while last weeks debates did not mention any candidates' ability to beat Trump once (that I recall).  I do think her foreign policy stances would give her an advantage over Trump, but I don't think her beating Trump would be a given.

On another thread, "The acceptance of women in world power, A woman President?" It was stated by member cool coinz that the "powers that be" will put in a women president to satisfy the pressure as they did with Obama for a black president, and that they would mediocre or worse. I don't know if you can transfer a quote from another thread or how to put a screen shot in here,  so I will put my response in brackets and quotation marks.

I replied as follows.

["That might have been the case with Hilary if she gotten elected...
But Tulsi and Harrison seem light years away from that defensiveness, and being thrown off center that we saw in Hilary too often. Tulsi and Harrison both have an ease about as they lay down the law. They deflect effortlessly any attempt to unsettle them or get them off topic. So I am  thinking if they get the chance they would NOT be mediocre."
I will watch Harris for hawk leanings which might be in the "worse" category, but so far she and Gabbard are looking good.
Gabbard would be my pick for president with Harrison vice president or secretary of state. Williamson might be too much, but might be a good Secretary of State if she holds up under the future debates.  But it will be fun to watch how they all progress."]

Gabbard and Harrison would be the strongest ticket together. They have the complete spectrum. Plus they are both solid in their communication and personality appeal.

Gabbard is covering her bases on media follow up, and  also went on Bill Mahr, gaining support from that arena too. I suspect she will be gaining in a steady rise in support now along with Harris.

https://youtu.be/IwlB8udp0bs

I agree with the conclusion regarding Harris being the establishment pick, but I also get the strong impression they are setting up Gabbard to be the populist polar opposite answer to Trump for the Democrat party. This would be the role that Bernie Sanders formerly occupied, but fucked up due to him caving to the DNC fraud in favor of Clinton. This narrative would align with establishing her as the underdog, and that is a lot of the psychology of why people voted for Trump, because he was the populist underdog outsider.

Agreed, though it's not over yet. Post-debate snap polls among debate watchers showed only a slight drop in his favorability, and even though he lost the most, he maintained his "who would you vote for right now?" lead. And of course most people didn't watch the debate. But if he did this poorly in a debate, with plenty of opportunity for preparation, how is he going to succeed on the rest of the campaign trail?

I've heard a conspiracy theory, which starts to sound slightly believable, that he's intentionally making himself a punching bag for Kamala Harris. Based on media coverage, it's clear that the establishment wants Kamala Harris, who is currently pretending to be an ultra-leftist even though her record shows that she has no real beliefs. (If she won the presidency, she'd probably be like a clone of Hillary Clinton, but even worse.) Anyway, Harris performed very well in the debate, and snap polling shows that she gained by far the most in overall support out of the 20.

Warren did well enough in the debate from a Dem perspective, but there's ~no way that Warren could win against Trump. She's too far left, a poor communicator, and the native American thing will weigh her down forever.

Buttigieg performed well. He'd be a good alternative to Biden in the "stable" lane, but he may be too non-extreme for this primary.

Gabbard did pretty well, but the media is ignoring her. Sadly, she'll find it almost impossible to win in these conditions. It's interesting that she went on Tucker's show right after the debate; maybe she'll get a significant number of Republicans/independents voting for her in the primary.


You have to keep in mind that a lot of people are predicting a recession sometime before the election. If there's a recession, Trump's likelyhood of winning goes way down. I also think that Harris's ability to constantly lie with convincing emotion, and her fairly thin record, would give her a decent chance against Trump.

Currently I'd guess:
= 40.5% chance of winning for Trump. Note that I boosted each candidate's conditional probability from my present-conditions guess to take into account a 25% probability of a recession.

Bumping this thread for relevance in light of the first debate.

After the debates this week, I would move Biden down at least two spots as to winning the primary. He has already raised a lot of money, so I don't see him ending his campaign before the early primaries, but he was very ill-prepared for the debate, and his long record makes him vulnerable to attacks, as democrats were previously farther to the center than they are now, and his record reflects this.

Warren had the obvious advantage to being the only candidate with double digit polling numbers in the first night, and along with her recently rising polling numbers, she now has a better chance of getting the nomination. The former advantage will obviously not continue, but it may allow her to raise additional money she might not otherwise be able to raise.

Harris was able to land powerful shots against Biden on Thursday, and may get credit for what takes down his run, however she was using a very unpopular program at the time, which may remove the identity politics card.

Not counting Trump, Gabbard was probably the winner of the first night. She was not well received in the media, but she was the most googled name after the first night, probably based in part of her anti-war stance, which is part of what got Trump elected. She may also be able to play the 'media hates me' card, which like Trump, helped get him elected, although that will almost certainly go away if she gets the nomination.

Interestingly, most of the candidates said that China was the US's biggest threat, which is a Trump policy/stance.  

---

Fortunejack now gives Trump a ~45% chance of winning the election. This has gone up since March, but still well below where it should be IMO. This type of thinking will probably cause the 2020 Democrat candidates to move so far left in the primaries, they have virtually no shot of winning the general election. 

Comrades,

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/lenin-evaluates-democratic-candidates-for-2020/

I know what you think I, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, have risen from my mausoleum by Kremlin Wall Red Square as amusement for Day of Fools of April.

Not so! Trust me, bolsheviki, I do not play idle game in honor reactionary bourgeois holiday invented to drug proletariat with bad jokes.

We are at moment history very grave. Mueller Report is disaster and orange-haired robber baron who tweet imperialist lies to working class will once again be president American States.

Our old comrade John Brennan promised this would not happen, swore so, but, alas, tovariches, as I told Zinoviev at Second International, even best friend not to be trusted. The revolutionary checks twice!

So now… “What Is to Be Done” – part two….

We do not want to make mistake of past. We must not overreach. Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho, Maduro, Tom Hayden, Sean Penn, even Mao try to do too much too soon. Everything take time.

That is why necessary examine Democratic candidates carefully. Those with big mouth die quickly. Those with sloppy hands die faster.

But first—important. More Mueller report only make worse, make easier for Trump. Enough of Mueller and FISA. Smart revolutionary shut up about this....