For Democrats -- who for 2020? (Iraq, enemies, legal, polls)

[Statz2k10]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Donald Trump winning this election changed the 2020 calculus about who is going to run.


Im sure if you pull up predictions from 2012 about 2016 , Most of us at least got "who would run" right. (yes, Trump made a lot of list after he toyed with running in 2012).

Now that he has not only run, but won, there will be people we never expected running for the Democratic nomination.



I would put my money on the "money" LOL

Cuomo in my opinion,is heir apparent to the front runner position based on his ties to the Clintons, the Kennedy family( he married one), and the fact that his father was one of the last of the the Liberal Lions.

Steve Bullock, governor of Montana will likely run.

Sherrod Brown as well.

Sherrod Brown is a Senator from Ohio. That sounds like a smart strategic move for the Democrats to get behind. He's not a governor but obviously if he's well liked in Ohio he could pull that state and we all know what happens when you win Ohio.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Statz2k10

I don't remember what she said. Might have had something to do with how racism is still alive & well. Granted that might be the truth but a lot of white people are tired of having to feel like they are part of the problem instead of the solution. It's never about how white people have done this or that in helping POC. It's always the negative that gets in the spot light & that's what white people are tired of.

But she also did other things that just seem to be a slap in the face to many whites. Bringing mothers on stage that were killed by police even though they were breaking the law. I don't want to get off on a tangent here and yes she did have more votes than Trump. But we all know the popular vote doesn't matter. If it did Trump would have spent more time in blue states like California & New York.

The argument you are putting forth was about who resonated with the people, and 2.9 million felt Clinton did. And you cant argue that Trump would have spend more time in New York and California as if Clinton wouldnt have done the same.

Also, since the discussion is about 2020 Candidates, and what makes them viable or not, I feel like discussing positions on the mothers on stage is within the topic.

You have issue with some of them breaking the law( i say some because Trayvon Martin broke no law), but we live in a nation where breaking the law is not a death sentence, and remember, some of those men where indeed found to be unjustly killed in court.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Statz2k10

Sherrod Brown is a Senator from Ohio. That sounds like a smart strategic move for the Democrats to get behind. He's not a governor but obviously if he's well liked in Ohio he could pull that state and we all know what happens when you win Ohio.

He is the consensus pick that seems to bridge the progressives with the other factions within the Democratic Party and I will explain my reasoning for that. Some people arent going to like me saying this, but Bernie doesnt briing the party together because of the people who support him. There are indeed "alt right" types on the left and they follow Bernie.

Wash Post did an article on it, about how when Dems focus on WWC voters, they tend to forget Black people, Latinos and every other demographic and that scares a lot of people.

Tulsi Gabbard seems like a war hawk. That alone is going to turn a lot of people away.

Then you have Warren, who a lot of people in the party like, but is not going to be able to fund raise in a crowded field.

Every other Democrat who fits the "Progressive label" is either completely unknown, Lost in 2016, or is seeking a different office.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by DeclanMadden

The same way I'd advocate for the prosecution of someone who yells "fire" in a crowded theater over a lit match.

The fact that you define racism as a "little match" makes clear that you have probably never experienced it yourself.

[DeclanMadden]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The fact that you define racism as a "little match" makes clear that you have probably never experienced it yourself.

Well then you'd have to know that I'm in an interracial marriage, and know that merely "experiencing" racism does not qualify it to be a national issue. Yes, I have experienced racism, plenty of times. Anti-white racism happens regularly these days. That's one of our newer "privileges".

There will ALWAYS be racism. George Wallace, Oprah Winfrey, David Duke, Will Smith, there are racists everywhere. But up until the last 8 years it was no longer a major issue in this country.

....but Obama thought it should make a comeback I guess, and here we are.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

He is the consensus pick that seems to bridge the progressives with the other factions within the Democratic Party and I will explain my reasoning for that. Some people arent going to like me saying this, but Bernie doesnt briing the party together because of the people who support him. There are indeed "alt right" types on the left and they follow Bernie.

Tulsi Gabbard seems like a war hawk. That alone is going to turn a lot of people away.

Until now I have heard positive things about Tulsi Gabbard and may have supported her. Post # 15 refers to her as pro peace and anti-interventionist. Lol!? I guess I'll have to research her views on my own and let you both know who is correct and who is not. Or if she is saying hawkish things to one group of people and pro peace things to another group. Politicians have been known to do that! For some of them, it is indeed their best "skill" unfortunately.

[Buckeye77]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Maybe you can't spell, but could you (and others) please type the person's name so the rest of us can understand what you're talking about?

Some people seem to speak in secret code known only to themselves and those in their small circle of communication. I won't even ask where you get this stuff or if you just make it up. But it doesn't serve the discussion if only your own group can interpret what you're saying. {snip}

Funny that you get all upset at someone referring to Hillary as "Hill Dawg" and Ms Warren as "Pocahontas" but you had no problem with the OP referring to PEOTUS as "The Orange One".

btw, I live in Hawaii and Tulsi Gabbard is my congressional representative. Hawaii is a deep deep blue state of course. But she seems to make a lot of sense when she speaks, so I'd think maybe by 2024. She's too smart to run against President Trump in 2020, but she might not mind losing to Pence in '24 and or '28.

2032 will be wide open.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by DeclanMadden

Well then you'd have to know that I'm in an interracial marriage, and know that merely "experiencing" racism does not qualify it to be a national issue. Yes, I have experienced racism, plenty of times. Anti-white racism happens regularly these days. That's one of our newer "privileges".

There will ALWAYS be racism. George Wallace, Oprah Winfrey, David Duke, Will Smith, there are racists everywhere. But up until the last 8 years it was no longer a major issue in this country.

....but Obama thought it should make a comeback I guess, and here we are.

Your entire post contradicts itself. If you have indeed experienced racism, then you are saying it is an issue.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

Until now I have heard positive things about Tulsi Gabbard and may have supported her. Post # 15 refers to her as pro peace and anti-interventionist. Lol!? I guess I'll have to research her views on my own and let you both know who is correct and who is not. Or if she is saying hawkish things to one group of people and pro peace things to another group. Politicians have been known to do that! For some of them, it is indeed their best "skill" unfortunately.

| National Review

Title: Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who’s Turning Heads by Challenging Obama’s Foreign Policy



And to be clear, im not defining hawkish as bad, Im just saying it will turn a lot of people off.

[DeclanMadden]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your entire post contradicts itself. If you have indeed experienced racism, then you are saying it is an issue.

I've experienced people shooting at me too. That doesn't mean it's an issue I need to take action on because it's not something I'm worried about occurring with any degree of regularity.

Just because something happens to you that doesn't mean it creates an action item. Sometimes you analyze the contributing factors, avoid those in the future, and move on.