Tracker: Democratic 2020 presidential candidates (4 Viewers)

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,174
Reaction score
17,723
Offline
Sticky Post
Time to start tracking who is running:

Elizabeth Warren
Tulsi Gabbard
Julian Castro
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Pete Buttigieg
John Delaney
Richard Ojeda
Andrew Yang
Amy Klobuchar
Cory Booker
Bernie Sanders
Beto O'Rourke
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
John Delaney
Wayne Messam
Marianne Williamson
Tim Ryan
Eric Swalwell
Joe Biden
Seth Moulton
Michael Bennett
Steve Bullock
Bill de Blasio

List updated April 5 from information provided by The Chicago Tribune
 

Heathen Saint

#Sanders2020
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,513
Reaction score
6,423
Location
SLC
Offline
I hope we don't.
And that's fine. We disagree.

That's great, but that's not "objectively", especially when it comes to health, and especially at that age.
I mean I would say it's objective when one person is overweight and another isn't, but we don't have to argue about that.

And that's great and all, but again, 2020 is not the time.
According to whom? The voters will ultimately decide. I may be right, you may be right. We both may be wrong. I'm just trying to make a prediction based on what i've seen since 2016 to now for 2020.



And what ideas were those?
I am sorry, I just don't see it.
Come on. I'm not talking about all of the idiocy Trump bestowed so gracefully upon the Oval Office.

I'm talking about the reason so many people felt the urge to vote for Trump. For many, the reason wasn't just "because I hate libs". I think the more Democrats realize that, the quicker we'll be on the road to winning again. The reason was, i'll say once again, because so many felt that that candidate -- whether it be Sanders or Trump, was doing and saying more for the average middle-class American worker than Hillary Clinton would have. Trump and Sanders railed on a lot of the same issues that effected the everyday Joe. And Sanders, instead of relying on "Russia, Russia, Russia" and simply taking Trump's words and repeating them to the public for effect, actually preached substantive issues like changing our healthcare system, work conditions and wage for the average worker, and holding big businesses that turn small town America into ghost towns accountable.

I don't know if I can make my point any more clear. I'm not saying Trump and Sanders are the same. I'm saying that they both channeled into the right frustration..though Trump did it for different reasons and through bigoted means.


That's my entire point. This presidency needs to end.
It should have never began. I'll always contest that it was more a Democrat problem than a Republican one.

We can sit here and laugh at the GOP for getting nothing done with a stacked house/senate yet Democrats won the popular vote and couldn't secure the presidency? Hmm.....

Great. My point was that Sanders is what many believe a Democrat should be, instead of this centrist, corporation/lobbyist - loyal GOP-Lite watered down version we've had for so many years now. Clearly a subjective view, but maybe i'm making my stance more clear.

... has nothing to do with what needs to happen in the U.S. in 2020.
I didn't say it did. My point was that there are many issues in which change is sorely needed (healthcare, worker's rights, money out of politics, criminal justice reform, the list goes on and on) in which Republicans AND Democrats seem so timid to consider change because it's "not comfortable" and they fear it could cost them an election. I think that's preposterous.

Look at the polling. Look at the majority of Democratic contenders and their stances -- Kamala Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, Warren, Gabbard, O'Rourke...

What needs to happen in 2020 again? I don't claim to know, but it appears that it's being headlined with a progressive agenda -- one in which Sanders and his movement most definitely had a huge hand in getting rolling. Period.


And again, that wasn't the time for that. 2016 was a time to vote "not Trump". In 2020, it is even more dire that people vote "not Trump".
By voting Democrat, you're voting "not Trump". The end. Whether that's Biden, Sanders, O'Rourke, Harris...whomever. I don't know why this is even an argument. The narrative that progressives will somehow jump ship and vote for Trump over the eventual Democratic nominee, even if they're a centrist -- holds no water in my opinion. It didn't in 2016 and won't in 2020.


Forget about Clinton. The past is the past.
Clinton's run is/was just a case study.

I think the past is a great calibrator for future events, so no, I won't forget about how we got to this point.


I do too, but again, this is not the time. 2020 is the time to jump in on the wagon and vote against Trump.

Just remember, RBG is not going to live forever.
I don't think you have to worry about the centrist/left wing of the party splitting a vote.

If anything, the abundance of candidates that agree on more progressive issues will work to unite the vote.

Let's just make sure we remember the "now is not the time" talk when moderate Democrats turn their noses up at a candidate who wins their primary and certain progressive issues become the rule, not the exception.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
8,995
Reaction score
11,820
Location
Xibalba
Online
I mean I would say it's objective when one person is overweight and another isn't, but we don't have to argue about that.
You are right. We don't need to argue about that. Being thin doesn't mean you are in great health, just as being overweight doesn't mean your health is bad.

According to whom? The voters will ultimately decide. I may be right, you may be right. We both may be wrong. I'm just trying to make a prediction based on what i've seen since 2016 to now for 2020.
What we saw on 2016 at the national stage, was a marked division in voters who did not vote against Trump.

Trump and Sanders railed on a lot of the same issues that effected the everyday Joe.
.
They did not, but ok.

It should have never began. I'll always contest that it was more a Democrat problem than a Republican one.
Yes, it was. Wonder why.

Great. My point was that Sanders is what many believe a Democrat should be, instead of this centrist, corporation/lobbyist - loyal GOP-Lite watered down version we've had for so many years now. Clearly a subjective view, but maybe i'm making my stance more clear.
That's great, but my point is that he's not a member of the DNC, and the DNC made a mistake in letting him run in their primaries. Had he run as an Independent...

Look at the polling.
Made that mistake back in 2016.

What needs to happen in 2020 again? I don't claim to know, but it appears that it's being headlined with a progressive agenda -- one in which Sanders and his movement most definitely had a huge hand in getting rolling. Period.
His movement had a big role in getting Trump elected.

By voting Democrat, you're voting "not Trump".
Yes, that is what I said.
However, not casting a vote because your candidate wasn't nominated by the DNC is a vote for Trump; casting a vote for any other candidate who doesn't have a snowball's change in hell of winning the election is a vote for Trump.

What is even worst, either not voting or voting for Trump because you mad (the general you) your hashtag got robbed and didn't win.

Unless you want 4 more years of this and 2 more Brett Kavanuaghs in the SCOTUS, you vote "not trump".

Let's just make sure we remember the "now is not the time" talk when moderate Democrats turn their noses up at a candidate who wins their primary and certain progressive issues become the rule, not the exception.
Yep. Too bad the DNC primaries are not the general election.[/quote]
 

Heathen Saint

#Sanders2020
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,513
Reaction score
6,423
Location
SLC
Offline
You are right. We don't need to argue about that. Being thin doesn't mean you are in great health, just as being overweight doesn't mean your health is bad.
Wait, what? Haha. Being overweight doesn't mean your health is statistically more likely to be worse than if you were skinny?

I'll concede this, because I think it's a trivial point to argue over. But clearly, no, don't agree.


What we saw on 2016 at the national stage, was a marked division in voters who did not vote against Trump.
And why? Again, do you not think it could've been because Clinton wasn't a huge draw away from a bigoted populist?


They did not, but ok.
I've literally already told you the issues they were similiar on.

Simply saying "no they didn't" doesn't change that. You're going to have to explain how these and other articles are factually incorrect first:

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/what-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-have-in-common/422907/

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/11/trump-sanders-more-alike-than-you-think-commentary.html

The past 10 months have brought many long simmering political trends to the surface of our democracy. It's clear many of the usual truths and typically predictable outcomes don't apply this year. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and their supporters, have turned politics on its head.
But one of the most striking findings this cycle is just how much Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common. And, with this, comes enormous implications for Wall Street and nearly all big businesses.


I realize, on its face, comparing these two candidates may sound a bit nuts. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Donald Trump is many things, but a socialist is not one of them.
But, if you listen to their speeches, they have more in common than any of the other candidates, current and former, in their respective primaries. While oversimplified, their message is as follows: The system is rigged; you, the voters are getting hosed; and, I'm going to make someone else pay to solve the inequity and crony capitalism in our system.

Sanders is most aggressive against Wall Street generally and speculators specifically. Donald Trump blames China and to a lesser extent Mexico. But both men have railed against trade promotion authority (TPA). Both have critiqued Wall Street. Both have supported universal health care, even though Donald Trump now says that isn't true. There is a strong protectionist sentiment in their comments. Both sets of voters are mad as hell.
Realize that we're not talking about how Trump's "all talk, no walk" has transpired -- but the draw of the candidates, BASED ON issues that appeal to the middle class American voter, that I believe are so important and needs to be addressed (where Clinton ultimately failed especially in certain states).

Yes, it was. Wonder why.
Partially because Democrats have been ignoring working class America for far too long. That and they put forth a boring, bland candidate that unfortunately couldn't oust a boisterous hack.


That's great, but my point is that he's not a member of the DNC, and the DNC made a mistake in letting him run in their primaries. Had he run as an Independent...
We're not really going to defend the DNC here, are we? After the whole pushing out Sanders debacle?


Made that mistake back in 2016.
I don't think you're following what i'm saying now. In "look at the polling", i'm referring to issues that the Democratic party has significantly shifted left on.

Surely you won't deny that?


His movement had a big role in getting Trump elected.
You're making a statement. Great. Could you provide more evidence for this claim?

Here's an interesting article on that very question:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/did-bernie-sanders-cost-hillary-clinton-the-presidency/

Yes, that is what I said.
However, not casting a vote because your candidate wasn't nominated by the DNC is a vote for Trump; casting a vote for any other candidate who doesn't have a snowball's change in hell of winning the election is a vote for Trump.
I agree with your general point. I disagree with the ubiquity with which you insinuate these actions happened.

What is even worst, either not voting or voting for Trump because you mad (the general you) your hashtag got robbed and didn't win.
I agree. But I don't think it was near the biggest reason Clinton lost. I've already lay(laid?) those reasons out. And as i've said, I voted for Clinton.

Unless you want 4 more years of this and 2 more Brett Kavanuaghs in the SCOTUS, you vote "not trump".
We agree. And that goes for moderates as well if Sanders or Warren, etc. are the nominees.

...Right?


Yep. Too bad the DNC primaries are not the general election.
[/QUOTE]

Huh?

My point was that moderates should remember "now is not the time" lectures they're giving those within the party when a progressive advances to the general after winning the primary.

You know, to make sure we're all being consistent.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
8,995
Reaction score
11,820
Location
Xibalba
Online
Wait, what? Haha. Being overweight doesn't mean your health is statistically more likely to be worse than if you were skinny?
"Ha ha", yet "statistically" is not the same as "objectively".

I've literally already told you the issues they were similiar on.
Sure, they both say stuff some people liked. That's where the comparison ends. "Middle class American voter" is not a monolith. Two people can say "healthcare", but how they are going to accomplish "healthcare" could be a completely different thing.

We're not really going to defend the DNC here, are we? After the whole pushing out Sanders debacle?
I am not defending anyone. But Sanders didn't belong to the DNC, and the DNC made a mistake in letting him run as a Democrat (speaking of the party). Had Sanders run as what he's always been, and Independent, he would've been but a bleep on the radar in 2016. And no, it is not hindsight. I thought as much the moment Sanders announced he was running as a Democrat.

I don't think you're following what i'm saying now. In "look at the polling", i'm referring to issues that the Democratic party has significantly shifted left on.
I am following what you are saying. You are not following what I am saying.

Seems to me you have "progressive revolution" in mind.
I just have "get rid of Trump" in my mind. Nominating someone too far left will not bring in the not-Democrats to the booths.

I am done.
 

Heathen Saint

#Sanders2020
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,513
Reaction score
6,423
Location
SLC
Offline
"Ha ha", yet "statistically" is not the same as "objectively".
Yes, I did laugh. Out of incredulity. I think it’s an objective opinion and statistical fact that someone who is overweight is more likely to be, at least statistically speaking, less healthy than someone who is thin.


Sure, they both say stuff some people liked. That's where the comparison ends. "Middle class American voter" is not a monolith. Two people can say "healthcare", but how they are going to accomplish "healthcare" could be a completely different thing.
My point, which to me you insist on passing over pretty redundantly, is that Sanders and Trump appealed to middle class Americans more than Clinton, a representative of the Democratic establishment, did. This is in the form of specifically speaking to issues that resonate with the American blue collar worker.This is what I believe was a huge factor in her loss.


I am not defending anyone. But Sanders didn't belong to the DNC, and the DNC made a mistake in letting him run as a Democrat (speaking of the party). Had Sanders run as what he's always been, and Independent, he would've been but a bleep on the radar in 2016. And no, it is not hindsight. I thought as much the moment Sanders announced he was running as a Democrat.
Ah, so maybe Sanders got what he deserved for running as an Independent in the first place?
Can’t you just admit the DNC was corrupt in their anti-Sanders intent, which is widely known? .

I am following what you are saying. You are not following what I am saying.
You’re clearly not wanting to give more than a few one liners to my points, none of which have been unreasonable. This is such an example.

Seems to me you have "progressive revolution" in mind.
I just have "get rid of Trump" in my mind. Nominating someone too far left will not bring in the not-Democrats to the booths.
You’re overreacting. I never said anything of a progressive revolution. I think you’ll find we’re very similar in our sentiments apart from which direction we think the party is proceeding (objective) and should proceed(subjective).


I am done.
Alrighty then.

Look man, I didn’t mean to ruffle feathers, neither did I intend for this to spill into a multi-page spat. I have no ill will toward you. We simply disagree passionately. I happen to think that’s a good thing. I am very open to my views being incorrect and trying to make them align more with truth.

Also, sorry for getting this thread off track. Shock, I’m willing to discuss in PM if you’d like
 
Last edited:

Booker

All-Pro
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
2,256
Reaction score
3,188
Age
44
Location
Littleton, CO
Online
One of CNN’s top stories at the moment is this poll...

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/02/06/politics/cnn-poll-2020-biden-democrats-trump/index.html

More than six in 10 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters say former Vice President Joe Biden should make a run for president, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, and half of all Americans say they would be at least somewhat likely to back him should he run for the White House.

At the same time, 52% of Americans say they are not at all likely to support President Donald Trump for re-election in the coming 2020 contest.
Biden is the only Baby Boomer candidate I would support, and I’d honestly favor him over pretty much everyone who’s declared so far. I would love a Biden/Harris ticket.
 

xpuma20x

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
5,664
Reaction score
2,872
Age
40
Location
Monroe, LA
Online
Why are there so many declaring to run that have no chance to win? Isn't this only dividing up the Democrats votes.
Isn't it like this every time though? About 15 people say they're going to run, they go to the first debates and polls and about 8 of them drop out. There will be around 4 come next July, with most likely 1 of them being a clear front runner, 1 that offers somewhat of a competition, 1 staying in it for publicity and the last still there for reasons only they can answer since they have no chance.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
49,998
Reaction score
75,970
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
Why are there so many declaring to run that have no chance to win? Isn't this only dividing up the Democrats votes.
1. pols don't seem to lack for confidence
2. people in their ear telling them to run for various and sundry reasons
3. jostling for VP or cabinet or other appts
4. free publicity and getting name out there for next election
5. feels their particular issue(s) is not getting enough attention
6. can't win if you don't play
 

porculator

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
6,219
Reaction score
7,495
Age
34
Offline
The number of candidates does worry me a little. The sensible candidates will get ignored and the loudest ones magnified on our toxic cable newswire. So far none of the candidates are dangerously unqualified as Trump, but it's not hard to imagine a similar scenario where some idiot celebrity throws their hat in the ring, gets all the media attention, gets 30% of the primary vote which is enough to win when the other 70% is fractured between the reasonable candidates.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
49,998
Reaction score
75,970
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Political Discussion Board 0

Similar threads




Headlines

Saints Headlines (Official Site)

Top Bottom