Who would be a viable candidate for the Democrats in 2020? (economy, elect)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

She was in a position to see the corrupt dealing first hand. Stepping down was integrity. I would give her a little more credit if she would have blown the cover off the corruption but I guess no one is perfect.

While i disagree with you, lets just put that aside for a second.....

What does it have to do with the fact that as a Vice Chair, she had the power to endorse, so stepping down means nothing to that effect ???

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings

How is that a flawed argument? Doesn't matter if she could've stayed, it says more that she decided not to continue to hold the position. She wasn't hedging her bets.

You say it doesnt matter, but it exactly the reason you said you liked her,even in this very post. LOL

[Cheesesteak Cravings]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You say it doesnt matter, but it exactly the reason you said you liked her,even in this very post. LOL

It may not have mattered to the DNC (doubtful since they revoked an invitation to a democratic debate from her, and they also barred Nina Turner from speaking at the democratic convention), but yes it mattered to me. It also bothered me greatly that Sanders endorsed Clinton, though now looking back, that was probably the wiser decision because it counters the argument that Sanders stole votes from Clinton to give Trump the win.

The DNC was not impartial, she knew this, she distanced herself from the establishment despite the consequences. Yes, that is meaningful. That shows integrity.

[Donna-501]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

What the hell? Almost $600,000 for a City Manager salary?

City Manager Salary

MEDIAN: $83,641
City Manager Salary


Mayor Salary

MEDIAN: $63,866
Mayor Salary

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings

It may not have mattered to the DNC (doubtful since they revoked an invitation to a democratic debate from her, and they also barred Nina Turner from speaking at the democratic convention), but yes it mattered to me. It also bothered me greatly that Sanders endorsed Clinton, though now looking back, that was probably the wiser decision because it counters the argument that Sanders stole votes from Clinton to give Trump the win.

They were banned because they were both against party unity, not because they endorsed Sanders.

Look at the 2008, Vice Chairs endorsed both Clinton and Obama .

The DNC was not impartial, she knew this, she distanced herself from the establishment despite the consequences. Yes, that is meaningful. That shows integrity.

Again, the members of the DNC are not required to be impartial, nor have they ever really practiced an etiquette of being such other than the chairman himself/herself.

You are making an argument based on something that was never true.

[BobNJ1960]

OP,


They should run Harry Truman

[Cheesesteak Cravings]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

They were banned because they were both against party unity, not because they endorsed Sanders.

Look at the 2008, Vice Chairs endorsed both Clinton and Obama .



Again, the members of the DNC are not required to be impartial, nor have they ever really practiced an etiquette of being such other than the chairman himself/herself.

You are making an argument based on something that was never true.

Well then I guess we disagree about how "impartial" is supposed to be interpreted in their bylaws. Is only the Chairperson supposed to be impartial and evenhanded?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders in his bid to become President of the United States this morning on "Meet the Press." She also resigned as Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Just last month, she said she couldn't take sides due to her position with the DNC.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. If I can't take it at face value that's just another reason why the democrats lost. And there are a lot of reasons.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings

Well then I guess we disagree about how "impartial" is supposed to be interpreted in their bylaws. Is only the Chairperson supposed to be impartial and evenhanded?

Seems pretty straightforward to me. If I can't take it at face value that's just another reason why the democrats lost. And there are a lot of reasons.

Im not sure why you are trying to make this argument when, again, its common knowledge and easily re searchable that DNC vice chairs have endorsed early on in the primaries in previous years.

If Gabbard believes SHE(keyword) couldnt be both a Sanders supporter and facilitate the DNC's role in the primary, then that is on her, not the party.


Here are the party bylaws from 2009, The only person who has to be impartial is the Chairman

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/fi..._9.11.2009.pdf

[mrpeatie]

Back to the original topic- I think if someone from Virginia runs it should be Warner. He has a strong background in business, is a former governor and while not exciting is nowhere near as dull as Kaine. I think Klobucher would be an interesting pick since she seems to have both maintained a voting record Dem voters will approve and worked across the aisle decently. She also does not come form a coast and for better/worse that is that is a very real criticism of the recent Democratic leaders.


Castro is a complete lightweight. Kaine is just not memorable and Ryan has not garnered much attention.


I think a Western State governor would also be a good prospect. Both the Rs and the Ds seem to go for Coastal or Southern candidates and someone from a Mountain or desert state might bring more excitement to a ticket. I'm not counting McCain as Western because he grew up around DC and then spent nearly 30 years their before his run for President.

[Patsfan20]

Originally Posted by Kibby

My money is on either Hank Johnson or Maxine Waters. They best represent the Democratic Party of today.

Ain't that the truth.......The Total Dumb Azz Party. Waters especially, a complete idiot she is, I enjoy listening to her talk.