Tracker: Democratic 2020 presidential candidates (1 Viewer)

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,513
Reaction score
18,715
Online
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
Tom Steyer

List updated August 23

Bios at The Chicago Tribune
 
Last edited:

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,257
Reaction score
17,870
Offline
This might haven been said before but I just realized this is the first wide open election for the dems since 92 (04 was openish, but not as much as it should have been)
Like ‘92, I think we’ll find a good blend of broad policy and electable
I hope it’s 92 Democratic primary and not the 16 Republican primary.

Trumps model of relentlessly attacking the front runner until they drop out would probably work just as well in the democratic primary. Especially if the others try the rise above it approach.

Kamala Harris is right when she says we have more in common the man we do different, but that’s for better and for worse.
 

Heathen Saint

#Sanders2020
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,833
Reaction score
6,771
Location
SLC
Online
New ad from Camp Tulsi. I like it. Not even sugarcoating our "regime change wars".

I'm just happy that we have several progressive candidates to choose from in this race.

 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
52,583
Reaction score
80,864
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
I hope it’s 92 Democratic primary and not the 16 Republican primary.

Trumps model of relentlessly attacking the front runner until they drop out would probably work just as well in the democratic primary. Especially if the others try the rise above it approach.

Kamala Harris is right when she says we have more in common the man we do different, but that’s for better and for worse.
Can you think of a dem who won nomination by going negative in the primaries?

Teddy is the last one I can think who tried it
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,257
Reaction score
17,870
Offline
Can you think of a dem who won nomination by going negative in the primaries?

Teddy is the last one I can think who tried it
I’m not really talking about going negative in the broader sense. I do not mean demonizing groups of people, I just mean tearing down the individual candidates like Trump did. We’d never been that in any primary before 2016.

I will also say that in this election, demonizing trump supporters and the .1% might motivate Democratic primary voters better than any positive message out there. Hopefully no candidate will put winning ahead of the greater good.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
52,583
Reaction score
80,864
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
I’m not really talking about going negative in the broader sense. I do not mean demonizing groups of people, I just mean tearing down the individual candidates like Trump did. We’d never been that in any primary before 2016.

I will also say that in this election, demonizing trump supporters and the .1% might motivate Democratic primary voters better than any positive message out there. Hopefully no candidate will put winning ahead of the greater good.
Bush did it to McCain
I just don’t see any Dem thinking an Ailes /Bannonbstrategy woukd work
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,257
Reaction score
17,870
Offline
Bush did it to McCain
I just don’t see any Dem thinking an Ailes /Bannonbstrategy woukd work
I will accept that Bush did it to McCain, but an argument could be made that it wasn’t like Trump where a fringe candidate just bullied the others into impotence.

I don’t think any of the candidates or expected candidates we know now would try it, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. We are polarized like no time since reconstruction. Trump (if he’s the candidate) is going to continute doing what he does. This will only make the other side more suceptible to radicalization.

I support things like the 70% tax championed by AOC, Medicare for all, and government funded higher education, but there is no question that these are ideas that would have been considered radical by most people in the US 10 years ago.

Hopefully no one tries it, and if anyone does hopefully others in the party will be able to effectively stamp it out, but where the Republicans are now was unimaginable just a few years ago.
 

SaintInBucLand

Veteran Starter
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
651
Reaction score
668
Offline
Trump is too old.

Elizabeth Warren is too old.

Joe Biden is too old.

Not because they might die, but because they are too old.

Old people make great advisors. Experience is invaluable.

I’m at the point where I think there should be an upper age on the president as well. Maybe 60 or 65 at inagruation day.

Maybe in 20 years when I’m that age I’ll feel different, but right now I don’t think I can take another baby boomer president.

I think we need a leader to lead us into the future, not overcome the past.

Is that ageist? Absolutely. I’ve already considered that and have accepted my prejudice.

Agreed, I think we need to get away from old white people being president.

We need a female minority.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
10,367
Reaction score
13,604
Location
Xibalba
Online
Waiiiit wait wait....Let's dig in here:

Is the real reason so many are opposed to Sanders really because he is "too old"? And is the logic behind that only "he may die in office"? That's the reason you bring along a VP who can take over if situation calls for it -- like every presidency. Correct me if i'm wrong.
I guess different people have different reasons. But yes, assuming the presidency at 80, I feel confident saying people will have a problem with that.

I still don't see what age matters if someone of sound mind can hold the position and especially considering many folks work into their 80's these days. Some of you act like the guy is in his 90's. He'd be 79 when elected. Trump is just 5 years younger and in objectively worse health. Why isn't anyone shouting about that?
Sure, many folks work into their 80's these days, but they don't work as presidents of the U.S. Trump assumed the presidency at 72. That's an 8 year difference. And Trump doesn't do crap, other than tweet too much. I don't know about Sanders being "objectively" in better health than Trump, but it's not a stretch to question Sanders' level of energy.


Assuming I'm on to something with it being more than just "age"...I'll just say that there should be no surprise that 2020 will be a 2016 part II situation in which you have an establishment "shoo-in" (like Biden) and a progressive outsider but contender (Sanders/Warren) that seems to enact some sort of "inner party dysfunction".

I won't beat this dead horse, but I've said it before and I'll say it again....2016 was the sign of a palpable shift left within the party, not some fluke spurred by a populist who young people liked. You WILL see it again. These are the growing pains.
That's great and all, but again, this is not the time for that. It is time to remove the cancer from the WH. The last thing we need is the only viable contender party bickering about who's the socialistest.

Oh, and yes..a full 12 percent of voters who voted for Sanders in the primaries voted for Trump in the general. Before someone says it, there's no evidence they would've voted for Clinton. But wait...why would Sanders voters vote Trump?

That's easy. What did both Sanders and Trump harp on? Working for the middle class average joe. Coming out against hurtful trade deals, giving the power back to the working class, pulling out of unnecessary wars, etc.
I am really confident in saying, any Sanders supporter who voted for Trump did so on the promise to "lock her up!". That 12% threw a tantrum because their hashtag didn't make it.

Guess which candidate actually meant it? Again....If some of you think another moderate is the answer, all I can do is disagree and point to the contrary. I'm not saying it necessarily has to be Sanders, but someone who rails on the same issues that hit close to home for the middle class. And I'll just argue that Sanders (and Warren) have the best track records for those sentiments.
Again, the first and foremost goal should be to take the WH. The progressive stuff will come later. Maybe not as much or as fast as you want, but the alternative is no progressive coming at all. And the last thing the Dems need, is a divisive figure like Sanders, who isn't even a Democrat.

So we can iron this out a bit--I'm curious....Do you think that the Hillary/Bernie/DNC/Centrist vs Progressive kerfuffle played any large part in Trump's victory?
It played a huge role, but not merely for being a centrist vs progressive thing.

Because I think nominating folks like Clinton were much more of the reason Trump won.
Clinton still won the popular vote. I think the division that was created with the whole Sanders saga had a more negative impact.
 

billinms

Tiptoeing Through the Tulips
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
19,650
Reaction score
24,596
Age
47
Location
Ocean Springs
Offline
Agreed, I think we need to get away from old white people being president.

We need a female minority.
We don't need a female minority. We need someone who is highly qualified for the job. If that person happens to be female and/or minority, so be it. I would like to see younger candidates, possibly even place an upper age limit on when you can run.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
52,583
Reaction score
80,864
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
We don't need a female minority. We need someone who is highly qualified for the job. If that person happens to be female and/or minority, so be it. I would like to see younger candidates, possibly even place an upper age limit on when you can run.
While technically true, perspective is a great teacher - we’ve had a run of (almost entirely) white, straight male leaders
And they’ve led almost entirely from a white, straight male perspective and have catered (knowingly or not) to other white straight men
That one ‘minority’ pool of candidates has had a long enough run, it’s time for new perspectives
 

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,780
Reaction score
3,834
Age
57
Offline
While technically true, perspective is a great teacher - we’ve had a run of (almost entirely) white, straight male leaders
And they’ve led almost entirely from a white, straight male perspective and have catered (knowingly or not) to other white straight men
That one ‘minority’ pool of candidates has had a long enough run, it’s time for new perspectives
Swinging the pendulum to the other end is also not good. The best candidate with the best ideas, and that will lead the nation the best, should win. Also I think you diminish the gains that minorities have made despite whites dominating, and I'm a minority. BTW, that also doesn't mean that the candidate has to be young. There is a political benefit to a young candidate, because it may attract more young people, but that doesn't make a young candidate the best choice for the country. Of course there are age extremes on both the young and old end that are problematic for reasons other than leadership and ideas, but I'm not automatically going to favor a young candidate vs an older candidate. Biden is an example of a older candidate that I could support, since he is healthy and still mentally sharp, however I think there are better candidates, because Biden has lost multiple times already. It's also why I don't support Clinton nor Bernie anymore, although I liked both of them in the last election. Both have support, and would probably beat Trump in another election, but I think we can do better.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
43,486
Reaction score
36,166
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I've been listening to Kamala talk more recently. She was on a book tour and doing interviews about the shut down.

Shes gaining a better presence.

I haven't watched all of this, but this seems like a good interview.


EDIT: I finished the whole thing now. Yeah, this is a very good example of what I was hoping she could be. Good sense of humor, quick witted, can be tough, but isn't interested in going for blood, she wants to bring the focus on the people and the people being hurt.

If she can keep that focus, watch out, here's someone pushing some Left wing ideas, but also a lot of central ones and seems to be balanced and reasonable.

I like interviews like this, where the interviewers kind of stay out of the way, and give these people time to talk.
 
Last edited:

Heathen Saint

#Sanders2020
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,833
Reaction score
6,771
Location
SLC
Online
I guess different people have different reasons. But yes, assuming the presidency at 80, I feel confident saying people will have a problem with that.
I think people ultimately value substance over age, but we will find out eventually.

Sure, many folks work into their 80's these days, but they don't work as presidents of the U.S. Trump assumed the presidency at 72. That's an 8 year difference. And Trump doesn't do crap, other than tweet too much. I don't know about Sanders being "objectively" in better health than Trump, but it's not a stretch to question Sanders' level of energy.
I do. The man is overweight and eats fast food every day. He also has the attention span of a squirrel. Most people who work alongside Sanders say he runs circles around even the young staffers. I can provide other resources to back this up, but I think it's enough to say he's in objectively better health.

That's great and all, but again, this is not the time for that. It is time to remove the cancer from the WH. The last thing we need is the only viable contender party bickering about who's the socialistest.
People may not want it to be the time for that, but the evidence abounds that it's what is transpiring. I don't wish-cast it. I just happen to like where the party is going. It's not about passing a "socialism" test. The fact that Democratic Socialism is rising in popularity has more to do with the backlash to a country increasingly owned by the wealthy elite. You don't have to be a dues-paying DSA member to recognize that. Sanders, Warren, Gabbard and others simply have ideas that fall in line with those of a true social democrat.


I am really confident in saying, any Sanders supporter who voted for Trump did so on the promise to "lock her up!". That 12% threw a tantrum because their hashtag didn't make it.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? Again, look at the point I made about WHY Sanders and Trump voters overlapped on many ideas? Why are we not doing any research here? The reason, I'll repeat, is that they both at least made claim to address issues that the middle class everyday American was facing and felt was more important. Clinton didn't emphasize that as much and that hurt her in the rust belt, which ultimately led to her loss.

Again, the first and foremost goal should be to take the WH. The progressive stuff will come later. Maybe not as much or as fast as you want, but the alternative is no progressive coming at all. And the last thing the Dems need, is a divisive figure like Sanders, who isn't even a Democrat.
Come on man. It's not about "what I want". I don't know why so many folks see Sanders supporters as noncompliant when the facts aren't there to back that up. I voted for Clinton and didn't think twice--though I think she's what's wrong with the party, ultimately because a Trump presidency would have (and has been) much worse.

And hey...we don't all have to agree here, but progressive ideals are becoming the norm. They are becoming the litmus test. Some folks here may not agree with or like that, but it's what's happening. Look at Medicare for All. Look at addressing Climate Change. These are ideas rising to the mainstream because they are what the PEOPLE increasingly want addressed. Sure, it also has to do with a lot of young people coming into the fold and finally getting off their @sses and voting.

And can we drop the whole "he isn't even a democrat" line? Please? The fact that Sanders would be considered a centrist in European countries that do very, very well for their people socially tells you more about the state of politics in the United States than it does about some extremist, non-democratic agenda Sanders holds. Sanders is a social democrat. Period. If people want to mislabel him, let them. I don't think it matters in the long run because his ideas are still some of the most popular out there.


Clinton still won the popular vote. I think the division that was created with the whole Sanders saga had a more negative impact.
Disagree completely. The majority of Sanders supporters still supported Clinton in the general. Again, that 12% mentioned didn't cost Clinton the election because these voters likely wouldn't have voted for Clinton anyway.

I think a huge factor in Clinton's loss was her lack of excitement and standard, boring ideas that mainstream Americans are tired of seeing. She represented a politician that was just "next in line" and wasn't presenting any new ideas to generate excitement. She never attacked Trump on substance and instead used this reactionary argument style that simply fed on his comments and outrage, which Trump gladly took to his advantage. Victim mentality is a great motivator to justify votes. Then look at Sanders, who came out of nowhere to most voters the year before. All things considered, he did in fact start a movement. He does in fact have a giant voting bloc. I have no worries that some have about Sanders supporters/progressives. I think if it came down to even a "big bad socialist" like Sanders, most Democrats would take him over Trump.

Going back to Clinton...She also, i'll reiterate, represented someone who folks in the Rust Belt, an area that ultimately led to her demise, didn't trust. Wonder why? Was it "just" because she was a Democrat? Was it because she wasn't passionately pushing for workers rights, shoddy trade deals, pay etc? I think it's more likely the latter, though even admitting the former still points to "it's a problem with the damned party". And it is!


I'll end this mini rant with a thought...I don't know why people are so scared of voting for substance over "just beat Trump" or "the most popular candidate".

First of all, if Democrats haven't established a party good enough for many candidates to win vs. Trump in 2020 -- we deserve to lose because it is a symptom of a failing party rather than "but we should've, would've, could've voting for x,y,z candidate".

Secondly, I'll always vote for representatives that value my ideals over trying to jump in on a wagon "just" to beat a bad candidate. I wouldn't expect anyone to think any differently, and I completely understand and respect that so many people see politics different than I do.
 
Last edited:

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,683
Reaction score
17,205
Age
48
Location
Between here and there
Offline
I've been listening to Kamala talk more recently. She was on a book tour and doing interviews about the shut down.

Shes gaining a better presence.

I haven't watched all of this, but this seems like a good interview.


EDIT: I finished the whole thing now. Yeah, this is a very good example of what I was hoping she could be. Good sense of humor, quick witted, can be tough, but isn't interested in going for blood, she wants to bring the focus on the people and the people being hurt.

If she can keep that focus, watch out, here's someone pushing some Left wing ideas, but also a lot of central ones and seems to be balanced and reasonable.

I like interviews like this, where the interviewers kind of stay out of the way, and give these people time to talk.
Interviews like this show why I like her
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
10,367
Reaction score
13,604
Location
Xibalba
Online
I think people ultimately value substance over age, but we will find out eventually.
I hope we don't.

I do. The man is overweight and eats fast food every day. He also has the attention span of a squirrel. Most people who work alongside Sanders say he runs circles around even the young staffers. I can provide other resources to back this up, but I think it's enough to say he's in objectively better health.
That's great, but that's not "objectively", especially when it comes to health, and especially at that age.

People may not want it to be the time for that, but the evidence abounds that it's what is transpiring. I don't wish-cast it. I just happen to like where the party is going. It's not about passing a "socialism" test. The fact that Democratic Socialism is rising in popularity has more to do with the backlash to a country increasingly owned by the wealthy elite. You don't have to be a dues-paying DSA member to recognize that. Sanders, Warren, Gabbard and others simply have ideas that fall in line with those of a true social democrat.
And that's great and all, but again, 2020 is not the time.

That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? Again, look at the point I made about WHY Sanders and Trump voters overlapped on many ideas?

Why are we not doing any research here? The reason, I'll repeat, is that they both at least made claim to address issues that the middle class everyday American was facing and felt was more important. Clinton didn't emphasize that as much and that hurt her in the rust belt, which ultimately led to her loss.
And what ideas were those?
Did Sanders promise a wall to not let the rapist, diseased, drug carrying Mexicans into the U.S.?
Did Sanders target immigrants?
Does Sanders like his heroes not captured?
Did Sanders chanted "lock her up!" at rallies?
Did Sanders promise to dismantle the ACA?
Did Sanders call himself "the law and order" candidate?
Did Sanders promise to "drain the swamp"?
Does Sanders dig coal?
Did Sanders promise steel workers they'll get their jobs back?
Did Sanders promise auto workers they'll get their jobs back?
Did Sanders threaten corporation with holdings abroad?
Did Sanders promise a trade war with China?
Does Sanders pronounce China "Shina"?
Does Sanders favor school vouchers?

I am sorry, I just don't see it.

ultimately because a Trump presidency would have (and has been) much worse.
That's my entire point. This presidency needs to end.

And can we drop the whole "he isn't even a democrat" line? Please?
https://www.senate.gov/senators/index.htm
Sanders, Bernard (I-VT) Vermont Independent Class I
The fact that Sanders would be considered a centrist in European countries
... has nothing to do with what needs to happen in the U.S. in 2020.

Disagree completely. The majority of Sanders supporters still supported Clinton in the general. Again, that 12% mentioned didn't cost Clinton the election because these voters likely wouldn't have voted for Clinton anyway.
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".

Clinton stuff ...
Forget about Clinton. The past is the past.

Secondly, I'll always vote for representatives that value my ideals over trying to jump in on a wagon "just" to beat a bad candidate.
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.
 

pirttihirmu

Veteran Starter
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
296
Reaction score
233
Location
Satakunta,Finland
Offline
This is not a political statement and should not be treated as such. I'm not commenting on the qualifications, person or the policies of the candidate. Purpose is mild humor only.

That being said, Kamala translated in Finnish is literally awful/horrible so I would think twice it might be a ruse :covri: :giggles:

Also how did I end up in PDB we have our own election to follow too :idunno:
 

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)



Headlines

Top Bottom