2020 Democrats
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
I think it is better than even money that Trump will not run in 2020. There 4 or 5 GOP potentials that would cause me to not vote for Hick. Hick won’t be nominated though—unless he and Kasich run third party.
That’s a big assumption. He would’ve gotten every single vote Hillary got, plus the extras he would’ve needed in PA, MI, and WI? After the Trump campaign and super PACs ran non-stop ads of Bernie calling himself a socialist? Bernie is benefiting from the back-up quarterback syndrome. You know, when the starting qb is losing, the back-up qb is everyone’s favorite player. I like Bernie and I would have voted for him, but the whole “Hillary lost, so obviously Bernie would’ve won” makes no sense. Yes, you can point to polling on this or that, but none of that polling factors in Bernie being the target of a non-stop, coordinated nationwide attack campaign because he hasn’t been.
Warren got owned on twitter yesterday about her global warming tweet. It was hilarious and won't be the last time we hear her comments about it. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts responded to President Donald Trump’s Thursday tweet, in which he questioned the concept of global warming, by announcing that she ‘believes in science’ — only to be questioned relentlessly on how exactly her scientific belief applies to issues like abortion or her supposed Native American ancestry.
Trump’s tweet, which seems to conflate weather and the broader environmental trends climate scientists attempt to model, reiterates his often repeated claim that international agreements designed to combat global warming, like the Paris accords, amount to a cynical attempt by foreign nations to drain U.S. resources.
Warren quickly responded, asserting that “climate change is real and we have a moral obligation to protect this Earth for our children and grandchildren.”
Twitter users mobilized immediately, asking Warren how her belief in science governed her position on the question of human conception, the link between sex and gender, and her self-identification as a Native American.
She was asked how many genders the science world recognizes. She was skewered by a guy asking about the science behind DNA and her claim of being native American. Another asked her to explain fetal development. She faded into obscurity on twitter quickly.
Trump’s tweet, which seems to conflate weather and the broader environmental trends climate scientists attempt to model, reiterates his often repeated claim that international agreements designed to combat global warming, like the Paris accords, amount to a cynical attempt by foreign nations to drain U.S. resources.
Warren quickly responded, asserting that “climate change is real and we have a moral obligation to protect this Earth for our children and grandchildren.”
Twitter users mobilized immediately, asking Warren how her belief in science governed her position on the question of human conception, the link between sex and gender, and her self-identification as a Native American.
She was asked how many genders the science world recognizes. She was skewered by a guy asking about the science behind DNA and her claim of being native American. Another asked her to explain fetal development. She faded into obscurity on twitter quickly.
Ha. Once again. I read that thread and I certainly came away with a different characterization of it than you did. Just because a bunch of trolls mobilize to attack someone on twitter doesn't mean they were "owned." As for fading into obscurity, just as an FYI, not many public figures respond often, if at all to their followers.
Yes, that's also true for sure. Not sure you can safely generalize here about the "socialist" or extreme liberal aspect. Traditionally extreme liberals (e.g., McGovern) have gotten creamed in the general. Bernie is a gifted campaign speaker (Obama). If Bernie would have won, I think it would have been maybe a very light sprinkling of the Reagan Dems becauseof his NAFTA stance, but more because of higher turnout of students and liberals who were butthurt about Hillary for some analistic reason.
I thought they were supposed to be “tired of winning” by now. It’s amazing what people “tired of winning” will cling to.
Shrug. The only thing you can do with an election that's over is look back with hindsight and try to learn the needed lessons. Bernie was especially strong among the demos and in the states that cost Hillary the election. If the Dems want to win in 2020, they had better face up to it and figure out why.
So to combat the elitists who claim to have a stranglehold on morals and character, you’re electing morally bankrupt game show hosts and pedophiles?
I think he will say he is so good that he did 8 year’s of work in 4 years. If he gets another SCOTUS pick and a health care fix, he might be right. Getting the EPA back on its tracks, immigration fixed, military focusing on military, judicial appointments and administrative state under control are huge.
Plus age and health.
The Bernie would have won is such a stretch it is almost as far out of touch with reality as his positions. No one has mentioned how many HRC voters would have stayed home or voted for Trump vs voting for a devout socialist. Socialism won't win in this country and i sure hope they run him against DT in 2020. I think anyone with common sense will say it matters little who the Dems run if the markets and jobs numbers stay as they are now. DT will walk into another four years if he does run. I am betting he does not run and turns it over to Pence and the Cruz/Rubio teams to decide who is the GOP candidate in 2020. Not sure DT can handle losing if things turn south in the next three years. He will proclaim he has done all he can do and walk.
Thanks. Just wanted to know how you looked at it. If he's "mission accomplished" maybe he'd call it quits.
Dems have a cast of crooks, miscreants and left extremists all running hard left right now. Its hard to figurre which of them would even be respectable as the nominee. Lots of them have major disqualifiers. Imagine fauxcohontas and the ads of her false claim on her ethnicity.
Democrats haven't been this confident since 2016, have they? No way Clinton can lose, opppps...........
The left inability to manage their emotions and see things with common sense has never been so out in the open. They still think they are the smartest people in the room and facts be damned they know what will happen. I just hope this continues from the dems. DT exposes their emotional outbursts every day with nothing more than a meaningless tweet here and there. DT is a master at making them crap themselves daily. See this forum 24/7.
Emotional outbursts? We were having an objective conversation about who might be likely contenders in 2020, and their various attributes and appeals. You guys are the ones jumping in with name-calling and schadenfreude.
You may be having a conversation but you of all people should never use the word objective when referring to this board. It is a 24/7 meltdown of nothing but anti Trump bias. And you pulling out the name calling card is down right hysterical. And since you said i was calling names show us where.
If the economy is booming and Trump hasn't started a dumb war it likely won't matter who the Dems nominate. When was the last time an incumbent lost reelection with unemployment at 4% or below and a soaring stock market?
Although common sense says that low unemployment would help an incumbent, statistically, there actually isn't any correlation between unemployment and an incumbent's reelection performance. In other words, while it's certainly a factor that handicappers will want to look at, taken alone, it's predictive power is essentially nil.
Everything you've offered in this thread - common for your posting style, of course - has been nothing but a meaningless, vitriolic attack on "the left" or particular Democrats. Nothing substantive whatsoever. It's just extra rich that you're calling out the left's "emotional outbursts" when the phrase "emotional outburst" describes your own posts as well as anyone else's.
That doesn’t mean he would’ve won. That assumes he would’ve been just as strong as Hillary with all other groups.
When was the last time we had a corrupt idiot in the WH like Trump? All the rules are thrown out.
No, it doesn't. Rather, the conclusion is based on the thinking that he would have been strong enough with these key demos to mitigate potential losses elsewhere enough, while still making up the difference in those close Midwestern states. Considering the fact that 12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump (and another ~10% stayed home), and adding in how much hatred establishment Dems had for Trump, I think it's a pretty solid conclusion. It all comes down to the map. The closest states were also the states Bernie was most likely to perform strongly in (based not only on demographics, but also on primary results). The states where he would have had the most problems were either Trump states that he wouldn't need to win (e.g., Georgia) or Clinton states where there was a bigger partisan cushion to cover his weaknesses (e.g., Virginia). In other words, what I'm arguing here isn't necessarily that Bernie would have done better than Clinton on a national scale. Nationally, after all, Clinton did fine. Rather, because of how the EC shook out, Bernie would have had a better chance at tipping those states that turned out to be crucial.
That said, you (I think it was you) brought up earlier that the one missing variable is that Bernie didn't have to run against the GOP attack machine. That's a very good point, and I don't know there is even a way to accurately predict the effects of that particularly hypothetical factor.
I’m not arguing that Bernie wasn’t better with some groups than Hillary. I’m not arguing whether or not Bernie was a better or worse candidate. My only gripe is with people who are all but certain Bernie would have won had he been the nominee. I don’t believe the dems have to make some drastic change to win in 2020. In three specific states there was ~1-2% of the electorate who either lost their minds or genuinely fell for Trump’s blatant bullshit. I don’t think it will take some Herculean effort, just a focused effort in a few key places. An effective campaign against the current clown in chief should be able to stick Dukakis back in that tank and win now that a lot of people shouldn’t fall for the same bullshit again.
Well, I do think the Dems need to make a somewhat dramatic change, but I don't think that change needs to be to run Bernie or someone just like him. Rather, Bernie's strengths highlight where Hillary fell short, and where another Clintonesque candidate is likely to fall short again. There are multiple potential winning messages. The lesson we need to take from the Berniecrats isn't necessarily what the winning message is, but rather who the winning message needs to appeal to. That's why I'm so big on Tim Ryan. He's not a Bernie clone, but he does appeal to the blue collar Midwesterners that Hillary lost.
Again, the statement "Bernie would have won" comes with the benefit of hindsight. It looks at those three states where a few people lost their minds, and notices that Bernie had strong support in those very states. But we can't undo 2016, so this hindsight is only really useful for telling us where to focus our energy next time around.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with Hillary’s message. Hillary had been attacked relentlessly by republicans for the last 25-30 years and still won a majority of Americans. It was just those couple of percent in those three states. No doubt her own fault for taking those states and/or certain areas for granted. Even the benefit of hindsight still takes an enormous amount of assumptions.
I think the dems should nominate Don Jr. Can’t wait to see what Donnie Two-Scoops would say about his own child.
I think your argument focuses on whether Bernie would have lost the same votes Hillary lost plus would Bernie have gotten all the Hillary voters. No one knows for sure how many liberal women would have been pissed off and not voted for Bernie, possibly a lot. There's no doubt, though, that there was a whole lot of enthusiasm from liberals for Bernie that didn't vote for Hillary and a whole lot of young people who don't vote who might have voted for Bernie. I don't think Bernie would have gained or lost of voters who voted for Trump. Bloomington had about 50% turnout while Monroe County outside Bloomington had close to 70%. Trump killed Hillary in liberal enclaves in terms of turnout. How did that go in Ann Arbor, Madison, Minneapolis, and so on? I don't know, but I think there's strong evidence that Bernie created as much enthusiasm for himself as Trump did. The big question though, is would Bernie's turnout dipped if everyone was convinced Trump would lose. To me, that's the biggest problem Hillary had. I'm certain that if there had been a re-vote a week later, Hillary would have trounced Trump, because all those butthurt Bernheads would have gotten over it and voted.
Incidentally, that's also why I think if the Democrats field anyone normal, they're going to win in 2020 in a landslide and with a halfway decent candidate I'll predict now we'll see highest ever turnouts for Democrats in general and for women and students in particular. There are a lot of people who will never, ever forgive the Republicans for electing Trump, and rightly so. That is unforgivable and unconscionable, Aloha's and crazedhoosier's SC and policy justifications to the contrary.
Last edited:
Good luck with that prediction. Maybe it will work out better than my prediction that Trump would never win the primary, let alone the election.
Similar threads
